“During the past 3 centuries human population has increased tenfold to 6000 million and fourfold in the 20th century

• Cattle population increased to 1400 million (one cow/family) by a factor of 4 during the past century

• There are currently some 20 billion (20,000 million) of farm animals worldwide

• Urbanisation grew more than tenfold in the past century almost half of the people live in cities and megacities

• Industrial output increased 40 times during the past century; energy use 16 times

• Almost 50 % of the land surface has been transformed by human action”

Paul Crutzen

Dutch Nobel prize winning atmospheric chemist***

“Fish catch increased 40 times

• The release of SO2 (110 Tg/year) by coal and oil burning is at least twice the sum of all natural emissions;

over land the increase has been 7 fold, causing acid rain, health effects, poor visibility and climate changes due to sulfate aerosols

• Releases of NO to the atmosphere from fossil fuel and biomass burning is larger than its natural inputs, causing regional high surface ozone levels

• Several climatically important ”greenhouse gases” have substantially increased in the atmosphere, eg.

CO2 by 40 %, CH4 by more than 100 %.”

Paul Crutzen

Dutch Nobel prize winning atmospheric chemist***

“Water use increased 9 fold during the past century to 800 m3 per capita / year;

65 % for irrigation, 25 % industry, ~10 % households

It takes 20, 000 litres of water to grow 1 kilo of coffee

11,000 litres of water to make a quarter pounder

5,000 litres of water to make 1 kilo of cheese

1 kg meat → 16000 litres of water

1 kg grain → 1000 litres of water”

Paul Crutzen

Dutch Nobel prize winning atmospheric chemist

Воєнна доктрина РФ в переліку загроз містить розширення НАТО і нарощування можливостей США та альнсу в цілому..*** У Стратегії Національної безпеки США дії Росії кваліфіковані як агресія що потребує протидії.. *** Росія реформує силові структури: відбувається створення Федеральної служби військ Національної Гвардії на базі Внутрішніх військ МВС, Федеральної міграційної служби та Федеральної служби контролю обігу наркотиків.. *** Глави оборонних відомств країн ЄС погодили новий план оборони і безпеки та домовилися створити новий штаб і спільні сили швидкого реагування.. ***


img 0602 1 1Eugenia Sadovska 


Over the last 10 years, the controlling of information space has moved away from being purely the “internal affair” of individual states. The ability of people and communities to use information space in order to participate in malicious activities makes it impossible to ignore the problem at an international level.

          Various discussions at the highest level of government and in business indicate the level of concern by leading states in this regard. The problem becomes more complicated with the lack of a common coordinated view amongst leading countries on information space and information security in general, as well as increased global discussions about software copyright and related rights on the Internet. 

The first step to solve the problem of information security in combating cyber-crime at an international level was the Convention on Cyber-crime adopted by the Council of Europe in 2001 (1). 

However, not all countries- such as Russia, Andorra, Monaco, and San-Marino (2) have ratified this document. In addition, this document is regionally focused and does not solve issues on military usage of cyber-space or global international approaches to information security, despite the fact that other States have taken part in it. 

The uncertainty at the global level and the lack of agreed standards force individual state governments to shape information security policy at a national level. To solve this problem a number of countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have created their own strategies, and organized appropriate departments [both law enforcement and military] to counter cyber-threats (3). Studying strategic approaches to the information security of these countries may be a good example for the formation of domestic laws in other countries like Ukraine and help influence the international consensus formation on the future of cyber-space.


Rapid and continuous development of information and communication technologies simplifies the technical and policy collaboration in the further development of international cooperation. However, some achievements in the information sphere can be used for certain purposes that interfere with the providing of information security and strategic stability in cyber networks. This possibly means that information is becoming a factor that can lead to significant technological accidents, military conflicts, disrupt business activity, and contribute to system failures. It can also disrupt public administrations, finance systems, and the operation of research centers. And the higher the level of intellectualization and informatization within a society, the more necessary reliable information security becomes, as the implementation of interest, people and states is carried out more by means of free-flowing information and data. 

The aforementioned demonstrates to what extent modern society depends on the stable functioning of its information systems. The widespread use of ICT leads to the formation of completely new challenges. That is why information security is seen as a strategic issue at both the national and international level. In addition, it affects all spheres of public life. According to Howard Schmidt, who was appointed to the post of first coordinator on cyber-security to the President of the United States White House, the main priority of a state's policy should be the creation of a clear strategy as a means of enhancing the security and reliability of the state’s information systems (4). 

The strategy on information security sets a number of governmental objectives and priorities which must be achieved in an appropriate period of time. In fact, the strategy is a model for the solving of a state’s security problem. In order to achieve this goal, private and public sectors must work together. Cooperation should be maintained through the exchange of information and up-to-date practices. 

One of the first countries that began to see information security as a problem of national importance was the United States. In 2003 the National Security Strategy to secure cyber-space was published (5). This document was part of a broader National Strategy for homeland security which was created in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (6). 

After a large-scale cyber-attack in 2007 in Estonia (7) [where, during the conflict with Russia most government sites were almost totally disabled], and after Estonia became one of the first EU member states in 2008, a broad National cyber-security strategy was published (8). Other EU states have also published their own national strategies on this issue (9). 

The United Kingdom, whose potential in the sphere of information security is considered to be one of the most powerful in the world, continuous to develop its own security forces in cyber-space. In June 2009, the United Kingdom released the first Cyber-security strategy of the United Kingdom, which included three main areas: reducing risk, recognizing opportunities, and improving responses to cyber incidents (10). 

Ukraine began to place emphasis on cyber-security in 2002, when the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine formed units on high-tech crime prevention (11). Military participation in combating cyber-threats is stated in the “Strategic Defense Bulletin of Ukraine until 2015” (12). Ukraine is also a part of a group working with NATO on cyber and military reform issues (13). Despite this fact, Ukraine has no relevant document on cyber-security. In my opinion (14), this results in an inability to counter new challenges to national security which are related to information technology usage in the age of globalization- previously cyber-threats. The Decree of the President of Ukraine "On the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine from June 8, 2012" mentioned a new version of the National Security Strategy of Ukraine” (15). In addition, the inability to counter cyber-threats is not just connected to a lack of strategy, but also to the notable differences in the understanding of “information security”. 

The difference in views on information security depends on how governments interpret it. Each state considers global issues in terms of their own national interests and values. 

For example, the policy of the Ukrainian government on information security is focused on priorities which are completely different from what the U.S. and Europe has. Americans and Europeans understand information security and information space firstly from a “technological” aspect (16). Ukrainians, like Russians, use a broader philosophical and political meaning of “information security” and “information space”. The technological aspect of this issue is just one of many components (17) in the Ukrainian understanding of information security. Furthermore, this problem is not a high priority for the current Ukrainian government. In the “Doctrine on information security of Ukraine” only the terms “cyber-crimes” and “computer terrorism” are mentioned. But there is no definition of these terms in the preamble. The primary objectives for Ukraine in the information sphere are to protect national identity and culture, and to ensure the free flow of information (18). 

A more coordinated common understanding of this problem, and the formulation of “information security,” would help the governments of different countries talk easily about threats to their networks; facilitate cooperation in response to these threats; and reduce the prospects of their development in response to crises. This can initially be achieved through the establishment of appropriate legislation in the information sphere. But this of course takes time and finances. 

For some states, such as Ukraine, there is some difficulty in the adoption and implementation of various concepts, strategies, doctrines, etc. due to the absence of an established state policy guidelines hierarchy and the lack of awareness of differences from other legal acts. This leads to unstable and unbalanced state policy, and reduces the effectiveness of the impact of public management, both in the information sphere and in politics in general. 

Adoption of the Doctrine on Information Security of Ukraine, which according to the developers is “the basis for development of concepts, strategies, special programs and action plans projects,” has led to the evaluation of this step as not being the most efficient, beginning from objective-setting and goal-formulation for a practical result. Doctrine, as a declaration of the official State position, expresses only a safe measurement of information activities (19). There is no clear division of information security and cyber-security, nor a definition of a strategic approach in combating cyber-crime. Therefore, countries like Ukraine- from the very beginning -should develop a strategy to combat cyber-crime in accordance with the existing strategies of leading countries in this sphere, for example the U.S. and U.K. which have clearly defined strategic objectives and approaches to challenges and threats, principles and priorities of state policy in cyber-security.



1.Convention on cybercrime, Council of Europe – Budapest, 23.XI.2001:     

2.Table of signatures and ratifications:;CM=&NT=185&DF=&VL=      

3.James A. Lewis, Katrina Timlin, Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare, Preliminary Assessment of National Doctrine and Organization, Center for Strategic and International Studies – 2011:     

4.Introducing the New Cybersecurity Coordinator:   

5.The National Strategy to secure cyberspace, U.S. government via Department of Homeland Security – February 14, 2003: 

6.National Strategy for homeland security, Office of Homeland security – July 2002: 

7. Alex Michael, Special Series, Cyber Probing: The Politicization of Virtual Attack – Defense Academy of the United Kingdom, October 2012:   

8. Cyber Security Strategy – Cyber security strategy Committee, Ministry of Defense, Estonia – Tallinn, 2008: 

9.National Cyber Security Strategies: Setting the course for national efforts to strengthen security cyberspace, ENISA (European Network and Information Security Agency), May 2012:   

10.Cyber Security Strategy of the United Kingdom: safety, security and resilience in cyber space – June 2009:  

11.Управління боротьби з кіберзлочинністю:  

12.Організаційно-методичні рекомендації щодо проведення оборонного огляду в Україні (вересень 2008 – грудень 2009 року):;lang=ua&sub=institutional_guidelines  

13.NATO and Ukrainian experts discuss cyber defense:,   

Експертні консультації Україна – НАТО з питань кібернетичного захисту:   

14.The views expressed in this study are the author’s views and do not represent the State Government point of view. 

15.Указ Президента України «Про рішення ради національної безпеки і оборони України» № 389/2012 від 8 червня 2012 року «Про нову редакцію стратегії національної безпеки України»:  

16.Russia, the United States and Cyber Diplomacy, Opening the Door / By Franz-Stefan Gady and Greg Austin / EastWest Institute, 2010:   

17.Закон України «Про основні засади розвитку інформаційного суспільства в Україні на 2007 – 2015 роки» від 9 січня 2007 року № 537-V:   

18.Доктрина інформаційної безпеки України № 514/2009 від 8 липня 2009 року: 

19.Аналітична записка «Структура керівних документів державної політики в інформаційній сфері: нагальні проблеми та шляхи впорядкування»:  


Eugenia Sadovska, Master of Public Administration. 

Development and Security Association