The Blurred Line: Why Cyber Operations Are Terrible at Signaling but Still Shape Statecraft and Warfare

Cyber operations have become a powerful tool in modern geopolitics, allowing nation-states to spy, disrupt, and even sabotage their adversaries. But unlike traditional military actions, cyber operations are terrible at signaling—the act of sending clear messages to other nations about intent, strength, or deterrence. This weakness raises a fundamental question: Are cyber operations a form of statecraft, a weapon, or both? The answer is complex because the line between diplomacy and warfare in cyberspace is blurred.

What is Signaling and Why is it Important?

In international relations, signaling refers to actions taken by states to communicate their intentions, strength, or resolve to adversaries and allies. Effective signaling is crucial for deterrence, crisis management, and maintaining stability. Traditional military actions, such as troop deployments, missile tests, or public military exercises, serve as clear signals, helping to establish red lines and shape diplomatic negotiations. Without effective signaling, states may miscalculate each other’s intentions, leading to unintended escalation or conflict.

Cyber operations, however, struggle to serve as effective signals because they often lack visibility, attribution, and clear consequences—key elements that make traditional military signaling effective. This weakness creates uncertainty in cyberspace, making it difficult for nations to use cyber operations as a reliable deterrent or diplomatic tool.

Why Cyber Operations Are Terrible at Signaling

In traditional statecraft, military actions—such as deploying forces, conducting missile tests, or flying bombers near adversary airspace—send clear signals about a country’s intent. These actions deter adversaries, escalate tensions, or reassure allies. Cyber operations, however, fail in this regard due to three key reasons.

There is an almost complete lack of visibility. Many cyber intrusions are designed to be covert, meaning they often go undetected for weeks, months, or even years. If an attack is never discovered, it cannot serve as a deterrent or warning. Even when detected, the full extent of the attack is often unclear, making it difficult for nations to determine an appropriate response.

Then there is the use of plausible deniability. Cyber operations allow states to act without clear attribution. Unlike a missile strike, which has an identifiable origin, cyberattacks can be routed through multiple countries or use compromised third-party systems. Governments often deny involvement, even when strong evidence suggests otherwise. This makes it difficult for the victim to retaliate without risking escalation based on uncertain intelligence.

Lastly, there is a failure to establish red lines. In conventional warfare, certain actions—like invading a country or using chemical weapons—cross well-defined red lines that trigger retaliation. Cyber operations lack such clarity. When a cyberattack occurs, nations struggle to determine whether it justifies economic sanctions, counter-cyber actions, or even military force. This ambiguity leads to inconsistent responses, making cyber deterrence unreliable.

For example, the Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear program—widely attributed to the U.S. and Israel—was a highly sophisticated cyber operation that damaged centrifuges and delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, it did not send a clear message to Iran or deter future nuclear activity. Had it been a conventional military strike, the consequences and warnings would have been far more explicit.

Cyber Operations as Statecraft

Despite their weakness in signaling, cyber operations have become a core element of modern statecraft, allowing countries to exert influence without direct military confrontation. Cyber statecraft takes several forms:

Espionage & Intelligence Gathering
- Cyber intrusions allow states to collect intelligence on adversaries, sometimes on a massive scale. China’s theft of U.S. military and corporate data through cyber espionage has provided a significant strategic advantage.
- Unlike traditional spying, cyber espionage can be conducted remotely and at low cost, making it a highly attractive tool for statecraft.
Political Influence & Coercion
- Cyber-enabled influence operations, such as Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election, demonstrate how cyber tools can shape global politics.
- Governments use hacking to leak sensitive information, sway public opinion, and disrupt democratic processes—often with little direct consequence.
Economic Warfare & Disruption
- Nation-states use cyber capabilities to weaken rival economies by attacking financial institutions, energy grids, and supply chains. The 2017 NotPetya attack, attributed to Russian actors, caused billions in damages worldwide, primarily targeting Ukraine but spilling over globally.

Cyber Operations as a Weapon

While cyber operations can serve diplomatic purposes, they are also undeniably weapons—capable of disruption, destruction, and long-term damage. Some key ways cyber operations function as offensive tools include:

Cyber Sabotage
- Cyber weapons can inflict physical damage, as seen in the Stuxnet attack, which destroyed Iranian centrifuges. This proved that cyber capabilities can replace kinetic military strikes in some scenarios.
- The Shamoon malware used against Saudi Aramco in 2012 wiped out 30,000 computers, severely crippling the company’s operations.
Psychological & Economic Warfare
- Ransomware attacks, such as those attributed to North Korean and Russian groups, have disrupted hospitals, infrastructure, and businesses, causing billions in losses.
- Cyberattacks on financial institutions can erode trust in banking systems, leading to broader economic instability.
Blurring the Line Between War and Peace
- Unlike conventional weapons, cyber operations often occur below the threshold of war, making it difficult for nations to justify retaliatory strikes.
- This allows adversaries to engage in continuous low-level cyber conflict without triggering full-scale war.

The Blurred Line: Statecraft vs. Weapon

The reality is that cyber operations do not fit neatly into the categories of either diplomacy or warfare—they are both, depending on the intent and execution.

When used to gather intelligence or manipulate political outcomes, cyber operations function as statecraft.
When used to destroy, disrupt, or coerce, they function as weapons.
However, because cyberattacks often lack clear attribution and visibility, they fail as deterrence tools, leading to a continuous cycle of conflict rather than clear diplomatic resolution.

Conclusion

Cyber operations have fundamentally reshaped how states engage in conflict and diplomacy. They provide stealth, deniability, and asymmetric advantages, allowing even smaller nations or non-state actors to challenge global powers. However, their failure at signaling makes them unreliable as deterrents, leading to ambiguity, miscalculation, and continuous cyber engagement.

As cyber capabilities evolve, the challenge for policymakers is to determine how to integrate cyber operations into national strategy, ensuring they serve both defensive and offensive purposes without escalating conflicts into full-scale war.

The blurred line between statecraft and weapon means that cyber operations will remain a central, yet unpredictable, force in global security for years to come.

References

Buchanan, B. (2020). The hacker and the state: Cyber attacks and the new normal of geopolitics. Harvard University Press.

SANS Institute. (2022). SANS FOR578: Cyber threat intelligence course. SANS Cyber Defense Curriculum.

Zetter, K. (2014). Countdown to zero day: Stuxnet and the launch of the world's first digital weapon. Crown Publishing Group.