<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elitsa Pavlova</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Implementation of Federated Cyber Ranges  in Bulgarian Universities: Challenges, Requirements, and Opportunities</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">classification</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cyber range</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">functionalities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">training</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">University</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">50</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">149-159 </style></pages><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p style=&quot;margin-left:20.15pt;&quot;&gt;Cyber education has been one of the global challenges in recent years. Attacks are becoming more sophisticated, and it is increasingly difficult to provide a safe working environment. Hyper-realistic virtual environments called cyber ranges help increase the level of cybersecurity training. Access to multi-domain exercises is needed to make full use of their capabilities, combine information technology networks and other appropriate infrastructure. A systematic review of the modern cyber ranges used for teaching and research purposes in higher education institutions has been made. This study aims to analyse cyber range characteristics, functionalities, and requirements for their implementation and integration in accordance with the EU regulations. The results will be used in the development of a conceptual model for a cybersecurity training laboratory at the University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria. Its inclusion in the teaching and research process is a relevant, important, and promising area for the future of higher educaiton in cybersecurity.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Georgi Tsvetkov</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defence Policy of Republic of Bulgaria: Critical Analysis</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Security and Defence Management</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">armed forces</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence capabilities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence transformation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">post-communist transition</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Procon</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-619-7254-06-8</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; src=&quot;https://procon.bg/sites/default/files/front_cover_defence_capabilities.jpg&quot; style=&quot;width: 200px; height: 289px; margin: 5px; float: left;&quot; /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/node/21292&quot;&gt;Резюме на български&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The book is part of the &lt;a href=&quot;/node/5386&quot;&gt;Security and Defence Management series&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is based on the author&amp;rsquo;s PhD thesis, looking at the transformation of Bulgaria&amp;rsquo;s defence policy in the period 1990-2010. Amended with reflections on key developments in the past decade, the author offers evaluation of the ability to foresee defence requirements and plan accordingly. The general conclusion is that it is not the uncertainty of the security environment that surprises us. In fact, the environment has been predictable to a is sufficient degree.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Based on the John Boyd OODA loop, we can conclude that the &amp;ldquo;noise in the system,&amp;rdquo; created at the stages &amp;ldquo;Observe&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Orient,&amp;rdquo; is the main reason or justification not to proceed properly to &amp;ldquo;Decide&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;Act.&amp;rdquo; And this is not so much due to the unpredictable and dynamic environment, as to the inability or unwillingness to take adequate decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The book contains theoretical, historical and prognostic parts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The theoretical part presents the modern understanding of defence policy and the relations between the state and the armed forces. Its goal is not only to review the theoretical foundations of defence policy making, but to reach valid and relevant definitions that can be applied in modern Bulgaria &amp;ndash; a country that has made several simultaneous &amp;ldquo;transitions&amp;rdquo; since 1990.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The historical part begins with an analysis of the Bulgarian People&amp;#39;s Army at the beginning of the transition, as the author believes that many of the challenges we face today are due to the specifics of state-military relations in the period before 1990. Another important contribution is the reliable reconstruction of the events characterizing the development of Bulgaria&amp;#39;s defence policy between 1990 and 2010, often burdened with emotional assessments and deliberate distortions of reality.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The third part contains the prospects for development, formulated based on a comparative analysis with the armed forces of a number of European countries and reflecting different combinations of two main factors &amp;ndash; the resource framework and degree of change. One main conclusion is that the will to change is perhaps the decisive factor for the successful defence policy making. Unlike most countries in Central and Eastern Europe, there is no such will in Bulgaria, and again we come to the conclusion of more &amp;ldquo;lost years&amp;rdquo; for the country&amp;rsquo;s defence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The book is currently available in Bulgarian only, in the following formats:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;Hardcover, ISBN 978-619-7254-07-5&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Online (pdf), ISBN 978-619-7254-06-8&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ralitsa Kovacheva</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hybrid Threats in Bulgarian Media</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">hybrid attacks</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hybrid threats</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">hybrid war</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">media</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">politics</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">333-348</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The article presents the results of a recent study aimed at revealing how the term “hybrid threats” (or its synonyms “hybrid attacks,” “hybrid war,” etc.) is used in Bulgarian public discourse. 688 articles published by 188 media outlets were registered and processed by the method of content analysis. The results show that the term “hybrid threats” is mostly mentioned and not discussed in substance; it is often unclear what exactly the speakers mean by using the term “hybrid threats”; specific narratives are constructed, where the term “hybrid threats” is completely removed from its meaning by definition and loaded with different connotations.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">333</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stefan Hadjitodorov</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martin Sokolov</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Blending New-generation Warfare and Soft Power: Hybrid Dimensions of Russia-Bulgaria Relations</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Connections: The Quarterly Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hybrid threats</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">hybrid warfare</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Russia</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">soft power</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Winter 2018</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">17</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5-20</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In order to effectively counter hybrid warfare, it is necessary to understand it. However, certain aspects of hybrid warfare are often confused with traditional soft power. This article aims to highlight the differences between the two by analyzing the relationship between Bulgaria and Russia. The latter enjoys considerable opportunities to exercise soft power, but often must accompany them with hybrid means. Yet, labeling everything as hybrid warfare becomes detrimental to the topic itself. Moreover, it runs the risk of ascribing greater power to the Kremlin which may not truly be the case. The aim of the authors is to expose the threats, opportunities, and limits of Russian influence in Bulgaria and the possible outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Valeri Ratchev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria’s 2014 Annual Defence Report: Plenty of Data, Low Political Impact</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CSDM Views</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">armed forces</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence budget</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defence capabilities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Minister of Defence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ministry of Defence</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">April 2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">28</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Centre for Security and Defence Management</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Annual Report on the Status of Defence and the Armed Forces is an important political act, which reveals to the public and its deputies in the Parliament the status, problems, and prospects of national defence and the Armed Forces. The 2014 Report reveals only a single problem that is obvious and clear to all - insufficient budget for rearmament. However, the report does not formulate the dilemmas the leadership of Defence faces and options for the future development of the armed forces. The lack of timely decisions will increasingly turn decision issues into dilemmas of the &quot;either-or&quot; type.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Valeri Ratchev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vesselin Petkov</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evolving Security Concepts: The Premium on Governance in the Case of Bulgaria</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">corruption</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Political stability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security discourse</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">social security</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">83-107</style></pages><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The EvoCS project analysed security perceptions and discourses in 12 countries, including Bulgaria. The authors of the Bulgarian case study introduce the particular &amp;lsquo;transitional&amp;rsquo; context of the security discourse, briefly describe the project methodology and present the research results for Bulgaria, along with explanation of the historical and social influences on security perceptions. The Bulgarian security discourse emerged as unique among all twelve examined in EvoCS. It is dominated by the &amp;ldquo;political stability and security&amp;rdquo; core value and the overarching theme is governance &amp;ndash; in the political, social, and economic spheres, as well as in facing the pervasive threat of corruption. The case study epitomises a double disconnect &amp;ndash; between the official Bulgarian security discourse and societal perceptions of security challenges, on one hand, and between challenges identified in EU security strategies and challenges faced by Bulgaria, on the other. This is reflected in the final section of the paper, presenting policy recommendations on making the security discourse in Bulgaria more relevant to the challenges the country faces and the societal interests.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Georgi Tsvetkov</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Military-Industrial Complex: How to profit from the National Security</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CSDM Views</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense acquisition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense economics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense industrial policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense politics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense procurement policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">military-industrial complex</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">public-private partnership</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">small state</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">November 2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</style></number><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The meaning of “Military-industrial complex” in the former “Eastern bloc” European countries is different from that of the famous farewell speech of the US President D.D. Eisenhower . The VPK (Military-industrial complex) consists of the state owned military industry during the Soviet era. Few of these enterprises survived the end of the Cold war, especially those in the new NATO and EU member states. Almost all “successful stories” are about private or joint public private companies.
Bulgaria should change its understanding of Military-industrial complex from this of the Soviet era VPK to that of Eisenhower speech. The idea is not to „avoid” the democratic institutions, but to establish mutually benefit relations between the Government (MoD) and the private business from the perspective of a small country with still developing heavy industry.
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Valeri Ratchev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO’s Partnership for Peace: Twenty Years Later (in Bulgarian)</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CSDM Views</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulgaria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Central Asia</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Defence reform</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eastern Europe</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">military cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Partnership for Peace</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">January 2014</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Centre for Security and Defence Management</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On 11 January 1994, on the U.S. initiative, the heads of NATO member states approved the Partnership for Peace (PfP). A month later, Bulgaria joined PfP crossing its first Rubicon on the road towards the trans-Atlantic alliance and community. PfP proved to be one of the best ideas in the field of security and defence since the end of the Cold War. PfP applied the concept of cooperative security in real politics, and became one of the most important means of gradually breaking down mental and physical barriers inherited by the Cold War. Twenty years later, the realities are very different both in NATO and the partner countries. Military cooperation, however, continues to be an important factor for international security and regional stability. PfP is now a culture of thinking and action. Its value remains high, and member countries and partners are jointly responsible to find ways and forms for its further development and modernization. The time has come for inspirational discussions, followed by timely and effective decisions and actions.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>