The previous post in the series covered remaining alternatives for OneWeb now that relations with Roscomos turned sour. This post briefly covers how tricky the definition for "Act of War" are when it comes to international relations concerning space and cyber attacks.
Keys to this incident:
Differences in definitions at an international level may lead to recognizing acts of war
Actions by state actors, proxies, and deniable enterprises create conflict situations not limited by government declarations
Acts of war may cascade into uncontrolled situations due to accountability and lack of transparency
China, Russia, and the United States define “acts of war” differently for cyberattacks and events in the space domain. When combined the ambiguities and differences can lead to war-level issues. Topics include space debris, denial of services, infrastructure attacks, and multiple overlaps.
China has few official statements of policy in these areas. Therefore, Chinese policy over what level, or detailed incidents, would be seen by the Chinese government as acts of war are ill-defined. Actions by the PRC government to block tech services such as Google or Apple are treated as routine now.
The EU has also moved to block distribution of state-controlled content from Russia and is seen to act in similar ways by other governments and enterprises. Chinese diplomats and governments have decried the cyberattacks alleged to have started at US IP addresses and that China was “firmly oppose and combat cyberattacks of any kind” while dismissing any Chinese involvement in such breaches as “groundless”.
Russia has made recent pronouncements before and during the current military actions. The level of ambiguity in these statements is different from those of China or the US. Recent attacks on Russian infrastructure, government websites, and media by hackers (“hacktivists” such as Anonymous) and Ukraine (encouraged by the Ukrainian government as the “IT Army of Ukraine“) create an ambiguous situation where accountability is absent, responsibility is claimed, government actions are deniable in many specifics, and illusions dominate perceptions of control. Russian officials, such as Roscosmos, have in turned warned that some acts are criminal while disabling the satellite group would be considered an “act of war” (and “casus belli” reason to go to war).
In 2021 a Russian anti-satellite weapons test (much like an earlier 2019 Indian test, and 2007 Chinese test) created large clouds of space-debris that could affect many nations orbital assets and the ISS. No effective international response was seen although these tests had clear actors. A key here is that nation states were clearly responsible, there were no negative consequences, and no nation state has taken accountability for any subsequent damages that may yet occur to space assets.
The US government has asserted Russian sponsorship for attacks on a wide range of US infrastructure, enterprises, and political targets. These assertions are paired with a high level of tolerance for actions by hackers against US government technology and space assets.
In response to Chinese claims that US hackers had used Chinese Internet capacity to attack Russian sites, there was no official US government response. The so-called 2001 “May Day” cyber war is barely remembered. US military officials have stated that reversible attacks on space assets are regularly made by Russia and China. A major component of legislative authorized spending in response to incidents has been to increase US government spending on cyber defenses and operations. A key here is that US policy regarding space or cyber attacks does not draw “red lines” leading clearly to actions or statements of “acts of war”.
What was affected: Many nation states governmental, enterprise, and private parties
Who was responsible: Parties likely at the request of governments or as agents of governments, private parties
Who was accountable: Except for a few individuals, no government saw consequences
What level were effects: Lack of transparency limits understanding effects
Illusion of Control: governments assumption of control is an illusion as private actors or deniable actors could create interactions unforeseen and linked to governments rather than treated as a deniable incident
The final post in the “This Means War” Series makes a final observations about this new venue for attacks that has emerged in the early 21st century.
If you'd like to start with the first post click here or if you'd like to read our writing on other topics is www.ekalore.com/blog-1
留言