Thread by @CyberPeace1

As a follow-up on my recent short cyber/AI analysis of the Germany's "Future vision" for the armed forces and regarding the start of the NATO 2030 talk, I took a look into the NATO 2030 strategy paper & what it has to say about these two ares of technology. A short thread /1

Cyber has a dedicated chapter in the paper, and it starts with this interesting statement „Hybrid and cyber attacks are not, themselves, threats; they are tools employed by hostile actors, state, and non-state actors alike, that are the threat“. /2

This analysis states that cyber activities are often driven by strategic interests by some actors. This perspective is somehow limited to the case of actors that lock on a single target (another state) but ignores broad but still high-value attacks like against SolarWinds .../3

... that are capable of undermining the security of a wide range of states, institutions etc. So, whereas the paper recommends common frameworks to „respond to hybrid and cyber incidents in a crisis“ it should also foster & implement common IT security measures, standards ... /4

... and stronger cooperation, above the current CERT level information sharing. /5

What's also interesting is, that the recommendations for common strategic cyber activities perceives cyber as a threat only when being part of hybrid activities. This misses the point that military actors are developing tools for cyber warfare since at least several years. /6

Even if „pure“ cyberwars are currently seeming to be unlikely, as more and more military technology will get digitalized, offensive activities against these systems (among others) will become more common that they are today. /7

Just think about (L)AWS where cyber is an essential part of its functionality, not „just one another sensor“. Cyber should definitely be part of the papers recommendations for Emerging and Disruptive Technologies. Maybe it already is, but that's not totally clear. /8

Because even if NATO is seeing cyber not as a threat in itself, other actors probably will and prepare for. /9

That said, the whole topic of AI as the next run-to technology for military decision makers is somehow completely underrepresented in the whole paper. It is briefly mentioned as one of the next upcoming technologies to get considered... /10

... and that China is running to be the AI leader in 2030, but nothing more. If AI will really decide about who ‘will be the ruler of the world’ (as Putin is quoted in 2017), this NATO strategic planning is not sufficient .. /11

... in terms of common technology R&D, common standards, common ethical approaches for AI on battlefields, protection of domestic IP etc. /12

These quick thoughts as my „50 cent“. Comments are welcome and retweets too ;)

Have a good and safe weekend you all!

Source: nato.int/nato_static_fl…

CC: @KennethGeers @CSETGeorgetown @NC_Renic @M__Verbruggen
@Maxwsmeets @KomissarWhipla @vbutrim @iiyonite @meier_oliver @juschuetze @KatarzynaKubiak @thomas_wiegold @drfranksauer @CarloMasala1 @NiklasSchoernig @HonkHase @z_edian @perceptic0n @DrUlrichKuehn @Konflikt_Sicher