ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

North Atlantic Treaty Organization London International Model United Nations 18th Session | 2017

tsTable of Content

1

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Table of Contents

Table of Contents WELCOME TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION ...... 3 INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE ...... 4 TOPIC A: FORMING A NATO STRATEGY IN CYBERSPACE ...... 5 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM ...... 6 Timeline of notable attacks ...... 7 1998 – 2001 “MOONLIGHT MAZE” ...... 7 2005 – 2011 TITAN RAIN & BYZANTINE HADES ...... 8 2007 Estonia DDoS Campaigns ...... 9 2008 Russia – Georgia War ...... 9 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... 10 December 2015 BlackEnergy3 Malware in Western Ukraine ...... 10 2016 US Election Hacking Campaigns ...... 11 The Attribution Problem...... 12 Is this Cyber War? ...... 12 Defining ‘Critical National Infrastructure’...... 13 Collective Security Assurances ...... 13 Regulating Attack Toolkits ...... 14 Building Readiness ...... 14 ‘BLOC POSITIONS’ ...... 16 QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION SHOULD ANSWER ...... 16 SOURCES ...... 17 TOPIC B: NATO’S EASTERN DIMENSION: ASSURING ALLIES AND DETERRING RUSSIA ...... 20 INTRODUCTION ...... 20 HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM ...... 21 Enlargement of NATO ...... 21 Agreements ...... 23 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... 24 Eastward expansion ...... 24 The Ukraine conflict ...... 25 Anti-ballistic missile defence ...... 26 Rapid response force ...... 27 CURRENT SITUATION ...... 28 2016 Warsaw summit ...... 28 Military exercises ...... 29 BLOC POSITIONS ...... 30 QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION SHOULD ANSWER ...... 31 SOURCES ...... 32 CONFERENCE INFORMATION ...... 34

2

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Welcome to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Dear Delegates,

After having completed a War Studies degree at King’s College London, I am currently pursuing a Masters in Management at the London School of Economics. During my MUN career, I have been active in the American, European, and world circuits, and held tenure as President & Founder of the KCL United Nations Association as well as Best Delegate Media Chair of the United Kingdom.

LIMUN always holds a special place for me. It is thus an honor to return for the fourth time with my partner-in-crime Gabriela Silova. We are excited to deliver the very best chairing to you all.

NATO will be a challenging yet rewarding committee for you all. With consensus voting and complex current topics, there will be no shortage of material for you to address head-on.

Good luck on your preparation and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to send us an e- mail!

Your Director, Yuji Develle – nato@limun.org.uk

Dear Delegates,

My name is Gabriela Silova, and after graduating from King’s College London with BSc in Political Economy, I joined a graduate scheme with an investment bank in London. Throughout my academic years, I had the pleasure to attend the highest quality conferences worldwide both as a delegate and a chair.

Having participated in NATO committees in the past myself, I am delighted to be your Assistant Director alongside Yuji, while we tackle two pressing topics.

Since LIMUN 2017 will also be my fourth time I return to the conference, I have no doubt about the quality of debate and negotiation from you delegates.

All the best with research!

Your Assistant Director, Gabriela Silova

3

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Introduction to the committee

Founded as a result of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the world’s largest (and arguably most powerful) military alliance comprising 28 members from both sides of the Atlantic in the North American and European continents.

A political & military alliance, system of collective defence, channel for trans- Atlantic security cooperation, and think tank for strategic doctrine, NATO pursues its core missions in four major ways. Decisions & Consultations at a variety of political and military levels made across all 28 states and decided upon in a consensual manner; Active Operations & Missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Africa (broadly), the Mediterranean, and the Horn of Africa under the premises of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and/or a UNSC mandate; Partnerships developed with other countries and organizations to the end of strengthening its depth and reach; Constant re-evaluation and re-developing of members states’ policies, capabilities, and structures so as to remain at the forefront of rapidly evolving new threats. (NATO.int)

In this simulation, you will be representing a member state of the North Atlantic Council, the ‘principal political decision-making body of NATO’ (NATO.int). Decisions are undertaken on a consensual basis. While the Council is usually chaired by the Secretary General, LIMUN will remove this position and have your Director and Assistant Director chair instead.

4

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Image source: Kaspersky Cybermap (cybermap.kaspersky.com)

Topic A: Forming a NATO Strategy in

Cyberspace1

Introduction

On 9 July 2016, NATO held the historic Warsaw Summit where Cyberspace was officially recognized as the “Fifth Domain of Warfare”. This long-awaited decision is sure to define the approach NATO has on an expansive list of countries and non-state actors throughout its threat landscape and calls for the formation of a swift, realistic and appropriate NATO strategy in/for cyberspace.

Over the past 25 years, the pace of technological change has overturned traditional understandings of military strategy and warfare. NATO is an organization that was built and designed to defend against nation-states and coalitions of nation-states in open combat not dissimilar from the Second World War and earlier examples of ‘Cold War’ foes such as Communist China or the Stalinist Soviet Union. Understandings of war have since evolved to become akin to grand strategy with strong game theory undertones. The concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” and of military stalemate between NATO and the Warsaw Pact cemented the idea that war had to be avoided

1 This topic guide is an adaptation and update to ‘Develle, Yuji. “Aggression, Sabotage and Espionage in Cyberspace: Drawing Red Lines”, Develle, Yuji & Mullens, George. OxIMUN 2016 DISEC Study Guide. August 2016’ p. 3-23 5

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

through the prevention of outcomes/change rather than the Clausewitzian (or Napoleonic) maximization of force on the battlefield.

Today, military paradigms have once more shifted towards information warfare and the development of resilience to asymmetric threats. In both scenarios, cyber-attacks have a major impact. Cyberspace has long been a blind-spot for NATO, as the organization has until now failed to even recognize its important role in enhancing existing instruments of war, in complementing military and propaganda initiatives not unlike a “combined arms” method, and in adding on to the tools available to NATO’s threat actors seeking to undermine its members and the effectiveness of the alliance as a whole. As Carl von Clausewitz the father of modern warfare, once declared: ‘War is a mere continuation of policy by other means; War… is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.’ (Von Clausewitz, On War) Within this definition (should your state choose to adopt it), cyberspace has been used as a theatre within which actors have used ‘violence’ to compel others to submit to their political will.

History of the Problem

Despite the relative ‘newness’ of cyber aggression, the past three decades have gathered quite an extensive record of diverse cyber-attacks. Throughout the past 25 years, one notices the increasing complexity and boldness of attacks, regardless of whether those are attributed to states, state-sponsored actors, or independent non-state actors. Cyber-attacks involve many different types of actors looking to use attacks in different ways to achieve different strategic ends. Many of the high-profile acts of cyber aggression have involved a combination of actors, making exclusive categorization close to impossible. Given the nature of the topic and the geographic focus of NATO, the following acts of cyber-aggression are disproportionally state-

6

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

influenced and/or have deep geopolitical ramifications. However, it is important to keep in mind that cyber-attacks disproportionally affect the private sector. (Information is Beautiful, 08/08 2016)

Timeline of notable attacks:  1998 – 2001 MOONLIGHT MAZE  2005 – 2011 TITAN RAIN & BYZANTINE HADES  2007 Estonia DDoS Campaigns  2008 Russia-Georgia War  2015 BlackEnergy3 Malware in Ukraine  2016 US Election Hacking Campaign

1998 – 2001 “MOONLIGHT MAZE”

Widely known as the first major state-attributed cyber attack in history (to Russia), operation MOONLIGHT MAZE led to compromising the US Military’s non-classified inner network (NIPRNET). In March 1998, the DoD detected a penetration of the ‘Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network’ (NIPRNET).

The attackers broke into computer networks affecting various non-classified areas of US government, including ‘NASA, DoE, the DoD, etc. The FBI led an investigation with the NIPC, while the newly created JTF-CND (Joint Task Force for Computer Network Defense) was to coordinate a response’. (Healey, 2013) While previous attacks were often attributed to non-state actors, MOONLIGHT MAZE marks the beginning of the state-led APT threats scares. According to Technopedia, ‘[a]n advanced persistent threat (APT) refers to a cyber attack launched by an attacker with substantial means, organization and motivation to carry out a sustained assault against a target.’ (APT, Technopedia) As an APT, MOONLIGHT MAZE is still shrouded in mystery because cyber-attacks grant a much greater ability for states to conceal their actions (they can pursue attacks via proxy actors, proxy servers,

7

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

rerouting their connections around the world, using attack patterns, or signatures associated with other adversaries, etc.).

2005 – 2011 TITAN RAIN & BYZANTINE HADES

The first publicly declared attacks were codenamed TITAN RAIN. (Nakashima, 2010) Over three or four years, hackers with links to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) compromised hundreds of systems in US industry and government. They hacked an impressive portfolio of networks including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems. In 2010, Google reported that it was victim of a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China… theft of intellectual property.” The attackers took advantage of Internet Explorer vulnerability affecting hundreds of the largest technology companies. This culminated in the 2011 attacks on RSA security, a computer and network security company. The RSA breaches were used as a stepping stone for breaches on networks associated with the development of the F-35 Fighter Jet. There have eventually been suggestions that the fuselage of China’s second stealth fighter jet, the J-31, resembles that of the F-22 and F-35. This entire episode of hacking campaigns affecting over 750 targets was codenamed by US counterintelligence officials as BYZANTINE HADES. (Healey, 2010)

Whether this was an act of espionage (because of the theft of key US documents and technology), deliberate aggression (an intentional attack aimed at degrading key American industries and infrastructure), or sabotage (a deliberate action aimed at weakening the influence of Google and other industries in China), is still undetermined. This string of attacks reveals a dire need for NATO (along with other partners) to draw cyber red lines in labelling attacks properly and finding a response to these acts of aggression.

8

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

2007 Estonia DDoS Campaigns

For several days, waves of DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks from Russia hacked and defaced Estonia’s banks, agencies and governmental websites. ‘Commerce slowed almost to a standstill for several hours as financial institutions found their servers overwhelmed by requests generated by the botnets behind the attacks. Five years later, the origin and motivation behind the cyber attacks is yet unclear.’ (Richards, International Affairs Review) These attacks coincided with a series of Pro-Estonian/Anti-Russian protests associated with the relocation of a prized Estonian artefact to the Estonian Military Cemetery. (Richards, International Affairs Review) While the source of the attack is unknown, whether it may be the Russian government or Russian patriotic hackers, Sergei Markov of the Russian State Duma shed light on the issue when he blamed the Nashi Youth Group for the attack. (Miller, 2009) The attack had a minimal effect on the Estonian economy, but it did reveal the potential for cyber attacks to completely cut a government off from the rest of its infrastructure for a time. “Striking an enemy’s ability to communicate with the outside world is a very valuable use of a weapon at the early stages of war,” Jose Nazario, a security researcher at Arbor Networks, told SC Magazine. These attacks led to the NATO CCD-COE creating a seminal outline on cyber-warfare, the Tallinn Manual (for link, see bibliography).

2008 Russia – Georgia War

While ‘the cyber attacks against Estonia in 2007 demonstrated the degree to which nations might persuade patriotic hackers and cyber professionals to exert pressure on a hostile nation’ and set the groundwork for a framework for cyber-war in the future (the Tallinn Manual), the Russian cyber campaign occurring at the same time as the military campaign against Georgia in 2008 confirmed many existent thoughts within military circles. (Healey, 2013) Cyberspace was to be an essential component of C4I (Communications, Control, Command, Computer and Intelligence)

9

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

infrastructure for kinetic operations. At the time when Georgia moved its troops into South Ossetia, capturing the regional capital and surrounding villages, the Russian cyber campaign had already been going for over a week before the broken ceasefire terms triggered a Russian invasion of Georgia. Russian hackers focused on ‘denial and degradation of Georgian communications systems’ as well as targeting many public-facing Georgian websites. (Healey, 2013: 197) Was the Georgian War a cyber war? Or was it simply a war, with cyber-support. Or, alternatively, was it a war, and was the cyber campaign a string of attacks disassociated from the war entirely? These are questions NATO grapples with when examining cyber- aggression.

Statement of the Problem

Two attacks in particular dominate the conversation and will have a great effect on the policies adopted at LIMUN.

December 2015 BlackEnergy3 Malware in Western Ukraine

The Ukrainian Power Grid attack of December 2015 was a major wake up call for concerning the potential destructiveness and strategic threat of cyber- attacks. Over 230,000 residents in the Ivano-Frankivsk region of Western Ukraine lost power just before Christmas. F-Secure Labs identified Quedagh (a Russia-based gang known to target political organisations) as the main user of the BlackEnergy malware toolkit, which was modified from a DDoS botnet kit to conduct this latest APT. After entering a SCADA (Supervisory control and data acquisition) via a phishing email, the hackers took 30 electricity substations offline, damaged 2 power distribution platforms, and removed 2 or 3 backup power supplies to ensure maximum duration of damage. To cover up tracks, Drives were wiped permanently with KillDisk, passwords were changed to prevent operators from accessing control functions. Following a

10

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

manual restoration of power, the power came back after 3 to 6 hours. (ICS-CERT, 2015)

BlackEnergy was used in patterns attributable to Russia in the past, such as when Russia conducted a swathe of attacks on Georgia during the 2008 Georgian War. Typical of Russian underground operations, the greater degree of plausible deniability proposed by the usage of the BlackEnergy 3 kit (because it’s used by so many criminals) allows for bolder attacks. Toolkits and botnets are the weaponry of cyber-conflict; their increasing availability and ease of use make attacks all the simpler to execute.

2016 US Election Hacking Campaigns

A well-timed data leak is all it takes to completely change the course of a political campaign, and thus the course of a country’s policy-making. Whether or not of your state’s opinion on the outcome of the US election, data leaks and a host of other attacks have significantly impacted the course of events and the media narrative surrounding the US election campaign. This campaign of hacks included the DNC, the Clinton Campaign and the White House. In June, an attack widely attributed to Pro-Russian hacker groups “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear”, stole opposition research by the Democrats on Donald Trump (Galperina, 2016). A month later, in time for the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had the contents of its 22,000 emails leaked to the world via WikiLeaks. It is highly likely that this earlier compromise enabled the same hackers (under the alias Guccifer 2.0) to access the DNC email database (and a week later, the Clinton Campaign database). There is a growing consensus amongst the cybersecurity and intelligence community that Russia is behind the hacks (or at least condoning them).

The attacks set a new precedent in how bold Russian actors have become in intervening in the politics of other states, this time striking across the Atlantic. It is no wonder however, as this specific electoral campaign is set to deeply affect Russia’s 11

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

economic sanctions and its future influence in the region. The United States has had a long history of intervening in the electoral process of Eastern European states. No real condemnation of the chief Russian suspects was made in Washington nor Moscow. The USA enforced White House Directive #41 which created a scheme that color-coded various degrees of cyber-attack severity and organized the executive strategy for cyber-attack response. (Koebler, 2016)

The Attribution Problem

To enforce potential solutions to NATO’s cyber vulnerabilities, a number of concepts must be grasped, defined and agreed upon by member states. As you may have noticed in the previous examples, it is incredibly difficult to catch the perpetrator of cyber attacks. The technical process of properly finding the culprit takes weeks if not months. By then, the reputational damage of the attacks is tremendous. Politically speaking, it is necessary for governments to be able to attribute responsibility to countries, governments, or organizations. This is done via initial forensic findings and geopolitical estimations. NATO is well-positioned to facilitate such a process, and to provide advice on crisis-response techniques. Yet this depends on another concept.

Is this Cyber War?

What is war? If we use Carl von Clausewitz’ definition, then a war must comprehend several key identifiers: violence, a clear political objective, two or more clearly identified “combatants” and a clear link between the subject, object, and means of the employed violence. This raises a number of difficult questions (that your respective countries have sometimes answered with definitions, please follow this website.) The following questions will be useful in determining your country’s stance and in preparing your response to issues surrounding the definition of Cyber War (rather than directly being in a resolution in this form).

12

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

● What is violence? Does violence always involve death or destruction of property? If so, is information property? How much violence is needed to move into “act of war” territory? ● How do we identify political objectives? As many contemporary wars are undertaken without a specific declaration of war, how do we know when we are in a situation of cyber-peace or cyber-war? Are we constantly in a state of war or peace? ● If the objective is to steal information, does this make it any less damaging than the objective to weaken or destroy infrastructure? ● With the use of various geographic and instrumental intermediaries, what criteria is needed to attribute attacks to governments and states? Are the intermediaries to blame? Should states be compelled to crack-down on malicious third-parties?

Defining ‘Critical National Infrastructure’

One particularly promising avenue for action is linking the idea of enhancing CNI resilience. The NATO CCDCOE definition for ‘National Critical Infrastructure’ is “operators of essential services”:

‘as a public or private entity in the following sectors: …. Energy, including subsectors… Transport, including subsectors… Banking, including credit institutions… Financial market infrastructures… Health sector, including hospitals and private clinics…. Drinking water supply and distribution, including suppliers and distributors of water intended for human consumption… Digital Infrastructure, including Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), Domain Name System service providers (DNS), and Top Level Domain (TLD) name registries’ –2016 EP NIS Directive

As implied, NATO has successfully persuaded the European Parliament to adopt the same definition for CNI. This particular alignment, compounded by the NATO-EU ‘Technical Arrangement on Cyber Defence Cooperation’ signed in February 2016, marked a strong desire by the EU to work with NATO in cyber-defence.

Collective Security Assurances

NATO could apply deterrence theory in cyberspace, enabling the creation of “cyber framework nations”, or case-countries which would serve as examples to the rest of alliance of cyber-defence

13

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

best practice. (The Atlantic Council on Extended Deterrence) Operational partnerships with the private sector (PPPs) and other international organizations (the EU, UN, or even other states like Russia) would be in order.

Regulating Attack Toolkits

Malware or virus toolkits and botnet operators have often acted as intermediaries for malicious attacks in cyberspace. A possible way to disarm cyber-criminals and states in this space would be to work towards regulating (or cracking down on) these intermediaries.

Often found on the Darknet, these middlemen are difficult to track but easy to find. Despite strong encryption like that of the most popular rerouter “The Onion Router” (Tor), intelligence and law enforcement have caught such actors with “honeypots” (they lured criminals into revealing their identities).

One example of toolkit regulation is the regulation of dual-use technologies, tech that could be used for good or for evil. ‘Embarrassed by evidence suggesting surveillance technologies FinFisher GmbH and Hacking Team have been used by repressive regimes to target activists and journalists’, the EU ‘is expected to propose tighter regulations on the export of dual-use goods.’ (Townsend, 2016)

Building Readiness

As expressed in official NATO documentation, ‘the top priority is the protection of the communications systems owned and operated by the Alliance’. Just like any networked system, communications are what prevent different elements of the NATO defense structure connected. Furthermore, as in any domain of war, the alliance is as weak as its weakest link. However, cyberspace is particularly this way as teams of hackers have the ability to constantly test and attack NATO’s defenses from every direction, and only need one vulnerability to be granted entry into a network. Once inside, it is much more difficult to mitigate damage.

14

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

NATO has a number of existing structures that serve to ameliorate readiness. The NATO CCDCoE is a center of excellence dedicated to elaborating the findings of the International Group of Experts, which was the first group of its kind to attempt at defining the parameters of what a “cyberwar” would look like in the Tallinn Manual. The NATO Computer Incident Response Capability (NCIRC) protects the alliance’s own networks by providing around the clock support to each defense site.

The following links provide additional information on the actual capabilities and strategies undertaken or potentially undertaken by NATO (so please take a look!):  NATO’s capabilities: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49137.htm?selectedLocale=en#  Protecting NATO’s nervous system: http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2016/Also-in-2016/nato-cyber-resilience- security/EN/index.htm  Jens Stoltenberg on the creation of a NATO ‘Cyber Coalition’: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/omr/roadtowarsaw/2016/07/08/nat o-and-cyber-time-raise-our-game/86859198/  NATO Cyber Defense Fact Sheet Oct.2016: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_10/20161011_161 0-factsheet-cyber-defence-eng.pdf.pdf  Rex B. Hughes on NATO Cyber Defense, “Mission Accomplished?” http://www.csl.army.mil/SLET/mccd/CyberSpacePubs/NATO%20and%20Cyb er%20Defence%20-%20Mission%20Accomplished.pdf  NATO works to define rules for Cyber Warfare: http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/13051/cyber-warfare-2/nato-works-to- define-rules-for-cyber-warfare.html

15

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

‘Bloc Positions’

The reason for which inverted commas were used is that every member state in NATO is interested in improving the alliance’s general cyber resilience and develop a cyber strategy. However, countries of the alliance have widely divergent levels of preparedness and have very different views on the use of cyberspace as a domain of warfare.

It is therefore encouraged that you research the following aspects of your member state to find out what their position is:  How likely they are to being targeted by a nation-state APT and/or non- state malicious actor in strategically critical and/or CNI.  How ‘ready’ and/or ‘prepared’ their country is to face cyber-threats, be it in the private sector as well as of course the military.  How much intelligence activity the state is likely to conduct via cyber means?  How active the state is in the domain?

Questions a Resolution Should Answer

The conference will focus on two broad brush-strokes: 1) NATO’s red lines concerning definitions for cyber-war, cyber-attack, Article 5 triggers, as well as rules and norms of military behavior in the Fifth Domain. 2) Decisions targeted at specifically enhancing and improving NATO’s cyber-security readiness, resilience and preparedness.

Therefore:  What would trigger an Article 5 action in Cyber Space?  What is the role of NATO in this space, and what is the degree of burden-sharing amongst states?  Is there a need to update the notion of CNI? What measures can enhance CNI resilience?  What kind of political and strategic arrangements can NATO adopt to make cyberspace safer for all actors (including external actors)? 16

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

 What measures are to be implemented to ensure NATO’s cyber-attack readiness and response?  How can NATO make the Tallinn Manual recommendations a reality?  What is NATO to do in anonymous areas of the internet such as the DarkNet?  Can NATO create an atmosphere of deterrence in Cyberspace? If so, how?  What set of criteria or schematics can NATO implement to measure the gravity of different cyber incidents?  How can NATO make sure member states become prepared for cyber- aggression?

Sources (in order)

NATO – Welcome. Date accessed: 21 November 2016. http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

Von Clausewitz, On War (Web: Clausewitz.com, consulted 5 August 2016) http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/BK1ch01.html

Information is Beautiful. ‘World’s Biggest Data Breaches” (Last updated 8 August 2016) http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/

Healey, Jason. A Fierce Domain: Conflict in Cyberspace, 1986 to 2012 (Print: Washington D.C., 2013)

Advanced Persistent Threat APT’ (Web: Technopedia) https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28118/advanced-persistent-threat-apt

Nakashima, Ellen. “U.S plans to issue official protest to China over attack on Google” Washington Post: 16 January 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011503917.html

Miller, Chuck. “Russia Confirms involvement with Estonia DDoS attacks” (Web: SC Magazine, March 2009) http://www.scmagazine.com/russia-confirms-involvement-with-estonia-ddos-attacks/article/128737/

Richards, Jason. “Denail of Service: The Estonian Cyberwar and Its Implications for U.S. National Security” (Web: International Affairs Review) http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/65

Leyden, John. “Techie on the ground disputes BlackEnergy Ukraine power outage story” The Register: 27 January 2016. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/27/ukraine_blackenergy_analysis/?page=2

Peters, Sarah. “Questions remain on how cyberattack caused Ukraine blackout” Web: Dark Reading, 1 May 2016 http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/questions-remain-on-how-cyberattack-caused-ukraine- blackout-/d/d-id/1323749

F-Secure Labs, ‘Blackenergy & Quedagh: The Convergence of Crimeware and APT attacks’ (Malware Analysis Whitepaper, 2015)

Zetter, Kim. “Inside the cunning unprecedented hack of Ukraine’s power grid” Web: WIRED Magazine, 3 March 2016 https://www.wired.com/2016/03/inside-cunning-unprecedented-hack-ukraines-power-grid/

ICS CERT. “IR ALERT H-16-056-01” https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/alerts/IR-ALERT-H-16-056-01

Galperina, Marina. “Russian Government Hackers Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear” Web: Gawker, 14 June 2016 17

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

http://gawker.com/russian-government-hackers-cozy-bear-and-fancy-bear-1781960847

Rid, Thomas. “All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack” Web: VICE/Motherboard, 25 July 2016 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

Koebler, Jason. “Obama Created a Color-Coded Cyber Threat ‘Schema’ After the DNC Hack” Web: VICE/Motherboard, 26 July 2016 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/obama-created-a-color-coded-cyber- threat-schema-after-the-dnc-hack

Rid, Thomas. “Cyber War Will Not Take Place” King’s College London, UK: Journal of Strategic Studies, 5 October 2011

Stone, John. “Cyber War Will Take Place” King’s College London, UK: Journal of Strategic Studies, 29 November 2012

Masters, Jonathan (Deputy Editor). “Confronting the Cyber Threat” (Web: Council on Foreign Relations, May 23 2011) http://www.cfr.org/technology-and-foreign-policy/confronting-cyber- threat/p15577http://www.cfr.org/technology-and-foreign-policy/confronting-cyber-threat/p15577

Sauter, Molly. “When Is a Hack an Act of War?” (Web: VICE/Motherboard, July 28 2016) http://motherboard.vice.com/read/policy-directive-41-cyber- incidentshttp://motherboard.vice.com/read/policy-directive-41-cyber-incidents

Ranger, Steve. “Inside the secret digital arms race: Facing the threat of a global cyberwar” (Web: Tech Republic/Cover Story) http://www.techrepublic.com/article/inside-the-secret-digital-arms- race/http://www.techrepublic.com/article/inside-the-secret-digital-arms-race/

Ranger, Steve. “Cyberwar: The Smart Person’s guide” (Web: Tech Republic/Security, 19 May 2016) http://www.techrepublic.com/article/cyberwar-the-smart-persons- guide/http://www.techrepublic.com/article/cyberwar-the-smart-persons-guide/

Moteff, John & Parfomak, Paul. “Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets: Definition and Identification” (CRS Web: Congressional Research Service, 1 October 2004) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32631.pdf

NATO CCDCOE, “EU Adopts Network and Information Security Directive that sets Security Rules on National Critical Infrastructure” (Web: CCDCOE INCYDER Database, 29 July 2016) https://ccdcoe.org/eu- adopts-network-and-information-security-directive-sets-security-rules-national-critical.html

Kramer, Franklin D. et al. “Cyber, Extended Deterrence and NATO” Washington D.C: Atlantic Council Brent Snowcroft Center on International Security, May 2016 http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/cyber-extended-deterrence-and-nato

NATO – Capabilities. Last updated: 2 September 2016 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49137.htm?selectedLocale=en#

El Fertasi, Nadja & De Vivo, Diana (Original Sources) “Resilient for how long? Information Technology Warfare in the 21st century: The Alliance’s invisible threat” NATO Defence College: Vox Collegi, vol 13. July 2016. P. 8-16 http://www.youblisher.com/p/1479189-Vox-Collegii-Vol-XIII/

Stoltenberg, Jens. “NATO and Cyber: Time to raise our game” Web: Defense News, 8 July 2016 http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/omr/roadtowarsaw/2016/07/08/nato-and-cyber-time-raise- our-game/86859198/

October 2016 NATO Cyber Defense Fact Sheet: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_10/20161011_1610-factsheet-cyber- defence-eng.pdf

18

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Hughes, Rex B. “Mission Accomplished?” Web: US Army, April 2009, no. 1/4 http://www.csl.army.mil/SLET/mccd/CyberSpacePubs/NATO%20and%20Cyber%20Defence%20- %20Mission%20Accomplished.pdf

Paganini, Pierluigi. “NATO works to define rules for cyber warfare” Web: Security Affairs, 21 March 2013 http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/13051/cyber-warfare-2/nato-works-to-define-rules-for-cyber-warfare.html

Libicki, Martin C. “Checklist for a U.S.-Russia Cyberwar” Web: RAND Commentary, 31 October 2016 https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/10/checklist-for-a-us-russia- cyberwar.html?adbsc=social_20161102_1085191&adbid=UPDATE-c165654- 6199629747228602368&adbpl=li&adbpr=165654

19

ZZ LONDONLONDON INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL MODEL MODEL UNITED UNITED NATIONS NATIONS 2017 2017

Photo Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Topic B: NATO’s eastern dimension: assuring allies and deterring Russia

Introduction

Warsaw gave its name to the Warsaw Pact in 1955, and hosted the latest NATO Summit in 2016, which brought a number of action points looking eastwards. The tensions between NATO member states and Russia have been soaring since the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s involvement in the fighting in eastern Ukraine. For a number of current NATO member states, the vision of more assertive Russia brings not so distant memories of occupation and aggression during the USSR-era. Being on the front-line again, Baltic and eastern European states are seeking confirmation of support from NATO.

20

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

The topic of NATO’s eastern dimension has number of factors that the alliance has to keep in mind. The continuous talks surrounding enlargement put into spotlight Georgia and Ukraine, which currently do not have Membership Action Plans, but have been key in locking in the interests of the alliance in the most eastward region. The anti-ballistic missile program is underway in Romania and Poland, and the opposition from Russia in the form of counter-measures in Kaliningrad leads to questions on how the alliance will react. In addition, the Wales Summit and now the Warsaw Summit confirmed the deployment of four battalions in north-east Europe. The action plan is supposed to be completed in 2017, and seeing the opposition from Kremlin, the alliance will have to prepare for dealing with potential counter-measures by Russia. Member-states have decided upon a number of measures to reassure its eastern members and allies, but the list is not definite. Delegates will have the challenging task of drafting plans to execute the current plans, prepare for contingency plans in case of non-diplomatic counter-responses from Russia and come up with further action points that will instil the feeling of trust in NATO in Eastern Europe.

History of the Problem

Enlargement of NATO

The Article 10 of North Atlantic Treaty governs the process of joining NATO, and allows for ‘any other European States’ to be invited to join the organization. From the twelve founding members in 1949, NATO slowly expanded to the current 28 members in the following manner:

 1952: Greece and Turkey  1955: West Germany  1982: Spain

21

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

 1990: East Germany becomes part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the organization  1999: Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic  2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia  2009: Albania and Croatia

The accession of reunified Germany into NATO has been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty (Deutschland.de, 2015), where the topic of further expansion eastwards was raised during negotiations. The accession of former Warsaw Pact countries was unthinkable at that time (Kramer, 2009) as Russian officials claimed it would be against the ‘pledge’ made by the United States. The signal sent to Moscow, according to Jack F. Matlock (the U.S. ambassador to USSR in 1990), clearly stated that if united Germany remains a member of the alliance, NATO borders will not move eastwards (Kramer, 2009). However, all of the expansions since the Clinton-administration approved expansion in 1999 have been eastwards and the continuous incorporation of formerly Eastern Bloc countries into NATO has been the cause of ongoing tensions with Russia. Notably, the admission of the three Baltic States in 2004 led to soaring relations as they were the first countries to join, which used to be part of the Soviet Union. Russian politicians commonly described those states as “near abroad”, which implied that ‘ex-Soviet states should not act against Russia’s strategic interests’ (Peter, 2014).

22

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Agreements

 CFE Treaty: The Western and former Warsaw Pact countries signed the CFE treaty2 in 1990, which was supposed to limit the numbers of ‘key military equipment in designated regions’ for both NATO and USSR, and additionally eliminate the advantage of USSR in conventional weapons in the region (Kimball, 2012). The treaty’s importance for contemporary security lies within the transparency on military holdings. Following the break-up of the Warsaw Pact, an update to the treaty was proposed in 1999 in order to incorporate the new-coming NATO members. However, NATO member states refused to ratify the adapted CFE treaty until Russia fully complies with the requirements outlined in the CFE Final Act3. However, Russia suspended its implementation of the treaty in 2007 due to delays in implementation of the adapted treaty, hence withdrawing from the crucial inspections and arm build-up limits (Kimball, 2012). In response, after a series of failed negotiations, the US declared it will not accept inspections of its military bases by Russia, and will not supply military data under CFE.

 NATO-Russia Founding Act: The Russian interpretation of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act4 forbids the alliance to set up permanent bases in Central and Eastern Europe. However, academics have been arguing that the interpretation is a misconception due to the phrasing of the clauses (Coffey and Kochis, 2016). The commitment of Moscow to Euro-Atlantic security changed, hence the

2 The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe if available for a full read here: http://www.osce.org/library/14087 3 The Final Act of the Conference of the State Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe is availale for a full read here: http://www.osce.org/library/14114 4 The Founding Act is available for a full read here: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_25468.htm 23

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

mentioned ‘current and foreseeable security environment’ from 1999 should not apply nowadays. Delegates should bear in mind this treaty especially when discussing the deployment of Rapid response forces (addressed later on in the study guide).

 Article 5: The Article 5 is the most important Article of the Washington Treaty for the collective defence principle of NATO. The Article states that ‘an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all’, which will lead to the alliance exercising their right of self-defence recognized by the Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (NATO, 2016). The article has been invoked only once after the 9/11 attacks to show solidarity and assist the United States. On other occasions, including the illegal military intervention in Ukraine by Russia, NATO has enhanced collective defence measures guided by the Article. The military exercises and deployment of military ships and planes is to test the readiness of NATO troops in the case that Article 5 has to be invoked (NATO, 2016) in order to defend the member of the alliance.

Statement of the Problem

Eastward expansion

In 2011, NATO identified there were four aspirant members. Three of them adopted Membership Action Plan: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro; while Georgia, is part of the Intensified Dialogue program. Even though Georgia has been seeking closer ties with NATO since Rose Revolution in 2003, Russia strongly opposes closer ties. Russian forces remain present in the Georgian territory following the 2008 conflict in South Ossetia, and ex-President Dmitry Medvedev publicly stated that their deployment 24

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

prevented the enlargement of NATO into the former USSR territory (Dyomkin, 2011). Due to the loss of control of two provinces, Georgia expressed its will to join the alliance in a non-binding referendum. Prior to Georgia, Ukraine already established ties with the alliance in 2002, and in 2005, it became the first CIS country to join the Partnership for Peace initiative and Intensified Dialogue program (NATO, 2016). After the 2008 Bucharest summit, NATO Secretary General stated, after clear opposition from Russia, that Ukraine would someday become a member, but will start its Membership Action Plan. The turn-around in policy came with President Yanukovych, who aimed to keep Ukraine non-aligned and develop a strategic partnership with Russia at the same time (Kyiv Post, 2010). The administration passed a bill that scrapped the goal of ‘integration into Euro- Atlantic security and NATO membership’ from the security strategy of the country (Pop, 2010). Despite the change in policy, Ukraine continued to cooperate with NATO for example through participating at Summits and joining the military exercises. Following Euromaidan street protests, the Yatsenyuk government initially wanted to maintain the non-aligned status of Ukraine towards NATO. However, following the initial concerns of Russian military operating within Ukrainian borders and the consequent annexation of Crimean Peninsula, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk resumed Ukraine’s bid for closer NATO integration (BBC, 2016) and made joining NATO a priority by repealing the previous bill.

The Ukraine conflict

Conflict in Ukraine pushed the relations of the alliance with Russia into deep freeze. NATO’s underlying principle of ‘collective defence’ under Article 5 was however not directly applicable in this situation as Ukraine is not a member. NATO condemned the annexation of Crimea as illegal and illegitimate, together with the atrocities caused in eastern Ukraine. Along with members of the alliance, NATO officially condemned Russia’s decision to 25

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

send a truck convoy into Luhansk, describing it as ‘a blatant breach of Russia’s international commitments’ (LoGiurato, 2014). In April 2014, the alliance suspended ‘all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia’ over the Ukrainian crisis (RT, 2014). In order to address the issue, NATO-Ukraine Commission was created and used for issuance of a statement following the 2014 Wales Summit5. NATO has consistently underlined the responsibilities of all signatories to the Minsk Agreements, mainly the necessity to stop ‘deliberate destabilisation of eastern Ukraine through political, military and financial support for militants’ (NATO, 2016). The statement is based in the support for Ukraine as NATO has alleged Russia is arming the forces in destabilized regions. The first NATO-Russian council meeting since the dispute confirmed differing views, as Russia keeps describing the conflict in Ukraine as ‘internal Ukrainian dispute’ without the involvement of Russian soldiers on duty (Sharkov, 2016). NATO currently gives priority to a reform in the security and defence sector, and the capacity building in Ukraine (NATO, 2016). The Ukrainian government itself requested assistance from the alliance in 2014, in order to bolster its military and National Guard (Deutsche, 2014). The Wales Summit communiqué pledged new programs to Ukraine, including Trust Funds, which will allow member states to directly provide financial support (NATO, 2016). The Warsaw Summit added to the cooperation through endorsement to Comprehensive Assistance Package; however, its execution is yet to be seen.

Anti-ballistic missile defence

The anti-ballistic missile defence system led by the United States lies in the heart of this topic. The plan is to build a missile shield from Greenland to the Azores by 2018. Russia wanted to be an equal partner in developing the anti-ballistic missile defence system, however that option was scrapped – and

5 Summary of the statement and key areas of NATO-Ukraine cooperation can be accessed here: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm? 26

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

NATO is independently pursuing the deployment of interceptors and radars in Poland and Romania. The ballistic missile shield in Romania was switched on in 2016, and works began on a shield in northern Poland (Walker, 2016). Consequently, Russia argues that the main goal of shields is to weaken its nuclear and military programs. NATO argues that the missile interceptor is to be only purely defensive, in case of an attack by a rogue state, posing no direct threat to Russia (Peter, 2014). US State Department pointed out that NATO’s shield program is only supporting the aim of NATO, which is to be ‘defensive alliance’ (RT, 2016). With the development of ballistic missiles in Iran and North Korea, the US aims to protect the Eastern front allies with the shield. On the other hand, a number of NATO member states (mainly the Baltic) are concerned about the security threat from Russia with the use of ‘hybrid warfare’, following the annexation of Crimea. The alliance officials however remain vague on whether the shield’s system can be reconfigured to defend member states against Russia instead of Middle East in case of a conflict. As a countermeasure, Russia deployed Iskander missiles, anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles tactically in Kaliningrad to ‘secure the necessary level of security’ (Walker, 2016) ‘amid NATO’s expansion toward its borders’ (RT, 2016). The presence of Kaliningrad’s shield could limit NATO’s ability to move around due to its extensive reach, as the area is right between Poland and Lithuania.

Rapid response force

At the 2014 Wales summit, NATO announced the deployment of rapid response force in Eastern Europe, which can be mobilized within 48 hours and is composed of member states’ troops on a rotational basis. The decision came as a result of member states voicing concerns over Russia’s regional manoeuvres, especially in Ukraine (BBC, 2014). The ‘hybrid warfare’ pursued by Russia in Ukraine sparked up concerns in Baltic countries, where 27

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

governments fear Russia will try to undermine their rule. The potential unrest of Russian-speaking minorities in these countries can lead to violence, and a similar scenario like Ukraine. The Readiness Action Plan has two pillars (NATO, 2015):  Assurance measures – increasing presence of rotational continuous NATO forces (air, land, maritime presence) within the territory of eastern member states  Adaptation measures – changes to NATO’s current military capabilities and posture The Action Plan is to make NATO ‘fitter, faster and more flexible to adjust to all kinds of security challenges’ (Rasmussen, 2014) in Eastern Europe. The Plan has been welcomed by the member states, as it provides the necessary reassurance and demonstration of commitment. The main issue behind not-deploying the force is that these Baltic States are incapable of defending themselves against any rapidly-mobilised attack, leaving them vulnerable.

Current Situation

2016 Warsaw summit

Already mentioned, an action point from the final communiqué was to strengthen relations with Georgia, potentially deter Russia and provide the necessary security guarantees to Georgia, following the democratic elections. The NATO-Georgia Exercise 2016 marked the second exercise in partnership with Georgian Armed Forces (NATO, 2016), which was agreed at the Warsaw Summit. However, the extension of membership offer to Georgia presents a number of caveats. The military risks stemming from the integration lie in the problematic of ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus and Georgia’s inability to exercise full jurisdiction over its territory (Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where Russia still has permanent military staff). 28

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

In accordance with previous agreements, the Warsaw summit announced a number of steps to bolster deterrence and reassure its member states in Eastern Europe as part of the Readiness Action Plan. The alliance committed itself to stationing four multinational battalions (called Very High Readiness Joint Task Force) of 1,000 troops each in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (Economist, 2016) for the ‘Adaptation measures’ program. The alliance will further increase air and sea patrols in north-eastern Europe. The purpose of battalions is not to act against Russian forces alone in the case of an attack, but to act as initial triggers for a full military response by the rest of NATO member’s forces. The move by NATO is to reiterate the principle, that an attack on one member constitutes an attack on the alliance. Despite the deployment of battalions and military exercises, NATO Secretary General stated, that they continue to seek ‘a constructive dialogue with Russia’ (ABC News, 2016). The focus of the alliance has shifted from out-of-Europe operations, back to ensuring that its members are well- positioned in the program of collective defence.

Military exercises

Military exercises are a crucial part of the way NATO tests its abilities, tactics and systems, which is especially important due to the trans-national nature of NATO forces. In crisis situations, NATO forces have to be ready to react cohesively in the case of an attack, and military exercises allow the forces to decide upon best practices6. In 1994, the alliance decided that Euro-Atlantic area countries that are part of the Partnership for Peace can take part in the military exercise, which strengthened the military cooperation between NATO and non-members (NATO, 2016). A change to the system of trainings came in 2002, when the exercises began focusing on the NATO Response Force (NRF). Most recently the number of exercises has gone up due to the changing

6 More in detail about the aim and way of NATO military exercises can be accessed here: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49285.htm?selectedLocale=en 29

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

security environment and their nature began incorporating scenarios of collective defence (NATO, 2016). Eastern Europe has been a witness to the largest war game ‘Anaconda 2016’ since the end of Cold War, in order to show the strength of the alliance to the more assertive Russia. During the 10 days, more than 31,000 troops and thousands of military vehicles from 24 countries took part in a military exercise in Poland, preparing the forces for a ‘nightmare scenario’ of military, chemical and cyber threats (Smith, 2016). Poland perceived the exercise on its land as an act of reassurance from the alliance. Recently in November, the ‘Iron Sword 2016’ exercise was the largest in Lithuania up to date (RT, 2016). The nearly perpetual military exercises in Eastern Europe and Baltics send a clear deterrence message to Moscow; however the alliance should be prepared for a potential countermeasure.

Bloc positions

NATO members in the past were torn between the eastward expansion of the alliance, as shown by the statement of former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, saying that the admission of Georgia and Ukraine will not bring balance of power between Europe and Russia (Taylor, 2014). NATO’s lead allies still see the eastern European security frictions to be best addressed through diplomatic means. On the other hand, Baltic and Eastern member countries will welcome deterrence measures as they were great supporters of the Readiness Action Plan; however will aim to push the measures further. Delegates should come prepared knowing their country’s position on the topics mentioned in this study guide, including those highlighted ones:

 Policy on ballistic-missile defence shields – will the country support an establishment of one within its borders, has it been vocal in supporting their construction?

30

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

 Policy on NATO’s membership enlargement  Support provided to Ukraine as a response to the annexation of Crimea  Stance towards Russia’s manoeuvres in Kaliningrad and along the borders  Contribution and stance towards the deployment of rapid response forces  Overall military and logistics personnel contribution to NATO’s military exercises  If an Eastern Europe nation, what are your country’s concerns regarding Russia’s regional policy?

Questions a Resolution Should Answer

 Should the ballistic-missile defence shield protect NATO member states only from the threats by Middle Eastern states, or should there be a contingency plan in case of an attack from Russia?  What should be the next steps of NATO regarding Georgia’s membership – partnership or membership offer?  How can NATO strengthen its support and successfully execute Comprehensive Assistance Packages to Ukraine to enhance its ability to provide for its own security?  How should NATO respond to Iskander missile launchers in Kaliningrad?  Should the monitoring of borders with Russia be strengthened by deploying permanent aircraft?  Is NATO permitted to place permanent bases in Eastern Europe?  Should member states dedicate more of their GDP to increase their defence budgets?  Is there a scope for NATO-Russia diplomatic meetings?

31

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Sources

In the order:

Coffey, L. and Kochis, D. (2016). The 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act Does Not Prohibit Permanent NATO Bases in Eastern Europe. [online] The Heritage Foundation. Available at: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/04/the-1997-natorussia-founding-act-does-not- prohibit-permanent-nato-bases-in-eastern-europe [Accessed 23 Nov. 2016].

Dyomkin, D. (2011). Russia says Georgia war stopped NATO expansion. [online] Reuters India. Available at: http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-60645720111121 [Accessed 16 Nov. 2016].

Kramer, M. (2009). TWQ: The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia. [online] Csis.org. Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/twq-myth-no-nato-enlargement-pledge-russia- spring-2009 [Accessed 14 Nov. 2016].

NATO, (2016). NATO-Georgia Exercise 2016. [online] Act.nato.int. Available at: http://www.act.nato.int/nato-geo-ex-16-kicks-off [Accessed 23 Nov. 2016].

RT International. (2016). NATO force on Russian border ‘not a threat in any way’ – State Department. [online] Available at: https://www.rt.com/usa/367860-russia-missiles-nato-defensive/ [Accessed 24 Nov. 2016].

BBC News. (2016). Nato rapid response force: Plan to boost Europe presence - BBC News. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29016170 [Accessed 14 Nov. 2016].

The Economist. (2016). NATO stations four more battalions in eastern Europe. [online] Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21701956-alliances-summit-was-practical-rather- visionary-may-be-no-bad-thing-behind [Accessed 17 Nov. 2016].

ABC News. (2016). NATO to deploy military forces in Baltic states to deter Russia. [online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/nato-troops-to-deploy-in-north-east- europe/7582874 [Accessed 21 Nov. 2016].

Peter, L. (2014). Why Nato-Russia relations soured before Ukraine - BBC News. [online] BBC News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29030744 [Accessed 16 Nov. 2016].

Smith, A. (2016). Nato countries begin largest war game in eastern Europe since cold war. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/06/nato-launches-largest- war-game-in-eastern-europe-since-cold-war-anaconda-2016 [Accessed 19 Nov. 2016].

Deutschland.de. (2015). Two Plus Four Treaty. [online] Available at: https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/germany-europe/two-plus-four-treaty [Accessed 13 Nov. 2016].

BBC News. (2016). Ukraine to seek Nato membership, says PM Yatsenyuk - BBC News. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28978699 [Accessed 22 Nov. 2016].

NATO. (2016). The North Atlantic Treaty. [online] Available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm [Accessed 12 Nov. 2016].

Walker, S. (2016). Kremlin angered as US switches on missile shield in Romania. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/12/us-hails-important-step- as-missile-defences-go-live-in-romania [Accessed 17 Nov. 2016].

32

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

NATO. (2016). Collective defence - Article 5. [online] Available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm [Accessed 26 Nov. 2016].

NATO. (2016). Exercises. [online] Available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49285.htm?selectedLocale=en [Accessed 26 Nov. 2016].

Kyiv Post. (2010). Havrysh: Ukraine-NATO cooperation not excluding strategic partnership between Moscow,. [online] Available at: https://new.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine- politics/havrysh-ukraine-nato-cooperation-not-excluding-str-67685.html [Accessed 28 Nov. 2016].

LoGiurato, B. (2014). NATO: Russia Just Significantly Escalated The Crisis In Ukraine. [online] Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-invasion-of-ukraine-nato- putin-obama-2014-8?IR=T [Accessed 31 Dec. 2016].

RT International. (2014). NATO suspends civilian and military cooperation with Russia. [online] Available at: https://www.rt.com/news/nato-military-cooperation-russia-641/ [Accessed 28 Nov. 2016].

NATO. (2015). NATO’s Readiness Action Plan. [online] Available at: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2015_02/20150205_1502-Factsheet-RAP- en.pdf [Accessed 14 Dec. 2016].

Pop, V. (2010). Ukraine drops Nato membership bid. [online] Euobserver.com. Available at: https://euobserver.com/news/30212 [Accessed 1 Dec. 2016].

Sharkov, D. (2016). NATO chief rejects Russian claims of civil war in Ukraine. [online] Newsweek. Available at: http://europe.newsweek.com/nato-dismisses-russian-claims-civil-war-ukraine- 450617?rm=eu [Accessed 30 Nov. 2016].

Taylor, A. (2014). That time Ukraine tried to join NATO — and NATO said no. [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/09/04/that-time- ukraine-tried-to-join-nato-and-nato-said-no/?utm_term=.d055cbf06535 [Accessed 29 Nov. 2016].

DW.COM. (2014). Ukrainian PM appeals for help from NATO, EU | News | DW.COM | 16.12.2014. [online] Available at: http://www.dw.com/en/ukrainian-pm-appeals-for-help-from-nato-eu/a- 18133326 [Accessed 1 Dec. 2016].

33

ZZ LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2017

Conference Information

When looking for information regarding LIMUN 2017 (and subsequent editions) your first step should be to visit our website: www.limun.org.uk

LIMUN on social media Please follow updates from us through our social media channels:

London International Model United Nations (LIMUN)

@LondonMUN

When tweeting about this year’s conference (your preparations, journey to/from London or when live-tweeting the events during the conference itself) –

Please use the hashtag #LIMUN2017

Agenda & Rules of Procedure The agenda for the 2017 conference is available online at www.limun.org.uk/agenda

Since its 17th session last year, LIMUN has introduced changes to its Rules of Procedure. The revised Rules can be accessed here: http://limun.org.uk/rules

Conference Information When looking for information regarding LIMUN 2017 (and subsequent editions) your first step should be to visit our website: www.limun.org.uk

34