WikiLeaks logo
The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...

The Global Intelligence Files

The Global Intelligence Files

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

[alpha] INSIGHT - CT/CYBER - cyber and internet governance issues - EU105

Released on 2012-02-29 11:00 GMT

Email-ID 167291
Date 2011-11-02 18:37:45
LG: CT/Nate, let me know if you have questions I can pass along to my
source. Also, I can set up a call between a few of us. He mainly deals in
governance over cyber issues, but has been deep on the security stuff in


ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Washington
SOURCE DESCRIPTION: UCAAN Chief (also advises EU and Bulgaria on IT)



Lauren, hi.
Hope you are doing great!
How's life?
See attached our October issue, and below an interesting interview. If
there's some momentum at Stratfor for those issues, would be happy to
talk to you and/or interested parties.


"The United States still dominate the Internet situation", says former
Russian Intelligence Service general (and yes, he speaks in English,
as one can hear from the audio of the interview, published on the url
below). No need to click on the link, as the "Voice of Russia" are
probably monitoring traffic, and where it comes from, so here's the
whole interview:

Interview with Gennady Yevstafyev, retired Lieutenant-General of
Russian Intelligence Service.

This week Cyber Czar of the United States Mr. Cross, he is coming to
discuss the problems, he is coming not at the very official style,
because in Russia there are words that Cybersecurity is threatened and
Digital Diplomacy of the United States is a new method of
neocolonialism and instrument of destabilization of hostile regimes
and so on. These are exactly the words which are used in Russia.

/But Mr. Yevsafyev do you think we could actually explain in full
details to our listeners the essence of Cyber Diplomacy or Digital
Diplomacy, however you call it./

We have, first of all, to note that the cyber problem is very closely
connected with Internet and the Internet was established in 1998,
because at that time there was a decision to start The Internet
Corporation for very innocent things, for assigned names and numbers,
abbreviation is ICANN. It is based on the multi-stakeholder model, but
whatever you say the whole thing belongs to the United States. They
were very much ahead of technological development in cyberspace and
they still dominate the Internet situation. Usually the problems are
discussed in the so called Internet Government's Forums, abbreviation
is IGF, but with the course of time it came out that it is a very
multi-dimensional problem and Cyberspace Security is multi-sided
because Cyberspace Security is, first of all, the security of
day-to-day life of the international community, because invention of
Internet and its establishment is a tremendous breakthrough in the
usual man's life, you everything through the Internet, now. And it is
very helpful in many ways in economic and social and all this kind of
things. But with the course of time it came out that Internet is not
that innocent, it could be used against the so called hostile regimes.
We have seen this number of times.

/But could you give us an example?/

For example, only this year, which was very rich with all kinds of
global cyber space manifestations, you all remember that there was a
story of a so called Stuxnet Cyber Worm, which was introduced and
penetrated the Iranian Nuclear Organization and to a logic stand has
really destroyed, not physically, but, you know, it is a virtual
thing, it destroyed the operation of many elements of Iranian Nuclear

/But I've heard some analysts say that digital information
technologies have also been used in the Balkans crisis, but is that
truly so?/

It has been also established, you remember when there was Balkan
crisis, and Balkan crisis was closely connected with the activity of
all kind of extreme Islamist movements and everybody was happy that in
the long run the population in Kosovo and some other areas, dominated
by Islamic religion, was introduced into the modern age through
Internet, but then Special Services found out that numerous Internet
cafes, which were established by hundreds of mosques around the
Balkan-Muslim areas were, in fact, the centers through which the
mobilization of extremist terrorist activity was arranged and after
thorough inner investigations in the beginning of this century it was
variably established that many of the would be conspirators and
terrorist exchange the ideas through Internet and arrange their
meetings and operations using the Internet facilities. So, it is not
that simple, but nowadays we are very much in discussion of, for
example, cyberspace attacks on hostile regimes.

/Hostile regimes, so are we talking about direct Government
involvement and new Foreign Policy too?/

I'm quite sure that with certain extent, though the Americans deny
this, but their General the Head of African Command said he was not
rejected for any kind of weapons he asked for. African Command was
responsible for handling of Libya's situation. Though Americans are
trying to say that they were not using the cyberspace for attacking,
for example, Libyan enter Aircrafts System, but funny enough the
system, which was not a sophisticated system, but nevertheless, it
stopped to operate.

/You know, it is interesting, because I've been listening to Mr.
Cross's lecture on the new opportunities, presented by the use of
digital technologies and answering a question he reminded us of Robert
Gates words that Cyberspace has become a new theatre of warfare, but
then he also said that he didn't believe in Twitter Revolution and of
course he never spoke of cyber warfare, you know./

The problem is becoming more and more serious. Sometime ago, before
the whole Arab Spring started the United States have distributed one
100 000 computers free for local population in Arab countries. Of
course, not all 100 000 computers that were distributed free found
their way into the hands of opposition elements, but as it stands now
major part of it was used to arrange the events of Arab Spring in
different Arab countries: Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and so on. That made
some people extremely worried, it was distributed free and the whole
development, as it stands now, comes to a simple fact that Americans
have admitted that Cyberspace is a very important instrument for their
Foreign Policy and they are using it to impose the views on population
and even some regimes in the outside world. Hillary Clinton is
supposed to be godmother of creation of the new instrument of American
Foreign Policy and we have a fact of creation special new department
in the State Department of the United States, in the most important
embassies they have special units, which are handling the cyber space.

/But using for what? Can we specify the ultimate purpose of the operation?/

There are different purposes: to prevent it's being used by terrorists
but, on the other hand, they are using it to achieve their goals, so,
in fact, we have a huge growing problem as it stands now. For example,
the Pentagon, as stated, is attacked very often by hackers. This is
another phenomena of the whole problem, and not only the private
people are attacking but some foreign countries allegedly attack
American net services of the Armed Forces and Navy and so on. And they
stated that attack on their vital facilities is tent amount to
declaring a war and in certain cases they allow themselves in reply,
if they established and identified the source of attack and if it is
state motivated attack, to claim that they can use nuclear weapons to
punish the perpetrators.

/But in that case there could always be a good justification for
starting a war just considering the number of hacker attacks?/

Of course, our people for example in Russia claim that there are about
ten thousand cases of hacker attacks on government facilities in our
country. The biggest problem of all is to identify the source of
attack. For example, in the Stuxnet nobody was firmly sure that it was
American or Israeli attack. Everybody is saying aloud about this but
to prove is extremely difficult especially when we deal with countries
of sophisticated nature and sophisticated achievements in this area.

/But something needs to be done then. Is anything being done?/

There is already growing effort in the world to try to find the way to
cope with these problems and, for example, China, Russia and some
other countries propose an international code of conduct for
information security, their idea is to increase the role of
governments in directing and operating the cyber space. Since
Americans claim that they are going to defend their right to use cyber
space without any hindrance, there is a growing difference but not
only between Russia, China and the United States on the matter, but
many other Western countries are also very much worried about the
uncontrolled expansion of Internet and it being used by violent
demonstrators, for example, in Britain the government of Britain is
victim of many arranged demonstrations and this arrangement went
through Internet and the Foreign Minister Hague has admitted that
Internet requires some sort of control because it could not go
uncontrolled like it is going now.

/So, the problem is obviously there. But however Mr. Cross was
insisting on what he termed as the openness of the Internet. Now the
U.S. position as far as I understand it is that Internet should not be
state controlled. But is there an alternative vision?/

We have international efforts to start doing something. I already
mentioned that there is Russian-Chine international code of conduct
but there are meetings. For example, in Yekaterinburg recently this
autumn there was a meeting of 52 countries arranged by our Security
Council Office on the matters of Internet, and we have presented our
views, Russian views, on that. Then in London on the 1st or on the 2nd
of November there is going to be an international meeting for
discussion of the problems of the global cyber space security.

/But do the Americans support these efforts?/

We must note that Americans got worried because there is definite
effort to try to find common denominator on Internet among many
countries. And as it is going now, it is definitely not on the
American conditions but on the more balanced and serious attitude
towards the possibility of controlling the cyber space. By the way,
the treaty of collective security of former Soviet States recently had
a meeting and there were critical elements in this meeting on this use
of facebook, and tweeter, and youtube. This official dissemination of
information is good but on the part of the Americans financial effort
to support opposition and even insurgency activity in some countries,
we have to admit that we don't have the same kind of developed
instruments for diplomacy in Internet but people say that Washington
has established its position in the Internet and they do not want to
see them, they don't want to listen other countries and that's why we
have to deal with all kinds of possibilities. For example, Americans
would sooner or later leave Afghanistan and we will see huge problems
for the Central Asian nations. And we already see the elements of
American policy in the field of using cyber space to influence the
mood and the future behavior of the population of the Central Asia
when we are going to see that secular regimes in number of these
countries fall. And Americans would try to introduce their elements
into the real life in the area, which is so vital for Russia.

/So, just let me specify, we are talking about Central Asia, an area,
which is so far away from the U.S. itself./

The experience shows that in Middle East, for example, Americans did
not care. They brought out secular regimes and they now are very happy
for a very short period of time with very dubious regimes with some
dubious histories behind them.

Well, Mr. Yevstafiev, thank you very much and I am quite positive that
we are going to discuss this subject in our future programs and just
to remind you, our guest speaker was Gennady Yevstafiev, retired
Lieutenant General of the Russian Intelligence Service.

Attached Files