$200M a year, 700k tons of rice, space tech: deal for North Korea in joining war

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Russia’s partners, aid, and Western credibility

  • Several posts argue Russia now has “better” partners than Ukraine: China, Iran, India, and North Korea provide material support, while Ukraine must constantly lobby the US/EU.
  • Critics say the West still indirectly funds Russia via energy purchases and that this undermines its moral and strategic position.
  • Some see Russia’s partners as “vultures” ready to exploit its weakness; others reframe that as simply having “skin in the game.”
  • The US/EU are portrayed by some as pursuing self‑interested “grift” (weapons contracts, asset buys in Ukraine) under an anti‑Russia narrative.

India, Europe, and “funding” the war

  • Dispute over India’s role: one side says India isn’t “funding” the war, just buying cheap Russian oil; another argues these purchases directly finance Russia’s war.
  • Analogy is drawn between unwittingly funding a crime and knowingly funding a war; those who “know” are seen as accomplices.
  • Europe buying refined Russian oil via India is highlighted; some conclude Europe is also complicit.

Nuclear deterrence and proliferation

  • Strong view that if Ukraine falls due to lack of US aid, many mid‑powers will pursue nuclear weapons.
  • Consensus that nuclear weapons or a mutual defense treaty with a nuclear state are now seen as the only reliable security guarantees.
  • Debate over whether NATO would actively prevent Ukraine from obtaining nukes, even siding with Russia to avoid nuclear war, versus claims that NATO “can’t do anything” and Ukraine should acquire nukes like North Korea.

EU/NATO defense posture

  • Multiple comments criticize EU states—especially Germany—for underfunding defense and gaming the 2% NATO target.
  • Eastern European states are praised for taking the Russian threat seriously; Western leaders are accused of treating the war as a distant, temporary conflict.

North Korea–Russia pact and troop deployment

  • One side describes a long‑standing mutual defense alliance; another argues the formal pact and troop deployment are recent and effectively mean Russia “dragged” North Korea into the war via barter (rice, technology).
  • Most agree the 12k North Korean troops are militarily limited but symbolically important, suggesting Russian manpower strain and buying time until the US election.
  • Dispute over double standards: some say external aid to Ukraine makes it unfair to criticize Russia for getting help; others stress the moral difference between aiding an invaded state and supporting an aggressor, and between supplying weapons and sending combat troops.

WW3 scenarios and broader geopolitics

  • Fears expressed about an eventual Russia–China–North Korea alignment and simultaneous crises (Ukraine, Taiwan, Middle East).
  • Some argue the US “could” stop Russia directly but chooses not to, to avoid WW3 and nuclear escalation.
  • Sharp disagreements on motives:
    • One camp emphasizes Putin’s imperial/legacy ambitions, with resources as a bonus.
    • Another highlights NATO encroachment and US “island chain” strategy as legitimate security concerns for Russia and China.
    • Others call those justifications propaganda, warning against taking authoritarian narratives at face value.

Sanctions, famine, and DPRK strategy

  • One view sees North Korea’s extreme militarization as having “worked,” enabling it to trade troops for food and tech.
  • The US is blamed by some for “bullying” that pushed DPRK toward famine and intransigence.
  • A counterpoint asks why, given proximity to China and Russia—both major food producers—North Korea still suffers famine if US sanctions are the main cause; this remains unresolved in the thread.