![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Russia may be waging a form of cyber-warfare against Estonia.
Assuming for the moment that this is a move by the Russian government. I think this is on the whole a bad move by Russia. There's some successful intimidation but it also is going to piss people off. It also sounds like Estonia is weathering it. But the real net gain is for Nato. We're getting a chance to play defense on cyber-warfare when nothing is on the line militarily. Presumably Russia isn't using all their best stuff, but it still represents a value source of both practice and knowledge. We're going to be better prepared next time.
Also, props to Estonia. They seemed to react quickly and in smart ways. I hope Nato will help them with repairs. I don't think any large scale retaliation would be a good idea, but they are our ally and they deserve some aid.
Assuming for the moment that this is a move by the Russian government. I think this is on the whole a bad move by Russia. There's some successful intimidation but it also is going to piss people off. It also sounds like Estonia is weathering it. But the real net gain is for Nato. We're getting a chance to play defense on cyber-warfare when nothing is on the line militarily. Presumably Russia isn't using all their best stuff, but it still represents a value source of both practice and knowledge. We're going to be better prepared next time.
Also, props to Estonia. They seemed to react quickly and in smart ways. I hope Nato will help them with repairs. I don't think any large scale retaliation would be a good idea, but they are our ally and they deserve some aid.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 06:53 pm (UTC)Tacit approval - probably; direct involvement - highly unlikely. And from the Russian perspective (...and from the perspective of a given Russian participant), it may not be the "smartest" move, but it's certainly worth it under the circumstances.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 07:00 pm (UTC)So I don't doubt that there's some plausible deniability involved. But it sounds like this is being done by someone that has purposefully developed some cyberwarfare capacity. I'd tend to think that implies some level of government ties.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 07:51 pm (UTC)A STATUE???
(Not that I agree with removing it, but uh... a statue?)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-22 03:50 pm (UTC)If they want a tool that's useful in a more serious clash, then I think the loss of the element of surprise is greater than the benefit gained from experience. Better to practice where lots of people aren't watching.