The internet under attack

Many aspects of modern conflict are increasingly defined by the internet and digital technologies. The concept of resilience is essential to understanding the complex web of incentives, interests and dependencies that have come to define how the internet and these technologies work – and, often, do not work – in conflict and crisis.To aid understanding of how different actors use the internet and digital technologies in such scenarios, this research paper proposes a distinction between two types of resilience – technical and sociopolitical. Technical resilience focuses primarily on technological systems constituting the internet, while sociopolitical resilience refers to the human networks and groups that both maintain those technological systems and use them for social purposes.The paper draws on two case studies for key insights on elements of internet resilience such as digital infrastructure, conflict dynamics and policy priorities. The first case study discusses internet resilience in the context of events before, during and after the Western coalition’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. The second reflects on the interplay of technical and sociopolitical resilience in relation to Russia’s war on Ukraine. Each study is a demonstration of how internet resilience is crafted and contested – and how decisions taken in conflict or crisis situations can have significant consequences for the resilience of the internet at the global and local levels. Many aspects of modern conflict are defined by the internet and digital technologies. The concept of resilience is essential to understanding the complex web of incentives, interests and dependencies that determine how the internet and these technologies work – and, often, do not work – in conflict and crisis situations.This research paper distinguishes between two types of resilience – technical and sociopolitical. Technical resilience focuses primarily on technological systems constituting the internet, while sociopolitical resilience refers to the human networks and groups that both maintain those technological systems and ensure they are available to use. Considering how these two types of resilience interact helps develop a deeper understanding of how different actors use the internet and digital technologies in complex scenarios, from invasions to military takeovers. The value of distinguishing between types of resilience applies especially when assessing the roles of the private sector; these roles are rewritten, enabled and constrained by a range of incentives and pressures unique to commercially driven actors.The paper is built on two case studies, with almost opposing characteristics in key areas such as internet infrastructure, conflict dynamics and policy priorities. The first discusses events before, during and after the Western coalition’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. The second examines internet resilience before and during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Each is a powerful demonstration of how internet resilience is crafted, contested and reconstituted in unstable situations, and of the interplay between global and local internet resilience – where decisions adopted by actors operating at the local level have global implications, and vice versa. Both case studies highlight the varied roles the private sector plays when it withdraws from and steps into these settings.These case studies make clear that technical and sociopolitical resilience are inextricably linked, particularly when it comes to the reaction of people and organizations to disruption. The distinction between resilience types raises questions such as: how agile are the responses of various individuals and their communities to recovering data and replacing lost connections? What are the processes and mechanisms in place for doing so, and how effective are they? As the case studies demonstrate, interdependence between the technical and sociopolitical is amplified in conflict and crisis settings.