Cyber Security Cover Feature
Russia's Cyber War: Options before the US
U By Sarosh Bana APSM Corespondent
S intelligence’s findings holding Russian President Vladimir Putin directly responsible for a cyber campaign that ensured Republican Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election betrays Washington’s weakness as much as Moscow’s deceit. After initially discounting Russia’s manipulation, President-elect Trump accepted the findings and spoke of possible action in response, his incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus said on January 8. Priebus, however, did not clarify the line of response contemplated or whether Trump agreed specifically on Putin’s role in this regard. In the 20-page declassified version of its report: Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections, released on January 6, the US Intelligence Community - comprising the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and National Security Agency (NSA) - details how Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at the 2016 US presidential election. The report discloses Putin and his government’s “clear preference” for Trump that motivated the denigration of his Democrat rival, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and ultimately harmed her electability and potential presidency. The most alarming assessment, however, concerned “Russia’s goals” to undermine public faith in the US democratic process. The report cited Moscow’s cyber onslaught as not only the most recent expression of its longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but also demonstrative of “a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations”. Such an evaluation unequivocally signifies a direct Russian attack on the US and its interests. After all, universal suffrage is the underpinning of the democracy the US is, and its concerted subversion was aimed at advancing a sort of ‘regime change’, no less. If Moscow can install a US President it desires with such alacrity, Washington stands completely vulnerable to such excesses. Russia has simultaneously proved it can subjugate its most powerful adversary without firing a single shot or launching a single missile. “Putin’s public views of the disclosures suggest the Kremlin and the intelligence services will continue to consider using cyber-enabled disclosure operations because of their belief that these can accomplish Russian goals relatively easily without significant damage to Russian interests,” the report notes. American intelligence determined that its Russian
20 | Australian Security Magazine
counterpart researched US electoral processes and related technology and equipment since early 2014, gaining access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks as early as in July 2015 and maintaining that access until at least June 2016. It also found some Russian paid social media users or ‘trolls’ starting to advocate for Trump by December 2015. It besides established that Russia’s General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) targeted cyber operations at the US election from March 2016, collecting against primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups it viewed as likely to shape future US policies. The US intelligence report makes no mention of when the Obama administration was made aware of the Russian campaign, though President Obama likely knew this early enough through the intelligence-focused Presidential Briefs scheduled for him daily at the White House. Yet, ‘retaliation’ came only on December 9 when he ordered a full review into the malicious cyber activity. Twenty days later, once the intelligence report was out, he issued an executive order providing additional authoritative response to cyber activity aimed at interfering with or undermining the US’s election processes and institutions, or those of its allies or partners. By that new authority, the President sanctioned