South Korea proposes talks to officially end war with North
bbc.com
bbc.com
Ending the war might enable them to grow towards each other. But that will take decades.
1. North Korea doesn't really need a nuke. That the western allies of South Korea haven't attacked North Korea because it has nukes is overstated. The reason nobody has attacked North Korea yet is because South Koreans don't want to fight a war and endanger their economy. Geographical factors means that South Korea will face significant destruction - missile and artillery fire from NK already can target most regions of SK. And any war with North Korea guarantees the involvement of the Chinese and the Russians too.
2. If we accept the arguments of the west that the nukes are the only reason North Korea has been sanctioned, then giving up nuclear weapons should mean that all economic sanctions on North Korea would be lifted. North Korea already has a reasonably strong conventional military. If the sanctions are lifted, a strong economy + a strong conventional military (along with the military alliance with China and / or Russia) can be enough of a deterrent. Especially if North Korea also behaves as any other responsible nation.
3. Without giving up its nukes, even China and Russia won't allow an independent North Korea, with nukes, to become economically stronger or a democratic country.
4. Right now, the nukes are like an albatross around the neck. Getting rid of them voluntarily can provide immense benefits. NK already knows how to build nuclear weapons. With careful planning, they can resume a nuclear WMD program any time again in the future, if need be.
5. They do not have to give up their nuclear research or civilian nuclear programs.
I mean, it was in a war that they started, so Russia is the attackers. But the attacks are coming back, and the nukes aren't preventing that.
The second problem is that Russia has said what their doctrine is on the use of nukes. They will use them if an invasion cannot be stopped by conventional means, or if an attack has destroyed 20% of their nuclear deterrent. In their attacks, Ukraine is not touching Russia's nuclear weapons (except the odd bomber that is used for conventional attacks on Ukraine).
Now, you could say that was a miscalculation on Russia's part, that they would be better off if Ukraine didn't know what would trigger Russia's nukes, and so Ukraine had to be more cautious. And you could be right. But that ambiguity could come back and bite them later, when someone else doesn't know what their doctrine is, and decides that a first strike is the best way of dealing with the uncertainty.
US ground forces against a country 1/3 the size of China with 90 million people is guaranteed to be a US military defeat, so Iran just realized they were actually stronger than they though. NK looked at all this, and had zero issues in deploying 10,000 combat troops in active combat in Europe, in case you have not paid attention to Ukraine...
If you use even one single nuclear weapon, either as North Korea or Iran, you can be assured of being turn to ashes in the next minutes. So they dont make sense as a weapon, they are more of a status symbol.
And trump can't control Israel despite them being totally dependent on US weapons. He doesn't manage to reel Putin in. The world is in a super chaotic state, pax Americana is really over.
I don't think the classification superpower really applies anymore to the US. And that's mainly because being a superpower isn't only about military power. You can't just bend the world to your will by shooting people. There's a lot of geopolitical goodwill and diplomacy involved too, and the US has thoroughly set that on fire by turning on its strongest allies. The diplomacy is what makes a superpower. The military is just the backup.
I don't think there are any true superpowers anymore, though I do think China is on the rise to become one. Which I'm not happy with but of course that's the thing about superpowers, there's nothing we can do about it.
However I don't agree, the Taliban was never really eradicated within Afghanistan either. That's why they came back so quickly. In fact even in provinces far from the border they came back every night. Our forces would build a water well for the local citizens, and the same night the Taliban would come and blow it up and rape half the village. They didn't withdraw into Pakistan every night.
Let's not lose track of the truth in the hubris. The Iranian strategy to immediately target all the alliance partners of the US ("peace and prosperity for everyone or no one") in the region has lead to a stalemate in the war, with both side recognising that their goals cannot be achieved militarily without a very high cost. (And as you noted, the US has only used a quarter of its firepower yet). But, just like the Ukranians, Iran shouldn't forget that they are fighting a superpower, with a stronger economy and military than them, and neither Ukraine or Iran can defeat them in a conventional sense, if at all. Any nation can survive against a stronger enemy, as both India and Iran have proved with their civilisational heritage. However, the true test of good leadership is survival without extreme harm and suffering to the people while ensuring the unity of the nation.
You are aware Iran fought a 8 year war with Iraq? With over 1 million casualties, and they wanted to continue that war? Do you remember all the fuss when ONE US pilot was shot down?
What is he supposed to do? Give up and let the barbarians rape and plunder his nation? Would you want to live under Russian rule?
Zelenskyy is doing exactly the right things. His short and long range strikes inside Russia are severely damaging the Russian economy and war machine. Russia has lost Ukrainian territory in their offensive this spring/summer, and Russian frontline soldiers are being killed and injured at a far higher rate than Ukrainian soldiers who are leaning on a millions-of-drones shield. If you want your continued freedom in whatever country you live in, you better be praying Ukraine defeats Russia. Your country may be next if not.
It was never an option for Zelensky to stop the war from dragging on. Thank God he recognized that.
Demanding "security guarantees" while undermining Russian security is oxymoronic. Ukraine ceded from the USSR under the specific guarantee to the Russians that they would remain a "permanently neutral" State that would not join any military alliance that was against Russia - Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine ( https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/uk... ) states:
> The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear-free principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to purchase nuclear weapons.
The founding leaders of the Ukraine honoured that and this was even enshrined in Ukraine's constitution - to be a neutral state that would not endanger Russian security. And under these leaders, Ukraine lived in peace. It was only when certain Ukrainian leaders decided that they wish to form ties with the west, even if it meant undermining Russian security, that Russia became belligerent against Ukraine. (Which is a completely natural political response). The straw that broke the camel's back was when these leaders explicitly and publicly stated that they wanted to join NATO (a military alliance specifically against Russia) ... Talk about idiocy - why would any country knowingly allow another country to undermine its own security, if it can do something about it?
How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO, and 1/3rd of Russian land-based nuclear weapons are within 400 km of that border. Sweden is also in NATO, so the Baltic sea is an all-NATO sea except for St. Petersberg and Kaliningrad. They have over a million casualties, lost more than half their tanks and AFVs, and are struggling to avoid general mobilization, all to occupy an area in Ukraine a little smaller than the state of Colorado--an area that is now completely in ruins. What remains of the Black Sea Fleet is in hiding in Novorossiysk, beaten by a country that has no navy.
The Russian economy survives by selling deeply discounted crude oil to China and India, liquidating its gold reserves (73% gone to date), and drawing down its foreign currency reserves. In the Russia/China relationship, Russia is now the subordinate partner, dependent on China to buy its crude and sell it materials for its war effort (Khrushchev spins in his grave). Europe is rearming and cutting any remaining energy ties to Russia.
Is Russia more secure today than it was in 2014?
Talk about idiocy.
Yes, in some ways, it actually is. Russia has been fighting a NATO funded, NATO trained army for 4+ years now ... it has strengthened its domestic production, forged new economic and military alliances (that are already helping it in this war), and still hasn't had to do forced conscriptions.
All the other things that you said - Russian economy becoming weaker, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Baltic becoming NATO sea etc. etc. - while true is also telling in that it has nothing to do with how Ukraine fares now or how it will help Ukraine today in its war. Sure, it gives cause for some westerners to celebrate it. But if they are also willing to overlook the price for it - the destruction of Ukraine - it betrays that these same westerners also don't really care about Ukraine. And they are happy for Ukraine to fight the Russians, till the last Ukrainian ...
> How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO ...
Finland's leadership has definitely proven to be much, much smarter than Ukraine's, and Ukraine should learn from them as what happened with Finland a few decades back is exactly what is happening with Ukraine now.
Just before WW2, under the false assurances of then western powers, Finland decided to fight a war with USSR. Like with Ukraine today, many countries (13) backed Finland and supported its war effort with money and armaments (the major ones being Sweden, France, the United States, and Great Britain). Like with Ukraine today, they gave them everything but what Finland needed most to defeat the Russians - decent weapons and soldiers. The result of the Winter Wars was that, despite the Finnish military fighting bravely (like Ukraine today), Finland lost around 10% of its territory and 20% of its industrial capacity. Unlike Ukraine however, after 105 days of war, Finnish leaders realised the western powers were more interested in being cheerleaders than fighting the Russians themselves. And they made the hard but wise decision to end the war. They ceded the territories captured by the Russians to USSR and they agreed to be neutral. Finnish leaders acted with wisdom and humility - they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego. It bought them 80+ years to build up their strength and savvily join NATO without losing a single soldier today to the Russians.
Contrast that with Ukraine's current leadership that still buys the fake flattery of the west that "they are winning" and "Russia is losing", even while facing the stark reality that Russia already holds around 20% of their territory ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting... ), has nearly destroyed 40-50% of their industrial capacity ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... , https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-de... ), and that their western backers will not send a single soldier to fight alongside them (even as the Ukrainians have to fight North Koreans helping the Russians - https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-... ).
See, it is easy to be driven by hate (for the Russians) and be cheerleaders without doing anything substantial to help the Ukrainians - they cannot win unless American and Europeans are willing to fight alongside them. As that won't be happening, I'll ask you the same thing that I asked someone else here - how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?
Pinning this on "the false assurances of then western powers" is just rubbish (with a very modern smell), nor was there anything comparable to the international coalition currently supporting Ukraine. Finland was very much alone. Even the Swedish state hesitated and lot of support that is counted in statistics as "Swedish" came through volunteers instead.
The war ended not because "they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego", but because Russians had broken through the main defensive line and the situation had become critical for the Finns and making territorial concessions was considered the less risky option. The Finns were afraid that if the war dragged on, Germany would enter the war in support of the USSR. Germany was about to invade Denmark and Norway (April 1940), after all.
Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant. When the major fighting broke out on the eastern front in 1941, Finland fought three years to regain their lost territory in the Continuation War of 1941-1944, and the USSR ultimately settled for far less than Russia is demanding from Ukraine.
The situation is nothing comparable to Ukraine's present day, because Russia has been stuck for years, the defensive lines hold well and the risk of sudden breakthrough is minimal, while Ukraine is able to deliver increasingly severe and disruptive strikes on the Russian rear. Since the introduction of improved drones in February-March 2026, the balance of power has been visibly tipping in favor of Ukraine, and the FP-7 and FP-9 ballistic missiles that are expected to enter service in the coming months will shift that even more so.
As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out, but because the unprovoked nature of the war against Ukraine and the scale of it proved neutrality as an unviable option. There's simply no hope for any country in Europe to avoid such invasion without betraying their independence and becoming a colony of Russia, nor to stand against such onslaught alone. Even with pooled European resources and additional support from all parts of the world, it's still very difficult, as we can see from the news.
Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out, because that did little to slash Russian ambitions, but left Ukraine without much stronger foreign support in the initial stages of the war.
There's a reason why from the arctic tip of Norway down to the hot deserts of the Middle East, not a single neutral country remains on Russian border anymore. What you are suggesting is exactly the kind of recipe that led to this war: isolate your country from allies and hope Russians don't come to attack you. That is not a responsible statesmanship.
Why did the Winter Wars start? The Russians knew that the Nazis wouldn't honour the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and that Germany would have to use Finnish territories to invade Russia. So Stalin made some pre-emptive demands on the Finns to enhance security at their borders (territorial swap to create buffer zones, Soviet bases on strategic areas in Finland and in return Finland was offered security guarantees and trade). Ofcourse, due to historic mistrust between the Finns and the Russians, and as this impinged on the sovereignty of the Finns, the Finns had plenty of legitimate concerns to these demands. But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians. The west didn't / couldn't. Just like with Ukraine today.
> Finland was very much alone.
Just as Ukraine is fighting the Russians alone, today, right? That is factual. It is also factual that just as Ukraine is backed by many western powers in its fight against the Russians today, Finland was also backed by many western powers in its fight against the Soviet Union. The scale of effort may be different, but the politics are the same - encourage a proxy to fight the Russians, to weaken them, without sacrificing any of their own countrymen.
> The war ended ... because Russians had broken through the main defensive line ...
Yeah, and that the Finns were smart is my point too - they knew when to stop fighting and surrender! Ukraine is losing men and territory, which it has no hopes of replenishing or regaining militarily, however much it hopes it can inflict some kind of defeat.
> Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant.
That's debatable. Yeah, they licked their wounds after the Winter War, made a new alliance with Nazi Germany (who they assumed was a stronger partner) and when they felt confident to fight again, they did. And then after 3+ years, when they realised that they were again on the losing side, they stopped fighting and pragmatically surrendered. Read the history notes - Finland actually lost more territory after the Continuation war than it did in the Winter Wars. Apart from the loss of territory, they also had to pay huge reparations, fight the German army and rid of them from its territories, demobilise most of its army and agree to a reduced military and be neutral. And they did all that.
The pragmatism displayed by the Finnish leaders has to be appreciated. They fought, made peace, fought again, realised they (and Germany) were on the losing side, made peace again and even signed a "Friendship treaty" with USSR and gained the trust of the Russians again with sincere compliance. Subsequent Finnish governments were highly conscious of Soviet security interests, and Finland avoided policies that Moscow considered threatening. This bought them peace and security to strengthen themselves during this period.
As for the demands on Ukraine being different, note that the Russian demand on Ukraine, for a long time, was only to remain a neutral state and maintain its multi-cultural identity. Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. That's it. Instead, he escalated confrontation with Russia. If he had actually gained anything from that, I would call him a smart politician too. But what has been the result - he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine's military is being decimated, it's economic infrastructure is facing heavy destruction, it's GDP is in the negative and now it is in danger of becoming a land locked country in the future too.
> As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out ...
They were neutral as long as it served their interest. But they were also pragmatic to prepare for the day they had to choose a side. That is what the 80+ years bought them. If they had let their ego dictate their war, they would either be a Russian territory or a war-ravaged nation with a broken economy like Ukraine is now.
> Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out ...
It chose not to be neutral and became a pawn in the superpower politics between the west and Russia. It is as simple as that.
> And why were the Soviets forced to make a pact with Nazi Germany? It was because the western powers rejected good-faith Soviet efforts to make a defence pact against the Nazis in the first place.
> But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians.
> Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. /---/ he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine
As I said before, you are recommending a recipe that already led to a disaster.
The countries that have provided military and economic aid and training are members of NATO because they're closely allied with the U.S., who, under Biden provided a generous level of aid and coaxed its allies to do the same. Then Trump became president and American aid was cut off, while the rest of the allies tried to ramp up to replace what was withdrawn.
So when you say "NATO funded, NATO trained army", you're vastly overstating the NATO-ness of the UA. They received much western hardware, and cohorts of soldiers did their basic training abroad to relieve pressure on Ukrainian training capabilities; this does not equate to a force that fights like NATO forces would, either by doctrine or organizational competence. Indeed, the one time they tried a "NATO-style" offensive in the summer of 2023, it was an abject failure (in part because they lacked air superiority, which is a foundational condition for applying NATO tactics, but mostly because the UA at the time wasn't capable of corps-level organization).
> how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?
This isn't a war that can be won militarily by either side. Ukraine wins by surviving; Russia loses if Ukraine survives. If, by treaty or exhaustion, the lines freeze where they are, then Ukraine has won and Russia has lost: Ukraine remains, more western-oriented than ever, ready to join the EU (which has a much stronger mutual defense clause than NATO's).
Russia, OTOH has a barren, parched wasteland earned at a ruinous cost. All the industry in the Donbass is destroyed, and the fertile wheatfields of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson can't be irrigated because Russia destroyed the dam that created the Kakhovka Reservoir. Half a million dead Russians bought them a picturesque coastline.
And just as Ukraine has chosen not to grant a pause to Russia to rearm and return, Russia can't grant Ukraine a pause either. As soon as hostilities stop, Ukraine has a domestic drone industry that is the best in the world and can sell them, and their expertise, worldwide to finance their reconstruction (along with five or six Middle Eastern countries desperate for an effective defense against Shaheds who've already gone to the Ukrainians for help). And every time Ukrainians beat NATO forces in an exercise, more customers line up.
What's telling to me is that you're unable to discuss Ukraine's future as anything but a pawn for western interests. You don't think Ukraine has agency to chart its own course, military or politically. The chaos in NATO alone should tell you that there's no coherent western power(s) directing Ukraine. Ukraine is simply doing really well at surviving and getting whatever aid it can to do so.
Time favours Ukraine. Are there more Chinas and Irans waiting to align themselves with Russia?
No, sounds about right - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. NATO "members" are funding Ukraine and its military. NATO "members" are training Ukraine's military. NATO "members" are arming Ukraine's military. For me, that is indeed a "NATO funded, NATO trained" army. (And surely, Ukraine's political and military leadership aren't attending NATO summits and meets for the drinks they provide, are they now? - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c29d03574zdo ).
> This isn't a war that can be won militarily by either side.
I disagree. If the west send their soldiers to fight alongside Ukrainians Russia can be defeated. But they won't. Otherwise, Russia is already winning militarily. Without NATO "member" funding, Ukraine doesn't have the economic or military capability to fight the Russians. That is a reality that remains unchanged.
> Ukraine wins by surviving
What does "surviving" mean to you? The moment the west stops its funds, Ukraine's economy will collapse.
> Russia loses if Ukraine survives
Russia has no problem with Ukraine's existence, as long as it remains a neutral State that doesn't undermine Russian security.
> If, by treaty or exhaustion, the lines freeze where they are, then Ukraine has won and Russia has lost
And do you really believe that will happen? I don't. There is absolutely no way Russia will sign any treaty allowing a "freeze" or a "ceasefire", especially with EU and / or NATO peacekeepers. (It would lob nukes on Ukraine before it agrees to such a treaty). That Russia isn't advancing at a fast pace in the frontline, to capture Ukrainian territory, doesn't mean it can't. As a former Ukrainian general said, "Its [Russia's] strategy increasingly rests not on rapid advances but on exhausting Ukraine economically, militarily and psychologically. Russia still possesses deeper reserves of manpower and industrial capacity in several critical sectors, including ballistic missile production. Air defence alone cannot fully offset that advantage". While the western media obsesses on the capture of territory in Eastern Ukraine, it isn't the only military goal of Russia. Even as it fights on the frontline, it is also focusing on crippling (or even decimating) Ukraine's economy and military capabilities. Sure, Russians are suffering heavy loss in terms of manpower. But that doesn't matter in the short-term against the Ukrainians as Russia has a bigger population (it will however matter in the future against a stronger foe).
> Russia, OTOH has a barren, parched wasteland earned at a ruinous cost. All the industry in the Donbass is destroyed, and the fertile wheatfields of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson can't be irrigated ...
The grapes are suddenly sour now? Forget Russia, consider what Ukraine has lost ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... ):
> The current occupied territories have a long history as Ukraine’s industrial motor ... Important parts of the former Soviet military-industrial complex are still situated in the southeastern provinces of Ukraine, and the Zaporizhzhia region constitutes an important producer of metals and machinery. Prior to the conflict, the Kherson region played a vital role in the production of vegetable products, vegetable fats, and oils, but with the occupation of the southern regions, Ukraine has lost about 20 percent of its farmlands ... The macroimpact of this occupation is not to be neglected. As illustrated in Figure 1 (visualizing regional contributions to Ukraine’s GDP prior to the conflict), the current Russian occupation of the majorities of the Luhansk (1 percent of prewar GDP), Donetsk (5.2 percent), Kherson (1.6 percent), and Zaporizhzhia (4.2 percent) regions results in a combined loss of 12 percent of Ukrainian GDP. Moreover, these losses need to be added to the economic losses Ukraine already suffered following the 2014 annexation of Crimea (3.05 percent of GDP in 2013) and the occupation of portions of Donetsk (a drop from 10.83 percent of Ukrainian GDP in 2013 to 5.78 percent in 2015) and Luhansk (a drop from 3.62 percent in 2013 to 1.2 percent in 2015) oblasts ... Studying these regions in detail shows that Russia succeeded in occupying key infrastructure of importance to the rest of the Ukrainian economy. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, for example, accounted for almost half of Ukraine’s nuclear power production prior to the conflict, whereas 40 percent of Ukrainian steel was produced in Mariupol. Furthermore, the Russian offensive in southern Ukraine resulted in the occupation of several of Ukraine’s major maritime ports (most importantly Mariupol and Berdyansk). This further facilitated Russian efforts to impose a maritime blockade. This confronts Ukraine with severe logistical challenges, since 75 percent of its foreign trade took place through sea routes prior to the war.. economic perspective also illustrates the rationale for Russia to have fought so hard, and at such cost, for control of Bakhmut—and for it to continue its war efforts in neighboring eastern regions, like Dnipropetrovsk. This region is almost absent from discussions as a strategic objective, despite its important and longstanding role as a center of metallurgy and military industry. During the Cold War, this region was the world’s biggest producer of nuclear missiles. The economic importance of this region comes to the fore when we look at the 2021 regional GDP contributions. As demonstrated in Figure 1, Dnipropetrovsk accounts for over 10 percent of Ukrainian GDP, serving as an important contributor to the Ukrainian economy.
> What's telling to me is that you're unable to discuss Ukraine's future as anything but a pawn for western interests. You don't think Ukraine has agency to chart its own course, military or politically.
Yes, that is true because I view it as a conflict of superpower politics. While I don't fault the Ukrainians to strive to be free of foreign influence in their politics, in their political naivety they've overplayed their hands and just traded Russian influence for western ones. The only difference is that the west offers golden political cages ... (As its economy has been devastated due to the war, Ukraine is now 100% dependent on its foreign masters for the next decade at least).
> Demanding "security guarantees" while undermining Russian security is oxymoronic.
> It was only when certain Ukrainian leaders decided that they wish to form ties with the west, even if it meant undermining Russian security, that Russia became belligerent against Ukraine.
Regarding Ukraine specifically, important events that led to the changing perception of Russia were the 2003 Tuzla island conflict, in which Russia violated the territory of Ukraine, along with constant Russian meddling with the internal affairs of Ukraine, peaking with the spectacular poisoning of Ukraine's president Viktor Yushchenko. The before and after pictures speak for themselves: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2009/09/28/ukraine-pm-t...
When a neighboring country violates your territory, intimidates your voters and supports electoral fraud, and poisons your highest representatives, then no shit that you're going to orient more toward the countries that treat you better. Don't throw shit around if you don't want people to turn away from you. Not a very novel idea, is it?
> The straw that broke the camel's back was when these leaders explicitly and publicly stated that they wanted to join NATO (a military alliance specifically against Russia) ... Talk about idiocy - why would any country knowingly allow another country to undermine its own security, if it can do something about it?
Andrei Kozyrev, who was the Russian minister of foreign affairs 1990-1996 and the leading man in rebuilding Russia's post-USSR international relations, offers a different perspective. Instead of having ten little post-breakup Yugoslavias on its borders, mired in endless civil wars that are overspilling crime and refugees into Russia, European security cooperation has instead lead to Russia's neighbors becoming some of the most prosperous, stable and predictible countries on the planet. The Germans, French, British, and Americans have poured billions upon billions into transforming Eastern Europe's rickety people's militias into modern first-world militaries, led by professional civil servants and held to the highest standards of accountability. Solving disagreements through cooperation frameworks like the EU (instead of guns) has become the established norm. Russia has reaped immense benefits without having to pay anything for it. Kozyrev, bluntly, calls this "free-of-charge security for Russia". According to him, Russia has gained spectacularly in terms of security from the cooperation, and it's a total disgrace that the Russian state has spent decades trying to destroy it.
What are "both sides", exactly, and what are their respective goals?
To an outside observer, it would seem that the Iranian regime's goal is to stay in power, and that they are in a better position to do that now than before the bombing.
They have even unlocked a previously unheard of bonus, to put tariff on transports through Hormuz, which they never had the power to do before.
As an outsider it is hard to understand why this is happening and how it will end, unless all these concessions served to the Iranian regime were deemed worth it as distraction from domestic issues.
This is the reason the security counsel refuses to give up any of its uranium.. and to be fair, I've had a change of heart regarding this. I think the only true deterrence against a nuclear power state is nuclear weapons. It assures at a minimum that your country won't be nuked.
A big reason why Israel hasn't completely destroyed Iran with nukes is the fact that it's a small country and Iran can take it out. Israel having nukes is also another reason why Iran isn't hitting them as hard, it's to avoid backing them in a corner.
I think that after the current Russia / Ukraine and Iran / US war, it's becoming very apparent to many countries that your nation is only secure if you have nuclear deterrence.
..by launching missiles at each other just last year?
Just in case this is a serious question, the US has invaded Iran and Venezuela most recently. The US previously invaded Iraq. What do they have in common? They don't have nukes.
Also, NK's sabre-rattling has been going on for decades and is not a response to Trump's actions.
Let's not forget, Trump is the only sitting President to visit North Korea, so they likely have less concern of getting bombed/raided than at any point in their past.
To be clear: I'm not justifying anything here, or claiming that you should share this viewpoint. I'm answering your question: how could NK possibly see the US as an aggressor.
The most realistic outcome would be that nothing will come out of it, and it will be used by some opposing parties to paint the government as clueless, further eroding the president's popular support.
To be fair, there are some clueless "inter-Korean peace at any cost" ideologues in the current government (and among supporters): maybe the current minister of unification, Chung Dong-young, is the best example. But I don't think President Lee himself is one of them. (He's largely pragmatic in most positions, if a bit shoot-from-the-hip type.)
* First, ex-president Yoon was a drunkard idiot: he believed that he was surrounded by evil commies, who manipulated legislative election of 2024 to give the opposing Democratic (Minjoo) party a resounding victory, who would (in Yoon's mind) go on to sell the country to China. Or something like that. So he decided that the only way to "save Korea" from those evil commies is to declare martial law and purge the commies.
* South Korea always had its share of evangelical protestant far right wingers, and sadly they have now become rabid supporters of Yoon (even now!) - Korea's version of MAGA. They maintain that all the delusional shit Yoon said are true, Korea is on the verge of falling to communism, and the only way to save Korea is put the commie usurper Lee into prison and reinstate Yoon as the rightful president of SK.
* Yoon did try to provoke North Korea into attacking SK, presumably to use it as a pretext for his martial law, by deliberately flying drones into NK without precaution so that North Korea could find out. Recently, the court sentenced Yoon 30 years for that [1] (trying to start a war is a serious crime!), though the case is still ongoing. FWIW, North Korea didn't take the bait (thank god) - they have impeccable survival instincts.
* So I think many parts of the RT article is true (I only skimmed it), though the motives might be a bit mixed up. South Korean military command does not want to start a war to defeat "evil commies": that would leave the whole peninsula in smoking ruins. We just had an idiot president who tried to take over the country in the stupidest means possible and failed.
[1] https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/1263280.... (article in Korean)
I think the deeper reason might have something to do with Chinese designs in North Korea. While China has been reticent to supply Russia, China will see North Korea as a defendant (even if they are the aggressors), and readily supply them with what they need. Ukraine vs Russia is just China vs China at this point.
And in what world do you think that a war between North and South Korea remains limited to an "unconventional drone war", especially if the North Koreans are being battered?
Fortunately, I'm quite certain the people who are actually in charge of policy don't share your level of confidence.
That being said, as I mentioned elsewhere, South Korea is choosing the pragmatic path because their optimal first strike scenario requires too many variables to be aligned properly.
The calculations for SK's strategic future will of course involve many other things, and happen from there own rather unique perspective where reunification will be something that both sides cant help but yearn for, and China, and Russia would be indifferent too, or supportive of. And SK is stuck playing the subserviant host to the US military, which must be great for morale, hey.
As I said elsewhere, South Korea's victory requires way too many positives to happen during the first strike itself, else Seoul will face prolonged bombardment or even nukes. South Korea has the capability to do so too. But being a more pragmatic actor, South Korea has decided to go the diplomatic route and urge for peace instead.
> And SK is stuck playing the subserviant host to the US military, which must be great for morale, hey.
Actually it IS great for morale for both South Korea and Japan to have the US military backing them. Part of the reason for South Korea pursuing diplomacy and for 3 major US allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey) forming their own alliance is because they've all lost faith in US leadership if push comes to shove. South Korea knows that after the first barrage by NK, if all of the nukes aren't taken out then and there, then THAAD is useless and SK are sitting ducks.
Some of them are too well fed.
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/why-north-koreas-artillery-threat-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mas...
South Korea could take out the first barrage of NK's missiles and nukes with its THAAD system. After that it will be vulnerable. So SK's success in any future conflict is contingent on a successful counter to them, as well as a successful counter-attack that's able to take out all NK missile silos and artillery systems (a combination of drones and air force could do this). But of course, too many variables and South Korea would do better to not take its chances in finding out, and preemptively urging for peace.
"In a gold rush, sell shovels."
- SK actually wants
- The US is willing to sell to them
- they can't procure from other places or make themselves?
My understanding is the only things that fall into these categories are high-end missile interceptors and jet engines, with large efforts being underway to rectify these issues.