Would it actually hold up in court? Or is it laid out there by authorities knowing well that these cases will never get to court because it deals with people in Russia, China, North Korea.
If so. Then what prevents this from being just pure geopolitics?
That's part of the balance that we've struck for the judicial system. They have a lot of power to punish, so they set a high bar of evidence. To cross that bar, they give prosecutors a fair bit of power, but supervised by judges.
So it's possible that if one could subpoena witnesses and obtain warrants, they could perhaps raise it to a level that would stand up in law. But you certainly can't get that for a hostile country, and international law enforcement is always going to have to deal with a much lower standard of evidence. And also a lower punishment, because they can't get access to them.
That's going to be indistinguishable from geopolitics, especially since they're not going to show you the evidence that they can gather against the target country's own laws. At an international level it's an anarchic Wild West, with far less certainty than you would tolerate within your own country with its checks and balances.
What is countries waging cyber operations against each other, if not politics?