Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack(thecyberwire.com) |
Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack(thecyberwire.com) |
I am not Russian, and have nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine or whatever (I am Brazillian, of Iberian descent).
Still, Crimea was not a "invasion" or "conquest".
Long story short:
Russia invaded Crimea in 1700s, taking it from Tartars.
When a Ukranian became leader of URSS, he "gave" Crimea to Ukraine, it was only nominal, nothing changed in Crimea itself, the place still was basically a navy base for Russia.
When URSS broke up, because of previous decision, it was decided Crimea was Ukranian, except most of population there is Russian (including a huge amount of Russian military), and their only warmwater seaport deep enough for the good warships Russia had, was still there, to make this work, Russia "rented" the place from Ukraine.
When Ukraine most recent revolution happened, do you think all the Russian military personel families that live there since 1700s would want to leave?
Now... if you want to claim what is happening in Donbass is a invasion, then that is more plausible.
There's a reason no country gives much of a second thought to international law. In the end it's purely about the optics and the optics are written by each superpower for whoever cares to listen to them. Case in point:
- Wage an asymmetric proxy war, invade a sovereign country, and annex one of their territories - Not OK.
- Find even a demonstrably false reason to wage declared war, invade a sovereign country, kill and torture combatants and civilians alike during the war and subsequent occupation - OK.
International law is a guideline and every country will interpret their own acts as righteous heroism and other countries' acts as barbaric violations of the law.
https://pics.me.me/their-barbarous-wastes-our-blessed-homela...
It's the sort of organizing the US used to be good at, and is presently failing at miserably (for obvious reasons). Germany, France and Britain are also falling down on the job as well (because they're economically scared), so there's plenty of blame to go around.
They can veto anything.
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_...
It’s the kind of stuff that wouldn’t pass the smell test with security engineers here.
But what are you going to do about it? Start shooting in China's general direction?
People are constantly claiming to be attacked by nation states to hide their incompetence (nobody ever gets blamed that they failed to deter "China")
Nations need to have more preparation, funding, and simulations, for potential large future cyberattacks before one causes significant destruction.
We need a unified world approach.
I always hear cyber-attack's from Russia, North Korea or China, but never from Israel or the US, are they just so bad in covering up or is maybe something else behind it?
Most everything else seems more about finding a scapegoat to blame.
What precisely are you saying?
Now, think which country wants to attack Australia and teach it lesson for various noises it has been making against it.
Now look at the past history of the said country.
There is your evidence.
The Chinese aircraft carrier strike force threatened Taiwan : https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11394307/china-warships-taiwan... .
The General Secretary of Central Committee of the Communist Party of China is up to something.
As a superpower capable of standing off with China, the US should be stepping in and offering very public political and economic support to Australia. It's the only approach that will work when dealing with China's new era of extreme belligerence. If the US were currently being led by a wiser politician, they would be rallying allies old and new (such as India) at China's expense.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/21/austr...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/china/australian-drug-smuggli...
That's an interesting claim to test, actually. Could you provide links to one or more discussions on this site where the overwhelming consensus was that Huawei 5G would not be a national security threat to the US?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21757097
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954673
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23191055
Likely the scale of the attack happening is something that may have surprised the victim nation that they are calling out the attacks in the hope that it would at least calm down the intruder or even have the government intervene.
On a side note, reading the article in a mobile device was a big PITA. Lots of ads and unnecessary information included. And they had the temerity to tell me that I am using n/3 free articles. I think I would pass from subscribing if on the limited free version and the reading experience was just worst.
Its only because Australia kowtows with fluidity every time the US snaps its fingers that its in this mess right now. Australians need to stop being the lapdogs to the American empire, and start thinking about their own future. Australias future isn't white American: it is multi-cultural and mostly Asian.
The usual understanding is that such loyalty is a two-way street. Not that the current US government cares about such pesky details but that's where it stands.
Australia is a liberal democracy, and turning away from that to the arms of communist, authoritarian China is simply a non-starter. Like America, Australia will be multi-ethnic, but it’s still a liberal democracy. America is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy too, and supports Australia against Chinese communism. The fact that the US will be less white in the future has no bearing on anything here. Do you think it’s only whites people in America who want to stand up against China? If it is, what does that say about the future of the world if nobody but white people care about liberal values? You’re kind of confirming the fears of white supremacists here.
The US and Australia are allied. They're in Five Eyes together, for example.
Edit: it’s an alternate spelling. I had not heard that before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URSS
In the case of Britain we've had a disastrous handling of the pandemic which is still on going (both the illness and the handling of it) on top of Brexit and incredibly poor leadership.
It'll be a decade before we return to something like normality and even then it will be in a new reality.
Leaving the EU lost us our ability to stand up to the US or China in any meaningful way - for them we are just another Tuesday.
That's NOT evidence...could be true or not.
PS: But i think your 'evidence' is exactly what people of color have a problem with, especially in the US.
That you CAN say something, but its not true an never was.
(Wouldn't it be nice if HN had a "Take it Private.." mode, hmm..)
Note that I did not say HN disagreed with the decision necessarily. I was just saying it was shitting on Trump for making it.
Okay then. The first two links have 8 occurrences of the string "Trump":
1. "Meaning while Trump is trying to make other country buy more Boeing planes?" I don't think this person is complaining that Trump is trying to support American businesses, but in any case they aren't saying that he shouldn't have opposed Huawei.
2. "... Trump only says pleasant words [about trade] which is completely legal in both countries?" This seems to be a defence of Trump.
3. "Trump considered [purchasing Greenland]." A criticism of a different Trump policy (in the context of an article about the Faroese prime minister).
4. "I think that Trump's move with banning Huawei is bad for the US in the mid and long run." An actual criticism of Trump's Huawei decision, based on fear of retaliation from China. Two child comments support Trump, while one supports the criticism.
5. "Trump's trade war with China, as many contract manufacturer move out of China, will prove none of that supply chain myth is true within a year or two." A comment supporting Trump's approach.
6. "These things, and I'm not passing judgment on them, are simply pushing the Chinese to be self-sufficient on everything. Stroke of the Trump pen and X chip for your hardware is denied." A comment trying to look at the long term consequences without being critical of Trump.
7. "I'm sure that the EU/australia/the west is breathing a sigh of relief that Trump did this instead of forcing them to make up some more draconian law..." A comment supportive of Trump.
8. "FYI: Trump says U.S. "wants to be the leader' in 5G development" A comment potentially trying to explain Trump's actions, but not critical of them.
If that is an accurate analysis of a random sample of comments, I would say that most posters agree with Trump about Huawei. I don't know where you get your "easily 90%" statistic from.
Hackers are as susceptible to partisan politics as anyone else. At least we now have the benefit of the CrowdStrike President's declassified testimony.
I remember at the time thinking “what are they doing, using an IRC channel?”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-server-tied-to-russi...
I get hundreds of MB of traffic from Russian, Chinese, etc IP addresses every week scanning for drupal/wordpress/etc vulnerabilities. It hardly meant anything.
Worse still is that we know that this happens and my colleagues still just go along with whatever companies like CrowdStrike or Trail of Bits or whoever say. Like we make business decisions based on their word alone. They're popular, so they must be correct. Group think is real and there's large numbers of us who aren't as capable as we claim to be. 95% of the work for most is checking the boxes on compliance questionnaires and getting shut down/stalled by the engineering & ops teams who actually make their companies money.
To believe everything a state says well THAT is arrogant..one hint?
-Chemical weapons in Iraq (many times repeated by 'free' media, with a war at the end and no chem found)
And NO i like the HN community exactly because thinking out of the box is normal, just believe what a state like Australia says and the standard 'enemy' is china...that's a dangerous thing. I'm NOT saying it's not true, i just want some proof, otherwise it smells once again foul.
The US has the better navy but china has a crap tonne of anti-ship missiles (because of the US having the better navy) and that's before the risk of it going nuclear.
I wonder how far the US would actually go to protect Taiwan, would they risk someone tossing a nuke or the situation getting spectacularly out of hand.
We just have to replace them again.
Even a large number of people in Taiwan today do not want to be associated with the RoC. There is a growing sentiment to express a distinctly Taiwanese identity.
What does it do but exclude them from any dialog to make force and violence more likely alternatives?
They were also the "China" entity that was the founding member of the UN. It was only a few years after the UN's founding that the Communist Party won the civil war and formed a new country (the People's Republic of China), yet it took several decades for the UN to officially recognize them as the representative of "China".
The argument to make isn't that they should have a mandate to rule mainland China, nor even that they should be mainland China's representative of the UN. But rather that they should be their own representative at the UN, and have claim to the permanent seat of the Security Council that mainland China currently holds, since it was originally theirs to begin with.
It's a nuclear strategy that'd cause all hell to break loose if that were ever attempted, but is a plausible enough argument that it could likely be forced through if enough parties truly wanted to strip China of their veto power.
In this case, the Republic of China did have a seat, and continues to exist although the landmass they control has shrunk primarily to just the island of Taiwan. They didn't found a new country and call it Taiwan, they're just called that by others for political convenience because calling them by the Republic of China (their original and still official) name unnecessarily provokes the PRC.
The Communist Party officially established a brand new country (the People's Republic of China) once they won the civil war and had control over the mainland. Due to controlling the majority of the landmass originally controlled by the ROC, they were eventually after several decades recognized by the UN as the government body allowed to represent China at the UN (and therefore the permanent seat on the security council held by that position).
But the entity that originally held that seat has never ceased to exist, even if the land they control has shrunk drastically since the UN's original formation. Which is why you could plausibly argue that they have claim to the permanent seat on the security council, rather than the representative of the PRC.
But like I said, that's likely to cause all hell to break loose. As the most direct way for the PRC to respond to that maneuver would be to militaristically assert their claimed sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, and fully dismantle the remnants of the POC that govern it so that it does cease to exist and the above premise no longer holds true. Which would escalate horrifically as other UN member states step in to prevent that. Hence why it's a nuclear option, and not one that is likely to ever happen unless China sufficiently provokes the international community to the point where they see that as an inevitability, and just want to maneuver into a position where they can respond to it from a seemingly unified position without the inconveniences that would present if the PRC still had veto power on the Security Council.
