NEW YORK, Nov 19 (IPS) – A week has gone by since COP 26 with 197 Parties ended in the Scottish city of Glasgow on extended time last Saturday. Climate change which covers wide array of issues affecting all living beings engaged the people around the world for COP 26 in a way never experienced since COP1 was held in Berlin in 1995.
Austria will introduce a full lockdown that could last for three weeks on Monday in an attempt to tackle a new wave of Covid-19 infections. The government has also ordered the entire population to get vaccinated from February 1.
On Friday, conservative Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg told a news conference that a complete lockdown of the nation would begin on Monday and last for an initial 10 days.
He stated that the restrictions could be extended if infection rates did not start to fall, but he insisted the lockdown would not exceed 20 days.
The measures concern the entire Austrian population. The government has already imposed a partial lockdown on the unvaccinated in an effort to reduce hospitalization rates amid a surge in Covid-19 cases.
When the full lockdown ends, restrictions will remain in place for the unvaccinated.
Schallenberg’s announcement came after a meeting of nine state governors, two of whom had already vowed to introduce full lockdowns in their regions on Monday, in the western province of Tyrol.
The chancellor also announced that vaccinations would be mandatory from February 1. “We haven’t been able to convince enough people to vaccinate. For too long, I and others have assumed that you can convince people to get vaccinated,” he added, giving his rationale for the mandate.
Schallenberg said he lamented the political forces, radical opposition, and fake news fighting against vaccination.
Austria has one of the lowest vaccination rates in western Europe, with only 65% inoculated against the deadly virus according to data from Johns Hopkins university.
Infection rates are almost among the highest on the continent. The seven-day incidence rate stands at 971.5 per 100,000 people.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
EXPERT PERSPECTIVE — On 16 June, US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin met for just under four hours in Geneva. This was Mr. Biden’s first meeting with Mr. Putin during his presidency and Biden is the fifth US President with whom Putin has held a summit.
Expectations for the summit were characterized as low by both sides in advance and assessed a bit more positively after the conclusion of the meeting. The meeting presented an opportunity for both leaders to present grievances and warnings to the other (and show toughness to their domestic constituencies). Other than presenting the opportunity to blow off steam, the results of the meeting appear modest: the agreement to return ambassadors to their posts, to resume bilateral arms control discussions, to conduct discussions on “strategic stability” and to hold unspecified consultations on cyber. In typical fashion, Mr. Putin rejected all of Mr. Biden’s assertions about Russian actions and made counter accusations referencing hostile US actions.
Of the deliverables from the summit, cyber will no doubt turn out to be the most problematic area for follow up. Mr. Biden apparently delivered to Mr. Putin a list of 16 US critical infrastructure sectors that should be considered “off limits” for cyberattacks, e.g., “red lines” not to be crossed without the risk of significant retaliation. For his part, Mr. Putin asserted that it is Russia that is the victim of cyberattacks originating from the territory of the US and it’s NATO partners and also is the victim of attempts to interfere with Russian elections. The challenge in cyber discussions going forward will center around three areas: differing interpretations of the relevance of deterrence theory in today’s cyber environment, attribution, and control.
Mr. Biden’s firm comments to Mr. Putin on recent cyberattacks against the US such as the ransomware attack on Colonial Pipelines (Mr. Biden is said to have asked Mr. Putin how he would react if Russia’s pipelines were hit?) and his provision of a list of “off limits” US infrastructure entities suggests a deep belief in this administration that Russia can be deterred from engaging in future conduct of cyber operations against US targets or “sanctioning” attacks originating from the territory of the Russian Federation by criminal groups.
Unfortunately, it is highly likely that either Mr. Putin nor those who control the levers of Russian cyber operations agree that deterrence theory applies. Deterrence only works when both sides know the other is capable of – and willing to – cause significant harm to the other.
The Russian side likely believes (and may have amply demonstrated) that the US is disproportionately vulnerable to cyber risk at every level of its economic, societal, and political infrastructure whereas Russia is not. There is a reason the use of cyber tools has become a central feature of Russian strategic doctrine. They work and seem a legitimate tool that falls short of conventional war. Hybrid warfare using cyber tools, the Russian side would argue, is no different than the economic warfare Russia is experiencing from sanctions imposed by the US its allies.
For full access to the article, sign up to become a Cipher Brief member for just $10/mo.
“The Cipher Brief has become the most popular outlet for former intelligence officers; no media outlet is even a close second to The Cipher Brief in terms of the number of articles published by formers.” – Sept. 2018, Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 62 No.
Access all of The Cipher Brief’s national-security focused expert insight by becoming a Cipher Brief Level I Member .
