INSTRUMENTAL CORRECTIONS FOR A DEFINITION OF CYBERWAR - Cyberwar-Netwar: Security in the Information Age - page 28

Azarov : The point is that our countries are well-educated and we understand many
problems. But we do not want to say that we know everything. That is why the main
goal of my paper was to track the interests of these problems and to start a discussion.
And we were trying first of all, from an application point of view, to attract the interests
of our politicians to this problem because in some countries no-one is aware of the
problem.
Concerning your question, in your country, there is a very interesting writer Samuel
Atkinson and an interesting thing about our country, is that we read everything. You
write, we read. And we began to analyse, some years ago, in 1993. When Alexander
Dodonov and I read that printout of Atkinson about cyberwar, we began to understand
what the threat was for our country. And ten years later we are beginning to ask the
question that if we try to coordinate our thinking, if we try to discuss and build a new
understanding, perhaps we will have a real position and a real understanding. Because I
think, I put the question: cyberwar - what does it mean? I do not know.
For instance, what does the New York Times mean by cyberwar? That is why I collect
special reference sources and think about them. One understands this and another
understands something else.
We are thinkers, we are scientists, and we are officials who can influence and have an
impact on government officials. That is why you have to build on this situation, build the
definition, build the understanding and attract the interest of officials to this situation.
Policarpo : In your excellent presentation, you gave us the latest definition “latent
cyberwar” and you stated that this latent cyberwar should be fully implemented by the
international community and international law. Latent cyberwar is your latest concept
which you have presented for the first time in this meeting. Do you envisage or foresee
that non-state organisations, some non-state actors, can produce or interact with this kind
of latent cyberwar as any other state can? Or do you envisage that the international
community with so many cultural differences, as many as the differences in terrorism
itself that have been quoted in all nations, could apply this definition of latent cyberwar?
My personal view is that non-state organisations will be the ones most wanting to use this
kind of definition against state organisations.
Azarov : The point is that every country has its own history and the only thing which
joins us to Europe is not religion, but thinking . When I go to Portugal I read your history
and it is very interesting. There are also very interesting histories in Great Britain, in
Italy, in Germany. And you now have real civilian groups who provide an impact on
governments. And hopefully these governments will listen and think about this impact.
There is another situation where young people with understanding, education and a
view of the future, understand what the future of Ukraine will be. But our government
also understands the future of Ukraine and all of them remember the communists and
there is much opposition between one situation and another. If you study the relationship
in Ukraine this explains the entire situation. But the government is the government; it
decides on the problems and takes actions on these decisions. Civilian groups
unfortunately do not have this possibility. Civilian groups often have very high moral
values and they have protected their sometimes foolish views. And this opposition is our
history.
I have included this situation as it is reality.