The truth behind cyber threats: propaganda or reality?

Cyberwar is often described as one of the most significant conflicts of the 21st century, with numerous experts predicting a cyber war between Russia and Ukraine capable of devastating economies without the need for traditional military interventions. However, a study by the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich challenges these predictions, underlining the practical limits of cyber attacks or "cyber-effect operations". Despite the popular narrative, empirical evidence demonstrates that such attacks do not have the strategic effectiveness attributed to them, failing both to sabotage military equipment and to disrupt communications during combat. Essentially, there is no demonstrated correlation between Russian-sponsored cyber operations and significant tactical advantages.

Dark origins of attacks and reliability of sources

One of the main obstacles in understanding cyber warfare is uncertainty about the origins of attacks. Cybersecurity firms often rely on third-party sources, making it difficult to accurately attribute attacks to specific state actors. Take for example the case of CrowdStrike in 2016, which incorrectly attributed an infiltration of the Ukrainian artillery system to Fancy Bear, a group allegedly linked to Russian intelligence. This information later turned out to be extremely exaggerated or even false. This raises important doubts about the reliability of media reports and the tendency to point fingers at Russia without concrete evidence.

Cyber attacks and media propaganda

Since the famous cyberattack against Estonia in 2007, Western media have frequently blamed Russia, often without sufficient empirical evidence. Again, only one IP address out of thousands was linked to a government computer, and the actual culprit was a young Russian activist acting independently. This episode demonstrates how media narratives can distort reality, attributing attacks to nation-states when they could be the actions of individuals or non-governmental collectives. The tendency to create conspiracy narratives artificially amplifies the perceived effect of these attacks, rather than being based on an objective analysis of available data.

CSS conclusions and cyberwar propaganda

The CSS of ETH Zurich notes that most of the attacks attributed to Russia, in reality, had a limited and localized impact, not significantly influencing the conflicts. As the University of Adelaide study shows, Ukrainian cyberactivities were already intense before the Russian invasion, signaling premeditated preparation. This contradicts the narrative that Russia is the primary aggressor in cyberspace. Furthermore, incidents often blamed on cyber warfare may be the result of internal management problems. Media rhetoric exaggerating the burden of Russian cyberattacks serves more propaganda purposes than reflecting reality, so a more critical and fact-based approach is needed when analyzing these events.