<?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%">Andras Hugyik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lessons Learned from Military Intelligence Services Reform in Hungary</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%">external intelligence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hungarian Defence Forces</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hungary</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intelligence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">internal intelligence or counterintelligence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">lessons learned</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">military</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">military intelligence reform</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">national security services</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">political situation</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Winter 2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33-49</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The classic types of national security services are external and internal intelligence services, as well as integrated, internal, and external intelligence organizations. From a professional perspective, external and internal intelligence cannot be interpreted as entirely independent. Some theoretical schools consider internal intelligence (counterintelligence) part of intelligence; others attribute a significant distinction between internal and external intelligence. Regarding the number of national security services, two trends are observed in countries comparable to Hungary in the last decade. One is the increase in the number of services reflecting the increasing number and complexity of tasks and threats; the other is the decrease in the number of services through the integration of existing organizations, usually due to financial reasons.
In Hungary, military internal and external intelligence were merged in 2012, establishing an integrated organization, the Military National Security Service (MNSS). Although an impact assessment did not precede the merger, the official evaluation of the Court of Auditors in January 2014 stated that the creation of NMSS resulted in savings in public money and this new organizational form ensured the better implementation of unchanged tasks. 
This article briefly presents the current political situation in Hungary, the Hungarian secret services, the development of the Hungarian Defence Forces in the past decade, the reasons for reforming the special military services, the periods, the aims, and the results of the integration process. It provides general and specific conclusions and lessons learned from military intelligence services reform in Hungary.
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">33</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%">Andras Hugyik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Best Practices in the Application of the Concept of Resilience: Building Hybrid Warfare and Cybersecurity Capabilities in the Hungarian Defense Forces</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%">cyber defense</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EU</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hungary</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">hybrid warfare</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intelligence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">military</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">resilience</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fall 2020</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25-38</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In its Global Strategy for foreign and security policy, the EU applies resilience as a comprehensive concept of internal and external security. In parallel, at the 2016 Summit in Warsaw, Allied leaders decided to boost NATO's resilience to the full spectrum of threats. Each NATO member needs to be resilient to a major shock caused by a natural disaster, failure of critical infrastructure, a hybrid, or an armed attack. Hybrid warfare, including cyberattacks, is recognized as a significant security challenge. The National Security Strategy of Hungary, adopted in 2020, confirms that the primary international framework of Hungary's security and defense policy is NATO and EU membership and highlights the need to enhance the country's resilience against hybrid attacks. This article provides an analysis of the application of the concept of resilience in the Hungarian defense sector. It introduces the development of the resilience of the Hungarian Defense Forces against hybrid threats, including their cyber component, while generating options for the decision-makers regarding the military and information instruments of national power. The author identifies potential hybrid threats against Hungary, a possible cyberattack scenario, and lines of effort to achieve a feasible level of resilience to such threats. He takes account of the political and military environment, as well as wider national issues in view of hybrid threats and main features and dilemmas of cyber warfare, thus aiming to facilitate the application of the concept of resilience in Hungary.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25</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%">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%">Hungary: Capabilities, Organisations, Policies, and Legislation in crisis management and disaster response</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">IT4Sec Reports</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disaster preparedness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">disaster response</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hungary</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kolontar</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">structural reform</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">three-pillar disaster management system</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%">June 2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">127</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institute of Information and Communication Technologies</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%">• Hungary is a landlocked country in Central Europe with a territory of slightly over 93 thousand square kilometres. It has boundaries, shared with Austria to the west, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia to the south and southwest, Romania to the southeast, Ukraine to the northeast, and Slovakia to the north. The country is crossed by rivers Danube and Tisza, which are navigable 418 and 444 kilometres, respectively. 
• The crisis management system in Hungary has been under significant pressure in the last years, which revealed weakness and vulnerabilities to be addressed through policies and actions. Numerous disasters – from the notorious red sludge spill, via floods, to storms and droughts – made it evident that a profound reform of the Hungarian crisis management and disaster response architecture was needed.
• A new disaster management law was adopted in 2011 (in force since 1 January 2012), laying the foundations of a system in which professional disaster management service cooperates closely with obliged and volunteer civil protection structures. As put by the law, disaster management has been named a national cause.
• The National Directorate General for Disaster Management (NDGDM) within the Ministry of Interior is the national authority for disaster management. As of 1 January 2012 a new organisational structure of the NDGDM was introduced, which has been built on three pillars: civil protection, fire protection and industrial safety, with the National Inspectorate General of Fire Services, the National Inspectorate General of Civil Protection and the National Inspectorate General of Industrial Safety constructing the backbone of the NDGDM.
• The Disaster Management Governmental Coordination Committee (DMGCC) is an inter-agency coordination body ensuring consistency between sectors. At county and local level, protection committees are in place to concert disaster management.
• From an operational perspective, the central structures for disaster management at the county and local level include 20 county directorates for disaster management, their subordinated offices for disaster management, the professional dire departments and the municipal fire departments.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>