Cyber deterrence policies of the Baltic states in the years 2016–2023

Polityka odstraszania cybernetycznego państw bałtyckich w latach 2016–2023

Abstrakt: Od wiosny 2014 roku decydenci polityczni oraz analitycy angażują się w ożywioną debatę na temat geopolitycznej konfrontacji między Rosją a jej sąsiadami. Po rosyjskiej agresji na Ukrainę, Estonia, Łotwa i Litwa stały się szybko centrum zainteresowania międzynarodowego. Artykuł koncentruje się na ewolucji środowiska cyberbezpieczeństwa w kontekście polityki odstraszania cybernetycznego. Głównym celem pracy jest zidentyfikowanie strategii, jakie przyjmują małe państwa w obliczu kwestionowania swoich gwarancji bezpieczeństwa przez potężnego sąsiada. Analiza dokumentów oraz koncepcji cyberbezpieczeństwa może posłużyć jako wyjaśnienie polityki odstraszania państw bałtyckich.

Bibliografia:

1. Andžāns M., Veebel V., Deterrence Dilemma in Latvia and Estonia: Finding the Balance Between External Military Solidarity and Territorial Defence, “Journal on Baltic Security” 2017, vol. 3, no. 2.
2. Archer C., Bailes A., Wivel A., States and International Security. Europe and Beyond, London 2014.
3. Baldacchino G., Wivel A. (eds.), Handbook on the Politics of Small States, Northhampton 2020.
4. Browning C.S., Joenniemi P., Contending discourses of marginality: The case of Kaliningrad, “Geopolitics” 2004, vol. 9, no. 3.
5. Carvalho B. de, Neumann I.B. (eds.), Small States and Status Seeking: Norway’s Quest for International Standing, London 2015.
6. Clinton L., Cyber Security Social Contract, [in:] S. Jasper (ed.), Conflict and Cooperation in the Global Commons: A Comprehensive Approach for International Security, Washington 2012.
7. Crandall M., Varov I., Developing Status as a Small State: Estonia’s Foreign Aid Strategy’, “East European Politics” 2016, vol. 32, no. 4.
8. Cybersecurity Strategy Republic of Estonia 2019–2022, https://www.mkm.ee/en/e-state-and-connectivity/cyber-security/ensuring-states-cyber-security [14.01.2024].
9. Elman M., The Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging Neorealism in Its Own Backyard, “British Journal of Political Science” 1995, vol. 25, no. 2.
10. Finnemore M., Sikkink K., International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, “International Organization” 1998, vol. 52, no. 4.
11. Fischerkeller M.P., Harknett R.J., Deterrence Is Not a Credible Strategy for Cyberspace, “Orbis” 2017, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 381–393.
12. Glaser C.L., Realism, [in:] A. Collins (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, New York 2010.
13. Goetschel L., Neutrals as brokers of peacebuilding ideas?, “Cooperation & Conflict” 2011, vol. 46, no. 3.
14. Goodman W., Cyber Deterrence: Tougher in Theory than in Practice?, “Strategic Studies Quarterly” 2010, vol. 4, no. 3.
15. Hey J., Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior, London 2003.
16. Hlatky Von S., Introduction: American Alliances and extended deterrence, [in:] idem, A. Wenger (eds.), The future of extended deterrence: The United States, NATO, and Beyond, Washington 2015.
17. Iasiello E., Is Cyber Deterrence an Illusory Course of Action?, “Journal of Strategic Security” 2014, vol. 7, no. 1.
18. International Security and Estonia 2016–2023, https://www.valisluureamet.ee/assessment.html [12.02.2024].
19. Jakobsen P.V., Ringsmore J., Saxi H.L., Prestige-seeking Small States: Danish and Norwegian Military Contributions to US-led Operations, “European Journal of International Security” 2018, vol. 3, no. 2.
20. Jakobsen P.V., Ringsmose J., Saxi H.L., Prestige-seeking small states: Danish and Norwegian military contributions to US-led operations, “European Journal of International Security” 2018, vol. 3, no. 2.
21. Jasper S., Deterring Malicious Behavior in Cyberspace, “Strategic Studies Quarterly” 2015, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/digital/pdf/Spring_2015/jasper.pdf [14.01.2024].
22. Kaljulaid K., On Estonian independence day in Tallinn 2017, https://president.ee/en/official-duties/speeches/14740-president-of-the-republic-at-the-estoniatheatre-and-concert-hall-on-24-february-2017 [12.01.2024].
23. King A., Gallagher M., United States of America Cyberspace Solarium Commission Report, Washington 2020.
24. Kuczyńska-Zonik A., Sierzputowska K., The Baltic States in the Face of Russian Aggression in Ukraine, [in:] A. Kasińska-Metryka, K. Pałka-Suchojad (eds.), The Russia-Ukraine War of 2022. Faces of Modern Conflict, London 2023.
25. Kuczyńska-Zonik A., Sierzputowska K., Wpływy Rosji i Chin w państwach bałtyckich, “Prace Instytutu Europy Środkowej” 2022, vol. 8.
26. Kuczyńska-Zonik A., The Securitization of National Minorities in the Baltic States, “Baltic Journal of Law & Politics” 2017, vol. 10, no. 2.
27. Kühn M., Peripheralization: Theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial inequalities, “European Planning Studies” 2015, vol. 23, no. 2.
28. Latvia: Russia’s playground for business, politics – and crime, “The Guardian”, 23 January 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/23/latvia-russian-playground [24.02.2024].
29. Latvian Security Police. Annual Report for 2016–2023, https://vdd.gov.lv/en/useful/annual-reports [12.02.2024].
30. Legvold R., Return to cold war, Malden 2016.
31. Levy J.S., Balances and balancing: concepts, proportions, and research design, [in:] J.A. Vasquez, C. Elman (eds.), Realism and the balance of power: A New debate, Elman Prentice-Hall, 2003.
32. Maliukevicius N., Russia’s information policy in Lithuania: the spread of soft power or information politics?, “Baltic Security & Defence Review” 2007, vol. 9.
33. Melander M., Mouritzen H., Learning to Assert Themselves: Small States in Asymmetrical Dyads – Two Scandinavian Dogs Barking at the Russian Bear, “Cooperation and Conflict” 2016, vol. 51, no. 4.
34. Muižnieks N., Russian foreign policy towards “Compatriots” in Latvia, [in:] idem (ed.), Latvian-Russian relations: domestic and international dimensions, Riga 2006.
35. National Cyber Security Strategy 2018, https://kam.lt/en/cyber-security/ [15.01.2024].
36. National Threat Assessment 2016–2023, https://www.vsd.lt/en/threats/threats-national-security-lithuania/ [22.02.2024].
37. Nye J.S., Deterrence and Dissuasion in Cyberspace, “International Security” 2016, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 44–71.
38. Osawa J., The Escalation of State Sponsored Cyberattack and National Cyber Security Affairs: Is Strategic Cyber Deterrence the Key to Solving the Problem?, “Asia-Pacific Review” 2017, vol. 24, no. 2.
39. Paulauskas K., On deterrence, “NATO Review Magazine” 2016, http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2016/Also-in-2016/nato-deterrence-defencealliance/EN/index.htm [10.01.2024].
40. Pedersen R.B., Bandwagon for Status: Changing Patterns in the Nordic States Status-Seeking Strategies?, “International Peacekeeping” 2018, vol. 25, no. 2.
41. Robst J., Polachek S., Chang Y., Geographic proximity, trade and international conflict/ cooperation, Bonn 2006, https://docs.iza.org/dp1988.pdf [10.01.2024].
42. Taddeo M., The Limits of Deterrence Theory in Cyberspace, “Philosophy & Technology” 2018, vol. 31, no. 3.
43. Takacs D., Ukraine’s Deterrence Failure: Lessons for the Baltic States, “Journal on Baltic Security” 2017, vol. 3, no. 1.
44. The Cybersecurity Strategy of Latvia 2023–2026, https://www.mod.gov.lv/en/nozares-politika/cybersecurity [16.01.2024].
45. The Military Balance 2016–2023, https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance [24.02.2024].
46. Wivel A., Oest K.J.N., Security, profit or shadow of the past? Explaining the security strategies of microstates, “Cambridge Review of International Affairs” 2010, vol. 23, no. 3.
47. Zagare F.C., Deterrence theory, Oxford 2013.
48. Zdanavičius L., Statkus N., Strengthening Resilience of Lithuania in an Era of Great Power Competition: The Case for Total Defence, “Journal on Baltic Security” 2020, vol. 6, no. 2.

PDF: Pobierz