cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/38970766

Archived

The European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security, Kaja Kallas, and Singapore’s coordinating minister for national security, K Shanmugam, on Friday called out Russian and Chinese hybrid warfare, respectively. Their complementary statements highlight the importance of coordinated action between the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific.

[...]

Russia may be the primary actor in Europe, but its operational template is unmistakably global. The mode of operation is asymmetric, deniable and designed to fracture alliances, destabilise societies and erode political cohesion. While hybrid threats manifest distinctly, treating them as isolated threats obscures their strategic purpose: to generate a cumulative malign effect that no single agency or siloed response can effectively counter.

In the Indo-Pacific, the main perpetrators may be China and North Korea, but Russia is here too, and the logic is the same: shape the information environment, exploit societal fault lines, erode trust in democratic institutions and drive wedges between partners and allies.

[...]

Information operations have targeted elections in Taiwan and the Philippines. Maritime sabotage, including tampering of undersea cables or GPS signal interference, has surfaced in the South China Sea. Cyber intrusions targeting Southeast Asian and Pacific governments and financial systems are now routine.

In Singapore, Shanmugam said the country was dealing with a ‘highly sophisticated threat actor’ targeting critical infrastructure. He specifically identified advanced persistent threat group UNC3886, which has been described by cybersecurity firm Mandiant (a Google subsidiary) as a ‘China-nexus espionage group’. It is known for targeting high-value strategic organisations. Shanmugam even said, ‘Singapore will have to reexamine its vendors and supply chains. And if we decide that we cannot trust them, then we may choose not to use them.’

This is a notable shift in posture for a country typically cautious about (being seen to be) attributing responsibility for interference to China. This potentially reflects growing resolve in the face of persistent hybrid threats. Just as Australia supported the EU in calling out Russia, we should support regional partners who publicise China’s violations of international rules and norms.

There is some way to go in holding Beijing to account, mainly due to fears of economic retribution. Statements calling out Moscow show shared strength and clarity. This is important because hybrid campaigns are designed to thrive in ambiguity and plausible deniability, relying on fragmented responses, weak attribution and the absence of collective consequence. In contrast, such clarity is often absent where China is concerned. States confronting similar threats frequently respond in isolation or remain constrained by fears of escalation or economic retaliation.

[...]

For Indo-Pacific countries, particularly Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, South Korea and ASEAN partners, this moment is a chance to reconsider how regional cooperation can similarly evolve. For example, existing frameworks such as the Quad, AUKUS and mechanisms led by the Pacific Islands Forum and ASEAN could be adapted to incorporate shared protocols for attribution, coordinated responses to cyber and information campaigns, and joint measures to safeguard critical infrastructure. Doing so would provide a collective safety net.

[...]