These Studies on Security contain only the results of my scientific views, research, analyses and models. In other words, they provide a SUMMARY of my MAJOR contributions to the Science of Security.
  
  STUDY 1. „THE FIVE LEVELS OF SECURITY“ SCHEME
  
  „THE FIVE LEVELS OF SECURITY“ SCHEME is a cognitive spatial model of security.
  
  The following monograph of mine is devoted to a detailed analysis of this Scheme:
  Николай Слатински. Петте нива на сигурността. София: Военно издателство, 2010.
  [Nikolay Slatinski. Pette niva na sigurnostta. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2010].
  Nikolay Slatinski. The Five Levels of Security. Sofia: Military publishing house, 2010 (in Bulgarian)
  
  
  ▪ The First level of security is Security of the Individual (security of the man, security of the person), and it is called in different manners – individual security, personal security, human security, etc.
  The Security of the individual is increasingly coming to the fore, since it is directly related not just to the right to life, but to the right to a better quality of life, as well as to other basic human rights and obligations, freedoms and responsibilities. The turn towards individual security is the result of new security priorities in the decade before and in the decade after the end of the Cold War.
  One of the most significant narratives in the analysis of the First level of security is the narrative, the main content of which is the differences and dividing lines that run inside the Western world – between Europe and the United States.
  In a coordinate system of two axes: the horizontal axis „Equality“ and the vertical axis „Liberty“, for Europe it can be said that it is more oriented along the axis „Equality“ and less along the axis „Freedom“, while the United States is oriented more along the axis „Freedom“ and less on the axis „Equality”.
  For the sake of completeness, and because this suggests interesting references to network structures, one can also include the third coordinate axis „Brotherhood“ [1]. Then it will be possible to talk about the networking of societies, structures, actors and risk factors.
  All this makes the study of the First level of security very useful in the context of Bulgaria's membership in the Euro-Atlantic Community.
  
  ▪ The Second level of security is Security of the Group of individuals (Group security).
  Not every group of people is a Group in the sense that security theory implies. To be an object of security research, a group of people must have an internal cohesion, consolidation, integrity, loyalty and solidarity arising from the existence or upholding of common values, interests or goals. It is important that there are common wants, needs or desires that need to be satisfied, as well as common threats, dangers and fears that need to be answered. These are all processes or states, properties or deficits that allow a group to structure and self-identify as a community with inherent characteristics of a self-organizing, complex, dynamic and adaptive system.
  A group can separate itself on various grounds – ethnic, religious, territorial, social, professional, corporate, as well as by various criteria such as sexual orientation, special abilities (for example, disability) etc. If a group separates itself ethnically or religiously, it is usually referred to as a „minority“.
  Speaking of groups, of communities of people, one should know that the society itself belongs to them – the society is the most numerous of all groups of individuals in the state, organized or spontaneously arising on its territory.
  The security of the State is associated with much more conservative, objective, absolute, stable, even somewhat archaic categories and priorities (sovereignty, independence, borders, territorial integrity, etc.). And the security of the Society is based on much more subjective, relative, changeable, flexible concepts (identity, solidarity, standard of living, prosperity, etc.). Ideas about the need of the State and of the Society for security may even diverge, since „for a State, survival is about sovereignty, and for a nation [i.e. for a society] it is about identity” [2].
  One of the most significant narratives in the analysis of the Second level of security is the narrative, the main content of which is the differences and dividing lines between the West and the East, in the sense of the civilizational specifics of individualistic and collectivist societies.
  Western culture is an individualistic culture. The Time for her and in her flows like an Arrow, the end of which points to the Past, and the tip to the Future. Western man knows that he is only Here and only Now – and this is just a short segment of the Path, a small segment of Space, a fleeting segment of Time. The life of Western man is but a moment in the flight of the Arrow of Time. The moment that is his only chance, and there will be no second if he misses it – it's all over. Western, Individualistic man is under constant stress from this and therefore is insanely reverent about his health and is terribly afraid of Death. He hates Death, because it can deprive him of the only chance to realize himself, to achieve something in life, to leave a mark after himself. Western man prefers TO HAVE than TO BE, because what he has is a sign and proof that he has been and lived, that he has achieved something. In the West, Man is the measure of all things [3]. Here you cannot enter the same river twice [4], because the second time it will be different along with everything else.
  Eastern culture is a collectivistic culture. The Time for her and in her is a Circle, in which Nature and people revolve many times, cyclically, forever. That is why it is passive and contemplative, irrational and meditative. Eastern, Collectivistic person is calm, thinking, nirvana-like. He knows that if luck is not on his side in this life, then the next turn of the Wheel of Time may be more fortunate. Therefore, you can look at things more philosophically, there is nothing so important that you rush to it with all your might, first of all you need patience. If you sit on the bank of a river and can wait long enough, calmly and patiently, you will live to see the corpse of your enemy float past you in the river. Eastern, collectivistic man has adopted this slow, lethargic view of the things of life. He is not in a hurry, but reflects, looks for meaning. For him, much more important than finding meaning (if that is possible!) is the search for meaning itself. The Eastern man prefers TO BE than TO HAVE, for the fact that he was, that he aspired to the spiritual, is a sign and proof that he has fulfilled his small duty in the realization of a deep and incomprehensible for him highest plan.
  In the West, with much greater justification, a group of individuals is considered to be in a state of security when all individuals (rather, most of them) are in a state of security. The leading value here is the security of the Individual, and the security of the Group is a consequence of the individual security of all its members (or at least of most of them). In practice, this means that society is individualistic – it puts the Individual at the center.
  In the East, just the opposite is true: it is much more accurate to say that the individual is in a state of security when the community to which he belongs is in a state of security. The leading value here is the security of the Group, and the security of each of its members (or, again, at least most of them) is only a consequence of the security of the Group. In practice, this means that society is collectivistic - it puts the Group at the center.
  All this makes the study of the Second level of security very useful in the context of the West's relations with the rest of the world, in which the West bears a huge responsibility for survival and development, for the peace and security of our Planet.
  
  ▪ The Third level of security is Security of the State (State security).
  This is traditional security associated with the protection of primordial values – territorial integrity, sovereignty, independence, public order, etc.
  One of the most significant narratives in the analysis of the Third level of security is the narrative, the main content of which is the transformation of the State as a complex mechanism for the production of security and the evolution of the institutional pillars of the Security State associated with this.
  The Security State is that system of state institutions that is directly involved in the production of security. In a first approximation, the Security State can be viewed as the National Security System.
  All this makes the study of the Third level of security very useful in the context of shrinking role of the Nation State and the penetration of private and corporate interests into almost all sectors of the National Security System.
  
  ▪ The Fourth level of security is Security of the Community of states, i.e. collective security, common security, community security, coalition security.
  Again, not every community of states is a Community in the sense in which security theory defines it. In order to be an object of study from a security point of view, a Community of States, like a Group of Individuals, must have internal cohesion, consolidation, and integration arising from the existence or upholding of common values, interests, or goals, or from the existence of common threats, dangers and fears to which answers must be given.
  The Community of states can be distinguished by any of the following features: by territorial or regional basis, for example, the Balkan states; by ethnicity, for example, Slavic states („Pan-Slavic brotherhood“), Arab states; by religious basis, for example, Orthodox countries („Orthodox axis”), Islamic countries; on the basis of civilization (in the spirit of Samuel Huntington's understanding of „civilization“ [5]), for example, the countries of the West; on the basis of „national wealth“ (or GDP per capita), for example, rich countries. Other forms of association of countries can also be indicated – bilateral and/or multilateral agreements, alliances, pacts, coalitions, security communities, etc. These associations can also be informal, around specific goals, such as the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq.
  One of the most significant narratives in the analysis of the Fourth level of security is the narrative, the main content of which is the problems associated with the interaction between the National Security System of a state and the Collective Security System to which this state has joined. This is because with its membership (integration) in the Collective Security System, every National Security System receives not only advantages and benefits, but also experiences difficulties and problems.
  The following is a non-exhaustive list of issues that the National Security System faces in its membership in the Collective Security System:
  * The first challenge is a consequence of the fact that, regardless of the size of the state and its power, people experience a sense of insecurity whenever they encounter a crisis situation or some kind of instability. However, the rulers and peoples of small states can hardly (and often do not even try) to explain to the rulers and peoples of large states that the security and vulnerability (fears, anxieties, complexes) of both a small state and a large state from the point of view of their peoples and most of all of the ordinary people in these states are completely commensurate.
  * The second challenge is a consequence of the fact that in each Collective Security System the states differ in real power, financial contribution to the effective functioning of the Collective Security System, methods and resources for influencing other partners. Hence the different attitude of the Collective Security System as a whole and the larger (leading) states in it to the security risks of the Collective Security System itself or to their own security and, accordingly, to the security risks of smaller (secondary) states.
  In the Collective Security System, some states are more security producers, while others are more security consumers. This gives the second kind (class) of states a lower place when weighing all the votes. The influence of the stronger on the weaker partners in the Collective Security System is both informal in nature, manifested in the daily process of joint activities, and institutionalized – through summit meetings and various commissions, groups, initiatives with a limited number of participants. For being more security producers, larger states are compensated by their leading role in the Collective Security System, by the right to make decisions on behalf of and instead of small states. For being more security consumers, smaller states pay with territory (bases), services, combat units, etc.
  Even if decisions in the Collective Security System are made by consensus and according to the most modern procedures for coordinating positions and smoothing out contradictions, although votes in the Collective Security System are usually not counted, in practice they are weighed. The smaller state usually participates more or less formally in the decision-making process, and it often has to agree with decisions already taken.
  There is no automatism in the Collective Security System; they do not work immediately if something wrong and even dangerous happens to the weaker partner. Therefore, it is possible for the Big, the Whole to oversleep the problems of the Small, the Part. The Whole is always greater and more significant than its Parts. Separate Parts therefore united – to build such a Whole, the interests of which are at least an order of magnitude higher than the interests of its constituent Parts. Each Part, including the smaller one, may at some point ignore the interests of the Whole, but at the same time (especially with its limited resources and influence) it risks either being left alone in the face of some challenges, or falling out de jure or de facto from the Collective Security System (i.e. from the Whole).
  By relying too heavily on the Collective Security System, a small state can be left defenseless if the Collective Security System collapses, becomes paralyzed, or goes astray. This requires an analysis of likely scenarios (and whether they exist) in which a (small) state will have to rely solely on itself.
  On the other hand, a strong focus on one's own National Security System may lead to alienation from the Collective Security System, as a result of which a small (smaller) state will not be able to cooperate successfully and effectively with other member states, will fall out of the Collective Security System and even become incompatible with it. It is also possible that the Collective Security System may come to the conclusion that it can no longer rely on this (smaller) state.
  * The third challenge is a consequence of the fact that the Collective Security System imposes certain regimes, requirements and conditions on the National Security System. In order to work effectively and ensure timely response to challenges, manage risks, control dangers and neutralize threats, the Collective Security System must have already established and periodically „upgraded” and „updated” sustainable capacity and reliable capabilities. In order to achieve the goals of the Collective Security System and build up its necessary capacity and capabilities, each state in this System must be ready to make and when it is necessary – to make a significant contribution. But this contribution is a consequence of the financial and human potential, which is limited for the corresponding state (as well as for any state, but especially for a state with limited resources of influence), they are taken, so to speak, from the same pocket and from the same population. This means that the needs of the Collective Security System and the needs of the National Security System come into competition – for which of them in the first place to allocate financial and human resources. And the National Security System is faced with a dilemma that rulers usually solve along the line of least resistance - they believe that the state should first of all satisfy the needs of the Collective Security System, and then, if it still has the strength and means, to do everything else. In such a situation, the state, especially with more modest capabilities, in its desire to establish itself as a very reliable partner, can invest huge funds for it in fulfilling the criteria and requirements of the Collective Security System and thereby deprive itself of the opportunity to build its own capacity for autonomous work when the need arises.
  * The fourth challenge is a consequence of the fact that any participation in the Collective Security System for small states is actually connected with the purchase of security and the limitation of sovereignty. This in some cases leads to shocks from contacts with another environment; to the risk of being drawn into conflicts in which their interests are not affected or in which they have no interests. If the Whole is involved in conflict, then immediately every Part of it is involved in conflict. When you are a part of the Whole, if another Part of that Whole is attacked, you must stand on the side of that Part – that is what it means to be a complete, integral Part of the Whole.
  The agreements in the Collective Security System have and will have a higher priority than the internal goals and objectives of each member state. By joining this System, in order to be protected in extreme circumstances, each state obeys the maxim that its security is only a part of the security of the System, which stands above all, namely, a security threat to a state arises when it results in a security threat to the Collective Security System. It has already been said that in the Collective Security System, where everyone is supposedly equal and makes decisions on the basis of consensus, a small number of states have the right to more global interests.
  * The fifth challenge is a consequence of the fact that, remaining in the narrow space of their region, small states begin to speak about their security in the local, regional language, one might even say, in a dialect that is difficult to access and often not entirely understandable for large states in the Collective Security System. As a result, small states find it more difficult to communicate their concerns about local issues such as border disputes, linguistic, religious and ethnic tensions (internal or with neighbours). Such issues can be considered by the Collective Security System primarily as psychological complexes caused by backwardness, pre-modernity, archaism.
  All this makes the study of the Fourth level of security very useful in the context of the integration of the National Security System of Bulgaria in the collective security systems of NATO and the European Union.
  
  ▪ The Fifth level of security is Security of the World, the security of the planet (common security, comprehensive security, global security, universal security).
  One of the most significant narratives in the analysis of the Fifth level of security is the narrative, the main content of which is the trends that in the next 15-20 years will determine as coordinate axes the multidimensional space of the system of international relations and will be dynamic temporal and spatial frameworks for global, continental, regional and national security environment.
  All this makes the study of the Fifth level of security very useful in the context of challenges and risks facing Bulgaria and the need to formulate a strategy and policy for the realization of Bulgarian national interests.
  



  
  Figure 1. „The Five Levels of Security“ Scheme (Vertical Section of Security)
  
  The first three levels of security (individuals, groups of individuals and states) define National security, or rather, they cover with a high degree of completeness and clarity objects studied by National security.
  The last three levels of security (states, communities of states and world) define International security, or rather, they cover with a high degree of completeness and clarity the objects studied by International security.
  
  National security can be defined as the security of the System of intra-national (intra-state) relations, i.e. as the security of the INTRAnational Relations System.
  International security can be defined as the security of the System of inter-national (inter-state) relations, i.e. as the security of the INTERnational Relations System.
  
  
  References:
  1. Атали, Жак. Братства. София: Критика и хуманизъм, 2003, 148 – 162.
  Atali, Zhak, Bratstva. Sofia: Kritika I humanizam, 2003, 148 – 162. (in Bulgarian)
  (Attali, Jacques. Fraternities)
  2. Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998, p. 36.
  3. Protagoras (c. 490 BC - c. 420 BC), ancient Greek philosopher: „Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of.“
  4. Heraclitus (c. 544 BC - 483 BC), ancient Greek philosopher: „No man ever steps in the same river twice.“
  5. 5. A Community with a high degree of integrity based on history, culture, ethnicity and religion, with a close, including to coincidence, value system. In this case, the undisputed candidate is the Islamic world.
  See for more: Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996, 21 – 28.
  
  
  Brief explanation:
  The texts of my Studies have been translated into English by me. They have not been read and edited by a native English speaker, nor by a professional translator. Therefore, all errors and ambiguities caused by the quality of the translation are solely mine. But I have been guided by the thought that the purpose of these Studies is to give information about my contributions to the Science of Security by presenting them in a brief exposition, and not to demonstrate excellent English, which, unfortunately, I cannot boast of.
  
  
  07.11.2022