>>> COMING ON THE HEELS OF THIS
WEEKS NATO SUMMIT WHERE THE 30
NATION MEMBERS AGREED TO A NEW
CYBER DEFENSE POLICY, WE SPOKE
TO NATO ATTORNEY GENERAL JENS
JENS STOLTENBERG WHETHER THEYRE
READY TO FACE CHALLENGES FROM
RUSSIA AND CHINA.
>> WE FACE A WORLD WHERE NATO IS
FACED WITH CHALLENGES AT
DIFFERENT TIMES.
WE DONT CHOOSE EITHER ONE OR
THE OTHER. AND, OF COURSE, FOR DECADES NATO
AND, OF COURSE, FOR DECADES NATO
HAS ADDRESSED THE SOVIET UNION,
RUSSIA.
RUSSIA IS STILL A COUNTRY THAT
BEHAVES IN AN AGGRESSIVE WAY
AGAINST NEIGHBORS.
WEVE SEEN CYBERATTACKS BY
RUSSIA, BUT CHINA MATTERS FOR
OUR SECURITY BECAUSE THAT REALLY
IS SHIFTING THE GLOBAL BALANCE
OVER POWER.
NATO ALLIES AGREED FOR THE FIRST
TIME, VERY CLEAR IN A UNITED
POSITION, BOTH ON THE CHALLENGES
AND OPPORTUNITIES, BUT THE
CHALLENGES FOR THE RIGHTS OF
CHINA.
THEY ARE INVESTING IN
OPPORTUNITIES, AND OF COURSE
THAT MATTERS FOR NATO.
>> WHEN IT COMES TO
CYBERATTACKS, THE UNITED STATES
AND OBVIOUSLY OTHER NATO
NATIONS, THEY ENDORSED A NEW
CYBER DEFENSE POLICY THAT
CYBERATTACKS ON A NATO MEMBER
COULD LEAD TO THE INVOCATION OF
ARTICLE 5, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY
AN ATTACK ON THE ENTIRE
ORGANIZATION.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT A
CYBERATTACK ON ONE ALLIANCE
NATION IS NOW CONSIDERED AN
ATTACK ON ALL OF THEM, AND WHAT
TYPE OF SPECIFIC ATTACK RISES TO
THAT LEVEL.
FOR INSTANCE, WHAT WE SAW IN THE
UNITED STATES IN RECENT MONTHS
WITH THE ATTACK ON THE COLONIAL
PIPELINE AND FOOD PROCESSING
PLANTS, WOULD THAT CONSTITUTE AN
ATTACK ON THE ALLIANCE?
>> NATOS CORE RESPONSIBILITY IS
TO PROTECT AND DEFEND ALLIES
AGAINST ANYTHING, AND THATS
BASED ON ARTICLE 5, OUR FOUNDING
TREATY, THAT SAID AN ATTACK ON ONE IS AN ATTACK ON ALL.
ONE IS AN ATTACK ON ALL.
AND WE HAVE NOT TREATED THAT
ARTICLE ONCE.
WHAT WE DID A FEW YEARS AGO WAS
TO DECIDE THAT THE CYBERATTACK
CAN BE AS DAMAGE AND GO
DANGEROUS AS AN ATTACK ON AIR,
SEA, LAND OR ANY OTHER MILITARY
DOMAIN, AND THEREFORE WE DECIDED
THAT A CYBERATTACK CAN TRIGGER
ARTICLE 5. BUT WE WILL MAINTAIN WHAT WE
BUT WE WILL MAINTAIN WHAT WE
CALL STRATEGIC TEEJTEGIC AMBIGUI
WHEN WE TRIGGER ARTICLE 5.
THATS THE CASE WHEN WE ADDRESS
KINETIC ATTACKS DOMAIN AND THE
CYBER DOMAIN.
WHAT WE DO IS CONSTANTLY
STRENGTHEN OUR CYBER DEFENSES,
SHARING BEST PRACTICES AND
KBROOVLG
IMPROVING THE WAY WE BOTH DEFEND
NATO BUT TO HELP ALLIES DEFEND
THEIR OWN NETWORKS.
>> I KNOW THAT YOURE SAYING
ITS PART OF THE STRATEGIC
COLONIAL PIPELINE AND RANSOMWARE
ATTACKS IN THE U.S. RISE TO THAT
LEVEL?
HAS NATO EVEN ADDRESSED THESE
ATTACKS, AND WOULD NATO RESPOND
IN KIND WITH A CYBERATTACK OF
ITS OWN OR NOT?
>> WE WILL DECIDE HOW WE WILL
RESPOND.
OF COURSE, WE CAN RESPOND IN THE
CYBER DOMAIN, BUT WE CAN ALSO
RESPOND IN ANY OTHER DOMAIN.
THATS FOR US TO DECIDE WHEN WE
MAKE A DECISION TO TRIGGER
ARTICLE 5.
THE MAIN PURPOSE OF NATO IS TO
PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING, IS
TO HAVE A CREDIBLE DETERRENCE OF
DEFENSE AND DECIDE TO DEFEND
OURSELVES WHERE WE NEVER END UP
IN A SITUATION WHERE WE NEED TO