Patriotic Hackers or Russian Cyberwarfare?

Cyberattacks, and especially Russian cyberattacks, have started to play an increasingly larger role within international politics. However, at the same time, within the field of International Relations, a gap exists in the applicability of IR-theories on cyberconflicts. This thesis, through a congruence analysis, tests which theory works better in analyzing the perpetration of Russian cyberconflicts: realism or constructivism? Both theories are tested in two different case studies: The cyberattacks on Estonia after the removal of the Bronze Soldier in 2007 and the cyberattacks on Georgia in 2008 during the Russo-Georgian war. Ultimately, this research finds that although constructivism can best explain both conflicts, due to the characteristics of cyberspace, a single IR-theory is highly unlikely to be able to fully explain cyberconflicts. Realism is unable to explain the involvement of non-state actors within the conflicts, while constructivism is unable to explain state involvement, which is often hidden or indirect. As such, this thesis proposes a synthesis between constructivism and realism in order to capture the full context of Russian cyberconflicts.