How the international media covered the Russo-Ukrainian war, May 1

Author:
Sasha Sverdlova
Date:

While the world expected Russia to launch massive hacker attacks, it’s Russia that is struggling with its own digital security, writes The Washington Post. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Russia has been suffering from massive data leaks. The published documents include cache from Roskomnadzor (Russian censorship body), VGTRK (the biggest state broadcaster), and other institutions. The Washington Post quotes experts who claim the most significant victims of these attacks are the myths of Russian cyber-superiority. While there are ideological hacktivist groups, some even supported by the Ukrainian government, which aim to help Ukraine win, ordinary criminals also use leaked data to steal money. Surprisingly, the crime business also was influenced by politics – one of the dangerous ransomware gangs, Conti, announced they are eager to protect Russian interests in cyberspace. This led to one of the Ukrainian members of the gang leaking more than 100,00 internal gang chats and the source code for its malware software. A dedicated hacktivist group, “Network Batallion 65”, later used the code to lock up files inside Russian state-connected companies. While there are concerns that volunteer hackers can cross the line and harm civilians, there is a war going on, and hacker attacks are weapons.

American foreign affairs analyst Robin Wright wrote a column on The New Yorker where she claims now Ukraine is America’s war too. While in the first days of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine the U.S was very cautious and aimed to avoid “poking the Russian bear”, today, nine weeks into the war, the US has become an acting side of the conflict. The American upcoming 33 billion dollars investment in Ukraine is about half the size of the entire Russian defence budget, yet, according to President Biden “a small price to lessen the risk of future conflicts with Russia”. While for Putin this war has always been a war against the West, the US tried to resist this framing at first and used diplomacy to intervene. As that approach did not work, there are four key reasons why the shift to a deeper US engagement may have been inevitable. First, Moscow participation in the peace talks was a joke as Putin was too greedy or not under enough pressure to negotiate seriously. Second, the Russian army failed during the first phase of the war, letting the west believe Ukraine could actually win. Thirdly, it became clear Putin would not stop with Ukraine and go further to seize other countries like Moldova. Finally, greater support for Ukraine is appreciated by the public, at least for now.

Since Putin continues threatening Ukraine with nuclear weapons, a column on Los Angeles Times writes of a potential response that US and NATO would undertake in case these threats come true. If Putin continues facing a humiliating defeat in Ukraine, he might decide to use nukes, most probably it would be tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons, which are mainly to be used on the battlefield, yet are quite powerful. Until this scenario has become true, the US is acting in advance, one diplomat in a private conversation told the LA Times, that he believes President Biden had Asked Xi Jinping to warn Putin of a severe price he’d pay if he decided to use weapons of mass destruction. If deterrence fails, then in any case the United States should not respond with nuclear weapons, as this would lead to global destruction and further escalation. The good news is that NATO has other kinds of weapons that would harm the Russian military. Therefore, the possibility of a Russian nuclear strike is unthinkable, but even if it happens, Ukraine and its allies would still be able to win and secure Ukrainian sovereignty.