The European Union and the United States have accused China of committing cyberattacks on private companies and departments.
“The EU and its member states, together with partners, have exposed malicious cyber activities that have significantly affected our economy, security, democracy and society.
The EU believes that these malicious actions were carried out from the territory of China, ”- said in a statement by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell.
In fact, the high representative of China no longer even needs to pore over the wording.
You just trade the EU for China and - voila - the accusation is ready: “In China, malicious cyber activity has been exposed that has significantly affected our economy, security and society.
In China, it is believed that these malicious actions were carried out from the territory of the US and the EU. "
And the Chinese side has much more grounds for such accusations.
It is enough to pay attention to the Pentagon's requests to increase funding for offensive cyber operations.
And although this column of expenses for 2022 was somewhat cut (they asked for $ 432 million, and allocated $ 284 million), the sums for offensive cyber operations of the US military department are estimated in hundreds of millions of dollars.
And there are also other US law enforcement agencies that have similar tasks - the CIA, NSA and others, and others.
Under the development of these funds, the director of the National Security Agency and the head of the cyber command of the US Armed Forces, Paul Nakasone, has even adopted the concept of "advanced hunting".
The main task is as follows: American cyber troops hack and get into the networks of other states, causing them maximum damage.
That's it, everything is simple and straightforward.
Americans are frank, open people, real "democrats".
Therefore, speaking in Congress, the same Nakasone openly stated that in 2020, American cyber troops conducted 11 such operations in nine countries.
Russia and China are among them.
That is, like this, quite officially, the United States admits that it carried out cyberattacks against us.
But why then this pathos of current statements: "The National Security Agency, Cybersecurity Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will reveal more than 50 tactics and techniques that have been used by Chinese-sponsored cyberattacks, targeting the United States and its allies," says a senior US administration official.
A little earlier, the same was said in relation to Russia.
In early July, the FBI, NSA and their UK counterparts issued a joint statement accusing Russia in general and the GRU in particular of cyberattacks.
And this is almost immediately after Putin's discussion with Biden on global cybersecurity issues at a bilateral summit.
A logical question arises: is there any sense at all to discuss something with representatives of the West, if your guilt is still deliberately established and no longer requires proof?
Do you think this is absurd: those who spend hundreds of millions of dollars on cyberattacks and sabotage accuse those against whom they are carrying out these cyberattacks of conducting retaliatory cyberattacks?
This is all because you do not belong to an exclusive nation (in mid-20th century Europe it was called the "superior race", and this civilizational arrogance and racism of the West has not gone anywhere).
If you belonged to the "exclusive" civilization of the West, and especially if you belonged to its highest circles, to the very elite, there would be nothing contradictory for you in your position: what the West can do is impossible for anyone.
Otherwise, what kind of exclusivity can we talk about then?
It is we, the West, the center of the world, its masters. This military department of ours bought up all preliminary developments from snotty students and created the Internet, stealing what was missing from our geopolitical opponents. We declassified it, made it massive and commercially successful, we control the NPO that registers domain names, and all this to establish our, the West, global control and domination. How dare you, barbarians, who only dream of becoming the West, and savages, who do not even dream of that, to beat us with our own weapons?
It does not fit in the minds of the Western elites that, having made the Internet a global instrument, they have lost their monopoly on it, and now the networks that cover a significant part of the world belong to those who have access to them. And if you got access to the network, which is what hackers (unofficially) or cyber troops (officially) of many countries, including Russia and China (and not just the United States), are doing, then you use this access to your advantage. And if they strike at you, in this case a cyber strike, you strike back with a cyber strike.
The shouts of American and European officials, they say, "hey, what are you?", In response to their own cyber aggression - this is just the level of kindergarten. The State Department is even ready to pay $ 10 million for information about hackers who work "under the control of other countries" and are involved in cyberattacks on American critical infrastructure. This, of course, is in addition to the funds that the American side spends on its own cyberattacks on the critical infrastructure of its main adversaries - Russia and China.
In response to accusations from the EU and their American curators about China, our Chinese colleagues can only remind - by the way - that the United States is the most populated country, where everything from the Pentagon to the microwave is connected to the network.
So a six-thousand-year-old civilization should not even be led on by attacks from a state whose history is less than 250 years old, even if they use their European vassals to make these statements.
Moreover, the vast majority of network equipment, including the vast majority of network routers and routers, as they say, are made in China.
So, as the hero of Russia Magomed Nurbagandov said: “Work, brothers!”, Do not hesitate.
And let the "exceptional" yell as much as they like.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.