3 ms·

There's also a rebuttal article on the same blog: https://www.38north.org/2024/01/a-fundamental-shift-or-more-of-the-same-a-rebuttal/ https://www.38north.org/20

There's also a rebuttal article on the same blog: https://www.38north.org/2024/01/a-fundamental-shift-or-more-of-the-same-a-rebuttal/ https://www.38north.org/2024/01/a-fundamental-shift-or-more-...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Thank you. In summary: “There is nothing new in Pyongyang, but—and here, I agree with the authors—recently, there has been an increase in this kind of violent language. This recent propaganda increase has nothing to do with a policy shift after Hanoi, but the timing is related to the coming US presidential elections. In the run-up to Hanoi, the North Koreans had hoped that President Trump—whom they considered the weakest link—would give in to their requests. Although they did their best to minimize the State Department’s influence on Trump (see Stephen Biegun’s interview with Arms Control in 2021, at that time, Trump did not agree to their demands. I do not think Pyongyang believes it can influence the outcome of the US presidential elections. But it surely believes that a Republican victory (preferably with Trump, but even with some of the other Republican contenders) would give North Korea a second chance to further its objectives. I thus believe that Pyongyang (following a well-established negotiating pattern employed, e.g. in the run-up to the Olympic Winter Games of 2018) will continue to increase tensions until after the US elections, but that at the height of tensions, it will finally be willing to re-engage with a Republican Administration in the hope to get sanctions relief, some sort of acceptance of their nuclear program, and—as main objective—a reduction or even complete withdrawal of US troops from the Korean Peninsula.”
- moose_man 3y ago
  I feel like this assumes the old world order is still in place when it clearly isn't. Even in the last two years it's undergone a radical shift, let alone from the time since the Trump / Kim meeting. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, wars and conflicts are cascading across the globe at an ever increasing clip. Hamas' attack on Israel, the attacks in the Red Sea, Iran hitting Iraq, Pakistan and Syria with ballistic missiles, Venezuela threatening to annex territory all happened over the last few months. Destabilization of the order is evident everywhere.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    Yea, but nobody wants to piss off the US if they can avoid it. Sanctions remain effective against north korea, and it doesnt look like they will find any relief under such a chaotic regime. You might see the cracks in the foundation and say its finished, but there is a lot of bureaucratic momentum that can keep the empire going. This would be a smart strategy, playing into the general sense of global conflict and chaos, rolling the dice for a more favorable geopolitical standing.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > nobody wants to piss off the US if they can avoid it I don’t think this is a valid high-confidence assumption anymore. From Venezuela to Iran, it’s clear American military resolve is being tested.
      - rokkitmensch 3y ago
        And efficacy outright called into doubt in the Red Sea.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > efficacy outright called into doubt in the Red Sea Not really. It's a resolve issue. America is technically capable of deteroriorating the Houthis' ability to fire into the Red Sea. (Last week's strikes took out something like a quarter of their current capability.) The problem is that would invite a broader conflagration with Iran, which the American electorate is not ready to stomach.
        baybal2 3y ago
        [dead]
geodel 3y ago
So basically UnPreparing for war.
truculent 3y ago
How might we validate the two competing hypotheses? That is, fundamental policy shift vs business-as-usual reacting to changing global events (primarily US election). Both seek to explain the same phenomenon (increase in aggressive rhetoric and internal messaging), and as a lay person it is difficult to see whether the evidence leans one way or another. The chain of implications in OP (that rejection of US normalisation as a goal would lead to increased aggression towards the South) does seem a bit unclear to me, but that isn’t reason to dismiss the argument entirely. In either case (or another one entirely…), it is clear that there is a huge degree of uncertainty here. Decisions should be made with that in mind, rather than wagering on one best-guess hypothesis.
- throwup238 3y ago
  We can't; at least not before shit goes down. Even people in the National Security Council with access to all the latest intelligence can't answer that question with any certainty. Hell they might just be as clueless as we are, depending on how much effort they've put into obtaining intelligence on North Korea. There's no guarantee that the people working on it are there because of merit or of nepotism. As lay people, we don't stand a chance and any armchair bloviating is purely for our own entertainment to help cope with our powerlessness. If the past few years have taught me anything, it's that anything can happen. Just believe whatever narrative helps you sleep at night and you'll be alright.
  - me_me_me 3y ago
    you are largely talking about pundits on tv stating russia will not attack. While basically everyone else remotely connected to the topic were convinced russia is prepig for a war. You dont build fobs supply dumps and move massive amounts of equipment to 'scare' neighbour. That being said, russia's 3day operation has probably a lot of dictators and would be conquerors thinking. A modern war is not that easy and can quickly lead to a massive resource drain. Russia attack a weaker neighbour from 3 directions. It had technological, logistical, economical, manpower and first strike advantage. And yet here we are. That is definitely something even delusional dictator will consider.
  - 3y ago

There's also a rebuttal article on the same blog: https://www.38north.org/2024/01/a-fundamental-shift-or-more-of-the-same-a-rebuttal/ https://www.38north.org/2024/01/a-fundamental-shift-or-more-...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Thank you. In summary: “There is nothing new in Pyongyang, but—and here, I agree with the authors—recently, there has been an increase in this kind of violent language. This recent propaganda increase has nothing to do with a policy shift after Hanoi, but the timing is related to the coming US presidential elections. In the run-up to Hanoi, the North Koreans had hoped that President Trump—whom they considered the weakest link—would give in to their requests. Although they did their best to minimize the State Department’s influence on Trump (see Stephen Biegun’s interview with Arms Control in 2021, at that time, Trump did not agree to their demands. I do not think Pyongyang believes it can influence the outcome of the US presidential elections. But it surely believes that a Republican victory (preferably with Trump, but even with some of the other Republican contenders) would give North Korea a second chance to further its objectives. I thus believe that Pyongyang (following a well-established negotiating pattern employed, e.g. in the run-up to the Olympic Winter Games of 2018) will continue to increase tensions until after the US elections, but that at the height of tensions, it will finally be willing to re-engage with a Republican Administration in the hope to get sanctions relief, some sort of acceptance of their nuclear program, and—as main objective—a reduction or even complete withdrawal of US troops from the Korean Peninsula.”

moose_man 3y ago
I feel like this assumes the old world order is still in place when it clearly isn't. Even in the last two years it's undergone a radical shift, let alone from the time since the Trump / Kim meeting. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, wars and conflicts are cascading across the globe at an ever increasing clip. Hamas' attack on Israel, the attacks in the Red Sea, Iran hitting Iraq, Pakistan and Syria with ballistic missiles, Venezuela threatening to annex territory all happened over the last few months. Destabilization of the order is evident everywhere.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  Yea, but nobody wants to piss off the US if they can avoid it. Sanctions remain effective against north korea, and it doesnt look like they will find any relief under such a chaotic regime. You might see the cracks in the foundation and say its finished, but there is a lot of bureaucratic momentum that can keep the empire going. This would be a smart strategy, playing into the general sense of global conflict and chaos, rolling the dice for a more favorable geopolitical standing.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > nobody wants to piss off the US if they can avoid it I don’t think this is a valid high-confidence assumption anymore. From Venezuela to Iran, it’s clear American military resolve is being tested.
    - rokkitmensch 3y ago
      And efficacy outright called into doubt in the Red Sea.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > efficacy outright called into doubt in the Red Sea Not really. It's a resolve issue. America is technically capable of deteroriorating the Houthis' ability to fire into the Red Sea. (Last week's strikes took out something like a quarter of their current capability.) The problem is that would invite a broader conflagration with Iran, which the American electorate is not ready to stomach.
        baybal2 3y ago
        [dead]

geodel 3y ago

So basically UnPreparing for war.

truculent 3y ago

How might we validate the two competing hypotheses? That is, fundamental policy shift vs business-as-usual reacting to changing global events (primarily US election). Both seek to explain the same phenomenon (increase in aggressive rhetoric and internal messaging), and as a lay person it is difficult to see whether the evidence leans one way or another. The chain of implications in OP (that rejection of US normalisation as a goal would lead to increased aggression towards the South) does seem a bit unclear to me, but that isn’t reason to dismiss the argument entirely. In either case (or another one entirely…), it is clear that there is a huge degree of uncertainty here. Decisions should be made with that in mind, rather than wagering on one best-guess hypothesis.

throwup238 3y ago
We can't; at least not before shit goes down. Even people in the National Security Council with access to all the latest intelligence can't answer that question with any certainty. Hell they might just be as clueless as we are, depending on how much effort they've put into obtaining intelligence on North Korea. There's no guarantee that the people working on it are there because of merit or of nepotism. As lay people, we don't stand a chance and any armchair bloviating is purely for our own entertainment to help cope with our powerlessness. If the past few years have taught me anything, it's that anything can happen. Just believe whatever narrative helps you sleep at night and you'll be alright.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  you are largely talking about pundits on tv stating russia will not attack. While basically everyone else remotely connected to the topic were convinced russia is prepig for a war. You dont build fobs supply dumps and move massive amounts of equipment to 'scare' neighbour. That being said, russia's 3day operation has probably a lot of dictators and would be conquerors thinking. A modern war is not that easy and can quickly lead to a massive resource drain. Russia attack a weaker neighbour from 3 directions. It had technological, logistical, economical, manpower and first strike advantage. And yet here we are. That is definitely something even delusional dictator will consider.
- 3y ago