Challenges to national defence in contemporary geopolitical situation

The article presents a comprehensive examination of the Russian Federation’s use of United Nations (UN) mechanisms to advance its geopolitical objectives, obstruct international initiatives that contradict its policy, and wage information and psychological warfare. The analysis indicates that the Russian Federation’s participation in the UN Security Council lacks a clear legal foundation, raising questions about the legitimacy of its use of veto power’. It is documented that Russia systematically uses this privilege to veto resolutions aimed at condemning its aggression and investigating war crimes, thereby prolonging the war and evading accountability. Significant attention is given to Russia’s manipulation of UN peacekeeping operations, which it seeks to exploit to consolidate control over occupied territories. The study emphasizes Russia’s information and psychological operations within the UN, which facilitate the spread of disinformation, undermine trust in international institutions, and adversely influence state voting on critical resolutions in the General Assembly. The results obtained illustrate the necessity of revamping the UN decision-making mechanism, particularly by limiting aggressor states’ ability to exercise the veto in their own interests. Proposed procedural reforms aim to enhance the UN’s effectiveness in maintaining peace and safeguarding international security.

The internet space is the most important and affluent source of climate change related information. Hoverer information content are not always satisfying and threat of fake news and disinformation are very realistic. The analysis included top10 search results of four phrases (Climate change, Global warming, Adaptation to climate change and Climate change policy) using Google search engine. The phrases were searched in 11 Baltic Sea Region (BSR) languages and in the Ukrainian and English languages. The results revealed that climate change disinformation and misinterpretation exists on the internet. Mostly it displayed in indirect forms such as old information, existence of junksites, advertisements, unequal share by main actors (government, mass media, etc.). Moreover, on Eastern BSR languages, internet search results of climate change information are less convenient comparing to western BSR languages. The usage of multilanguage approach in Wikipedia pages could be one of the freshest and most reliable sources of information about climate change.

Tackling climate change requires collective, cross-borders actions and local solutions for mitigation measures. Variety of actors are involved in climate change adaptation and mitigation, ranging from local communities to the global supranational institutions. People tend to perceive individual action as failing to cope with climate change (e.g. outlined in Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006) and therefore ascribe high responsibility to the institutional level. This article will analyze how the public in Baltic – Nordic countries perceive the institutional responsibilities in climate change adaptation and mitigation. This article is based on data of Special Eurobarometer (459), conducted in 2017 and the questions analyzed in this article are related to concerns about climate change and the perception of institutional responsibilities in tackling climate change (institutions: national governments, European Union, business and industry, regional and local authorities; and environmental groups). The local, national and global institutions are perceived as having different responsibilities and impacts in tackling climate change. Also, the perceptions of institutional and individual responsibility varies across the countries. Results indicate that climate change is perceived as one of the top three most serious global issues in Baltic – Nordic countries as well as the concern about climate change in those countries is increasing. Regarding public perceptions of institutional responsibility related to climate change risks, most people in EU member states indicate national governments as having highest responsibility. However, there are significant differences comparing the perception of public in Nordic and Baltic States.