Was WannaCry a shot across the bow?

Thinking about the history of WannaCry, a crudely implemented ransomware built on top of a 'highly weaponized' zero-day(?) exposed by The Shadow Brokers which was quickly neutralized before causing too much 'geopolitical' influence' sparked a number of ideas.

The Lazarus Group is clearly a state sponsored APT, but what are The Shadow Brokers? We understand them as a an anonymous internal hacker group not aligned to the mission of the NSA or the USA, but what if that conception is simply a consequence of information manipulation?

Obviously I'm making a lot of assumptions here, and speculating on the possibility of strange new battle lines in an emerging cyber warfare landscape. A landscape where perhaps ţhe old geopolitical lines have been redrawn in cyberspace. A truly transnational 'space' for which the term 'geopolitical' is anachronistic.

Specifically, how do geopolitics translate into cyberspace? There is no longer a 'geo', only a set of shared cultural, ideological and political alliances as well corporate and pragmatic alliances (my enemy's enemy).

At this stage, it seems naive to consider that cyberwarfare isn't in full swing, whereby anachronistic nationastates seeks to damage other nationstates by attacking critical banking, industrial, political and medical infrastructure through software, both malicious and benign.

One example that comes to mind is the mortar projectile calculator app that was being used by Ukrainians in the crimea. It turns out the app was authored by the Russian military, and was being used to reveal the location of the Ukrainian mortar positions.

Not to mention the 5th domain battleground.

So WannaCry was a Russian authored ransomware attacking UK based critical medical infrastructure based on zero days 'leaked' by groups close to American intelligence agencies.

Was the release of the shadow brokers Vault 7 tools actually a strategic play to enable other nationstates to attack each other? And was the 'kill switch' that saved the NHS from total IT collapse evidence that this was simply a demonstration of "cyber power" on behalf of the USA using a Russian patsy?

At this stage, it seems naive to consider that cyberwarfare isn't in full swing.

Siraj Raval promotes a new package manager with critical backdoors that let the NSA inject arbitrary code into 'signed' third party libraries running the backbone of the web for country X... What? Too paranoid?

I wonder to what extent mutual assured destruction has been achieved, or wether we are going to see more muscle flexing, akin to shooting down satellites (shutting down or even blowing up nuclear reactors, for example).

I fully expect the UK to be leading the world in cyber decoys, but this is just a hunch.

I heard about the former head of MI5 going around and talking to companies about defensive solutions, however, I wonder to what extent such systems are also ready for offensive capability.

Who's botnet is bigger? The NSAs? The FSBs?

Will the web splinter for national security reasons?

Can we, the transnational citizens of cyberspace resist the retrograde, reactionary, anachronistic political models of the past, and architect a new future of individual freedom, security, privacy and sovereignty?

Ours is not a caravan of despair.

Let us empower ourselves with antifragile systems for robust cyber-interaction free from political influence that isn't of our own conception.