MS Risk Blog

Outlook: Implications of Soleimani’s Death on Shipping Industry 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States’ assassination of General Qassem Soleimani has heightened security concerns about shipping in the Gulf region, notably the Strait of Hormuz, as the world warily awaits to see how Iran will respond to the killing of its military commander.  The US strike that killed the military commander effectively marks a significant escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran, with Iran launching a ballistic missile attack days later.  On 8 January, Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 crashed shortly after taking off from Tehran, killing all 176 passengers and crewmembers on board.  The reason for the crash is currently under investigation, with Iranian authorities blaming technical issues, though the crash’s timing, just hours after Iran launched missiles at US targets in Iraq, has provoked speculation about other possible causes.  On 9 January, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced during a press conference that evidence suggested an Iranian missile brought down the aircraft by accident. With Iran already rejecting the claims, tensions are likely to further escalate in the coming days and weeks as further information pertaining to the crash is released.

KILLING OF SOLEIMANI

On 3 January 2020, US officials announced that Iran’s most powerful military commander, General Qassem Soleimani, had been killed by a US air strike in neighbouring Iraq.  Soleimani had spearheaded Iranian military operations in the Middle East as head of Iran’s elite Quds Force.  He was killed at Baghdad airport, along with other Iran-backed militia figures, early on Friday in a strike that was ordered by US President Donald Trump.  Speaking shortly after the confirmation of the strike, President Trump disclosed that Soleimani was “directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people.” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stated that “severe revenge awaits the criminals” behind the attack as he announced three days of national mourning.

On 8 January, Iran carried out a ballistic missile attack on air bases housing US forces in Iraq. More than a dozen missiles were launched from Iran, striking two air bases in Irbil and Al Asad, west of Baghdad. The strikes, which occurred at about 2:00 AM local time (10:30 PM GMT), occurred just hours after the burial of Soleimani.  While it is believed that the strikes were in retaliation of Soleimani’s killing, with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei stating that the attack was a “slap in the face” for the US, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif later issued a statement on Twitter, claiming that the attack was self-defence while denying that Iran was seeking to escalate the situation into war.  So far there has been minimal response from Washington, with President Trump tweeting that all was well and that casualties and damage were being assessed.

Soleimani was widely seen as the second most powerful figure in Iran behind Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.  The Quds Force, which is an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, reported directly to the ayatollah and Soleimani was hailed as a heroic national figure. Under Soleimani’s leadership, Iran had bolstered Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as other pro-Iranian militant groups, effectively expanding its military presence in neighbouring Iraq as well as in Syria, where it orchestrated Syria’s offensive against rebel groups in that country’s long-running civil war.  The US however has called the commander and the Quds Force terrorists, holding them responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US personnel.  A statement released by the Pentagon shortly after his death disclosed that Soleimani had been “developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” adding that “this strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

FLIGHT PS752

The crash of flight PS752 has further complicated tensions with Iran, with Western leaders stating that evidence suggests that the plane had been hit by a surface-to-air missile, possibly in error.  US media have speculated that the airline may have been mistaken for a warplane as Iran prepared for possible US retaliation, while a new video released on 10 January appears to show a plane being hit by a projectile over Tehran.  Iran however has rejected the suggestions, with the country’s civil aviation chief stating on Friday that he was “certain” that the plane was not it by a missile.  During a news conference on Friday, Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization (CAOI) chief Ali Abedzadeh repeated his view that a missile was not the cause of the crash. He told reporters, “the thing that is clear to us and that we can say with certainty is that this plane was not hit by a missile,” adding “as I said last night, this plane for more than one and a half minutes was on fire and was in the air, and the location shows that the pilot was attempting to return.”  The statement comes after Iran’s government spokesman Ali Rabiei on Thursday accused the US and its allies of “lying and engaging in psychological warfare” in their speculation over the cause of the accident.  Separately an Iranian official disclosed on Friday that there was documentation to prove that the plane had a mechanical issue before take-off.  According to the official, it was not signed off for flying, but Ukrainian airline officials had overruled these objections, though no further details have been released.

Iran has promised to carry out a full investigation, though there are growing concerns about the transparency of its findings. While Iran initially indicated that it would not hand over the recovered “black boxes” to Boeing, the plane’s manufacturer, or to the US, the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has since confirmed that it has been invited to take part in the investigation and would send a representative. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada and France’s BEA air accident agency have also confirmed that they have been invited to take part in the investigation.  TV images from the crash site on Thursday depicted a bulldozer to clear debris away, raising concerns that vital evidence could have been removed. The “black box” flight recorders have been recovered from the wreckage, with Iran’s official Irna news agency reporting that they will be opened on Friday.

All 176 passengers and crewmembers on board the plane were killed.  Victims of the crash include 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 11 Ukrainians as well as nationals from Sweden, the United Kingdom, Afghanistan and Germany.  In the wake of the crash and missile attacks a number of  airlines have announced that they are re-routing flights that fly over Iran and Iraqi airspace.  Major carriers include Air France, Lufthansa, Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines and Taiwan’s Eva Air, which have all announced that they will opt for different routes for their flights to and from Europe.  The US Federal Aviation Agency has restricted commercial US flights “from operating in the airspace over Iraq, Iran and the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.” Russian authorities have also recommended that their country’s airlines avoid the same areas.  As of 10 January 2020, Turkish flag carrier Turkish Airline and Turkish low-cost carrier Pegasus Airlines as well as Qatar Airways continue to fly over Iran as usual.  British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have both disclosed that they are monitoring the situation, though they have not yet diverted flights.  

IMPACT ON SHIPPING INDUSTRY

In the wake of Soleimani’s death, the missile attack and crash of flight PS752 tensions between the US and Iran have significantly risen and there has been growing concern about shipping in the Gulf region.  In particular, the airplane crash has demonstrated how fragile the current situation is, indicating that the shipping industry could also fall victim to unintended consequences stemming for the heightened tensions.

The Gulf’s waters however have already been considered as being vulnerable to Iranian retaliation ever since President Trump in 2015 withdrew the US from the nuclear deal, which Tehran had signed with world powers, and imposed sanctions on the country.  The Strait of Hormuz a narrow but strategically important waterway, links crude producers in the Middle East with key global markets.  In May and June 2019, the waterway became a focal point in heightened US-Iran tensions when six oil tankers were attacked in, or near, the waterway.  Furthermore, Iran has in the past repeatedly vowed to disrupt oil and petrochemical flows through the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a third of the world’s seaborne oil passes, in the event that it was unable to export its crude.

With the current dramatic escalation of tensions between the US and Iran, there are increasing concerns that a widening conflict could disrupt global oil supplies and impact shipping in the region.  With a number of countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates which have both backed President Trump’s maximum pressure strategy against Iran, calling for restraint since Soleimani was killed, it is likely that any response from Iran will be asymmetric in nature, resulting in the shipping community and vessels transiting this region needing to take additional precautions while also being prepared for the unexpected.  While so far, shipping flows via the Strait of Hormuz have had little change since the targeted killing of Soleimani, it is likely that Iran will resume threatening commercial shipping in the Gulf and could launch similar attacks to those that were carried out last year.

In the wake of heightened tensions, the US Maritime Administration on 2 January 2020 issued an alert over potential Iranian action against “maritime interests in the region.”  It noted that US commercial vessels operating in the area should review the US Maritime Advisory 2019-012. Meanwhile the UK has again increased its military presence in the Gulf.  On 4 January, the UK announced that the Royal Navy will offer to accompany British-flagged commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.  Britain’s Defence Minister Ben Wallace ordered HMS MONTROSE and HMS DEFENDER to prepare to return to escort duties.  The UK has also put military helicopters on standby. There have also been reports that insurance underwriters are likely to increase rates in the coming days to reflect perceptions of a greater war risk for shipping in the Gulf.  In May 2019, the Joint War Committee widened the area around the Gulf for “enhanced risk for marine insurers” after a number of attacks targeting tankers.  Washington blamed Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards for two sabotage attacks that targeted tankers in the Gulf in May and June.  In July, the guards seized a British-flagged tanker in the Gulf in retaliation for the UK’s detention of an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibraltar. After that incident, the UK navy escorted vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, though those escorts concluded in November in the wake of the tanks being released and tensions between the two countries easing.

OUTLOOK AND GUIDANCE

With a diplomatic solution between the US and Iran currently unlikely, the situation in the Gulf region could destabilize further.  Vessels transiting this region are advised of the following:

• Vessels operating in the region must remain vigilant and listen for military warnings at all times;
• Armed private security should not be used as a risk mitigation measure in this region;
• Navigational norms in the Strait of Hormuz should continue to be complied with.

In addition, shipping companies are advised to review BMP5 practices, US maritime advisories, industry releasable threat bulletins, flag security advisories and bulletins, as well as the ship’s hull and machinery, war risk and P&I Insurances prior to transiting this region in order to ensure that the vessel has cover and remains within cover throughout the voyage.

The following vessel guidance should be implemented:

• Undertake a new ship- and voyage-specific threat risk assessment prior to entering any region where there has been an incident, or where the threat has changed;
• Where transit includes passage through a confined strait, if navigationally safe to do so, vessels should consider unmanned machinery spaces (UMS) for the duration;
• Vessels should consider transiting at full speed while ensuring that this is only done where it is commensurate with safe navigation and manoeuvring permits;
• Consider if a day/night transit is appropriate to the threat posed;
• After the risk assessment, review the Ship’s Security Plan and Vessel Hardening Plan;

Carry out security damage control training and exercises prior to entering area of increased risk.    

The Sardines: Grass-Roots Movement Against The Far-Right

On 14 December, 100.000 people attended a rally in Piazza San Giovanni, Rome. This rally was organized by a grass-roots movement called “Sardines”. The movement was started by 4 activists on 14 November in Bologna. They organized a rally there which targeted 6,000 people to attend. Turns out, some 12,000 people attended it, double the expectations. The movement quickly spread across cities in Italy with dozens of subsequent rallies being held. In December alone, protests have been conducted in various cities such as Milan, Turin, Palermo, Florence, Naples, and Rome, which have been attended by more than 300,000 people in total. The aim of the Sardine movement is to counter the growing support of far-right politics which are being led by Matteo Salvini. The Sardine movement denounces the anti-immigration and Euroscepticism rhetoric which is promoted by the far-right.

Since 2018, Salvini has promoted radical anti-immigration and Euroscepticism throughout his speech. Even though he has already been removed from his position of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, he is still considered as one of the most powerful politicians in Italy. He has gained a huge public support especially in the northern part of Italy through his far-right campaign and his party has never been stronger. Even in the city of Bologna, which is considered as the stronghold for leftist, Salvini has proven to gain much support too recently when his political campaign was attended by some 5,000 people. Therefore, it is believed that Salvini’s removal from his position of power within the Italian government has had very little effect towards his popularity. His far-right idea has captured public attention and support, thus placing him as a significant threat to the current left-wing government for the upcoming election in January. The Sardine movement emerged as the reaction of this growing far-right threat, calling their actions as “the fight towards fascism”.

The Sardine movement is blatantly calling Salvini and his supporters as fascists, as Salvini’s campaign is considered by them as an action of “allowing the worst form of racism to exist”. The dozens of rallies conducted by the Sardine Movement were mainly denouncing the ideas of anti-immigration and Euroscepticism within Salvini’s campaign. However, it has been seen that some protestors were also protesting other issues such as the growth of mafia, poverty, and climate change. By seeing this, it is believed that Sardini’s movement is not a movement which is filled by a very specific demographic, which means that they are not linked to any political party. The movement welcomes everyone who agrees in fighting Salvini’s ideas and prevents him to rise into power. The movement itself can be defined as more leaning towards the left-wing within the political spectrum by looking at their views of equality, anti-racial discrimination, and support of civility in politics. However, their broad public scope and primary end goal shows their independency from any influence coming from particular political party. Therefore, The Sardines Movement can be characterized as a pure form of people controlled movement which fighting the growth of far-right populism as their sole purpose.

Climate Change Comes Early to Southern Africa

Southern Africa is facing an unprecedented climate change crisis which threatens to expose an estimated 45 million people in 18 countries across the region to severe food shortages within the next 6 months. Southern Africa is experiencing its worst drought in 35 years. The implications of this are not just an impending disaster set for an uncomfortably near future; the impact is already being felt at an environmental, economic and political level. The amalgamation of these factors has the potential to trigger instability across the Southern African region as a whole.

The U.N. predicts a 3.2 – 3.9ºC rise in global temperature in this century, which would bring wide-ranging and destructive climate impacts. Despite the stark warnings for the environment the UN Climate Change Conference COP25, held between 2-13 December 2019 in Madrid, failed to reach consensus in many areas. The lack of a meaningful outcome for the latest climate talks may not lead to immediate tangible environmental consequences for countries that are predominantly in the global north on a scale and frequency comparable to countries in the global south. This disparity is compounded by the El Niño phenomenon which has resulted in several countries in Southern Africa experiencing ongoing drought spells and extreme weather since 2015. The continuation of what was once a phenomenon experienced every few years in the region has meant that the largely economically and ecologically vulnerable countries in Southern Africa have increasingly fewer resources to offset the effects, triggering instability across the region.

Botswana, for example, is experiencing its worst drought in a decade which has wiped out entire harvests and left the land littered with dead livestock. As a result of frequent droughts, President Mokgweetsi Masisi has said the government plans to stop calling it an emergency and instead make drought relief part of the national budget. In Malawi, the government has had to make plans to import maize to ensure there are adequate quantities in the country, while in South Africa there have been reports of farmer suicides.

In financial terms Zimbabwe, Zambia, Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Madagascar and Namibia together suffered average annual losses of $700 million as a result of climate-related disasters. The frequency of these unpredictable climate- related disasters suggests that Southern Africa will have to factor this into its constrained national budgets as a recurrent and expected event rather than a one -time emergency experienced every few years. The reality of climate change and its devastating effects can be considered the new normal for this region.

As of 12 November 2019, it was reported that at least 1.6 million people in Mozambique are in need of assistance due to the devastating effects of the ongoing drought and increasingly severe weather effects. Mozambique has been hit particularly hard as the country is still recovering from two major cyclones, Cyclones Idai and Kenneth, which hit the country earlier this year. For a country that signed a peace accord in August 2019 after years of instability and violence and is currently facing an Islamist insurgency in the North-east, this climate crisis could not have occurred at a less opportune moment.

Similarly, in neighbouring Zimbabwe, there are an estimated 7.7 million people that are facing food insecurity where it is reported that almost $300 million was urgently needed to supply some 240,000 tonnes of aid. The country is described to be ‘on the brink of man-made starvation’ with hyperinflation, poverty, natural disasters and economic sanctions identified as some of the causes. Zimbabwe has been in the throes of sustained political and economic instability for over two decades, with a period in 2008 where the country experienced a near total collapse. Currently there are fears that it could be returning to the abyss, two years after the coup that deposed of former President Mugabe, and the added climate crisis could be what expedites the return of critical uncertainty in Zimbabwe.. The added climate crisis which has resulted in the lowest rainfall for Zimbabwe since 1981 has not only impacted humans but also wildlife where at least 200 elephants were reported to have died as a result of the drought.  In a bid to save the remaining wildlife a migration of the animals by ZimParks and private partners has been planned.

The immediate picture for Southern Africa looks bleak due to the toxic combination of prevalent national and regional issues that are being compounded by its climate crisis.  While the level of impact among individual countries in the region may differ slightly based a number of external contributory factors unique to said country, the reality is that Southern Africa’s drought is borderless in its staggering devastation. Increased inter-regional collaboration particularly with relation to mitigating the impact climate change is having on wildlife is a typical example of how the region must do more together in order to maintain regional stability. Climate change has in indeed come early for Southern Africa.

Continued Unrest in Nicaragua

Nicaragua has faced continued political and civil unrest for nearly two years following the protests which began in April 2018. The protests were a result of objections to the new Social Security Reform which was announced by President Daniel Ortega, the reform stated that income and payroll taxes were to be increased as well as a reduction in pension benefits by five percent. The reform act was introduced following recommendations made by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which informed Nicaragua’s government if action is not taken the Nicaraguan Social Security Institute’s (INSS) cash reserves would be depleted by 2019. The reform act was prepared based on the recommendations of the IMF’s report however ignoring key recommendations – like raising the retirement age – as they would not yield results for at least three to four years. Citizens of Nicaragua took to the streets in large crowds amounting to tens of thousands of residents including the elderly and students as the core of the peaceful movement.

The protests quickly transformed into a wider anti-government protest calling for the resignation of President Daniel Ortega. The protesters carried out peaceful protests however were met by excessive force from armed police and even armed pro-Ortega militants. The force taken by the Nicaraguan police under orders of the government escalated quickly moving from the use of non-lethal methods such as tear gas and rubber bullets to the use of live ammunition and military fire power which involved assault rifles and grenade launchers. Despite President Ortega announcing on 21^st April 2018 that he would open negotiations to revise the reforms, with him cancelling them altogether the next day protests did not stop because, by this point the demonstrations were about more than the reforms which had been announced and the protests intensified.

As the protests continued the actions taken by the police and paramilitary increased and the death count began to rise with 109 people being killed in the initial stages of the protests, including Angel Grahona who was shot to death outside city hall in Bluefields while she was live streaming on Facebook, along with hundreds being arrested even if they did not do anything or carry any weapons. Of the 109 killed 95 of them were reported to have been killed with shots to the head, neck and thorax which have been described as extrajudicial executions. In response to the protests the President’s wife Rosario Murillo who is also the Vice President spoke of the protesters as “small groups, small souls, toxic, full of hate and bent on the destruction of the country, assaulting peace and development.” She went on to express that the protestors were the aggressors and the response of the police and pro-Ortega groups were “legitimate defence.”

With protests showing no sign of slowing President Ortega and his wife Vice President Murillo who control almost every aspect of the Nicaraguan government, including control over outside organisations such as gasoline distribution and television stations through his adult children who manage some of these organisations. Began to take further actions which included the censoring of television channels who were reporting on the protests. In September 2018, Ortega announced that it was illegal to protest without a licence, which were never granted to anti-government movements, however, were regularly granted to pro-Ortega rallies who showed aggression towards anti-government protesters. With this new law being introduced the response from Ortega and his government can be seen in four distinct stages. In the initial stages of protest a regime of crackdown was carried out using a mix of police and paramilitary forces, the response then progressed to a movement to clean the streets of the roadblocks established by protesters as well as attacks on churches who supported the protests. Which was followed by the arbitrary detentions with anyone protesting being arrested one by one, finally with the new law which criminalised dissent against the government. By December 2018, 324 people had been killed, 50,000 citizens had fled the country into exile and around 800 protesters had been arrested and were being held under the guise of political prisoners.

As protests spiralled into the wider movement Ortega continued to face a possible ousting from well-financed opposition political parties. In response to this threat and in attempts to maintain his power Ortega responded with increasingly more brutal and authoritarian responses to quell the opposition and maintain a tightened grip to power. With these increasing aggressive actions Ortega was accused of becoming the very dictator he helped depose of in 1979. As well as his orders of harsh repression on the protesters President Ortega has also sought to remove outside influences to maintain control. In September and October 2018 Ortega expelled outside organisations from the country who he accused of encouraging the protesters or working under Trumps administration. These organisations included the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Organisation of American States (OAS). Shortly before being expelled OAS released a report which stated that the government campaign of repression was so widespread and prolonged that it could only have been ordered by President Daniel Ortega himself.

In February 2019 following nearly a year of protests and unrest in Nicaragua Ortega and Opposition movements agreed to commence negotiations. These negotiations went from February to May 2019 when the opposition walked away from the table due to resistance on the government side regarding a request that the elections be brought forward from 2021 which Ortega adamantly rejected. From the negotiations however, an agreement was reached that the government would release all demonstrators they arrested since the protests began within 90 days. In return Ortega government asked for the lifting of imposed sanctions on the administration. In August 2019 attempts were made by the opposition to reopen negotiations however, the government had sent a letter on 30^th July 2019 to the Vatican and the opposition stating that talks were over with no explanation as to why. It is possible to see that Ortega has gained back the control he needs to not need to negotiate any further with the opposition.

As per the agreement made on 20^th March 2019, President Ortega’s government began to release the political prisoners they held under the pretext that they would continue their sentences under home arrest and would not participate in any further protests against the government. From this around 540 prisoners were released leaving around 270 still in prison. In June 2019 a further 102 protesters were released under a new law which was introduced the Amnesty Law. This new law meant that dissidents would be released from jail with the same stipulation that they would not participate in further anti-government protests; with these prisoners released brought the total freed to around 640 to 650 leaving around 150 still held in prison. Despite the new Amnesty law releasing dissidents it also faced a large amount of criticism as it not only called for the release of jailed dissidents it also closed the door on investigating and punishing security forces involved in the deadly repression of the protests.  Opposition members said that the law implies that no one is responsible for the deaths of the 324 killed in the protests.

Despite the agreement on the 20^th March 2019, 150 protesters still remain in prison as political prisoners. The government stated that they released the agreed people within the 90 days proposed and that the remaining prisoners were arrested after the initial agreement. With a large number of protesters remaining in prison the anti-government movement and family members are still looking for the remaining political prisoners to be released. In November 2019, a group of female relatives to some of the political prisoners, held a hunger strike in the San Miguel Archangel Church in Masaya. The hunger strike lasted for nine days before they were evacuated for their own safety as the pro-government mobs labelled as ‘hyena’ Sandinista mob were gathering and attacking anyone in support of the anti-government movement; also carrying out attacks on other churches further inflaming tensions between the Catholic church and President Ortega.

During the hunger strike anti-government supporters attempted to deliver water to the women on hunger strike, were arrested for supporting protesters demanding freedom. These supporters were charged the day after their arrest for allegedly transporting weapons, a charge which carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison, these charges were based on reports from police that they confiscated handguns, a shotgun and gasoline bombs. These recent charges by Ortega and his government has put further international pressure on President Ortega with the UN Human rights office calling for an end to repression on dissent and the recent detention of 16 anti-government protesters accused of arms trafficking appear to be based on “trumped-up charges.” In December 2019, Judge Adalberto Zeledon has approved the charges and set a date for trial on the 20^th January 2020.

President Ortega continues to use unnecessary and unlawful reactions on anti-government activist which can be said to have been increased following the ousting or Ortega’s ally Evo Morales in Bolivia which has encouraged opposition to Ortega. Prompting Ortega to arrest activists and strengthen the pressure on his opponents with any means necessary to maintain the hold of power he has.

Possible Consequences of the Recently Enacted Russian Internet Law

The Russian “sovereign internet” law that took effect on November 1 gives the Russian government the possibility to switch off internet connections within Russia from external traffic “in an emergency”. What constitutes one is up to its government. There are two important aspects of this law: cyber security and surveillance.

Let us first deal with the cyber aspect. Russia claims that the law is only meant to be a protective measure in response to the US’ introduction of more aggressive cyber security policies. It aims to reduce reliance on foreign services by requiring internet service providers to install network equipment using deep packet inspection (DPI) which is capable of identifying the source of traffic and filter content. A back-up domain name system (DNS) will come into operation in order for Russia’s own domestic internet to continue functioning. Internet service providers will have to disconnect from foreign servers and rely on this DNS instead. In this way, it will have a back-up internet when it shuts itself off from the global web.

The parallel web run solely on Russian internet servers is meant to enable Russia to combat incoming cyber-attacks and to preserve their own domestic network if the West decide to cut the country off from the world wide web. These are certainly some of the secondary benefits of the law. However, a security expert said that this law signifies that Russia is preparing to protect itself from the consequences of launching cyber-attacks. Russia knows that if it undertakes a cyber-attack there is no guarantee that it won’t damage their own economy and systems. By pre-emptively cutting itself from the internet, it can avoid the blowback effect its attacks would have on its own internet.

The second aspect of this law is that it is part of a global trend to try to take control over the internet. These measures, including website blocking and mass surveillance, are in practice much better at monitoring and controlling the country’s own population than they are at fighting foreign interference. This suggests that the law will have greatest effect on freedom of expression rights. In addition, Russia cannot completely cut itself off from the internet if it wants to maintain contact with foreign entities for purposes such as trading. It therefore seems unlikely that Russia would go so far as cutting itself off as long as it wants to maintain business relations. Again, that suggests that the law might be used for the purposes of monitoring Russia’s citizens rather than for cyber protection as the country claims.

That said, it is also true that as a state becomes more dependent on the internet for its infrastructure, it becomes more vulnerable to attacks. Russia knows this well as it has become involved in two of the most direct examples of what we generally describe as cyberwarfare, involving Estonia and Georgia. According to a security expert, in the event that a war breaks out between Russia and NATO it is likely that Russia would be quick to cut its internet off from external traffic. Russia’s internet traffic, like many other countries’, is routed through US exchange points. The fear was that Russia relied too heavily on the US for their internet access. The law intends to solve this by requiring implementation of technical measures that will re-route it through national exchange points instead.

Tech analysists have questioned whether this will actually work in practice. The law does seem to have a feature that is common in laws relating to the internet – that it will be very hard to implement in practice. Russia also has a “pretty poor track record” of technical implementation when trying to impose its national security ideas on the internet. Increasing their cyber defence has been on the Russian government’s agenda for years. This process only accelerated after the 2008 war with Georgia where Russia’s armed forces’ performance in the information domain was criticised. However, back in 2012 internet platforms and service providers said they couldn’t do what the current law requires. It simply wouldn’t work with the internet because it relies on free flow of information across the borders.

But on the other hand, Russia has come a long way since then. It has been practicing and trying to get the technical measures in place for a sufficient number of years now. One thing Russia has been working on is technical measures that can clamp down sources and means of communication that it dislikes. The other thing the country has been doing is to conduct trial runs of the so-called internet kill switch. These were overseen by the country’s telecom watchdog Roskomnadzor, which regulates the internet. Roskomnadzor also began installing the equipment required by the law in September 2019.

The enactment of this law tells the rest of the world that Russia can survive, and even thrive, in complete isolation.  This may be particularly concerning for NATO after Colonel Jaak Tarien’s, the chief of NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre, commented on December 4 that it has been slow in its response to the threat of cyber-attacks. “Unless it is a real war, NATO moves at NATO’s pace”, he said ahead of the NATO leaders gathering in London to discuss issues related to cyber security. Still, the law will most likely not have any immediate dramatic effect. The country does not yet have a switch it can simply flick when it suddenly wants to do something.

As such the actual effects this law will have is difficult to predict. However, instead of deterring other countries from launching cyber-attacks against Russia, the enactment of this law may actually encourage them to increase their own cyber abilities. Meanwhile its effects in relation to increased censorship and surveillance could encourage more protests like the ones that took place when the law was first signed.