NEWSLETTER Security Forum 2015 – international scientific conference Information

The Faculty of Political Science and International Relations organized the already 7th annually international scientific conference Security Forum 2014 under the auspices of VicePremier and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic Miroslav Lajčák and under the auspices of Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic Martin Glváč on February 12 - 13, 2014. The organizer of the conference was Department of Security Studies of Faculty of Political Science and International Relations of Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica in cooperation with Armed Forces Academy of M. R. Štefánik in Liptovský Mikuláš, University of Defence in Brno, University of West Bohemia in Plzeň, National Aviation University in Kiev, Apeiron – School Safety Public and Individual in Krakow, School of Economics in Prague. The conference was held with financial support of NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

Introduction

The ceremonial inauguration of the conference was undertaken by prof. Beata Kosová, Rector of UMB. Prof. Kosová highlighted in her opening speech the importance of discussions about security, since the problems related security are becoming increasingly actual especially in connection with global security threats such as a starvation, poverty, climatic changes or terrorism. She appreciated the effort of organizers and partners of the conference that also provides a significant platform for valuable opinions of these problems‘ exchange. She was followed by prof. Ján Koper, Dean of FPVaMV UMB, who emphasized the activities of FPVaMV that many times applied for grant funding so as to conduct research

activities in the security issues area with the aim to make a contribution to a scientific progress in this sphere. He also expressed a hope that one of successful projects, the implementation of crisis management simulation centre on the ground of FPVaMV, will be a useful platform for gaining new knowledge. Following speech was made by Mr. Manuel Korček, Director of Security Policy Department of Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. MZVaEZ is also aware of the importance of security phenomenon research as it was also confirmed by Vice-Premier and Minister M. Lajčák, under the auspices of whom the conference was held. Manuel Korček highlighted that security must be perceived as a dynamic phenomenon; therefore it is needed to deal with it also during peacetime. At the same time, he appreciated the international attendance of the conference that can provide a space for deepening of international cooperation and exchange of valuable knowledge. Subsequently, he commented on the capabilities of the EU as a whole to act in the field of security policy. At first he formulated the importance of integrated safety strategy, which should increase the legibility of the EU in the eye of partners. The basis of the strategy should undoubtedly be a transatlantic partnership. These words were confirmed also by Ivo Samson, Director of Institute of Security and Defence Studies of Armed Forces Academy of M. R. Štefánik in Liptovský Mikuláš as the last guest presenting his welcoming speech. Mr Samson expressed his thanks to the organizers and stated that the security problems are now very important and actual. He emphasized that an open discussion on the academic ground with international attendance may generate new ideas and could reflect the actual situation in a different way.

After the ceremonial inauguration, the participants continually proceeded with the scientific part of the conference. There were four conference panels held on the first day.

The first panel of the scientific conference titled „NATO Future from Central European Perspective“ was opened by doc. Branislav Kováčik, discussion moderator. Doc. J. Lasicová (Department of Security Studies of FPVaMV UMB) was the first, who made her speech titled „Future of NATO and Countries of Central Europe“. She started with the analysis of basic principles of NATO operation that are given in the founding document, the Washington Treaty. She paid detailed attention to the explanation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and its position in NATO selected activities. She highlighted the absence of an

unequivocal meaning of this article and subsequently the disunity of its explanation. She controverted the question, whether it is an intention or negligence, while she outlined (dis)advantages of both approaches. Based on this, she smoothly proceeded to the issue of international law and NATO position, as well as the one of the United Nations Security Board in the security issues solution. She identified the positive NATO and the EU relation as a necessary one, however she did not exclude the possible various perspectives of NATO and the EU neighbour policy (enlargement). In this case she highlighted a possible important role of V4, or cooperation at a sub-regional level. V4 countries have very similar perception of security environment although; it is not, of course, identical. On the other hand, she turned the attention to a possible conflict between the „old“ and „new“ NATO members. While the founding countries can perceive NATO as a tool for elimination of threats coming from outside the alliance borders, new states might also want to focus on clarification of relations with Russia and post-Soviet countries on the basis of a historical experience, which encourages them. Will this difference continue to deepen in future? In the end, she paid the attention to the problems of new threats which will be a challenge for NATO. Doc. Petr Spilý (Department of Security and Defence, Armed Forces Academy of M. R. Štefánik) continued with the presentation „Cooperation in Regional Defence of V4 Countries“. He dealt with the evaluation of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the EU that is lacking several important chapters or its long-term vision for future. It is identical with the EC Report of 2013, where the need of improvement in three spheres is reported – the improvement of efficiency, visibility and influence of CSDP, improvement of defence capabilities development and strengthening of the European defence industry. However, in the same breath he added that currently, by his opinion, there is no need of „a common EU army“ because of various reasons (economic ones, duplications with NATO). As a positive example of military regional cooperation he presented the creation of common combat unit of V4 countries for the EU in 2016 and also the effort on the bilateral level (common defence of airspace, common defence of cybernetic space). The last speaker was Mr J. Naď (Slovak Atlantic Commission) with his paper „V4 Expectations Before NATO 2014 Summit“. In his paper, he dealt with the analysis of themes, which will probably resonate at the NATO summit in Wales (Afghanistan, cuts in defence budgets, the Balkan, Georgia, quality defence abilities). He named the most important ones as follows – clear transatlantic declaration,

NATO enlargement (a minimum chance, but possibly application to Montenegro), post-ISAF period, defence capabilities and strengthening of partnership cooperation. After all papers have been presented, the moderator provided space for questions from the audience. The audience was interested in a reason why V4 countries are expected to have a different attitude to, for example Ukraine, than old member states. By what manner is NATO expected to be transformed? Might NATO be a hangover? What attitude is to be adapted to NSA? The answers of speakers followed. For example, V4 countries have the different historical experience with the Russian Federation, or the USSR and therefore they are, to a certain extent, afraid of revenges. NATO is to be transformed towards an operational readiness. Some of panellists consider NATO a hangover, or a relic of the Cold War. The other side asked the question – apart from NATO, is there any other alternative? Speakers underlined the importance of NATO, but also the need of its development and evolution. The question related to NSA and their methods of data collection was answered in the spirit of a resemblance of activities and practices to other intelligence services, but it is necessary to consider again the ethics in intelligence services. The audience announced other questions, however there was limited time, so as it was not possible to present them. The moderator, doc. Kováčik, expressed his thanks to speakers as well as to audience for its activity and closed the panel. In general, the panel dealt with the view on NATO from the perspective of Central European countries. Based on the abovementioned facts we can state that V4 countries still derive their security primarily from the NATO membership. On the other hand, a need was emphasized to create also alternative scenarios related to an own contribution to the security of the V4 countries.

Second panel – „Cybernetic security as current security threat“ was addressing, as its name suggests, the question of cybernetic environment in context of current security threats. The panel was moderated by Dr. Jaroslav Ušiak (Department of Security Studies Faculty of Political Science and International Relations of the Matej Bel University), who invited doc. Karol Fabian (Department of Security Studies Faculty of Political Science and International Relations of the Matej Bel University) to be the first speaker with his lecture „Crisis Management Approach to Security Threats in Cyberspace“. Doc. Fabian talked about a wider context of threat of cyber-attacks using the example of Estonia and Iran. He clarified

practices of cyber criminals (economic interests), hacktivists (focusing the attention on certain phenomenon) and governmental cyber units (collect information and spread disinformation as needed). In the introduction into the issues he dealt with general context of cyber security and it’s negative impacts on individuals, respectively how can an layman acquire skilled hack-abilities (for example trough google finder tutorial) or become a victim of cybercrime. Further, in his comprehensive speech he addressed the planning system of crisis management KRIMA, which operates in the Centre for Crisis Management CEKR at the Faculty of Political Science and International Relations of the Matej Bel University, that enables simulations and generating crisis management scenarios after cyber-attack on technical infrastructure of institution or state. As next speaker in the line stood out Dr. Bastl (Division of Security and Strategic Studies, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University) with his lecture „Selected Aspects of Advanced Cyber-attacks“. Dr. Bastl in his interesting lecture, followed up on his forerunner and developed the debate about cyber threats in the notion of Advanced Persistent Threats. He described previous cyber-attacks as Titan Rain, GhostNet, Aurora, Stuxnet and others. As he noted, the main motive in the course of these attacks is to acquire information and to paralyze the enemy. Naturally, in such attacks high financial demands are presumed and thus, the customers must not have scarcity of financial resources. The last lecture - „Bitcoin as a Threat for Financial Markets“ was presented by Ing. Jana Drutarovska (Faculty of International Relations, University of Economics in Bratislava). At the beginning she introduced in detail these complicated issues and explained the essence of this alternative currency. It is needed to positively evaluate her focus on technical side of bitcoin as such. Further she compared in her speech the level of privacy in traditional and new model of payment mechanism as well as features of real and digital currency using the example of dollar and bitcoin. Amongst other risks of bitcoin she mentioned its value (its stability, what does it depend on), speculations, financing of illegal activities and its uncertain future. After the presentation of all lectures, Dr. Usiak created room for questions and opened the discussion. In consideration of attractive content of lectures many question with similar nature were asked. The audience was interested in cyber-attack prevention; whereupon Dr. Bastl answered that every organization has its own prevention policy for such cases. The emphasis, in this regard, should be based on scholarship and training of

employees to be prepared for such attacks. Traditional contradiction of freedom of speech and state’s intervention into internet has unleashed interesting debate. There were also very interesting comments on the understanding of cyber-attack, respectively its application under article no. 5 of North Atlantic Treaty. The speakers agreed that an extensive cyberattack can have significant consequences. On the other hand, such attack is not able to „get enemy to knees“. Yet it can pave the way for needed conventional combat. After proactive discussion Dr. Usiak closed the panel and thanked the speakers as well as the audience for challenging questions. The panel, in generally, dealt with currently very popular issues of cyber security. Its nature and method of operation was described quite in detail. Likewise, the security threats that stem from it were introduced. One great persistent question of cyber security was introduced in detail using the example of bitcoin. Third panel in sequence was titled as „Transatlantic Security Environment – the Experience of V4 countries as NATO members“. The moderator of this panel was Dr. Rastislav Kazansky (Department of Security Studies, Faculty of Political Science and International Relations of the Matej Bel University). The panel was opened by the lecture of Mario Nicolini titled „The Experience of V4 Countries in Operation within the Alliance and Future Perspectives“. Mr. Nicolini evaluated common experiences of V4 countries of NATO pre-accession negotiations, which referred to realised reforms with far-reaching consequences besides military and security, important role of decentralization, amendment of the constitution or obligatory reviews of classified information. He positively evaluated the cooperation of V4 countries in planning and collaboration on international level. The need of maintenance of consensus in decision making, finding common positions and pragmatism were highlighted. Further, he pointed out, that NATO constitutes sort of „multiplier of power“. Mgr. Lukas Dycka (Centre of Security and Military Strategic Studies, University of Defence, Brno) presented his lecture from the perspective of the Czech Republic „The Issue of Revision of Strategic Documents at the Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic“. In the beginning of his lecture he evaluated strategic documents influencing the Ministry of Defence – White Paper on Defence of 2011, Security Strategy of 2011 and Defence Strategy of 2012. Mr. Dycka characterised the main challenges associated with the issue of creating strategic documents – disinterest of political elites, defence is the least relevant content of political programs of all political parties, fluctuations of defence expenditures, future instability of expenditures, realistic settings of politico-military

goals/ambitions and so called „lack of common threat perception“. He sees the problem in creating these documents as „mirrors“ of major strategic documents (e.g. NATO) – everything is transposed with just minor modification. Therefore, he suggests, especially in case of threats, to „pilfer“ the methodology and create its own conclusions relevant for the Czech Republic (or any other state) since the perception of threats may not be the same as the Alliance’s one. Yet, he does not deny the need to follow/reflect NATO and its Conceptions, but emphasises to filter and reflect what is relevant and important for Czech Republic, respectively a particular member state. The third lecture was led by Dr. Tomasz Dukiewicz (Opole University) titled „Security and Information Context in Military Environment“. Mr. Dukiewski dealt in detail with the issue of information processing in security environment. He emphasised the system of collection and utilization of information and challenges that experts face due to time pressure. Further he pointed out various aspects of civil-military cooperation, not only in NATO, but generally. After all lectures were finished, Dr. Kazansky opened the discussion. Unfortunately, due to time constrains caused by comprehensive lectures, the time for debate was limited. The audience was mostly interested in further development in creating strategic documents of the Czech Republic in context of the appointment of a new Minister of Defence. The answer, in this regard, confirmed the importance of experts chosen by the Minister of Defence. At the same time, audience discussed the issue of defence budget cuts of V4 countries and Austria, except Poland. In the end, Dr. Kazansky thanked the speakers and audience and ended the panel. The panel, in general, addressed the experiences of V4 countries of NATO pre-accession process as well as „best practices“ of operation within the Alliance. Speakers similarly as the audience agreed on the need of NATO and its members mutually beneficial activity that enables „lesson learned“ for both sides .

The last panel of the first day of Security Forum 2014 named „ Theoretical and Methodological Aspects of Security Research“ was hosted by two speakers. The panel was moderated by doc. Jana Lasicova (Department of Security Studies, Faculty of Political Science and International Relations of the Matej Bel University). The first speaker to present his lecture „Systemic Approach to the Research of the Security Environment“ was doc. L. Hofreiter. In the introduction doc. Hofreiter dealt with the issue of approaches in defining a

security environment, which was followed by his assessment of the Slovak dimension in this issue and the different authors addressing this issue. In his subsequent words he went on to evaluating the Czech prism. The lecturer stated that the security environment of a reference object is a complicated and complex system, the structure of which is made of social, natural and technical subsystems and their mutual interactions. Subsystems of the security environment can be identified and defined at all analytical levels, from global to individual, while he expressed support towards the lowest levels of security analysis. The second lecturer was Colonel Vladimir Zikmund (works as Head of Department for the Creation of Doctrines, Standards and Regulations of the Ground Forces of the Slovak Republic), who made a presentation on “The Possibilities of Military Contribution to International Security”. Firstly, the lecturer clarified the spectrum of conflict intensity in general. He raised a question of what could the role of military be like in the field of security. Is it (contra)productive by reaching a political aim? Moreover, he dealt with the character of threats, which he divided into conventional, nonconventional, catastrophic and seditionary. According to this categorization he defined each possibility of using the military for example by supporting, preventing and establishing peace. In conclusion he pointed out the transfer in the perception of the military from “aggressor” into the dichotomy of “aggressor – peacemaker”. After these suggestive lectures doc. Lasicova opened the discussion. A participant from Palestine asked to speak. In his relatively extensive speech he pointed out a few dimensions, in which the debate was held. He generalised his comment on the issue of the perception of the West, resp. how the West sees the conflicts and security environment outside its territory. Moreover, he criticised the involvement of the West into some conflicts, e.g. in the Middle East. Similarly, he spoke about the gradual erosion of international law, when some stakeholders of international relations do not respect the norms of international law. The lecturers agreed with him on some issues, on the other they responded with counter-questions. The discussion later turned out to be a debate on the Israel-Palestine dispute. Doc. Lasicova logically channelled the discussion on this dispute, as she correctly assumed that there was no time for this kind of debate. However, this did not prevent the discussants from continuing the debate after the panel ended. Doc. Lasicova thanked the participants for the suggestive discussion and she brought the panel to an end. The

participants continued to lead an informal debate. The panel originally had to deal with the theoretical and methodological part of the approaches towards international and national security. The lecturers logically fulfilled this requirement and presented newer and older approaches towards security research. However, later the discussion twisted in the above presented direction – we have to perceive this respectably, as the argumentation of each active participant was at a very high level.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The second day of the conference, 13th February 2014 was Section Nr. 1, which carried the name „Problems of Crisis Management“, opened by the panel moderator doc. Jana Lasicova. Prof. Vojtech Jurčák (Department of Security and Defence of the Armed Forces Academy of General Milan Rastislav Štefánik) presented his report as the first lecturer under the title “Principles of the European Union Crisis Management Operations”. In his speech he analysed the basic principles for the execution of the European Union peace operations within the Common Security and Defence Policy, while he does not deal with the primary content of each principle, rather with the way they were created within the EU. Doc. Lasicova thanked for the precisely prepared study and requested the auditorium to ask questions. Firstly, prof. Spilý submitted a question. He was interested in the principle of nonuse of force, resp. in the exceptions from the application of this principle in current operations. Prof. Jurčák responded that by proactive defence the mandate of military / peace operation against aggression is justified also in the case that it does not concern only self-defence. In countries such as Afghanistan, where the free movement of armed people is possible, is the principle of non-use of force and peaceful solution of conflicts usually nonproportional and inadequate relative to the real situation. Colonel Zikmund subsequently reacted and mentioned also the units of ISAF, by which we can consider as an exception from non-use of force mandate for forceful separation of belligerents, optionally use of force for diversion of concrete attacks at the defence of civil population. Doc. Lasicova was interested in the view of prof. Jurčák on the current security challenges that the EU has to face. The professor considers the instability of current Europe and the unrests within Europe for primary security challenges. As other threats he listed organised crime, concretely trade with drugs, developing illegal trade with weapons, people or even human organs. He also named two basic documents – the European Security Strategy and the EU Internal Security

Strategy. The discussants agreed on the importance of the concept of internal security for the EU. Doc. Zbygniew Grzywna (University of Marketing Management and Foreign Languages in Katowice) was the next participant to present his speech titled „Security on the Example of the Agglomeration of Silesia“. He claimed that the security management of modern town and cities is based primarily on the effective management of their own sources, especially material, financial and human resources. Doc. Lasicova thanked for the speech and brought the first part of the panel to an end. In the second section as first was speaking Dr. Martin Hromada (Tomas Baťa University in Zlín, Department of Safety Engineering) with his article “The Role and Importance of PPP (Public – Private Partnership) in the Issue of the Critical Infrastructure Protection” with the support of security research project of the Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic no. VG 20112014067, in joint authorship with Doc. Lukáš Luděk from the same institution. Critical infrastructure protection is legally bounded to the implementation of relevant EU directive 2008/114/EC in the member states of the EU. The directive established a framework for protection in relation to the definition of critical infrastructure protection of basic tools (TSO - an operational plan for safety, SLO - Security Liaison Officer, PPP - Public - Private Partnership). Dr. Hromada in his paper assessed the status and importance of the PPP - the process and issues of critical infrastructure protection in terms of practical application in the security environment of the Czech Republic. The moderator then introduced another discussant - Dr. Jaroslav Solarsz (National Defence University in Warsaw). Jaroslav Sorasz presented a lecture entitled "Prediction of CBRN Crisis Management". In conclusion, despite the existence of a number of different methods of predicting CBRN, the main common objective is to alert and warn the public against a potential threat. Due to lack of time, the moderator moved the discussion to the time after the presentation of all planned lectures. The next lecturer was Mr. David Vačkář (Department of Societal Dimension of Global Change, Global Change Research Centre, The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) with his lecture "Environmental Security and Adaptation in the Context of Global Changes", which dealt with the concepts of environmental safety, environmental conflicts and ecosystem services in the context of globalization. In 2012 natural resources caused 81 conflicts of global significance. Conflict over resources is a whole complex of phenomena, including the effect of global change and disruption of ecosystem services, leading ultimately

to change even to the collapse of social - ecological services. For decision making and conflict management in the field of environment, it is necessary to focus on the whole complex social-ecological interactions and their long-term sustainability. Final lecture was "Participation of the Polish Army in Peacekeeping Expeditionary Missions in the Post-War Period". Doc. Jósef Kubica evaluated the performance of Poland in peacekeeping missions. Subsequently the panel moderator opened the discussion and due to lack of time there was space only for two questions from the audience. The first question was directed to Mr. Vačkář and concerned indicating the source from which he derived the data for his paper, particular claim that it is now possible to follow the progression of intense / expressive manifestations in society. Mr. Vačkář responded that it was a general statement established on perceived global trends becoming more extreme expressions of dissatisfaction, which can be monitored for the last 50 years and have upward trend. The last question was directed to Mr. Hromada – on what parameter are you evaluating “partnership”? Is there an agreement, respectively a treaty that would formally validate partnerships? Mr. Hromada replies that for example, the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Czech Republic was interested in becoming a part of the authorities within the EU dealing with a similar issue. Legal document to confirm the partnership in this case was not necessary however sufficed previous speeches, negotiations and conclusions of an informal agreement on cooperation. Panel moderator thanked the panellists and discussants for the active participation and also for inspiring ideas, comments, questions and discussion. The second section was called "Methodology, Projecting and Problem- Solving in the Security Forces" with moderator Dr. Novakova. The first lecturer was Mr. Miloslav Stehlik, CSc. (Head of Psychological Laboratory CASRI in Prague). The presented paper titled "Physiological Objectification of Distress while Executing Highly Demanding Combat Missions," written in co-authorship with Ing. Petr Stejskal, Gabriela Kloudová, Pavlina Kupčová, Ing. pplk Jiří Kacer and Ing. Michael Borůvka. The lecture is dedicated mainly to the concept of distress, which is characterized as negative stress. Its occurrence is significant especially in highly demanding activities, which are the basis of aviation activity. It is assumed that through the objectification of distress we can reduce its impact on the performance of the action of the armed forces and reduce the ultimate security risk for state. Rate of stress load can be objectified by measuring physiological responses such as monitoring galvanic skin resistance, stroke volume of blood, the pupil diameter, and skin temperature and below. Further the lecturer introduced several

measurement methods of mentioned physiological parameters. The tested people were students of the Department of Aviation at the Faculty of Military Technology in Brno. The part of the lecture was a video, on which was recorded eye movement of cadet at the flight simulator. The first question from the audience reflected the beginning of the lecture, when it was mentioned that the research can be applied to other areas and thus to monitor distress by athletes. The second question concerned the fact whether the parameters may vary depending on when tested person is cadet beginner or already an experienced person with the ability to perform various management processes automatically. The title of the second lecture was "The Source Data of Police Statistics in the Czech Republic: Applicability and Limitations", whose authors and lecturers were Bc. Martin Doleček and PhDr. Josef Smolik PhD. (Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University in Brno). The lecture was focused on the source data of police statistics on crime in the Czech Republic and their possible use and also possible restrictions arising from the very nature of data. Points to possible planes for improvement work with police statistics, which would subsequently be reflected in the individual operational arrangements police. However, the huge disadvantage is that the number of offenses and crimes has never been reported, and thus it also affects the objectivity of the results. The fact is that, on the basis of analytical processing using a "datamining", we bring the scope of criminality, the intensity of crime; it is also possible to capture the dynamics of crime, or layout of crime in regions. Question on speakers was: Why such analyses of police statistics are not carried out directly by police forces and not using in practice? For capacity and financial reasons, was the reply. The third lecture was on theme "The Impact of Globalization on the Operational Capabilities of Terrorist Organizations and Individuals," authored by Dr. Martin Nič (Armed Forces Academy of General Milan Rastislav Štefánik). In the beginning he defined the basic principles of terrorism, expressions, forms and contemporary understanding of the issues. He noted that at the end of the Cold War the rising of the influence of the West began and also the importance of the concept of Western civilization was raised. Globalization or otherwise, universalization leads the world into instability and constant change. Sequentially, he points out the impact of globalization on operational capabilities and methods of terrorist groups or individuals. Further the lecturer discusses the current AlQaeda in the global space and highlights the fact that this organization is a showcase for terrorism adaptation in the current global world. In conclusion, he outlines the impact of

events in Africa on the security situation in the European Union. The first question from the audience was the perception about Americans labelling the terrorists as ordinary people in the Muslim world, on the basis of term "unlawful combatant", which is mentioned in the Military Commissions Act 2006. A second remark was directed rather to the methodology and the method of writing a dissertation thesis on the subject, as author of the lecture has the same theme for his thesis. In the third section called "Regional Security Sector and Security Environment in the Countries of Post-Soviet Space" were two lecturers and moderator was Dr. Kazanský (Department of Security Studies, Faculty of Political Science and International Relations of the Matej Bel University). After opening the section, the moderator gave the word to doc. Uriadnikova (Institute of Mathematical Machines and System Problems of the Ukraine National Academy of Science (IMMSP NASU)). Doc. Uriadnikova in the view of current circumstances in her native Ukraine changed her topic of paper "Priority to Economic Security in the Aspect of National Security of Ukraine", but gave an analysis of the current situation in Ukraine. She pointed out the origin of protests on the Maidan – which was primary the nonconformity of students with Rector of the Shevchenko University (Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv). The number of the assembly was enlarged after the intervention of the Police – parents of the students also came and protested. The Agenda of Majdan also encompassed the EU, position of Parašenko, and so called „black group“ of unknown origin occurred which foment tension (Molotov cocktail and so on). The public asked about positions of particular oligarchs. Doc. Uriadnik pointed out that there are differences among them; however Parašenko has the largest level of popularity. On the other hand, R. Achmetov has demonstrated no clear attitude towards the situation. Ing. Nina Galanská then (Faculty of International Relations, Economic University in Bratislava) made a lecture on her article „Protection and Security of External Frontiers of the EU in Relation to Present Migration Currents and the Arabian Spring“. She also reacted on the situation in Ukraine – all asylum demands from Ukrainian citizens have been rejected till the present. She defined two basic forms of migration – forced and voluntary; she delimitated research area – Mediterranean Sea and migration routes to the EU (illegal routes, false papers, entry with ordinary papers which become invalid during their stay in Europe, etc.) She dealt with the issue of repatriation from the point of view of Slovak Republic mainly concerning about Ukraine. The audience was interested to which extent illegal migration has impact on domestic policy of the destination states. The lecturer

answered by using the example of Switzerland and its recent referendum concerning this issue. This example overtly demonstrates that the influence is noticeable and considerable. After the lecture and consequent interesting discussion the moderator thanked and concluded the section. Last section bore the same name as the previous one and Dr. L. Husenicová (Department of Security Studies FPVaMV UMB) took over the role of moderator. Dr. Husenicová first requested Ing. J. Vystavel (Department of Defense and Security, Armed Forces Academy in Liptovský Mikuláš) to lecture on his article called „Evaluation of Process on Normalization of Relations between Serbia and Kosovo from the Serbian point of view“. The lecturer expressed the main aspects influencing Kosovar and Serbian relations. He pointed out social and economic problems as the most important aspects. This aspect is the main motive for Serbs to enter the EU which means economic investments, arriving mainly from Germany. The solution of Kosovo issue is just condition of the EU, mainly Germany, to offer economic aid for Serbia. During discussion the lecturer answered the question if the Slovak Republic will not have problem to recognize and independent Kosovo. The lecturer answered that the Slovak Republic will not have any problem to recognize an independent Kosovo under the condition if both parties agree. Mgr. Souheil Ghannam (Department of International Relations and Diplomacy, Faculty of Political Science and International Relations) lectured as second on the issue „Security of Arab/Persian Gulf States in the Case of Iranian – West Agreement“. The lecturer evaluated the consequences of signature of Geneva Agreements concluded in November 2013 between Iran and P5+1 and he analysed their impact on Iranian foreign relations and security situation in the Persian Gulf region. The next lecturer was Dr. P. Hlaváček lecturing on „Appeasement in the Foreign Policy of President Obama“. The lecturer evaluated the perception of appeasement in the US context, in the way it is perceived by political analysts and political representatives in the USA. The appeasement is discredited in the American point of view and the lecturer evaluated the US perception of appeasement according to relations between USA and Iran. The author pointed out that it is wrong to make parallels between Western appeasement towards Nazi Germany in the 1930s and present negotiations of West with Iran. Iran is another type of actor, different from Nazi Germany and mutual compromise with gestures of good will should be the main tools, not military pressure. Dr. V. Naxera (Department of Political

Sciences and International Relations, Philosophical Faculty, West Bohemia University in Pilsen) lectured on the topic called „Russia and Central Eastern Europe – View of Natalia Naročnická“. He parsed perception of the Russian history by Russian historians. The lecturer pointed out problems concerning the evaluation of history by Russian historians, which is close to the interests of Russian political elite. Many authors who do not have close relations with Russian government, like Solženicyn, promote the ideas of Russian imperialism. Last but not least, Colonel H. Krysyuk (National Defence University, al. Gen. A. Chruściela) lectured on „The Main Meanders of Ukrainian Politics in Years 2000-2013“ and spoke about the issue of political separation in Ukraine, which has impacts on its present foreign policy orientation. Mgr. H. Hlaváčková (Metropolitan University Prague, Department of International Relations and European Studies) closed the section with her lecture on „Western Balkan and Reconstruction of European Security“. The author evaluated security challenges in the Western Balkan and the issue of relations with the EU states. Discussion took place after the lecture. The authors agreed that it is necessary for the EU to define its own interests and clearly specify a geopolitical area of its activities in order to have its own foreign policy in the future. However, there were various opinions which occurred during the discussion. According to Premysl Rosulek, the EU will be a weak actor in the future. On the other hand, according to Mário Nicolini, the EU should engage more in the Balkans. After the lecture on all articles and interesting discussion Dr. Husenicová thanked to the participants and she closed the section. The dean of the Faculty of Political Science and International Relations of the Matej Bel University thanked to all participants of the conference, moderators of the sections, guests and the audience for its presence. He also invited everybody to participate at the next conference Security Forum 2015. Subsequently, he brought the conference to an end in a solemn way. The result of the two day conference was the evaluation of the most important security issues of the Slovak Republic, V4, EU, NATO´s work and role, and, at the same time, new and classical attitudes towards perception of security. NATO is still the basic pillar of the security assurance for the V4 states. The member states themselves must also realize features of the security and decentralize partial roles of NATO to the national level, or to

allow different opinions and different perception of the states. Cybersecurity is one of these features. Besides the NATO level, it is important to focus on the quality on national level in fight against APT in the cyber space. V4´s experience with negotiation process before entering the NATO or the EU with their membership is transferable to other candidate countries to the NATO and the EU as well. Neighbourhood policy is still very important in relation to the events of Arab Spring and the situation in Ukraine. It´s important to analyse the abovementioned issues not only in a practical way but it is necessary to develop adequate theoretical conditions for practical measures. That is why the discussion was also about the theoretical and methodological attitudes towards security issues. The participants concluded that there are insufficient definitions of theoretical approaches towards security. Security Forum 2014 offered a unique platform for academic and professional discussion in the field of national and international security.