On the North Korea and Russia ” alliance”; reasons, significance, and implications
“We are
revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, and we always start out from a correct
scientific analysis of the economic and political situation and of the
tendencies of its development. We repudiate all subjectivism and its
arbitrariness in appraising the objective situation… If we, as Marxists,
repudiate subjectivism, it is not because we regard ourselves as slaves of
objective development. No, we regard ourselves as the active revolutionary
instrument of history for accelerating the victory of the proletariat.” (1)
The fantasies and wishful
thinking of the Western bourgeois liberal analyzers and disguised “condemning”
of Socialist North Korea by some so-called Communists who are under heavy
influence of Kautskyite-Trotskyism- if they are not so in the first place- is
dominating the commentaries on the alliance.
The question of whether the said “alliance” is an economic-political and military alliance for long term, or an alliance that is forced upon them due to their common existential question totally depends on further developments in international relations not in the short term but in the very long term. The alliance between Russia and North Korea in specific and with China in general will not only continue but strengthen relative to the continuation of US-West supremacist and bellicose imperialist policies of using force in different forms and magnitude in order to subjugate the countries of the world. The world order is in the phase of transforming from the unipolar world order to multipolar world order which will take a long time to come. The transformation in military sense may be considered in its final phase as far as the balance of world powers is concerned. Existential alliance between nuclear powers China, Russia and North Korea made this “alliance camp” undefeatable and unchallengeable. That concrete reality is having an impact on other countries under the threat of US-West to align themselves with this camp. Iran, for that matter, is another country the existential question of which to a large degree indirectly connected to the existential question of this camp. This “alliance camp “ will gradually strengthened through the participation of other neighboring countries who could not challenge the subjugation attempts of US-West by use of various means.
In economic sense this
transformation have a long way to go due to the dominance of US-West on the
international financial institutions, international trading and means of
currency transactions, and the dominance of US dollar and EU currencies in
trading. In this economic camp the “alliance “ - BRICS- inevitably will grow slowly with ups and downs,
and will follow that phase for a long period of time. The policy and procuders in the works for the use of local currencies in trading rather than
US Dollar or EU currency, countering measures for the use of SWIFT both of
which enslaved so many countries and hindered their developments will
inevitably be embraced by so many countries of the world - in most cases
depending on the regions the countries are in; the closer to US-West they are
located the harder they will be involved and benefit from it.
In this sense, for the
transformation from the unipolar world order to multipolar one, the alliance
between Russia and Korea, has wider dialectically connected world wide
implications than being merely an “alliance”
for the Ukraine war.
Lets look at the history and the
developments in order to have a better idea on the issue of alliance between
Russia and North Korea.
A Brief look at the North
Korea; one of the few socialist countries of the world
The history of North Korea (as
for Cuba) has been the history of economic and political sanctions, military
actions going back to 1950.
It is reported that around 4 million Koreans died during the U.S.
invasion between 1950-1953. Every town in North Korea was reduced to ashes, as
a result of saturation bombing, napalm, and germ warfare. Korean prisoners were
used as human guinea pigs to test new forms of germ weaponry. All of which were
in complete violation of the Geneva conventions. However there has been no
acknowledgement, compensation and condemnation for the horrors suffered, the
murders and tortures inflicted upon the North Korean people by American soldiers. There were no war crimes
tribunals to hold to account the US soldiers who perpetrated massacres against
the North Korean people between 1950-1953.
The Security Council of the
United Nations (UNSC) has adopted five resolutions during the Korean War in the
1950s.
25 June 1950 in UN SC meeting decision was held that North
Korea's invasion of South Korea in the Korean War constituted a "breach of
peace" and demanded immediate cessation of hostilities. The demand was to
end North Korea's invasion of South Korea. Ratified by nine votes with
Yugoslavia abstaining and the Soviet Union absent.
27 June 1950 UNSC Recommended UN
member states to provide assistance to South Korea in the Korean War to repel
the attack by North Korea and restore peace and security.
North Korea did not comply with
Security Council Resolution 82. The council required North Korea to withdraw
the armed forces at 38th parallel. Ratified by seven votes with Yugoslavia
voting against, Egypt and India not voting, and the Soviet Union absent.
7 July 1950 UNSC Established a
unified command led by the United States to coordinate the war effort of allies
of South Korea in the Korean War. North Korea's invasion of the Republic of
Korea was the threat to international security and peace. Ratified by seven votes
with Egypt, India, and Yugoslavia abstaining and the Soviet Union absent.
31 July 1950 UNSC Coordinated
relief for victims of the Korean War. Held that North Korea's invasion of South
Korea in the war constituted an "unlawful attack". Adopted by nine
votes with Yugoslavia abstaining and the Soviet Union absent.
31 January 1951 UNSC Unanimously
removed the Korean War from the agenda of the Security Council.
After the Korean War, North Korea
was subjected to various UN resolutions and economic measures.
During 1960s, The Soviet Union
supported North Korea, so Western powers might have had limited effectiveness
in imposing strict sanctions due to the reliance on Soviet support for North
Korean economy. 1980s, a period was the US imposed sanctions against North
Korea over “human rights” concerns and nuclear development.
11 May 1993 UNSC Urged North
Korea to reconsider its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) and abide by its international obligations. Adopted by 13 votes with
China and Pakistan abstaining.
2002 and on, the US decision to
cut off North Korea's trade with Banco Del Monte has been a major step in
isolating North Korea economically. Since then, there have been multiple
rounds of UN Security Council resolutions imposing more severe sanctions,
including restrictions on exports and financial transactions. The recent
periods have seen more comprehensive sanctions, targeting North Korea's ability
to export goods (e.g., coal exports restricted) and limiting its access to
international financial systems like SWIFT.
Sanctions have caused economic
hardships in North Korea’s life, North Korea continued focusing on developing
its military industry for its existence. In that sense, the sanctions were not effective in deterring North Korea's nuclear
program or altering its behavior. Although Russia and China had negative stand
on nuclear issue and participated in economic sanctions, support from China and
Russia who still had the illusions about
the US-West continued to a degree supporting
North Korea against the impact of unilateral sanctions by the US-West.
The economic sanction on North
Korea forced her to be a nuclear power with a highly developed military
industry and military power.
The collapse of delusions about West and the period of transformation
to multipolar world order
Due to the “law of unequal
economic development” it was inevitable that new economic powers were to
arise. This proven theoretical fact
manifested itself with the establishment of BRICS as an economic organisation. Imperialist
US and indirectly the West had gone through the period of deindustrialization
with the internationalization of finance capital, international financial
institutions, and the dominancy of Dollar and Euro in world trade. Especially
US had the overall control in world trade and financial transactions through
SWIFT and the dollar being the “exchange currency” in the trade. While the
financial organizations were reinvesting their profit to the finance industry
rather than the industries, US was constantly printing money without any fear
of inflation. US has become a “consumer “ for all the necessary public goods
and exporter of military industry and technology. Other countries of the world
were increasingly becoming “producers” in every field of economy. US used its
control over world trade currency and financial institutions for transactions,
never hesitated weaponizing this dominance. US was making money from the money
transactions with no contribution to industries, no serious investments in
infrastructures. US was exploiting every producer countries in addition to
those countries who were rich in natural resources. Exploitation of the natural
resources of other countries, US (and the ex-colonizers of the West) never felt the need to develop its own domestic mining or
refining industry. They were making profits through weaponizing the financial
institutions and the dominance of dollar to subjugate every country to their
demands. Of course, that required instability in those countries in specific
and world in general through which they can sell their weapons with huge
profits without any serious resistance. That forced the other developed countries,
especially the ex-colonial countries with a history of anti-imperialist
struggles to take measures to protect their interests.
That was not, and still is not an
easy and quick process. The delusions about the US-West, the demagogy of the
“democracy” and the duplicity of “rule
based world order” remained to be dominant till its collapse.
Russia’s waking up from the
delusion
It has taken Russia to wake up
from the “West” delusion some time and with a high cost both in the sense of
loss of military-man power and economical hardships. Russia was aware of the
fact that Ukraine war was forced upon them , yet they were under the illusion
that the Western neo-con elites was their “partners” and they could find a
peaceful and mutually beneficial agreement with them. The attitude of the
Russian elite to the Russian populated regions in Ukraine was that of a compromise
during the first phase of the conflict. That is why, they called on the DPR and
LPR militias not to hold a referendum on May 11, 2014, urging them not to
secede, but “to establish a direct dialogue between the current Kiev
authorities and representatives of the southeast of Ukraine.
That's why, they imposed the
“Minsk” on Donbass and obliged them to unconditionally fulfill these
agreements, forbidding the servicemen of the people’s militia of Donbass to
return fire, under conditions when the Ukro-Nazi side did not stop shelling
civilians in Donbass. Despite the fact that the West was extending NATO towards
the East step by step disregarding the agreement made in 1991, despite the fact
that the West was not complying with the Minsk agreements, Russian elite, with
their delusion, had the expectation that a military move towards Kyiv could
change their mind. Forcing Kyiv to Istanbul agreement seemed they were successful in their tactic.
However, with the same illusion, they have disregarded the fact that Kyiv was a
proxy regime. Only the confession of ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel and its’
confirmation by France’s former president, Francois Hollande has woken them up.
“The 2014 Minsk
Agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to
become stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine in 2014-2015 and Ukraine today
are not the same.”… “it was clear for everyone” that the conflict was suspended
and the problem was not resolved, “but it was exactly what gave Ukraine the
priceless time.” A. Merkel
"Yes,
Angela Merkel is right on this point.. "Since 2014, Ukraine has
strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely
different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the
merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this
opportunity." Francois Hollande
This was the phase for the
Russians sobering up from their delusions which
was reinforced with the full support of Ukraine military by the US-West
and bellicose statements of European and US leaders.
Collapse of delusions made Russia
realized that this was an existential question. That realisation has brought
about the end of Russian appeasement policy.
China’s waking up from the delusions
The delusions of China lasted
longer than that of Russia due to its pacifist, business like and
“peaceful” policies in general. However,
they were aware of the fact that the fragmentation and collapse of Russia will
definitely turn out to be an existential question for them too. It probably was
the tariff policy of US imposed on China,
increasing US rhetoric in reference to Taiwan issue, and “warriors”,
“war-cries” of US forced them to rethink about their delusions. The war against
Iran and the deceptive way in which it was carried out may probably confirmed
the delusion they had and forcing them to reconsider their ‘appeasement”
policies.
Iran’s waking up from the
delusions
Iran, due to their historical
mistrust to Russia, despite all the sanctions, rhetoric and Iran-phobia of the
West, their delusions, especially with the new President, reigned to be
somewhat dominant. It has taken Iran to
wake up from its delusions till the US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, yet
not entirely. The deception of “negotiations” and the Israeli attack on Iran
while the negotiations were going on could not bring about a collapse of their
delusions. It was their delusions that made them reject the Russian offer for
establishing an air defense system for Iran.
Whether Iran still has some
delusions remaining or not, the question of Iran as an underbelly of Russia is
an existential question for Russia, China and thus North Korea. That is why it
is highly unlikely that they will let Iran fragmented and collapse.
Alliance and North Korea’s approach; not based on 1st but 2nd WW,
There is no doubt that North
Korea had no illusions about the US-West, their deceptive tactics and
aggressive, bellicose nature. Due to its policy of “diplomacy and peace
first”, North Korea was involved in
talks with US President Clinton and Carter during 1990s and 2017. As expected
the US proved to be un-trustable, even if they sign an agreement.
As far as the statements and the
news I read from Korean media is concerned, the approach of North Korea to the
developments started with the Russian incursion to Ukraine was similar to that
of Stalin’s approach to the second World War. The war in Ukraine carried
within an existential question for North
Korea in case Russia loses the war. As a socialist country and without a doubt
knowing Marxism Leninism better than any one else in the world, North Korea has
made its analysis then determined its stand.
“For a Marxist,” says
Lenin,” clarifying the nature of the war is a necessary preliminary for deciding
the question of his attitude to it. But for such clarification it
is essential, first and foremost, to establish the objective
conditions and concrete circumstances of the war in question. It is
necessary to consider the war in the historical environment in which it is
taking place, only then can one determine one’s attitude to it.
Otherwise, the resulting interpretation will be not materialist but
eclectic.” Depending on the historical circumstances, the relationship of
classes, etc., the attitude to war must be different at different times. (2)
War in Nazi-Ukraine backed by the
warmongering aggressive imperialist US-NATO and invasion attempt by Russian
imperialism is not a typical war defined and assessed by readymade
prescriptions for all. As Lenin says it against the
"prescription" assessments; “Wars are a supremely varied,
diverse, complex thing. One cannot approach them with a general pattern",
there must be a concrete analysis of every war. (3)
Especially those who learned
Marxism Leninism by reading the “summaries” and “critiques” of Westerners, or
at best eclectically memorized sections of what they read fitting their
subjectivity disregarded Stalin’s assessments.
Stalin, who, in 1951,
defined US-NATO as an aggressive pact, an instrument of war, a new world war
was saying that “ The fact that aggressor nations, interested in a new war,
being nations that prepare for war over a long time and
accumulate forces for it, usually are, and are bound to be, better
prepared for war than peace-loving nations which have no
interest in a new war. That is natural and understandable. This is if
you like, a law of history, which would be dangerous to ignore. (4)
Imperialism has
remained to be reactionary and continues to be a source of
aggression and aggressive wars. However, that
does not mean that each and every imperialist country (in its
economic definition) in each and
every given time is equally equipped for aggressive wars, and/or
its interests always coincide with aggressiveness and wars.
Appeasement policy had
been the Policy of non-aggressive Russia and China.
“The character of a war and
its success depend chiefly upon the internal regime of the country that
goes to war, that war is a reflection of the internal policy conducted
by the given country before the war. “(5) Thus, war
cannot be assessed without first understanding its connection with the policies
preceding it, without a study of the policies pursued long before
the war.
Looking at the recent history,
the preceding policies carried out by
all those involved, North Korea did not have any illusion on who are the
imperialist aggressors who are not . They obviously read and grasped the
assessments of Stalin in order to determine their stand to the current war.
"Pearl
Harbor "incident", the loss of the Philippines and other Pacific
Islands, the loss of Hong Kong and Singapore, proved that Japan, as the
aggressor state, was better prepared for war than Great Britain and the
United States, which pursued a policy of peace. You can't see it as a
coincidence." (6)
It means that, according to
Stalin, an imperialist country can also follow a "peace" policy - no
doubt due to its interests in that given time.
Stalin who made a distinction as aggressive and
non-aggressive imperialist—that is, identifying the main enemy—said:
War remains a war; the military bloc of aggressors
remains a military bloc; and the aggressors remain aggressors.
It is a distinguishing feature of the new
imperialist war that it has not yet become universal, a world war. The
war is being waged by aggressor states, who in every way infringe
upon the interests of the non-aggressive states, primarily
England, France, and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back and retreat, making
concession after concession to the aggressors.
Thus, we are witnessing an open redivision of the
world and spheres of influence at the expense of the non-aggressive states,
without the least attempt at resistance, and even with a certain amount of
connivance, on the part of the latter
How is it that the non-aggressive
countries, which possess such vast opportunities, have so easily, and without
any resistance, abandoned their positions and their obligations to
please the aggressors?
Formally speaking, the policy of
non-intervention might be defined as follows:
"Let each country defend itself from
the aggressors as it likes and as best it can. That is not our affair. We shall
trade both with the aggressors and with their victims."
But actually speaking, the policy of non-intervention
means conniving at aggression, giving free rein to war, and, consequently,
transforming the war into a world war. The policy of non-intervention
reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their
nefarious work" (7)
It was an existential question
for North Korea and either way, it could
not carry out a policy of non-intervention as Stalin elegantly pointed out
the reasons in his speech quoted above.
That has become the fundamental theoretical reason for North Korea to form an alliance with Russia, China and now Iran and
possibly every country who are against the bellicose imperialist US.
North Korea’s demolition of the
inter-Korean roads and railways and belated implication of a constitutional
revision defining South Korea as a hostile, US proxy state is not a coincidence but directly related to its stand on the World War 3 that
is going on through proxies at this stage.
Unlike the common misconception that a “world war” has to be direct and
with the possible use of Nuclear weapons, wars come in different forms and shapes,
especially in the technological era we
live in, it most likely to continue in its “proxy” form.
South Korean drone incursions
in North Korea is an example of waging proxy war in different level. Under new
conditions North Korea has given up the idea of “two Koreas”. On October 17, North
Korea described South Korea as “a
foreign country and an apparent hostile country” and reiterated his conditional
warning of attack against the South, reinforcing his two Koreas policy.” Kim Jong-Un delivered the National Day
speech focusing heavily on continued expansion of the country’s nuclear
capabilities. Same day he spoke of the possibility of retaliation against South
Korea if its sovereignty is violated and
stressed the implications of the US-South Korea alliance’s changing nature for
North Korea’s security.
These actions and comments of
North Korea should not be taken by themselves but in connection with the ongoing tensions and proxy wars world wide.
Russia towards an alliance with North Korea
Although with the delusion on
West, Russia wanted to be the gateway to Asia from Europe as a “European
Country”. Russian strategy for the East had started way before
the Ukraine war, later relying on the ‘Minsk” agreements, and not expecting any
serious military danger from the West. Thus, early 2010s there was less focus on North Korea. Russia’s focus was on seeking
a place as a major player in a booming region, adjusting its dynamics and thus,
on China. Russian-DPRK ties were secondary at that given time. It was only late
2010s that bonding with North Korea surfaced to be a great idea however it has
become an impossible endeavour after
Russia sided with China’s decision in late 2017 to toughen up UN sanctions on
NK. Only after 2019-20 when China and North Korea relations revived the opportunity for Russia to start bonding with NK has emerged. However, this time another hindrance appeared when North Korea shut its borders
to prevent a COVID-19 outbreak. Russia’s focus on China did not stop with
public calls for unity. It was only after the collapse of Russian delusion on
the West, specifically the rejection of Istanbul agreement in 2022 Russia realised that “Turning to the East”,
to China adding North Korea to the de
facto alliance was its only alternative. The war in Ukraine forced upon Russia
has become an existential question for Russia, and indirectly for China and
North Korea. In other words,
collective support of US-West to Ukraine
against Russia made forming an alliance with China and NK much easier with less
effort needed otherwise. It was this development that changed Russia’s strategy
to be the “Western Gate to the East” in
alliance with the West to the “grand strategic triangle” strategy targeting all
US-West alliances in East Asia.
It was this strategy of “Turning to the East” which in practice
seems to be the revival of 1970s “grand strategic triangle” that shaped
the international world order between China, Russia, and the US. China has a vital role in Russia’s revived strategy. Along
with China, nuclear power North Korea has a significant role in the East
for Russian security especially against US proxy South Korea. It aimed at demonstrating
to the United States and China that Russia is a powerful force to consider. For
same Soviet foreign policy, North Korea was a vital element as it is now.
The approach of Russia was welcomed by North Korea who was under so many
tight unilateral and UN sanctions and needed technology, energy, and foodstuffs.
It also served to the interests of Russia in both economic and political sense.
Long historical relations between
North Korea and Soviets played an important role to reinitiate the relationship
for the new developing political, military, and social realities in the East
particular and the world in general. Russia, by modernizing the factories built by the Soviets
in NK, employing NK’s workforce within
its stagnant labor pool, providing its highly needed energy, upgrading its armed forces with the new technology, would
be a great partner in its dealings with China, South Korea, Japan, and
the United States in the most dynamic region of the world. Thus, the alliance
with North Korea has broader
implications for Russia than gaining
support and aid for the Ukraine war. The
stronger the Russian ties with China and North Korea, the more leverage Russia
will have over US and its allies in the
region. This in turn works the same way for China and North Korea.
That is an unrefutable fact that the alliance with North Korea in so many
aspects symbolizes the extension of Russia into East Asia which is fully aligned
with the interests of North Korea.
However, as far as North Korea is concerned, neither the political alliance nor
the economic relationship is a license
to act at will on the part of Russia in
the region.
The alliance formed between
Russia and Nort Korea has been a forced upon formation on the face of declining
US bellicose imperialism which created the existential question for most
developed countries. US and the West with their supremacist
bellicose policies and practices shot themselves in the foot at each step from
Ukraine war to Iran War and to the East China.
The most significant implication of the alliance of Russia-China
and following Russia- North Korea, with their interlocking military agreements is
the diminishing of the possibility of a nuclear war between the superpowers. The
balance of power in the nuclear arsenal and the military technology shifted to
the new China-NK- Russia alliance. That’s why the threat of the use of nuclear
weapons in order to subjugate the other countries lost its importance. Widely repeated rhetoric of “World War 3” and
the context in which it is used -a nuclear war- has become a thing of the past
for the time being. The World War 3 is already going on in different form with varying intensity.
Thus, a conventional world war between the superpower most likely will be waged
as proxy wars. As far as Europe is concerned, the war in Ukraine has proven
that the US-West is not capable of defeating Russia -let alone defeating the
alliance of the three;
Russia-China-North Korea.
As far as the East, China is
concerned the chance of US winning a war in the region seems impossible. For
one, it is oceans away from the region with no land access. Logistically it makes
it almost impossible to wage a winning war against the 3-alliance.
The most important factor however
is the recent developments in various related facts.
The military arsenal of US-West has been depleted to
critical level. US-West is under the condition in which it is not even capable
of waging a winning war in one front, even against a small country like Yemen. The latest war against Iran has proven this
fact.
Winning a protracted war depends
heavily on economic stability, on developed military industry, on the
capability of replenishing the man and machines, on the industrial capacity of producing and supplying the weapons and ammunitions
needed in order to carry out the war.
Here, the objective facts of the existing condition come to the forefront
rather than subjective perspective deriving from the fantasies based on the
1990s conditions.
US has become a consumer country the
economy of which is mainly military and tech industry with financial
organisations. Its economic interest are
inline with a largely unstable world in which the conflicts and wars going on
in order to continue selling guns, subjugating the countries for the plunder of
their natural resources. Here comes the issue of resources for its military and
technology industry. Without any
exception every military means; weapons, ammunitions, aircrafts, tanks, so on
and so forth, are produced as a final product with the application of hundreds,
in some cases hundreds of thousand components. US does neither have the natural resources nor
refining facilities for these required “components” for the production of final
products including the tech industry; from computers to phones. US has to
either subjugate those countries in order to access those resources, or has to
buy from countries that already has in its refined form.
Ex-colony China has become a producer country manufacturing one third of
entire world goods in the market. China’s manufacturing economy interests
are inline with a relatively peaceful, stable world in where the
economies of countries develop and create consumers for the use of Chinese
products. Chinese military and tech industry does not have the constrains that
US has. Unlike US, China is the only relatively self sufficient country for its
military and tech industry for it has all the resources and refining facilities; mainly the “rare earth minerals”.
The rhetoric of Trump and his “tariff
policy” on China destructively back fired because US needs the rare earth
minerals and the specific wools for its military and tech industry. Without the
Chinese supplied rare earth minerals, the military and tech industry of US could either collapse or its final products become more expensive than it
already is. US needs China more than
China needs US for their economies-and since the US economy is heavily
dependent on military and tech industries, for US to remain to be a military
power to subjugate the rest.
Thus, the implication of North Korean alliance of both with China and Russia are
world wide in economic, military, and political sense. The positive developments in South East Asia inevitably
will have impact on East Asia; South Korea
and Japan. Weakening of US military power and its
subjugating role will be an awakening impact on the East Asian countries. South
Korea, a de facto colony of US will be
forced to change its policy by its own
people who largely had the illusion that US will come to the rescue of them in
case of a war and nothing will happen to South Korea. The war in Ukraine is
being a wake up call for those who were under such delusion, including Japan. Adding to this the developing economic
relations with neighboring China will gradually have serious impact on the
transformation of East Asia. South East Asian neutral stands already manifested itself with the spoken mood that "do not force us to choose a side, we do not want to, but if the choice is forced upon us our choice will have to be China.
East and South East Asia will be the producers
and engine of industry of the world.
In conclusion, unlike the analysis of bourgeois
liberals based on their fantasies and wishful thinking, the alliance between
North Korea and Russia (and China) is not a “fragile”, “short term” alliance,
but a long term alliance. It is not an alliance for the “Ukraine war” , but a strategic alliance
with far reaching goals and implications that will shape the future of the
world.
Erdogan A
July 9, 2025
Thailand
NOTES
The question with the fact that North Korea is a strict Stalinist Socialist country in mind; “What will happen after that “long term”” and how will that affect North Korea, is a question for the next generation who will follow the objective developments and make objective analysis based on the objective realities and data.
The declining power of US should not be considered in all aspects that is decisive in international politics and world order. That decline will not make US to stop its fight for the unipolar world order, contrary it will unleash all its power and continuing superiority in some decisive fields. US still has the overwhelming, decisive superiority in "information warfare" that has century of history and experience and information establishments in almost every country of the world. Although its information war means and methods started to be prevented to a large degree in some countries like China and Russia, it has unchallenged existence in most countries that influences the perspective of the people through manipulation and having them act in contrast to their own interests. The superiority in information warfare should not be taken lightly.
Its financial dominance still reigns through financial institutions, on international trade transactions, although slowly declining, the dominant exchange value of US dollar still reigns.
In other words, its decline is not an overall decline but mostly in military and political sense. Based on the degree of its overall decline, as I have noted in an other article, " It is most likely that US will pull itself back for respite, recuperate and strengthen their economy through re-industrialization and prepare itself for the next wars. This again, for US, requires developing its economy on a "war footing", prioritizing military needs and production over civilian consumption through increased government control, resource reallocation, and defense industry focus. US will remain to be bellicose and aggressive in its rhetoric whether it has the power or not."
(1) Report by O.W. Kuusinen, From
13th Plenum of ECCI
(2) Lenin, Lecture on the
Proletariat, and the War”
(3) Lenin to Inessa Armand
(4) The Question of Peace and
Security – Stalin
(5) Lenin, Address To The Second
All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples of The East
(6) Stalin, the question of peace
and security
(7) Report on the Work of the
Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU(B.)
.jpg)
