Who Rules Cyberspace? The Microsoft Approach to Cyber Diplomacy

Why It Matters

Microsoft’s active role in cyber diplomacy blurs the line between corporate and state actors, making private‑sector expertise pivotal to global cyber stability and influencing how norms and attribution shape geopolitical risk.

Key Takeaways

• Microsoft treats cyber diplomacy as digital diplomacy for global stability.
• Company provides technical threat intel and attribution to inform state policy.
• Norm‑setting at UN balances corporate interests with human‑rights principles.
• Ukraine response showcased cloud migration, malware mitigation, public reporting.
• Private‑sector involvement reshapes cyber conflict governance and geopolitical risk.

Summary

The video examines Microsoft’s self‑styled "digital diplomacy," a private‑sector approach to shaping cyber norms as cyberspace becomes a contested domain of conflict. Director John Herring explains that Microsoft moves beyond traditional policy advice to actively engage in multilateral forums, offering technical insight on threat landscapes while grounding its work in human‑rights and freedom of expression. Key insights include the company’s dual role of supplying threat intelligence and attribution that informs government decisions, and its participation in UN norm‑setting processes where it does not dictate policy but provides an informed perspective. Herring stresses that commercial interests and broader societal security are intertwined, arguing that a trusted digital environment benefits both customers and Microsoft’s cloud business. Examples cited range from Microsoft’s attribution reports—distinguishing technical, legal, and political attributions—to its concrete actions during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, such as migrating government data to the cloud, mitigating wiper malware, and publishing analyses linking cyber activity to military campaigns. These efforts illustrate how private expertise can complement state capabilities while navigating geopolitical sensitivities. The discussion underscores a shifting landscape where private firms like Microsoft are essential actors in cyber statecraft, influencing norm development, attribution practices, and the overall governance of a synthetic domain. Their involvement reshapes risk calculations for both governments and businesses, signaling that future cyber stability will depend on sustained public‑private collaboration.

Original Description

In the final episode of our Cyber Statecraft series, we invite Microsoft – a company that operates across nearly every jurisdiction on Earth – to the conversation.

Throughout this series, we have explored what cyber statecraft looks like from many angles – from the concepts that underpin it, to how countries in the Global South are navigating an increasingly contested cyberspace. But there is one key actor that requires further attention: the private sector.

So, for this final instalment, we go straight to the source.

In this video commentary, Dr Louise Marie Hurel, Senior Research Fellow, Cyber and Tech at RUSI, speaks to John Hering, Director, Cybersecurity Policy & Diplomacy at Microsoft, to ask some direct questions: how do major tech companies like Microsoft operate across jurisdictions and influence cyber policy decisions? How do they maintain credibility and neutrality while serving multiple countries with competing interests? And when a company operates across nearly every jurisdiction on earth, builds the systems governments depend on, and speaks with authority in rooms where new rules are being written – what is it really doing? Is it supporting statecraft, performing it, or something we do not quite have a name for yet?

Explore RUSI's Cyber and Tech programme, 'Cyber Statecraft in an Era of Systemic Competition': https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/projects/cyber-statecraft-era-systemic-competition