A week ago, New York Times published an article about U.S. cyberattacks on Russia's electric power grid. The newspaper even claimed that the president's administration had seen the article before it was published. Trump denied. Moreover, he accused NYT for a “virtual act of Treason” and called them “enemy of the people“. Was he right this time?

Duration: 4:09

From the standpoint of possible Cyber war — yes! Since the beginning of broadband Internet, U.S. made hardware and software was almost inevitable and inescapable in digital communication World. And U.S. did abuse that advantage by making “backdoors” in almost every device they have sold to the rest of the World. Since it was ubiquitous, cybercommands of all countries were trained to work with U.S. hardware, they learned its features, weak spots, and they have learned to avoid remote control and to prevent cyberattacks. BTW, serious countries never have put anything important on the net. For example, Russian or Chinese Defense computer systems never were on the Internet. They use the Internet only as a Public Relations tool, sending their official statements to the media. And they all have specialists for the U.S. made hardware and software, capable of hitting back. How do we know that? I am going to remind you at one much more humiliating case than downing U.S. drone in the Gulf of Oman.

It was December 5th 2011, when Iranian cyberwarfare unit captured and landed U.S. made Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) near the city of Kashmar in northeastern Iran.

In a complete humiliation, president Barrack Obama had to admit their drone was captured without any damage, and then — asked from Iran to return UAV to U.S.!

In essence, cyberwar was going on in silence all the time since the beginning of the Internet. And it was in fact a struggle of finding an ‘antidot’ for the American IT weapons. The countries which could not escape U.S. made hardware and software, and did not have operational cyberunits — like Venezuela — were exposed to devastating silent attacks. For all those times, there was one unwritten rule in that cyber war: “Don’t bray!” Which means, “do not show weakness”. All that changed with Donald Trump in power. And NYT started heehawing at the top of their lungs:

In an in-depth yet frustratingly void-of-details report on Saturday, the New York Times treated its readers to a carousel of security officials talking up their “aggressive” posture, including one faceless intelligence spook who bragged “We are doing things at a scale we never contemplated a few years ago.” Now just imagine the media hysteria if it were the other way around…

You may now imagine there is a strong reason why possible cyberwar attack in U.S. military doctrine is considered a “doomsday weapon” — it can attack civilian infrastructure only, it can be done safely and cheaply, and it can be done with full force only once. Failed attempt of the cyberattack (or announcing false cyberattack) means defeat. Direct consequence of both is installation of alternative hardware and software, after which advantage goes to the opponent's side. We had an example at the beginning of March, when U.S. cyberattacks crippled Venezuelan power grid. Then Russians sent a team of engineers with the equipment, and they have secured it from further attacks. Weaponization of everything in peacetime conditions inevitably produces alternatives. Enter Huawei…

Thanks to NYT braying, now the Eastern IT gigants are going to install completely new infrastructure under their own control, and they will still have experts for the U.S. hardware and software which are predominantly used all over the Western hemisphere. So, in effect, NYT report has immobilized U.S. plans for the “doomsday weapon”. From this perspective it is much easier to understand Trump’s accusations of treason and U.S. attack on Huawei, who is percieved as the true enemy, capable of obliterating any leftovers of the American cyberwar power.