US imposes sanctions on Russia over cyber-attacks

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56755484

by Bender • 5 years ago

38 56 5 years ago

It really bothers me that this seems to be based on Microsoft's word. I don't trust them. I don't want MS involved with the government at all, let alone as the spark that starts a new cold war. The US and its allies have done plenty of "cyber-attacks", yet no one seems up in arms about that. PRISM was a cyber-attack on our own citizens!

This whole thing smells like manufactured consent.

sudosysgen16• 5 years ago

At this point, Russia is already maximally sanctioned, so really this is more like posturing by the US.

jlmorton• 5 years ago

In what world is Russia maximally sanctioned? Compare sanctions In Iran to Russia and I think you'll find Russia is barely sanctioned at all.

thisisnico2• 5 years ago

You're going to have a really really tough time riding Microsoft from government, considering it really is the number 1 enterprise software solution stack, and nothing even comes close to what Microsoft does in enterprise environments. I get that the hackernews crowd is very linux-biased because most of the web-software development world is based around linux. It's easy to think that linux is everything when it's really not.

solosoyokaze2• 5 years ago

There should be legislation that mandates the use of open source software. I am no ok with my tax dollars going to Microsoft or any private software company. I'm also not ok with the government running closed source software (that does who knows what behind the scenes). Cut off Microsoft's government revenue and focus that cash on open source development and there will be replacements for MS products in no time.

throw47384• 5 years ago

US should impose sanctions on Russia over presidential election irreguties and interference.

SonOfKyuss• 5 years ago

This is for both. Election interference is mentioned in the third sentence.

sudosysgen16• 5 years ago

The US already imposed basically all the sanctions it can without just straight up trying to fuck over the Russian people as much as possible (the Russian people still got pretty fucked by sanctions already). Because of previous sanctions the Russian economy has a high degree of independence now and impact of sanctions is pretty limited.

thisisnico2• 5 years ago

I believe Russia had signed a deal with China to trade in their own currencies, as Russia attempts to fully de-dollarize their economy and trade. This was done since 2015 when the initial sanctions where applied.

throw47384• 5 years ago

Russian citizens can still visit US! They could be spies who try to sabotage US economy. You can still stop them!

luckylion• 5 years ago

These trolling throw-away accounts get tiresome.

throw47384• 5 years ago

I an on HN news since 2008. This is not a joke but serious. US has a right to cut themselves from Russia, but just do it. Stop playing stupid games.

throwaway4good5• 5 years ago

Biden is escalating conflict with China, Russia and Iran (via Israel) all at the same time. I hope he knows what he is doing.

sudosysgen16• 5 years ago

I mean, he doesn't really have a choice. If he didn't, the US would be perceived as having a position of weakness and it would be taken advantage of by powers that want to tilt the balance away from the US's hegemonic position.

DFHippie• 5 years ago

I seriously doubt Biden played any role in Israel's attack on Iran.

Also, is reacting to provocation escalation? If you let other countries abuse you, is that de-escalation? I mean, it could be, but there will be people who argue both sides of both positions. I don't know exactly what would de-escalate each situation. Most likely it varies by participants involved. However, it is not obviously the case that reacting to provocations with sanctions is escalation.

throwaway4good5• 5 years ago

Kissenger (or some other geopolitics thinker of the realist school) would say play your enemies out against each other and don't solidify an alliance between Iran, China and Russia.

I don't understand what drives Biden? Is this about ideology?

sudosysgen16• 5 years ago

This is a neglected effect of US sanctions. It forces all of the US's enemies to ally themselves with each other, at least economically.

This is about the US wanting to look and act like they still dominate.

nickik6• 5 years ago

US foreign policy is deeply illogical. There is no overarching long term strategy. Is whole bunch of legacy polices that persist depending on various lobbying interest, inertia and situational responses. Add on top each president has their own ideas that are then promptly reversed by congress.

You basically end up with gigantic mess that makes little logical sense.

hn8788• 5 years ago

He pretty much has to. From what I read in Jim Mattis's recent book, Obama and Trump both significantly damaged the credibility of the US military among allied nations. If Biden lets the USA appear weak and unwilling to push back against other super powers, then smaller nations are likely to change their allegiances to whoever they think will keep them safe.

throwaway4good5• 5 years ago

Sure. But he could have picked them apart one by one. Do you really want a strongly allied China-Russia?

splithalf2• 5 years ago

Where is the public scrutiny of Biden’s diplomatic steps as we slide towards war, perhaps more than one? Trump at least had people’s undivided attention and a lot of checks and balances. Biden seems to have a blank check and a mindset based on the world 10 years ago. Accepting the limitations of old age seems especially hard for career politicians, but it has to impact performance. Imagine hiring an 80 year old CEO. It doesn’t happen for very good reasons.

throwaway4good5• 5 years ago

He is clearly escalating. Perhaps it is driven by a wish not to be perceived as "old and weak". If that is the case, it is not good.

Currently Russian forces are amassing near Ukraine. Why put Russia in a situation where they don't care about Western reactions as it is already as bad as it can get? I mean what stick is Biden going to use if they actually invade?

splithalf2• 5 years ago

I think it’s easy to underestimate small stake tit for tats and I’ve not heard a clear or reassuring enunciation of Biden’s foreign policy vision other than the “undoing” of stuff that was done under trump. Iran is a particular concern. Hopefully my fears prove unfounded. It is still very early in the new administration to make judgements one way or the other, but it does seem the conditions are ripe for new directions if not abrupt shifts in global power dynamics.

rapjr9• 5 years ago

I've been wondering if the following was part of Biden's retaliation:

Three Top Russian Cybercrime Forums Hacked

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/03/three-top-russian-cyberc...

Dolores12• 5 years ago

I don't trust USA government since https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Colin_Po...

It is all so made up, innocent until proven guilty.

kaliali2• 5 years ago

Why not sanctions over the Chinese for their cyber attacks?

FBI chief slams Chinese cyberattacks on U.S., calls it ‘one of the largest transfers of wealth in human history’ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/fbi-chief-slams-chinese-cybe...

Intel officials call China "unparalleled priority" among world threats https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/intel-officials-call...

Exclusive: Secret NSA Map Shows China Cyber Attacks on U.S. Targets https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/exclusive-secret-nsa-ma...

Federal prosecutors on Wednesday announced charges against five Chinese hackers accused of breaching more than 100 companies, think tanks, universities and government agencies around the world. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/16/us-charges-chinese-...

US formally warns China is launching cyberattacks to steal coronavirus research https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-formally-warns-china-is...

sudosysgen16• 5 years ago

Because the US has to be careful not to damage its own economy and to keep leverage for later.

kaliali2• 5 years ago

The US is damaging its economy by doing business with thieves and criminals.

China needs its customers.

nickik6• 5 years ago

Because its not about Cyber attacks.

qshaman2• 5 years ago

I doubt Putin's wealth and influence are being affected. In the other hand regular russian folks might get affected in one way or another. This is the thing with US sanctions, they are just aim to harm regular people, same with Cuba, Iran, ... This undoubtedly increase the resentment of their population against the US, I fail to understand how any of this makes sense. If we don't like their government , why not target their government officials, instead?

sudosysgen16• 5 years ago

Targeting government officials is not really that feasible. Rich people will always find a way around sanctions for what they absolutely want to get from the US, and won't be affected otherwise.

The goal is not to somehow improve the country by motivating the population to do positive political change. The goal is economically damage the country to make it's strategic situation worse. This is done by harming the citizens of the country economically.

qshaman2• 5 years ago

If that is the goal is not working, otherwise Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, etc... would have change their political system after all these years of sanctions. At the end, we here in the US are supporting legalized discrimination against regular people, in some cases keeping them from getting access to medicines, technology, and other important resources. Is sad to say the least.

mint26• 5 years ago

It’s strange that 95% of the comments at this moment appear to be strongly against the sanctions and displeased with the govt.

Probably the reason china escapes is China has more leverage over the world than Russia, and Russia has an order of magnitude more leverage than Iran. That’s why the response diminishes in that order.

But it seems like most commenters don’t want any response. Escalation has dangers, but How are they sure appeasement will go well? I mean, it literally was a major cause of WW2. Basically a tightrope act is needed. I’m not going to armchair it.

sudosysgen16• 5 years ago

There is no risk of "WW3". No one is about to try to invade the entirety of Europe and kill 150+ million people, enslaving a billion.

These are all fairly self-limiting conflicts. China is interested in Taiwan (maybe) and a defensible path to the Pacific and Indian oceans. Russia is interested in having a buffer state against NATO.

If you want to counter these objectives, then there is going to be a cost. But the cost of these objectives being realized is nowhere near that of WW2, so an armed confrontation is not worth it. The truth is that there isn't really any good solutions here. Both of these powers are in a situation where they feel that if they do not secure these strategic advantages there is a risk of disaster. The answer is either convince them that this is not the result in order to lower what cost they are willing to incur to achieve them, find a way to create an equilibrium between the US and those other powers, or use military dissuasion (which will be incredibly costly and might be impossible).

In the end this is pretty much just a very difficult position. But you should not compare tactics that do not rely on the threat of massive violence to appeasement, none of these powers is willing to do anything near WW2.

mint26• 5 years ago

I have severe disagreements with your assessment particularly the part below:

“ There is no risk of "WW3". No one is about to try to invade the entirety of Europe and kill 150+ million people, enslaving a billion. These are all fairly self-limiting conflicts. China is interested in Taiwan (maybe) and a defensible path to the Pacific and Indian oceans. Russia is interested in having a buffer state against NATO.”

It both severely overplays the expectations people had in the early 1930’s, hindsight is 2020. And underplays the goals of China and Russia. And it doesn’t acknowledge what’s already happened like invasions and labor camps.

nickik6• 5 years ago

Equating all 'appeasement' and point to WW2 is tiered old argument.

Arguably the US the aggressor anyway. The US made a number of promises to first Soviet Union to end Cold War and then to Russia. Pretty much all of them have been broken by the US or not renewed after promises. The US took major advantage Russian weakness.

The US extend the boarder of its nuclear weapon protect zone to a few 100 miles of one of the major Russian cities. And realistically had Russia not acted, Georgia might be part of NATO now.

And almost certainty the US is constantly 'cyber-attacking' Russia as well.

Not to mention that punishing the whole Russian population is immoral way of response.

What the US has done to Iraq the last 70 years isbeyond inexcusable

mint26• 5 years ago

Russia invaded Ukraine and repeatedly commits major cyber espionage against the USA, to the point they arguably changed the result of our presidential election (and I don’t mean altering vote machines) to name but one instance but no!! The aggressor is USA.

Yeah we do cyber attacks and many other fairly inexcusable things. But to claim USA is the aggressor in this cause is highly debatable.

And I’m not saying appeasement will cause ww3, I’m saying it’s had a past history of not working in a spectacular fashion, so it’s weird to default to it.

avmich• 5 years ago

I thought the article is really missing any details, which could be briefly summarized. Then I read the executive order and found that too doesn't mention any names - whatever an appropriate department decides according to stated rules is okay.

Considering that geopolitics can be interesting to HN, we don't discuss enough some topics here. In case with Russia we have something that looks like a violation - in US and by US authorities - of US laws against corruption and some international agreements. We also see conversion of Russia into a more autocratic state, which is both step back from "old times" of 1990-2000 and different from Cold War, when USSR had a different structure of goals than the Russia now.

saurik• 5 years ago

I hate these articles that don't really explain anything or even have a list of the entities :/. Even the White House only has a summary, but the original information comes from the Treasury Department:

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0127

US imposes sanctions on Russia over cyber-attacks

Related Stories