Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia Writes Off 90 Percent of North Korea Debt

Posted by timothy on from the just-passing-through dept.

jones_supa (887896) writes "In Russia, the State Duma (lower house) on Friday ratified a 2012 agreement to write off the bulk of North Korea's debt. It said the total debt stood at $10.96 billion as of Sept. 17, 2012. Russia sees this lucrative in advancing the plans to build a gas pipe and railroad through North to South Korea. The rest of the debt, $1.09 billion, would be redeemed during the next 20 years, to be paid in equal installments every six months. The outstanding debt owed by North Korea will be managed by Russia's state development bank, Vnesheconombank. Moscow has been trying to diversify its energy sales to Asia away from Europe, which, in its turn, wants to cut its dependence on oil and gas from the erstwhile Cold War foe. Russia's state-owned top natural producer Gazprom is dreaming shipping 10 billion cubic meters of gas annually through the Koreas. Russia has written off debts to a number of impoverished Soviet-era allies, including Cuba. North Korea's struggling communist economy is just 2 percent of the size of neighboring South's."

162 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Will this effect markets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Debt goes poof. What's the result?

    1. Re:Will this effect markets? by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In long term, massively. South Korea will get much cheaper gas, and it might have a stabilizing effect and North Korea will likely be even more closely tied to South through the financial benefits of the functioning pipeline, such as transit fees.

      The main problem is that North Korea may start behaving like Ukraine with the gas, stealing it from the pipeline and even using it as a weapon against South Korea. But potential of getting gas pipeline in South Korea will likely far outweigh the cons.

    2. Re:Will this effect markets? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i guarantee that at the slightest perceived provocation NK will shut off the gas. KIS is even more of a petulant child than KJI was.

    3. Re:Will this effect markets? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      *affect

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    4. Re:Will this effect markets? by backslashdot · · Score: 2

      Umm, do you think Putin will sit back while NK messes with his pipeline? I suspect that if NK went that route, something mysterious will happen to Kim Jong-un.

    5. Re:Will this effect markets? by jopsen · · Score: 2

      i guarantee that at the slightest perceived provocation NK will shut off the gas. KIS is even more of a petulant child than KJI was.

      Well... we'll see it easy for North Korea to be outraged over "the slightest perceived provocation" when they have nothing to loose.
      Maybe if we give them something to loose, they think twice before deciding to give it up...

      It's not like the impoverishing measures currently in place has much effect.

      The only places we've recently seen the population rise and demand democracy is in the middle east, wealth, internet, computer, etc. is required to facilitate this..
      Right now, most North Koreans are probably more concern with securing their next meal, than fighting their oppressive government.
      A don't think a new approach on North Korea can hurt, it's not like the current one works :)

    6. Re:Will this effect markets? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Doubt it's a default if Russia voluntarily decides to do it, regardless it wouldn't matter what western financial institutes said.

      The US bankers will want higher interest rate when they loan money to North Korea?

      The loan is more or less nothing to begin with. Even less than just 10% remain.

    7. Re:Will this effect markets? by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction, Glorious North Korean SlashBot!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    8. Re:Will this effect markets? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      They'll use this to fund attacks on hair salons in London!!

    9. Re:Will this effect markets? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No. The markets already exist so there is no need to implement them.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Will this effect markets? by Panoptes · · Score: 3, Funny

      "something mysterious will happen to Kim Jong-Un". You mean he might get a decent haircut?

    11. Re:Will this effect markets? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In long term, massively. South Korea will get much cheaper gas, and it might have a stabilizing effect and North Korea will likely be even more closely tied to South through the financial benefits of the functioning pipeline, such as transit fees.

      The main problem is that North Korea may start behaving like Ukraine with the gas, stealing it from the pipeline and even using it as a weapon against South Korea. But potential of getting gas pipeline in South Korea will likely far outweigh the cons.

      Two questions:

      1. 1. Will North Korea agree to let gas pass through its territory to South Korea?
      2. 2. More importantly, is South Korea so stupid as to sign on such a deal that could leave them vulnerable to the Pyongyang regime?
    12. Re:Will this effect markets? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      They already signed many agreements that left then vulnerable. Kaesong had huge South investments for example. It had several problems with closures recently, but it's still operating.

      Fact is that among other things, financial assimilation is part of South's long term strategy in how to handle the North, so any increase of North's dependence on South's money will likely be welcomed, even though those incapable of seeing long term strategy for short term risks will oppose it.

    13. Re:Will this effect markets? by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Hopefully 11 billion worth of North koreas long suffering citizens not starving.

      Well , ideally. More like 11 billion worth of NK's absurd army spending more on armaments. Alas.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    14. Re:Will this effect markets? by doccus · · Score: 1

      No result. Sadly, the benefits will likely *never* trickle down to the near-destitute common people, not with that maniac running the country...

    15. Re:Will this effect markets? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Aside from real estate, does North Korea really have anything that South Korea will need?

    16. Re:Will this effect markets? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Cheap work force. One of the most valuable commodities in the world for capitalist megacorps, and South Korean chaebols fit that description to a tee.

      It's raison d'etre for Kaesong industrial complex.

  2. THROUGH North Korea?! by MisterSquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Russia sees this lucrative in advancing the plans to build a gas pipe and railroad through North to South Korea

    Seriously? Lay critical crucial infrastructure through North Korea to South Korea?

    There's no way Pyongyang would manipulate those rails and pipes in a fit of political pique that seems to happen, oh, once every eight months. Absolutely now way.

    --
    blog
    1. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They wouldn't want to offend Russia, because Russia would stop the flow of gas they're siphoning off.

    2. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      came here to say this

      that pipeline is going to be shut off once a year in march or april, until running capitalist dogs pay attention to the psychotic state and pay a ransom

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      north korea is the westboro baptist church of countries

      they want to offend

      like an internet troll, every negative reaction is positive reinforcement

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      China and Russia are its traditional allies, and are treated very differently.

    5. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Against Russia's will? Unlikely. You have to remember, this isn't going to be just about the South Korea, and North Korea is completely dependent on China and Russia due to its isolation.

      That and they really like hard currency they'll be getting as transit fees in the North Korea.

    6. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      N. Korea wouldn't last two days under war against Russia, that would be the end of chubby-spoiled boy's reign

    7. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To *be* bat-shit crazy, or to *appear* bat-shit crazy? Appearing insane can be an excellent military strategy, especially if you're in an extremely week tactical position such as North Korea is in. It makes your enemies extremely hesitant to provoke you because you may quite possibly engage in a completely disproportional and/or unexpected response. Of course keeping up the appearance requires that you do occasionally actually engage in insane behavior, but a sane commander using such tactics will be extremely canny in employing such behavior only when a studied analysis of the enemy suggests that he can get away with it with minimal real costs. The fact that North Korea is not only still standing, but has managed to repeatedly milk the western world for lucrative concessions despite the apparent insanity of its leaders, strongly suggests that that is the case.

      Of course the beauty of such a strategy is that your enemy can never be completely sure exactly how much is an act, and must moderate their own behavior in the face of that uncertainty. Would North Korea launch an all-out attack on our regional allies in response to some moderate provocation, knowing full well that they would be completely obliterated in response? Certainly not. Probably. We hope.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      "Our great leader has been holding two sticks providing the energy output of 20 western built nuclear plants!"

    9. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by aevan · · Score: 2

      Previous Korean conflict you had the south and its allies against the north and a shared 'border' as it were: you had friendlies to worry about.. All the NK weapons aim south pretty much, and the Americans wanted to appear moral.

      A power just wanting to raze the entire area, uncaring of fallout, could employ much more...effective tactics. The very fact that North Korea claims so much as part of its military just makes them that much more fair game. Russia could slaughter North Korea, it's just a matter of how much political fallout they are willing to endure for those tactics.

    10. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China has already sided with Russia, as has India.
      This whole thing is a result of a BRICS summit, the purpose of which was to move Russian energy exports eastwards in the face of potential sanctions. China has also partnered up with Russia regarding the energy exchange (meaning the petroruble and petroyuan as an attack on the petrodollar).

      RoK, being economically dependent on it, will side with China, and in extension, Russia.

      The Sino-Soviet split is a thing of the past, with Russia no longer communist, the ideological rift between the two no longer exists, and that's in large part why we're back in a cold war, Russia has Europe by the balls with energy dependence, China has the US by the balls via debt, as long as the two remain allied, NATO is powerless against either.

    11. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't want to offend Russia, because Russia would stop the flow of gas they're siphoning off.

      You're making the mistake of presuming rational behavior.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Previous Korean conflict you had the south and its allies against the north

      You also had the Red Army on North Korea's side.

      Do remember that the NK's last six months on their own, and had pretty much lost their country (the US Army was approaching the northern border of NK with China), when the Chinese came in (and kept the war going another couple years).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Please. He doesn't need to hold them. He can levitate them with his mind after trying it for the first time.

      No wait, North Koreans don't have an equivalent of Marvel...

    14. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      You are wrong on ALL accounts.

      1. China is in fact allied with North Korea. Much of the "old guard" of Chinese party still remembers Korean war where Chinese were fighting on North's side. Additionally they have a lot of interest in both using North Korea as a suitable proxy for dirtiest clandestine business as well as a massive destabilizer for its regional geopolitical enemies like Japan and South Korea as well as US who has a lot of forces tied countering it. If these forces were freed, they would move to counter China. Also, NATO with direct land access to Chinese heartland would be an existential threat to China who remembers very well what happened to it last time it allowed itself to be vulnerable to current Western powers.
      2. China does not want reconciled Korea for financial reasons either. It has no interest in powerful industrial South suddenly getting access to extremely cheap workforce, becoming more competitive with China itself.
      3. Russia has same uses for North Korea as China geopolitically, as a destabilising agent in the region against its geopolitical enemies.

    15. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      China has the US by the balls via debt

      "If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." -- J. Paul Getty

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    16. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      You sure? The fourth largest army (North Korea, active personnel) wouldn't last more than two days against the fifth largest? Not to mention that NK's is by far the largest in the world in terms of reservists. I'm not saying that NK wouldn't be defeated eventually but you seem to think it would be a walk in the park. NK's official policy is "military first" and thus their military actually is very powerful even though the country - as a consequence of that very policy - is piss poor and there's a shortage of practically everything.

      But how capable would those reservist truly be? Consider first of all the economic situation in NK: a significant portion of the population is going hungry, if not outright on the verge of starvation. I am sure they keep their active duty soldiers fed decently well, but in the case of a war most of the reservists called up would be physically capable of only limited combat duty. You also have to take into account the quality of the arms available to the reservists: chances are a lot of the reservists would be armed with Cold War era Soviet cast-offs and clones, quite possibly even WWII-era weapons such as PpsH sub machine guns.

      As for numbers, well, Operation Barbarossa showed what a small but well trained, well equipped, professional army can do against large numbers of poorly trained and equipped conscript soldiers. While quantity does have a quality all it's own, North Korea's limited numbers of truly modern weapons would not stand up to an invasion by South Korea/US or even Chinese troops. Would it be over in 2 days? Very unlikely. Would millions of North Koreans be dead within a week? Almost certainly. North Korea has neither the space to trade for time nor enough materiel stockpiled to survive a protracted, high intensity conflict. Of course, at any sign of hostile intent on the part of SK, NK would immediately begin a massive bombardment of Seoul, and as they lost territory would probably consider the use of any nuclear weapons they may have on Seoul as well since, when you are on the verge of destruction yourself, MAD doesn't seem too terrible and you might as well take your enemy down with you. This is why South Korea has never invaded North Korea, even though it is almost guaranteed they would win (China wouldn't step in because that would mean they would have to fight the US): tens of millions dead in North Korea, millions probably dead in South Korea, the South Korean eceonomy would be wrecked, and they'd have to deal with integrating any surviving NK citizens (remember all the issues Germany had when it peacefully reintegrated with the DDR?)

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    17. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Lay critical crucial infrastructure through North Korea to South Korea?

      There's no way Pyongyang would manipulate those rails and pipes in a fit of political pique that seems to happen, oh, once every eight months. Absolutely now way.

      Hmm, is it just me or does Pyongyang sound like the name of a Russian speaking city to me...

      --
      I stole this Sig
    18. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Teun · · Score: 1

      Exactly, at this point Russia needs to divert some American attention and power to the East, away from it's grab for power on the borders of Western-Europe.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    19. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by v1 · · Score: 1

      You sure? The fourth largest army (North Korea, active personnel) wouldn't last more than two days against the fifth largest? Not to mention that NK's is by far the largest in the world in terms of reservists.

      Re-learn the lesson that was the "Russian Steamroller" in WW2. Even an extremely large army that is poorly equipped will fare badly in battle. To play that game, you have to be willing to toss your people into the fire like coal and simply outlast the offensives until some other factor kicks in. That didn't go so well in the first half of WW2 for Russia, and the Germans knew how it worked and very nearly completed their push. When you're taking losses above 10:1 it's difficult to physically get that many bullet-stoppers up to the front line fast enough to slow down the offensive, regardless of the size of your army. Logistics were the Germans' downfall - resupply and weather. Russia had to flood the line with bullet-stoppers until they caught a break. And in today's wars, and especially considering the proximity here, that won't be an issue.

      Lack of any significant airforce would be another issue, but that really is irrelevent because NK simply hasn't got much in the way of substantial millitary targets to take out.

      If Russia were to decide to "step over the border" into NK (like they're doing elsewhere currently...) I seriously doubt it would come to war. It would probably end up like more of a "ok you little snot-nosed kid, you've had your fun but we've grown tired of it. Time for us to straighten out this disaster." Kim would find himself on a plane to Moscow shortly thereafter. But fixing NK would be such an enormous headache / liability, would they really want to take on that burdonsome of a projecct?

      Thing is, even with the best of intentions, NK is an incredible mess. Even if some well-meaning power had the ability to just step in and be handed the reigns to fix it, it'd be a tremendous undertaking. There's way too much wrong to try to tackle it all at once, it would have to be handled in stages. I can't imagine the borders opening up anywhere inside five years, regardless of who was at the helm. Right now the majority of people in NK have been brainwashed into believing their leader is a god, the entire world wants to eat their babies, and their military could conquer every army on earth. When most of your populace honestly believes this, you take on the very difficult job of saving someone that doesn't want to be saved. We saw that in Japan at the end of WW2, entire villagaes in the outlying islands committing suicide because of what the millitary told them the US troops would do when they got there. NK is exactly the same that way. We could drive a red cross truck loaded with food into a starving village over there and they'd come out of their huts with pitchforks, kill all the aid workers, and burn the truck, food and all, thinking it was poisoned. It takes quite a long time to fix that.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    20. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by schnell · · Score: 2

      China has the US by the balls via debt

      OM F***ing G. I know this is a popular theme on Slashdot, but please STOP. It is wrong, and stems from a serious misunderstanding about what it means to say that "the US owes China money."

      Go to your local bank branch, or hop on E*Trade, and buy a $500 US Savings Bond. Congratulations, the US now owes you money! You just gave the US government $500, and they promise to pay you back that $500 in the future plus interest. US bonds and treasury bills are historically among the safest investments in the world, so they are purchased in huge quantities by individuals, banks, retirement funds, businesses, sovereign wealth funds (like China's) and many others. So technically the US government "owes" money to nearly every investor on the planet at some level. The US issues bond/bills like this - incurring debt - all day every day like clockwork, and it continues to be a high-grade investment choice (it pays out little but is very "safe") around the globe.

      Slashdotters who don't understand these financial vehicles seem to think that the US was running short of cash one day and came to China like a pawnbroker, saying "Gosh, China, can you float me a few trillion renminbi until payday?" and that China is therefore exercising control over the US like some mobster holding it over a deadbeat debtor. Instead, China has just been buying sh*tloads of US debt over the counter, like everyone else on the planet.

      And, really, what can China do to the US if they want to hurt us? Cash in all their debt at once? Fine, but they will not get their full investment back (remember, US T-bills/bonds only pay you back in full once they have reached their maturity date) and the US will just print more dollars to meet the payout need. We'd experience more inflation in the short term, but the US would actually win out in the long run because China cheated itself out of recouping the full amount of money they loaned us! They could start selling US T-bills at a discount, lowering the market for our debt ... but the rest of the world market would snap it all up - yes, even the huge amount that China has - and again they would end up losing money by selling their stake at a discount.

      So, once and for all, China has zero political leverage in the US specifically because of its debt holdings. They have a LOT of political leverage because of the size of their market and the resulting pressure from US corporations that want to do business there ... but not specifically due to their debt holdings.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    21. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      China has the US by the balls via debt

      OM F***ing G. I know this is a popular theme on Slashdot, but please STOP. It is wrong, and stems from a serious misunderstanding about what it means to say that "the US owes China money."

      In addition, doesn't anyone bother to look up just how much of the U.S. "balls" China is holding? China holds just 6% of the U.S. Federal debt! ($1.1 trillion out of $17.6 trillion).

      Ooh! Sc-a-r-r-y!

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    22. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A power just wanting to raze the entire area, uncaring of fallout, could employ much more...effective tactics

      Sadly that describes the North Koreans and what they would be prepared to do tho their own country and people better than the Russians.

    23. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the US Army actually on the border? The Chinese propaganda goes that McArthur looked across the river and that was taken as the sign that he was going to invade China - that's what was used as the excuse for the Chinese entering the war anyway. Reality is a bit messier especially considering that the core of the North Korean forces had been an organised regional group of Red Army troops for years so the Red Army was fighting fully supplied and equipped in Korea long before China was officially involved in the war.

    24. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Logistics were the Germans' downfall - resupply and weather. Russia had to flood the line with bullet-stoppers until they caught a break

      .
      Which they knew the weather would provide eventually. Historians argue whether Russia needed an utter monster like Stalin to feed his people into a mincing machine to run out the clock or not.

      Weather also killed a huge number of Americans and allies in the Korean war which still astonishes me today, the correct equipment was available but not supplied.

      We saw that in Japan at the end of WW2, entire villagaes in the outlying islands committing suicide because of what the millitary told them the US troops would do when they got there

      Which they believed because of how their own troops infamously treated others. The NK military is possibly more brutal than the imperial japanese army. I'd rather not be reminded of some of the things they've done to people who got caught before crossing into China which were witnessed from the Chinese side. I'm sure they've got people convinced that any invaders would be far worse.

    25. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not the sovereign debt that is the problem, it's the fact that China is investing in US companies and infrastructure. It's actually far worse in the UK were pretty much everything is foreign owned. Imagine if GM was Indian and Ford was Chinese. That's what we have. Our new nuclear power stations are going to be a Chinese/French venture, and most of our existing energy infrastructure is foreign owned. Most of our banks are foreign.

      The only thing that mitigates it slightly for us is that we have so many different foreign owners their conflicting interests kind of cancel each other out a bit. We can't afford to piss off China though, or the investment will dry up and we will be screwed. China has similar political leverage in the US, where too much upset would be a big problem for companies they rely on Chinese investment and imports. Think about how screwed Walmart would be, for example.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's an act. It's obvious because on some fronts they act very differently. In the last few years a lot of progress has been made on the issue of the historic abduction of Japanese citizens, for example. NK has been trying to open up to foreigners more, staging international sporting events and the like that were reasonably well attended.

      Of course there is still a cult of personality, but if you read unbiased accounts written by people who visited the country you start to realize that it's not completely bat-shit insane after all. What you see on the TV is mostly a mix of propaganda and mockery, but those who actually deal with NK understand that it can be negotiated and reasoned with.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Even if it does happen that they cut it off from time to time the pipeline may still be valuable to russia. If russia has multiple export routes to/via different countries then the impact of any one route being cut (for example exports to europe could potentially be cut off by sanctions over the ukraine situation) is reduced.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    28. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      The world's 2nd biggest economy voluntarily committing economic suicide? Yeah it would be scary, just not for the reasons you're thinking of.

    29. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      These are long term plans, put in action years ago.

      Likelihood of them being relevant to current conflict is very low.

    30. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      All but one account. I stand corrected.

    31. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Yes, very sure Russia could destroy them in few days. In N. Korea there is extreme central control and micromanagement over troops with vastly inferior weapons and poor resupply/logistics capability.

    32. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I hadn't considered the propaganda angle, but you're probably right. Every government loves a boogeyman, and an insane pipsqueak dictator is frightening all out of proportion to his actual threat.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    33. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Every government loves a boogeyman, and an insane pipsqueak dictator is frightening all out of proportion to his actual threat."

      Yup, which is why it's handy to keep Iran and NK in business.

    34. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      McArthur was _ordered_ not to proceed beyond a certain point (about 50 miles from the chinese border) and did so anyway. He drove the NK forces over the river into china and that's when the chinese got so uncomfortable that they openly entered the war - mainly because they didn't want to be landed with all the NK refugees.

      The problem with gung-ho generals is that they don't appreciate the bigger picture. An apparent opportunity for an overwhemling military victory ruled out the possibility of actually ending the war by switching off chinese backing (they'd have been a lot more willing to negotiate back then than they are now.)

    35. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      > But how capable would those reservist truly be?

      It's been said repeatedly by many NK escapees that the supply of ammunition is strictly controlled because the first bullets fired by any conscripts in the event of any hostility would most likely be through the heads of the officers commanding the conscripts.

      Same applies to all those weapons dug in facing South. Unless concreted in position they can easily be turned around - and I assume they're all pretty well pinpointed targets to the point where they'd be lucky to get one shot off anyway.

      In the event of open warfare the most difficult thing that would be encountered is likely to be tens of thousands of NK soldiers clamouring to surrender (It is a lot harder to deal with than it sounds, as the USA found out during GW1).

      At this point in proceedings, support and alliances may come from unlikely sources. NK is the world's largest source of methampetamines and can probably call on assistance from drug cartels and other criminal orgs if it needs to. The battlefields are likely to be everywhere in such an event.

    36. Re:THROUGH North Korea?! by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      north korea is the westboro baptist church of countries

      Yes, but I don't remember Westboro Babtist Church protesting any mob or cartel bosses funerals. Russia won't play the games that NK is used to playing with the US.

  3. One this is for sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Russia as a nation is 11 billion dollars poorer, and the communist party members that stole the money in the first place are 11 billion dollars richer.

    1. Re:One this is for sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "loan" was foreign aid. No one seriously though North Korea could/would ever pay it back. Kind of like the few hundred million Clinton gave them in exchange for something (doesn't matter what they promised in return, everyone knew they would renege).

    2. Re:One this is for sure. by afgam28 · · Score: 2

      Maybe the Russians are just writing off their losses? I've got no idea about the terms of the loan, but if someone owed me a ridiculous amount of money that I knew would never be paid back, I'd settle for 10% of it and a commitment to a payment plan.

    3. Re:One this is for sure. by Mondor · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's Russian tradition of providing a loan to their allies and then write it off in a few years. A price of alliance, or at least a hefty bonus. USSR did the same.

  4. Re:Journalistic Style by Kagetsuki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    [Unfortunately?] No. Though I can't think of any post soviet ally that has actually benefitted or gotten ahead from having debt written off. It also occurs to me that many of those states with debt were basically given the debt - Russia gave them things like gas and lumber at particularly low rates but didn't take payment or only took partial payment. So once the debt built up they'd use it as sort of a threat to not go against them. Case in point: Ukraine just got a huge gas bill from Russia http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c211... .

  5. I don't think so by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's $11 Billion. I know that sounds like a lot, but it's not really. Not on a Global scale. It might help stabilize North Korea a bit though. They're a poor enough nation to notice it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't think so by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      They're a poor enough nation to notice it.

      ...which in turn gives them enough elbow-room to become a bit more belligerent, which in turn de-stabilizes the region. This in turn causes the US and Japan to have to spend their time doing something about it (China couldn't really give a frig, to be honest).

      Speculative end result? Putin can take the rest of the Ukraine and any of the other former Soviet states with less attention being paid to it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:I don't think so by Tough+Love · · Score: 3

      It's $11 Billion. I know that sounds like a lot, but it's not really. Not on a Global scale...

      It's .5% of Russia's GDP. Sounds like a lot to me.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:I don't think so by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      True, I do sometime forget how small and poor Russia really is. Sorry, American here, and we've been told for 60 years the big bad Russians are coming for us any day now...

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    4. Re:I don't think so by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's $11 Billion. I know that sounds like a lot, but it's not really. Not on a Global scale. It might help stabilize North Korea a bit though. They're a poor enough nation to notice it.

      To put it in perspective, that's 1/4 of the B-2 program cost, 1/6 of the F-22 program cost, 1/77 of the (projected) F-35 program cost, 1/545 the cost of the Iraq + Afghanistan wars, 1/39 of Exxon's market cap, or 1/7 Bill Gate's net worth.

    5. Re:I don't think so by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Roughly 10% ahead of Canada and losing ground rapidly.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  6. Re:How could this be? by ericloewe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Compared to North Korea, Cuba is a beacon of democracy and human rights. They're just a banana republic that pissed off the wrong people.

  7. Re:How could this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know about Korea, but some nation of obese tv-lovin' asshats decided to embargo international trade in...farm machinery, food, medicine and other important things. "Ya, let's starve the shit outta their children. That'll teach 'em good."

    Did you know that most of the "evil commies" of yesteryear are dead and gone? The US believes that making sure children starve and die is okay foreign policy. That's just fucked up.

  8. Re:How could this be? by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The irony is that most of the people they pissed off are long dead, and half of Cuba now lives in Miami.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  9. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by BradMajors · · Score: 2

    Rather... I am impressed as to how well Putin is acting in Russia's best interests. I can't say the same for Obama.

  10. Poke in the eye by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    This is just Putin's latest dumb parlour trick to stir up trouble and poke the West in the eye. He's just acting out.

    1. Re:Poke in the eye by X.25 · · Score: 1

      This is just Putin's latest dumb parlour trick to stir up trouble and poke the West in the eye. He's just acting out.

      You are a textbook example of how propaganda works and affects people.

      I really wish you would at least became aware of it, at some point.

  11. Re:How could this be? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Compare Cuba to Domincan Republic. Both are quite similar except for the politics - Dominican Republic had an US sponsored coup and is very much capitalist because of that. Still Cuba has a higher GDP and a higher HDI. Or take Jamaica. A capitalist constitutional monarchy and a commonwealth realm with close ties to the Brits. Still, same here, Cuba has a higher GDP and a higher HDI.

    Funny thing though. North Korea used to have a milder form of government than South Korea and the people were also better off - up to the early 1970ies. Then the former went downwards, while the latter shot upwards.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  12. Oh well by Bob768 · · Score: 1

    Give it another 10 years and oil and gas will have much less demand.

  13. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by bogaboga · · Score: 2

    You must be joking right? Powerful armies can and have been defeated many times. Remember the USA and Vietnam?

    On the other hand, I believe Russia has the [military] hardware to deliver serious havoc on the US should America take the unwise route.

    What would the USA's most powerful president have done in the circumstances anyway?

  14. You all miss the obvious reason NK agreed to this by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why would NK ever agree to do anything to help South Korea? They didn't care about paying bak the money anyway, so it's not that.

    No, the real reason NK agreed to have a pipeline built through the country is they plan to insert NK frogmen spies into the pipeline to infiltrate the south. The beauty of the plan is, they cannot be spied upon the other way due to the pipe flow!

    Masterful.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  15. North Korea is not a communist state by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was founded by Kim Il-Sung, who had communist ideals, yes. However it has ventured far, far, away from those ideals. Indeed the present day US is vastly closer to being an ideal free-market state than North Korea is to being anything that can be approximated as being close to actual communism.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:North Korea is not a communist state by schnell · · Score: 1

      Indeed the present day US is vastly closer to being an ideal free-market state than North Korea is to being anything that can be approximated as being close to actual communism.

      WTF Slashdot? Somehow this got to +5. Seriously?

      That's a mighty big assertion. Care to provide, like, any support? North Korea's economy is built on Juche, yes, but it is also heavily built on Communism as well. While it varies from pure Marxist theory in that it has a hereditary dictatorship and not a (never yet achieved anywhere) proletarian rule, the absolute state control of the economy is certainly in line with Marxist theory. In fact, up until the 1980s the Chinese and North Korean systems were equally as Communist, until China adopted a system more akin to Facscism and North Korea stayed the course on Communism.

      Whatever you degree you may think the US does or does not represent a "free market" economy has no bearing on whether or not North Korea is a Communist state, which it is.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:North Korea is not a communist state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While it varies from pure Marxist theory in that it has a hereditary dictatorship and not a (never yet achieved anywhere) proletarian rule, the absolute state control of the economy is certainly in line with Marxist theory.

      Hurr de durr. If the proletariat is not in control of how the state is operated, then it is not communism, it is totalitarianism.

    3. Re:North Korea is not a communist state by schnell · · Score: 1

      If the proletariat is not in control of how the state is operated, then it is not communism, it is totalitarianism.

      By that measure, there has never been a sustained communist state on the planet, and almost certainly never will be. So what's the point then? You can call properly something a duck even though it's not the Platonic ideal of a duck.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    4. Re:North Korea is not a communist state by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      The whole point of socialism, and certainly of a communist society (which is a bit of a utopian goal) is that the means of production should be controlled by the working class. If a state owns the means of production, but the working class is not in control of that state, it is simply another form of capitalism called "state capitalism", there is as much of a disconnect between workers and traditional capitalists as there is between workers and a large state capitalist. Instead of traditional capitalists exploiting the labour of the working class, the people at the top of the state bueracracy is. There is a common misconception, especially among those who have been exposed to too much of American mass media, that "capitalism" simply means free markets. Rather, it is a description of a society where a minority owns the majority of the means of production, if this is achieved through free markets, state controlled markets, privately (monopoly) controlled markets, or what have you does not really matter, it's still capitalism because of the ownership and thereby power-structure.

    5. Re:North Korea is not a communist state by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      I kept getting "lameness filter" so I had to split my post into multiple posts. Slashdot: FIX BUG!

      Continued from below:

      If and when workers gain control of the state, then and only then may it be called a socialist state in any way shape or form. Note however that neither socialism nor a "communist" society requires that the means of production be in the ownership of the state. A society where the means of production is controlled by cooperatives for instance is as much socialism as is ownership by a worker-controlled state, as is the syndicalist ideal of local union organizations taking control of the means of production, or the collectivist ideal of abandoning both state and private ownership of the means of production. There are as many variations of socialism as there are forms where the working class can take control of the means of production, as well as combinations thereof.

      Despite what Americans (and all of us who consume US media) have been told all their lives, capitalism and democracy are in no way compatible, and you see it every day in your own country, I see it every day in my country, we see it all over the world, yet this myth seems to persist. Capital is power, when a few control that capital, they have disproportionate economic power, and thus political power, no matter how many campaign financing laws or similar you adopt. The simple act of owning the means of production means that capitalists can, if they wish, force society to adopt certain policies under threat of loosing the essential goods which their factories produce. This is why economic democracy is required for political democracy to ever be realized.

  16. That doesn't really explain it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    So the US won't trade with them. Ok, but while the US is a large nation, it isn't the be-all, end-all. Canada, the EU, China, Russia, they are all perfectly ok to trade with Cuba. So Cuba has access to most of the world for trade goods. Yet, they still have an extremely low standard of living.

    Sorry, but the US boogeyman thing doesn't play, not in this day and age. Cuba has a large responsibility for the problems in Cuba.

    1. Re:That doesn't really explain it by Kohath · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not the enlightened view. Everything that goes wrong is always someone else's fault. It's the #1 Truth of progressive thinking. Poor people are poor because someone else made them poor. If socialist policies don't fix everything, it's because someone else interfered. If all the someone elses could just be burned or imprisoned or gassed or reeducated, society's problems could finally be solved and progressive paradise would be achieved.

    2. Re:That doesn't really explain it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uhhhhh...the US tells the other countries what is and isn't allowed to be traded with Cuba. There is no excuse for what USA has done to that country. Well, unless you think hurting children for the "crimes" of their parents is okay.

    3. Re:That doesn't really explain it by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Strawmen are so easy to burn.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    4. Re:That doesn't really explain it by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Have you never heard of the Helms-Burton Act which penalizes any company that deals with Cuba including the executives never being able to travel to the USA. This basically means every company has a choice, do business with the USA or do business with Cuba and guess which is more profitable or even possible (Canadian planes often fly over US territory and despite international law, America has these extra-national no-fly lists and can veto passengers)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:That doesn't really explain it by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      Can't believe some idiots are marking you "informative." Cuba ranks near the bottom of the Democracy Index. Try that socialism sucks argument again when a social democracy is failing so miserably.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  17. Saving Face by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Obviously N.Korea is a communist economic horror story. Russia has zero chance of getting paid back anyway. This method of presentation saves face for the Russian government as it was foolish to loan money to N.Korea in the first place and it also saves face for the concept of communism. This can be pushed as an image of one wonderful communist nation doing a good thing for another communist nation. N.Korea is an open sewer deserving the disrespect of all people, everywhere. And most wonderful fat, midget, leader, with really bad hair cut, is the icing on the cake.

    1. Re:Saving Face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While I agree this is a nice face-save because Russia had zero chance of getting paid back anyway, it should be pointed out that neither country is communist. Russia is pretty ultra-capitalist today, and North Korea has their own Juche ideology (North Korea has even wiped out all mentions of communism from their history).

    2. Re:Saving Face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Russia could only have been said to be communist between 1917 and 1924, and that's in a very, very big stretch of the terminology. That's where the 'soviet system' came from. It was highly democratic at the time. A soviet is a governing council comprised of the area's workers. This existed in name only beyond 1924, after the formal formation of the USSR, when they re-embraced capitalism. North Korea were never communist in the first place.

      Methinks you should open a history book sometime, and stop using 'communist' as a synonym for 'random dictatorship I don't like'

    3. Re:Saving Face by aliquis · · Score: 1

      You say that still more people cried at his dads funereal when will for say Obama ;)

    4. Re:Saving Face by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Also, it's only 10B... talking about foreign debt this is peanuts...

      That said, getting debt paid off helps them make new debt and buy things from Russia or China...

    5. Re:Saving Face by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's best described as a Kingdom with some strange worship of dead Kings going on - sort of like a dysfunctional pharonic Egypt.

    6. Re:Saving Face by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Or to look at it another way, probably only ten times the written off debt of Donald Trump alone.

  18. Re:Anonymous Coward by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

    Unlike the situation with Ukraine, the West might see that as an improvement. China, on the other hand, might disagree...

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  19. Re:You all miss the obvious reason NK agreed to th by mrchaotica · · Score: 2
    1. Step 1: become a NK frogman spy
    2. Step 2: ???
    3. Step 3: Profit!

    (Hint: Step 2 is "defect to SK.")

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  20. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by Nutria · · Score: 1

    You must be joking right?

    Joking about what? Did you actually *read* the post you're bitching about?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  21. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

    Invading Syria would have worked as well as invading Afghanistan and Iraq did....

    Everyone's all PO'ed at Obama for using diplomacy instead of War.

    It's diplomacy that has Iran giving up their enriched uranium. It's (accidental) diplomacy that got Syria to give up their chemical weapons. Diplomacy works. War? Afghanistan and Iraq aren't going too well for us. There's no infrastructure, no democracy, tons of opium, and the Taliban are stronger now than they used to be.

    There are other measures of strength besides blowing shit up.

    That being said, Obama IS a weak president. :D

  22. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by whistlingtony · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm really weirded out by all the people who give accolades to Putin lately. Russia's a shithole man. It's an oligarchy, flat out. He's not standing up to anyone. Standing up would be helping people and NOT debt slaving them with the IMF. How is invading the Ukraine when it's down in any way brave or good?

  23. Re:How could this be? by ericloewe · · Score: 2

    For some reason, the grudge lives on. It wasn't that great a pissing off either, just your average banana republic tactics.

  24. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by whistlingtony · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That weakling got Osama, has Iran giving up it's highly enriched Uranium to lift the sanctions, and cut a deal that got Syria to give up their chemical weapons. There are other measures of strength than blowing shit up. Diplomacy works.

    Now, as a dirty lib, I do believe he is a weak president on the homefront. Dude hasn't even TRIED to fulfill his campaign promises and keeps trying to cut deals with the Republicans who clearly aren't going to give him squadoo even though he gives them 90% of what they wanted anyway. Sigh....

    If you're going to hate on Obama, hate on him for real reasons. His foreign policy had strengthened us, not weakened us. Bush is the one that took us from having the whole world supporting us to having everyone revile us. Again....

  25. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by aevan · · Score: 1

    Didn't you just prove his point? Power military that was handicapped by policy...lost a war (i.e. Vietnam).

  26. Why is this "News For Nerds" by hax4bux · · Score: 1

    Do you know where Vladivostok is? Russia not need Korea to ship gas.

    1. Re:Why is this "News For Nerds" by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Expect to see a lot more stories like this ie "Availability of Public Diplomacy Program Material Within the United States"
      Most of this kind of news was run by the US gov around the world but not for US domestic consumption.
      The limits on this kind of gov backed PR, spin within the US ie the Smith-Mundt Act are now lifted.
      The sock puppets and public diplomacy types will be flooding US news sites with this kind of material as stories and then shaping comments.
      https://www.federalregister.go...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  27. yep by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    ...except it might not be too mysterious. Potential win for everyone, if they half way behave themselves...

    1. Re:yep by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Assassinating North Korean leadership would be fairly easy for US today if it wanted to do it.

      The reason it's not been done is the fact that sudden power vacuum would cause a collapse of North Korean state, and North Koreans have proven to be extremely difficult to acclimate to South Korean society, where they would massively flood to.

      Believe it or not, the biggest proponent of keeping the current leadership in power is South Korea. They are the ones who would take by far the biggest hit from North's collapse. They advocate long term assimilation policy instead, where North Korean leadership is slowly made more and more dependent on South's money until eventually they have to open their own country enough for cultural exchange to start to happen, demolishing the power base.

    2. Re:yep by y0ssar1an · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, the biggest proponent of keeping the current leadership in power is South Korea.

      I do not believe it because that's complete nonsense. South Korea does not enjoy having an insane, WMD-equipped power constantly threatening them with nuclear/chemical annihilation. They do not enjoy having their submarines sunk, their citizens shelled, or assassination attempts on their leaders. They do not enjoy being infiltrated by spies, having their families torn apart, or spending enormous sums to defend against the North. The fact that South Korea and the US have not acted just might have something to do with the thousands of North Korean artillery batteries armed with chemical and incendiary shells within range of Seoul, the capital of South Korea, a city of 10 million people. North Korea has promised that, if war ever breaks out, Seoul will become a "sea of flames".

    3. Re:yep by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      You seem to view situation as absolute rather than relative. As in relative to what would happen in event of North's collapse. Instead, you apparently think that if North were to collapse, it would just vanish with no negatives involved.

      Do they enjoy the current North? Of course not. Is it much better than collapsed North on their border? Of course. North's collapse would cause at least a temporary collapse of social and economic order in the South due to influx of refugees from the North in such an event.

      Status quo is MUCH better for South than that scenario. Occasional scuffle with a few lives lost and having to keep a stable border is a whole lot easier than trying to absorb millions of North refugees which are known to be extremely difficult to acclimate to South. Former scenario has been stable for decades. Latter would likely cause at least a temporary collapse of both social and economic order in the South.

    4. Re:yep by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You may have noticed that even when succession happened within family, in controlled fashion, with significant preparation by the predecessor and power structures, the road to becoming a new leader was very bumpy.

      Removing one suddenly by force is going to cause a much greater rift in the power. One has to understand that North Korea - style stalinist dictatorships have extreme ties of all sectors directly to the leader. Not people around the leader as more bureaucratic nations around the world usually have, but the leader himself. As a result, uncontrolled change in leadership would cause a collapse of that network if successor wasn't trained and accepted by network already.

    5. Re:yep by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Assassinating North Korean leadership would be fairly easy for US today if it wanted to do it.

      The reason it's not been done is the fact that sudden power vacuum would cause a collapse of North Korean state, and North Koreans have proven to be extremely difficult to acclimate to South Korean society, where they would massively flood to.

      The CIA is notoriously bad at regime change... However the KGB (or what ever they're called these days) isn't.

      The key to assassinating the NK is to have a puppet dictator lined up to replace him. Given that the NK military is a nepotist plutocracy (kleptocracy may be more appropriate) finding a volunteer to be a toady would not be hard. As long as you've got the transition of power mapped out, there'll be no power vacuum and no impetus to reunite the Korea's.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:yep by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      KGB was pretty good at it, but they lost most of their top talent after USSR collapsed. Current capabilities of their successors are far less than they were back in the day.

    7. Re:yep by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      All I can say is that South Korean government disagrees with you and agrees with me.

  28. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by aliquis · · Score: 2

    Is the US vastly superior?

    Globalfirepower rank them about the same, though they include a lot of factors, but shouldn't all those be included?

    Sure the US have twice as many people and earn more money (but it's much more unevenly spread and less end up in the government coffins) and spend more money on the military (then again I don't know whatever Russia pay them and if so I guess they pay less and that more production may be government owned or at least be bought for cheaper.)

    US seem to have bigger navy and air force and Russia bigger army. Who got the best missile defence? Anti-air?

    Even if US is better what are their odds at Russian soil? Because if we are speaking fear of the bully I guess that's where it would be thought?

    Many of the US project seem to deliver so-so and cost way more than what was originally planned.

    I know lots of people say Russia got old gear but how much truth is there in that? Even if they do how much is newer? How much is newer in the US?

    Do F-35 really beat the better models from Russia? Is F-22 clearly superior? I assume the F-15, F-16 and F-18 maybe is more cost effective?

    I don't know whatever the SM-2, SM-3 and the S-300, S-400 and S-500 gear/systems is of similar scale but how are they really performing against each others?

    I don't really know the composition of either sides nuclear weapons.

    How hard is it to sink a carrier? How efficient is the total anti-missile and possibly torpedo defence in a carrier group?

    Who win on the ground?
    http://www.globalfirepower.com...

    I assume the US may rely on missiles from ships and air-force and sure air-plane vs artillery may be a battle with an advantage to the air-plane but this being Russia how many missiles will actually hit and how well would the planes do? Throw in a bunch of submarines in the equation too.

  29. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Joking about the US actually able to threaten Russia military I suppose?

    While US is spread all over the world I assume Russia isn't all that much so you may have to bring the war to their side.

    Even if they wasn't somewhat equal simply fighting in someone else home court likely bring disadvantages, also again people defending their home country relative people who.. Well. I don't know. ... but I've been told?

  30. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by aliquis · · Score: 1

    That being said, Obama IS a weak president. :D

    Make Bill Gates president.

    Seriously. Maybe he have some ideas about how to do what's good for companies while also having an interest in making the world better.

    I doubt other world leaders would be very upset at Bill Gates either? For what? Their XP service being discontinued?

  31. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    Rather... I am impressed as to how well Putin is acting in Russia's best interests...

    Is it in Russia's best interest to become isolated as an international pariah and have its economy shrink?

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  32. Uhhhh... no by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Go to Canada some time, one of the US's closest allies. You'll find that you can travel to Cuba freely, buy Cuban goods (cigars being the most prominently advertised as being of Cuban origin) and so on.

    The US is the only country that clings to an embargo and it is purely a face-saving maneuver, not wanting to admit it was a bad idea and hasn't worked to unseat Castro.

    However for all that, Cuba is still poor... So sorry, you can't blame the big, bad 'ole US for this. Their policy is not helpful, but it isn't why Cuba is impoverished. That lies at the feet of their own government.

    1. Re:Uhhhh... no by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine the night life in Havana after the Hotels and casinos get built? Offshore and back country fishing trips? The Castros have to go first.

  33. We give twice that to Israel every year... by Davoid · · Score: 1

    If you figure in the amounts given in foreign aid (military and development) as well as loans that are simply "forgiven" each year which amounts to $15-$20 billion in total each year. Directly it is $3.11 billion (and increasing) per year. In other words... $10 billion (give or take a few) of its total accumulated debt is chicken feed in the grand scheme of things.

    --
    "Don't sweat the technique."
  34. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by olau · · Score: 2

    ... and ultimately foreign policy is based on military power. Nobody takes us seriously.

    I wonder why. Do you respect the father who beats his child?

  35. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Gates's "interest in making the world better" consists of writing checks (on accounts swelled by monopoly business practices) to big drug companies so they can experiment on people without their knowledge or consent.

    Yeah he should write them to Get-a-freaking-clue Foundation, Science Whaa' and Paranoid Inc. instead.

  36. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Fundamentally, you seem to believe that Iran and Syria have, in fact, given up their WMD's (poison gas in the one case, enriched uranium in the other).

    So, do you have any actual evidence that this is true?

    Without international inspections (which neither country has allowed), it's not like there is any way to know for sure whether all the poison gas manufacturies (in the one case) have been revealed, much less shutdown. Ditto the enriched uranium (in the other case).

    And then there's Ukraine.

    Next week, Obama is going to the Far East to reassure our allies there that he won't leave them hanging out to dry the way he left Ukraine hanging out to dry. While there are definite differences between Ukraine and Japan/Phillipines/etc, it'll be interesting to see if Japan/Phillipines/etc buy what he's selling.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  37. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by Nutria · · Score: 1

    OP writing And that a vastly superior military (that would be the US military) means nothing when headed by a weakling. pretty much indicates that he doesn't see the US being a threat to Russia.

    Besides, the two cardinal rules of would-be military invaders are:
    (1) Do not invade the Chinese mainland.
    (2) Do not invade Russia.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  38. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by BradMajors · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is in American's best interest to become an international pariah and for the average American income to fall?

  39. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    And the US is not an ruled by an oligarchy?" http://www.scribd.com/doc/2184...

    If you care to read the news it was Russia that was providing financial support to Ukraine, and when a pro-Russia government was democratically elected the United States overthrew the elected government through a coup and the use of US mercenaries.

  40. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by Livius · · Score: 1

    They've made various broken promises before.

    Really? Name one.

  41. Sign of the Apocalypse by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    10 posts in and no "In Soviet Russia..." joke?
    Beta must be causing more damage than I thought...

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  42. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, PLEASE tell us all how the Arab Spring was Obama's fault... And Fuck Israel.

    Nobody takes us seriously because we started two wars over bad intelligence. No one takes us seriously because we talk about democracy and freedom and then invade countries that don't do what we say. Nobody takes us seriously because we've overthrown democratically elected governments. No one takes us seriously because we're a f'in joke.... We're a child with a giant stick running around hitting other children

    It's weird, but plenty of countries are taken seriously without waving their military around. Japan's taken seriously, and they don't even have a military to speak of! We wield enough economic and cultural power that we shouldn't even have to use our military. And strangely enough, when we DO use diplomacy and sanctions, stuff gets done.

  43. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0

    "Syria’s ability to produce chemical weapons has been destroyed and its remaining toxic armaments secured, weapons inspectors said Thursday, as President Bashar al-Assad has offered unexpectedly robust cooperation".

    Yes, I have evidence that this is true. That's because I listen to evidence before coming up with my opinion, instead of forming my opinion and then looking for evidence. That took me a 15 second google search to find. Should I look it up for Iran too? Nah. I'll let you do it. You need the practice. Also, there's a story ON SLASHDOT about Iran getting rid of their 20% uranium.

    Ukraine? Sanctions are starting to have an effect. We'll see. Huh, weird, and just a few days ago, Russia and Ukraine signed a deal to let Crimea be it's own independant region... which it's always been anyway.

    So, basically, you're wrong on every account, and a few minutes of googling would have told you that were you actually interested in the information and the context of the situation. I'd suggest not paying attention to mainstream news. They suck at context.

  44. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    Besides, the two cardinal rules of would-be military invaders are: (1) Do not invade the Chinese mainland. (2) Do not invade Russia.

    In other words, never get involved in a land war in Asia.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  45. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by Teun · · Score: 1
    I couldn't have said it better.

    The Cheney administration was probably the best thing that could have happened to the foes of America.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  46. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    Not being USA-ian, I'm not sure what actions or statements are treason. But some of the Republican statements that have come out publicly against Obama are not only personally offensive but are against the State: i.e. Treasonous - that the opposition won't support a bill because they don't consider Obama capable. It was much worse than, implicating the majority that voted him in twice! But I forget the actual insult. I think Obama would of had more than enough to arrest the leadership of the Republican party for treasonous statements. Yet he has done nothing.

    As for the Russians? Well history since WWII has clearly shown that Russia has used their gas pipelines, forcing nations into dependency, raising and lowering prices ad hoc, putting political and economic pressures on these now dependent countries. That was the bribe used against the Ukraine in late 2013 - cheap gas and billions of rubles for them to stay out of the EU.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  47. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by Nutria · · Score: 1

    never get involved in a land war in Asia.

    That movie quote popped instantly to mind, but had read the specific quote about the mainland long before I watched the movie. Plus, European Russia isn't... Asia, and you invade it either.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  48. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by spikenerd · · Score: 1

    Not being USA-ian...statements that have come out publicly against Obama are not only personally offensive but are against the State: i.e. Treasonous

    Agreed, you're clearly not a USA-ian. We don't respect authority, here. And we don't really respect people who suggest that we should respect authority. So, go kiss your king's ...ring. Ya, know, I've lost a lot of respect for my country in the last decade-and-a-half, but thanks for reminding me why this is still the place for me and my treasonous attitudes.

  49. Re:How could this be? by webplay · · Score: 2

    Except that from 1970 to 2008 (years for which data is available), per capita GDP of the Dominican Republic went from 50% of Cuba's to 87% of Cuba's. The HDI has improved more as well.

  50. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    America certainly has it's issues but Putin seems determined to turn Russia into a nuclear armed banana republic. Look at this list. Russia, styling itself a great power, has impoverished its people to a state worse than Croatia and 56 other countries. Not far ahead of Botswana. Amazing power, that.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  51. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    Obama was on Seal Team Six? I didn't know that. He was working with the CIA to track down Bin Laden in Pakistan, before he was President?...

    When Obama became President, no one in the CIA was tracking down bin Laden in Pakistan. In 2005 George W. Bush shut down the CIA unit tasked with tracking bin Laden (code named Alec Station and established in 1996 by Bill Clinton). "C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden".

    It took an executive action by Obama to recreate an intelligence unit to pick up the hunt, and then a tough call to send the SEAL team in when the intelligence about bin Laden's presence was still uncertain. A weaker man would have temporized about the uncertainty and done nothing (GW Bush and Tora Bora?).

    BTW - the right's adulation of GW Bush as a hero, strutting in front of his "Mission Accomplished" banner, when he had never fired a shot in the invasion, while pretending Obama had nothing to do with the termination of bin Laden "because he wasn't on Seal Team Six" is a double standard so glaring that it makes one stand dumb-founded at the intellectual dishonesty involved. Yeah, and Reagan defeated the Soviet Union single-handedly. Right.

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  52. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    Is the US vastly superior?

    Globalfirepower rank them about the same, though they include a lot of factors, but shouldn't all those be included?

    I would take the "Globalfirepower" rankings a tad more seriously if they revealed the model they used to combine and weight all those factors, and if they weren't a "link farm" site that lists itself as being "for entertainment only" and the people running it weren't completely anonymous. There is no reason to attach any credibility to the ranking scores they offer.

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  53. No, just no by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I hardly know where to begin, but I'll say this:

    If socialist policies don't fix everything, we'll try again. And again. We'll pay attention to what we did right, and what we did wrong. We'll do better. We'll make progress. That's why we're called 'progressives'.

    What we will _not_ do is stick our heads in the sand and pretend some mythical 'invisible hand' is going to make it all better. Name me one complex problem that was made better by doing nothing about it?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:No, just no by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If socialist policies don't fix everything, we'll try again. And again.

      Over and over and over, never stopping, regardless of how many people are hurt with each attempt, climbing a mountain of misery toward an always elusive utopia.

      Name me one complex problem that was made better by doing nothing about it?

      The evils of alcohol vs. prohibition.

  54. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    That weakling got Osama, has Iran giving up it's highly enriched Uranium to lift the sanctions, and cut a deal that got Syria to give up their chemical weapons. There are other measures of strength than blowing shit up. Diplomacy works.

    Now, as a dirty lib, I do believe he is a weak president on the homefront. Dude hasn't even TRIED to fulfill his campaign promises and keeps trying to cut deals with the Republicans who clearly aren't going to give him squadoo even though he gives them 90% of what they wanted anyway. Sigh....

    If you're going to hate on Obama, hate on him for real reasons. His foreign policy had strengthened us, not weakened us. Bush is the one that took us from having the whole world supporting us to having everyone revile us. Again....

    Seriously? Are you that naive?

    1. The US Military and Intelligence Services got Osama. All Obama did was say: "OK" and a day later "I gave the order to kill Osama..."

    2. Do you really think that Iran doesn't have other sites that inspectors have not yet found? Also, they can still make more because they didn't give up the capability!

    3. Do you really think that Syria gave up all its chemical weapons?

  55. Russians don't do mysterious by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Instead of an anonymous bullet they've used Polonium to make the point that nobody but them could possibly have done it.

  56. Use news instead of using gut feeling by dbIII · · Score: 1
    North Korea accused China of being behind an attempted coup a couple of decades back and relations have been shaky since. Better than with anywhere else, but pretty damn xenophobic just the same and people of Han Chinese descent had to leave or die. China trades with North Korea (and anybody else on the planet no matter what's wrong with them) but they are not allies. The huge markup on oil is an example of that, China takes full advantage of being the only serious trade partner and screws them over, which is not something you do to an ally. They don't turn the N.K. refugees back either, so once again not an ally.

    using North Korea as a suitable proxy for dirtiest clandestine business

    See also the USA using Syria for "extreme rendition". You are clearly not stupid enough to suggest that the USA and Syria are allied, but just have not considered that it may be a similar mostly hands off approach with N.K.

    Go to your local version of chinatown and if you ask around enough you are bound to find someone that both comes from a part of China close to N.K. and hates both governments so will give you an unbiased view. Another place to try is a Korean food shop since some Chinese ethnic Koreans (there are nearly as many as outside China) or escaped North Koreans may be found there. One view I heard from a Chinese Korean from the border area is that the best way for China to deal with N.K. is to wait until the wind is blowing away from both China and S.K. and before nuking it.
    As for "the old guard" - didn't you notice an article today about Apollo program people dying of old age? Anyone who was old enough to make major decisions twenty years before that is already dead.

    1. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You appear to mix micro level of conflict with macro economic politics. Local hatreds are wholly irrelevant to macro politics. Look up the recent study which showed that US is oligarchy to see just how impact micro level public opinion has on policy even in US, and consider how much less it would have in China, North Korea and Russia.

      So you are probably correct on all accounts. But when it comes to long term macro strategy, they are also irrelevant.

    2. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's North Korea. They have trashed their economy so badly there is no macro economic politics involved and they are effectively bandits to anyone else nearby, even Russia. If anything happens, which is unlikely, it will end up like the US Canal Zone some years back.

    3. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You appear to have swallowed the propaganda line of the West. That is simply not true - out of three countries with land borders with North Korea, two do not have views you describe.

      As for economics, similar things happened to all USSR-supported economies worldwide after USSR collapsed. The only thing that differed was severity. And it's not like North Korea doesn't have a decent economy today, they actually have a blooming industrial sector to which even Western companies started to outsource work, you have places like Kaesong where South Korea manufactures a lot of things that need cheap workforce and they are even exporting various weapons, usually to regimes that are under West and UN sanctions blocking weapon exports. And recently, they actually had a very strange jumpstart of private sector, with privately owned, technically illegal business being born and operating in the country with tacit acceptance from central government.

      Last one is likely the result of success of South Korea's long term goal of tying North more and more to itself financially, which is causing changes in North's internal structures.

    4. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Propaganda? Are you joking or do you really know so little about that place yet still decide to give some sort of clueless lecture? There's been plenty of news reports with stories from refugees so you do not have to meet one of them yourself like I did, you can read about it in a newspaper or on the net.

    5. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Has it ever occurred to you that refugees are well known to significantly exaggerate their experiences as to secure their status?

      You have but to ask any agency in EU that has to work with refugees to get a valid opinion on that particular aspect of refugees, and it's going to be the opposite of pretty.

    6. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "They don't turn the N.K. refugees back either, so once again not an ally."

      Actualy they do.

      NKs found in China without the right paperwork (ie, refugees) face immediate deportation back to NK (at which point they and their families face punishment in NK Gulags), so they have to keep a _very_ low profile and get out of china as quickly/quietly as possible - generally that involves a long and complicated trip across China (which is about the size of the United States) and sneaking over borders on the southwestern edge - which exposes them to more trigger-happy border guards.

      Russia doesn't want the NK refugees either and will happily ship 'em back over the border too.

      Once out of China they usually end up in SK, but as noted many have a hard time integrating - a lot of the time it's due to the realisation that whilst they have promised to go back and get more of the fmaily, many left behind are so frail they wouldn't survive the privations of getting across China, so they will never be seen again.

    7. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Writing rubbish like you have just to get the last word is rather pathetic. I'd let it go but you'd take it as some sort of agreement if I did not reply.

    8. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      So you are telling us that essentially all agencies across Europe responsible for taking refugees are lying and you are correct?

      Quite an ego you have there.

    9. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Ah the "so you are telling us" trick for something you have provided yourself as a distraction? I'd hoped you were more interested in the topic than playing some silly attention seeking game. Disappointing.

    10. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      "When out of arguments, focus on shooting the messenger".

      Well done.

    11. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The "messenger" has no message based on reality and was trying little high school mass debate tricks so needed to be put down with a bullet.

    12. Re:Use news instead of using gut feeling by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Or you your case, throwing shit around and hope some of it will stick.

  57. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by dbIII · · Score: 1

    So then - which side do you back to "stop the nonsense going on in Syria"? Look at them all (not both anymore) long enough and it's not so simple is it?

  58. In search of a King? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    So what makes a strong President? Reagan who's first act was handing over a ransom to terrorists or Carter who would not deal with them but couldn't stop them either? There hasn't been a "strong" President in a long time but is that really a bad thing? Would having someone "strong", such as a Putin type who people like to please by killing off journalists he doesn't like for a birthday present, actually be a good thing?
    While a "strong" President will go to extreme lengths to get what they want personally a "weak" President may actually consider what is good for a country and let a constitution tell them what to do.
    There would probably be a "strong" President if Hillary had won. How do you think that would work out for anyone apart from Hillary? It doesn't sound like such a good idea now does it?

  59. Re:You all miss the obvious reason NK agreed to th by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately NK frogman would probably mean the guy that hunts for frogs to feed his unit.

  60. same everywhere.... by snemiro · · Score: 1

    When an institution receives money, it vanishes through "operationa costs" and at the end, we should consider ourselves lucky if 10% is really used for the real purpose. Doesn't matter the -ism .... without full transparency, money ends in the administrator's pockets. Every govt office should have the obligation to have open and free access books, so we, the people, can understand why they are spending more and doing less.

  61. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

    I agree that Russia is an oligarchy (and so is the US, and Europe, btw, we simply don't call our plutocrats "oligarchs"), but you have to get some things straight. Like the IMF, the Ukraine had the alternative of *either* cooperating with Russia, and continuing to get money from Moscow, or cooperate with the EU and get money from the IMF (with the usual strings of privatization, deregulation, and generally screwing the people over attached, see Greece, et al). Yanukovich in the end decided that it would be in the interests of the Ukraine to continue trade with Russia rather than go along with EU demands of "us or them" (and the opinion polls I have seen seem to indicate that the Ukranian people were not too keen on the EU agreement either in the end, I guess the example of Greece must have scared them). This is when the "Euromaidan" protests started, supported by both US and EU politicians who enthusiastically came in person and egged the protests on, the fact that they were sharing stage and shaking hands with Svoboda and the Right Sector did not seem to bother them. Once the coup was fully realized, the new government (surprise surprise) signed the deal with the EU as well as the IMF, despite not being an elected government. It bans political parties which are seen as being too "pro-russia" (such as the communist party), includes representatives of both Svoboda and Right Sector, but none from the eastern part of the country where the majority of the population lives. Western media calls it "democracy"...

  62. Re:I'm liking how Russia is standing up these days by aliquis · · Score: 1

    There's a difference in destroying property and killing people vs actually being able to hold onto the ground too.

  63. Reality argues otherwise by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There are tens of thousands of North Korean refugees in the "Korean autonomous region" in Northern China that borders North Korea. It's considered a bit of a social problem in that region.