The link between geopolitics and cyberspace is unavoidable as are its shady implications. Cybersecurity isfundamental for international institutions.
We’ve had that inkling for some time now, but perhaps we still haven’t managedto understand it or accept it. The very close link that binds world politics to the digital environment, or, to be more specific, to cyberspace. Cyber security is a central issue in a complex and fraught system of international relations. The consequences of a cyberattack can be many and disastrous: it can destabilize a government, destroy the credibility of a political figure, cut financial funds in an industrial sector or conduct cyber-espionage actions to acquire information to be used for a number of purposes. While some believe that the most “dangerous” countries, meaning those from which one can expect the most “insidious” cyber-attacks, include North Korea, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, it is equally true that establishing the responsibility of an attack with absolute certainty is an almost impossible job. A few examples: who was behind the attacks against Sony Pictures Entertainment in 2014 that caused the company damages of close to 81 million euro? Recently an accusation has been levelled at a North Korean who goes by the name of Park Jin-Hyok who, according to theFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), headed an organisation that brought 230,000 computers to their knees in over 150 countries. Clearly this is nothing more than a supposition.
It is well-established that the techniques used to “track” a computer within the Internet can very rarely guarantee the identification of the attacker’s true identity. What’s more, pinning the responsibility of a cyber-attack to a single individual, if the attack was conducted on a large scale and on “multiple targets” would seem a little naive. But the cyber-attack that has recently become the ultimate bone of contention, is certainly Russiagate.
A few weeks ago China denied the accusations made by President Trump who had singled it out as responsible for purloining Hillary Clinton’s e-mails during the 2016 presidential elections. A statement that clearly conflicted with those made Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who is in charge of the investigations, who is instead fingering Putin, the Kremlin and the GRU (the Russian Armed Forces Information Service), as the real culprits, highlighting the advantages that such an operation has brought to Trump in his election as President. The United States Intelligence Services (FBI, CIA, NSA) have instead assured that the thousands of e-mails stolen by the Russians were delivered to Wikileaks for their distribution.
Even in this instance, questions abound: the online accounts detailed in the investigation documentation do not link any real identities to those used in the virtual environment; if the action was actually conducted by Russian intelligence agencies, the activity would have certainly fallen under the control of the FSB , the Russian Federation’s secret service, and not the GRU, seeing as the first handles espionage, counter-espionage and all other activities that concern the security of the Federation. Conversely, the GRU is responsible for military intelligence on behalf of the armed forces. Even in relation to the collaboration with Wikileaksthings don’t seem as clear as they might. Why should Julian Assange’s organisation join forces with the Russians if, at least since 2010, Wikileaks has always been among the most outspoken accusers of the Moscow government’s abeyance to Putin’s authoritarian rule, exercised in what it has labelled a “Mafia State”? In 2017 Wikileaks even distributed documents which accused Russia of spying on its own citizens.
The new playing field on which the never-ending confrontation between men affecting political, economic, human and geographic relations is now being played out is longer physical, it’s virtual. It’s a world in which whoever has a better understanding of digital tools can achieve outrageous results at minimal cost, while at the same time preserving their anonymity. Trading in information is one of the most profitable activities, seeing as with them one can challenge states, organisations, even large and small companies, while manipulating public opinion to distract its attention from specific events, or damaging the image of a country, a politician or an organisation. All this can be done from one’s living room and from a thousand miles away. But in the Cyberspace one rule prevails: nothing is as it seems. An attack can come from an outright enemy, but also from a “trusted” ally who is secretly pursuing the same political and/or economic agenda. The truth is hidden within the myriads of byte flows circulating throughout the Internet, through a tangled web of information systems that often make the information inaccessible or incomprehensible. This is the new way used by countries to entertain relations with each other, to garner popularity among the masses, to attack competitors, to influence a country’s political and economic choices, or even actions involving force (often for purely demonstrative purposes) with the aim of securing a primary position in a particular geographic setting.
To subscribe to the magazine please access our subscription page here
The link between geopolitics and cyberspace is unavoidable as are its shady implications. Cybersecurity isfundamental for international institutions.
