Cyberattacks Have Yet to Play a Significant Role in Russia’s Battlefield Operations in Ukraine – Cyberwarfare Experts Explain the Likely Reasons

Separate Roles
In recent studies, we examined whether cyber operations mostly serve as complements to, or substitutes for, conventional conflict. In one analysis, we examined conventional military campaigns around the world over a 10-year period using the Militarized Interstate Disputes dataset of all armed conflicts. We also focused on the conflicts in Syria and eastern Ukraine. Our results suggest that cyber operations are generally not being used as either.

Instead, nations tend to use these two types of operations independently from each other because each mode of conflict serves different objectives, and cyberwarfare is most effective for gathering intelligence, stealing technology or winning public opinion or diplomatic debates.

In contrast, nations use traditional forms of conflict to control tangible assets, such as capturing resources or occupying territory. The various goals offered by Russian President Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine, such as preventing Ukraine from joining NATOreplacing the government or countering fictitious Ukrainian weapons of mass destruction, require occupying territory.

There may be other reasons for the lack of overlap between cyber and conventional fronts in Ukraine. The Russian military could consider cyber operations ineffective for its purposes. The newness of cyber operations as a tool of war makes it difficult to coordinate with conventional military operations. Also, military targets might not be accessible to hackers because they might lack internet connectivity.

In any event, evidence that the Russian government intends to use cyber operations to complement military operations is thin. Our findings suggest hacking groups in previous conflicts faced considerable difficulties in responding to battlefield events, much less shaping them.

How Russia Is Using Cyber Operations
The main target of Russia’s digital campaign in Ukraine is ordinary Ukrainians. To date, Russian cyber operations have sought to sow panic and fear, destabilizing the country from within, by demonstrating the country’s inability to defend its infrastructure, for example, by defacing or disabling websites.

In addition, Russia has been using information campaigns to attempt to win the “hearts and minds” of Ukrainians. Prior to the start of the conflict, White House press secretary Jen Psaki warned of a 2,000% increase from the daily average in November in Russian-language social media content. This suggests that the purpose of these information operations was to make the case for Russia’s intervention on humanitarian grounds and to build support for intervention among the Ukrainian public. The Russian government’s domestic actions emphasize the value its leadership places on information operations.

A Supporting Role
Hackers’ actions tend to occur out of the public eye, rather than in the flamboyantly violent manner favored by Hollywood cyber villains, which means it’s difficult to know for sure what’s happening. Nevertheless, the lack of overlap between cyber and conventional military operations makes sense operationally and strategically. This is not to say that the informational focus of cyber operations has no effect on military operations. Good intelligence is essential for success in any military conflict.

We believe Russia is likely to continue conducting information campaigns to influence Ukrainians, its domestic public and international audiences. Russia is also likely to seek to further penetrate Ukrainian networks to access information that potentially assists its military operations. But because cyber operations have not been thoroughly integrated into its military campaigns so far, cyber operations are likely to continue playing a secondary role in the conflict.

Nadiya Kostyuk is Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology. Erik Gartzke is Professor of Political Science, University of California San Diego. This article is published courtesy of The Conversation.