17 ms·
This is interesting due to the tying of DPRK and PRC. It seems hard to say how much coordination there is between the two, but whatever it is, it appears to be
by sgnelson 1y ago
This is interesting due to the tying of DPRK and PRC. It seems hard to say how much coordination there is between the two, but whatever it is, it appears to be greater than zero. While not necessarily surprising, I wonder if this public attribution will make it harder for the PRC to deny involvement with both the DPRK's efforts and their own.
- jmyeet 1y agoI don't think Chinese support for NK has ever been a secret anymore than the the US support for South Korea has. And it's in China's backyardd so they've got way more of an excuse. And if you think that doesn't matter, look at the Monroe Doctrine [1]. Taken further, the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis should really be called the Turkey Missile Crisis. The US (through NATO) placed Jupiter nuclear MRBMs in Turkey, only hunddreds of miles from Moscow. The USSR responded by doing the exact same thing, by placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. And the US almost started World War 3 over it. It was the USSR who stepped back from the brink and, as a result of a secret agreement, the Jupiter MRBMs were quietly removed from Turkey [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine [2]: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/jupiter-missiles-and-endgame-cuban-missile-crisis-sealing-deal-italy-and-turkey https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/jupiter-missiles-and-...
- churchill 1y agoWhy is this comment downvoted? You have the right to see China, USSR and NK as immoral regimes but there's nothing non-factual here.
- charonn0 1y agoThe topic is cybercrime and espionage, not nuclear brinksmanship or colonialism. Whatever parallels can be drawn don't seem to be very relevant, so the comment comes off as an attempt to deflect criticism.
- torben-friis 1y agoMaybe it wasn’t clear, but I think the comment is explaining the importance for superpowers of keeping their immediate surroundings politically aligned - china wants NK on their side for the same reason neither the US or the URSS wanted nukes on their doorstep.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- codpiece 1y agoIt was still a fascinating aside, and it's not like HN stays on topic in a thread. I learned something today.
- corimaith 1y agoI do wonder what's the state of history education today when one only learns a basic history event today, and through a layman's forum post which is surely going to have all the complete perspective as opposed to setting out an explicit agenda.
- skinnymuch 1y agoYou can’t separate colonialism and imperialism from Korea. As if any of us know what Korea would be doing if the west didn’t invade then sanction among other things.
- corimaith 1y agoNorth Korea invaded South Korea after US pressured South Korea to disarm. North Korea was the imperialist actor here.
- skinnymuch 1y ago
- mopsi 1y ago[flagged]
- MangoToupe 1y ago> For starters, this propaganda often mischaracterizes the Monroe Doctrine as the US preying on its neighbors the way Russia and China are currently doing, when in fact it was a policy aimed at keeping wars between European colonial powers away from the newly independent countries in the Americas. ...so we can freely do as we please. Of course we've been preying on our neighbors. We've been invading and deposing all across the Americas to force alignment with our interests for well over a century now. We even have terrorist training camps hosted on our soil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f... What, do you think that our invading Grenada, or Panama, is somehow in their interests? It's a flagrant violation of international law and sovereignty. To imagine that this is somehow an abnormal deviation from our "protection" of our neighbors is... well, I honestly didn't realize anyone thought that way anymore. Furthermore, we didn't enforce this doctrine when France invaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Saint_Pierre_and_Mi...), nor in the Falklands war. Look I can understand not thinking america is "evil" or entirely machiavellian, but it seems just as absurd to take any noble intentions we claim to have at face value. The monroe doctrine is as good an example of this as any.
- corimaith 1y ago>Panama 92% of Panamans supported the invasion to despose Noreiga and actually would have preferred the US do it earlier back during his second coup. Truth be speaking, I would where you are getting your history, if not just from skewed leftist internet Podcasters. Not mentioning the larger context of the Cold War and the opinions of the people on the ground does look more like lying by omission.
- MangoToupe 1y agoI read history books like anyone else, the cold war was just straight retarded, and we trained Noriega (at the very school I already linked to). Furthermore just because I want someone to invade and liberate us doesn't mean it's not a violation of international law and sovereignty.
- corimaith 1y agoThe causality between missiles in Turkey causing the Cuban Missile Crisis is unsubstantiated by historical facts from the Soviets own perspectives. It's more that Cuba requested nukes first, the USSR opportunistically took, then they to resolve the crisis they took that opportunity to remove Turkish missiles. It wasn't really a tit for tat on part of the USSR's intentions, Cuba was the primary agent here. Not that it really mattered later on once ICBMs are developed.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jmyeet 1y agoFrom Khrushchev's own words (27 October 1962) [1]: > Your missiles are located in Britain, are located in Italy, and are aimed against us. Your missiles are located in Turkey. > You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it is 90 miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America. But Turkey adjoins us; our sentries patrol back and forth and see each other. Do you consider, then, that you have the right to demand security for your own country and the removal of the weapons you call offensive, but do not accord the same right to us? You have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us. How then can recognition of our equal military capacities be reconciled with such unequal relations between our great states? This is irreconcilable. According to General Boris Surikov [2]: > 'Khrushchev and his Defence Minister, Rodion Malinovsky, were at Khrushchev's estate on the Black Sea. They went for a walk and Malinovsky pointed in the direction of Turkey and said: 'That's where the American rockets are pointing at us. They need only 10 minutes to reach our cities, but our rockets need 25 minutes to reach America.' Khrushchev thought for a while and then said: 'Why don't we instal our rockets in Cuba and point them at the Americans? Then we'll need only 10 minutes, too.' This article goes on to quote the Soviet Ambassador to Cuba, Alexander Alexeyev, who was a direct witness and a go-between between Khrushchev and Castro: > 'On 14 May 1962 I was called to a meeting of the Defence Council at the Kremlin. Khrushchev said, in effect: 'Comrades, I think it would be a good idea to instal rockets in Cuba. Do it clandestinely. I don't want it known in the US until November (after the mid-term Congressional elections). Alexander Alexeyev, how will Fidel react when we present him with our decision?' [1]: https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct27/doc4.html https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct27/doc4.html [2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-cuban-missile-crisis-1962-the-world-at-death-s-door-1555622.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-cuban-missile-crisi...
- veqq 1y ago> The USSR responded by doing the exact same thing This paints it as tit for tat, but to advert invasion the Cubans asked for the missiles over a year later than the missiles were placed in Turkey. The resolution combined these separate issues.
- wrp 1y agoRegardless of how unhappy Beijing may be with things Pyongyang does, North Korea is of such obvious strategic importance to China that they are unlikely to ever waver in their support of the regime or even try to hide it.
- the_af 1y agoWhat's surprising about this? It's not dissimilar to how the US behaves towards their less than savory strategic allies (or, historically, towards dictatorships as long as they were US-aligned).
- wrp 1y agoNot saying it should be surprising. Just trying to answer the question.
- thisislife2 1y agoExactly. It's the equivalent of something like western Five / Nine / Fourteen Eyes, that also share intelligence within the alliance.
- chasd00 1y agoAnything happens to North Korea and all those starving people flood into China. I think that’s why China supports North Korea.
- ummonk 1y agoI don’t see any smoking gun here that would prevent the PRC from denying its involvement in these hacking efforts.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- tonyhart7 1y agoin intelligence and cybersecurity community this are well known fact after all chinese is the first one that has official military cyber unit (first in the world) north korean following suit for monetary reason and have as far as Property (Hotel etc) on china mainland to run the operation from there as for china??? they basically have an "laundry" business that can take dollar from korea in trade of supplies
- rr808 1y agoRussia too after the public hand holding last week.