Ok, now apply that beautiful logic of yours to North Korea.
North Korea was bombed to the stone age in 1955 by the glorious and democratic USA (without consulting its people), to the point that 15% of North Koreans were murdered and 90% of all buildings were leveled. Afterwards, the most thorough and long-lasting economic blockade in history was imposed by the USA, which left the economy in shambles and made it very hard for the country to recover. It was recovering when, in 1991, its greatest commercial partner during blockade, the USSR, was dissolved, which left food insecurity in a country that wasnt allowed to import grain and whose cold climate and mountainous geography make agriculture quite complicated. For reference, a recent study showed that US economic blockades murder 500.000 people a year, quite a bit more than death rates from war in Ukraine.
every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.
Hmmm, I wonder why they dont celebrate free elections in such critical conditions…
What a strange take this is. If you are trying to equivocate the two situations as a condemnation of Ukraine, I would note that sanctions are leveraging economic power, while conventional warfare leverages military power, and you obfuscate this difference by using the word “blockade”. It isn’t a blockade, it’s sanctions. Blockades involve military power, sanctions do not. Do I believe that the US is guilty of immense human suffering as a consequence of the usage of sanctions in international relations? Of course, and I’m equally aware of the diminishing returns of pulling such an economic lever, but between economic and military power, North Korea is under economic pressure, and Ukraine is under military pressure. Having a military government only makes sense as a solution in one of these two situations, and the situations are similarly not comparable.
If, however, I instead take you at face value, likely against my better judgement, and interpret your point instead to mean that it’s valid for North Korea not to have elections because they are also justified in martial law, then I am perhaps even more confused, because it sounds like you’re arguing for martial law because of sanctions endured by North Korea (if so, see above why this is not a justification for martial law). What confuses me, though, is why you would pick that justification in the first place. You could, for example, argue that because North Korea only has an armistice with South Korea, they technically remain still at war, and thus are reasonable for imposing a permanent state of martial law. My counterpoint would be that South Korea is, at this point, incredibly unlikely to invade for a variety of economic, political, and demographic reasons, and North Korea has already shielded itself against existential threat via nuclear weapons (their opponent’s capital is 40km from the border, Seoul can’t even get much warning, much less intercept the nukes). Regardless of sanctions, there isn’t actually that much reason that North Korea should still be devoting so many of its resources to its military, nor is there that much of a reason for martial law to still be in effect.
I would also question if you genuinely think that any kind of meritocratic process occurred in a military sense when, rather than elect a leader (reflecting a peacetime footing), or have an experienced military officer take the role (reflecting a wartime footing), leadership instead passed down through three generations of the same family. Frankly, I don’t think martial law can justify that, regardless of whether or not martial law itself is justified.
Edit: Also, if you happen to have that study showing the 500,000 figure on hand, I would actually love to take a look at it. I wouldn’t be surprised, as often it is the civilian populace who bears the burden of sanctions, but it would be good to take a look at it to see if I can get a credible number to attach to that idea.
I wasn’t condemning Ukraine for not holding elections during a war, I was seriously arguing about the difficulty of holding elections when you’re under severe economic and political duress because of consequences of mass-bombing of your country by the US (which is important and you failed to mention in your comment) and economic blockade.
I call it blockade not because it’s exerted militarily, but because it doesn’t consist of unilateral sanctions by the US, it consists of a prohibition of companies from trading in the largest economy in the world if they trade previously with North Korea, as is the case of the blockade of Cuba. In this manner, if a Chinese company wants to do any trade in the US, it cannot do trade in North Korea too. A sanction is applied only within your own jurisdiction in my opinion, as for example what the EU is doing to Russia.
We estimated that unilateral sanctions were associated with an annual toll of 564 258 deaths (95% CI 367 838–760 677), similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict
This is why I don’t bother making a distinction between pressure to elections from military violence as from economic violence, both are equally harmful even in number of deaths, and both represent a similar strain on the institutions and the trust of people in the government. As I quoted in my previous comment, the US itself admits this, by talking of “bringing about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of government”. I don’t bring up the frozen Korean war because as of today it doesn’t produce the amount of deaths and suffering that the American economic blockade does by any materialist metric. My point is not to argue about technicisms of whether a country is technically at war hence no elections, but rather about the measurable, material impact of western pressure, whatever form it may take.
Apologies it took me so long to look at this - got busy irl, but that’s a fair take, and an understandable one at that. I’ve long been of the opinion that sanctions on nations like North Korea and Iran are, at this point, completely ineffectual, and are essentially just inflicting pain on the civilian populace for little gain. Past a certain threshold of sanctioning, you essentially decouple your economy from the one you’re sanctioning, and in so doing you lose any leverage you might have had. I also will make clear that I consider the US’s actions in the case of Cuba to be utterly reprehensible; that particular case is as clear cut as it gets, and is illustrative of the way that the US has historically wielded its geopolitical and economic heft with all the precision of a cudgel as part of its broader aims to impose its own (flawed) economic view of the world.
The thing that I would note, however, is that the US isn’t the only actor, and that sanctions on North Korea haven’t been continuous by other western actors. In particular, sanctions were easing to a significant degree in the 90s and early 2000s under the Agreed Framework as a consequence of Seoul pushing for normalized relations during that time. This changed, however, when North Korea first withdrew from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and then in particular tested nuclear weapons several times from 2006 onward. At that point, several western nations which had lifted sanctions re-imposed them as an attempt to discourage other actors from pursuing the same path. Now, I will admit that this is a somewhat unfair argument, as it fails to note that the US broadly did not hold up its end of the deal within the Agreed Framework, only agreeing to it in the first place on the assumption that the Kim regime would collapse before they needed to hold up their end, and Israel is similarly in violation of the NPT and hasn’t faced anything like the consequences that North Korea has, but it isn’t as if there aren’t modern reasons for the sanctions, nor is it the case that North Korea isn’t somewhat guilty here.
All that said, however, I still don’t think that the North Korean sanctions as they exist now are serving American interests, and the reason I say that is because it has pushed North Korea into alignment with Russia, as they have essentially zero to lose by doing so considering how heavily sanctioned they already are. Historically, the primary limitation of North Korean nuclear weapons is not the warhead, but actually the technical aspect of the delivery system, and North Korea’s recent collaboration with Russia may actually resolve that particular problem for them, as Russia has the industry and technical know-how to create some truly cutting edge ballistic missiles. In a certain sense, the American over-use of sanctions may, at this point, have actually become entirely self-defeating in a geostrategic sense.
Sanctions do make sense in the case of Russia, though, as they are a net positive producer in most critical civilian industries, so the populace is unlikely to go hungry regardless of sanctions, so the sanctions instead serve a primary purpose of providing an extra layer of friction in Russian imports of technical systems, increasing cost for domestic military manufacturing, and an extra layer of friction for Russian exports. One specific example is OPEC capping the price of oil at such a level that Russia is unlikely to actually make any kind of profit on such an export. This allows the global price of oil to be kept steady (and keeps the price high enough that, ideally, Russian civilians who work in the industry aren’t faced with economic pain) while simultaneously limiting how much Russia can benefit from the export of such goods. That’s not really relevant to North Korea (except, perhaps, insofar as technical imports by Russia might be used to assist in warhead delivery system development, but I’ve covered that already), but I figured I would mention it as I do believe there is a case to be made for sanctions in some scenarios, separate from the fact that the US’s overuse is, at this point, clearly not what should be aimed for. Sanctions (just like tariffs, good lord the current admin is braindead) are a tool which should be considered with a surgeon’s mindset; only used in very specific scenarios where it is both necessary and sensible, and wielded with the precision of a scalpel, and not that of a blunt instrument
Regardless, though, I’ll acknowledge that your view isn’t unfounded, and that it’s not so cut-and-dry as I had implied. Thank you for providing that study, I’ll definitely be keeping that on hand for future reference.
Thanks for the charitative reading of my post, I appreciate that you took the time and we’re having a discussion and not a dunk contest.
I generally agree with mostly everything you’re saying in your comment, except for a few things like non-proliferation treaties for nuclear weapons, and sanctions not starving Russians.
On the first hand, I simply don’t think it’s fair that the “international rule-based order” that allows the genocide of Palestinians gets to decide who has the right to nuclear weapons and who doesn’t. Historically, it’s one of the best assurances against western invasion, and for example Iran clearly regrets now not pursuing nuclear weapons, as regardless of whether it does or not, it has been treated as though it does (we’ve been seeing news headlines of Iran being a year away from nuclear weapons for 30 years). I do not like nuclear weapons, but I can’t blame a country whose history with the US is that of invasion and bombing, for wanting to ensure its own retaliation capabilities.
On the other hand you’re right that the sanctions in Russia aren’t having the impact that they have on, say, Venezuela or Cuba, if only simply because of the dynamics of economic development and resource availability. That said, I just wanna make it a point that the sanctions include the medical and pharmaceutical sector, and the Russian economy, being capitalist, relied on import of such medical goods for treatment of certain conditions. Applying sanctions to the medical and pharmaceutical industry also amounts to murdering people, although ofc not on the same scale as the sanctions to NK or Cuba.
The Cuban embargo is pretty messed up and I agree it is wrong. I don’t find your argument in support of North Korea at all compelling. USSR is mostly to blame for the entire situation.
Yes, the US is pretty damned murderous. Perhaps the nation that has killed the most innocents and caused the most widespread destruction ever and we are apparently not done. “Department of War” is a garbage move by garbage people who want to subject more people to death.
Comparing North Korea to Ukraine is nonsensical. The DPRK leadership is clinically insane and they will never give up their power even after their last civilian is dead.
I would personally love to see their country reform and join the modern world. I won’t hold my breath waiting. Meanwhile it is the common person who gets punished for their inability to give up power.
USSR literally freed the Korean peninsula from Imperial Japanese occupation before the US even considered joining. Only when the US realized this may lead to communism in the region did they join in from the south to prevent total soviet liberation of Korea. The US then proceeded to bomb North Korea into hell, killing literal millions of people and leveling the entire country. How any of that is USSRs fault is beyond me.
I don’t particularly love the Juche ideology, it’s marked by very strong nationalism, but if you’re incapable of understanding why the government is so quirky, think about this: one terrorist attack in the USA, 9/11, led to mass hysteria, oppressive laws regarding freedom of movement, widespread islamophobia, mass state surveillance, and it’s one of the biggest scars of the country in recent history. If you don’t think that the leveling of 90% OF BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRY and the MURDER OF 15% OF THE POPULATION through bombs for the sin of being communist may have long-lasting consequences in the government and population, I encourage you to rethink that.
The USSR were the ones who created the proxy war in the first place by stabilizing and arming the North Koreans. If they hadn’t done this there would never have even been a Korean War. Was the US wrong? It was a massacre. Did the USSR setup a proxy war knowing full well what would happen? Yes.
The USSR also abandoned North Korea after its collapse. If North Korea was not propped up by them it would have fell and that would have ended one of the shittiest regimes ever.
It sucks to get caught between two super powers. The North Koreans are no saints, quite the opposite. They are well known for some of the worst human rights atrocities in the world.
When it comes to human suffering the world would have been better off if North Korea fell. The USSR prevented this.
The USSR were the ones who created the proxy war in the first place
So, the USA setting up a puppet regime on the other side of the ocean in a peninsula that shares land borders with the former Soviet Union is totally ok? How would you feel as an American if the southern half of Mexico were controlled by modern Russia (assuming you’re from the US)? Do you understand how threatening that was to the Soviet Union geopolitically? Remember: the USA had already invaded the Soviet Union during the Russian Revolution, Churchill was clear about the motives for doing so: “I think the day will come when it will be recognized without doubt, not only on one side of the House, but throughout the civilized world, that the strangling of Bolshevism at its birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race”. Obviously the Soviets didn’t want an American puppet regime at their doorstep.
North Koreans are no saints, quite the opposite. They are well known for some of the worst human rights atrocities in the worl
The US killed 1.5 million civilians in North Korea alone during the war. How many millions of people has North Korea murdered? Sure, they have had quite an oppressive regime, but compared to leveling 90% of the buildings of North Korea through bombs, what accusation of human right violation do you bring up?
When it comes to human suffering the world would have been better off if North Korea fell
Knowing that the USA murders half a million people yearly through economic sanctions, and that the US would go on to also carpet bomb Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, destroy Iraq, support puppet fascists in the entire Latin America, destabilized the entire middle east, and as of today support materially and diplomatically the genocide of over half a million Palestinians for the past 2 years, do you agree that it’s imperative that the USA falls?
The bias of English Wikipedia is inherently pro-western, I already explained you, you just lack the literacy to understand that. If even Wikipedia portrays the atrocities, it’s because they are so flagrant and patent that they’ve become popular knowledge in the west.
If you prefer, I can cite from ProleWiki next time, but I doubt you’d read that
The US sucks for sure, but here is a wake up call. So does everyone else save some progressive European countries who were, in the past, bad as well.
Would I rather have the China calling the shots? No. Would I rather have Russia calling the shots? Hell no.
I guess we are at an impasse. The failure of the US would not bring the blessings you think it would.
Obviously the way forward is not through nations whose sole purpose is to fuck everyone over for their benefit. Do please keep praying at the altar of the state to solve your problems, but I won’t be joining you.
Would I rather have the China calling the shots? No
Why not? China hasn’t participated in any war over the past 40 years. The US is by far horrifyingly worse than China.
Again, which human right abuse has North Korea committed that is comparable to the leveling of essentially every building in a country through mass bombing campaigns?
China’s communist revolution, which was really just an authoritarian power grab, caused and continues to cause massive suffering. China has provided the arms for numerous conflicts. Don’t even try to play dumb.
If North Korea had the power and projection it would do far worse than the US. I am not going to defend the US because it is rotten to the core. I am not also going to pretend any of the other major players would be any better if they were at the helm.
The best way forward would be a peaceful revolution in the US and the establishment of the first actual socialist stateless society.
This is obviously pie in the sky so the second best thing would be for the US to slowly demilitarize while stabilizing the countries they destabilized and making amends for past behaviors where practical.
Concentration of power is what got us here and no other state has the solution because the solution comes from the people, not the corrupt ruling class using the violence of the state to maintain their privilege.
By uplifting 800mn people from poverty in the biggest industrialization effort in human history?
China has provided the arms for numerous conflicts
What conflict over the past 40 years has China provided arms for?
If North Korea had the power and projection it would do far worse than the US
That’s evidently American exceptionalism, you’re out of your mind. The US is literally founded on genocide, and even being the richest nation in the world it can’t afford universal healthcare to its own citizens. I can’t possibly think of a worse nation to project power. You’re absolutely high on American exceptionalism.
China’s communist revolution, which was really just an authoritarian power grab, caused and continues to cause massive suffering. China has provided the arms for numerous conflicts. Don’t even try to play dumb.
If North Korea had the power and projection it would do far worse than the US. I am not going to defend the US because it is rotten to the core. I am not also going to pretend any of the other major players would be any better if they were at the helm.
The best way forward would be a peaceful revolution in the US and the establishment of the first actual socialist stateless society.
This is obviously pie in the sky so the second best thing would be for the US to slowly demilitarize while stabilizing the countries they destabilized and making amends for past behaviors where practical.
Concentration of power is what got us here and no other state has the solution because the solution comes from the people, not the corrupt ruling class using the violence of the state to maintain their privilege.
Ok, now apply that beautiful logic of yours to North Korea.
North Korea was bombed to the stone age in 1955 by the glorious and democratic USA (without consulting its people), to the point that 15% of North Koreans were murdered and 90% of all buildings were leveled. Afterwards, the most thorough and long-lasting economic blockade in history was imposed by the USA, which left the economy in shambles and made it very hard for the country to recover. It was recovering when, in 1991, its greatest commercial partner during blockade, the USSR, was dissolved, which left food insecurity in a country that wasnt allowed to import grain and whose cold climate and mountainous geography make agriculture quite complicated. For reference, a recent study showed that US economic blockades murder 500.000 people a year, quite a bit more than death rates from war in Ukraine.
US could end the criminal blockade of North Korea right now if he simply chose to, but no, the US doesn’t want to stop murdering people through economic violence. As the Office of the Historian of the USA holds in its database:
Hmmm, I wonder why they dont celebrate free elections in such critical conditions…
What a strange take this is. If you are trying to equivocate the two situations as a condemnation of Ukraine, I would note that sanctions are leveraging economic power, while conventional warfare leverages military power, and you obfuscate this difference by using the word “blockade”. It isn’t a blockade, it’s sanctions. Blockades involve military power, sanctions do not. Do I believe that the US is guilty of immense human suffering as a consequence of the usage of sanctions in international relations? Of course, and I’m equally aware of the diminishing returns of pulling such an economic lever, but between economic and military power, North Korea is under economic pressure, and Ukraine is under military pressure. Having a military government only makes sense as a solution in one of these two situations, and the situations are similarly not comparable.
If, however, I instead take you at face value, likely against my better judgement, and interpret your point instead to mean that it’s valid for North Korea not to have elections because they are also justified in martial law, then I am perhaps even more confused, because it sounds like you’re arguing for martial law because of sanctions endured by North Korea (if so, see above why this is not a justification for martial law). What confuses me, though, is why you would pick that justification in the first place. You could, for example, argue that because North Korea only has an armistice with South Korea, they technically remain still at war, and thus are reasonable for imposing a permanent state of martial law. My counterpoint would be that South Korea is, at this point, incredibly unlikely to invade for a variety of economic, political, and demographic reasons, and North Korea has already shielded itself against existential threat via nuclear weapons (their opponent’s capital is 40km from the border, Seoul can’t even get much warning, much less intercept the nukes). Regardless of sanctions, there isn’t actually that much reason that North Korea should still be devoting so many of its resources to its military, nor is there that much of a reason for martial law to still be in effect.
I would also question if you genuinely think that any kind of meritocratic process occurred in a military sense when, rather than elect a leader (reflecting a peacetime footing), or have an experienced military officer take the role (reflecting a wartime footing), leadership instead passed down through three generations of the same family. Frankly, I don’t think martial law can justify that, regardless of whether or not martial law itself is justified.
Edit: Also, if you happen to have that study showing the 500,000 figure on hand, I would actually love to take a look at it. I wouldn’t be surprised, as often it is the civilian populace who bears the burden of sanctions, but it would be good to take a look at it to see if I can get a credible number to attach to that idea.
I wasn’t condemning Ukraine for not holding elections during a war, I was seriously arguing about the difficulty of holding elections when you’re under severe economic and political duress because of consequences of mass-bombing of your country by the US (which is important and you failed to mention in your comment) and economic blockade.
I call it blockade not because it’s exerted militarily, but because it doesn’t consist of unilateral sanctions by the US, it consists of a prohibition of companies from trading in the largest economy in the world if they trade previously with North Korea, as is the case of the blockade of Cuba. In this manner, if a Chinese company wants to do any trade in the US, it cannot do trade in North Korea too. A sanction is applied only within your own jurisdiction in my opinion, as for example what the EU is doing to Russia.
As for the study I promised, in the findings it says these words:
This is why I don’t bother making a distinction between pressure to elections from military violence as from economic violence, both are equally harmful even in number of deaths, and both represent a similar strain on the institutions and the trust of people in the government. As I quoted in my previous comment, the US itself admits this, by talking of “bringing about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of government”. I don’t bring up the frozen Korean war because as of today it doesn’t produce the amount of deaths and suffering that the American economic blockade does by any materialist metric. My point is not to argue about technicisms of whether a country is technically at war hence no elections, but rather about the measurable, material impact of western pressure, whatever form it may take.
Apologies it took me so long to look at this - got busy irl, but that’s a fair take, and an understandable one at that. I’ve long been of the opinion that sanctions on nations like North Korea and Iran are, at this point, completely ineffectual, and are essentially just inflicting pain on the civilian populace for little gain. Past a certain threshold of sanctioning, you essentially decouple your economy from the one you’re sanctioning, and in so doing you lose any leverage you might have had. I also will make clear that I consider the US’s actions in the case of Cuba to be utterly reprehensible; that particular case is as clear cut as it gets, and is illustrative of the way that the US has historically wielded its geopolitical and economic heft with all the precision of a cudgel as part of its broader aims to impose its own (flawed) economic view of the world.
The thing that I would note, however, is that the US isn’t the only actor, and that sanctions on North Korea haven’t been continuous by other western actors. In particular, sanctions were easing to a significant degree in the 90s and early 2000s under the Agreed Framework as a consequence of Seoul pushing for normalized relations during that time. This changed, however, when North Korea first withdrew from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and then in particular tested nuclear weapons several times from 2006 onward. At that point, several western nations which had lifted sanctions re-imposed them as an attempt to discourage other actors from pursuing the same path. Now, I will admit that this is a somewhat unfair argument, as it fails to note that the US broadly did not hold up its end of the deal within the Agreed Framework, only agreeing to it in the first place on the assumption that the Kim regime would collapse before they needed to hold up their end, and Israel is similarly in violation of the NPT and hasn’t faced anything like the consequences that North Korea has, but it isn’t as if there aren’t modern reasons for the sanctions, nor is it the case that North Korea isn’t somewhat guilty here.
All that said, however, I still don’t think that the North Korean sanctions as they exist now are serving American interests, and the reason I say that is because it has pushed North Korea into alignment with Russia, as they have essentially zero to lose by doing so considering how heavily sanctioned they already are. Historically, the primary limitation of North Korean nuclear weapons is not the warhead, but actually the technical aspect of the delivery system, and North Korea’s recent collaboration with Russia may actually resolve that particular problem for them, as Russia has the industry and technical know-how to create some truly cutting edge ballistic missiles. In a certain sense, the American over-use of sanctions may, at this point, have actually become entirely self-defeating in a geostrategic sense.
Sanctions do make sense in the case of Russia, though, as they are a net positive producer in most critical civilian industries, so the populace is unlikely to go hungry regardless of sanctions, so the sanctions instead serve a primary purpose of providing an extra layer of friction in Russian imports of technical systems, increasing cost for domestic military manufacturing, and an extra layer of friction for Russian exports. One specific example is OPEC capping the price of oil at such a level that Russia is unlikely to actually make any kind of profit on such an export. This allows the global price of oil to be kept steady (and keeps the price high enough that, ideally, Russian civilians who work in the industry aren’t faced with economic pain) while simultaneously limiting how much Russia can benefit from the export of such goods. That’s not really relevant to North Korea (except, perhaps, insofar as technical imports by Russia might be used to assist in warhead delivery system development, but I’ve covered that already), but I figured I would mention it as I do believe there is a case to be made for sanctions in some scenarios, separate from the fact that the US’s overuse is, at this point, clearly not what should be aimed for. Sanctions (just like tariffs, good lord the current admin is braindead) are a tool which should be considered with a surgeon’s mindset; only used in very specific scenarios where it is both necessary and sensible, and wielded with the precision of a scalpel, and not that of a blunt instrument
Regardless, though, I’ll acknowledge that your view isn’t unfounded, and that it’s not so cut-and-dry as I had implied. Thank you for providing that study, I’ll definitely be keeping that on hand for future reference.
Thanks for the charitative reading of my post, I appreciate that you took the time and we’re having a discussion and not a dunk contest.
I generally agree with mostly everything you’re saying in your comment, except for a few things like non-proliferation treaties for nuclear weapons, and sanctions not starving Russians.
On the first hand, I simply don’t think it’s fair that the “international rule-based order” that allows the genocide of Palestinians gets to decide who has the right to nuclear weapons and who doesn’t. Historically, it’s one of the best assurances against western invasion, and for example Iran clearly regrets now not pursuing nuclear weapons, as regardless of whether it does or not, it has been treated as though it does (we’ve been seeing news headlines of Iran being a year away from nuclear weapons for 30 years). I do not like nuclear weapons, but I can’t blame a country whose history with the US is that of invasion and bombing, for wanting to ensure its own retaliation capabilities.
On the other hand you’re right that the sanctions in Russia aren’t having the impact that they have on, say, Venezuela or Cuba, if only simply because of the dynamics of economic development and resource availability. That said, I just wanna make it a point that the sanctions include the medical and pharmaceutical sector, and the Russian economy, being capitalist, relied on import of such medical goods for treatment of certain conditions. Applying sanctions to the medical and pharmaceutical industry also amounts to murdering people, although ofc not on the same scale as the sanctions to NK or Cuba.
The Cuban embargo is pretty messed up and I agree it is wrong. I don’t find your argument in support of North Korea at all compelling. USSR is mostly to blame for the entire situation.
Yes, the US is pretty damned murderous. Perhaps the nation that has killed the most innocents and caused the most widespread destruction ever and we are apparently not done. “Department of War” is a garbage move by garbage people who want to subject more people to death.
Comparing North Korea to Ukraine is nonsensical. The DPRK leadership is clinically insane and they will never give up their power even after their last civilian is dead.
I would personally love to see their country reform and join the modern world. I won’t hold my breath waiting. Meanwhile it is the common person who gets punished for their inability to give up power.
USSR literally freed the Korean peninsula from Imperial Japanese occupation before the US even considered joining. Only when the US realized this may lead to communism in the region did they join in from the south to prevent total soviet liberation of Korea. The US then proceeded to bomb North Korea into hell, killing literal millions of people and leveling the entire country. How any of that is USSRs fault is beyond me.
I don’t particularly love the Juche ideology, it’s marked by very strong nationalism, but if you’re incapable of understanding why the government is so quirky, think about this: one terrorist attack in the USA, 9/11, led to mass hysteria, oppressive laws regarding freedom of movement, widespread islamophobia, mass state surveillance, and it’s one of the biggest scars of the country in recent history. If you don’t think that the leveling of 90% OF BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRY and the MURDER OF 15% OF THE POPULATION through bombs for the sin of being communist may have long-lasting consequences in the government and population, I encourage you to rethink that.
The USSR were the ones who created the proxy war in the first place by stabilizing and arming the North Koreans. If they hadn’t done this there would never have even been a Korean War. Was the US wrong? It was a massacre. Did the USSR setup a proxy war knowing full well what would happen? Yes.
The USSR also abandoned North Korea after its collapse. If North Korea was not propped up by them it would have fell and that would have ended one of the shittiest regimes ever.
It sucks to get caught between two super powers. The North Koreans are no saints, quite the opposite. They are well known for some of the worst human rights atrocities in the world.
When it comes to human suffering the world would have been better off if North Korea fell. The USSR prevented this.
So, the USA setting up a puppet regime on the other side of the ocean in a peninsula that shares land borders with the former Soviet Union is totally ok? How would you feel as an American if the southern half of Mexico were controlled by modern Russia (assuming you’re from the US)? Do you understand how threatening that was to the Soviet Union geopolitically? Remember: the USA had already invaded the Soviet Union during the Russian Revolution, Churchill was clear about the motives for doing so: “I think the day will come when it will be recognized without doubt, not only on one side of the House, but throughout the civilized world, that the strangling of Bolshevism at its birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race”. Obviously the Soviets didn’t want an American puppet regime at their doorstep.
The US killed 1.5 million civilians in North Korea alone during the war. How many millions of people has North Korea murdered? Sure, they have had quite an oppressive regime, but compared to leveling 90% of the buildings of North Korea through bombs, what accusation of human right violation do you bring up?
Knowing that the USA murders half a million people yearly through economic sanctions, and that the US would go on to also carpet bomb Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, destroy Iraq, support puppet fascists in the entire Latin America, destabilized the entire middle east, and as of today support materially and diplomatically the genocide of over half a million Palestinians for the past 2 years, do you agree that it’s imperative that the USA falls?
Citing Natopedia as a source, are we?
The bias of English Wikipedia is inherently pro-western, I already explained you, you just lack the literacy to understand that. If even Wikipedia portrays the atrocities, it’s because they are so flagrant and patent that they’ve become popular knowledge in the west.
If you prefer, I can cite from ProleWiki next time, but I doubt you’d read that
The US sucks for sure, but here is a wake up call. So does everyone else save some progressive European countries who were, in the past, bad as well.
Would I rather have the China calling the shots? No. Would I rather have Russia calling the shots? Hell no.
I guess we are at an impasse. The failure of the US would not bring the blessings you think it would.
Obviously the way forward is not through nations whose sole purpose is to fuck everyone over for their benefit. Do please keep praying at the altar of the state to solve your problems, but I won’t be joining you.
Why not? China hasn’t participated in any war over the past 40 years. The US is by far horrifyingly worse than China.
Again, which human right abuse has North Korea committed that is comparable to the leveling of essentially every building in a country through mass bombing campaigns?
China’s communist revolution, which was really just an authoritarian power grab, caused and continues to cause massive suffering. China has provided the arms for numerous conflicts. Don’t even try to play dumb.
If North Korea had the power and projection it would do far worse than the US. I am not going to defend the US because it is rotten to the core. I am not also going to pretend any of the other major players would be any better if they were at the helm.
The best way forward would be a peaceful revolution in the US and the establishment of the first actual socialist stateless society.
This is obviously pie in the sky so the second best thing would be for the US to slowly demilitarize while stabilizing the countries they destabilized and making amends for past behaviors where practical.
Concentration of power is what got us here and no other state has the solution because the solution comes from the people, not the corrupt ruling class using the violence of the state to maintain their privilege.
By uplifting 800mn people from poverty in the biggest industrialization effort in human history?
What conflict over the past 40 years has China provided arms for?
That’s evidently American exceptionalism, you’re out of your mind. The US is literally founded on genocide, and even being the richest nation in the world it can’t afford universal healthcare to its own citizens. I can’t possibly think of a worse nation to project power. You’re absolutely high on American exceptionalism.
China’s communist revolution, which was really just an authoritarian power grab, caused and continues to cause massive suffering. China has provided the arms for numerous conflicts. Don’t even try to play dumb.
If North Korea had the power and projection it would do far worse than the US. I am not going to defend the US because it is rotten to the core. I am not also going to pretend any of the other major players would be any better if they were at the helm.
The best way forward would be a peaceful revolution in the US and the establishment of the first actual socialist stateless society.
This is obviously pie in the sky so the second best thing would be for the US to slowly demilitarize while stabilizing the countries they destabilized and making amends for past behaviors where practical.
Concentration of power is what got us here and no other state has the solution because the solution comes from the people, not the corrupt ruling class using the violence of the state to maintain their privilege.