The sections on green defense and cyber security. The Arctic is of great interest to Russia especially as the waters warm and there is less ice due to climate change. Russia is trying to capitalize on the Northern Sea Route, and even this week was promoting it over the Suez Canal. Secondly, as is well-known, Russia continues to carry out a multitude of sophisticated cyber attacks targeting critical government information around the world. Just a few days ago, Germany said it believed Russia launched a cyber attack against its Parliament. I think cooperation like NORDEFCO suggests, will be essential to stopping Russia cyber attacks in the future.

@David Broughton @Reid Parker I wrote about this in my response today, but I believe that the beliefs of various groups under the right-wing extremist are being combined. I am definitely more worried about groups unifying than undermining one another.

The concept that "right-wing extremist ideology is not uniform but feeds from different sub-currents, united in their rejection of diversity and minority rights" really stood out to me. White supremacy is nothing new- but we traditionally think of groups like the KKK (in the US) or the Nazi party. However, more recently white supremacy has been evolving and gaining momentum. The older white supremacy ideologies have been combining with a mixture of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and the newer alt-right and neonationalist movements. As the line blurs between different right-wing extremist beliefs, I think that the threat of right-wing terrorism will only grow. Secondly, the problem of online radicalization of terrorists, specifically right-wing extremists, cannot be overstated. Over a third of white supremacist extremists who carried out terrorist attacks from 2011-2019 explicitly stated they were inspired by another similar attacker or showed reverence for their acts. The copycat effect that is perpetuated on the dark web is truly terrifying. This link has some really good graphics to visualize lot of what this Europol document mentions.

I am concerned that the problem of jihadist terrorism will be exacerbated in Western Europe. As there has been a consistent stream of radical Islamist attacks in Western Europe since around 2015, negative perceptions of Muslims has been growing. For example, there has been a number of anti-Islamic laws in Europe like France's veil ban. As individuals feel excluded or disenfranchised by society, anger and frustration are more likely to lead to aggressive responses. I was also rather impressed by the number of foiled attacks and arrests in early planning. Connecting this to Russia, just this week 19 people were arrested by the FSB in Russia as suspected radical Islamists. I think it is important to note that the three completed attacks were carried out by lone suspects (although IS claimed responsibility for one), and in contrast the majority of foiled attacks had multiple suspects. As the document mentions, jihadists in Europe have very loose networks. The lack of formal structure it difficult not only to identify radicalized individuals that may pursue violence, but also to investigate and stop attacks.

I touched on this yesterday, but the phenomenon of foreign fighters is a major problem, especially in Syria. When foreign fighters return to their home country, it is very difficult to identify them or planned attack, because they can more easily blend into domestic society. I agree with you that AI facial recognition will be a major development, and it could help prevent domestic attacks by returned foreign fighters.

I thought it was very interesting that the EU Counter-Terrorism agenda included the need for international cooperation with those outside the EU across all four pillars (point 5). The EU is already a large group of countries, yet this acknowledges that all of their combined power still wouldn't be enough to stop terrorism. The document highlighted the Southern Neighborhood (Northern Africa) and the Western Balkans which are in close proximity. However, it also mentioned the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region, and parts of Asia all of which are not neighboring the EU. This shows that the threat of terror is a truly global problem and must have a global solution. One country affects others, no matter how far away.

Two parts caught my attention: regulation of terrorist content online and foreign terrorist fighters. Online radicalization is a global concern. I thought the proposal for a new Digital Services Act and requiring companies to be more responsive in preventing the dissemination of terrorist content on their platforms was very interesting. This debate over the responsibility of "big tech" has come to the forefront again with the recent January 6 storming of the Capitol. There has also been a significant number of Russian foreign fighters in the Middle East region, especially in Syria. The mention was brief but I am curious to know what the EU will propose to address the foreign fighter problem. It is a very complex issue and will need coordination.

Russia has also had a long history of racism and nationalism. In April, the US State Department declared the Russian Imperialist Movement, which is a white supremacist group, as a terrorist group. However, I do not believe that there has been as many fatal attacks as in the US, with discrimination of People of Color being the main expression of WSE. I have previously done a lot of research on domestic terrorism in the U.S. Beyond the sheer number of WSE, I also think that comparing the ratio of WSE to other forms of extremism is important. A statistic I clearly remember is that since 9/11, nearly three-quarters all fatal violent extremist attacks in the U.S. were carried out by far-right wing extremists and the other quarter of attacks were by Islamist extremists (I can look up the citation if anyone is interested). WSE is the greatest domestic threat to the US, and I would be interested to see what plan the Biden Administration has to address it.

This was a really grim but eye-opening read. I was struck by how the infiltration of one single white supremacist can have a cascading effect. A white supremacist in law enforcement can provide intelligence, volunteer its resources, abuse authority, passively tolerate racism, provide access to restricted areas, and benefit other white supremacist groups. One bad actor can make colossal damage. It is also interesting that this document is from 2006 and said that white supremacists have historically and will continue to attempt to infiltrate law enforcement. It made me wonder what actions have been taken in the last 14 years to try to combat this? Furthermore, I can't help but see some similarities between the recent storming of the Capitol and the Black Lives Matter movement that culminated over the summer.

@David Broughton It was by Russia in the last year! It is still being investigated but with time, it just seems to be getting worse. It began as early as March 2020 and wasn't detected until December. They used a trojaned software update for SolarWinds Orion. (Here's an interesting comparison to military combat I've heard: instead of trying to destroy a tank, it would be like putting faulty ball-bearings in each tank.) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/02/us/politics/russian-hacking-government.html

Page 19 caught my attention when describing the increased risk of attacks on critical infrastructure in cyberspace. It states "we will ensure redundancy of our systems, including systems in cyberspace, and develop measures for rapid recovery for systems if an attack should occur, facilitating their quick return to normal operations." While not a direct terrorist attack, the SolarWinds hack is believed to have affected the networks of over 250 federal agencies and private companies. The Treasury Department, the State Department, the Commerce Department, the Energy Department and parts of the Pentagon were just a few of the targets. The breach was detected by FireEye, a private company. Ultimately, this was an utter failure of our cyberdefense. The full extent of the cyber attack and the sensitive information that was found are still unknown. However, the recovery will be costly. It will likely takes months and billions of dollars to rebuild the networks securely. So as the NSCT says (but the US has so far failed to do) we need better infrastructure for rapid recovery.

Prevention of terrorism, especially state-sponsored, is very important and would be the most ideal outcome. However, like @Griffen Ballenger I question using military intervention. For example, the killing of Soleimani exponentially increased the tensions between the US and Iran with Iran promising revenge. This extrajudicial act likely violated international law. At what point does the US pass limit "police the world" while fighting against terrorism?

This sounds similar to Russia. The state uses its counterterrorism legislation against its political opposition. The state has also applied the term terrorist to independent media and religious organizations, even Jehovah's Witnesses who clearly denounce all violence. I don't know how it would happen, but something needs to be done to stop the criminalization of the freedoms of religion, expression, association, etc. under the counterterrorism umbrella.

Russia's terrorism policy is extremely feeble and rests upon the state's self-interest. Russia has been a major power broker in the Middle East, especially since Trump withdrew most of the US troops. The section on page 16 about "Counter Existing and Emerging Terrorist Funding Methods" stood out to me. Moscow wants to gain power and money, and it doesn't really matter to them how they get it. Russia has been supporting the Assad regime in Syria and is the second largest arms exporter after the US. Also, in the fight against ISIS, Russia has shared intelligence with the Taliban. Arguably, despite ISIS' global ambitions and brutality, the Taliban is a greater threat to Afghanistan. It is highly unlikely will undertake better counterterrorism policies because it would not serve their interests.

I thought the article was insightful to see Trump's policy preferences regarding terrorism. In regards to Russia, the Kremlin has long abused its expansive definition of terrorism for political persons, accusing those they believe to be enemies of the state as terrorists. I think Russia could learn from the US and adopt a more thorough and detailed plan to stop terrorism. Secondly, Russia has relatively few terrorist attacks but is involved around the world providing arms or backing various countries/groups in conflicts. Thus, I think for National Strategy on Counterterrorism to be effective, there needs to be actionable steps and policies put in place to hold other countries accountable in stopping terrorism.