|
Abstract The virtual cyberspace has become a new arena for great power games. The U.S. cyber hegemony relies on technology, institutions, and culture as its three pillars, and simultaneously suppresses China and Russia’s two major strategic competitors, bringing sustained strategic pressure to both countries. Therefore, it is of great significance to establish an explanatory framework based on technology, institutions, and culture, and analyze the similarities and differences between China and Russia in their strategies to address the U.S. cyber hegemony. On the one hand, in terms of homogeneity, facing the common external pressure of the U.S. cyber hegemony, China and Russia cooperate to counter it, and their policy goals resemble each other basically. Both countries emphasize enhancing their technological innovation capabilities, narrowing the technological gap with the United States, strengthening international governance cooperation, valuing international mechanisms, actively advocating network sovereignty, and maintaining cyberspace order. On the other hand, in terms of heterogeneity, based on internal factors such as their own material power, self-positioning, and external beliefs, China and Russia have shown significant differences in their choice of policy tools to deal with the U.S. cyber hegemony. China has put more emphasis on technology upgrading, vigorously developed e-commerce, created new mechanisms such as the World Internet Conference, and advocated and promoted the construction of a community of shared future in cyberspace. Russia has developed its asymmetric network attack and defense capabilities through network disconnection experiments, implemented tough reforms in the cyberspace governance mechanisms, and focused more attention on domestic issues. In short, under the joint influence of internal and external factors, China and Russia have adopted a harmonious but different collaborative countermeasures model, which provides the possibility for jointly addressing U.S.cyber hegemony and promoting a more fair and just global cyberspace governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
