There is a good argument to be made that Windows is a big target, but they should at least try not making it so easy.
This is a consumer choice. You don't trust Microsoft, you don't use its services. On the government level, you ask for regulations if the situation is escalated (if necessary). But dealing with global cyberattacks is not Microsoft problem and it's not connected to one company or one service. It's an international responsibility to act and establish a framework that prevents such attacks.
The current situation ( and the resulting clamoring ) is absolutely a direct result of people who create this software. Trying to shift the blame onto nonexistent framework is at best laughable and at worst very deceptive. It absolves MS and its engineers from guilt associated with it.
To put it another way, if those engineers were bridge engineers, we would now be witnessing multiple collapses with swathes of engineers arguing that it is not their fault as 'there is an international responsibility to act and establish a framework' that prevents bridges from falling apart.
I am sorry. I do not buy this defense. As an architect, you should know better.
But we speaking freaking NATO here !!!!! Do you attach string to hand granade and hand other side to your adversary ? And then argue that someone pulled it ??
Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Exchange is SYNONYM to "security HOLE" ! So tell me - why customer NATO _choose_ to use this ?