What Surkov’s hacked emails tell about Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine

In 2016-2017, Ukrainian hackers gifted to the world three tranches of emails originating from the office of Putin's top advisor Vladislav Surkov. They provide a unique evidence-based glimpse into the backstage of Russia's hybrid war against Ukraine - and give indispensable insight into how Russia acts in its covert aggression in general. A RUSI report co-authored by Euromaidan Press editor-in-chief Alya Shandra and British Conservative MP Robert Seely tells about the leaks in detail. Alya Shandra told about their main takeaways at the SECURE-2019 cybersecurity conference in Poland; here is an adapted version of her talk.

And here we come to the first vulnerability that Russia exploits. The theory of reflexive control goes that in a conflict with its use, the opponent with the highest control of reflex, i.e. knowledge about its opponent, wins. While Russia is studying its opponents very closely, we are behind. The centers of Russian studies which existed during the Cold War were closed as the west assumed that Russia would democratize. Now we are only in the start of the process of reviving these studies.

Vulnerabilities: the local collaborators were absolutely crucial for the Kremlin’s goals. Without the insiders who knew the ins and outs of Ukrainian society, Russia would not be able to carry out its plans. But the legislature existing in Ukraine often does not allow to punish these collaborators adequately. Anton Davidchenko, an activist of the Odesa Antimaidan, was released in 2014 under house arrest. He escaped to Moscow and from there became a leading officer of Russia’s hybrid war, coordinating movements for federalization and street protests in different regions. Alla Aleksandrovska, the Communist party leader in Kharkiv, was arrested upon giving a bribe to officials in an attempt to push through the federalization scenario. She, too, has been released under a night obligation. This is because of the lack of legislation which would correspond to the challenges of hybrid war. Another important factor: ideology. Why would a person from Ukraine choose to plead allegiance to Russia and willingly work towards undermining Ukrainian statehood? Because of the ideology of the “Russian world”, presented as a separate civilization, and insufficient loyalty to Ukraine. This is something to watch out for wherever there is a Russian diaspora - or a population that is ideologically affiliated with Russia, such as in Ukraine. 

Vulnerabilities: the “LNR” and “DNR”: emerged in a place in Ukraine where there already was an albeit small, but desire of separatism, a deep dissatisfaction with the central power and grievances which were fueled by politicians exploiting them. They also emerged in a place where the activity of civic society was insufficient to stop the developments which were taking place in all of southeastern Ukraine in 2014. The military invasion thanks to which the LNR and DNR were established and the Russian invasion happened were conditioned by the ruined state of Ukraine’s military and total unpreparedness to repel the Russian advance. In this, Ukraine is actually not as alone in Europe as it may seem: the state of most European armies desires more, and there is a persistent desire to disarm in order to “not provoke Russia.” The countermeasure to that is to take the Russian threat seriously and arm.

Vulnerabilities:  Although the Ukrainian security service managed to thwart a few of these events, as already mentioned, the legislature of Ukraine, and actually most other countries, does not envision any proper punishment for local collaborators carrying out these Russian plans. As well: a democratic environment with genuine civil liberties allowed these movements to operate without hindrance. But the most important systemic vulnerabilities were actually laid out by Pavlo Broyde, the Ukrainian PR guru. He wrote about the collapse of the vertical of power in southeastern Ukraine during the Yanukovych’s time. This means that this territory was virtually controlled by oligarch “overseers” through the “shadow vertical of power” who maintained control by corrupting the power structures and a combination of media and PR operations. Something akin to a feudal mafia clan. While the “overseers” had fled after Euromaidan, the structures of the “shadow vertical of power” remained and could be used for Russian purposes. So here we see that not only democratic freedoms but also the absence of democracy, a set of manipulations of “feudal lords” with which they kept control was also a key asset for Russia.

Vulnerabilities: a cynical political culture allowing to exchange bribes for political decisions (and perhaps poverty and absence of integrity), absence of legislature punishing for such actions.

Vulnerabilities: media accepting these paid-for materials (reasons: poverty, absence of other revenues), the difficulty of tracing real owners of media outlets, ease of opening up new outlets, democratic environment with freedom of speech.