The Cost of Naivety: How Weak Negotiations Empower Adversaries from Terrorism to Ransomware
Why the West’s Reliance on Diplomacy Is Failing in Both Geopolitics and Cybersecurity, Leading to Greater Global Insecurity
The West’s persistent belief in the power of diplomacy has often led to dangerous miscalculations. From dealing with hostile regimes to combating cybercrime, the assumption that every adversary seeks peace or compromise has cost lives, resources, and economic security.
This naivety, rooted in a desire for stability, has instead emboldened aggressors, from terrorists to cybercriminals, who exploit negotiations as tools for advancing their agendas. The results are evident today in a more insecure world, as failed diplomatic strategies continue to expose both our freedoms and our economies to heightened threats.
This article wasn’t the one I was planning to release for your Saturday morning read. I had a great cybersecurity topic but in times like these, I felt the need to address a bigger picture issue.
This week the leaders of the United States, France, Australia and other allies called on Israel to enter a 21-day ceasefire with the terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon as Israel has effectively taken out most of the Hezbollah group leadership and has the group on its heels and as I write this article Israel attacked Hezbollah headquarters in Beirut potentially taking out Arch Terrorist and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. If this is true Israel has essentially taken out the entire leadership of Hezbollah in one week.
The ceasefire is a clear result of the weakness of leaders in the west to allow an ally to win a war. Hezbollah for its part has shot over 8000 missiles into Israel since October 8th, 2023, as part of the multi front war on Israel that Hamas launched on October 7th, 2023. Moreover, over 100,000 Israelis has been evacuated since October 8th, 2023, from their homes and Israel needed to step up and ensure the security of the citizens of Northern Israel.
Why Call a Ceasefire?
The West has often displayed a degree of naivety in its approach to negotiating with hostile parties who fundamentally oppose its interests and values. This naivety stems from the assumption that all actors, even adversarial ones, share a desire for mutual compromise or peace. However, non-Western aligned groups, such as radical Islamist organizations or authoritarian regimes, often view negotiations as tactical opportunities rather than genuine efforts for lasting peace. None clearer than the current call for ceasefire as Israel demolishes Hezbollah and Hamas.
These adversaries in countries like China, Russia and Iran as well we terror groups like the Hamas & Hezbollah frequently use these talks to buy time, regroup, or extract concessions without any real intention of honoring agreements. This has been seen in negotiations with groups like the Taliban, where agreements were made on the premise of shared goals (stability and peace), while the Taliban ultimately sought to outlast Western involvement to reclaim power and the results today are as bad as it was before.
Additionally, the West’s belief in the universality of its democratic values leads to the miscalculation that diplomatic dialogue can resolve deep-rooted ideological conflicts. However, terrorist groups and authoritarian states may be ideologically or religiously driven, rejecting the very principles of liberal democracy that Western negotiators assume to be common ground or assuming that economic security is a joint goal rather than means to end it all by the adversaries.
By failing to recognize that these groups often see the West’s downfall as integral to their own success, Western powers have repeatedly engaged in fruitless or counterproductive negotiations that embolden adversaries rather than achieve peace.
Here are several key examples where negotiations by Western powers not only fruitless but arguably emboldened adversaries were, allowing them to strengthen their positions or pursue their objectives more aggressively:
1. North Korea and U.S. Negotiations (1990s–Present)
Background: Since the 1990s, the U.S. and its allies have engaged in multiple rounds of negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program, including the 1994 Agreed Framework and later Six-Party Talks.
Why It Was Fruitless:
North Korea repeatedly used negotiations as a strategy to extract economic concessions and aid while secretly continuing its nuclear weapons development.
Each diplomatic breakthrough was followed by violations of the agreements, as North Korea would return to weapons testing after gaining economic or political concessions.
Effect: These negotiations emboldened North Korea to solidify its status as a nuclear power while maintaining a rogue, unpredictable posture on the global stage.
2. Iran Nuclear Deal (2015) – JCPOA
Background: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed by Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany), sought to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.
Why It Was Fruitless:
While the deal temporarily slowed Iran’s nuclear development, it allowed Iran to access billions of dollars in sanctions relief, which many believe were channeled to fund proxy groups and regional militias like Hezbollah, increasing Iran’s influence in the Middle East.
Iran also continued developing ballistic missile technology, a critical component of delivering nuclear weapons.
With the U.S. withdrawing from the deal in 2018, Iran has resumed parts of its nuclear program, making the entire process appear futile.
Effect: The deal did not dismantle Iran’s ability to pursue nuclear capabilities long-term and arguably empowered its regional destabilization efforts through proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.
3. Oslo Accords (1993) – Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations
Background: The Oslo Accords were meant to lay the groundwork for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian leadership (PLO). The PLO recognized Israel's right to exist, and in return, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established with limited self-governance.
Why It Was Fruitless:
Hamas, an Islamist terrorist organization that opposes Israel's existence, was not part of the negotiations and rejected the Oslo framework.
After the agreements, Hamas grew in influence, particularly after taking control of Gaza in 2007. Terror attacks continued, and peace talks stalled.
Negotiations failed to resolve key issues like Jerusalem’s status, refugees, and borders, leading to increased violence and mistrust on both sides leading to two deadly intifadas.
Effect: The rise of Hamas and continued hostilities demonstrated that the Accords didn’t address the fundamental challenges of the conflict, and many Palestinian groups were emboldened by the West's inability to secure lasting peace and after October 7th, 2023, many Israeli’s see the Oslo accords as nothing more the naiveness.
4. Minsk Agreements (2014-2015) – Russia and Ukraine
Background: The Minsk Protocol and Minsk II were agreements brokered between Ukraine, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine to end the conflict sparked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the war in Donbas.
Why It Was Fruitless:
The agreements were largely violated by both sides, particularly by Russian-backed separatists, with ongoing clashes and no substantial withdrawal of Russian forces.
Russia continued to covertly support separatists and did not adhere to the terms of the deal, all while maintaining a veneer of diplomacy.
These agreements provided Russia with time to regroup and prepare for further aggression, culminating in the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Effect: The Minsk negotiations allowed Russia to further entrench its control in eastern Ukraine and undermine the sovereignty of Ukraine, emboldening its broader military objectives.
Another example and the master of fooling the west is China.
China exemplifies this approach in the following way:
China has a long history of using strategic patience and negotiations to achieve its geopolitical goals, often using prolonged negotiations as a tool to delay, distract, or outmaneuver Western powers. An example of this tactic can be seen in its approach to the South China Sea disputes.
South China Sea Negotiations
China has been engaged in negotiations with its neighbors and international bodies over territorial claims in the South China Sea for decades. While countries like the Philippines and Vietnam sought diplomatic resolutions through international frameworks like the **United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)**, China took a different approach. It engaged in talks but simultaneously advanced its goals through incremental actions.
Strategic Approach:
1. Bilateral Talks with ASEAN: For years, China engaged in bilateral negotiations with ASEAN member states, where it pushed for non-binding agreements and frameworks that seemed cooperative on the surface. These negotiations often reassured other parties that progress was being made, without committing China to any definitive constraints.
2. "Creeping Assertiveness": While negotiations were ongoing, China expanded its control in the region through strategic infrastructure projects. It built artificial islands, military outposts, and airstrips, significantly enhancing its military presence. These actions were done incrementally, avoiding significant international backlash at any single moment.
3. Diplomatic Reassurance: Throughout these developments, Chinese officials assured the West and ASEAN that China was committed to peaceful negotiations. By keeping the dialogue open, China effectively reduced the urgency for the West and regional powers to take more aggressive action against its advances.
4. Undermining International Rulings: In 2016, the Philippines won a ruling at an international tribunal rejecting China’s expansive claims. Instead of escalating the conflict, China continued negotiations, downplaying the ruling's significance. At the same time, it continued building and fortifying its positions, knowing that Western powers would not risk military confrontation over what they saw as diplomatic negotiations.
The Result:
By the time Western powers began to grasp the full extent of China's actions, Beijing had already achieved de facto control over much of the South China Sea. Despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations, China had altered the "facts on the ground" to its advantage while maintaining plausible deniability and framing itself as a willing participant in the international order.
Conclusion:
China’s approach in the South China Sea shows how it can use negotiations as a diplomatic shield, buying time while achieving incremental goals that change the status quo. By the time the West wakes up to the full implications, China's goals are largely achieved, leaving little room for effective response.
Common Themes of Fruitless Negotiations:
Misunderstanding of Intent: Western negotiators often approach talks with the assumption that adversaries want peace or stability when, in fact, many view these negotiations as part of a broader ideological struggle.
Failure to Address Underlying Ideologies: These negotiations often do not resolve the core ideological or strategic goals that drive these adversaries—whether it’s the destruction of Israel, the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, or the pursuit of nuclear capabilities.
Just as adversaries like terrorist organizations and authoritarian states have exploited the West’s naivety in geopolitical negotiations, a similar pattern has emerged in the realm of cybersecurity. Ransomware attackers, much like their geopolitical counterparts, have capitalized on the West’s misplaced trust in negotiation, using it as a tool to extract wealth and cause widespread disruption.
These failures are the groundwork and cultural understanding that leads to the rise and success of ransomware attacks and the use of cyber-attacks as another mean to defeat the west and eventually achieve its global domination goals.
How does this translate to Ransomware?
The mentality developed in the west to extortion attacks is something that shifted in the west. The policy we all remember is we don’t negotiate with terrorists. This policy has lost all its value and in fact is rarely said anymore. Just as terrorist organizations have used ceasefires and negotiations to regroup and strengthen, cybercriminals have adopted a similar strategy in the digital battlefield.
Ransomware attacks, initially viewed by many as isolated incidents, have grown into a global threat, preying on the same naivety that has long plagued the West’s approach to adversarial negotiations. This brought the raise of ransomware as our adversaries understood that they can steal money from the west by launching cyberattacks as they are viewed as a victimless crime, yet we all know that’s not true.
Ransomware continues to pose a significant threat and cost center for the western global economy in 2024, with both the frequency of attacks and the financial toll rising. According to Sophos' 2024 report, while the percentage of organizations hit by ransomware dropped slightly to 59%, the overall cost of recovery soared to an average of $2.73 million, up from $1.82 million in 2023.
While we see the devastating effects of negotiation missteps in geopolitical conflicts, a similar story is unfolding in the digital world. Ransomware, once seen as a fringe issue, has become an existential threat to modern economies. As geopolitical adversaries use negotiations to outmaneuver Western powers, cybercriminals have adopted the same tactics, with escalating ransom payments as a clear sign that the West’s leniency is being exploited. The ransom median payment reaching $2 million, a fivefold increase over the previous year. One report this year said one company paid a $75 Million Dollar ransom which would be a record.
Additionally, reports reveal that more than half of organizations (56%) that had their data encrypted ended up paying a ransom, despite warnings that doing so may not ensure full recovery. In fact, organizations that paid were often targeted again. Moreover, a 2024 study by Cybereason highlights that up to 78% of those who paid were breached again later, with many facing additional ransom demands like the Change Healthcare ransomware attack.
For further details, you can explore comprehensive reports from sources like Sophos and Cybereason.
The West Needs to Wake Up and Shift Now
The West’s reluctance to confront adversaries head-on, whether in military conflicts or in cyberspace, has created opportunities for those who seek to exploit our vulnerabilities. Whether through terrorist groups launching attacks or ransomware gangs holding companies’ hostage, the underlying strategy remains the same—using negotiations to extract concessions and buy time while inflicting harm.
It is imperative that we act immediately to implement changes that will effectively counter our adversaries—both in cyberspace and in their ideological opposition to Western values. The shift must start with the acceptance that our goals are not the same. Our adversaries want our destruction, they don’t want to co-exist with us but rather defeat us. It’s a binary option!
An example of this Mindshift can be seen in Israel over the last year. Since the October 7th, 2023, most of the Israeli population and the government has shifted its mindset from negotiations to defeat and utter defeat of the enemy that seeks to destroy us. The naiveness is gone and the rest of the west can’t handle it. The world peace of the 90’s is slowly slipping away, and the current leadership is thinking that if we just push forward to can achieve the goal. Reflecting on these events, I now recognize the flawed nature of the belief systems that shaped my earlier thinking. It has become evident that the strategies once endorsed have proven ineffective in addressing the evolving nature of global threats.
Consider this: An adversary can steal intellectual property, sensitive data, and financial assets, while attributing these acts to criminal groups they indirectly support. This tactic allows them to deny direct involvement while reaping the benefits of such attacks and negotiate with the west about it but meanwhile they are stealing hundreds of Billions of Dollars from our economies and use it at will and continue to do this with impunity.
We must shift this mindset of ours. We must reconsider the current path and agree that its not sustainable and effective. There are several strategies that can be used here to regain control of this situation:
1. Change the Approach: No talking and more actions. Shift the economic burden to the economies that support cybercrime. Whether tariffs, visa limitation and trade limitation are all means to make sure we mean business.
2. Real Partnerships: Create real partnerships to address cybersecurity concerns and defense methods, for example, limiting access to infrastructure, defense alliances and information sharing. We do most of this today which leads to what needs to change to make it effective.
3. The Best Defense is Good Offense: Hit back, hit hard and often and pin your adversary to negotiate under your terms with their backs to the wall. This will lead to more desirable results when and if negotiations are started.
Several additional strategies could further address these concerns; however, they will be explored in greater detail in a future discussion. I want to conclude that we all must understand the mindset shift we need to make, and our leaders need to make going forward.
Though war is never a desirable outcome, recent events have prompted Israel’s adversaries to reassess the nation’s capabilities and consider the potential consequences of further escalation. The shift in approach has undoubtedly made these groups more cautious in their next moves. Wondering what more Israel have under their sleeves and reconsidering their actions going forward. This alone helps mitigate the threats and bring these parties to enter real negotiations.
As a cybersecurity practitioner we do the same when negotiating with a threat actor, you buy time, you make decision making longer with them, you are always asking for more time, discounts, and information to allow you as a victim to get a better picture of the status to better understand how to negotiate with the threat actor. While we can’t do any offense, we do understand the value of what they have better than they do.
I continue to hope that we can do this mindset shift before it’s too late and without what ultimately will be a major loss of life event. Weakness generates aggression and I hope that we understand the need to project and achieve strength and push our adversaries to limit their work and try to achieve a lasting co-existence globe.