 as well. Now as I said to you, I really want to open the floor to you guys, but I'll just start with one question myself so that people can kind of gather their thoughts. And Christy, you began this session on what was, you know, the new reality unconventional security challenges, cyber security, the hybrid threats that you're talking about. And you gave us the pillars of, you know, what we are trying to protect. So when you're talking about, you know, being unified in our action and our speech, and better communicating those cornerstones of democracy, how do you feel we should be using specific terminology? What tone should we be using? And how in our everyday talk or interactions with media can we be actually strengthening that? Yes, that's a very good question because first of all we have to think about what kind of societies do we have? We have small, in this reference group, we have relatively small countries where the fundamentals is the state in many cases. We trust our authorities, basically in some countries more in some countries less. And that's the foundation and the rule of law is the building block of our society, which means that in that communication, this frame should always be kept in mind. Meaning that if we want to somehow regulate or limit, for instance, our communication, we have to do it with the tools that we have at our disposal, bearing in mind also the values. But also I'd like to widen this value debate a bit. And isn't it also that it's actually in our interest to have the values? Because values can be very, they can be redefined and they can be used selectively. But if we think of the interest that it is in our interest to have the freedom of speech, it is in our interest to have the rule of law system, it is in our interest to trust the authorities and build the structure so that we can trust them. And they support each other so that the trust to authorities can be built on the rule of law, so the interconnectivity there. And the unification of course is difficult in the sense that when anyways the context is full of variables and the fragmentation of society's existing trend, not only within the countries, but also between the countries, within EU, within NATO, etc., because of the blurred context and the blurred background. That's why we need to be specifically, strategically aware of what we are doing. And this is where this detection element comes into picture. We have to know what is going around and no conspiracy theories, no panic, no unified or let's say one coloured or two coloured black-white thing. That's also not the case anymore. And this is why this international cooperation is useful and it needed and the exchange of information is essential for building some kind of a uniform picture about what is going on. Russia was mentioned, Russia is giving us a lot of good casements to learn about what is going on. But China is doing exactly the same thing, but in a lot more subtle way. And this is something also that I probably, if you allow me one more minute, is that how many of you have had something to do with Russia during your lifetime, been there, worked there or something like that? Okay, great number. What about China? How many of you have visited China or have something to do with China or have studied or lived or something? Very good. So there's a good balance. This is a very specific audience, because if you do this, usually you get a lot of Russia, very little on China. And that's one of our handicaps. We don't know our adversaries. Thank you very much, Christy. I'd like to open to the floor. I believe we have roving microphones, so this gentleman had his hand up here first, just at the back. I'll come to you then. Hello, my name is Paul, I'm an member of the Institute for International and European Affairs. I find this somewhat ironic that in 2019, the level of and the quality of communication between Russia and the West is lower than it was 30 years ago at the height of the Cold War. At the same time, we have American withdrawal from the INF Treaty. Now I know that, you know, blame is, perhaps, liberally distributed about the end of the INF Treaty. We have a new start treaty, which is due to expire in 2021. This means that the whole armory of treaties and international understandings in relation to nuclear armaments threatens to come to an end. Now I know there are other factors entering in. The world has changed and China has entered on the scene. But it seems to me that against this background, to qualify the need for dialogue, to put it in inverted commas, and to call it a mantra, is not doing justice. We need to talk about the future of the world. We need to talk to Russia. We need to talk to everybody who wants it. Thank you. In the interest of time, actually, if you don't mind, I might take three questions and then we'll respond and then come to another. So if I could take this gentleman here in the cream, and if we can make sure the microphone is on. Thank you. And then we'll run to that person. Ronan Tynan, a filmmaker co-founder of Esperanza, I was very interested in all presentations, but I think the first presentation by Kirsten O'Rynan made a very good point about new threats, but I would put it to all of the panelists, that one of the fundamental problems in dealing with new threats is to actually stand up for our values. And I was delighted to hear Russia mentioned today, because I'm particularly interested in Syria. And the way Russian propaganda actually works through social media is the simple projection of lies. For example, it commits war crimes on a virtual daily basis. It bombs hospitals. And we had a very interesting case study, Madam Chairperson, in the Irish Times, just in the last couple of days, when the Russian ambassador, I think, wrote an electric paper defending Russia's various crimes. And he was quickly corrected when he attempted to, shall we say, disown responsibility for targeting hospitals. When Maliki Brown, a very distinguished Irish journalist who works at the New York Times and has produced a magnificent 12 minute video, which you can easily Google and find, where the New York Times showed in a 12 hour period, Russia targeted and bombed 12 hospitals. And they actually used the voices. They had the voice nourishment from the pilot. Final point, Madam Chairperson, was very important. Russia really is after the minds, total leadership in our own societies. It is undermining our democracies. But what really alarms me is we're not actually confronting that reality. I think I'm not, we can deal with this very peacefully by simply accepting that our media, that we have this fake news problem, but it's being primarily directed by these very powerful powers. And I also did acknowledge the point about China, I think I won't go on nervous. So we've allowed to respond to, I might even just take those two and then I have this gentleman, this gentleman afterwards. If I can quickly get a response, maybe from you, Sirinus, if you don't mind. So the first comment, it spoke about, you know, the conversations between Russia and the West, they seem to actually communicate less now than in the Cold Wars. That's one point. And the second point is that the values as Kirsty was saying, are being undermined through social media. And I guess that's a cyber security issue. So Sirinus, would you mind just speaking to that briefly? We need to speak with the Russians. I think, yes, we need to speak with the Russians at the expert level, for sure. But the problem is that in most of this dialogue, and I'm participating in a couple of formats, the EU level. And the problem is all these dialogue is that, for example, if you take militarization of, okay, you take color, they're building ports. And they say, okay, we need you and the Finnish cooperation in ecology. In a sense, we may call this, I don't want to say this word starting with s or she. Okay, we may call this mess. And then you clean the sea. This is a form of dialogue. In a sense, they have the policy of accomplished fact. They move in, they build the base from the military base. And then they say, okay, you guys come in, okay, the Nordics, for clean, for green nature, you come in and you clean the sea. After we did everything, and we have the military portal, the facility, and you know, all the capabilities, you know, to attack you, and then you clean the sea. The same is in the south. And I think everywhere, wherever you go, when it comes to the, I mean, the context is very dangerous. But the problem is that the, you know, pre-states, everyone's pre-sees, everyone, for example, doesn't function when you catch incident and the response when you catch incident. I mean, if you show yourself, you can keep going, yes, because projects you use this accomplished fact, tactics. Basically, this reminds me of the situation where you come into the prison cell, you have like gang leader, who you since, you know, like baboon, and you come in and you say, look, I mean, let's talk something, let's discuss it. I mean, this is, this reminds this kind of situation where there is a kind of, on one side you have escalation, on another side you want somebody to have a dialogue. I think this kind of cultural approach I think is problematic in itself. So I would like to stop here. Okay, okay, thank you. I'm sure we have plenty more to discuss, maybe, over tea and coffee. This gentleman was waiting, if I take, if you can keep it to a brief question and we'll come to you then, and we'll take that lady at the back then after that. Thank you. How do you raise the issue of social resilience? In the event of a physical or a cyber attack on critical infrastructure, in all of the countries represented here today, the level of social resilience is very, very low. In comparison with Japan, and a better example would be Cuba. So that hasn't been discussed at all. Okay, thank you. Thank you for keeping that brief as well. Let's get the microphones we switch it on and we, oh, you have one, please. Thank you. I do have it, yes. Yes, so I'm from the Embassy of Georgia. Do you hear me? So thank you very much for your very interesting speeches and remarks. And of course, I would like to thank very much the organizers of this very, very nice event. My question will be regarding the Russia again, because as I don't understand where we go, it's Russia that brings the threats to the security of the European Union. And all the speakers have mentioned this point, regardless of other points as well. And who else, if not Georgia, knows well what it means to be in a neighborhood of that state. I think that the most countries who are suffering from Russia are the immediate neighborhood. And the Eastern partnership, majority of whom are suffering with occupation, coming from Russia, is something that needs to be said in a more bold way. The 2008 war of Russia Georgia is not over. It's still on because we do see that we call it as the Caribbeanization of the country itself as the territories because we see that they are time to time, they are moving the border deeper into the country. We don't react, we don't respond because once we respond we will have another 2008 war. We see what is happening with Ukraine, with annexation of Crimea. We see what is happening with the East part of Ukraine as well. We see the reaction of the West, the sanctions. We see the, for instance, the expel from the Council of Europe of Russia because of the annexation of the Crimea. But at the same time we can witness that just recently Russia was welcome back to the Council of Europe. So my question will be, what is the resilience from the European Union of the West towards Russia? How to stop Russia? How to stop the risks coming from the Russian Federation? Thank you. Thank you very much. And then this lady at the back, if we can get a microphone to her and we'll take the three questions at the same time then. Thank you. And think about them. If we go to the resilience question, you know, if our society is attacked, that social resilience, which I'd love to ask you to, you know, tell us a little bit more what you mean about that. But if you can take it, Kristi, because I'm just short on time. So if I get your response and I'll come to you, Serena, then we'll You're quite right. And we can see that in the base of our member states that you can roughly divide countries into three. You have the big ones who are very, have the capabilities and the capacities to respond. Then you have the, so to say, frontline countries, the ones that have had this existential military threat from the east in the region. And you can know what countries I would mean. They're there, the social capacity to, and the social resilience is higher. And then there is this large number of European countries that I have not been really threatened by anything during the after the war, actually. And even in the war, the threat was different. So for them, this means a kind of a change in your thinking. And that's exactly where media is then needed to educate people. And that for that, we need the quality media. And for that, also, the propaganda part, also, to comment on that, that it's not about what you print, but it's about what, and what you read, but what you believe. And this education of media literacy, education of people, actually seeing that there are threats, that you are also a target. Check before you share. Consider yourself, if you're in authority, that you can be under this very old-fashioned intelligence operation. You can easily be a target. You might have access to critical infrastructure information, even being an engineer there, because that's, for instance, the target. And the resilience is actually not about preventing things today. It's about how you revive and how do you solve the problem which is already there. And I think that this kind of admiring the problem face should be over. We know exactly what is going on in the last space, but we are the elite in this room, in the sense. We have access to information, we have education, we have access to people, maybe documentation, meetings like this. We know, and we also have the responsibility to share our knowledge and to share the resilience response that is needed for the greater audience. I think we also do that, particularly for younger generation, for whom the political, the level of political interest is very low. And this is about this gathering information and getting the best practices of agencies or the authorities. That's exactly what the Centre of Excellence is doing. We are gathering experts, practitioners and also multi-disciplinary manner to discuss and to share the best practices. Thanks, Christy. And so I think media literacy, that that seems to be a key thing that we should be establishing a little bit more of. Serena, if I can come to you to that last point, you know, how should the EU be resilient when threats are coming from, for example, Russia, as our question had said there. You know, if they're acting on different rules, you spoke about narratives, how do we address that? So what should, in your opinion, be the EU response to those actions? I think I mean, when we speak about EU, this is a kind of very big generalisation, because we have separate different countries, and our colleagues mentioned here, different groups of the countries. And the Russian approach usually is to have bilateral relations and to establish bilateral rules of game, you know, these particular countries. And in a sense, this means also setting exclusion, even, you know, for example, Finnish-Russian relations, for example, also, the specific, you know, finalisation as such means also exclusion, you know, from the general pool of the countries, let's say at the EU level, I mean, I'm not talking about NATO issues, etc., etc., but this means like exclusion. And I think responses everywhere in the EU, you know, to have proper public sector, I mean, in some of the countries, especially in East Central Europe, what you get recently, in the recent, let's say, 20 years, you have smaller and smaller public sector every time. And then, you know, it's a question if firefighters are coming, if, you know, whatever, police is able to react. And then we'll ask something from the society. I mean, when you don't have proper provision of public services, in a sense, when you have less and less state, okay. So on another side of the border, you have state-centered system, which has, for example, like if you take in the Russian military, so-called political directorate, which is already kind of refurbished and reborn very recently, it has 11,000 people, psychologists, political officers, priests, I mean, and these guys, 11,000, I mean, who has this capacity of 11,000 people thinking about, you know, how to brainwash somebody. And this is only in the military. I'm not talking about other special forces, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, who are doing all this. I don't talk about the Russian TV. So what is kind of, what is a proportion of response? I mean, when you have 11,000 people thinking, I mean, okay, some of them wasting time at this, et cetera, et cetera, not working, but in a sense, you have this potential of people who have the degrees, education, et cetera, et cetera. And then, apparently, we don't have, like, signal intelligence, you know, on the Irish side, for example. So we have to take seriously, I think, at the U-level as well, not on the NATO level, you know, this question of balance of power. I mean, this is, power relationship is important, especially with the Russians and Chinese, because nobody takes you seriously if you don't have power. I mean, they can, you know, play all kinds of ritual games, but, you know, in reality, the situation, I served in the Soviet military, so I know the mentality, so I'm just... That does sound very paternalistic, though, if you don't mind me saying, you know, is that not very sound, yes, yes, but this is a real power, you know, this is a real game. I mean, if you don't have a stick, so somebody... OK, plenty to discuss over to you in coffee. In the interest of time, I'm going to have to cut it short there, but I would thank sincerely Christine Aronin, Professor Surness Leakish, and this assistant professor, Ed Burke, for those insights. We'll take a coffee break until maybe we'll say five to eleven, if I can get you back here. Our conversations later on are going to be on the digital revolution and then on sustainability, so you can take a chance to stretch your legs, ask all the questions to our contributors that you didn't get to ask, and think about what else we might need to do. So thank you sincerely. Please give a round of applause.