Posts

In recent remarks made by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun, who criticized the United States for approving a proposed sale to the Philippines of 16 F-16C Block 70/72 fighter aircraft, four F-16D models, Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, radar systems, spare parts, and associated training support.

Guo’s pointed questions—“Who exactly is fueling the flames? Who exactly is instigating military confrontation? Who exactly is turning Asia into a ‘powder keg?’”—are emblematic of Beijing’s rhetorical strategy. These lines are crafted not merely for domestic consumption, but also to influence ASEAN neighbors and cast the U.S. as the aggressor, destabilizing the region. It is classic deflection: presenting China as the stabilizing force while accusing the United States of militarization.

In reality, the proposed sale reflects a growing demand from regional partners for credible deterrence in the face of China’s escalating assertiveness in the South China Sea. The inclusion of modern Block 70/72 F-16s, advanced radar, and Sidewinder missiles is not symbolic—it is strategic. These systems enable the Philippines to better monitor, patrol, and defend its exclusive economic zone and sovereign airspace. More importantly, the inclusion of training support suggests a deepening partnership and interoperability with U.S. forces, indicating that this is not a simple arms transaction but part of a long-term commitment.

China’s objections, particularly the phrase “regional countries are not blind,” are a not-so-subtle warning to its neighbors. But these nations are not blind. They see repeated Chinese incursions, coercive maritime tactics, and an ever-growing presence in disputed waters. In this context, the U.S. response is not only justified—it is measured.

This is Cold War 2.0 in all but name: a contest of influence, where China uses information operations and economic levers, while the United States reinforces alliances and deterrence postures. As history reminds us, arming the perimeter is not an act of aggression—it is an act of preparation.

By Skeeter Wesinger

April 3, 2025

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cold-war-20-all-name-skeeter-wesinger-z9kee

DeepSeek, a rising CCP AI company, was under siege. The company’s official statement, issued in careful, bureaucratic phrasing, spoke of an orchestrated “distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack” aimed at crippling its systems. A grave and urgent matter, to be sure. Yet, for those who had followed the firm’s meteoric rise, there was reason for skepticism

DeepSeek had, until this moment, presented itself as a leader in artificial intelligence, one of the few entities capable of standing alongside Western firms in the increasingly cutthroat race for dominance in machine learning. It was a firm backed, either openly or in whispered speculation, by the unseen hand of the Chinese state. The company’s servers, housed in mainland China, were reportedly fueled by NVIDIA H800 GPUs, their interconnections optimized through NVLink and InfiniBand. A formidable setup, at least on paper

But then came the curious measures. Whole swaths of IP addresses, particularly from the United States, were unceremoniously blocked. The platform’s registration doors were slammed shut. And in the vague, elliptical style of official Chinese pronouncements, the public was assured that these were emergency steps to preserve service stability. What the company did not say—what they could not say—was that these actions bore all the hallmarks of a hasty retreat, rather than a tactical defense

For a true DDoS attack—one launched by sophisticated adversaries—there were measures to mitigate it. Content delivery networks. Traffic filtering. Rate-limiting techniques refined over decades by those who had fought in the trenches of cybersecurity. Yet DeepSeek’s response was not one of resilience, but of restriction. They were not filtering the bad actors; they were sealing themselves off from the world

A theory began to take shape among industry watchers. If DeepSeek had overestimated its own technological prowess, if its infrastructure was ill-prepared for rapid growth, the sudden influx of new users might have looked, to their own internal systems, like an attack. And if the company was not merely a commercial enterprise but an entity with deeper ties—perhaps to sectors of the Chinese government—it would not do to admit such failings publicly. To confess that their AI could not scale, that their systems could not bear the weight of global interest, would be an unpardonable humiliation.

The consequences of such a revelation would be severe. The markets had already felt the tremors of cyberattacks; the global economy had bled $1.5 trillion due to disruptions of this nature. If DeepSeek, a firm hailed as the vanguard of China’s AI ambitions, was faltering under its own weight, the financial and political repercussions would extend far beyond the walls of its server farms. The illusion of invulnerability had to be maintained

Thus, the narrative of a “DDoS attack” was not merely convenient—it was necessary. It allowed DeepSeek to take drastic action while obscuring the truth. Blocking foreign IPs? A countermeasure against cyber threats. Suspending new users? A precaution against infiltration. A firm whose technological backbone was more fragile than its reputation suggested had suddenly found an excuse to withdraw from scrutiny under the guise of self-defense

It is in such moments that history leaves its telltale fingerprints. The annals of technological development are filled with entities that stumbled not due to sabotage, but due to their own shortcomings, concealed under layers of propaganda and misdirection. One wonders if, years from now, when the documents are unsealed and the real story emerges, historians will look back at DeepSeek’s so-called DDoS crisis not as an act of foreign aggression—but as a moment of revelation, when the cracks in the edifice became too great to hide

Also, the DeepSeek app has been removed from both Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store in Italy. This action occurred after Italy’s data protection authority, known as the Garante, requested information from DeepSeek regarding its handling of personal data. Users attempting to access the app in Italy received messages indicating that it was “currently not available in the country or area you are in” on Apple’s App Store and that the download “was not supported” on Google’s platform. As reported by REUTERS.CO

Regarding Ireland, the Irish Data Protection Commission has also reached out to DeepSeek, seeking details about how it processes data related to Irish users. However, as of now, there is no confirmation that the app has been removed from app stores in Ireland. As reported by THEGUARDIAN.COM

Currently there is no publicly available information indicating that DeepSeek has specifically blocked access from Apple, Google, or individual reporters’ servers. It’s possible that access issues could be related to the broader measures DeepSeek has implemented in response to recent events, but without specific details, it’s difficult to determine the exact cause.

For now, the truth remains elusive, hidden behind digital firewalls and the careful hand of censorship. But as in all such cases, history is patient. It waits for those who will dig deeper, who will look beyond the official statements and ask: Was it an attack? Or was it something else entirely?

Story By Skeeter Wesinger

January 30, 2025

 

In response, U.S. officials have urged the public to switch to encrypted messaging services such as Signal and WhatsApp. These platforms offer the only reliable defense against unauthorized access to private communications. Meanwhile, the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are working alongside affected companies to contain the breach, fortify networks, and prevent future incursions. Yet, this incident raises a troubling question: Are we witnessing the dawn of a new era in cyber conflict, where the lines between espionage and outright warfare blur beyond recognition?

The Salt Typhoon attack is more than a wake-up call—it’s a stark reminder that robust cybersecurity measures are no longer optional. The consequences of this breach extend far beyond the immediate damage, rippling through geopolitics and economics in ways that could reshape global power dynamics.

One might wonder, “What could the PRC achieve with fragments of seemingly innocuous data?” The answer lies in artificial intelligence. With its vast technological resources, China could use AI to transform this scattered information into a strategic treasure trove—a detailed map of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, user behavior, and exploitable vulnerabilities.

AI could analyze metadata from call records to uncover social networks, frequent contacts, and key communication hubs. Even unencrypted text messages, often dismissed as trivial, could reveal personal and professional insights. Metadata, enriched with location stamps, offers the ability to track movements and map behavioral patterns over time.

By merging this data with publicly available information—social media profiles, public records, and more—AI could create enriched profiles, cross-referencing datasets to identify trends, anomalies, and relationships. Entire organizational structures could be unearthed, revealing critical roles and influential figures in government and industry.

AI’s capabilities go further. Sentiment analysis could gauge public opinion and detect dissatisfaction with remarkable precision. Machine learning models could anticipate vulnerabilities and identify high-value targets, while graph-based algorithms could map communication networks, pinpointing leaders and insiders for potential exploitation.

The implications are both vast and chilling. Armed with such insights, the PRC could target individuals in sensitive positions, exploiting personal vulnerabilities for recruitment or coercion. It could chart the layout of critical infrastructure, identifying nodes for future sabotage. Even regulatory agencies and subcontractors could be analyzed, creating leverage points for broader influence.

This is the terrifying reality of Salt Typhoon: a cyberattack that strikes not just at data but at the very trust and integrity of a nation’s systems. It is a silent assault on the confidence in infrastructure, security, and the resilience of a connected society. Such a breach should alarm lawmakers and citizens alike, as the true implications of an attack of this magnitude are difficult to grasp.

The PRC, with its calculated precision, has demonstrated how advanced AI and exhaustive data analysis can be weaponized to gain an edge in cyber and information warfare. What appear today as isolated breaches could coalesce into a strategic advantage of staggering proportions. The stakes are clear: the potential to reshape the global balance of power, not through military might, but through the quiet, pervasive influence of digital dominance.

By Skeeter Wesinger

December 5, 2024

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/salt-typhoon-cyberattack-threatens-global-stability-skeeter-wesinger-iwoye