China’s, Russia’s, the USA’s Security Aspects

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Chinese Information Ecosystem
The Russian Question: Corruption and the Gradual Subjugation of Cyberspace
Technology Business and American Market Development
Current Situation: Mistrust and Lack of Consensus
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Over the past few years, the problem of forming one’s cyberspace has become particularly relevant. With the spread of the Internet, relations in the geopolitical field have changed everywhere. Some scholars agree that the conflicts in cyberspace between the major powers are the offspring of numerous disputes over nuclear weapons. The Cold War between the US and the USSR, entirely funded by militaristic fears and motivation to build weapons power, has changed and moved into the information field. Not only has this game changed, but it has added another essential player, China. Cyberspace is a field of opportunity for state power to implement policies related to cybersecurity. However, understanding general security issues and the Internet differs from country to country. It is influenced by their historical experience and background, international environment, trade, economic, military, and political factors, or emerging conflicts. China, Russia, and the United States are the clearest examples of rich and powerful powers that have built their unique cyberspaces and strengthened their security.

Chinese Information Ecosystem

The 1989 events on Tiananmen Square became a turning point in China’s civil society and, in particular, in the issue of cyber security. The student protests were a turning point in shaping the understanding among the Chinese authorities that the information space in the country should be strictly controlled (Zhang & Creemers, 2021). There was no Internet in China at that time, which made it possible from the beginning to form the correct cyberspace without leaks so that citizens could create the ‘correct point of view.’ The Chinese authorities sought a civic accord with the official ideology and tried to prevent (preferably hack to death) social unrest. A unique firewall was formed in China, designed to filter traffic within the country; citizens thus could not have free access to information. At the moment, silence or fragmentation of information or news is the primary way of official media rhetoric, including on the Internet. With their firewall, the Chinese faced the problem of creating search engines, information systems, and instant messengers.

Along with the process of tightening cybersecurity, unique Chinese social networks of a new type have appeared. Shortly before their appearance in China, Google and Facebook functioned, as well as WhatsApp, which is still extremely popular in Russia. The companies of these search engines and social networks were forced to close due to the excessive requirements that the authorities in mainland China placed on them.

A ‘black list’ was formed, where over time, all the most popular social networks, such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram, got into it. Such measures are connected with the ambitions of official Lu Wei, who carried out a lot of Internet reforms in the 2010s (Balke, 2018). He came up with the idea of complicating the registration process (2013-2014) in Chinese-style social networks to have more opportunities to access citizens’ personal data (Gao & Chen, 2022). The emergence of such social networks was central to the technological import substitution plan. Several significant departments directly connected with the Communist Party worked on technical import substitution. These offices were the Theological Committee 260 and the National Office for the Protection of State Secrets (Ruhl et al., 2020). The 260 Technology Committee passed recommendations down to executives, but many saw them as a direct order or direction rather than a suggestion.

Currently, an ecosystem of unique social networks has been formed in China. Weibo replaced Twitter, and Bilibili successfully replaced YouTube for Chinese viewers. WeChat and QQ became analogs of the messenger for quick communication and information exchange (Kostopoulos, 2017). Previously, this function was performed by WhatsApp, but, for example, through WeChat, the Chinese can book flights, go shopping and send money to friends and relatives. Baidu is the most popular search engine, roughly taking the place of Google. Recently, Xiaohongshu, which replaces Instagram for the Chinese, has been gaining high popularity among users. Users can easily organize the purchase of clothes, accessories, and interior items there.

The Chinese authorities owe their success to unlimited access to the data of their citizens. According to the PRC Cybersecurity Law, Anti-Terrorism Law, Personal Data Law, GOST on Personal Data, and other legislative acts of the PRC, personal data means any information about a person (Gao & Chen, 2022). It includes information about relatives, banking history, medical history, education, and all employment history. On the one hand, such an environment helps develop technologies, especially in artificial intelligence, machine, and deep learning, but simultaneously leads to total surveillance of citizens.

The Russian Question: Corruption and the Gradual Subjugation of Cyberspace

The development of cyberspace directly depends on the political regime and the international situation. Vladimir Putin’s current term shows that by manipulating the political situation, the authorities are blocking citizens’ access to global social networks to avoid tension. The first terms of Vladimir Putin are identified with the growing involvement of Russia in international cyberspace, as well as the high interest of the authorities in American technologies and digitalization. Based on the connection between the media and cyberspace, readers can assume that the crash of the Kursk submarine on August 12, 2000, was the starting point for the conscious fragmentation of cyberspace (Grzegorzewski, 2021). Then, the Russian authorities realized that citizens’ awareness should be portioned and, possibly, belatedly. At the time of autumn 2022, various types of sanctions or military actions will inevitably lead to a ban on foreign social networks, messengers, and resources.

The 2000s marked Russia’s freedom in cyberspace and the creation of many social networks and search engines. Rutube for searching and watching videos, Yandex, the Nginx web server, Odnoklassniki, and Vkontakte messengers became such networks (Homburger, 2019). In 2012, protests swept through Russia, especially in the largest cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg. People were dissatisfied with the results of the elections and demanded the resignation of the government headed by Vladimir Putin. These protests were another important transitional point from free to enslaved cyberspace. Compared with the Chinese model of cyberspace, one can see that the Russian model has remained flexible over the past decades. Russian cyberspace reacted to political conflicts and the alignment of forces within the country, which either squeezed it or unclenched it (Russia Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories, n.d.). Chinese cyberspace appears to be the most consistent or rigid in this respect, pursuing the same goal since the late 1980s.

Nevertheless, cyberspace has recently been formed not only by blocking foreign resources but by internal Russian ones. Such resources are any that have different from the official point of view of the Kremlin (Sharwood, 2022). Blockages are caused by the fact that, as it seems to the Russian authorities, they can reduce the degree of tension and maintain the reputation of the Kremlin at the proper level. Such resources often acted as political opposition, although they were websites created by journalists or amateurs. After the apparent destruction of real political competitors or squeezing them out of the country, the Kremlin set a course for the destruction of independent media (Russia Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories, n.d.). Their absence forces citizens to use other sources of information or websites and download and use VPN services, which has increased many times this year in Russia due to sanctions.

A lot of bureaucracy and corruption surrounds modern Russia’s cyberspace model and security aspects. The combination of bureaucracy and corruption hinders the actual development of information technologies since the main criteria for recognized success in Russia are mechanisms that do not work (Kostopoulos, 2017). Providing the necessary reporting to the required authorities is crucial here. Here, the authorities’ awareness goes the opposite when subordinates, fearing a reprimand, write the needed results and figures in the reports. In the conflict in Ukraine, this aspect played a critical role since the government led by Vladimir Putin was not ready for a protracted military offensive, which was caused by the initial lack of information (Sharwood, 2022). It is worth noting that the Russian model is based on Soviet developments, which do not correspond to modern realities; partially, various regulatory documents overlap with Chinese ones.

Technology Business and American Market Development

The American security and information technology development model is extremely attractive for foreign investment. Tesla, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple are longtime residents of the US and grow their businesses and related businesses by paying taxes and maintaining good relations with some political elites. The primary motivators of such and other companies are the free market of technologies and domestic legislation. The outside government in the United States is focused on creating favorable conditions for visiting people in business and technology specialists (Inserra, 2017). It has become the main reason for the arrival of programmers and cybersecurity specialists worldwide. Subsequently, they, cooperating and sharing ideas, open their own companies.

US cyberspace is primarily shaped by workers and people from Silicon Valley, known worldwide. Silicon Valley has become a cultural landmark in the United States thanks to modern social networks, TV shows, and the Internet (Ruhl et al., 2020). Now Silicon Valley is considered the most crucial channel for developing the information space. Thanks to the established democracy and freedom of speech, large-scale cyberspace has been formed in size and diversity. The reasonable efforts of the authorities were launched to protect this space, and power created attractive conditions for doing business for specialists in this field.

The scandal with Edward Snowden ruined the American intelligence agencies’ reputation and exposed the problems of modern American cyberspace. Surveillance of citizens worldwide has led to the collapse of the US reputation on the world stage and caused significant damage to the country’s cybersecurity. In addition, this scandal has exacerbated already tense relations with China and Russia. In September 2022, Edward Snowden officially received Russian citizenship, having lived there for a long time as a refugee.

Contemporary research highlights the anonymous nature and prevalence of the attack as significant challenges to American cyberspace. Even after discovering a hacker attack, it is often impossible to quickly identify where it came from. The development of universal cyber protection against attacks is a utopia, as hackers repeatedly focus on new ways to harm databases. At the moment, the sphere of cybersecurity is associated with significant economic and political risks. It is due to concerns that much data stored exclusively in electronic form may be destroyed or stolen. Here, widespread digitalization does not play into the hands of Americans, as it facilitates the work of fraudsters. The speed of attacks is a problem for modern specialists in the US since it cannot be stopped in the middle of an attack. Usually, experts are faced with a committed crime and forced to state unpleasant facts. Year after year in the United States, the question of privacy arises in connection with the developed cyberspace and surveillance of citizens. So far, the authorities have managed to stop such conflicts, and there have been no loud scandals for several years.

Socio-economic difficulties in conducting a cybersecurity policy and developing the information space usually force small companies to refuse to compete. Despite the initial attractiveness of the US market, it is complicated for such small companies to compete with the giants (Homburger, 2019). Large companies often have an established track record and are therefore trusted by both individuals and the government. In addition, competition is complicated by high taxes imposed on companies. Such high taxes can only be paid by a few companies that deserve approval from above.

Current Situation: Mistrust and Lack of Consensus

On the international stage, the US cybersecurity system and its vast information space with the latest technologies are opposed to China and Russia. The problem of relations between the three countries is tied to the fundamental ethical question of freedom and ideology (Grzegorzewski, 2021). Agreements that can be reached in trade or medicine will not work here. The field of cybersecurity and collaborative work to protect against hacker attacks requires a compelling dialogue with consensus. Although developed countries try to streamline information systems and technologies, concluding conventions such as the Budapest Convention, which is supposed to protect people from cybercrime, some countries avoid signing. It involves intrinsic motivation, ideology, and political and social values.

The United States does not trust China or Russia, as it considers them countries waging hybrid and information wars. China has shown disdain for international conventions in recent decades, tarnishing its reputation (Balke, 2018). It can be said that the topic of cybersecurity is particularly strongly tied to trust between governments. At the moment, having no confidence in Russia and China, the US is pursuing a tactic of shaming (Inserra, 2017). Such tactics are designed to voice as loudly as possible, with allies, acts of violation of cybersecurity principles.

The shaping of cyberspace is rooted in the government’s view of security and how it perceives information and its capabilities. For totalitarian countries, it is essential to tighten censors in various ways, which violate freedom of speech and the rights of citizens. The policy of Russia and China should not be overly rigid about the latest information technologies since many bans hinder development (Zhang & Creemers, 2021). As a result, this hinders cooperation, which is currently complicated by military conflicts and political tensions, and the individual improvement of cyber defense mechanisms.

Conclusion

The considered countries are vivid examples of the development of information spaces and cybersecurity, which drew their strength from different historical and social circumstances. Today’s complex political and military conflicts make it impossible for corrupt Russia, strict China, and the massive US network to cooperate. The conclusion of treaties and conventions between countries is impossible since they have no trust. Compliance with the principles of cybersecurity and cooperation in the information field requires high awareness and adherence to approximately identical goals and ideologies.

References

Balke, L. (2018). China’s new cybersecurity law and US-China cybersecurity issues. Santa Clara L. Rev., 58(1).

Eric Siyi Zhang & Rogier Creemers. (2021). Russian perspectives on China as an actor in cyberspace. Leiden Asia Center.

Gao, X., & Chen, X. (2022). Role enactment and the contestation of global cybersecurity governance. Defence Studies, 22(4), 689–708.

Grzegorzewski, M. (2021).Incorporating the Cyberspace Domain: How Russia and China Exploit Asymmetric Advantages in Great Power Competition. Modern War Institute. Web.

Homburger, Z. (2019). The necessity and pitfall of cybersecurity capacity building for norm development in cyberspace. Global Society, 33(2), 224–242.

Inserra, D. (2017). Cybersecurity beyond US borders: Engaging allies and deterring aggressors in cyberspace. Heritage Foundation.

Kostopoulos, G. (2017). Cyberspace and cybersecurity. Auerbach Publications.

Ruhl, C., Hollis, D., Hoffman, W., & Maurer, T. (2020). Cyberspace and geopolitics: Assessing global cybersecurity norm processes at a crossroads. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Web.

Russia Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories | CISA. (n.d.). Web.

Sharwood, S. (2022). Russia, China warn US its cyber support of Ukraine has consequences. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!