Why We Need Cyberwar Rules Of Engagement Now

Bloomberg View columnist Leonid Bershidsky says the U.S. and Russia should define what constitutes attacks—and the appropriate responses—before things spiral out of control.

- Leonid Bershidsky

Today, Russia and the U.S. are engaged in creeping cyberwarfare against each other, and they may well be working to disable or undermine each other’s critical infrastructure. The conflict is potentially deadly and, unlike military interactions between the two adversaries, not subject to even the most rudimentary rules or mutual arrangements. That needs to be fixed, and although a multilateral process under the auspices of the United Nations or the G-20 would be preferable, a bilateral working group , of the kind proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his recent meeting with U.S. counterpart Donald Trump, could be a useful start.

The greatest tension in cyberspace today is between the U.S. and Russia; the two can lead the way in defusing it. They have experience doing so on nuclear disarmament after taking the world to the brink of catastrophe. An agreement could serve as a blueprint for a multilateral convention or other bilateral deals —say, with China, which has been known to take an interest in U.S. networks.

Countries need to agree on basic notions, such as what constitutes an attack or an illegal intervention, as opposed to a mere nuisance, and what retaliatory moves are legitimate or excessive. An informal but highly authoritative attempt to lay out the issues has already been made.

Earlier this year, NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence presented the second edition of the so-called