Self-defence in reality --- In reality, the issue of self-defence boils down to whether an adequate response to cyber-attack should be a cyber-attack - or traditional means are allowed. For small countries (and this is where Cuba was a strong proponent), it is important that it stays cyber-cyber, which may give certain 'asymmetry' advantage to small states in warfare (though the asymmetry argument is also debatable). If conventional weapons get into the game, we quickly get back to the world order that we have now.

US is a strong proponent of cyber&conventional. NATO's position is clear that they may respond by all means. This makes sense from the military perspective: if cyber is a new field of military action (along with air, land, sea, and even space) - and this is being accepted by more and more countries - than why limiting the response to one field only.

Russia and China, however, are still on the opposite side - and they were backing (or pushing) Cuba's point (which was one of the stumbling stones in the failure of GGE in 2017). Since the two are among very few leaders in OCC, and their opponents (US, EU and the west in general) are much more digitally exposed due to their open digital economy and society, they still have (a perception of?) advantage in cyber-cyber - thus reducing the risk of turning into all-out war in which US is still dominant.

As stakes get higher, my guess is that we will move towards 'cyber&conventional', and at some point Russia and China will align with that when it becomes in their interest (this may also depend on if US will enforce its 'defence forward' approach and increase counter-cyber-attacks). But for years to come, this may be a stalemate point.

Source author: Vladimir Radunovic vladar@diplomacy.edu