<?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%">Sean S. Costigan</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%">Twenty Years of Substantive Impacts on Security and Defense Discourse</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%">defense</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">international security</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Partnership for Peace</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2023</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5-6</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Over the past twenty years, Connections has been instrumental in informing and shaping security and defense policy debates within the Partnership for Peace community and beyond. This issue includes updated versions of some of the articles that have had the highest academic and policy-making impact.
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></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>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Iryna Klymenko</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Torn Asunder from Within: Ukraine and the Lessons for Global Security</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%">criminal business</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">hybrid war</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">illegal economy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">informational warfare</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intervention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">systemic corruption</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">45-56</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Russia’s non-standard intervention in Ukraine was accomplished in four major areas—the economic system as a whole, the energy and security sectors, and information policy. The deliberate policy of the Kremlin has transformed Ukraine into economically fragile and institutionally weak nation. Due to efforts of former regime and Russian intelligence agencies, main Ukrainian government institutions were involved in semi-legal, semi-criminal transnational business scheme. Macro-financial vulnerability of Ukraine, in conjunction with a strained economic structure, proved to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for preparing and implementing hybrid aggression. The Ukrainian precedent might be replicated as a special operation to destroy statehood, whereby disruption is achieved through the escalation of internal political and economic challenges. One universal means of undermining statehood in an era of hybrid wars is to encourage corruption among holders of the highest office</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></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%">Tinatin Aghniashvili</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Towards More Effective Cooperation? The Role  of States in Shaping NATO-EU Interaction and Cooperation</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%">European Union</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Libya</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO-EU Cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">67-90</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Effective cooperation between the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is not only desirable, but rather mandatory in this interdependent and interlinked World. The contemporary multifaceted security threats and challenges have diminished the importance of the national borders and made the members of the institutions almost equally vulnerable. Due to the inherited similarities among organizations, the perception of burden sharing seems natural. However, the existing cooperation framework leaves a big room for improvement. The article explores the factors limiting effective cooperation between the organizations and the analysis is derived from studying individual states’ (dual and non-dual members) behavior in shaping institutions’ interaction. The paper analyzes the roles of the EU and NATO during the Libyan crisis in the neighborhood of Europe and their interaction in Afghanistan – beyond the Euro-Atlantic area. The findings of the analysis show that some of the non-dual members of the organization “hold institutions hostage”  ; fragmented positions of the dual members impede the elaboration of a holistic EU policy on crisis management (CSDP) and eventually, hamper formation of a joint EU-NATO strategic vision. Furthermore, lack of division of labor on the ground leads to overlapping of functions to certain extent and cooperation among institutions is better on operational rather than on the strategic level.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue></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%">Todor Tagarev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Venelin Georgiev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petya Ivanova</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Analytical Support to Critical Infrastructure Protection Policy and Investment Decision-Making</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%">CASoS</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CIP</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">complex adaptive systems</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Decision Support</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ECI</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EU Directive 114/2008</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">interdependency</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge portal</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">method</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">tool</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">28</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13-20</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Critical infrastructures are complex, interlinked socio-technical systems, with impact often crossing state borders. Their protection involves governments and business organisations, interacting in the application of a broad variety of measures to provide safety and security while investing a considerable amount of public and private resources. This paper examines the challenge of making respective policy and investment decisions transparent, and a sample of methods and tools used to facilitate decision making. It also calls for contributions to a knowledge portal on security and safety of critical infrastructures. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</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%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Europe and the Balkans during the Strategic Transformation of the European Union: Implications for Ukraine</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CSDM</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">corruption</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">efficiency</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EU integration</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">multinational cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ukraine</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12.2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></number><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Academy of Sciences and Head of the 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%">&lt;p&gt;The paper includes speaking notes for the session on “Central-Eastern Europe’s Positioning and Perspectives of the European Union’s Transformation” of the conference “The EU, Central and Eastern Europe and Ukraine: Transformation, Prognosis and Perspectives,” conducted on 16 November 2012 in Kyiv, Ukraine. It addresses selected issues of the current status of the EU in the persisting financial and economic crisis, respective developments in Bulgaria and other countries in South Eastern Europe, and possible implications for Ukraine, with focus on security policies and governance.&lt;/p&gt;</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%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Europe and the Balkans during the Strategic Transformation of the European Union: Implications for Ukraine</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%">corruption</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CSDM Views</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">efficiency</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EU integration</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">multinational cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ukraine</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">November 2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</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 paper includes speaking notes for the session on “Central-Eastern Europe’s Positioning and Perspectives of the European Union’s Transformation” of the conference “The EU, Central and Eastern Europe and Ukraine: Transformation, Prognosis and Perspectives,” conducted on 16 November 2012 in Kyiv, Ukraine. It addresses selected issues of the current status of the EU in the persisting financial and economic crisis, respective developments in Bulgaria and other countries in South Eastern Europe, and possible implications for Ukraine, with focus on security policies and governance.</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%">Todor Tagarev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petya Ivanova</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Modelling Extreme Events for the Purposes of Security Foresight</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Radioelectronic and Computer Systems</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">agent models</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Black Swan theory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Catastrophe Loss Models</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">complexity studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">dynamic modelling</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Extreme Value Theory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">planning.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">May 2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%"> Radioelectronic and Computer Systems 7(59)</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sevastopol, Ukraine</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">253-259</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The risk management approach is used increasingly in modern security planning. In this approach, planners attempt to assess the likelihood of an event and the potential loss if the event occurs, and then to select certain measures that minimise an integral criteria of risk over some set of events. However, certain events of low probability but high potential impact, referred to as ‘extreme’ or ‘catastrophic’ events, need to be treated dif-ferently than those with a low potential loss and a high likelihood of occurring. This paper presents a brief overview of six ‘methods’ that have been used in addressing security-related risk management tasks—extreme value theory, catastrophe loss models, black swan theory, dynamic modelling, agent models, and complexity studies—and provides examples. It presents a summary on areas of implementation and underlines the limita-tions of established risk management approaches.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">59</style></issue></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%">Todor Tagarev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Venelin Georgiev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Valeri Ratchev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A Taxonomy of Essential Services</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Radioelectronic and Computer Systems</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Comprehensive approach</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Critical Infrastructure</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">risk management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">threats</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Uncertainty</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vulnerabilities</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">May 2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Radioelectronic and Computer Systems 6(58)</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sevastopol, Ukraine</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">191-196</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communities, countries and alliances cannot be efficient in preparing to meet diverse threats to their security within traditional organizational stovepipes. The boundaries between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ threats are getting fuzzier, and the vulnerabilities of governments, businesses and communities feed on each other, while the comprehensive approach is gaining traction in ever more security fields. The implementation of the comprehensive approach poses a number of methodological challenges. While it clearly requires coordination of various capabilities of a multitude of actors, it is less apparent which is the suitable organising concept. This paper takes as a starting point the concept of ‘essential services’ and suggests a taxonomy, that would allow to treat threats, vulnerabilities and risk in a common comprehensive framework. The taxonomy has been developed with a specific purpose in mind, and thus refers to European Essential Services (EES). We nevertheless reason that it can be replicated to support decision making at other levels, e.g. in national security policy making and planning. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">58</style></issue></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%">Veselin Tselkov</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dragomir Pargov</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information Assurance in C4I Systems</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%">C4I systems</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">common criteria.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cryptography</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">evaluation criteria</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information assurance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">security policy</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43-59</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This article presents a broader definition of security and examines the components of information assurance, as well as the main features of the information security policy, a set of requirements, and a system for information security. It reflects the authors' experience in development and implementation of information security systems in the Automated Information System of the Bulgarian armed forces, as well as their participation in the creation of the Strategy for Development of Information Society in Bulgaria. Some conclusions and recommendations from the 1999 U.S.-Bulgarian study of the C4 systems in the Bulgarian armed forces were also taken into account</style></abstract></record></records></xml>