Crime

Since at least 2012, and especially after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia has increasingly used organized crime networks as a tool of statecraft in its "political war" against the West. This paper looks at the historical ties between the Russian state and criminal groups and how those have evolved into a systematic, if ad hoc, strategy to bypass sanctions, gather intelligence, conduct sabotage, and destabilize adversaries.

Russian-speaking cybercrime has achieved a dominant global position due to a combination of historical, socio-economic, legal, and political factors that emerged after the dissolution of the USSR.

While cooperation between the Russian government and cybercriminals is often cited as a key reason, this paper argues that such relationships likely developed only after criminal networks had already professionalized and gained significant technical and organizational capabilities.

The paper examines Russia’s criminal justice system, crime trends, and incarceration from 2000 to 2020. Especially interesting is the analysis of the inadequacies of the system and the potential dangers this brings with itself, especially after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

This paper looks in depth at how the conflict in the Donbas was a "criminalized war", where smuggling, racketeering, and state-criminal collusion sustained the pseudo-states and exacerbated the conflict. It also looks at how the 2022 invasion disrupted these networks, highlighting that the underlying criminal infrastructure - rooted in corruption, weak governance, and cross-border ties -persists.

A lot has been talked about low-level cybercrime actors (e.g., script kiddies, volunteer hacktivists) and their role in the war between Russia and Ukraine.

Using large-scale datasets (website defacements, DDoS attacks, hacking forum discussions, and Telegram activity), the authors of this paper argue that while these actors briefly surged in activity after Russia’s invasion, their involvement was short-lived, minor, and largely symbolic.

Their impact on the "cyberwar" was trivial compared to state-sponsored operations, and their interest waned within weeks - contrasting a lot of the hyperbole in media reporting.