Suchergebnisse

Selv om det kan hevdes at de ulike elementene som utgjør cyberoperasjoner – undergraving, sabotasje, manipulering, tyveri og desinformasjon – ikke er noe nytt, sprer de seg i dag med en hastighet og i et omfang som er uten historisk sidestykke. Cybersikkerhet er tett sammenvevd med det 21. århundres politiske og militære konflikter. Som NATOs generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg påpeker, har de fleste konflikter og kriser i våre dager en cyberdimensjon, og det er vanskelig å forestille seg en militær konflikt i dag uten (Stoltenberg, 2016). Av denne grunn har såkalt cyberavskrekking blitt tema for en omfattende militær, politisk og akademisk debatt som kretser rundt et sett av viktige operasjonelle konsepter og overveielser. Et sentralt tema er hvorvidt det kan avskrekkes i cyberspace, gitt attribusjons utfordringene som preger etterdønningene av et cyberangrep. Denne artikkelen stiller spørsmål ved om «cyberavskrekking» er mulig og hensiktsmessig, og drøfter nye mulige måter å tenke rundt avskrekking i cyberspace på.
Abstract in English
Cybersecurity is deeply intertwined with every aspect of today's political and military conflict. In conjunction with the growing acceptance of cyberspace as a military domain, so called "cyber deterrence" has become the subject of extensive military, political and academic debates. Revolving around a set of important strategic and operational concepts the debates are questioning whether deterrence can be achieved in cyberspace. In line with current debates, this article examines if "cyber deterrence" is possible, appropriate, and desirable, yet extends the debate by including new possible ways to think about deterrence and defense in cyberspace. By drawing attention to cyberspace's idiosyncrasies while questioning the orthodoxy of deterrence as a concept, a reconceptualization of "cyber deterrence" that focuses on cyberspace itself is argued for, one which incorporates new outlooks and ideas, some of which may challenge the established boundaries of deterrence theory.

NATO har i det seneste årti orienteret sig mod de defensive aktiviteter i cyberspace, men i slutningen af 2017 gjorde alliancen det klart, at fremtidig planlægning af militære operationer også kommer til at indeholde muligheden for offensive cyberspaceoperationer (OCO). Inklusionen af OCO sker ved hjælp af en såkaldt "effektbaseret model". Ifølge denne model efterspørger NATOs øverstkommanderende – igennem det nyoprettede NATO Cyber Operations Centre – en specifik cybereffekt hos medlemsstaterne. Nærværende artikel peger på modellens muligheder og udfordringer. For selvom OCO indeholder et potentiale som redskab for løbende forstyrrelser af modstanderens netværk, så indeholder OCO også en række begrænsninger og faldgruber, når de skal integreres i en forespørgselsdreven og effektbaseret model: Det gælder i særlig grad manglende koordination omkring effekter (risiko for kollisioner) samt vanskeligheder ved inddæmning og vurdering af effekter. Disse begrænsninger svækker signalet om, at alliancen nu mestrer og for alvor vil gøre brug af cyberdomænet. Ønsker NATO at sende et klart signal, bør alliancen drøfte internt, hvordan man forholder sig til de aktiviteter, der ikke blot knytter sig til væbnet konflikt, som cyberspace også – og primært – tilbyder.
Absract in English
For the past decade, NATO has prioritised a strengthened cyber defence. However, at the end of 2017, the alliance made it clear that future operational planning will include the possibility of offensive cyberspace operations (OCO). The integration of OCO will happen through an effect-based model where the NATO commander – through the new NATO Cyber Operations Centre – requests a specific effect from member states. This article assesses the risks and opportunities of this model. It argues that even though OCO holds much potential for constant disruptions of an adversary's networks, OCO comes with several limitations and pitfalls when integrated through a request- and effect-based model. These include the risk of confliction and the difficulty of containing and assessing cyber effects. Such limitations weaken the ability to signal that NATO has the capacity to master this new domain. If NATO wants a to send a clear signal to adversaries, then the alliance needs to start discussing how it can utilise the possibilities below the threshold of armed conflict, which cyberspace primarily offers.

Som svar på Karsten Friis' kritik af Fokkusspalten, "Når krig blir hverdag", formulerer denne replik en kort begrebslig, empirisk og normativ afklaring af spaltens anvendelse af begrebet militæraktivisme. Begrebsligt påpeger replikken, at militæraktivisme allerede er hyppigt anvendt i litteraturen om skandinaviske landes øgede engagement i internationale militære operationer efter Den Kolde Krig. Empirisk set, er det korrekt, at udviklingen ikke har været lineær, og man kan argumentere for, at Danmark og Norges militæraktivisme var (endnu) større, da Afghanistankrigen var på sit højeste. Dog er begge lande fortsat engageret særligt i NATO-regi, og det er væsentligt at bemærke, at de direkte kampe på landjorden i internationale militære operationer i stigende grad udliciteres til mindre privilegerede lokale og internationale kombattanter. Replikken påpeger, at Friis' påstand om, at militæraktivisme som begreb udgør en slet skjult kritik af Danmark og Norges militære engagement, beror på en misforståelse. Tværtimod stammer aktivisme fra den danske udenrigspolitiske debat, hvor begrebet anvendes politisk med en række positive konnotationer forbundet med at være aktiv (Pedersen & Ringsmose, 2017). I lyset af afpolitiseringen af Danmarks og Norges krigsdeltagelse velkommer vi fremadrettet yderligere forskningsmæssig og politisk diskussion af militæraktivismen.
Abstract in EnglishReply: Military Activism RevisitedIn response to Karsten Friis' critique of the special issue When War Becomes Daily Life, this reply outlines a brief conceptual, empirical and normative clarification of the special issue's use of the concept, military activism. Conceptually, the reply points out that military activism is already a frequently used concept in the academic literature on Scandinavian countries increased engagement in international military operations after the Cold War. Empirically, it is correct that this development has not been linear, and arguably, Denmark and Norway's military activism was (even more) pronounced, when the war in Afghanistan was at its zenith. However, both countries continue to be engaged particularly in NATO, and significantly, direct battles on the ground are increasingly outsourced to local actors to less privileged local and international combatants. The reply points out, that Friis's claim that military activism is a concealed critique of Denmark and Norway's military engagement, is based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, activism as a concept derives from the Danish foreign policy debate, where the term is used to connote a series of positive attributes associated with being active (Pedersen & Ringsmose, 2017). Considering the depoliticisation of Denmark and Norway's military activism we welcome further academic and policy discussions about this important issue.

The regional powerhouse, South Africa, has since the introduction of the nonracial democratic dispensation in 1994, played a central and important role in the formation of both the regional and continental security architecture. With the establishment of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in 1992, one of the central areas of collaboration for the community was envisioned to be security, understood within a broadened human security framework. Security was therefore from the outset one of the cornerstones of integration in the SADC. It was believed that the formation of a security community would help dismantle the enmities that had plagued regional relations during the apartheid era. For some parties, institutionalisation of relations pointed to a means of stabilising and disseminating a particular order. Such institutions depict the power relations prevailing at the time of their establishment, which, however, can change over time (Cox 1981:136). The integration ambition surrounding security correlated with the ambitions of South Africa, the new democratic government in the regional powerhouse. South Africa and its overall foreign policy ambitions desired the pursuit of peace, democracy and stability for economic growth and development in the region and within South Africa itself. Since South Africa's acceptance into the SADC in 1994, the organisation has attempted to set up the required institutional framework to enable co-operation on security, both in terms of narrow military co-operation and regarding designated 2 softer security issues, such as migration and cross-border crime. The military cooperation moved forward in the early years after 1994 with the 1996 decision of creating an Organ for Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation (OPDSC)1 and later the signing of the Mutual Defence Pact (MDP) in 2003, and eventually the creation of the Strategic Indicative Plan for the Organ (SIPO) in 2004, which operationalised the OPDSC (SADC 2004). However, the actual military cooperation, e.g. military exercises, came close to a standstill. Several developments obstructed military co-operation of which the evolving crisis in Zimbabwe and the subsequent withdrawal of donor support to, for instance, the Regional Peacekeeping Training Centre (RPTC) in Harare are but two examples. The RPTC constituted the backbone of the co-operation, but political differences between member states illustrated during the Zimbabwean crisis and following the mandate of the interventions in especially the DR Congo and partly Lesotho in 1998 all contributed to regional tensions.2 Despite the crisis, SADC members, and in particular South Africa, declared that the organisation would be able to form a regional stand-by brigade for the use of the African Union (AU) as part of its wider security architecture. On 17 August 2007, the SADC declared its stand-by-force operational at a large parade in Lusaka, Zambia and at the same occasion signed a memorandum of understanding on the SADCBRIG (SADC 2007). According to the timeline provided by the AU, the brigade should be fully operational by June 2010. Former South African deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad stated after the launch that this was an important step, but that now there was much to be done securing joint levels and types of training, interoperability, etc. (Pahad 2007). The question that continues to linger is to what extent this brigade is operational and for what purpose. Is this new regional military formation in its present form just a paper tiger, or is it "real progress" and an example of "successful" regional cooperation and integration? This article scrutinises the security co-operation and integration in SADC and asks whether an apparent lack of common values between SADC member states are blocking the security integration process, the creation of a security community, and thereby the establishment of an effective stand-by brigade, the so-called SADCBRIG. The article furthermore attempts to scrutinise the role played by South Africa in establishing the SADCBRIG.

Danmark har i årene siden den kolde krigs afslutning udviklet sig til at være en permanent krigsførende nation. Den militære aktivisme er karakteriseret ved meget forskellige typer af engagementer, både hvad angår antallet af udsendte og deres mandat, indlejring i forskellige internationale organisationer og koalitioner, og udsendelser til forskellige dele af verden. Den danske vilje til aktivt at fastholde en status som bidragende og konstruktiv allieret gennem deltagelse i internationale operationer er drevet af en opfattelse af USA som afgørende for Danmarks nationale sikkerhed og understøttet af en aktivistisk og pragmatisk strategisk kultur. Den militære aktivisme er på den baggrund robust. Samtidig er der tegn på forandring i finansiering, geografisk fokus og valg af samarbejdspartnere.
Abstract in EnglishConstant Activism in a War with No End: Security, Status and Strategic Culture in Danish Foreign PolicyDanish foreign policy is militarily activist. Danish military activism is characterized by very different types of engagements and deployments regarding the number of troops and their legal mandate, political aims, institutional frameworks and geographical focus. The continuing Danish will to actively maintain its status as a contributing and constructive ally through participation in international military operations is driven by a perception of the United States as crucial to Denmark's national security and supported by an activist and pragmatic strategic culture. For these reasons, Danish military activism is robust, despite indications of change in financing, geographical focus and choice of partners.

I en fersk Fokus-spalte i Internasjonal Politikk diskuteres begrepet «militæraktivisme» i en skandinavisk kontekst. Dessverre lider flere av bidragene av en uklar og dels politisert bruk av begrepet. Militæraktivisme sidestilles i det store med internasjonale operasjoner, og bringer dermed ingen nye analytiske bidrag. Spalten viser at begrepet kan ha noe for seg i det danske tilfellet, men klarer ikke å påvise at militæraktivisme er noe skandinavisk fenomen.
Abstract in EnglishMilitary Activism: Vague Definitions and Political LopsidednessA recent issue of Internasjonal Politikk had a Focus section dedicated to "military activism" in the Scandinavian context. Unfortunately, several of the contributions suffer from vague and partly politicized use of the term. Military activism appears to be applied analogous to international operations, thus failing to contribute with any new analytical insights. The section shows that military activism may be a fruitful term in the Danish context, but fails to demonstrate that this is a Scandinavian phenomenon.

I litteraturen om Danmark under Den Kolde Krig og om Færøsk sikkerhedspolitik finder man argumentet om, at flere militære installationer gav Færøerne en særlig strategisk betydning i NATO under Den Kolde Krig. Denne artikel har analyseret Færøernes betydning i et militærgeografisk perspektiv og har anvendt et bredere kildegrundlag end den hidtidige litteratur og har sammenlignet med andre tilsvarende beliggenheder. På den baggrund kan det konkluderes, at Færøerne har været en dominerende geografisk position i en kort periode i 1960'erne. Modsat den gængse fremstilling i eksisterende dansk og færøsk litteratur på området var Færøerne ikke et betydende baseområde under Den Kolde Krig, og de tekniske installationer var ikke unikke, men udtryk for, at der under Den Kolde Krig etableredes talrige tilsvarende installationer. Færøernes militære betydning under Den Kolde Krig kan ses som en forståelsesramme for Færøernes fremtidige betydning. På den baggrund bør man tage udgangspunkt i, hvordan Færøernes beliggenhed konkret kan understøtte militære operationer, og man skal gøre sig klart, at en ny sikkerhedspolitisk situation ikke nødvendigvis giver områder som Færøerne en blivende betydning, men sagtens kan medføre en vekslende betydning.
Abstract in EnglishThe Faroe Islands' Military Geographic Significance to the USA and NATOIn the literature on Denmark during the Cold War and on Faroese security policy, one finds the argument that military installations gave the Faroe Islands a strategic importance in NATO during the Cold War. This article has analysed the significance of the Faroe Islands from a military geographic perspective, has used a broader range of sources, and has compared the Faroe Islands with similar locations. It can be concluded that the Faroe Islands have been a dominant geographical position for a short period in the 1960s. Contrary to the prevailing notion in existing Danish and Faroese literature, the Faroe Islands were not a significant base area during the Cold War and the installations were not unique, but were indicative of many similar installations. The military importance of the Faroe Islands during the Cold War can be seen as a framework for understanding the future importance. Future analysis should look into on how the Faroe Islands' location can actually support military operations and should be aware that a new security situation does not necessarily give areas such as the Faroe Islands a permanent significance, but can easily result in a frequently changing significance.

Siden Gulfkrigen i 1991 har skandinaviske land deltatt i nesten 30 år med sammenhengende krig, på blant annet Balkan, i Afghanistan, i Irak, Libya, Mali og Syria. Hvordan kan vi forstå denne formen for militæraktivisme? Tradisjonelle teorier fra realismen, institusjonalismen og konstruktivismen gir ingen gode svar. Innenfor organisasjonsteorien derimot, finnes det forklaringer knyttet til begrepet «strategisk kultur». Ved å utforske den strategiske kulturen i USAs militære styrker under krigene i Afghanistan, Irak og Libya trer det frem et tydelig mønster: det bombes for mye på militær side, og det snakkes for lite på diplomatisk side. I USAs doktriner levnes det lite til overs for dialog, forhandling og kompromiss. Dermed blir den strategiske kulturen innad i de militære styrkene et outrert uttrykk for en krigføringsform der operasjonene ses på som et null-sum spill. Resultatet blir oftest systemkollaps i statene som angripes. Denne kulturen har store konsekvenser for små skandinaviske allianseavhengige land: knappe forsvarsressurser trekkes inn i hengemyrerer det er vanskelig å komme ut av, ikke minst fordi koalisjonslederen selv, USA, forårsaker dem.
Abstract in English:How Should Scandinavian Military Activism Be Understand?Since the 1991 Gulf War, Scandinavian states have continuously been engaged in various international operations, i.e. on the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, Libya, Mali and Syria. How can we comprehend this peculiar form of Scandinavian military activism? Traditional theories derived from realism, institutionalism and constructivism provides few convincing explanations. Within organisational theory however, plausible explanations may be found though the concept of 'strategic culture'. By exploring the military culture prevailing inside US forces operating in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, a consistent pattern arises: too much bombing from the military side, coupled with insufficient diplomatic talks. Little effort is paid to dialogue, negotiations and compromises. US warfighting thereby becomes a one-dimensional expression of a zero-sum game where the winner takes it all. The result is a collapse inside the states that are attacked. This culture has grave consequences for small Scandinavian allies: scarce military resources are trapped into a quagmire made by the coalition leader itself, the United States.

On April 25, 2013, UN's Security Council established a 12,600-strong peacekeeping force for Mali. The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission (MINUSMA) is to take over and continue the security and stabilization task that the French-led military operation in cooperation with UN's African-led International Support Mission to Mali, AFISMA, initiated in January 2013. The aim of this report is to present a number of long- and short-term perspectives for the recently initiated peace- and state-building process in Mali by focusing on the historical, structural and political causes of the crisis in Mali. Understanding these causes and handling their derived conflict potentials provide a minimum of prerequisites for establishing long-term peace. The report is structured according to four intertwined conflict potentials: Mali's fragile state, the status and background of the Tuareg rebellion, the organized crime and the regional cooperation. .

USA hadde ingen doktriner for opprørsbekjempelse (COIN) da operasjonene i Afghanistan og Irak startet. Mens krigene pågikk ble det, til tross for stor uenighet, innført en slik doktrine i 2007. Krigene førte også til både endringer i organisering og utrustning av amerikanske styrker, og til store endringer av planlagte investeringer av militært ustyr. Begge krigene endte i nederlag, og i tiden etter har USA på ny fokusert på stormaktsrivalisering. Men utgiftene til krigføringen i Afghanistan og Irak, og endringene i investeringsmønster, har svekket USAs evne til å konkurrere militært med Kina og Russland.
Abstract in EnglishAfghanistan, Iraq and the Development of US Military PowerThe United States had no doctrine for Counterinsurgency Operations (COIN) when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started in 2001 and 2003, respectively. In 2001 the US armed forces were designed for Great Power competition and conflict. During the course of the wars, substantial changes were made in the organization and equipment of the forces, and a COIN doctrine was introduced in 2007. In turn, large scale modernization of, and investments in, equipment suited for Great Power conflict were reduced in scale or cancelled. The cost of the wars and the changes in operational focus have blunted the US's ability to compete militarily with China and Russia.

COVID-19 har påvirket det danske samfund på alle tænkelige måder: menneskeligt, politisk, økonomisk og sundhedsmæssigt. Vi kan ikke forvente et klart svar på, om der blev handlet rigtigt under krisen. Nogle af de helt centrale spørgsmål er, om indgrebene var for vidtgående, hvordan beslutningerne blev taget, og om de økonomiske konsekvenser af beslutningerne blev undersøgt. Disse og flere andre spørgsmål forsøger bogen at besvare.00Smittetryk og samfundssind undersøger også konsekvenserne for sundhedsvæsenet. Blev corona-patienter opprioriteret på bekostning af andre patientgrupper, fx kræft- og hjertepatienter, og var opbremsningen af operationer og behandlinger for voldsom? Var vi godt nok forberedt? Var beredskabsplanerne i for høj grad præget af erfaringer med influenza? Var lageropbygning af værnemidler og overvejelser om robuste forsyningskæder en del af planlægningen? Bogen giver svar på alle disse spørgsmål og fremlægger de overvejelser, der viser sig i forbindelse med den vaccine, der ventes i løbet af 2021. Hvem kommer først med vaccinen? Og hvem skal vaccineres først?00Kjeld Møller Pedersen (f. 1949) er en af de fremmeste kendere af dansk sundhedspolitik, som han har beskæftiget sig med siden 1974. Udover akademiske arbejder har han stedse været aktiv i debatten om sundhedsvæsenet med forskning, interviews, kronikker og andre indlæg. Amtssundhedsdirektør i Vejle Amt 1987-1991 og direktør og koncerndirektør i LEGO Gruppen 1991-1999. Medlem af bl.a. Sygehuskommissionen (1998-1999), formand for det rådgivende udvalg vedr. sundhedsvæsenet (2001-2003) og medlem af det rådgivende udvalg vedr. supersygehuse (2007-2013). Næstformand i sundhedskommissionen for Grønland (2020-)

På begynnelsen av 2000-tallet ble det norske invasjonsforsvaret nedlagt. Men hvilke årsaker var viktigst for denne beslutningen? Var det økonomiske, institusjonelle eller kulturelle årsaksforhold? I denne artikkelen legges hovedvekten på institusjonelle årsaker, særlig den norske frykten for at NATO skulle bli irrelevant for USA. Dermed var det bare en ting å gjøre: å avvikle invasjonsforsvaret slik at det kunne frigjøres friske penger. For slik kunne et lite allianseavhengig land, i utkanten av Europa, utenfor EU, og med felles grense til Russland, bidra med ekspedisjonære styrker. Ikke minst for å holde liv i et NATO som strevde med å gjøre seg relevante for USA, først på Balkan og senere i Afghanistan. Med kildemateriale fra Washington D.C., Brussel og Oslo mellom 1998 og 2002 tolkes Norges politiske kontekst inn i et institusjonelt perspektiv. Forhold som resiprositet, norsk omdømme og lojalitet i NATO, blir viktig for å forstå invasjonsforsvarets endelikt.
Abstract in English:NATO's Role in Norway's Defence Reforms, 1998–2002At the turn of the new milennium, Norway's anti-invasion defence concept vanished. What was the rationale for this decision? Was it economc, institutional or cultural reasons? The findings in this article emphasise institutional perspectives. Norwegian apprehensions over a possibly irrelevant NATO in the eyes of the United States stirred a fundamental post-Cold War defence reform. To preclude a future marginalisation of NATO, decision-makers in Oslo needed to free scarce resources from a static, territorial defence that had lost its political and military relevance in the High North. By forging a smaller but more professional force, with improved deployability, survivability and usability abroad, Norway could more effectively contribute to allied cohesiveness. Not least through improved risk- and burdensharing in NATO's out-of-area operations on the Balkans and in Afghanistan. By using primary sources from Washington, DC, Brussels and Oslo between 1998 and 2002, the data is interpretated though the lense of liberal institutionalism. Explanatory mechanisms such as Norwegian reciprocity in the High North, US expectations towards dependent allies abroad, and Norway's collective solidarity may explain why the anti-invasion concept died.