Many have already pointed out the ways in which the CSTO attempts to mirror NATO, but one key difference is the relative equality among member states. It is true that the United States is the largest power in NATO and has often acted as the alliance's de facto leader. But Russia dominates the CSTO, owing both to geographic size disparity and legacy of political power. The CSTO is Russia's way of retaining influence over what former Soviet republics it can in the wake of the USSR's collapse. It's creation, along with invasive military action in Ukraine, Georgia, and Chechnya, are all examples of Russia doing whatever it can to maintain power in its self-proclaimed "sphere of influence." Conflict over the destiny of these territories will be a source of friction between NATO and the CSTO for the foreseeable future.

This document was written when there was hope that Russia would become more open and democratic, but given the authoritarian nature of the Putin regime, this idea of the CSTO being an organization that promotes democracy is rather laughable. Russia also has shown a blatant disregard for international law in many instances, but most famously in their 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

@Eric Bruckenstein Then you're going to love next weeks' documents.

NORDEFCO lies at the heart of my speciality. European security policy, especially that which pertains to Scandinavia and the High North, is taking on a new significance thanks to the build up of great power competition in the Arctic. The Arctic is a largely peaceful region and even with all the new attention its getting is likely to remain so. However, its prioritization by NORDEFCO shows how prepared the states of the Nordic region are to defend the sovereignty of their neighborhood. One of my favorite things about studying this particular region is discovering how smaller states like the Nordics are navigating the competition between the larger powers (USA, China, and Russia). As this document demonstrates, they can better prepare themselves for crisis by engaging in joint exercises and information sharing.

One of the most fascinating (and disturbing) elements of this document is the link between sexual frustration plays in violent radicalization. As @Alex Gintz touched on, the lack of self-awareness and resulting conspiratorial attitudes towards women that stem from male loneliness and sexual frustration are problems that need to be solved at the socio-cultural level rather than the political one. It's a connection that can be seen outside of terrorism as well. Many of the infamous school shooters in the United States (such as at Sandy Hook and Santa Barbra) were motivated by their unfulfilled desires and sense of victimization. Just as I've commented on previous documents discussed, the key is finding ways to help these young men avoid the pitfalls of social isolation. Education supporting emotional and sexual health will be vital.

We've been talking about big comprehensive ways to combat terrorism and discourage radicalization, such as regulating social media, changing the culture of prisons, and making young people feel included in society. All that is important, but smaller and more utilitarian actions are often just as important, and I noticed some of these in today's reading. In the section titled "Denying terrorists the means to attack," the document mentions the intent to adopt a system for exchange of information under the Firearms Directive, which would stop persons who have been denied firearm authorization in one member state from acquiring a similar permit in another. The section also includes plans for stemming the traffic of illegal firearms and restricting access to materials that could be used for explosives or biological weapons. Large-scale societal reforms are crucial for counterterrorism in the long-run, but restricting the opportunity-giving tools of violence is an effective tactic in the short term.

@Jasmine McGee It is true that UNASUR was inspired by the European Union. However, while the former is mostly an intergovernmental organization, the latter is largely what political scientists call a supranational entity. The EU has evolved into more than a simple collection of European governments agreeing to work together and has very rich become its own animal. EU member countries almost have more in common with states within the US than they do countries in, say, the UN. Also, it appears that as of 2019, most members of UNASUR have withdrawn, making it a largely defunct organization. https://unasur.einnews.com/article/482334279?lcf=enheiqHGuCmHLztKOJysog%3D%3D

I was intrigued by the strategy's mention of the need for collaboration among cities, the Radicalization Awareness Network, and the "EU Cities Against Radicalization." When looking at broad strategy documents such as this one, it is easy to forget that though federal and supranational governments may compose top-down guidelines and solutions to dealing with problems, much of the work that is done to improve a community is done through bottom-up initiatives. I appreciate that the EU sees the need to make sure young people feel included and socially healthy. Social isolation and a longing for fraternity are among the chief factors that lead to radicalization. The importance of giving young people opportunities and a sense of belonging in their communities cannot be overstated. I also like how the Commission acknowledges that this social isolation can be real or perceived, highlighting just how important the day-to-day experiences of all members of a community are.

Today's document does a good job of summarizing key facts about white supremacists in the US and examples of attacks. However, it only covers attacks up until 2016. I imagine this account would have even more detail if it covered cases from 2017 to the present. Additionally, the behavioral indicators show how difficult catching and preventing WSE attacks can be. Many of the behaviors listed could be linked to a number of nefarious or illegal activities. The common denominator in all of them is establishing a link with white supremacist ideology and a desire to purse white supremacist goals. Unless certain individuals are actively being monitored, those connections might not be made until it is too late.

Even though we have been talking a great deal about foreign terrorist threats, it is important not to export the ideas of extremism and racial supremacy. The same psychological processes can and have played out entirely within US borders. This document does an efficient job of summarizing the risks and realities of White supremacists in law enforcement and the national security implications of these developments. One line that stands out to me in particular is how infiltration can lead to "passive tolerance of racism within communities served." It is important to remember that white supremacy does not always have to be explicit as killing members of a minority community. Americans can be harmed by something as simple as law enforcement turning a blind eye to their mistreatment.

Reading the final pages of this document, I was struck by two particular sentences. The first was in the section about a prevention architecture to thwart terrorism. "We will also seek to promote voices of pluralism and tolerance." This sounds like it was added almost as an afterthought. Indeed, I don't recall any initiatives by the previous administration that sought to curb radicalization through "promoting voices of pluralism." We saw from the GCTF documents last week that rehabilitation and reintegration is an important component of countering radicalization, but these can only work if its possible for those who were once radicalized to feel like they can be welcomed back into society. Part of the reason they were radicalized in the first place was because they lacked a sense of belonging (which extremist groups exploited). If populations that terrorists recruit from continue to be vilified in our society, the danger will not alleviate. The second sentence is the quote at on the final page. "Our friends will never question our support, and our enemies will never doubt our determination." The first half of that sentiment has certainly not been the case over the last 4 years. Despite the document's earlier insistence that "American first does not mean America alone," this has often been the reality, even outside the field of counterterrorism. Transatlantic relations were deeply rattled during the Trump administration. Regardless of who was right or wrong on certain security issues, doubt and questioning the credibility of the United States has become more common.

I agree that prevention is preferable to reaction, but I question the effectiveness of military intervention when it comes to stopping terrorism. Afghanistan's Taliban once sheltered Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but the US still finds itself in the "graveyard of empires" long after the death of Osama and the sidelining of his group. After nearly 20 years of fighting, and though troop numbers are lower than ever, the US is still having to negotiate with the Taliban if it is going to maintain any hope of leaving. The regional chaos brought on by the invasion of Iraq had the opposite effect of stopping terrorism - it allowed it to proliferate. Besides the Sunni and Shi'a militias that rose and fell over the years, the collapse of the Iraqi state (authoritarian as it might have been) led to the eventual rise of ISIS. I find it difficult to believe that direct military action against Iran would have any effects other than providing more impetus for more regional instability and further radicalization.

I noticed what might be a contradiction in the video about the UN's electoral assistance efforts. It is stated that it is not the UN's place to determine the legitimacy of elections, but only to support "periodic and genuine" elections in the member states. It seems to me that making sure a given election is "genuine" would involve ensuring that said election is "legitimate." The UN understandably wants to avoid appearing like it is inserting itself unnecessarily into the domestic affairs of a member state. However, in order to meet the goal of healthy democratic exercise, election tampering or rigging would need to be called out and addressed. This political tightrope speaks to the greater challenge of governance in international organizations. Encroachment on state sovereignty from the top down is rarely a popular look, but functionally it might be required to fulfill the objectives laid out by the IO in the first place.

Today's reading expressed the view that while Russia's interference in the 2016 election may not have manipulated vote tallies, it gave Russian operators "familiarity with our election systems and voter registration infrastructure— valuable intelligence that it may seek to exploit in the future." Sometimes it feels like the significance of this attack is overshadowed by the finding that it did not affect the vote tally. The fact that the Russians are conducting the exact same kind of operations in other countries as well as this US election cycle proves that 2016 was not circumstantial - we have entered a new and unprecedented phase of warfare. The statement above talks about Russia exploiting its new knowledge in the future. The "future" in this document is now. As the reading declares, our democracy risks continued erosion if its legitimacy is repeatedly called into question by these kinds of nefarious acts. This report focuses specifically on Russian interference through cyber attacks. However, Russia has also used a kind of financial warfare to assault democratic processes here in the US and in Europe. Details of these efforts were documented in a report by researchers at the German Marshall Fund in the United States: https://www.gmfus.org/publications/covert-foreign-money-financial-loopholes-exploited-authoritarians-fund-political For @Madeline Smith and others interested in China affairs, this report documents similar Chinese efforts against Australia and New Zealand.

Never mind! https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bans-huawei-zte-from-key-5g-parts/

@Jay Rosato Restrictions on Huawei and Chinese 5G are a big debate in among European countries right now. Each member state has the final say on whether or not the company will be involved in the development of its 5G networks, but the EU has encouraged the 27 to avoid what it refers to as "high-risk vendors." Countries like Poland, The Czech Republic, and Slovakia have signed pacts with Washington to ban Huawei. Others like Sweden, Hungary, and Spain see no security issues with its use. The Danish and French governments have not enacted a ban, but discourage its proliferation.

I have separate comments about both of today's sections. First, the section about advancing American influence hammers home the importance of championing individual rights and human dignity, citing these as mainstays of America's core ideology. However, I cannot help but think of the current protests against racial injustice. These protests are happening because it has become evident that not every American enjoys the liberties that we insist should be present in societies worldwide. Another line in this strategy highlights the problem: "...governments that routinely abuse the rights of their citizens do not play constructive roles in the world." Many would argue that this statement could apply to the United States, and this undermines the credibility of the ideological component of US foreign policy. Second, the layout of the regional context portion reveals which regions contain the highest security priorities of the United States, namely the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East. Despite repeated references to terrorist groups and transnational organized crime elements in the Strategy, it appears that the renewed great power competition posed by Russia and China is the administration's top concern, with Asia and Europe taking the top spots in the order. Latin America and Africa seem to be put on the back burner in terms of policy priority.

This section outlines the emerging security challenges America faces and how to modernize American capabilities. It also reveals the preferences of this administration as far as soft vs. hard power. Only a single page is devoted to traditional diplomacy, while much more time is spent on military capability. I'm aware that a significant foundation of hard power is necessary for credibility in foreign policy. However, it must be balanced with credible soft power for the sake of maintaining international influence. This Strategy espouses the importance of "a professional diplomatic corps" and "a forward diplomatic presence," but the Trump administration has gutted the State Department's budget and foreign aid programs. How can the US preserve peace through strength if it only has the stick and no carrot?

@Jay Rosato Responding to both your question and your point about NATO spending benchmarks, I agree with your observation that this move seems to be an act of spite against Germany. The troops being withdrawn from Germany are being redeployed in Belgium, Italy, and Poland, all of whom also fail to meet NATO's spending benchmarks to varying degrees.

@Justin Spusta I also noticed the party preferences appear in the economic policies. It would be interesting to see a Democratic iteration of this pillar. I'm sure that even though the claims about the correct economic priorities would be phrased very differently, the threats outlined would probably still be quite similar.