These are times that require our ability to pay attention to several things at once

There's no shortage of fresh horror being revealed throughout the length and breadth of Ukraine. At times, it's almost too much to let in.

But let's not confine our focus to that aspect of the state of the world stage.

For instance, there's the thinking of Russia's elites:

A prominent Russian TV presenter said that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is approaching a "new stage" in which Moscow will find itself at war with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — and by extension, the entire world.

"I believe the special military operation is entering a new stage. Ukrainians alone are no longer enough," said Vladimir Solovyov, according to the translation of a video clip tweeted on Thursday by The Daily Beast's Julia Davis.

In the widely shared clip, Solovyov noted that NATO countries have been supplying weapons to Ukraine. "We'll see not only NATO weapons being drawn into this, but also their operators," he warned while speaking on his show "Evening with Vladimir Solovyov."

Solovyov, a prominent state media figure and supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has often repeated and amplified the Kremlin's pro-war rhetoric on the state-owned channel Russia-1.

In the clip, he noted that Russia was "starting to wage war against NATO countries."

We'll be grinding up NATO's war machine as well as citizens of NATO countries," Solovyov said. "When this operation concludes, NATO will have to ask itself: 'Do we have what we need to defend ourselves? Do we have the people to defend ourselves?'

"And there will be no mercy. There will be no mercy," he added.

Echoing Putin's call for the "de-Nazification" of Ukraine, Solovyov said: "Not only will Ukraine have to be denazified, the war against Europe and the world is developing a more specific outline, which means we'll have to act differently, and to act much more harshly."

And there are signals from the top echelon of influential Chinese figures that ought to give us pause:

The prominent former editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a highly popular state-run Chinese media outlet, published a commentary on Saturday urging Chinese citizens to “prepare for a military struggle” in the near future. 

The commentary, written by journalist Hu Xijin, came after U.S. senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and six other U.S. officials visited Taiwan’s capital, Taipei, last Thursday. The visit was strongly denounced by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian, who warned that China is “firmly opposed to any form of official exchange between the U.S. and Taiwan.”

This guy doesn't mince words:

In his most recent comments about the highly tense U.S.-China-Taiwan situation, as reported by Newsweek, Hu asserted that there is a “very high probability” that there will “ultimately” be a “direct military confrontation.” He noted there was a "sense of crisis" in Taiwan.

"As the situation in the Taiwan Strait deteriorates, we must prepare for a military struggle," Hu wrote.

Regardless of who starts the confrontation, Hu added that any kind of “high-intensity military crisis,” even if not war, would be highly consequential. 

And North Korea doesn't take kindly to South Korean talk about preventing the North from  launch sites being positioned in a hostile manner: 

The sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un says Pyongyang would retaliate with nuclear strikes if South Korea launched a pre-emptive attack.

Kim Yo-jong, a senior official, has issued two statements responding to remarks from South Korean officials.

South Korean Defence Minister Suh Wook had said the South was able to strike the North's missile launch points - sparking the furious reaction.

Exit question: Is the possibility of a nuclear weapon being detonated somewhere by somebody in the near or intermediate future less or greater or the same than it was, say, a year ago?

 

 

 

 

The world stage in 2022 is showing us once again that human nature doesn't change

 "We are entering a world that is becoming more unstable, and the potential for significant international conflict is increasing, not decreasing."

- Joint Chiefs chair General Mark Milley

"It is obvious that the key institution of the world to combat aggression and ensure peace cannot work effectively."

- Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky

"Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes you must do what is required."

- Winston Churchill

A lot of keystrokes have been expended in recent weeks on the near-certainty that the 77 years of relative global stability we enjoyed from 1945 until 2022 were a hiccup. Events of late only reinforce that view.

There is, of course, the dressing down that Zelensky gave the UN General Assembly yesterday, in which he provided gruesome details of what Russian soldiers have been doing to his country's civilians. He then asked why the hell the UN should even exist:

The Ukrainian leader then criticized the body, asking representatives point blank: "Where is the security that the Security Council needs to guarantee? It is not there, though there is a Security Council."

Zelensky added: "It is obvious that the key institution of the world designed to combat aggression and ensure peace cannot work effectively.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you of Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. What is the purpose of our organization? Its purpose is to maintain and make sure that peace is adhered to. And now the UN charter is violated literally starting with Article 1. And so what is the point of all other Articles?" he asked.

 Mark Milley appeared before the House Armed Services Committee and spoke bluntly of a new era in which the world will be less stable. In terms of threats, he mainly spoke of Russia and China, and understandably so.

But anyone interested in trying to stave off a really dark future had better, as the saying goes, be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

We - that is, the US, the West in general, along with stability-seeking Pacific Rim nations - have known for a long time that the North Korea problem was not going to go away by itself. 

We've tried an Agreed Framework, Six-Way Talks, summits and "beautiful letters," but the threat has not abated.

The Kim family is so damn touchy that any remark from anyone suggesting that prudent measures are called for in the face of the threat sparks even more explicit expressions of threat:

On Sunday, Kim’s sister, Kim Yo Jong, issued blistering rhetoric directed at Suh and threats toward Seoul.

“The senseless and scum-like guy dare mention a ‘preemptive strike’ at a nuclear weapons state,” Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by state media. “South Korea may face a serious threat owing to the reckless remarks made by its defense minister.”

“South Korea should discipline itself if it wants to stave off disaster,” she said. 

Kim Yo Jong, a senior official in the North’s ruling Workers’ Party, is in charge of relations with Seoul and Washington. South Korea’s spy service says she is the North’s No. 2 official behind her brother. 

Pak Jong Chon, a secretary in the Workers’ Party’s central committee, separately warned that “any slight misjudgment and ill statement rattling the other party under the present situation” may trigger “a dangerous conflict and a full-blown war.”

The first-strike option is not new:

Seoul has long maintained such a preemptive attack strategy to cope with North Korea’s growing missile and nuclear threats, but it was highly unusual for a senior Seoul official under the Moon administration to publicly discuss it.

Well, maybe it was about time.

The incoming South Korean administration seems to understand that serious readiness is critical at this time:

Advisers to South Korea's president-elect sought redeployment of U.S. strategic assets, such as nuclear bombers and submarines, to the Korean peninsula during talks held on a visit to Washington, one of the advisers said on Wednesday.

The team of foreign policy and security aides to incoming president Yoon Suk-yeol met U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan as Yoon seeks a more constant security presence to deter threats from North Korea as it steps up weapons tests.

"Deploying the strategic assets is an important element of reinforcing the extended deterrence, and the issue naturally came up during the discussions," Park Jin, a four-term lawmaker who led the delegation, told reporters.

Are the above-mentioned collection of the world's stability-seeking nations able to muster the requisite seriousness to deal with the moment? The Biden administration's zeal for reviving a JCPOA-type of agreement with Iran, which well may include Russia as a signatory, would indicate otherwise.

Likewise, the imposition of sanctions on Russia and the seizure of oligarchs' yachts has not stopped the Russians from ripping out Ukrainians' tongues, raping mothers in front of their children, yanking people huddled in shelters out for torture and execution and shelling of government buildings, schools and hospitals. 

What is to be done? Obviously, pretty much anyone reading this is not in a position to pick up a gun, to jar the UN back to its senses, or otherwise dramatically move the needle.

But we can acknowledge that, per Milley, we are in a new era. We can maneuver through our daily lives in such a way that we aren't surprised when we encounter hard things. 

 We can stop prattling about our species having evolved beyond the innate depravity the has made itself abundantly clear throughout history. 

Our little reprieve is over.

 

 

The fruits of Trumpist foreign policy

You'll recall this LITD post from four days ago entitled "The VSG Gives South Korea Good Reason To Doubt The US Has Its Back." The gist of why that's so was this:

Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 400% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, a congressional aide and an administration official confirmed to CNN.

The price hike has frustrated Pentagon officials and deeply concerned Republican and Democratic lawmakers, according to military officials and congressional aides. It has angered and unnerved Seoul, where leaders are questioning US commitment to their alliance and wondering whether Trump will pull US forces if they don't pay up. 

"Nothing says I love you like a shakedown," said Vipin Narang, an associate professor at MIT who follows the Korean peninsula, summarizing South Korean uncertainty about the US. 

In the US, congressional aides and Korea experts familiar with the talks say the President's $4.7 billion demand came out of thin air, sending State and Defense Department officials scrambling to justify the number with a slew of new charges that may include Seoul paying some costs for US personnel present on the peninsula and for troops and equipment that rotate through. 

It's already borne this fruit:

The defence ministers of South Korea and China have agreed to develop their security ties to ensure stability in north-east Asia, the latest indication that Washington’s long-standing alliances in the region are fraying. 

On the sidelines of regional security talks in Bangkok on Sunday, Jeong Kyeong-doo, the South Korean minister of defence, and his Chinese counterpart, Wei Fenghe, agreed to set up more military hotlines and to push ahead with a visit by Mr Jeong to China next year to “foster bilateral exchanges and cooperation in defence”, South Korea’s defence ministry said.  

Seoul’s announcement coincided with growing resentment at the $5 billion (£3.9bn) annual fee that Washington is demanding to keep 28,500 US troops in South Korea.

That figure is a sharp increase from the $923 million that Seoul paid this year, which was an 8 per cent increase on the previous year. 

I can't conceive of a more reckless policy. It's certainly not calming North Korea down.

The VSG is certainly setting in motion historical shifts, all right. They're just not the kind that bode well for US interests.

The VSG gives South Korea good reason to doubt the US has its back

This:

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper landed in South Korea on Thursday to navigate renewed threats from an "enraged" North Korea and newly heightened strain in the alliance with Seoul that congressional aides, lawmakers and Korea experts say has been caused by President Donald Trump.

Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 400% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, a congressional aide and an administration official confirmed to CNN.

The price hike has frustrated Pentagon officials and deeply concerned Republican and Democratic lawmakers, according to military officials and congressional aides. It has angered and unnerved Seoul, where leaders are questioning US commitment to their alliance and wondering whether Trump will pull US forces if they don't pay up. 

"Nothing says I love you like a shakedown," said Vipin Narang, an associate professor at MIT who follows the Korean peninsula, summarizing South Korean uncertainty about the US. 

In the US, congressional aides and Korea experts familiar with the talks say the President's $4.7 billion demand came out of thin air, sending State and Defense Department officials scrambling to justify the number with a slew of new charges that may include Seoul paying some costs for US personnel present on the peninsula and for troops and equipment that rotate through. 

Maybe this will all be ameliorated by another beautiful letter from the dictator of South Korea's neighbor with the ever-growing arsenal of missiles and nuclear weapons.

 

Meanwhile, in northeast Asia . . .

Two incidents.

This:

There is a serious military confrontation going on in the Far East with Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China squaring off in the skies over 2 disputed islands in the Sea of Japan.

The incident began when South Korean military detected an incursion by a Russian A-50 command and control military aircraft that violated its airspace. Japan scrambled its own fighters and Russia responded by deploying some TU-95 bombers. Two Chinese H-6 bombers accompanied the Russia warplanes on sorties throughout the region.

A South Korean military spokesman said that they fired more than 300 warning shots at the Russian A-50. Russia vehemently denies they violated Korean airspace. The National Interest:

South Korean aircraft “conduced unprofessional maneuvers by crossing the course of Russian strategic missile carriers, threatening their security,” said the Russian Ministry of Defense, according to CNN. The ministry didn’t mention the A-50 command aircraft or the warning shots that South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff reported to have occurred.

Russia also said, according to CNN, the flight was “carried out in order to deepen and develop Russian-Chinese relations” and was “not aimed against third countries.”

The Russian account was  disputed by Japan, which agreed with the South Korean military about the incident. CNN:

But in a statement Tuesday afternoon, Japan's Ministry of Defense backed up South Korea's claims, saying the A-50 had flown over the islands and that Tokyo had scrambled fighters to intercept.

In a further complication, both South Korea and Japan said that two Chinese H-6 bombers had joined the Russian military aircraft on sorties through the region as well.

Over the past few years, Russia has continuously buzzed U.S. warships and violated our airspace. The belief is that they are testing our response to potential conflicts. This very well may be a similar effort to determine readiness and responses by both Japan and South Korea.

And this:

[Two North Korean-launched missiles] travelled around 270 miles before falling into the Sea of Japan - also known as the East Sea -  say reports from the troubled region.

It is the first missile test reported since President Trump and North Korean leader met at the demilitarised zone (DMZ) between the two Koreas at the end of June.

The White House, Pentagon and US State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

However, the joint chiefs said South Korean and US militaries were reportedly analysing details of the launches.

A US defence official said the secret launch appears to be similar to the recent May 2019 launch where two short range missiles were also launched.

Memo to the Very Stable Genius: North Korea is our enemy and Russia and China are our strategic adversaries. None of them are impressed by the appeal of possible "deals." This is real life and we're dealing with actors whose present positions are the distillation of centuries of cultural, ideological and geographic inputs that inherently make for interests at odds with ours.

Be prepared and wary. Patty-cake is a very dangerous way to proceed.

Wednesday roundup

Angela Merkel is engaged in a standoff with Horst Seehofer, Germany's interior minister, who happens to be from her own party, the Christian Democratic Union. His objection to her immigration policy stems from stats like these:

A study published just this past January found that a more than ten percent increase in violent crime in Germany was almost entirely attributed to young Syrian migrants taking up residence in the southern part of the nation. At the same time, three-quarters of the refugees are projected to be unemployed and living off government benefits for years to come. Too many of the new arrivals are utterly failing to assimilate into German culture, learn the language or embrace the nation’s values.

This is worth considering:

Reactions to President Trump’s unprecedented meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jung-un played out in a very familiar and predictable way in the United States: The president’s critics lamented his military concessions and effusive praise for a despotic regime, and his allies praised him as an outside-the-box diplomatic mastermind. What should surprise us—and alarm us—was the reaction from South Korea. 

On Wednesday morning, Chosun Ilbo, South Korea’s paper of record, published a bleak editorial: “Kim Jong-un Got Everything He Wanted from Summit with Trump.” 

“Many South Koreans had a great deal of hope for the U.S.-North Korea summit in Singapore because they believed that the historic meeting could resolve the nuclear threat which had loomed over their heads over the last 25 years. U.S. President Donald Trump had been full of promises,” the editorial glumly observes. “The agreement signed by Trump and Kim therefore came as a shock, which only got worse as Trump rambled on during the ensuing press conference.”

The company with its roots in Alexander Graham Bell's invention is set, now that it has the unconditional green light from a federal judge, to take over the company with its roots in Henry Luce's news magazine and the house of Bugs Bunny, Humphrey Bogart and Bette Davis. Yup, AT&T is cleared to buy Time Warner.

According to Politico's Alex Isenstadt, it wasn't Mark Sanford's crummy record as a family man that did him in with South Carolina voters; it was the distance he put between himself and the Very Stable Genius. In a world full of tradeoffs, this has a palpable downside. Sanford's character flaw was huge, but he was a stalwart opponent of profligate government spending.

The Very Stable Genius's longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen just lost his own legal team.

This is why LITD never held its breath regarding some big, abrupt turnabout in the North Korean attitude

 . . . and why we never joined the Very Stable Genius's water-carriers in assuming it was time to talk about a Nobel Prize.

Kim remains a paranoid little tyrant:

North Korea's government says it is considering calling off a planned nuclear summit between dictator Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump.

Kim's regime said through state-run news agency KCNA that ongoing 'Max Thunder' joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea are actually a 'rehearsal for invasion' of the North. 

'The United States will also have to undertake careful deliberations about the fate of the planned North Korea-U.S. summit in light of this provocative military ruckus jointly conducted with the South Korean authorities,' KCNA said.

South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported that Pyongyang also canceled high-level talks with Seoul, scheduled for later in the day.

The North Koreans cited the military drills as the reason.

The meeting was to happen in the border town of Panmunjom, as a followup to Kim's April meeting with his South Korean counterpart, Moon Jae-In.

For crying' out loud, these drills are routine.

We now have some indication of what North Korea would / will insist on at the summit.

Touchy, touchy.

The tricky art of balancing respect for various cultures with absolute truths

If you are a dog lover, steel yourself before reading this Daily Mail article and viewing the accompanying photos. I won't excerpt anything from it. I think that would be unduly gratuitous.

It's about the ongoing dog meat trade in South Korea, and how the government has issued a message discouraging those who eat it and the soup vendors who provide it from openly consuming and supplying it during the Olympics.

What I found telling was the array of comments underneath the articles, and what they indicate about the lack of depth with which most people approach this or, really, any subject.

Some comments were purely feelings-based, expressing the natural horror most of us feel at the mere thought of this. Some were at the opposite end of the spectrum, putting forth a cultural-relativity argument, saying, "Hey, each society has its own way of determining how to treat any animal lower than a human. It's cows, dogs, chicken and fish here, it's dogs over there." Some made a somewhat compelling case for the sliding-scale argument, pointing out that dogs are far more intelligent than cows. Some wanted to use it as an opportunity to advocate for vegetarianism.

I think we need to bring the sweep of history into it. Of all the varieties of animal life on this planet, why has humankind been compelled to domesticate canis familiaris? It's not a recent phenomenon, either. It got going at least 15,000 years ago. Their was surely an affinity between these species based on their hunting behavior, but it quickly grew to be largely based on mutual loyalty and affection.

At the risk of sounding like I'm approaching this in a purely feels-based way myself, I daresay that any human being with any warmth in his or her heart cannot but respond to the entreaty of a tail-wagging dog for interaction with petting and gush-talk.

Man's best friend and all that.

I'll just say it flat out: There's something cold about a culture that raises dogs for meat.

Maybe when I have time I'll look into whether Scripture addresses this in any way, but recall that John Wesley says there are four ways we can come to know God's design: Scripture, reason, faith and experience. With regard to dogs, we have thousands of years of experience.

Until I come across convincing refutation of it, my personal formulation of the way humankind is to relate to the lower animal species is to divide them into three categories:

1. Those we keep as pets, give names to, and make part of our families.
2. Those we eat.
3. Those we regard with awe from a safe distance.

Like all previous talks between North Korea and any of its enemies, the current jaw-jaw with South Korea is utterly worthless

Didn't take them any time at all to start issuing untenable demands:

A week after North Korea said it would send a delegation to next month's Winter Olympics in South Korea, the regime's demands have taken on a sinister pattern.

Reports emerged Tuesday that North Korea demanded the South return defectors who fled the totalitarian regime. That came after requiring that South Korea pay the North’s Olympic costs and an agreement by the United States and South Korea to suspend a planned joint military exercise.

The demands came to light since last week's talks between North and South Korea — the first sit-down between the two countries in more than two years. 

“This is why all those crotchety hawks evinced such skepticism at North Korea’s talks,” tweeted Robert Kelly, a professor of political science at Pusan National University in South Korea. “We all saw this coming.”

 

The South Korean newspaper The Chosun Ilbo reported Tuesday that the North demanded the return of 12 women who escaped in 2016 from their jobs at restaurant in Ningbo, China, a demand the paper said the South is legally bound to refuse.

South Korea's government said the timing is too sensitive to comment, the newspaper said.

The North has warned that it will not agree to more reunions for families split by the Korean War unless the defectors, and another woman who fled from elsewhere, are returned.

The talks last week occurred after the U.S. agreed to South Korea's request to postpone a large military exercise, which usually involves 30,000 American troops and 200,000 South Koreans, until after the Olympics are held Feb. 9-25. in Pyeongchang, South Korea.

On Friday,a North Korean state-run publication issued a demand for a "permanent halt" to U.S.-South Korean military drills while inter-Korean talks continue, according to The Strait Times of Singapore.

"Inter-Korean talks and war drill can never be compatible," the North Korean publication, Uriminzokkiri, declared.

North Korea, which is under sanctions by the United Nations and U.S. aimed at ending its nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs, also succeeded in getting South Korea to agree to fund its Olympic delegation, which will include as many as 500 athletes, performers, officials and reporters, according to The Hankyoreh, a South Korean online publication.
South Korea will pay the entire delegation's expenses, said author and Korea analyst Gordon Chang.

"This is typical. (North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's) family playbook goes back several decades," Chang said. "First they refuse to talk to South Korea. Then they make a bold overture. Next comes demands and then they throw a tantrum."

The irony is that we've been at the no-good-options stage for some time now. There will come a point when we can no longer go on acting otherwise.

What South Korea should be wary of, and what it should push for, in its current talks with the North

Nicholas Eberstadt at the American Enterprise Institute lays out the stakes for the current attempt at dialogue between the two nation-states occupying the Korean Peninsula:

The talks set to open this week between the North and South Korean governments are off to an inauspicious start: Even before negotiators could settle into their seats, the North had pocketed its first concession from the South, offering nothing in return.

North Korean negotiators are practiced hands in the art of “we win and you lose” deal-making. Unless the team of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea has the fortitude to stand up to such ploys and has a solid game plan of its own, there is a serious risk that the South, its allies and much of the international community will come out of these apparent peace overtures even less secure than before.

The upcoming North-South dialogue was decreed by Kim Jong-un in his New Year’s Day address, after two years of brushing off diplomatic feelers from Seoul. Mr. Kim declared that now — as in, right now — was the time for the two sides to meet to “improve the relations between themselves and take decisive measures for achieving a breakthrough for independent reunification without being obsessed by bygone days.” Seoul rushed to accommodate Mr. Kim’s timetable.

The North’s sudden move ostensibly is explained by its desire to participate in the Winter Olympics next month, which will be hosted in South Korea. But those games were awarded back in 2011, and Mr. Kim’s New Year’s speech is an important annual ritual, prepared and polished months in advance.

By springing this surprise right before the start of the event, the North imposed a hurried and artificial deadline for results. This is “we say jump, you ask how high” diplomacy in action — which is effective for showing who is in control of the negotiation process. Sometimes it also pushes adversaries into making unforced errors.

The South Korean government, in its haste to make ready for dialogue with the North, almost immediately wrong-footed itself. It pre-emptively proposed delaying the joint annual United States-South Korean winter military exercises until after the Games. (Washington acquiesced after high-level consultations.) Seoul may have intended this gesture in the spirit of good will or magnanimity, but it sent all the wrong signals — including a willingness that may be read as weakness, and could harden Pyongyang’s posture, raising its expectations for what it might be able to take back home. The South Korean government, in other words, is off to a bad start, at least tactically.

Eberstadt points out that current South Korea president Moon isn't a full-on appeaser, even though he leans that way:

To his credit, in his short time in office Mr. Moon — who, by the way, was one of [former president] Mr. Roh’s top advisers during those troubled years — has leavened his own sunshine yearnings with a strong dose of realpolitik. He has pushed for missile defense, for example, as well as for close coordination over international sanctions with the United States despite new strains with President Trump. Last week, Mr. Moon is reported to have said of the upcoming talks with North Korea, “I will not just naïvely push for dialogue as in the past.”

So what can the South do to be proactive and get something positive from this exercise?

 . . . how can the Moon administration avoid getting played? First, by recognizing the North’s ulterior goals in these talks, and the other traps it may be readying. Then, by insisting ruthlessly on a quid pro quo at every step — requiring, for example, that if Seoul postpones military exercises, then Pyongyang should too. And finally, by tucking a few tricks up its own sleeves.
Mr. Kim says he wants more contact between the North and the South? Insist on it, including by requiring that news from South Korea be allowed to reach the North. Don’t shy away from raising unpleasant topics, like North Korea’s appalling human rights situation, and calling for it to cooperate with the existing United Nations commission of inquiry. And why not confidentially mention that a large majority of South Koreans now seem to favor hosting United States tactical nuclear weapons to counter the North’s new threats?

South Korean negotiators are not used to turning the tables on their North Korean interlocutors, but they should start. 

This doesn't have to turn out to be another one of those patty-cake sessions that always ratchet up the world's danger level, but it will require that the good guys go into it with the wiliness of a serpent.

Kim seems to be using mixed signals as a tool for playing one of his enemies against the other

What conclusions are to be drawn from his New Year address?

A lot of outlets are emphasizing the conciliatory tone he extends toward South Korea, but this ought not to be minimized:

In his annual New Year's address, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un tried to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its ally South Korea while threatening the United States with nuclear war.

Kim said his country had completed its nuclear program and the "button" for nuclear weapons was on his desk.

CBS:

"The U.S. should know that the button for nuclear weapons is on my table," he said during the speech, as provisionally translated by the AP. The official transcript of his address was expected to be released shortly. "The entire area of the U.S. mainland is within our nuclear strike range. ... The United States can never start a war against me and our country."

Last week, North Korean officials said it was a "pipe dream" for the United States to think the isolated nation would give up its nuclear weapons, and called tough new U.N. sanctions targeting the country "an act of war" that violate its sovereignty.

Then there is the Olympics gesture, which  seems to have South Korean president Moon - widely regarded as coming out of the sunshine-policy strain of that country's spectrum of relations-with-the-North viewpoints - intrigued:

This morning, less than 24 hours later, he was out with an official statement suggesting that representatives of the two nations get together in a neutral location as soon as next week to begin hammering out the details. (Reuters)

South Korean President Moon Jae-in said on Tuesday the improvement of inter-Korean relations was linked to resolving North Korea’s nuclear program, a day after the North offered talks with Seoul but was steadfast on its nuclear ambitions.

“The improvement of relations between North and South Korea cannot go separately with resolving North Korea’s nuclear program, so the foreign ministry should coordinate closely with allies and the international community regarding this,” Moon said in opening remarks at a cabinet meeting…

The South Korean president requested the ministries of unification and sports to swiftly create measures to help North Korea participate in the upcoming Pyeongchang Winter Olympics.

They’re already talking about sending cruise ships up to North Korea’s Wonsan port to ferry athletes and officials down to Pyeongchang for the games. This would “minimize costs” for the North as well as avoiding the inconvenient issues of the millions of landmines buried under the DMZ. It may not be a done deal yet, but it certainly looks as if Moon Jae-in is ready to jump at the chance to minimize the risk of an international incident (if not a direct attack) during the games. 

Parsing semantics can seem like a doo-dah exercise in realms with less import than foreign relations with nuclear implications, but in that realm, it is everything:

While not ignoring the North’s nuclear weapons provocations entirely, Moon Jae-in is now talking about “resolving” North Korea’s nuclear program. He’s not saying eliminating, dismantlingor even scaling back the program. What this could amount to is little more than a freeze in significant growth. In other words, he’s very likely signaling an acceptance of the North as a nuclear power providing they don’t get too carried away. And that’s the first building block that Kim Jong-un needs if his goal is, as I mentioned above, to get the rest of the world to accept a nuclear North Korea as the new normal.

I would say we should not come to fast conclusions. The US and South Korean militaries are still undoubtedly on schedule for the next round of their joint preparedness drills. South Korea is surely hearing from Japan on a regular basis about that country's concerns.

Still, this is an example of the kind of incrementalism that lets legitimization of evil seep into world-stage interactions. Especially in an Olympic-games year, the temptation to heed the can't-we-just-see-if-for-amoment-we-can't-ratchet-down-the-tension viewpoint is going to be strong.

We - meaning the civilized world, in this case exemplified by South Korea - can send a ferry up there to bring the athletes to the site of the games, but the instruments by which Seoul, Tokyo and Los Angeles can be incinerated are not going anywhere, and the regime that has been training those athletes to be picked up has by no means renounced the possibility of so using those instruments.

Two newly elected leaders of US allies who do not inspire confidence in smooth times ahead

And we think our turmoil is dizzying here in post-America.

In South Korea, at a moment of fever-pitch tensions with North Korea, which is preparing its sixth nuclear-weapon test, and which is a divided country regarding the installation of the US-supplied THAAD system for knocking out North Korean missiles (a system that is a major irritant to China), and which has just gone through the removal of a president whose main personal advisor was a flake with no official position but lots of shady business ties, a proponent of the oft-tried "sunshine policy" has been elected to replace her.

He seemed to do best with a younger demographic, while his opponent appealed to older South Koreans:

Moon won with 41.1 percent of the votes but that seemingly comfortable margin belied an ideological and generational divide in the country of 51 million people.

Data from an exit poll conducted by South Korea's top three television networks showed that, while Moon won the majority of votes cast by those under the age of 50, conservative rival Hong Joon-pyo found strong support among voters in their 60s and 70s.

The nation's young adults seem to have tasted the consumerism Kool-Aid and all that "fairness" crap with which the West is plagued, which is largely borne of a desire for a seat at the big-boy table:

 As I have noted, the danger here, and the chief cause of the country’s recent leftist surge, is more psychological than ideological. I see no evidence that most mainstream young adults admire North Korea or communism, per se. But many Koreans suffer from some degree of short man syndrome, partly due to their relatively short period of politico-economic development. Though fiercely proud of their national identity, they also feel self-conscious and even embarrassed about any perceived lack of what they identify as Western-style development. But at the moment, partly due to the universal idolization of their own Ban Ki-moon and the UN — International Relations is one of the trendiest university departments here — Western-style development largely entails advanced European progressivism.

Hence, in spite of their nation being relatively conservative or unprogressive on most economic and moral issues — or perhaps because of that — many university-age Koreans knee-jerkingly speak of welfare programs, redistribution, abortion on demand, and the like, as unambiguous ideals. In general, Koreans inclined to feel self-conscious standing before the outside world (and young people are of course most susceptible to all forms of self-consciousness) see their successful nation as backwards for all the very virtues that defined their incredible rise: low taxes, high levels of entrepreneurship, brilliant frugality (the product of long-term poverty), familial self-reliance, moral self-restraint based on a sense of public shame. They therefore foolishly seek to embrace a more “forward-looking” social model that would actually destroy their many real achievements and advances, as is already happening in most of that Europe they blindly idealize.

It will be interesting to see what Kim's next move is in light of this.

Then, speaking of Kool-Aid, newly elected French president Macron seems to like his climate-change-flavored:

On February 10, he shared a video inviting the USA’s top scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs to France.

He said: ‘I do know how your new president has decided to jeopardise your budget, your initiatives and he is extremely sceptical about climate change.

‘I have no doubt about climate change and how we have to be committed regarding this issue.’

President Macron added: ‘So I have two messages, one for the French researchers and scientists, we will reinforce our budgets, our public and private investment to do more and accelerate our initiative in order to be in line with COP21 (the Paris conference climate change accords).’

He added: ‘My second message is for you guys (Americans), please to come to France, your are welcome.
‘It is your nation, we want innovative people.
‘We want people working on climate change, energy, renewables and new technologies.’

Exit question: Do you have confidence in Squirrel-Hair's ability to deftly handle relationships with these guys?