Christian Gonzalez/ Staff Writer
The United States and Russia have proved utterly incapable of getting along ever since the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. Tensions between the two arose almost immediately following World War II, when disagreements about distribution of Marshall Plan aid to Eastern Bloc countries turned sour. By 1950, America and the Soviet Union were engaged in a sanguinary conflict over the future of the Korean Peninsula.
Today, Russo-American disputes are not limited to war zones in Syria or Crimea. Diplomatic spats are becoming more common. On Sept. 25, the U.S. denounced Russian’s “barbarism” over its bombing of Aleppo.
Another trend is also becoming increasingly worrisome and pronounced, especially in recent weeks — the war over cyber-space.
On Oct. 7, the Obama administration officially accused Russia of using its hackers to intrude on the presidential election by leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee. The President issued a thinly veiled threat to Vladimir Putin, warning him that “frankly, we’ve got more [cyberspace] capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively,” according to Massimo Calabresi’s Oct. 10 cover story for Time Magazine.
In that article, Calabresi accused Putin of interfering in the election with the purpose of undermining the trust Americans place on their democracy. Other writers, like Frida Ghitis of CNN, speculate that Russia is attempting to derail Hillary Clinton’s campaign because Donald Trump would approach sources of disagreement with Russia in a more conciliatory manner.
Naturally, the Russian president disagreed. Putin responded to Obama’s cyber threats by commenting, “The only novelty is that for the first time, on the highest level, the United States has admitted involvement in these activities, and to some extent threatened [us] – which of course does not meet the standards of international communication.”
He then added that it’s actually the U.S. government looking for a fight, and that his country “would like, on the contrary, to seek common ground and work together to solve global problems faced by both Russia and the United States, along with the whole world,” as an RT article on Oct. 16 reported.
This is about as perfect an example as one could find of what is in social science jargon referred to as fundamental attribution theory — the propensity to ascribe the actions of others (and of rivals especially) to inherent problems as opposed to external factors. Americans accuse Russia of tampering with its democracy; Russians charge America with intransigent behavior on matters of diplomatic cooperation.
To some extent, they are both right.
Russia is undeniably meddling in the internal affairs of the United States. Although Calabresi says there is no evidence Putin is doing so to derail the Clinton campaign, it’s clear that a Trump victory is in the Kremlin’s interests.
Trump has eulogized controversial heads of state before, including Saddam Hussein, “who kept the terrorists in check,” Bashar al-Assad, who gets “an A for leadership” and finally Vladimir Putin, with whom he would “get along just fine.” What, then, would be better for Russia than a pro-Assad, pro-Putin politician in the White House?
While it is true the United States has maintained an inflexible posture on Assad’s presidency and on Crimea, these matters deserve the full force of American obstinacy.
The Obama administration is correct to insist on Assad’s departure. It’s obscene for the Kremlin to expect a president who indiscriminately bombs centers of civilian life to nevertheless receive international diplomatic support and recognition. To negotiate over Syria’s future is one thing; to become complicit in the continuation of the existing regime is another.
Moreover, America and its European allies are justified in denouncing the annexation of Crimea.
Kremlin apologists like to blame Western encroachment on Russia’s periphery for the invasion of the Ukraine. If NATO and the European Union were not bent on expanding into Russia’s doorstep, they argue, then Russia would not have felt pressured to intervene in Crimea.
For sake of argument, let’s admit this might be true. Does that imply the West must therefore acquiesce in the annexation of Crimea? The likes of such a shameless act have not been seen in Europe since the hordes of national socialism engulfed Czechoslovakia’s German-speaking regions. If Putin wanted to reach a security settlement with the Ukraine, that wasn’t the way to achieve it.
With all this in mind, handling the issue of cybersecurity will be excruciatingly difficult; nonetheless it’s in neither Russia nor America’s interest to escalate hostilities in cyber-space.
As Haley Edwards’ Time article makes clear, the means by which votes are counted in America are decentralized and therefore nearly impossible to hack. Russia doesn’t have much to gain from meddling in an election that is nearly decided anyways, but it does have the potential to lose what little goodwill it still possesses in Washington.
Similarly, President Obama should refrain from provoking the Kremlin. Calabresi pointed out that in certain areas America is vulnerable to cyber-attacks — on its electrical grid, for example. Ordering CIA counter-attacks against Russia needlessly puts American infrastructure at risk.
In 2015, the U.S. and China reached an agreement stating that they would not “conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled thefts of intellectual theft.” They also agreed to set up a hotline should a cyber-space emergency arise, and to cooperate further in conducting joint-investigations when needed, as reported by Adam Segal of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Policies like these should be pursued with Russia. Mutually eliminating threats in cyber-space will enhance the prospects for long term peace, stability and cooperation.
Cooler heads must prevail for the search for tranquility to be successful. Let us hope that they do, in the battles over cyber-space as well as elsewhere.
Disclaimer:
The opinions presented within this page do not represent the views of FIU Student Media Editorial Board. These views are separate from editorials and reflect individual perspectives of contributing writers and/or members of the University community.
Image retrieved from Flickr.
About Post Author
