Biden Tells Putin Certain Cyber-Attacks Should Be 'Off-Limits' (reuters.com) 209
U.S. President Joe Biden told Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday that certain critical infrastructure should be "off-limits" to cyber-attacks, while the two leaders agreed in their summit to start cybersecurity talks. From a report: Biden said the list of organizations that should not be attacked includes the 16 sectors designated by the United States as critical infrastructure. The sectors, based on a description published by the U.S. Homeland Security Department, include telecommunications, healthcare, food and energy. "We agreed to task experts in both our countries to work on specific understandings about what is off-limits," Biden said. "We'll find out whether we have a cybersecurity arrangement that begins to bring some order." In a separate press conference, Putin said he agreed to "begin consultations" on cybersecurity issues. He also said that while the United States had requested information from Russia about recent cyber-attacks, Moscow had similarly asked for information about attacks he said were coming from the U.S. side and had not received a response.
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
He can't mean to say that the rest of us outside of those sectors are fair game for any sort of attack, surely?
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the point would be that cyber attacks on certain infrastructure is considered no different than sending boots on the ground to perform physical actions to have similar effect. There are a lot of facets to consider, like the targeted infrastructure should have already been hardened against cyber attack vectors (yet sadly often aren't), or quite simply should not be put on the Internet to begin with, and that it's difficult to prove or disprove if an attack was originated by a nationstate backed organization or was simply the local mob hoping to extort some easy money, but ultimately the crippling effect can be too great to just accept the current situation as the new normal. Instead, nations should expect to work together to prevent these sorts of actions. If your national security agencies can't identify and shut down the originating source on their own, then we expect you'll let us help you (ie United Nations). And to make things fair, I'd certainly hope the US would reciprocate that stance with other nations, should they show evidence of being attacked by sources from within the US (one can hope)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereas, otherwise, attacks on mere commercial assets would not be like 'sending boots on the ground'. Not like availability of food, or clothing, fuel for heating your home, or any of a dozen other examples, would not be mistaken for an aggressive, offensive act.
Any, ANY 'cyber attack' is an attack. None should be tolerated. None should be sanctioned. And none, certainly, by state-level actors.
Good lord, we are in some trouble if that isn't obvious. Nations attacking nations is war. By other means, not bullets and bombs, no matter.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Any, ANY 'cyber attack' is an attack. None should be tolerated.
Certainly. But there are different levels of response.
1. The perp pays a fine.
2. The perp goes to jail.
3. Sanctions against the perp's home country.
4. Retaliation in kind
5. Disproportionate retaliation
6 Military action.
7. Nukes.
What Biden is saying is that some types of attacks are moving from #2 to #3 or #4.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been past #2 for a while - individuals are being employed by states. We can move to #3 and #5 any time, it's time for punitive and deterrent responses.
#4 isn't worth the trouble. Some of these recent, significantly escalated attacks, may be preparing the field for making #6 and #7 impotent or to appear disproportionate, and therefore unavailable.
The very definition of asymmetric warfare, and very useful to our obvious adversaries.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ready to see #5 at least once. AKA "The Chicago Way"
Re: (Score:2)
Putin already does #1-6 -- usually against political rivals or neighboring countries -- he's calls it Wednesday.
Gavrilo Princip (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. Biden seems given to the kind of naivetés of the Austrian government asking the Serbian Government essentially acceding to Austrian investigators "on the ground" in response to a certain Bosnian of Serbian extraction who shot dead the Austrian crown prince during a visit to Sarajevo.
The Austrian claim that the ethnic Serb terrorists in Bosnia were getting "logistical support" from Serbia proper is probably true. Serbia of that day was probably like modern-day Pakistan, where you have a civilian
Re: (Score:2)
This x 1000.
How does one even interpret this? "Oh hah hah Mr Biden. Certainly we can agree that small jests and cyber attacks on little targets is just in good fun between friendly rivals. Keep us both on our toes, yes?"
How about if we're NOT enemies, we NOT attack each other. If we ARE enemies and we ARE attacking each other, let's just be open and honest about it and move forward.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't go so far as to make the blanket statement that 'any cyber attack is intolerable', but I don't disagree with that statement either. Things get legally messy when crimes are committed by actors that aren't physically present within the nation where the event takes place - variances in local laws, etc. But overall, countries should basically be responsible for their own people, and nations around the world should expect some level of cooperation regarding bringing such criminals to justice.
Re: WTF? (Score:2)
Where the attackers are 'state-level' actors, the assumption is these are either sanctioned by the state, employed by the states, or have state resources available to them. Not all significant attacks are 'state-level', but those that are deserve a different response.
And not all nations are 'responsible' for their citizens. The US, for instance. Those that can credibly claim such responsibility, they share in the fault. Let them share in the response.
Bosnia, 1914. (Score:2)
Yes, a country should basically be responsible for their own people and nations should expect cooperation bringing criminals to justice, but it isn't always that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. So somebody sends you a phishing e-mail that you suspect is from Russia. NUKE THEM NOW.
Can't see that becoming a problem.
Re: WTF? (Score:2)
At least you're not an AC. Clearly we're not discussing phishing emails for low rent ransomware efforts. Your simple attempt to discredit the discussion is, however, noted.
Re: (Score:3)
Sucks when someone points out your rhetoric is ridiculous, hey? You even put quotes around "cyber attack" and shouted the second ANY for pete's sake. This is why they let the politicians rattle their sabres while the actual adults do the negotiating behind the scenes.
Re: (Score:2)
Have we not supposedly got strategic nukes pointed at thousands of civilian targets as we speak?
Re: (Score:2)
You might be sure, but you're also wrong. The Geneva conventions, among others, were enacted *because* of things like that.
Pointing nukes at cities isn't illegal. Using them is, although the courts couldn't agree about whether using them in self defence is or not.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In conventional warfare, certain targets are off the table. Things such as hospitals and civilian installations with no real impact on the war effort are off the table by what amounts to a mutual agreement. Forget international law, which in this case is more like international custom; nobody is enforcing international law but the parties themselves. Each side abides by these restrictions because it doesn't want those kinds of attacks reciprocated.
While we aren't in a state of conventional war, Russia is
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
If some things are explicitly "off limits" (Score:5, Insightful)
If some things are explicitly "off limits" doesn't that mean that everything else is explicitly "far game". Like, sure, my company isn't critical infrastructure like a power plant or a hospital. Is Biden saying "sure hack into and cause problems for these kinds of companies."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except after all the breaches in the last decade - we all know Putin better than anyone that "red line" is bullshit. Biden won't escalate over a cyber attack.
The very very most he might do is retaliate with another cyber attack. Which by the way Putin would - LOVE - recall Russia has been reading itself for Internet isolation. Putin would enjoy a political excuse to pull the trigger on that. It might hurt his economy some but isolating most of Russia from the rest of the internet would do a lot cement HIS p
Re: (Score:2)
Which by the way Putin would - LOVE - recall Russia has been reading itself for Internet isolation. Putin would enjoy a political excuse to pull the trigger on that. It might hurt his economy some but isolating most of Russia from the rest of the internet would do a lot cement HIS power at least if he had the USA to blame.
I wonder sometimes if isolating ourselves from most of the internet would do the bulk of us a world of good. Don't get me wrong... I've learned another language and about Natalie and the grits caliente on these here interWebz, but to be authentic, these magnificent tools of edification have been corrupted by the governors and the conspiracy weavers to the point of no redemption.
Putin is not to be dealt with, neither by Joe a shadow of himself Biden nor Donald the dealmaker Trump, since it's clear on the ord
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like, "If you attack these targets, this will escalate and we will use government measures to intervene."
How many hospitals? How many city and state government systems? How many hacks have occurred in the past where they actually escalated?
I'll believe that bullshit when it happens. No, not slap-on-the-wrist happens. Actual escalation-and-intervention happens.
...It's more of drawing a line in a sand and saying you sure you want to do that? We can do that one back..
Don't be so certain. Other countries, may have actually learned from the obvious mistakes of some, and taken their critical infrastructure security to a new level. Or better yet, offline.
Re: (Score:2)
With conventional weapons it would just be a normal arms race, with each side wanting to make sure it can strike back equally. With cyber there is the additional problem of attributing where attacks are from. We have already seen lots of false flag ops, inserting snippets of Korean into Russian malware etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
P.S It's like how countries might have troops go to war and fight, but if someone whips out biological weapons or nuclear weapons shit is going to hit the fan.
I wonder if these cyberattacks begin to affect the top political and business leadership then we will see some real action. Either serious counterattack, or effective security measures of letting knowledgable IT people do what they need to do, or not connect critical systems to the internet. Sending troops to battle doesn't effect the upper class (it's someone elses children that has to fight or it can be done remotely) but a nuclear or a biological strike will affect top leadership. So they avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crimea was part of Ukraine. It's now Russia's. Russia literally walked in and took it. The world watched and did nothing.
Kind of seems like an invasion to me. Invade:
intransitive verb: To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
Well, Russia did send in armed forces to back up pro-Russia separatist and at the same time annexed the peninsula. Guess you didn't check very closely.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked (few minutes ago) noone invaded Ukraine. And Syria, yes the legal president of that country requested help from Russia to fight a mix of Al-Qaeda and ISIS founded and armed by France, UK, US and Israel.
Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, and is currently occupying this part of the Ukraine. They also have Russian military units in eastern Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
If some things are explicitly "off limits" doesn't that mean that everything else is explicitly "far game".
Tell that to the APT group who just got handed the "off limits" too-much-heat list.
Funny thing about criminals. They don't often play "fair".
Re: (Score:2)
If some things are explicitly "off limits" doesn't that mean that everything else is explicitly "far game".
Yes. That's the basis of the phrase "The exception that proves the rule". By specifying these 16 sectors are "off-limits" means the rule is that everything else is on-limits. It's like a no parking zone, a sign specifying an area as "no parking" demonstrates that parking is allowed outside of that area.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if there's a no-parking sign on one side of the street, does that mean I can park in the middle of the street? Or in front of a driveway? Or on my neighbor's yard? Or in their living room?
The answer to each of these is no, of course. The lack of an explicit sign just means that other rules apply.
He means military targets (Score:2)
And it worked too you commented right? So did I. We're just dancing to there tune.
Re: If some things are explicitly "off limits" (Score:2)
If some things are explicitly "off limits" doesn't that mean that everything else is explicitly "far game". Like, sure, my company isn't critical infrastructure like a power plant or a hospital. Is Biden saying "sure hack into and cause problems for these kinds of companies."
Yes it's just like if you see a no trespassing sign on a tree, that's an open invitation to walk to the next lot and piss and shit all over everything, fair game, because the game is to try to be total fucking dicks to each other always. God damn Biden, what was he thinking, he should have told Putin to don't do all the bad things.
Another total failure of diplomacy, so I guess if you've been harmed online you'll have to appeal to the Digital and Internet Court in The Hague. If you can prove Internet Law h
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's called "the exception proves the rule". A philosophical concept, like "begging the question", that goes over most people's* heads .
* (c) DJ Trump
All attacks ... (Score:4, Insightful)
should be off limits. What would they say that it was damaging physical assets ? Is it OK to throw bombs at some targets in other countries but some places should be off limits ? What are these guys smoking ?
Re:All attacks ... (Score:5, Informative)
Is it OK to throw bombs at some targets in other countries but some places should be off limits? What are these guys smoking ?
The Geneva Convention.
Unroll that history book blunt of yours and learn a thing or two.
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite accurate. Yes the GC says what targets are OK in war...but in theory we're not at war with Russia.
The Geneva Convention doesn't say that killing soldiers with bullets or bombing a military caravan AREN'T war...they just lay out that they're reasonable acts to perform in war.
Realistically what Biden and Putin seem to be doing here, as nuts as it sounds, is essentially adding cyberattack guard rails to the rules of war.
"Hey, we know you're attacking us...just not with bullets and bombs. So how about
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite accurate. Yes the GC says what targets are OK in war...but in theory we're not at war with Russia.
The Geneva Convention doesn't say that killing soldiers with bullets or bombing a military caravan AREN'T war...they just lay out that they're reasonable acts to perform in war.
There is another entire side to that coin. I was more addressing what targets are NOT OK in war.
"The Geneva Conventions...established protections for the wounded and sick, and provided protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone."
Realistically what Biden and Putin seem to be doing here, as nuts as it sounds, is essentially adding cyberattack guard rails to the rules of war.
"Hey, we know you're attacking us...just not with bullets and bombs. So how about we agree that we can keep fighting, you just don't turn off our citizen's access to water and electricity."
Realistically, all of this is theater for largely the fine print you identified. We purposely do not declare war anymore. They're merely "conflicts". And it's no mere theory as to why that is. Allows all manner of former rules of wartime "civility" to be essentially ignored, along with any rational justification to call to end it.
"The last time the United States Congress met its constitutional mandate officially to declare war by deliberating and voting for the record to engage members of the U.S. military, each of whom takes an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, was 76 years ago, in 1942."
And the problem with defining "critical" infrastructure, is kind of like the p
Re: (Score:2)
Dang that's genius. Don't declare war and you can do whatever you want.
Re: (Score:2)
yay police actions
Re: (Score:2)
Dang that's genius. Don't declare war and you can do whatever you want.
Yes. In fact, it's become tradition now (written in 2018, but nothing has changed since):
"The last time the United States Congress met its constitutional mandate officially to declare war by deliberating and voting for the record to engage members of the U.S. military, each of whom takes an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, was 76 years ago, in 1942."
The problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like readers of the risks digest back in the 80s weren't warning of these things. The company could goose their quarterly earnings by 0.025%? Who needs a firewall. While we're at it, lets fire, um, lay off that sticky wheel that thinks he's getting some grease.
Re:The problem is (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia doesn't need to have the tech you are talking about for cyberattacks to be successful. Just look the Colonial Pipeline hack. Everyone was running out of gas because they hacked the billing system. I'm pretty sure Russians can do computerized billing....
Re: (Score:2)
sans (dot) org slash newsletters slash at-risk
Disconnect NOW! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Disconnect NOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we take our critical infrastructure off the damn globally accessible internet AND hold the board and *EO's of these corporations accountable monetarily for their piss-poor security?
That, should now be the responsibility of the organization who just called for certain critical infrastructure to be off limits.
Force all of them into Federal NIST compliance, prepare them for CMMC Level 4 or higher, and prioritize their compliance audits.
And do it now. Don't allow government or private companies to corruptly treat compliance like the southern border.
Anything less than that? They really don't want to fix this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all commercial considerations. I'm tangentially involved in a critical safety system for nuclear power plants in the UK the owner, EDF, is arguing in court today that they don't need it. "Too expensive, chances of things going wrong very low, we have deep pockets and will take it to the High Court if you persist."
Not putting stuff on the internet has a cost. It requires someone to be paid to be on-site to monitor stuff. It's cheaper to pay a consultant to say it can be done securely over the internet.
Naive dolt (Score:2)
You don't vaguely tell Putin they're off limits and expect him to understand that to you cyberconflict is like a game of "mother may I?"
You tell him that attacks on critical infrastructure that leave them damaged or non functional for purpose - WHATEVER method, whether they are terrorists attaching bombs, or cyberwarriors in St Petersburg wrecking equipment via the interwebs - will be treated with identical seriousness and will be responded to with equal severity and the mode of our choosing.
And yes, to be
Acting like a punk vs diplomacy (Score:2)
People are more likely to do what you want if you treat them as an equal. Putin particularly wants to be shown public respect.
Yes he may well break the agreement.
Every response you mentioned said is implied anyway.
Words in all-caps (Score:2)
are very effective in making a point between peer nuclear powers?
Continuous Pentesting (Score:2)
Sure, non-stop attacks are a pain in the arse, however it forces everyone to be on their toes & keep their networks secure. It's far better coping with the stress of getting your ship in order during peacetime than wartime.
The alternative is getting caught with your pants down in the middle of a war and being sent back to the technological stone age whilst staring down the barrel of a gun.
You can't negotiate with a psychopath (Score:3, Insightful)
When will the lesson be learned? You cannot negotiate with psychopaths or sociopaths, they only respect force. It's like Democrats thinking Republicans will agree to a voting rights bill: WHY would Republicans give up their advantage? They know that they're more likely to win if fewer people vote.
Similarly, Putin knows that our infrastructure is more exposed than Russia's, because we are a more open society, and there is a much larger attack surface. We need a strong President to deal with Putin, not President Milquetoast Joe. For instance, a strong President could threaten to accept more of Russia's neighbors into NATO, or further arm those which are already members. A strong President could threaten to release the U.S. strategic oil reserve and cause the price of oil to plummet. While this would hurt the U.S. economy as the world's largest oil producer, it would hurt Russia much more, as oil is the primary export supporting Russia's economy.
Democracy requires an informed electorate (Score:2)
"For instance, a strong President could threaten to accept more of Russia's neighbors into NATO, or further arm those which are already members."
First of all, one doesn't make threats in such a situation, least of all public threats. If the US President wanted to apply this kind of pressure, the thing would be to work on including more neighboring countries into NATO along with arming them. You don't threaten this, you just do it.
As to doing such a thing, such would only strengthen Mr. Putin politica
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not have an informed electorate as everything in this /. thread demonstrates.
It only has a cheerleading press with an electorate which loves be cheer-led with the daily red meat and has no motivation to find out what is really going on.
The power relation between the US and the world is not between some benign leader and zombie enemies envious of its beauty, it's between a domineering bully with more power than the rest combined , and its vassals, and other players who want a degree of independen
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, a strong President could threaten to accept more of Russia's neighbors into NATO, or further arm those which are already members
If you actually paid attention to world events, you'd remember that we just took additional steps towards Ukraine entering NATO, and we also shipped them a bunch of weapons to use against the Russians "vacationing" in the Eastern part of the country.
A strong President could threaten to release the U.S. strategic oil reserve and cause the price of oil to plummet. While this would hurt the U.S. economy as the world's largest oil producer, it would hurt Russia much more, as oil is the primary export supporting Russia's economy.
Russia exports most of that oil to Europe via pipelines. Oil from other sources would have to be shipped, making it more expensive. Which means this won't have nearly as large an effect as you seem to think.
Off Limits or properly secured? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Off Limits or properly secured? (Score:2)
How about we retaliate?
Re: (Score:2)
An example I use all the time is: "How many people encrypt and digitally sign their email?". This simple act takes email from a laughable bad way to communicate through to a validated system of checks to be mathematically sure who you're talking with.
Re: (Score:3)
If these systems are critical to our infrastructure, why are they on the fucking global Internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Better translation:
Dear enemy, this is a list of our weak points.
Infrastructure (Score:2)
Biden said the list of organizations that should not be attacked includes the 16 sectors designated by the United States as critical infrastructure.
Are child care workers protected? I understand they are critical infrastructure...
i would tell Putin this (Score:2)
Let me guess, family should be off-limits? (Score:2)
I am sure President Biden (Score:2)
War crime laws = international solution (Score:2)
Some things are permissible in conventional war
BUT
modern "hybrid/limnal" war needs legal controls too!
War is different today so lawfare should adapt.
Keeping us safe (Score:2, Interesting)
The best way to keep the country safe is to give one of our prime enemies a list of our most vulnerable targets and ask that he stay away from them? I suspect this is not the best idea.
Re: (Score:2)
They already know what our most vulnerable targets are, because they've been hacking them.
innoculation (Score:2)
Maybe it's the little cyber attacks that would save us from the big one.
If they find a way to disrupt a small power grid and use it then at least we know to make the other power grids proof against it. Not that we would of course !
Only idiots give a list (Score:3)
The good stuff is always between the lines... (Score:3)
"U.S. President Joe Biden told Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday that certain critical infrastructure should be 'off-limits' to cyber-attacks"
This statement is a pretty clear admission that in the cyber-warfare arena, the United States is taking a Grade A rogering from Russia's hackers. You don't vote to make choke holds illegal when you've got your opponent locked up in one.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more that the US approach is to not burn assets until they are needed. Whereas the Russian approach is to get money while you can.
You voted for this (Score:2)
Yeah, sure, Trump was Putin's buddy ... okay. If you say so.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like he has everything backwards. He had the leverage to extract concessions from Russia, but gave it away BEFORE any talks began! Did he think that Putin would be so happy about getting what he wanted that he would return the favor (which is how liberals approach international relations)? If so, he's an idiot. The only alternative expla
Biden: States should not cyberattack infra (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and? (Score:2)
Anyone here who thinks that Putin is at all afraid of Biden or America's response under his "leadership", please post contact information, because I have a wonderful business opportunity for you regarding a large bridge for sale.
Good thing America is safe from Trump's mean tweets, because it isn't safer from anything else with Biden.
Re:What a train wreck. (Score:4, Funny)
Because the 2018 joint presser in Helsinki made us look just fantastic by comparison?
Re: What a train wreck. (Score:2)
Re:What a train wreck. (Score:5, Insightful)
That nursing home resident absolutely looked like a fool out there. America is now weak in the eyes of those who will harm us. Pathetic.
The USA looked weak when a lost election triggered an attempted insurrection.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but if it does hopefully it'll be for a legitimate reason for a change.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you believed the election was stolen then an insurrection might be in order.
Not quite. If it were PROVEN an insurrection might be in order, right now the belief is based on bad sportsmanship.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys act like insurrection is a bad thing. America was born from one.
That one wasn't someone attempting to install themselves after losing an election.
Motivation matters.
Re: Neville Chamberlain urges Biden to Sign Agreem (Score:2)
And then thanked Joe for the To-Do list!
Re:How much control does Putin really have? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't he need to Russian mob to stay in power? If he started cracking down on rackets that really rake in the money, how long would he last?
If America starts retaliating in a big way against Putin's cronies, then cybercrime will no longer be a net win for either the mob or Putin.
Nothing the Russians have done matches the sophistication of Stuxnet.
So we will not protect the critical 16 systems! (Score:2)
With all these ransomware attacks CEOs everywhere are belatedly starting to take Cyber security seriously.
With Biden's list of 16, CEOs of those systems know there is no need for them to worry. The current token efforts will suffice. In the unlikely event of a major attack they will just take their bonuses and leave, having produced good quarterly profits while they where there.
So small businesses will end up properly secured, but water, energy, nuclear etc. will be left wide open.
For the Chinese, should
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Test subject?
The number of hospitals in US hit by ransom ware we stopped counting
Re:How much control does Putin really have? (Score:5, Informative)
That is a good start, because we came very close to observing an exchange of "nuclear salvos" in the internet space in March. USA took down Rostelekom which is the primary internet contract provider for the Russian government via a poisoned BGP update. Whoever authorized that clearly had no clue just how bad the situation can get if they reply, hence the hasty and rather idiotic rant by Biden shortly thereafter that an attack in cyberspace may be replied with nuclear weapons. While this may sound overblown, it is not far off - taking down USA internet is trivial and the damage would be so substantial that it will classify as an act of war.
So if they agreed to wind down state activities in a manner similar to what Obama achieved temporarily with China, that is a good start.
What you are referring to is at mob level. In order to fix that they need to restart judicial cooperation. That is an entirely different cattle of fish.
1. USA will have to agree to prosecute there - there is no extradition by constitution (same as with France)
2. USA will have to cooperate judicially - this means to persecute a long list of criminals which bailed out of there and came to USA. That was not discussed and that is light years away.
Re:How much control does Putin really have? (Score:5, Funny)
I am going to start saying "cattle of fish" to annoy my wife. She hates it when I butcher figures of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the mob. It's the fact that Russian federal government has almost no ability to compel local governments to do anything.
Russian mafia is local, not federal, and functions as an extension of local governments in each locale. It's that isolation from federal government and far more powerful position of a local government vs federal government when it comes to local affairs that makes it as powerful as it is, not its relative power vs central government.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Triad's function on a different model. They have much better lines of direct communication with Chinese Communist Party, as shown for example in them being involved in suppression of Hong Kong demonstrations.
Russian mob doesn't really have that kind of direct contact with Russian federal government. Though they are known for doing similar suppression actions for local governments. It's much closer to Russian mob of 1990s, where it was still largely connected to state's security apparatus.
Re:How much control does Putin really have? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like you have absolutely no idea how Kremlin works. Russian mob reached its peak in the 1990s when Russia was run by Yeltsin, an authoritarian drunkard who pillaged Russian economy with his buddies and supporters under the guise of privatization and market reform, and with 100% western support. It's only under Putin somewhat competent structure and leadership were returned to state structures, including, yes, to police, which by the end of Putin's first term wiped out most of organized regional crime groups. The only traditional Soviet style "Thieves in Law" and even this one is now in serious decline.
He shut down the mob by putting the mobsters in charge [wikipedia.org].
I'd agree Russia is a lot more orderly than before, but the price is extreme corruption [wikipedia.org].