So we have a record, it seems:
The Office of the [White House] Press Secretary's statement echoes the conclusion of British intelligence, as the U.K. earlier on Thursday declared Russia responsible for the attack, the BBC reported. The 2017 attack was known as "NotPetya" and targeted companies conducting business with Ukraine, a country with which Russia has been in conflict since its 2014 annexation of Crimea.
"In June 2017, the Russian military launched the most destructive and costly cyber attack in history," the White House statement reads.
The statement goes on to say that the economic damage—which resulted from attacks on shipping giant FedEx, drugmaker Merck, and others—has reached billions of dollars. The White House maintains the attack was part of the Kremlin’s campaign against Ukraine.
Let me just say as I long have argued that while cyber warfare takes place on the Internet, until virtual Artificial Intelligence lives online, the equipment and people waging it live in the real world:
It is necessary to prepare for war in cyber-space with sophisticated cyber-weapons as have been deployed against Iran. But in the rush to fight in cyber-space, don't forget that a physical smart bomb can simply blow up a room full of enemy cyber-warriors if they have an office park and we know the address.
Isn't Ukraine fully justified in attacking Russia with actual explosives that cause the same level of damage?
(I'll say that is one objection I have to past cyber war against Iran. Aren't they justified in using more kinetic means to counter-attack? Cyber isn't a substitute for war. It is one way of waging it and we shouldn't pretend it isn't really war.)
And we should remember that our enemies can do the same thing.
Given that conventional forces are multi-purpose forces, it could be that strategic offensive cyber warfare is a waste of resources.
And really, just what did the record-setting Russian attack actually achieve in their war against Ukraine other than setting a record for such attacks?
