before anyone jumps on the pedantry bandwagon, its worth noting that even though open war hasn’t been called: the attacks on infrastructure especially cyber warfare is extremely active and, crucially, direct.
It is totally fair to say that in a digital context, Russia is absolutely at war with Europe.
As far as I can tell, they don’t even try to hide it.
The US, UK, and Western powers have been waging information war for far longer than 2016. Look at Canadian PM Mark Carney's latest speech at Davos, he admits the 'Rules based international order' was a fiction, and the US has had a very long history of covert operations, 'enhanced interrogation', destabilization campaigns, funding of terrorists, propping up of dictators, bombing and invading of many countries...
To be specific consider how many lies have been told by the American mainstream media around the narratives of Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, Libya, etc. Israel has the most surveilled and well defended border in the world, the Mossad is sophisticated enough to launch pager attacks to decapitate Hezbollah leadership, yet somehow they got caught with their pants down and Hamas combatants could raid their country for 12 hours without a response. The US also had funded Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, knew Al Qaeda was plotting another attack on the WTC, and the Neocons in the Bush administration wanted a new Pearl Harbor as outlined in the Project for a New American Century.
Russia is not uniquely or even particularly evil here, it's entirely rational for them to not want a major neighbor to join an enemy alliance. Look at how America has treated Cuba for decades. People should stop being so naive.
It has been ramping up a bit. Most recent case has been Russian (sock)puppet activity on Wikipedia, where they actively try to rewrite the language used, the narrative to be more suitable for them. It has even gotten news coverage.
True, but they’ve certainly been doing it much longer than ten years. I’ll never forget this headline [0] that struck me as purely devilish, especially in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election. Combine that with the knowledge that Trump has been anti-NATO since the 1980s [1]. Who knows how long Russia has been nudging him along. Who knows how many avenues they traverse? Take for example the letter to Senator Tom Cotton about Greenland [2]. What an embarrassment. I can only hope we are equally successful in our own PsyOps.
Yes, and it's successfully got to where his people are able to dismantle American infrastructure at scale, deliver IT systems to Russian hackers directly and coordinate death squads on the streets. I figure the primary reason we're not seeing 'little green men' in Minnesota, for instance, is that Russia cannot spare them. But the war here is arguably as important or MORE important to Russian war aims than the war in Ukraine.
Certainly more successful here than in Ukraine, for what that's worth. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion but they've certainly succeeded here a lot more than in Ukraine.
Some could say that in the cyber realm, they are not petty, ya! Well, or something like that.
Eversince notpetya and the colonial pipeline hack, the cyber strategy game changed a lot. Notpetya was genius as a deployment, because they abused the country's tax software deployment pipeline to cripple all (and I mean all, beyond 99%) businesses in one surgical strike.
The same is gonna happen to other tax software providers, because the DATEV AG and similar companies are pretty much the definition of digital incompetence wherever you look.
I could name other takedowns but the list would continue beyond a reasonable comment, especially with vendors like Hercules and Prophete that are now insolvent because they never prioritized cyber security at all, got hacked, didn't have backups, and ran out of money due to production plant costs.
Europe is the main supplier of weapons to Ukraine which is in actual war with Russia. Of course Russia is at war with Europe, the only reason bombs are not falling in Poland and Germany is that Russia wouldn’t have the capability to defend itself against retaliation. Do people really believe their countries can openly take sides in a war and not be targeted??
Well be the same definition Russia was at war with the US in Korea and Vietnam (or Afghanistan). To a much bigger extent to be fair since there were actual Russian pilotes deploying to both countries.
I'm not sure whether Johnson or Nixon (during periods of sobriety of course) were considering directly attacking Russian territory because of that...
The name of that is proxy war. They would attack each other directly only if they were prepared to escalate to open war, but when we’re talking about nuclear powers, luckily the chance of that happening seems to be very low. It’s the only reason Europe does not openly deploy troops to Ukraine, though there are definitely some under cover.
This has been going on from well before the Ukraine war. It has just intensified. The real question is: should the affected states develop some counter-capability to deter this opportunistic behaviour?
Fortunately Russia in their benevolence tries to limit the damage, so that we don't feel the destruction all at once. This means some people will be annoyed for day or two and everyone is reminded to increase security pretty constantly. Just recently we got news about ONE furnace (from several in that heating plant) being probably hacked. The furnace shut down. Operator didn't notice, because the display on furnace was already malfunctioning and operator just restarted it. They checked everything only after our "cybersecurity" forces notified them.
That was in local news this weekend. I know about it because I'm responsible for another city heating network, we take security pretty seriously. All devices are in vpn and if someone outside needs to login remotely, he is granted access only for the time needed, so window for actually worming the network through vendors is very small. All staff accessing the system has computer security training. But not every heat provider operates like this, some small ones (like the one affected) are a little more sloppy.
This completely ignores that: 1. Russia was the aggressor in Ukraine, 2. Putin has made clear his desire to pursue expansionist goals through military action targeting prior members of the Soviet Union, 3. Putin regular threatens nuclear war with Ukraine, 4. Russia has shown outward hostility towards Western democracies and sought to manipulate elections with information warfare to reach their goals (most notably, 2016 US Election and Brexit), 5. Russian regularly cuts cables connecting countries, and 6. Though completely unrelated, Putin has a history of assassinating political opponents. That's wolfish behavior if I've ever seen it.
To be fair in 1938 Britain hardly had a land army so France would have had to do all the fighting anyway. So whatever Chamberlain wanted to do didn't really matter that much.
> for some reason announced in 2008 plans to expand to Georgia and Ukraine
This was a G. W. Bush idea, during his last year in office, and it was never going to actually happen.
At the dinner on Wednesday, the German and French position was supported by Italy, Hungary and the Benelux countries, a senior German official said. Mr. Bush was said to have accepted that his position was not going to prevail,
> Was the EU and the USA friendly towards Russia ...
When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, did Angela Merkel stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, as very sensibly demanded by much of Eastern Europe? No, of course not - if we just trade more with Russia, they will be interested in peace! Germany deservedly lost billions finishing the construction, and it never transmitted a single ccm of gas.
> You know the result of that, but still consider there was no provocation at all
I think a better question to ask is, why do countries that border on Russia try so hard to become NATO members?
That announcement is still on NATOs website to this day. To think it would never happen can only be seen as wishful thinking.
> try so hard to become NATO members?
If your intention is to align with the EU, it makes sense you want military protection against invasion in the future. Even Russia wanted at one point to join. The question is really why Russia should sit quietly while several countries around it join an alliance against it? Would the US be ok with Mexico and Canada doing that? Sounded ridiculous until a few months ago, now that is a sensible thing for them to seek. Look at how the US reacted to just a EV deal Canada made with China.
You insert subtle hints of USSR/Russia being benevolent or good. (“Left without blood”, “victorious at enormous cost”)
This context is not real. There was blood since ww2. And major part of that ww2 cost you mentioned, was actually paid by Ukraine itself.
Countries joining NATO, did so not because they want to conquer Russia. (Are you proposing that Estonia wants to conquer Russia?)
Up until recently, European defence budgets were laughable. If decisions would be done based on actual risk analysis, it would be clear that NATO was not threatning to attack.
> Even if you were right , is the risk you may be wrong acceptable when it comes to your national security?
Yes, for Russia it will always be beneficial that all its neighbours are weak puppet states.
I concede all events in history (incl. Ukraine invitation) do lead us to this moment. But this is a bit of nitpicking, everybody see who is the psycho and everybody must deal with it.
It’s not a secret that Ukraine is vital for the ground defence of Russia, but the Ukrainian people are pro-EU, and not from propaganda. You might well remember that their government was essentially a puppet for Russia until they were ousted. So if Ukraine is radicalised it is odd to think that its because of European propaganda- more likely they got tired of their masters.
I fully accept that Putin thinks of NATO as a threat to Russia, and NATO is at the door.
Its also entirely true that the border countries (Estonia for example) have major anxiety regarding a Russian invasion, and actively seek NATO membership to avoid that.
However, flying aircraft into sovereign territory (as Russia often did and continues to do to Sweden) is not the behaviour of a threatened country, they are the ones making the threats, constantly testing.
Their expansions into territory under the guise of “going where there are native Russians” will necessarily conclude with border regions being even more hostile to any native Russians wanting to settle. Again, in Estonia, the city of Narva is almost entirely native Russian; but they don’t want to be under Putin. Putins actions make Estonians wary of this fact and makes the Estonian government wish to integrate these people more instead of letting them live their lives.
In the Ukraine this was true too, thats why there was such a push to get people speaking Ukrainian, but Putin saw that his claim to the territory gets weaker over time and decided to invade.
If you understand the incentives of all involved, it is plain to see that Putin is the architect of his own misery here.
I can see that you understand some of the incentives. But how can you conclude that the West bears no responsibility? I am not biased either way since I am not natively from Europe or the US, but I do live in Europe. From my perspective, the west was pushing all buttons necessary to cause this tragedy, knowing too well what those buttons were from the Russians. Yes, I agree Putin had to shoot first for what happened next, but his alternative was to allow complete encroachment from hostile powers. Don’t tell me Europe and the US were not hostile before 2014. I talked to people back then, and always wondered why they couldn’t move on and stop openly calling for Russia to be excluded from deals, for nuclear weapons to be stationed near their borders, for their ships to not be allowed passage, and many many more things only a hostile nation would suggest. Now they feel vindicated and think they were right, failing to notice that perhaps if they hadn’t been so hostile, none of this would have happened in the first place!!
Now, Greenland, as an example, would be wise to seek protection from the US, if we use the same logic, since it’s clearly being threatened, more clearly than the Baltic countries ever were by Russia since they joined NATO , at least. Imagine how the US would react if China was asked to help! Now, imagine Greenland actually had ties to the US going back several hundred years and a large population of “ethnic” Americans (bear with me). Would the US quietly sit while China initiated the process of establishing military presence in Greenland, at Greenlanders own request? Do you think they should, even if the current administration obviously wouldn’t entertain that for a second? Quite honestly, I think it would be foolish for the Americans to allow a sovereign nation near its borders to do something like that , and the Bay of Pigs conundrum shows that the US is not dumb and this will simply never happen. Now, the situation between Ukraine and Russia is not exactly the same , but if anything the incentive Russia has to prevent NATO there is even stronger than in the imaginary scenario I outlined above, I think that is as clear as anything can be in geopolitics.
> Yet the West made absolutely no attempt to calm the Russians down and for some reason announced in 2008 plans to expand to Georgia and Ukraine, despite even Western experts warning about that being utterly provocative.
It is the right of any sovereign country to freely join any military alliance, including NATO. The fact that this upsets Putin says more about him than the alliance and its (potential) members.
The US needs to start showing they actually believe that first by letting Cuba, several countries in South America, including Venezuela, and now even Greenland, freely choose who they ally with. Otherwise you’re just the same as Putin.
Greenland is a Danish territory, Denmark is already in NATO. Cuba is an ex-USSR ally, since USSR was sanctioned and that included allies, Cuba was sanctioned as well. Cuba is also sanctioned because of their own politics, similar to how Milosevic's Yugoslavia was.
Russia is threatening a direct military invasion to present-day and potential future NATO and EU members. When has the EU done the same to any of your listed countries/territories? When have the US said they will invade a country for simply allying with Russia or the BRICS?
There is an interesting transcript of what Putin said to US President Bush in 2001.
"Let me return to NATO enlargement. .... Russia is European and multi-ethnic. I can imagine us becoming allies. Only dire need could make us allied with others. Bit we feel left out of NATO. IF Russia is not part of this of course it feels left out. Why is NATO enlargement needed? In 1954 Russia applied to join NATO. I have the document. [ Bush: "that's interesting" ] NATO gave a negative answer with four specific reasons. Lack of an Austrian settlement. The totalitarian grip on Eastern Europe. And the need for Russia to cooperate with the UN disarmament process. Now all these conditions have been met.Perhaps Russia could be an ally."
Russia (or Putin, to be precise) has repeatedly threatened to invade EU members in the Baltics (rebuilding the SU/Russian Empire/etc), as well as threatened EU with stopping gas supply, which would've been a direct hit to the economy. These two are confirmed facts, there's also a lot more stuff speculated which you can freely find online.
Imagine the power grid fails in an entire city for 48 hours. How many apartments or shops have backup power for 48 hours? What about hospitals or cellphone towers or traffic lights?
How long before someone cannot make a 911 call or hits another car at night or dies in intensive care because the machines don’t work anymore? What about all the food in a refrigerator, or CCTV cameras, or POS payments or a thousand other things? And if sometimes physically fails, how long before a technician (who was himself relying on that power grid) is able to reach the place, carrying whatever spare part they have, and fix the thing?
Or, take a dam. I’m no dam expert, but how long does it take before a flood happens? And when water starts flooding the streets, how long before people can’t get out of their homes, cars are swept away, and so on? How long before standing water starts carrying diseases?
Can you give some examples of? I can imagine that under the right circumstances you might succeed in blowing up some transformers or even a turbine, but it seems like you’d be up to speed within a month or two on the outside? Or am I missing the gravity somehow?
Pardon? A month or two without power does not seem like an enormous crisis?
Stuxnet destroyed centrifuges. It does not seem impossible that a sophisticated attack could shred some critical equipment.
During the Texas 2021 outage -they were incredibly close to losing the entire grid and being in a blackstart scenario. Estimates were that it could take weeks to bring back power - all this without any physical equipment destroyed or malicious code within the network.
Edit: Had to look it up, the Texas outage was "only" two weeks and scattershot in where it hit. The death toll is estimated at 246-702.
A month or two of isolated outages should not be a crisis in a developed nation with resources and infrastructure.
The fact that the Texas outages killed anyone is a testament to the fact that the USA is, apparently, a developing nation, possibly going through a rough patch.
It’s not like there wasn’t enough generators or fuel in the nation to ameliorate that crisis. It was that, like all developing nations, resources are not available at the point of need despite their widespread availability.
Yes, there is the risk of cascading failures, some industrial processes are very hard to re-start once interrupted (or even impossible) and the lead time on 'some transformers' can be a year or more. These are nothing like the kind that you can buy at the corner hardware store. A couple of hundred tons or so for the really large ones.
Grid infra is quite expensive, hard to replace and has very long lead times.
The very worst you could do is induce oscillations.
> Transformers and turbines of any significance are not off the shelf parts and can have lead times of years
Bloomberg had a decent article[0] about transformers and their lead time. They're currently a bottleneck on building. It wasn't paywalled for me.
"The Covid-19 pandemic strained many supply chains, and most have recovered by now. The supply chain for transformers started experiencing troubles earlier — and it’s only worsened since. Instead of taking a few months to a year, the lead time for large transformer delivery is now three to five years. " [0]
Enough for the entire grid? There are some amount of reserves on hand (eg drunk runs into a telephone pole), but nothing that could replace a targeted attack with the explicit goal of taking out the most vital infrastructure.
And those pole mounted transformers are tiny. The big ones require special transports and can weigh a few hundred tons. Some are so large they are best transported via boat if possible.
Consider that if a cyberattack could destroy a major power grid transformer, for a marginal cost approaching zero, versus the low-end US$10 million a Kinzal ballistic missile would cost to do the same thing (presuming you only need 1 which is...unlikely), that that might be a significant military capability.
These attacks are not at the level of 'flipping a switch'. If they succeed they can destabilize the grid and that has the potential to destroy gear, and while not as costly as blowing up a dam it can still be quite costly.
The reason everyone used carpet bombing in WW2 was the inability to aim competently. This even persisted after WW2, leading to some tests of air-to-air nuclear weapons just to give the missiles a decent chance to actually disable the target they were fired at.
The counter-strategies that the British used to defend against German strikes included "switch off all the lights at night so they don't know where they are" and "order newspapers to lie about which part of the city was damaged in order that spies reading British newspapers and reporting back to HQ said missiles fell short/went too far, causing HQ to incorrectly compensate on the next strike". I don't know if the reverse was true, despite now living in Berlin.
Everyone's supply chains were also much shallower, and equipment much cruder and therefore easier to make (though also less efficient). Half of London or Berlin losing electricity makes a much smaller difference when far less was electrified in the first place, e.g. loss of electricity for a heat pump doesn't matter so much when the terraces and apartment blocks have internal fireplaces and regular coal deliveries.
I was not speaking to just one case. Today's incident, is _the norm_.
These attacks are widespread, damaging, and the repercussions are felt for decades in their wake. We _are_ being carpet bombed, and the costs for the victims are ongoing and growing. The collateral damage is everywhere.
Do you really think there's no impact?
> Cyber units from at least one nation state routinely try to explore and exploit Australia’s critical infrastructure networks, almost certainly mapping systems so they can lay down malware or maintain access in the future.
> We recently discovered one of those units targeting critical networks in the United States. ASIO worked closely with our American counterpart to evict the hackers and shut down their global accesses, including nodes here in Australia.
I guess I shouldn't be drawn by someone calling me an idiot...
But one last try.
You suggested that the cost of cyberattacks on industry, is not so great as when we were destroying it with bombs instead.
However, every time we have power outages, people die. Then we have the cost of securing the infrastructure. And the cost of everyone else affected, who has to increase their resilience.
Your bank is collateral damage, as is the people freezing to death in their homes. Entire industries are on the verge of collapse - getting a new turbine to help stabilise your grid has a lead time of _years_, not days or weeks. And if you hit weeks, people die.
Insurance responds to attacks, and that trickles out to everywhere that is touched. VISA and MasterCard have to prepare for eventualities, because of attacks not aimed at them, but at power infrastructure.
When power is hit... There is nothing unaffected.
Volt Typhoon hit the US power grid, and required a massive multinational effort to extract them, that took almost a year... And VT wasn't intended to do damage, just look for weak spots. So that next time, they can cause damage. As part of that survival process, various hardware partners were kicked to the curb, and the repercussions are still in the process of being felt. Half the industry may have issues surviving because of it.
Industroyer is one of the reasons that Kyiv got as bad as it did. Malware is not some hand-wave and fix thing. Half the city's relays were permanently damaged.
Then of course, there was Stuxnet. Which blew up centrifuges, and the research centres hit are still trying to recover from where they were, then.
Cyberattacks are a weapon of war, people die, industries die, and there is no easy path to recovery following it.
An entire industry exists, just to defend against these kinds of attacks. The money spent on that, is counted, which means it has to be less than the cost of the attack succeeding. Trillions are spent, because there is absolute weight behind surviving these attacks.
If things were easier, it'd be an industry solely focused on backups and flipping a switch. But it's not.
It is totally fair to say that in a digital context, Russia is absolutely at war with Europe.
As far as I can tell, they don’t even try to hide it.