“NATO Allies support andstand in solidarity with the United States, following its 15 April announcementof actions to respond to Russia’s destabilising activities. Allies are takingactions individually and collectively to enhance the Alliance’s collectivesecurity……” 

With this preamble, the North AtlanticCouncil (NAC) gave its support to the actions that the United States istaking to try and stop the destabilizing behavior of the Russian Federation. Anofficial Communiqué of this type requires the consensus of all 30 membersof the Alliance. One wonders why 29 allies came together so quickly in supportof the US. Some suspect that many of the smaller allieswill be doing this because the big Ally supportsthem with various economic initiatives. Also, thepreceding US administration had frightened some European allies,and now they see a way to support what they view asa positive change in leadership. It is also true that a NATO withoutthe United States would not have the credibility and deterrent force thathas undergirded its success for 70 years, avoiding war inEurope. Neither can it be denied that political and economicinfluences have and continue to regulate international relations. However, theconsensus mechanism in NATO is not a majority vote. If even one nation wereagainst the message expressed in the Communiqué, itwould have not been approved. Moreover, the violations ofthe territorial sovereignty of Georgia and Ukraine, notably with theillegal annexation of Crimea in the case of the latter, are there forall to see, as well as the lack of implementation and circumventionof numerous international commitments and obligations. The intelligence servicesof the US and other Alliance countries havehighlighted Russian attempts to interfere in the internal politicalactivities of several NATO countries through the spread of false newsand unscrupulous cyber-attacks, which evidently were coming from theRussian world. Faced with these realities, the developments in theinternal affairs of a state, even a sovereign one suchas Russia, which appear questionable in terms of human rightsand Western democratic values, certainly worry NATO countries. What is atstake is, simply put, the stability and security in the NorthAtlantic area, which is threatened by actions that go beyond the nationalborders of the Russian state. The latest spy stories in UK and Italy arejust examples of a larger trend. 

We might draw a parallel with aproblem that challenges our societies today: cyberbullying. This newform of bullying is defined as a set of aggressive and intentional actions, bya single person or a group, carried out by electronic means (SMS, MMS, photos,videos, e-mails, chat rooms, instant messaging, websites, phone calls), whosegoal is to cause harm to a peer unable to defend him/herself. Unfortunately,modern technology presents great opportunities and peculiarities because itallows bullies to infiltrate the homes of victims, to materialize inevery facet of their life, persecuting them with offensive messages,images, videos sent via smartphones or published on websites via theInternet. You may find many similarities between these forms ofbullying with the definitions used by schools vis-à-viswhat happens in the international political arena. The term "Flaming"from the word "flame" is characterized by the useof violent and vulgar messages to create "verbal battles" and"virtual fights," promoting instability within online groups or communities.It is very common in environments such as social networks and forums (verymuch used by new politicians). The expression "hate speech" in thecontext of the Internet is very widespread and is used to refer to online(especially verbal) behaviors thatincite violence, hate and an attitude of discrimination towards the victim."Denigration" refers to the act of slandering and shaming the otherto cause damage to the victim's reputation. 

Think of the alleged interference inelections throughout the Alliance, the rise of newaggressive political figures who foment public fears about the"invasion" of migrants, or politicians from theopposition who incite violence against the governments in office bydisseminating fake news. Then there are the disinformation campaignson the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the attribution of a political color tothe decisions of governments on the openings and lockdowns inrelation to the danger of spreading the virus, aiming to grab the votesof the uninformed. Does this sound familiar? Thinking about the revolutionary tendencies in politics today, has cyberbullyinginfiltrated the geo-political arena? 

Preventing and fighting cyberbullying are difficult tasks that require a collective effort and awareness in our education system. Several international companies and celebrities have decided to promote or participate in projects aimed at overcoming this problem. Among the various initiatives, the #IWillNotBeDeleted campaign aims to discourage forms of cyberbullying related to beauty and physical appearance that afflicts many young girls. Various measures have been taken with the aim not only discouraging misconduct by potential cyberbullies but also of protecting victims. An example is that of Instagram which introduced tools aimed at promoting more positive interactions between users within the community or thatof the World of Warcraft video game which introduced the "silence penalty" to penalize players who display incorrect behavior in this sense, "silencing" them for 24 hours. What if our governments or government groups (in the form of international organizations) can devise similar initiatives to clip the wings of international bullies?