Opinion – Ronaldo Lemos: Cyberwar has its own dynamics

A key element in the Ukraine tragedy is the unpredictable developments in the practice of “cyberwar”. In parallel to the physical military conflict, there is another serious conflict being fought in the field of information technology.

It is worth noting that this virtual conflict has not started now. In 2015, Ukraine had already suffered attacks on its electricity grid that caused blackouts for thousands of people. Many other cyberattacks have been made since then.

This demonstrates one of the characteristics of cyberwar: it is persistent and pervasive. It occurs in times of “peace” as well as “war” and lasts even after physical operations have ended. Cyber ​​attacks, unfortunately, are a permanent state of the current human condition.

It is in this context that difficult decisions are being considered. On the side of Western countries, the possibility of excluding Russia from the Swift network has been discussed in recent days. It is the global banking network that emerged in 1973 that allows payments and transfers between banks around the world. When it was created, the Swift was a virtually unique arrangement (albeit expensive and fraught with inefficiencies).

Today, in the age of the internet, Swift competes with numerous alternatives and competitors. For example, China has been building its own global interbank network since 2015, called Cips. India and Russia itself have been taking similar actions. In addition, the existence of cryptocurrencies has also created alternatives to international payments and transfers.

As a result, deleting Russia from the Swift network may be an error. Rather than isolating the country as intended, it can accelerate other arrangements, which in turn accelerate the downsizing of existing systems.

Ukrainian and Western authorities have also requested that cryptocurrency exchanges and blockchain infrastructures begin to refuse transactions from Russia. So far most of these requests have not been fulfilled. After all, cryptocurrencies were created precisely as infrastructures capable of resisting various types of external intervention, including governments.

It is also relevant to follow mobilizations like the Anonymous group in the effort to attack digital targets in Russia. At the same time, Elon Musk’s Starlink company announced that it would position its satellites over Ukraine to facilitate the provision of internet access to the country’s citizens. So far, neither Anonymous nor Starlink seem to have produced any really relevant results from their actions.

Social networks, on the other hand, face a unique dilemma. On Friday, there were reports that both Facebook and Twitter were blocked in Russia. At the same time, these same platforms end up being used as a stage for war propaganda and influence. Groups on Telegram (always him!) also quickly mobilized to coordinate cyberattacks and as headquarters for propagating propaganda.

In other words, with the internet and digital technology widespread, war ends up having a contagion effect. Spreads its effects around the planet. More than that, it reveals how networks that until then were seen as “neutral” are actually territories of permanent, often violent, dispute.

reader

It’s over War only in physical space
Already Physical and virtual warfare
It’s comingVirtual warfare persisting long after physical warfare is over