In Georgia, reports indicate that organized cyber-warfare attacks continue against key government websites - attacks that appear to be coming from organized groups in Russia.

Suspicions that these attacks - like an even larger cyber-assault last year on Estonia - are offensive tactics orchestrated and used by the Russian government and have triggered fresh thinking in the U.S. and European capitals about what strategy might help deter such cyber-aggression in the future.

“Cyber-attack by a nation is very different from cyber-attack by a hacker,” says Admiral Bill Owens, a specialist about the threat. He told the Financial Times that the risks for major nations are rising to the point where it may be time to consider a defensive doctrine similar to “mutually assured destruction.” That was the name for a balance of nuclear weapons between the superpowers during the cold war that convinced both sides that it would be self-destructive to launch a nuclear attack.

Similarly, Owens said, diplomats might take another page from cold war arms-control and urge countries to pledge “no first use” of cyber-war - along the lines of the “no first use” pledges about nuclear weapons.

Although Georgia does not have enough web infrastructures to be very vulnerable in this area, the organized hacking it sustained comes against a background of reported attacks on government facilities in the U.S., France, Britain and Germany that were apparently probes of Western defenses or espionage to glean secret information. Both Russia and China have specialized military units that specialize in cyber-warfare, according to Western specialists. NATO is developing similar expertise.

Evoking the possibility of Western retaliation against attacks masterminded by another government, Owens said “I think that the U.S. and China have an ability to shut down each other’s societies on the internet today.”

This latest cyber-attack has spurred Europe and the U.S. to seek policy clarifications, new technical ripostes and closer cooperation, including via NATO. Michael Chertoff, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, outlining plans for a “Manhattan project” for IT-security, warned recently that “a big and successful attack would have cascading effects across the country and across the world”.

Though there are similarities in both attacks there are also key differences between Estonia and Georgia specialists say. This time the hackers are targeting specific government websites such as the president’s, the parliament’s and the foreign ministry’s. In fact, web traffic is being redirected to sites in Russia and Turkey that could be the first step towards controlling Georgia’s incoming and outgoing high-level communications. That is the kind of control Russia would need to help oust President Mikheil Saakasvili.

Seven NATO members signed a pact in late May formally establishing an alliance-wide “center of excellence” in Estonia to combat the growing threat of cyber-terrorism.  Officially called the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, the center will be operational later this year and officially open its doors in early 2009.  It will have an initial staff of 30 experts, half of whom will come from the seven founding countries.  The U.S. will participate as an observer alongside the seven: Germany, Italy, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Estonia. Other alliance states are expected to join the project as it moves forward.

The centre’s purpose is to improve preparedness and inter-operability within NATO on cyber-defense, officials said, adding that allied experts also want to draw up an alliance-wide cyber-defence doctrine, including legal mechanisms. The center will also provide training, assess threats and steer research projects.

The choice of Estonia’s capital, Tallinn, as the site for the center is significant and appropriate.  Just more than a year ago, Estonia - which has a high degree of computer infrastructure - became the first victim of an all-out cyber assault on the nation’s on-line electronic services in a string of network attacks that apparently originated in Moscow.  The Estonian government had moved a bronze statue of a Soviet soldier-a reminder of the USSR’s former dominance of the country-from a prominent spot in central Tallinn to a military cemetery. 

The current issue of European Affairs carries a comprehensive and insightful analysis of the “cyber war” on Estonia a year ago. Kertu Ruus, an Estonian journalist (who is a member of our quartely’s editorial board) tracks exactly how Estonian government and private networks were attacked by massive “botnets,” which are huge networks of so-called “zombie” computers that are hacked into and made to access targeted networks.  Ruus’s article also details the NATO allies’ response to the attacks, and the call by some to invoke Article 5’s rule that an attack on one ally is an attack on all.

The U.S., for its part, has also stepped up its efforts to defend against cyber crime.  As noted here last month, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has compared the risks presented by cyber terror to the impact of 9/11.  Addressing a group of IT professionals in Silicon Valley last month, he implored the industry to “send some of your brightest and best to do service in the government.

Meanwhile the European Observer  says that EU has launched a public consultation on how to combat high-tech crime and warfare, but predicts that Brussels will move  cautiously on the possible legislative remedies and instead stress strengthened cooperation between EU states.

As noted here before, Georgia and its allies (including the United States and most EU member states) have feared that Russia might be “paving the way” for official recognition of Abkhazia and Ossetia, the Georgian provinces with separatist ambitions. Following the West’s recognition of Kosovo, which Russia opposed, Moscow warned that the move could cause further provincial splits in the porous Caucasus region, and some Europeans feared that the warning might become a self-fulfilling prophecy– especially with help from Moscow. With each passing week, there are fresh signs that the concern may have been well-founded as, according to reports today, Russia now says it intends to upgrade ties with the two separatist territories in neighboring Georgia.

The Georgian government in Tbilisi attacked the plan as “creeping annexation” aimed at creating problems liable to complicate Georgia’s acceptance into NATO. From today’s Wall Street Journal:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia broke away from Georgian control in fighting during the early 1990s. They are protected by Russian peacekeepers, use Russian rubles, and Russian passports have been issued in recent years to a majority of the population.

Wednesday’s statement said Russia’s goal was to improve the economies of the two territories, and not to provoke confrontation with Tbilisi. It also stopped short of formally recognizing the territories’ bids for independence, though leaders in the territories and Russia’s parliament welcomed the move as a step toward recognition.

“The State Duma passed an appeal proposing the president consider the possible recognition of Abkhazia and North Ossetia. The president has taken the first step in this direction,” Oleg Morozov, first deputy speaker of Russia’s parliament said Wednesday, Russian news agency Interfax reported.

Despite strong support from the U.S. and several European nations, Georgia’s bid for NATO membership was thwarted earlier this month when Germany, France and some other European members balked at U.S. pressure and refused to agree that conditions were ripe to offer Georgia (and Ukraine, which also borders Russia) a Membership Action Plan, which is the preliminary step to a candidacy for membership in the alliance. Any NATO steps toward admitting Georgia or other eastward expansion by NATO were stiffly opposed by outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin and his successor, Dmitry Medvedev.

RadioFree Europe also has an extensive account of the latest developments:

Determined to thwart Tbilisi’s goals of reintegration, [Russia] remains a steadfast supporter of the breakaway regime and maintains considerable leverage as the dominant player in international mediation efforts.

In recent weeks, Moscow has actively stepped up its presence in the breakaway regions, lifting economic sanctions and moving to establish semi-official “embassies.” Russian President Vladimir Putin on April 16 ordered his government to recognize legal entities registered in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Moscow, mindful of its own separatist conflicts, is likely to stop short of recognizing Tskhinvali and Sukhumi’s self-declared independence. But such moves are still deeply aggravating to Tbilisi, and ensure that Russia will continue to play a decisive role in the region.

Related Posts:
NATO Approves U.S. Missile Agenda as Allies Postpone Georgia and Ukraine, 3 April 2008
European Officials Fear Russian Meddling in Georgian Separatist Region of Abkhazia, 11 March 2008
Medvedev Steps Up Rhetoric, Warns Against NATO Expansion Eastward, 25 March 2008

See Also:
Georgia: Could More Dialogue, Fewer Demands, Be Ticket On Abkhazia? [RadioFree Europe, 16 April 2008]
Russia to Bolster Ties to Separatist Areas in Georgia [Wall Street Journal, 17 April 2008]

President Bush’s plan to build a missile-defense shield in Europe won approval from NATO at yesterday’s Bucharest summit meetings, marking an important victory for the U.S. agenda and for American hopes of getting Moscow to ease its opposition. But the summit balked at U.S. pressure to start an admission process for Ukraine and Georgia as premature and liable to raise tensions with Russia.

The planned ballistic missile-defense system involves 10 interceptor missiles based in Poland and a tracking radar site in the Czech Republic. Poland and the Czech Republic are pleased to announce the completion of negotiations on a missile defense agreement,” says a joint statement by the two countries, issued on the fringes of the NATO summit in Bucharest (3 April).

In endorsing the project, a statement by the 26 nations alliance said that the system “will be linked to other US missile defense facilities in Europe and the US.” In addition according to NATO’s Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the alliance will “develop options for a comprehensive missile defense architecture to extend coverage to all ally territory and population not otherwise covered by the US system.” These areas – including Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania – would not be protected by the missile shield as currently planned. In addition, plans are under discussion about how a NATO-focused network of defenses against short-and-medium-range missiles could be “bolted onto” the planned U.S. shield supposed to operate against long-range attacks.

The U.S. was less successful in its bid to gain NATO admission for the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine. The alliance moved to admit Croatia and Albania, but Germany and France led opposition to Bush’s push to expand the alliance into Georgia and Ukraine with a “membership action plan (MAP),” arguing that such a move would unduly provoke Russia, which has vehemently opposed the idea. Most NATO governments also take the view that both these countries have internal troubles – separatism in Georgia, a deep split about Russia in Ukraine – that could become problematical if they were put officially on track to NATO membership. (more…)

Canadian policymakers are confident that other allied nations will come up with reinforcements and greater operational mobility in Afghanistan, thus meeting the terms set by Canada for keeping its crucial combat role in embattled Kandahar province, the main front with Taliban insurgents.

Most of the additional forces – around 1,000 men – are expected to come from France, where President Nicolas Sarkozy has made it clear that he intends to follow through on his pledges to bring France closer to NATO. The French troops may be deployed in Kandahar or in eastern Afghanistan near the border with Pakistan, another key front. The arrival of French forces will enable the United States, if necessary, to redeploy American units there to fight directly alongside the Canadians in Kandahar.

Canada has also insisted on more operational mobility that would come from more helicopters and drones, and Washington is expected to provide some of what is needed in both categories.

“I am very comfortable that the conditions we stipulated are going to be met,” David Wright told European Affairs. A former Canadian ambassador to NATO, he is currently a professor at Victoria College, University of Toronto.  Ambassador Wright has written for European Affairs on Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan.

Details about exact numbers and timetables are expected to emerge at the NATO summit meeting in Bucharest next week.

“This outcome means that the alliance will have solved the immediate short-run challenge in Afghanistan, so now we need to turn to a longer-term discussion about exactly how we plan to enable the Afghans to move ahead in taking over their own security,” Wright said.

That debate is likely to start in earnest at the NATO summit meeting, which will also be attended by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

The Canadian parliament voted early this year to keep Canada’s current force of 2,500 troops in Afghanistan until 2011 – on condition that allied nations provided the reinforcements in manpower and mobility in the nation’s most dangerous regions.

Related Posts:
France Will Add Combat Troops in Afghanistan to Bolster NATO Mission, 29 February 2008
Faraway Afghanistan Brings Home Up-Close NATO Tensions, 29 February 2008
In Afghanistan, NATO Caveats Can Be Made to Work Better, 8 February 2008

Incoming Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had some strong words for Western leaders in an interview with the Financial Times today. Amid President Bush’s recent statements in support of expanding the NATO alliance to include Georgia and reports that Ukraine is also taking steps towards NATO membership, Medvedev said that Russia is “not happy” about the prospect of eastward NATO expansion.

From today’s FT:

His comments, in an interview with the Financial Times, will step up pressure on the alliance not to allow the two states to join Nato’s “membership action plan” at a summit in Bucharest next week. Vladimir Putin, outgoing Russian president, is due to attend part of the summit. …

“We are not happy about the situation around Georgia and Ukraine. We consider that it is extremely troublesome for the existing structure of European security,” Mr Medvedev said during a two-hour interview, his first since winning Russia’s presidential election on March 2.

“No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders.”

Mr Medvedev also suggested joining the military alliance was against most Ukrainians’ wishes, as opinion polls have shown.

“This is … even more difficult to explain when the vast majority of citizens of … Ukraine, are categorically against joining Nato, while the government … follows a different policy,” he said.

Medvedev’s comments come in the wake of statements by Georgian officials that they fear Russia is planning to annex the Georgian separatist region of Abkhazia. NATO member states will meet next week in Bucharest for their annual summit, where they will discuss possible membership for the former Soviet territories. Medvedev officially takes over as president on May 7.

Medvedev’s video interview with the FT is available on their website. A full transcript is also available.

Related Posts:
Can Europe Stay Out of the Geopolitical Face-Off Between the US and Russia?, 21 March 2008
European Officials Fear Russian Meddling in Georgian Separatist Region of Abkhazia, 11 March 2008

See Also:
Medvedev warns against expanding Nato east, Financial Times, 25 March 2008
Bush backs closer NATO ties with Georgia, Reuters, 19 March 2008
Ukraine says Bush to visit before NATO summit, Reuters, 13 March 2008

Separatist ambitions in the Caucasus region have received their first tangible boost from the example of Kosovo’s independence. The breakaway Abkhazia region in Georgia appealed to international bodies for recognition of its independence in messages sent March 7, the day after Russia announced that it was lifting its trade restrictions on the territory.

The move came two days after a similar move by South Ossetia, another region of Georgia that is in revolt against the central government in Tbilisi. In their appeal, the political leaders of South Ossetia, also heavily pro-Russian, said that “the Kosovo precedent presents a convincing argument” for recognition of the province’s independent because – as with Kosovo in Serbia – “co-existence” had become demonstrably impossible with Georgia. The friction between Georgia and Russia is aggravated, too, by the former’s efforts to join the NATO alliance.

(more…)

France has decided more ground troops to Afghanistan for combat missions against Taliban insurgents in the mountainous battle zone close to the border with Pakistan, according to press reports in Paris.

The French commitment, which includes elite special forces, comes at a critical moment for NATO, which it direly needs reinforcements to ratchet up its campaign against guerilla fighters infiltrating eastern Afghanistan from their sanctuaries in the tribal areas of neighboring Pakistan.

By sending in fresh combat units, expected to number up to 500 men, President Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be acting on his pledge that France wants to work more closely with NATO. With the Bush administration asking European nations for more military help in Afghanistan, a Sarkozy adviser was quoted in Le Monde newspaper saying that “France is the only country that can — if it decides to – make the crucial difference.”

(To see related articles, please click on Read the rest of this entry)

(more…)

By James Leathers

A growing sense of crisis about NATO’s mission in Afghanistan crystallized in Washington early this year with the release of near-simultaneous reports on the outlook there – all sounding similar warnings to the effect that the campaign to restore government authority against insurgent Taliban forces and pacify the country has been neglected, under-resourced and damaged by conflicting views about the mission’s purpose.

“Make no mistake,” began one of these reports: “NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.” This study, entitled “Saving Afghanistan” and published by the Washington-based Atlantic Council, emphasized the need for greater progress in civilian reconstruction, at least in areas free of insurgent attack. In the long run, it argued, no amount of Afghan and Western military power can completely defeat the Taliban as long as its fighters can still find a safe haven in neighboring Pakistan.

The need for a major new effort to succeed in Afghanistan was also the theme of major new independent reports by Afghanistan Study Group and by the National Defense University. All three reports concur that without prompt actions by the U.S. and its allies, the mission in Afghanistan may fail – causing severe consequences to U.S. strategic interests worldwide, including the war on terrorism and the future of NATO. The U.S. cannot afford to let Afghanistan continue to be the neglected, or forgotten, war. All said that the Taliban cannot “defeat” NATO, but concluded that a quasi-stalemate would be a very serious blow to the alliance.

(more…)

By David Young

At the time of the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999, the premise of Western governments was that confronting ethnic cleansing was more important than respecting the international borders. The message was that would-be tyrants in future needed to know – and be deterred by – the cost that would be imposed on them by the international community if they sought to inflict such atrocities. The U.S. decision to throw its full political-military weight into Kosovo reflected eagerness to make up for perceived moral failures in the 1990s (notably Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia). President Bill Clinton was eager to restore America’s image as the global policeman backing up the recently proclaimed new world order. And he wanted to restore the strategic authority of the United States.

(more…)