In line with contemporary realities, security today will increasingly have to scientifically refer to points that lie far beyond the domains of military strategizing. This requires an even stronger popularization of the relevance of security culture, which, besides being a normative system of evaluative contents, today opens another important dimension: that of cognitive standards. These standards define our ontological and democratic existence.
Address by Prof. Dr. Ana Chupeska
Dear colleagues, dear academic community,
As we often emphasize within political science, security in the digital era has long ceased to be merely a technical parameter; rather, it represents the central battleground for preserving our democratic practice and human essence itself — namely, its epistemology and ontology. We find ourselves amid a state of permanent technical acceleration in which the boundaries between the physical and digital worlds are melting into what Luciano Floridi defines as an “Onlife” reality.
In line with contemporary realities, security today will increasingly have to scientifically refer to points that lie far beyond the domains of military strategizing. This requires an even stronger popularization of the relevance of security culture, which, besides being a normative system of evaluative contents, today opens another important dimension: that of cognitive standards. These standards define our ontological and democratic existence.
I have several key theses through which I would scan the factual situation apropos the actuality of the moment:
• First, we are witnessing an acute crisis of personal digital sovereignty, which is under pressure from “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff); in other words, personal data are no longer information, but “behavioral raw material / Marxist surplus,” whose usurpation nullifies individual autonomy.
• Second, we are witnessing digital violence and deculturation tied to the mass application of artificial intelligence (AI), which profoundly destabilizes individuals’ psychological security.
• Third, the previous two conditions form the basis for political instrumentalization, that is, they constitute an open field for psyop operations. Because the absence of value-stimulating cognitive development renders people susceptible to sophisticated “psyopification” — namely, manipulation that degrades people’s conscious defense mechanisms.
• Fourth, an erosion of the public sphere is taking place, fragmented into asymmetric ecosystems that disable the possibility of a “shared truth,” thereby creating a state of permanent ontological insecurity.
• Fifth, supranational regulations are facing the risk of autocratic co-optation, known as the “Putin Test.”
• Sixth, NATO itself acknowledges that cognitive warfare is now being served at the table. This means that attacks are directed toward the epistemic and value structures of society (the so-called systemic invariants).
• Finally, we can still treat democracy as a legitimate and, above all, existential defense mechanism, given that democratic systems are the only platform capable of building genuine cognitive, ontological, and psychological resilience.
These were the so-called raw theses; now allow me to elaborate on them in greater detail.
When we speak about digital sovereignty, we must understand that it is not merely a legal construct, but rather a “hybrid black box” of technical and CULTURAL COMPONENTS that stabilize sovereign claims in cyberspace. For example, in the Macedonian context, the institutional transition toward a ministry for digital transformation — let us not deceive ourselves — is not sufficient for resilience, because the true sovereignty of a state remains illusory if the citizen’s personal digital sovereignty is not protected. This follows the line of Zuboff, who warns us that “surveillance capitalism” functions through the expropriation of personal data, where human nature is “scraped and torn apart” for the needs of market projects. This usurpation of data creates a culture of desensitization, in which the individual loses their “inner autonomy” and becomes an easy target for instrumental power. A target for cognitive intrusion.
Furthermore, the securitization of the digital sphere, viewed through the prism of the Copenhagen School, teaches us that security is a discursive act that justifies extraordinary measures. Through the implementation of acts harmonized with the NIS2 Directive in January 2026, Macedonia demonstrates a transition toward a proactive security culture that also involves the private sector. Yet even this remains extremely modest — I would say, if I wished to use a euphemism — but I will not; instead, I will say that it is irresponsible, just as irresponsible as signing the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI in May 2026. It is irresponsible because the four key EU regulatory acts (the AI Act, Digital Services Act – DSA, Digital Markets Act – DMA, and Data Act) are not applicable to us. Even more so because, without substantive mechanisms capable of preventing “psyopification” — that is, the manipulation of cognitive processes through sophisticated algorithms that replace value-based cognitive evolution with susceptibility — such conventions, ministries, and similar “cosmetic measures” remain empty forms while dehumanization continues unchecked.
The most sophisticated threat today is cognitive warfare, which targets the “systemic invariants” of society — our epistemic, value-based, and identity structures. Given Macedonia’s low media literacy index and the absence of a digital literacy index, our citizens find themselves in a state of heightened vulnerability to digital violence and information manipulation. The absence of value-stimulating cognitive development creates a vacuum that malignant actors fill with radicalization. Benkler proves this by arguing that technology is not destiny, but de facto exists in interaction with institutions. Meanwhile, our asymmetric media loops create “ontological insecurity” — a profound anxiety regarding the stability of identity and the world in which we live.
Now allow me briefly to suggest an exit strategy for Macedonia in such a deculturized and cognitively insecure environment.
• First, Macedonia must conceptualize an exit strategy that defines democracy as the supreme security interest and a precondition for every security culture. This implies radical supranational integration and value-based multilateralism, namely urgent integration into the EU and, naturally, into democratic NATO. In parallel, it is worth opening ourselves to value-aligned “middle powers,” as Carney called them. If you have followed the postulates of this old-new democratic position, formalized at the latest meeting of the European Political Community, as well as the defense alignment between the EU and Canada, it becomes easy to see that the line of resilience runs through the values of substantive democracy.
• Second, there is a need to protect personal digital sovereignty, which must become a cultural value and norm. We must redefine our relationship toward data — here and now. We cannot all continue to be free data points. Likewise, privacy protection must not remain merely an administrative obligation, but rather a bulwark against “psyopification,” deculturation, and the desensitization of the population.
• Third, the way out of informational chaos requires the building of cognitive, ontological, and psychological resilience through education that fosters critical awareness and ethical reasoning. And for this to be applicable, a substantively democratic system is a prerequisite, because democratic systems are the only possible option for constructing this kind of resilience.
• Fourth, there is also a need to restore the authority of professional journalism and science as cultural brakes against informational and cognitive warfare (that is, psychological warfare), as well as against deculturation, fragmentation, and the compromise of the public sphere.
I would like to conclude by saying that the security and safety of Macedonia in the digital age will not be built through software firewalls, ministries, or phrases about e-democracy, but through resilient and conscious people. And supranational democratic interconnectedness is the only sustainable platform capable of preserving human dignity and personal digital sovereignty.