What’s wrong with cold war ish? There’s a bunch of non-nuclear cyber targets. Energy grid, air traffic control, banking. I don’t think it’s the best idea but there’s something to be said about reminding them of the war they just lost.
Some of us believe it was bolshevik communism that lost, whereas the Russians etc., nationalist or not, actually won by losing the incubus of that system. Not withstanding the events of Qin Shi Huangdi’s truthful summary.
To regard peoples as automatic enemies, regardless of ideologies, seems… less realpolitik and more visceral.
Plus I don’t think planes falling out of the sky or crashing into buildings is optimal.
They already know where it is; we only attack nations that we think can’t effectively fight back. Russia can fight back, so they know that we won’t do anything significant. And that’s not even taking their nuclear arsenal into account.
America is one of the most heavily computerized and internet-dependent nations in the world. Starting some kind of cyber-war would be self destructive and foolish. And that’s assuming that it doesn’t escalate to plain old non-cyber-war and World War III.
Victoria Nuland, who has been running America’s policy on the Ukraine up to the point of the coup, and at one point could be seen walking around Kiev handing out sweets to the thugs in the streets, claims America has spent five billion dollars on “promoting democracy” in the Ukraine since it became independent, and she’s certainly been organising the coup and planning who will form the next government. Not only do you have a dog in this fight, your dog started the fight.
Russia is not Iran,Iraq, or any other of the usual suspects that the US has had to deal with. As Der Trihs mentions in his reply, they can and will hit back.The reason that I dont like cold war ish, is that we had to deal with the soviets that way, back in the day.
If the obama admin wants to stand on principle and back the ukraine, then we put boots on the ground, plant a flag and face what might come, not sneaking around with unix bombs. If boots are not an option, then send stinger/javelin/tow missiles to the ukraine forces and stay out of their way.
As of now, it looks like Putin is dialing things back a bit, so we wait and see.
Declan
Why not? One must use whatever tactics are most effective in the times and the circumstances.
Mainly because cyber warfare is relatively clean, minimum casualties if any, and we have not yet fought an all out cyber war, with the gloves off, so we cant predict we can win.
So there is no facing the wrath, might and displeasure of the US gives the same effect with a couple of server farms down, as several citys smoking and lots of casualties.
Right now the correct circumstances are diplomacy and sanctions, and they appear to be having an effect.
Declan
Not quite there yet, as I’m still a senior in high school.
I agree about the oligarchs using their political influence-certainly the abandonment of Yanukovych by his oligarchic allies played no small part in his downfall.
My understanding is that a cyber-war would be the worst thing for us to instigate. We tend to associate war with military power, and undoubtedly the US is a juggernaught in that regard, but that awesome might does not translate into the internet nearly as well as our minds like to think it does. Put simply, we suck when it comes to cyber security. We’re good at “fighting the last war,” but look to Vietnam (achieved military victory, but failed all of our objectives) and Afghanistan (achieved military victory, and changed almost nothing for the better). We do not want to fight a war where everything is on the line period, let alone the “next war” which we’ve shown time and time again we’re poor at fighting.
No, the only war America should ever risk fighting, from a purely amoral and nationalist standpoint mind you, is a conventional not guerrilla, not nation building and purely military one - that is, one we know how to fight, have experience fighting, and can’t really lose.
More direct to the OP, I think economic sanctions against Russia are probably the only option. We - and lets face it, if any western power does all of NATO will - can’t go to war with Russia: the nuclear option makes it not conventional sure-win. We shouldn’t ignore it, as this is a serious international incident, but we can’t do much more than diplomacy and sanctions.
Disclaimer: I’m posting this before I delve into an economic analysis of the Ukraine, so I don’t know how feasible it is to do this, but if the conditions are right, the west should try to see if we can invest our way to a surge in the Ukrainian economy on all levels, flooding their markets even more with Western cultural influence and debt. And not exploitive debt, just enough so that everyone - west and Ukraine - benefits. Much like the US did to Europe after WW2. It’s never failed, and just ask the Germans if they didn’t appreciate it!
The Ukraine might not have the strategic resources we’re after, but a market and friendly populace is always welcome - and mutually beneficial. Of course, that depends on conditions being right. But the option should be explored.
I can’t find the edit post button, but even a cursory glance over Ukraine’s economic situation suggests that conditions aren’t right. It has substantial industry, so it’s economic problems are probably too difficult for an outside power to ameliorate in a mutally beneficial way. Feel free to disregard that whole subsection.
So? Who’s any better?
We don’t really know, and that’s the problem. We can guess and say China, given the volume of cyber attacks and their past efforts that have succeeded alarmingly. I can’t find the source, but they got into our military networks from a chinese IP (I know that a chinese IP doesn’t necessarily mean it was from China), with enough control that the staff could “only watch as they hunted around.” And it’s not an isolated case. Actually, the weakness of our cyber-security is rather alarming. And good old human error makes infiltration of “impenetrable” cyber networks more easy than one might first think.
It’s only smart to fight a war when you can reasonably guess the outcome, or you have no choice whatsoever. Putting all the cards on the line, as would be the case with a cyber war, on the gamble that we might be better at it is not good policy.
Btw USA are playing Ukraine today at soccer in Cyrpus (the match was originally scheduled to take place in Kharkiv).
So they moved it to a venue where there’s no ethnic strife whatsoever? :rolleyes:
The weapon is not tanks, not planes, not cyber attacks. The simple reality is that Putin has accelerated the decline of Russia’s economy, one reliant on natural gas exports.
U.S. natural gas on the international market decreases Russia’s power and hurts their natural gas reliant economy. It does not even need to directly go to the EU, by going to other markets it frees up other sources to compete in the EU.
And as opposition to export has fallen to the sidelines in the U.S. in this context, so too will opposition in the E.U. to fracking there become less strident as reliance on Russian supplies becomes more cogently felt as a major security threat.
Cyber-weapons need not apply.
Bulgaria, I would think, considering the number of virii that come out of there.
So did we let them win or what? We’re nice like that. :o
Kremlin website hit by ‘powerful’ cyber attack
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/us-russia-kremlin-cybercrime-idUSBREA2D0FY20140314
Just FYI. I don’t think the US government has the slightest thing to do with it, but I was wondering how long before hackers joined the fun.