Defense pact? No, I agree because I think that would be a clearly threatening move to other international powers, but I wonder if some exchange of technologie with military applications could occur.

I agree, China seems to have an inclination to directly enforce her will on her neighbors, without going through proxies.

This document was highly interesting for the notion of a mirror image of NATO, and having read @David Broughton's response in which he noted that China has signed a "memo of understanding", I wonder how cooperation between the two entities might look, especially on the military side of things.

That was more or less my conclusion, as well.

Absolutely. The Russians already have a history of cutting undersea communication cables, I believe they will try to disrupt new European networks as well.

Today's reading about the Three Seas' Initiative was eye-opening for me, especially on the subject of American interests in backing the initiative as a way of reducing European reliance on Russia for fuel/liquid natural gas. I also like the initiative as a geopolitical method of pulling Eastern Europe out of the "ex-Soviet, Russian sphere of influence" sociocultural mindset.

@David Broughton I agree completely, for all of their squabbles, they dislike the notion of American dominance more.

Ah, relating potential conflict to the developing Arctic region makes more sense than what I responded to in my original response a few posts down...but that is still a little ways off in the near future. I was just glad to receive some info on Nordic military affairs, as I ffeel they are often neglected.

I very much appreciated learning about NORDEFCO via reading this document, and I share @David Broughton's enthusiasm for learning about lesser-known multinational organizations. However, I fail to see what NORDEFCO has to do with Chinese interests in the Indo-Pacific.

I also do not believe that there is a magic political solution to someone holding an abhorrent viewpoint.

@Eric Bruckenstein How do we decide upon a balanced categorization? Such a process is still susceptible to corruption. Someone of the right wing, placed in charge, would soon have groups like BLM placed on watchlists, while an individual of a left-wing bent would see groups aligining with Proud Boys suppressed.

While wholly outside of my specialty, today's article was still an interesting read. My greatest takeaway from the reading was that the existence of multiple ideological draws to terrorism in Europe are not only threats to the general cosmopolitan population of Europe, but direct threats to each other in their ultimate aims. I wonder if the two "groups" (loosely defined) might try to undermine each other?

And I thought that the PATRIOT act was a bit much...how would you be able to convince the public that the database necessarily constructed by such a program does not violate their privacy and/or freedom of movement?

@David Broughton Exactly, we must understand correlations between the two, without going too far and assuming causation.

While outside of my specialty, this article remains a fascinating read primarily because of the connection it suggests between mental health issues and certain terroristic tendencies, and because it gives a clear definition of Jihadism to identify and work against. I think that it would be of indescribable benefit to the situation of the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang if the CCP made an effort to properly define extremism, and isolate/identify as legitimate extremist attacks as examples of extremist attacks, thereby producing an actual counterterrorist campaign out of the current, general anti-Uyghur policies in place. For reasons that I feel are obvious, I doubt that the CCP will ever do that.

That has been a common theme throughout all of our documents, Amanda! Good catch!

As I read your and others responses, I appreciate that we are all able to expound upon how these rules could combat the proliferation of terrorism, but I cannot help but see suggestions such as the Firearms Directive as easily politically-weaponized and capable of doing far more social harm than good.

In this selection of the document, I did not really see a direct connection to my specialty, but it was still a highly interesting read. I expected further restrictions on firearms rights and the intent to work closely with Interpol, but found myself intrigued by the concept of the Financial Intelligence Units, which I believe are a great idea that could be applied on an even broader scale in order to stem terrorism by cutting off its finances. Imagine if ISIS has been unable to profit from the sale of oil in the mid-2010s? They would not be/have been nearly as much of a threat.

@Eric Bruckenstein That statement is well and good, but the question that needs to be asked is: "to what degree are we willing to restrict civil liberties (such as the right to free speech) in order to ensure that 'brainwashing into terrorism' isn't taking place?" I'm sure that a great many citizens of the EU member states would find your last sentence a bit worrisome.

You took the words out of my mouth...and I may I have the link to that article you reference? It would further solidify my views against AI, that it is not only unethical but also too incompetent for the task.