*Disclaimer: upon request of the author: “All opinions and thoughts expressed are the authors, and are not linked to any organisation or group”.*
In today’s world, the nature of conflict between nations has evolved significantly, with cyber warfare emerging as a central component of contemporary geopolitical struggles. A century ago, soldiers fought shoulder to shoulder in trenches, and the global casualties of the World Wars exceeded 100 million. Despite minimal territorial changes, more than 16 million lives were lost during World War I alone. While conventional warfare still persists—as evidenced by the war in Ukraine—the tools of battle have transformed. In the absence of nuclear weapons, cyberattacks have become one of the most effective means of incapacitating an adversary state.
In the 21st century, international security is no longer shaped solely by military and economic power. Cyberspace has become a new battlefield where a state’s power is increasingly measured by the resilience of its digital infrastructure, the sophistication of its intelligence algorithms, and its offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. This shift from traditional forms of power to digital influence is increasingly becoming a defining characteristic of modern geopolitical conflict.As summary, military achievements require information or intelligence achievement as well.
One of the most recent threats came from Russia, reportedly preparing cyberattacks against the United Kingdom and its allies in an attempt to weaken support for Ukraine. Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and responsible for national security, has warned that such attacks could target British businesses and potentially leave millions without power. In the U.S., a similar paradox exists: while digital technologies offer states and citizens new forms of empowerment, they simultaneously expose them to unprecedented vulnerabilities and dependencies. This duality is emblematic of how cyberspace has reshaped not only the dynamics of warfare but also the broader contours of international power and influence.
A notable early example occurred in Estonia in 2007, when a series of coordinated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks crippled the nation’s financial, healthcare, and media systems. Widely attributed to Russian actors, these attacks highlighted how botnets—networks of compromised computers—can be weaponized to paralyze a country’s critical infrastructure. Such instances underscore the vulnerability of modern nations to cyber threats, making them increasingly dependent on their digital infrastructure for both economic and security purposes.
This growing reliance on digital systems has also intensified state surveillance and control mechanisms, echoing ancient notions of sovereign power. In pre-modern societies, kings exercised authority through the power to take life. In contrast, modern states aim to manage life itself—shaping behavior, regulating thought, and ensuring survival—tasks rendered far easier in the digital age. Michel Foucault’s theory of biopolitics underscores this transformation, describing how power has shifted from decisions over life and death to the regulation of populations. Individuals are no longer simply subjects but are now economic units whose health, productivity, and behaviors are meticulously monitored and controlled. Thus, digital surveillance emerges not only as a response to external threats but as a tool for managing the very lives of citizens within the state.
Social media algorithms illustrate this shift clearly. Introduced with Facebook’s personalized news feed in 2009, such algorithms have reshaped how individuals interact with information and each other. Despite state efforts to curb disinformation and digital manipulation, these systems continue to influence user behavior in opaque and often manipulative ways. Cybersecurity is now used not only to counter external threats but also to maintain internal order. In this sense, digital surveillance has become a cornerstone of state governance, enabling not only the protection against external attacks but also the internal management of populations. States deploy digital surveillance systems and data collection tools to monitor citizens, often in collaboration with private tech firms. This convergence of state and corporate power facilitates the construction of digital fortresses and global data monopolies.
The European Union has responded by proposing new regulations to prevent social media platforms from interfering in democratic processes. Under these rules, tech firms could face fines of up to 6% of their turnover—or even suspension—if they fail to combat election interference. The UK’s Online Safety Act similarly compels social media companies to improve content moderation practices. In the U.S., the Biden administration has considered banning TikTok due to concerns over data security and foreign influence, particularly from China.
The lesson is clear: while military strength and large armies remain relevant, lacking digital capabilities can render a state vulnerable in today’s geopolitical context.
From Soft Power to Cyber Power
In the 1990s, political scientist Joseph Nye coined the term “soft power” to describe a type of influence based on cultural appeal and ideological alignment, rather than force or coercion. He later expanded on this framework with the concept of “cyber power,” which he defined as the collection of resources related to the generation, management, and dissemination of electronic and digital information—encompassing technological infrastructure, digital networks, software systems, and skilled personnel. Nye highlighted how the features of the digital realm—such as low barriers to entry, anonymity, and unequal vulnerabilities—empower non-state actors, including civil society organizations, to challenge the traditional power held by states. This shift from traditional forms of power to digital influence is at the heart of the growing importance of technology in global politics.
The Rise of Tech Giants and the Shifting Role of the State
Building on Nye’s theoretical foundation, the emergence of tech giants has dramatically reshaped global power dynamics. Companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (GAFA), alongside Chinese counterparts like Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Xiaomi (BATX), have become central actors in the global digital order. Rather than rendering the state obsolete, this transformation has compelled governments to adapt to an evolving digital ecosystem that challenges their traditional modes of control. For example, influential figures in the tech world, such as Elon Musk—owner of X (formerly Twitter)—and Mark Zuckerberg, have participated in high-level security and political discussions, signaling the new political weight of tech magnates. This contrasts with the mid-20th century dominance of industrial actors such as steel, oil, and construction firms, highlighting the growing importance of digital actors in shaping policy and global governance.
While private actors redefine cyber power, malicious threats have simultaneously proliferated, particularly in the form of ransomware attacks. In 2017, the WannaCry attack crippled computer systems across 99 countries, revealing the fragility of digital infrastructure. This vulnerability was starkly reaffirmed in 2022, when Ukraine became the target of large-scale cyberattacks against its energy grid and critical databases, emphasizing how cyber threats can destabilize not just individual nations, but entire geopolitical regions. Both Ukrainian and Russian systems have since endured severe digital breaches. In December 2023, Ukraine’s largest telecom provider, Kyivstar, was targeted, and in the preceding months, several Russian ministries experienced a wave of cyber offensives. These attacks underscore the critical role that cyber capabilities now play in modern warfare, especially in the context of state-on-state conflict.
Ukraine’s response to these threats has been both strategic and innovative: the use of drones, digital jamming tools, and the hacking of Russian CCTV systems to monitor troop movements exemplifies how deeply integrated cyber capabilities are in modern conflict. As early as January 2022, a series of cyberattacks sought to destabilize Ukrainian government websites even before the full-scale Russian invasion began. Such incidents highlight the shifting nature of warfare, where cyber capabilities are increasingly integral to both defensive and offensive operations.
Beyond the battlefield, cybersecurity concerns extend into the democratic process itself. The 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit referendum exposed how social media manipulation can be weaponized to sway public opinion. The Cambridge Analytica scandal—where millions of Facebook profiles were harvested without consent—revealed how psychological profiling can influence electoral behavior. This raises profound questions about the intersection of digital surveillance, political power, and the autonomy of citizens.
Another aspect that, personal data protection became a paramount concern, which in case of the breach important persons, such as politicians, data losing or stealing could create butterfly effect, and induce greater conclusions. If the conflict enters the extreme phase of its development, military confrontation, then N. Rzhevska successfully notes the role of communication resources along with military equipment, which is important for society’s perception, therefore military actions are reinforced by information war.
Foucault’s notion of biopower is instrumental in understanding these developments. Sovereign power has transitioned from the authority to kill to the capacity to manage life. In this context, digital surveillance systems and algorithmic governance represent a modern panopticon—one that continuously monitors and shapes behavior, not only by states but also by corporate actors. Thus, both state and corporate control over digital infrastructure has profound implications for personal freedom, privacy, and political agency in the digital age.
Conclusion
In summary, prevailing in today’s geopolitical landscape requires far more than traditional diplomacy and military power. Since the early 2000s, cybersecurity and digital technologies have transformed the nature of conflict and statecraft. Where once industrial giants underpinned global power, it is now technology companies that hold sway.
This shift has ushered in a more controlled and surveilled environment. As demonstrated in the Russia-Estonia cyber conflict and the WannaCry ransomware attack, coordinated cyber offensives can sabotage national infrastructure and disrupt everyday life. As a result, the need for robust cybersecurity systems and data protection frameworks has become urgent.
To meet these demands, states have expanded digital surveillance and control. However, this strategy raises concerns akin to Michel Foucault’s concept of the panoptic state, where constant observation becomes a tool of governance. A delicate balance must be struck between ensuring national security and safeguarding civil liberties. Nevertheless, the centrality of cybersecurity in both national and international agendas is indisputable, as states continuously seek to address the evolving nature of this complex and formidable threat.
İbrahim Melih Polat
MSc University of Exeter
