By Maria Makurat - Human Rights and Cyber Security Teams
Introduction
“Couldn’t we just shut it off? You know, cut the wires?” “There is no if, it cannot be shut off”.(Ocean’s 13, 2007). Nearly 20 years later, the thought of implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) machine is now very likely and no longer a fiction when thinking about casinos or other institutions. With the continuous rise of AI new cybersecurity threats are and will take place so, “pick your natural disaster” (Ocean’s 13, 2007). The development of autonomous weapons (AWs) and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly playing a role in testing cyber defence strategies of countries such as Germany and the rest of the EU. The international affairs field is continuously asking questions about: ethics in cyber warfare, cognitive warfare and AI, how to describe certain attacks, how can one analyse a country’s cyber strategy in the first place to name a few. AI is rapidly evolving, and new threats are on the rise. “Mythos” is a new development in AI that can cause great damage in hacking and cyber-attacks. Mythos is able to identify the vulnerabilities of systems making it thus for hackers a tool to identify the chinks in the chain and use it for their own gain. But what also about the changing trends of using technology in the first place? Younger generations such as Gen Z are favouring analogue technology and one sees a trend of people having the desire to go back to ‘physical media’. Could this possibly have an influence on the future of cyber defence if individuals are favouring not to use technology?
With this in mind, can Europe for instance develop a certain AI cyber strategy (favouring the offensive active side) and continue to ensure the safety of all sectors? How do individual needs and trends fit into this?
The development of an AI cyber strategy?
Researchers (e.g. Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Wilhelm Vosse) are talking more about Active Cyber Defence (ACD). Meaning there is a shift in cyber strategy that it is no longer solemnly about Cyber Defence (CD) but also proactively taking steps and measurements to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. However as early as 2017, scholars such as Scott Jasper already encouraged an automated cyber defence in order to halt attacks before they can even begin to cause damage. The recent G7 summit has taken place in Évian, also hosted for the first time CEO’s from :Open AI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic. This shows how strongly at the moment states combine their strategy with industry innovation since both go hand in hand in terms of continuously developing a cyber-strategy or what we might see, an AI active cyber-strategy. The meeting called upon guidelines where the US should have a pivotal regulating role and avoiding chips manufactured by China. The dynamics become even more complex as conflicts and different situations amongst states influence the development of an AI cyber strategy and even push states to regulating access to certain systems. Anthropic has released the statement: “The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees.”
It seems that one is moving into the debate of how one can have a single state determine for us what is safe and what isn’t whilst at the same time ensuring that individuals are regularly kept ‘up-to-date’ with latest possible malicious activities? Should we head towards a single regulating ‘body’ that makes sure that our cyber domain is safe? Will we have more cyber laws and push people ‘living’ more in the cyber realm? It is a tandem of focusing on the macro and micro level whilst keeping up with the overall rapid (malicious) development of technology. Each country seems to share of course resources to develop a strategy against the rising threat of AI yet, still each state faces individual hurdles and challenges that makes a unified AI active cyber strategy difficult to consider. Germany for instance has now taken a step towards a more active cyber strategy whilst France has now put talent development at the top of their strategy preferring , the individual level when speaking from a sociological point of view. South Korea’s biggest issues remains North Korea’s cyber-attacks so their focus lies there.
If we were to dive deeper into thinking about the methodology and taking the factors “society” and “individuals” into account, the development of an AI cyber strategy and the mere thought of states and countries continuing to ‘wage war’ against each other in the cyber domain, becomes more complex. Max Weber for instance claims that one has to take the factor “discipline” into account when analysing war and societal changes. Weber states the following: “The kind of weapon has been the result and not the cause of discipline.” So if we refer to cyber-attacks and hacking systems such as “Mythos” indeed as ‘weapons’, then they are apparently the result of discipline and should be treated with great care. When we consider discipline, then one also has to take the individual person into account. In the following, hypothetical questions will be asked in order to allow future debates to take place regarding how generations are using technology, especially younger ones. Whilst a macro viewpoint is essential, a micro approach focusing strongly on the individuals is equally important.
Trends amongst younger generations in using technology
Perhaps the recent trend with young people using more old digital technology will be the solution to be safer? There even is an initiative or a so-called “AI resistance movement” with individuals wanting customised computers and technology that does not have any AI integrated. Looking at the creative sector, news stories talk about the trend of individuals (especially younger generations gen z) coming together to create physical mood boards from magazines, reading physical books at the library in groups or for instance having a hobby group where one is not allowed to open any technology device.
These questions are of course speculative and hypothetical and up for debate however, taking one step back and looking at the society through a different lens may open up new ways of thinking. What if the civilians start moving ‘backwards’ in the cyber world? What if one develops active cyber strategies but eventually, civilians might find it ‘safer’ to avoid said technologies in the first place? Perhaps individuals will go back completely to using flip phones with no access to AI or prefer having a physical magazine or book instead of exposing their data to algorithms that suggest them reading lists. Some researchers (Anurushmitha, J et al) even suggest that younger generations are less prepared for malicious cyber attacks due to being ‘over-confident’ with technology. So in this regard, it would be interesting for future research to keep analysing how generations are interacting with emerging technologies and whether one sees a decline in the use of advanced technology or a growing confident secure way.
As of this moment it seems like patchwork: one is running to catch up with the emerging problems that AI causes. For example, artists were very much against AI (in 2022) because they wanted to protect their art and copyright. An overall AI cyber strategy for Europe would entail a strategy that goes through all niches and little ‘cracks’ in our society, not only pure defence of military capabilities. The strategy needs to protect critical infrastructure as well as go through our society and directly entail individual’s needs. Scholars such as Henschaw also argue in favour of focusing on the human factor when developing a cyber strategy.
However, one also needs to consider, humans want to act first which is much discussed in disciplines of psychology and sociology. Consultants also can have an interesting take on this matter when one tries to apply for instance Stephen R Covey’s methods. Covey points out when discussing his 7 habits, that “In addition to self-awareness, imagination, and conscience, it is the fourth human endowment -- independent will – that really makes effective self-management possible (…) It is the ability to act rather than to be acted upon, to proactively carry out the program we have developed through the other three endowments.” These questions and concerns show, that the field of analysing cyber issues very much correlates with human interactions which is also highlighted by scholars such as Cavelty et al: “Overreliance on quantitative data could result in technically sound but inadequately human-centred policies that fail to address underlying societal concerns.”
Concluding thoughts and open questions
Can the EU develop one comprehensive AI cyber strategy to combat malicious AI cyber-attacks from the outside? As of this moment, each EU country regularly releases its own (active) cyber defence strategy and also puts emphasis on its own needs, making therefore an EU AI cyber strategy as of this moment a challenging task. It would be interesting to conduct field research on how younger generations are acting with analogue technology and whether they would truly prefer a space with less AI and advanced technology. The Art of War by Zhang Yu states: “Adaptions means not clinging to fixed methods, but changing appropriately according to events, acting as is suitable.”
References:
Alexis Henshaw, Anwar Mhajne, Beyond the Basics: Critical Perspectives on Cybersecurity in International Relations, Global Studies Quarterly, Volume 5, Issue 3, July 2025, ksaf067, https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksaf067
Anurushmitha, J., Nikhitha, D. and Pramod, J.P. (2026) ‘Cyber Security Awareness Among GenZ’, International Journal of Scientific Research and Technology, 3(3), pp. 159–167.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18928049.
Covey, S.R. (1989) The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. First Fireside Edition.
Dunn Cavelty, M., Pulver, T. and Smeets, M. (2024) ‘The Evolution of Cyberconflict Studies’, International Affairs, 100(6), pp. 2317–2339. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae175.
Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C. Wright (1947) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.
Henshaw, A. and Mhajne, A. (2025) ‘Beyond the Basics: Critical Perspectives on Cybersecurity in International Relations’, Global Studies Quarterly, 5(3), ksaf067. https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksaf067.
Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Tobias Pulver, Max Smeets, The evolution of cyberconflict studies, International Affairs, Volume 100, Issue 6, November 2024, Pages 2317–2339, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae175, pg:2338
Stephen R Covey, “the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” First Fireside Edition, 1989, pg 147-148
Sun Tzu (2003) The Art of War: Complete Texts and Commentaries. Translated by Thomas Cleary. Shambhala, Boston and London.
Anthropic (2026) Fable Mythos access. Available at: https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access (Accessed: 13 June 2026).
CNBC (2026) Anthropic, Amodei, Google, Hassabis: US AI coalition G7. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/17/anthropic-amodei-google-hassabis-us-ai-coalition-g7.html (Accessed: 20 June 2026).
Cyble (2026) France national cybersecurity strategy 2026. Available at: https://cyble.com/blog/france-national-cybersecurity-strategy-2026/ (Accessed: 12 June 2026).
Digital Strategy – European Commission (n.d.) European approach to artificial intelligence. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence (Accessed: 1 June 2026).
DIG Watch (2026) Germany approves draft law expanding cyber defense powers for federal authorities. Available at: https://dig.watch/updates/germany-approves-draft-law-expanding-cyber-defense-powers-for-federal-authorities (Accessed: 1 June 2026).
Euronews (2026) Wars, tariffs and AI: what to expect from the G7 summit in Evian. Available at: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/06/14/wars-tariffs-and-ai-what-to-expect-from-the-g7-summit-in-evian (Accessed: 14 June 2026).
ITSS Verona (2026) AI, ICT infrastructures, and social media in today’s conflicts. Available at: https://www.itssverona.it/ai-ict-infrastructures-and-social-media-in-todays-conflicts (Accessed: 20 March 2026).
No comments.