Deterring Russian Cyber Intrusions
The Lawfare Podcast
The Lawfare Institute
4.7 • 6.4K Ratings
🗓️ 23 December 2016
⏱️ 47 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
Whatever the President-elect might say on the matter, the question of Russian interference in the presidential election is not going away: calls continue in the Senate for an investigation into the Kremlin's meddling, and the security firm CrowdStrike recently released new information linking one of the two entities responsible for the DNC hack with Russia's military intelligence agency. So how should the United States respond?
In War on the Rocks, Evan Perkoski and Michael Poznansky recently reviewed the possibilities in their piece "An Eye for an Eye: Deterring Russian Cyber Intrusions." They've also written on this issue before in a previous piece titled "Attribution and Secrecy in Cyber Intrusions." We brought them on the podcast to talk about what deterrence of Russian interference would look like and why it's necessary.
Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | The following podcast contains advertising. |
| 0:04.0 | To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast, |
| 0:08.0 | become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair. |
| 0:14.0 | That's patreon.com slash law fair. |
| 0:18.0 | Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, |
| 0:22.0 | rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath. |
| 0:29.0 | This requires not only the Obama administration to retaliate, |
| 0:37.0 | but the entire logic of what we're arguing requires that Putin would expect this kind of retaliation in the future. |
| 0:43.0 | So let's look ahead to 2020 from now on, and presume that the Trump administration is in charge of whether or not the US retaliates |
| 0:51.0 | in response to a similar kind of disinformation campaign, whoever the Democratic candidate may be. |
| 0:57.0 | If Trump shows little to no interest that he would retaliate in response to this kind of thing, |
| 1:03.0 | and so far there's no reason to be encouraged that he would respond. |
| 1:08.0 | This would really undermine the deterrent signal of anything the Obama administration does right now, |
| 1:15.0 | because again, it requires the threat of future pain, which requires an administration willing to levy that kind of pain in response to these attacks. |
| 1:23.0 | And I should note as well, this shouldn't be a partisan issue that all Americans or Republicans or Democrats should want to deter and forestall these kinds of foreign acts of interference. |
| 1:34.0 | I'm Quintedurusic, and this is the LawFair podcast December 24th, 2016. |
| 1:41.0 | Though the President-elect continues to deny reports of Russian interference in the presidential election, |
| 1:46.0 | evidence is mounting that Asians linked to the Kremlin hacked and leaked Democratic Party information in an effort both to delegitimize American democracy and to swing the election toward Donald Trump. |
| 1:58.0 | There's a growing consensus that the United States should respond to this cyber attack, but how can it best do so? |
| 2:04.0 | To address this question, we brought Evan Prakowski and Michael Paznansky on the podcast to talk about their recent piece on cyber deterrence and attribution, |
| 2:14.0 | and War on the Rocks, titled An Eye for an Eye, Deterring Russian Cyberintrusions. |
| 2:20.0 | It's the LawFair podcast, Episode 202, Deterring Russian Cyberintrusions with Evan Prakowski and Michael Paznansky. |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Lawfare Institute, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of The Lawfare Institute and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.