This is definitely an interetsing turn for the two countries.

You made an interesting point by stating the key difference between NATO and CSTO. I agree that Russia is trying to have more influence and to maintain power.

I have noticed that today's document has some similarities to NATO, as many of my colleagues have mentioned. Article 8 relates to my specialty in Counterterrorism, where it mentions the importance of unity and co-operation in order to combat terrorism. This is especially important because I believe that sharing information and resources can cause a significant change when it comes to terrorism.

I agree with you. I wonder how things will unfold in the next couple of years with Russia

You have made an interesting connection. I agree with you it does look similar to the Belt and Road Initiative.

The three seas initiative is an interesting and an eye-opening project. The fact that major countries like the U.S, the EU, Germany, ...etc, have expressed their support as interested partners is a sign that the program is deemed to be successful. As some of my colleagues have mentioned, it is interesting to see that the U.S. is supporting the program to reduce the energy reliance on Russia.

@Amanda Knox You are absolutely correct. Technology is making it easier for people to get inspired by other terrorists. As mentioned before, regulating and adding censorship on terrorists posts is one way to reduce their influence on other people.

I really love what you said about us being equal and deserving of every right any other group or citizen gets. unfortunately, this is the world we live in and I wish there were more people that had the same mindset. It is crazy to me that one race may feel superior over another race, religion,...etc.

Today's reading was interesting and relates fully to what I have been posting on for the past couple weeks. What surprised me the most is that some cases of right-wing extremism were deemed as not terrorism. Right-wing extremism is not talked about as often as Islamic terrorism and I believe it is time to take right-wing extremism as seriously. I personally did not know that there were as many attacks by right wings extremists as portrayed by the article. I think even the media plays a role in choosing not to broadcast certain things to the public and maybe if they did it would be just for a couple days and then the story is forgotten. On the other hand, when it is a Radical Islamic terrorist attack the story is on every news channel.

I think you raised an interesting question about how the demographics may affect a person. Not having the appropriate resources can definitely have a major impact on a person.

I agree with you Alex. I think it is easier to assume that people act based on radicalism and hate instead of looking deeper into some underlying factors that can be the reason for an act. I myself consider, for example, school shootings to be a terrorist attack. Even though they are not motivated by extreme religious beliefs, they cause fear, panic and loss of life.

It was interesting to read the mental illness aspect to terrorists' behaviors. I think most people do not think of terrorists as mentally ill, but rather just radical and extreme. In addition, as mentioned, personality disorders are a contributing factor to why some people choose to join a terrorist group. One sentence that caught my eye is "radicalisation offered him an identity". People look for whatever means they ca get in order to have a sense of direction. It was interesting to see the number of plots that were foiled, I think that was a great sucess by the law enforcement agencies.

You made some good points. I agree with you on the privacy aspect and I think some people might be against it. Also, I really love your first question and it is a true issue and definitely have not thought about that.

I agree with you Amanda. I think it is important to benefit from the international partners' information on certain people hoping to prevent an attack.

On page 12, I was surprised to see the number of foreign fighters that traveled to Syria and Iraq to join terrorists. I wonder whether the EU's efforts to detect possible terrorists at the borders is going to work? In my mind, terrorists are smart and would do all they can to cover their real intentions and blend in. In addition, I like how the EU mentioned the protection of places of worship because I believe they are most at risk of being attacked since terrorists target others that do not follow the same religion. Information exchange I believe is the best way to combat terrorism. The global analyzing of information about a suspected terrorist is beneficial. However, this raises the question of privacy? Is it just going to be for certain personnel or everyone?

I love that you mentioned the human rights aspect to the EU document. I think it is very important to protect the rights of people when trying to combat a major problem like terrorism. Like you said, I think human rights are sometimes overlooked in order to achieve other goals.

The thing that caught my eye the most is countering extremist ideologies online. Using social media outlets is a big part of the terrorist organizations' agenda. The reason for this is that their ideology reaches more people and therefore the chances of radicalisation increases. By regulating online content, it decreases their ability to reach people that are at risk of radicalization. Also, the facial recognition technology seems interesting, and it makes me wonder how effective it can be.

I tatally agree with you. As I mentioned it can be hard to avoid some events from occuring. It makes me uneasy to think that way.

I like how you tied it to human rights and freedoms. I think a big part of the problem is that there are some controversies and confusions when it comes to the First Amendment. Even though some events can and are avoidable, I would sadly argue that others cannot be avoided.

I took a class last semester that was fully dedicated to the first amendment. Reading this reminded me of how fragile and confusing it is to draw a line between freedom of speech and speech that can cause harm. In the case of Dylan Roof, he voiced his opinions on social media which is a form of protected speech, so it would be unconstitutional to carry out an interrogation with him just based on his opinion. In his case he took action based on his words but becasue of the constitution I think that there would be controversial opinions on depriving him from his freedom of speech and expression.