Biden “should look to emulate perhaps the most admirable component of Moon’s initially successful rapprochement project: the focus on conventional arms control”, says Jumin Lee. However the DPRK has much bigger fish to fry.
nknews.org/2021/05/biden-…
nknews.org/2021/05/biden-…
2/Commentary: Why does the US & ROK always turn DPRK's TEXTBOOK nuclear deterrent self-defense into the bogeyman?
“The existence of these weapons means that any act of North Korean provocation could escalate into an unfathomably deadly conflict, even if nuclear weapons are never
“The existence of these weapons means that any act of North Korean provocation could escalate into an unfathomably deadly conflict, even if nuclear weapons are never
3/"employed.”
Notwithstanding the fact Kim Jong Un has emphatically insisted that "North Korea won't strike U.S. first", a fallacious conspiracy theory is embedded in the US/UN/ROK/EU psyche: The mere existence of DPRK's nukes poses "existential threat".
usatoday.com/story/news/wor…
Notwithstanding the fact Kim Jong Un has emphatically insisted that "North Korea won't strike U.S. first", a fallacious conspiracy theory is embedded in the US/UN/ROK/EU psyche: The mere existence of DPRK's nukes poses "existential threat".
usatoday.com/story/news/wor…
4/The phrase "any act of North Korean provocation" stems from the US & ROK's blithe assumption that if conflict were ever to start it'll be by DPRK. This contradicts KJU's No First Use declaration and ignores US's strategic planning. D.C. might decide it's in the US national
5/interest to attempt regime change, decapitation strike or preemptive nuclear first strike, which DPRK is hyper-aware of, hence has employed a counterstrategy of aiming its artillery at Seoul, which Jumin Lee thinks should be a bargaining chip, which are DPRK's insurance policy.
6/By saying this: “The experience of successfully negotiating controls on these less-potent but more-numerous arms would not only reduce the danger of inadvertent escalation on the Korean Peninsula, but it would also provide a valuable exercise in trust-building.”, Jumin Lee
7/fails to grasp the role that these non-nuclear weapons play in case the US attacks DPRK (which John Bolton makes a case for), and their intention of being used, not in an "act of North Korean provocation", but only as a strategic response to a US attack on its sovereignty.
8/“The core outline of this deal would be to offer limited sanctions relief in exchange for significant non-nuclear disarmament measures.”
This "outline" goes directly against the current of Kim Yo Jong's remarks👇. Is Jumin Lee not acquainted w/ them?
This "outline" goes directly against the current of Kim Yo Jong's remarks👇. Is Jumin Lee not acquainted w/ them?
https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1282575600918487041?s=20
9/"When the DPRK-U.S. summit talks was held in Panmunjom on June 30, 2019, Comrade Chairman defined his clear position to the U.S. President, (who preached north Korea's bright economic prospects and economic aid and asked for further denuclearization
10/"measures as a prerequisite), that we shall never barter our system, the safety and future of our people or the likes of lifting of sanctions of no guarantee in the hope for the glamorous transformation and the realization of our dreams of rapid economic prosperity...
11/From that time on, we completely ruled out the issue of lifting sanctions from the agenda of negotiations with the U.S..
I believe that the previous theme of the DPRK-U.S. negotiations, that is, "denuclearization measures versus lifting of sanctions" should be changed into a
I believe that the previous theme of the DPRK-U.S. negotiations, that is, "denuclearization measures versus lifting of sanctions" should be changed into a
12/"formula of "withdrawal of hostility versus resumption of DPRK-U.S. negotiations".
We are fully capable of living under any sanctions, so there is no reason for us to be driven by the U.S..”
What part of that isn't to understand? Kim Yo Jong is clear as rain. To "offer
We are fully capable of living under any sanctions, so there is no reason for us to be driven by the U.S..”
What part of that isn't to understand? Kim Yo Jong is clear as rain. To "offer
13/"limited sanctions relief in exchange for significant non-nuclear disarmament measures" is what KYJ expressly said DPRK had "ruled out", and that ""denuclearization measures versus lifting of sanctions" should be changed into a formula of "withdrawal of hostility versus
14/"resumption of DPRK-U.S. negotiations".
Jumin Lee never got the memo or hasn't read KYJ's full July 10, 2020 statement. (I hope his thinking isn't: "She's a girl. Girls aren't allowed in the boys' club.")
As for “…the point where the elephant in the room can be addressed" -
Jumin Lee never got the memo or hasn't read KYJ's full July 10, 2020 statement. (I hope his thinking isn't: "She's a girl. Girls aren't allowed in the boys' club.")
As for “…the point where the elephant in the room can be addressed" -
15/the "elephant in the room" it isn't DPRK's nukes & ICBMs, those impossible-to-miss behemoths that "make the headlines" when rolled out in a military parade,
defensenews.com/global/asia-pa…
but the fact DPRK's No First Use nuclear deterrent is branded a bogeyman threatening the world.
defensenews.com/global/asia-pa…
but the fact DPRK's No First Use nuclear deterrent is branded a bogeyman threatening the world.
16/People can choose to either face reality, or to deny reality and like ostriches live w/ their heads in the ground comfortably in the bubble of their Western subjectivism unencumbered by such pesky things like facts and objective reality.
@threadreaderapp compile
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
