Are we at war with Russia?

Great Debates
1

First, a few caveats:
[ul]
[li]I am not in any way advocating for war with Russia,[/li][li]I am assuming that the various intelligence agencies of the USA are correct that Russia has been engaging in some pretty significant “offensive” cyber attacks on our election systems, and,[/li][li]I am pretty ignorant of the details around the issues of cyber-security.[/li][/ul]
With that out of the way, does Russia’s hacking of various state election systems and their hacking (or social engineering, or whatever you want to call it) of our last Presidential election constitute a casus belli? In the internet age, do we need to rethink what, exactly, constitutes warfare and the preliminary stages thereof?

How bad does a cyber attack have to be before a country openly declares that they have been attacked, and such attack is significant enough to be tantamount to a declaration of war? What does the ensuing war look like? Can it be contained to the cyber realm, or will it eventually spill over into meat-space and involve actual on-the-ground (on in-the-skies) combat?

I realize that this is all pretty open-ended, but I don’t feel knowledgable enough to stake out a firm stance. I can’t help but feeling, though, that Russia took a pretty big and bold move during our last election cycle; one that seems like a substantial up-tick in aggression. Should we consider ourselves to be in a state of war (albeit unconventional) with Russia? If so, what do we do with that?

2

Strategic attacks done for the purposes of destroying, degrading, or disruption of key infrastructures of the US (Power, water, military, government, etc). And the attribution of the attack to a nation-state.

So no, we are not at war with Russia.

3

Depends on your definition of war. We’re not in a shooting war directly with Russia.

4

What definition of war would you say accurately describes our current relations with Russia?

5

A Mildly Chilly War. Perhaps no more than a Nip in the Air War. It should be a war for the survival of freedom.

6

As for what it takes for someone to get us to go to war with them, that’s been determined over the years by what happened that led us to act.

It really can be just about anything. We put up with American merchant seamen being murdered by German submarines for a long time, before finally declaring war in 1917. We waited to join WW2 until the Japanese tried to wipe out our entire Pacific fleet in a single strike in 1941. But at the other end of things, we went to war against Iraq the second time, essentially because Saddam was repeatedly rude in his speeches.

As for the situation now with Russia, I also think that we SHOULD consider ourselves, not perhaps in a state of cyber war with them, but certainly as close to it as possible without attacking them in turn. They should be recognized as a nation dedicated to hostile intentions about us, in a number of spheres. They have attacked us through the internet in several ways, including both the famous hacks of various databases, and the revealing of not just political secrets, but secret communications with allies as well. They have physically invaded Ukraine, and have paid lots of people to work to promote Fake News pretty much everywhere in the US, even paying people to post propaganda in small places like this forum.

Sadly, our President is more self-deluded than the most dippiest of 1960’s hippies, when it comes to Putin, so we are probably going to continue to let Putin play us for fools for a long time now.

7

Did the Russians honestly think The Donald could win the election? … if so, then that’s pretty damn smart of them … or did the Russian just want to make Hillary’s Presidency a living hell? …

I’m also wondering just how blissful this Putin/The Donald marriage really is … I can just hear the marital counselor asking “The Donald, how did you feel when you bombed your spouse’s BFF’s Air Force Base?” …

Sure, the Russians influenced our elections … are they pleased about it? … maybe it’s too soon to say …

8

The US has done a lot worse (i.e., more significant) to other countries (like Iran). Were we at war with them? If not, then no, we are not at war with Russia.

And just to note: a casus belli is not belli. (Yeah, I know the grammar isn’t quite right. That’s not the point.)

9

The Russians may or may have been confident of their plan’s success. Even if they came up short, they would have still weakened Hillary. I believe hurting Hillary was the prime objective, getting a stooge in the White House was a bonus.

The Russians were tipped off on the Syrian bombing and very likely blessed it, so long as the damage was slight and they could let the Syrians evacuate the strike zone. This gave Twitler the appearance of independent thought and the appearance of distance from Moscow.

Sure they’re pleased with it. They’re going to get the sanctions lifted and keep chipping away at Ukrainian land if not the Baltics.

10

Only the Democrats who, by the way, were for the Russians before they were against the Russians.

11

Agreement. Even an “act of war” is not quite the same as “starting a war.” Many people, in 1979, held that Iran’s seizure of the U.S. embassy was “an act of war.” In a strictly legal sense…maybe it was. (And the U.S. launched a painfully abortive raid to try to seize the hostages back, which was also an “act of war” – inserting troops and vehicles into a nation’s territory – but that, too, didn’t lead to “war.”)

Russia didn’t do anything as bad as either of those acts, so, no, we aren’t really even close to “being at war.” We haven’t even kicked their embassy out, and that’s a pretty standard action in wartime.

12

Which Democrats? FDR?

13

I was thinking the ones who sold them uranium and provided foreign aid in 2010.

14

Mucho glad someone else understood as I said.

15

Indeed, in 2012 Romney was roundly mocked by President Obama for his Cold War mentality, for suggesting that Russia was a major adversary of the U.S.

16

Obama cannot point to Russia as a foreign policy success. As a matter of fact he can hardly point to any foreign policy success save in comparison to the disastrous results of his predecessor’s policies.

17

Name me a year in which Russia didn’t get foreign aid from the US. (As for actual numbers, I’m having a great deal of trouble finding that data…a cite would be appreciated.) Aside from that, painting foreign aid as being ‘for the Russians’ is…ummm…tenuous at best.

As for the uranium deal, that’s an old Trump campaign talking point that was proven just about completely false. If you want a good idea of exactly what happened you could do worse than reading this article: The facts behind Trump’s repeated claim about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal.

In any case, again, painting it as being ‘for Russia’ is highly questionable.

Letting them off the hook for pretty much guaranteed election meddling is even more so.

18

Thanks everyone. I think the above-quoted post comes closest to where my head is right now. It just feels like targeting our election process takes things to a new level of aggression, that demands some type of response.

19

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

But i guess the New York Times is a Conservative rag.

As for Russian foreign aid, last time they received it as far as I could tell was 2010.

20

Any chance that an article written 18 months later than the NYT article might have a little more information? Naah, couldn’t be.

Aha. Found it. https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/RUS?fiscal_year=2009&measure=Obligations

Every year since 2001 (as far back as the government appears to track it). Except for last year, it appears, which inexplicably shows a negative value, but it’s noted that the data for 2016 & 2017 are partial. And the last full year they have data on, 2015, is at the lowest level since 2001. No data before then, either, but I fully expect we gave aid to Russia after the fall of the USSR.