Analysis: There has been a chilling and unparalleled convergence of digital and physical warfare over the last two years in various conflicts
Recent cyberattacks against Ukraine have both demonstrated the crippling impact of coordinated assaults and reshaped the landscape of hybrid warfare by pushing the boundaries of what was previously deemed thinkable. Traditionally, hybrid warfare has involved the combination of conventional military forces with unconventional tactics such as cyber operations, disinformation campaigns and proxy warfare.
During the Georgia-Russia war in 2008, cyber operations targeted Georgia's government websites, media outlets and critical infrastructure. This showed how cyber tools could complement traditional military actions and highlighted the evolving nature of warfare and the need for comprehensive strategies that encompass both physical and cyber domains.
Another example is Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, where Russia engaged in cyber operations to disrupt Ukrainian communication networks and disable critical infrastructure. Cyberattacks have also previously plunged hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians into darkness on several occasions over the past decade.
From Wired, a timeline of Russian cyberattacks on Ukraine
But recent developments against the backdrop of Russia's full-scale war in Ukraine have seen new and alarming advances in hybrid warfare. Ukraine has now been simultaneously subjected to sophisticated cyberattacks, which have induced blackouts to civilian areas, with coordinated and devasting missile strikes. This marks a chilling and unparalleled convergence of digital and physical warfare.
These orchestrated assaults on both the cyber and kinetic fronts represents a significant departure from traditional hybrid warfare tactics, where cyber operations were often seen as supporting or preparatory measures rather than simultaneous components of a larger, coordinated strategy. Hybrid warfare now encapsulates a more seamless integration of cyber and physical actions.
The coordinated timing of the blackout with missile strikes underscores a strategic evolution, challenging the conventional understanding of warfare's distinct domains. The attack appears calculated to amplify the impact on both psychological and physical levels, marking a paradigm shift in how states conceive and execute hybrid warfare. Was it designed to sow chaos, hinder defense mechanisms, or compound the psychological toll on civilians?
From BBC News, how Ukrainian and Russian cyber-operators are engaged in a new kind of high-tech battle.
The blurred lines between cyber and kinetic actions make it challenging to discern the primary motive, adding complexity to the strategic calculus. While historically significant, it does not signal a failure in Ukraine's digital defenses, but prompts a reassessment of global strategies in the face of evolving threats and poses serious questions regarding the norms in cyber conflict.
These attacks in Ukraine indicate a departure from the sequential nature of hybrid warfare. The concurrent execution of cyber and physical actions challenges defenders' ability to prioritize and respond effectively, creating a more dynamic and unpredictable threat landscape. The integration of the digital domain into contemporary warfare is steadily growing.
Amidst the dynamic landscape of evolving cyber threats, prioritising the safety and welfare of civilians becomes a matter of utmost importance. Critical infrastructure such as power grids, healthcare systems, and communication networks, essential for the functioning of societies, is often targeted in cyber operations, posing a direct threat to civilian populations.
From DW, how Russia is fighting a cyber war on Ukraine
The psychological impact on civilians adds another layer of complexity. In traditional warfare, physical destruction is often the primary concern, but cyberattacks can instill fear, uncertainty, and a sense of vulnerability in civilian populations. Disruption to critical infrastructure, economic stability, or compromising national security can amplify the psychological toll on civilians, affecting their well-being and sense of security, challenging established norms that traditionally shielded civilians from direct military attacks.
Traditional warfare has often involved clear distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, with the latter enjoying special protections under international humanitarian law. But in the realm of cyber conflict, distinguishing between military and civilian entities becomes inherently complex.
In most cases, determining the origin of a cyberattack with certainty is often elusive, especially when sophisticated state-sponsored actors and malicious actors employ techniques to obfuscate their involvement. These actors continually innovate their tactics, techniques, and procedures, outpacing the development of defensive strategies. This technological asymmetry places civilians at a disadvantage, as the tools and methods used for cyberattacks evolve more rapidly than the protective measures implemented to safeguard them.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, is Ireland's energy infrastructure is at risk from Russian cyberattacks? With Cian Fitzgerald, security and defence researcher at the IIEA
The blurring of boundaries between state and non-state actors further introduces a complex dimension to conflict dynamics in cyberspace. While nation-states remain primary actors in geopolitical conflicts, non-state entities, including hacktivist groups and cybercriminal organizations, play increasingly significant roles. These non-state actors can operate independently or in alignment with state interests, creating a diverse and decentralized landscape of cyber threats.
This ambiguity hinders the ability to assign responsibility and hold perpetrators accountable, leaving civilians vulnerable without a clear path for legal recourse. The lack of accountability mechanisms exacerbates the challenges of protecting civilians in the face of cyber threats.
As hybrid warfare continues to blur the lines between military and civilian domains, a re-evaluation of the ethical considerations in cyber operations is imperative. The good news is that there exists a spectrum of stakeholders that are capable of action in this area. National governments and their respective military authorities play a pivotal role in shaping ethical frameworks for cyber operations.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, is the use of social media apps on public service devices adding to risk of cyberattack? Report by Cian McCormack
Entities like the United Nations and other international organizations have a crucial role in fostering a global consensus on ethical standards in cyber warfare. Facilitating dialogues, creating frameworks for responsible state behaviour and encouraging adherence to established norms would contribute to a more ethical landscape in cyber operations on the international stage.
Cybersecurity professionals also bring specialised knowledge to the table. Their involvement in policy discussions, developing ethical guidelines and assessing the impact of cyber operations on civilian populations is essential.
Perhaps most importantly, civil society organisations and advocacy groups can play a crucial role in holding governments and military entities accountable. They can raise awareness about the ethical implications of cyber operations, advocate for transparency, and push for the inclusion of safeguards that prioritize civilian well-being. Ultimately, a collective and inclusive effort is essential to navigate the complexities of hybrid warfare and safeguard the well-being of civilian populations in the digital age.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
