As a South Korean, I don't like this news. Not because I'm against ending the war, but because I don't think there's any real chance of this happening. This is at best a distraction, and considering that there are a ton of domestic political issues Koreans are angry about right now (the president's poll rating was steadily falling for the past month or two), I have no idea who this is intended for.
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.)
Since you are a South Korean, perhaps you can give some insights on how factual is the claim that the recent attempted coup in South Korea was related to tensions (and the possibility of starting or preventing a war) with NK and that some politically active "Protestant South Koreans" converts do want to provoke a war with NK to defeat the "evil commies"? My source for the latter is this 2 year old article in the Russian media - Is North Korea about to attack the South while supplying troops for Russia? - https://www.rt.com/news/606267-speculations-north-korea-atta... ...
* 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.
NK doesn't have to abandon the nukes to have peace with South Korea. As it has abandoned re-unification, and now recognises South Korea as an independent state, they could move on to a hot and cold "hostile" relation like Pakistan and India, who have learnt to tolerate each other.
Yes, but I guess it was a poor example. I was thinking that technically, they aren't at war all the time. Every decade or two, they declare a war and fight each other, and then settle. In between they even talk with each other civilly.
Why should they give up their nukes? I'd like a rational, logically sound reason they should give up their nuclear research and or any war-heads already developed.
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 think in NK’s mind all of these reasons pale before the straightforward truth that nukes keep you safe and giving them up fucks you over. Libya: gave up its nukes; invaded. Ukraine: gave up its nukes; invaded. Iran: signed an agreement not to develop nukes; counterparty tore up the agreement and attacked. When has a nuclear-equipped nation been attacked lately?
India (attacked by China, Pakistan in the recent past) and Israel (I actually don't believe Israel has nuclear weapons but still mentioning it as that is what is popularly accepted today). Nuclear weapons also didn't prevent a 9/11 attack on the US.
There are two problems. The first is that Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine, not just to defeat it, but to have it. Nuking it kind of ruins the "having" part. Also, it's upwind from Russia. Nuking it would involve eating a lot of fallout.
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.
That is also a fallacy. Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them with the exception of nuclear weapons or ground forces.
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.
> Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them ...
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.
> both side recognising that their goals cannot be achieved militarily without a very high cost
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.
>> 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?
Yes, and I see the 8 year Iraq-Iran war as a sign of poor leadership on both sides. Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on for 4+ years now as a foolish endeavour under his stewardship (especially as Ukraine has no real hope of winning the war). Stepping back from a conflict, even if the terms aren't ideal, shouldn't be considered a defeat (think like your enemy - the US never retreats, it only does "conflict management" when the odds are against it). Prioritise people's well-being over territory, over everything because without them you have no civilisation or culture to preserve. (India has fought many wars since independence, but never allowed any of it to drag on for years). All that said, I will concede that the current foes of Iran are irrational fanatics, and Iran has very difficult choices to make ...
> Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on for 4+ years now as a foolish endeavour
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.
If Ukraine surrendered now, ceding occupied territories and perhaps giving up some extra in the Donbas, all that would happen is a pause that Russia desperately wants to rebuild and rearm, and return in a couple years (as it did in Chechnya and Georgia). There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees--far more than the empty promises they had before, meaning third party forces patrolling a DMZ. Until that happens, Zelensky and Ukrainians recognize that continuing to bleed Russia on the battlefield while building their capabilities and stressing Russia's economy is the only viable strategy. No conventional victory is possible for either side, it's a race between who collapses first, and in this, Ukraine is doing well: receiving aid from, and building relationships around the world.
It was never an option for Zelensky to stop the war from dragging on. Thank God he recognized that.
Iranian here, you're missing an important point: we're a nuclear threshold state. Meaning we can build weapons in a short manner if need be.
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.
It's not only Iran though. The US and allies (including my own country) accomplished nothing in Afghanistan, 2 weeks after they left quite chaotically the country was back to the state of 20 years ago before the war. So many people died for nothing. So many billions wasted.
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.
Military overrides diplomacy - if you have it. That's the story of Russia and the USA as world superpowers. Russia fell apart as a superpower the moment its military was actually tested and turned out to be useless. The USA is going the same way. The USA doesn't only have its military to rely on the way Russia did - it also has the world reserve currency and de facto control of the internet. So it may fall more slowly as long as nobody else's military challenges it on home turf.
The Taliban was actually very rapidly pushed out of Afghanistan by the US working together with the Northern Alliance. The real problem was that the US couldn't reach into Pakistan to fully end the Taliban for good. Thus the Taliban was allowed to rebuild and reconstitute its forces over the years waiting for the US to finally pull out of Afghanistan.
But if they had really been a superpower they would have had the diplomatic ties and military strength to do that. I mean Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden himself no less.
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.
Deter the US from what exactly? In what capacity has the US been aggressors towards NK that isn't in support of SK or Japan? If anything China props up NK to keep a Western-aligned unified Korea off their border.
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.
They also have something NK doesn't: vast oil reserves. If they did, they be even more of a vassal state to China than they currently are, if they even existed as a separate state at all.
Also, NK's sabre-rattling has been going on for decades and is not a response to Trump's actions.
After WWII, the southern part of Korean was under American occupation (it was previously under Japanese occupation, but Japan surrendered to the US). It was the US occupation that installed installed the precursor of current government, with elections which had a lot of boycotts/opposition/oppression. Right wing killed a few hundred thousands locals during these times.
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.
That's also how I see it. If they want long-lasting peace, it will be a nuclear-enforced one. The DPRK has witnessed way too many times in its lifetime what happens to countries that naively give up their nukes. The atom is still one of the best guarantors of national sovereignty.
Ending the war is one thing. Reunion, I don't see that happening in the next decades. Don't forget how much poverty and indoctrination is there. And who would govern the combined Korea? The two governments are worlds apart.
Ending the war might enable them to grow towards each other. But that will take decades.
Not going to happen. China and Russia won't let it happen, since the DPRK is a buffer state. Kim has his nukes and doesn't want to lose power. Basically Soth Korea doesn't have any allies in the area, aside from US which has bases in Guam and Okinawa and has been unreliable under the current administration.
How realistic is this? While North Korea has apparently recognised South Korea, the hostilities will not cease or end from the North Koreans unless South Korea stops hosting American military on its soil. But does South Korea feel confident enough to defend itself without the Americans? As a superpower, is the US willing to forego a military presence in that region? Under what conditions will China / Russia allow both side to repair their relationships? Both China and Russia really upped their ante against the South Koreans, by helping the North Koreans upgrade their military, when they made public their intention to join the AUKUS alliance ( https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3261039/fir... ).
Especially given that the world has now witnessed (In the middle east) that the USA bases are just targets which will not help in defence since the US forces will flee, and the US aircraft carriers won't help much either, especially if NK has decent air defense.
what is south K up too? this has ZERO possibility of happening, is this so this is about some domestic/international politics framing NK as unreasonable and antagonistic so that they can buy more US weapons? or is
the real issue that NK has forces embeded with the Russians who are are learning how to fight a now conventional but ultra nasty drone war and with the US becoming completly unreliable, SK is readying to make a LOT of concessions to NK?
- 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.
That doesn't seem logical at all. If it comes to an unconventional drone war, SK is the one country that could stand on its own and even obliterate the NK army. The North Koreans are currently getting exterminated as drone fodder in Ukraine, and I doubt there's very little knowledge transfer back home than what South Koreans already know.
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.
> If it comes to an unconventional drone war, SK is the one country that could stand on its own and even obliterate the NK army
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?
North Korea has an estimated 60 warheads. I'm sure SK has more than enough THAADs to deal with launched ones and the aerial capability to disable nuke sites.
That depends on if South Korea isn't able to take them out in first strike.
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.
there is no logic in War, and the most recent proofs of the statement "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" should be very very evident at the moment, so NK is gaining front line experience and has attaches in the Russian command, NK's entire popoulation are agricultural, they manualy grow food EVERYWHERE, and get around on bicycles, ie:they are all very fit.
Then add in the truely surprising technical acomplishments of NK, nukes and somehow hacking the world from there web site, as I believe they only have one, and since flash doesn't work anymore its half blank.
Also NK has an improbably vast supply of conventional missles and can maintain
a continious barrage across the entire border for months.
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.
NK's population isn't fit lol - they have some of the worst malnutrition rates in the world. On the contrary, South Korea's population is well trained militarily and well-fed, although these points are big nothingburgers in the new age of drone warfare. NK's army is getting ripped apart in Ukraine - they aren't getting any valuable experience to take back home because they aren't returning home.
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.
As a South Korean, I don't like this news. Not because I'm against ending the war, but because I don't think there's any real chance of this happening. This is at best a distraction, and considering that there are a ton of domestic political issues Koreans are angry about right now (the president's poll rating was steadily falling for the past month or two), I have no idea who this is intended for.
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.)
Since you are a South Korean, perhaps you can give some insights on how factual is the claim that the recent attempted coup in South Korea was related to tensions (and the possibility of starting or preventing a war) with NK and that some politically active "Protestant South Koreans" converts do want to provoke a war with NK to defeat the "evil commies"? My source for the latter is this 2 year old article in the Russian media - Is North Korea about to attack the South while supplying troops for Russia? - https://www.rt.com/news/606267-speculations-north-korea-atta... ...
I think a few things are mixed up.
* 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)
No way SK is going to convince NK to abandon nukes. The point of having nukes is not to intimidate SK or JP. It is to deter the US.
NK doesn't have to abandon the nukes to have peace with South Korea. As it has abandoned re-unification, and now recognises South Korea as an independent state, they could move on to a hot and cold "hostile" relation like Pakistan and India, who have learnt to tolerate each other.
> ...cold "hostile" relation like Pakistan and India, who have learnt to tolerate each other.
..by launching missiles at each other just last year?
Yes, but I guess it was a poor example. I was thinking that technically, they aren't at war all the time. Every decade or two, they declare a war and fight each other, and then settle. In between they even talk with each other civilly.
South Korea needs to kick out the Americans though. That's more likely to be the real hold up.
Why should they give up their nukes? I'd like a rational, logically sound reason they should give up their nuclear research and or any war-heads already developed.
I can think of some:
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 think in NK’s mind all of these reasons pale before the straightforward truth that nukes keep you safe and giving them up fucks you over. Libya: gave up its nukes; invaded. Ukraine: gave up its nukes; invaded. Iran: signed an agreement not to develop nukes; counterparty tore up the agreement and attacked. When has a nuclear-equipped nation been attacked lately?
India (attacked by China, Pakistan in the recent past) and Israel (I actually don't believe Israel has nuclear weapons but still mentioning it as that is what is popularly accepted today). Nuclear weapons also didn't prevent a 9/11 attack on the US.
Russia, bombed just last night.
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.
but perhaps they would if the adversary believed that they were fully willing to use them
There are two problems. The first is that Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine, not just to defeat it, but to have it. Nuking it kind of ruins the "having" part. Also, it's upwind from Russia. Nuking it would involve eating a lot of fallout.
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.
That is also a fallacy. Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them with the exception of nuclear weapons or ground forces.
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.
> Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them ...
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.
> both side recognising that their goals cannot be achieved militarily without a very high cost
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.
>> 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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
Yes, and I see the 8 year Iraq-Iran war as a sign of poor leadership on both sides. Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on for 4+ years now as a foolish endeavour under his stewardship (especially as Ukraine has no real hope of winning the war). Stepping back from a conflict, even if the terms aren't ideal, shouldn't be considered a defeat (think like your enemy - the US never retreats, it only does "conflict management" when the odds are against it). Prioritise people's well-being over territory, over everything because without them you have no civilisation or culture to preserve. (India has fought many wars since independence, but never allowed any of it to drag on for years). All that said, I will concede that the current foes of Iran are irrational fanatics, and Iran has very difficult choices to make ...
> Just as I now consider Zelensky allowing the Ukraine-Russia war to drag on for 4+ years now as a foolish endeavour
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.
If Ukraine surrendered now, ceding occupied territories and perhaps giving up some extra in the Donbas, all that would happen is a pause that Russia desperately wants to rebuild and rearm, and return in a couple years (as it did in Chechnya and Georgia). There's no benefit to Ukraine in doing so without real security guarantees--far more than the empty promises they had before, meaning third party forces patrolling a DMZ. Until that happens, Zelensky and Ukrainians recognize that continuing to bleed Russia on the battlefield while building their capabilities and stressing Russia's economy is the only viable strategy. No conventional victory is possible for either side, it's a race between who collapses first, and in this, Ukraine is doing well: receiving aid from, and building relationships around the world.
It was never an option for Zelensky to stop the war from dragging on. Thank God he recognized that.
Iranian here, you're missing an important point: we're a nuclear threshold state. Meaning we can build weapons in a short manner if need be.
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.
Iran has famously impenetrable geography on its side.
It's not only Iran though. The US and allies (including my own country) accomplished nothing in Afghanistan, 2 weeks after they left quite chaotically the country was back to the state of 20 years ago before the war. So many people died for nothing. So many billions wasted.
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.
Military overrides diplomacy - if you have it. That's the story of Russia and the USA as world superpowers. Russia fell apart as a superpower the moment its military was actually tested and turned out to be useless. The USA is going the same way. The USA doesn't only have its military to rely on the way Russia did - it also has the world reserve currency and de facto control of the internet. So it may fall more slowly as long as nobody else's military challenges it on home turf.
The Taliban was actually very rapidly pushed out of Afghanistan by the US working together with the Northern Alliance. The real problem was that the US couldn't reach into Pakistan to fully end the Taliban for good. Thus the Taliban was allowed to rebuild and reconstitute its forces over the years waiting for the US to finally pull out of Afghanistan.
But if they had really been a superpower they would have had the diplomatic ties and military strength to do that. I mean Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden himself no less.
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.
The US couldn't handle Vietnam either. Iran is a citadel by comparison.
[flagged]
And the arguments and logic behind your reply is...to state your opinion about my comment?
No evidence, no reasoning, no logical statement, no counter point...Jesus, what a level of entitlement...
Deter the US from what exactly? In what capacity has the US been aggressors towards NK that isn't in support of SK or Japan? If anything China props up NK to keep a Western-aligned unified Korea off their border.
> Deter the US from what exactly?
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.
They also have something NK doesn't: vast oil reserves. If they did, they be even more of a vassal state to China than they currently are, if they even existed as a separate state at all.
Also, NK's sabre-rattling has been going on for decades and is not a response to Trump's actions.
After WWII, the southern part of Korean was under American occupation (it was previously under Japanese occupation, but Japan surrendered to the US). It was the US occupation that installed installed the precursor of current government, with elections which had a lot of boycotts/opposition/oppression. Right wing killed a few hundred thousands locals during these times.
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.
That's also how I see it. If they want long-lasting peace, it will be a nuclear-enforced one. The DPRK has witnessed way too many times in its lifetime what happens to countries that naively give up their nukes. The atom is still one of the best guarantors of national sovereignty.
Especially with a nut job like Drumpf at the helm. It’d be great to see a united Korea though.
Ending the war is one thing. Reunion, I don't see that happening in the next decades. Don't forget how much poverty and indoctrination is there. And who would govern the combined Korea? The two governments are worlds apart.
Ending the war might enable them to grow towards each other. But that will take decades.
Not going to happen. China and Russia won't let it happen, since the DPRK is a buffer state. Kim has his nukes and doesn't want to lose power. Basically Soth Korea doesn't have any allies in the area, aside from US which has bases in Guam and Okinawa and has been unreliable under the current administration.
How realistic is this? While North Korea has apparently recognised South Korea, the hostilities will not cease or end from the North Koreans unless South Korea stops hosting American military on its soil. But does South Korea feel confident enough to defend itself without the Americans? As a superpower, is the US willing to forego a military presence in that region? Under what conditions will China / Russia allow both side to repair their relationships? Both China and Russia really upped their ante against the South Koreans, by helping the North Koreans upgrade their military, when they made public their intention to join the AUKUS alliance ( https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3261039/fir... ).
It may very well be that SK doesn't feel confident to defend themselves _with_ the USA on their soil. So the best option is to obviate the need.
Especially given that the world has now witnessed (In the middle east) that the USA bases are just targets which will not help in defence since the US forces will flee, and the US aircraft carriers won't help much either, especially if NK has decent air defense.
Not gonna happen. The Kim family need an enemy to justify their stay in power.
North Korea is currently taking an expensive and effective training in modern warfare. While South Korea is singing kumbaya
lol at foreigners instantly being against war ending
Perhaps driven by the very low likelihood of anything positive coming out of this.
what is south K up too? this has ZERO possibility of happening, is this so this is about some domestic/international politics framing NK as unreasonable and antagonistic so that they can buy more US weapons? or is the real issue that NK has forces embeded with the Russians who are are learning how to fight a now conventional but ultra nasty drone war and with the US becoming completly unreliable, SK is readying to make a LOT of concessions to NK?
What military equipment does the US make that :
- 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.
You can't blame norks of breaking the peace if there was no peace.
That doesn't seem logical at all. If it comes to an unconventional drone war, SK is the one country that could stand on its own and even obliterate the NK army. The North Koreans are currently getting exterminated as drone fodder in Ukraine, and I doubt there's very little knowledge transfer back home than what South Koreans already know.
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.
> If it comes to an unconventional drone war, SK is the one country that could stand on its own and even obliterate the NK army
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?
North Korea doesn't need to be battered - just neutered. Take away their artillery and nukes, and NK will be put on the defensive.
And exactly how do you take away their nukes?
North Korea has an estimated 60 warheads. I'm sure SK has more than enough THAADs to deal with launched ones and the aerial capability to disable nuke sites.
> I'm sure SK has more than enough THAADs to deal with launched ones and the aerial capability to disable nuke sites.
Fortunately, I'm quite certain the people who are actually in charge of policy don't share your level of confidence.
> Ukraine vs Russia is just China vs China at this point.
"In a gold rush, sell shovels."
It’s a good thing war never escalates, otherwise you’d have to take the artillery and rockets pointed at Seoul and NK’s nuclear weapons into account.
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/why-north-koreas-artillery-threat-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mas...
That depends on if South Korea isn't able to take them out in first strike.
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.
there is no logic in War, and the most recent proofs of the statement "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" should be very very evident at the moment, so NK is gaining front line experience and has attaches in the Russian command, NK's entire popoulation are agricultural, they manualy grow food EVERYWHERE, and get around on bicycles, ie:they are all very fit. Then add in the truely surprising technical acomplishments of NK, nukes and somehow hacking the world from there web site, as I believe they only have one, and since flash doesn't work anymore its half blank. Also NK has an improbably vast supply of conventional missles and can maintain a continious barrage across the entire border for months.
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.
NK's hacking achievements are mostly based on not having a risk of going to jail. Make hacking legal in the USA and watch it wildly surpass NK.
NK's population isn't fit lol - they have some of the worst malnutrition rates in the world. On the contrary, South Korea's population is well trained militarily and well-fed, although these points are big nothingburgers in the new age of drone warfare. NK's army is getting ripped apart in Ukraine - they aren't getting any valuable experience to take back home because they aren't returning home.
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.
> South Korea's population is well trained militarily and well-fed,
Some of them are too well fed.