Further escalating the diplomatic crisis following the meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House, the US government has reportedly ordered a halt to offensive cyber operations against Russia, according to three sources familiar with the matter. While some experts view the move as a temporary pause designed to serve broader diplomatic objectives, others warn that it could be a dangerous concession, strengthening Russia’s global cyber influence.
In response to the shift, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated, “The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations. This largely aligns with our vision.”
This is just one more instance in which Russian interests dictate American foreign policy as if through a ‘Manchurian candidate’
Dr. Steven Terner, head of the New York-based Terner Consulting, criticized the decision, arguing that it benefits Russia more than the US. “This is just one more instance in which Russian interests dictate American foreign policy as if through a ‘Manchurian candidate,’” he told The Media Line.
Terner explained that Russian cyber and narrative influence operations have already infiltrated media and political groups worldwide, spreading conspiracy theories and fueling political unrest. “In the US and Britain, this played major roles in fringe-turned-mainstream conservative efforts such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. In Germany, this contributed significantly to the anti-nuclear movement,” he added.
Trump’s government ordered to halt all offensive operations against Russia, not to stop protecting the US cyber infrastructure from Russia
Dr. Ofer Fridman, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, argued that this move marks the first time since the Cold War that the US is engaged in a true adversarial diplomatic negotiation. “It’s more political signaling rather than something that puts the United States at any risk,” he said. “Trump’s government ordered to halt all offensive operations against Russia, not to stop protecting the US cyber infrastructure from Russia.”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
According to Fridman, the backlash stems from the fact that the decision does not conform to established Western diplomatic norms. “The West, for the last decades, forgot how to make adversarial negotiations,” he explained. “European Union negotiations were with countries eager to comply to join the EU, so they weren’t really negotiations. Meanwhile, the US spent the past 20 years using negotiations that consisted of ‘Do what I tell you, or we will apply sanctions.’”
He emphasized that true negotiations involve compromise. “You need to give something that you don’t want to give in exchange for something you want but that your opponent does not want to give,” he said.
The decision to scale back offensive cyber operations comes at a time when Republican lawmakers and national security officials are calling for a more aggressive US cyber posture.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, CIA Director John Ratcliffe warned that America’s adversaries view cyber espionage as a critical tool. “I want us to have all the tools necessary to go on offense against our adversaries in the cyber community,” Ratcliffe said.
Similarly, US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has argued that cyber attackers must face higher costs, advocating for an offensive cyber strategy to deter future threats.
Despite calls for a tougher stance, Fridman suggests that Trump’s move may not be what it initially seems. “Trump’s general messaging is that he wants to make a deal with Russia. Now, does he really want to make a deal with Russia? Nobody really knows as his approach to foreign policy is still highly unpredictable and based on his past experiences. As a businessman, he wants to get what he considers as a best deal—whether he would get it and whether it would be the best deal indeed—only time will tell.”
However, many experts argue that halting offensive cyber operations against Russia lacks strategic depth.
Dr. Terner warned that the move “gives Russia an even freer hand to use its robust network of propaganda and bots throughout online media to sow civil discontent in the US, Canada, Europe, Central Asia, Japan, South Korea, and any other country that challenges its economic and strategic influence. It’s not a sign of US weakness but of the commandeering of US influence by a foreign adversary. It will leave the US and the rest of the world more vulnerable to cyberattacks by Russia, China, Iran, and other adversaries.”
It’s not a sign of US weakness but of the commandeering of US influence by a foreign adversary
In a recent opinion article, Mark Montgomery, senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Colin Ahern, New York State’s chief cyber officer, called the policy shift “a strategic error that will make the United States less secure in cyberspace while doing little to bring about peace in Europe.” They argued that unilaterally ending America’s cyber-offensive operations weakens US leverage and reduces pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime.
Keir Giles, senior consulting fellow at the Russia and Eurasia Programme and author of Russia’s War on Everybody, questioned what, if anything, the US was receiving in return. “Not only standing down US power in cyberspace but now suspending intelligence cooperation with Ukraine as well as military aid. Together with the elimination of US defenses against Russian malign influence, it’s a comprehensive program of leaving the US vulnerable to Russia,” he said.
Giles added that while a reciprocal deal might exist, “it’s hard to imagine what they would promise to stop doing and to whom. The pretense that Russia is not a threat just deepens the divide between the US and the rest of the world that is fully aware of the challenge from Moscow—and makes the rest of the world, as well as the US itself, less safe.”
The timing of the policy shift has raised concerns among NATO allies, especially as Russia’s war in Ukraine enters its third year. However, the full scope of the change remains unclear, with conflicting reports about whether it has been implemented.
Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, told news outlets that “there has been no change in our posture or priority on this front.” Meanwhile, an unnamed senior defense official told Bloomberg that the announced policy change “neither canceled nor delayed any cyber operations directed against malicious Russian targets.”
With differing reports on whether any changes have actually taken place, it remains uncertain whether this move is simply meant to signal a shift in US-Russia relations or represents a fundamental change in cybersecurity policy. As global cyber conflicts continue to evolve, the world will closely watch how this decision unfolds.