The 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.

▲

kace91 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe 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.

	▲	5 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

codpiece 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was still a fascinating aside, and it's not like HN stays on topic in a thread. I learned something today.

	▲	corimaith 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I 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 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You 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 4 days ago | parent [-]

North Korea invaded South Korea after US pressured South Korea to disarm. North Korea was the imperialist actor here.

	▲	skinnymuch a day ago \| parent [-]
		That’s not what imperialism means. At all. Next you’ll say China wanting reunification with its own people is imperialism but NATO in Ukraine isn’t. Or they can be equivocated. I haven’t heard about the disarming stuff. I don’t think that part happened.

▲

the_af 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The topic is cybercrime and espionage, not nuclear brinksmanship or colonialism.

Those are all closely related topics in geopolitics.

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]