Truly speaking, UN with its seemingly democratic nature and composition, has an under pinning rudimentary barbaric, strongman-ship and jungle law pervading its transactions. The current world order is dominated by the brute power of ‘west aligned’, hegemony.
Fire and Fury
It’s in fashion, mainstream media and folks discard every other idea that Trump intends or does. We should ask ourselves, how do we deal with Kim where decades of diplomacy failed, where repeated waves of sanctions have had no meaningful effect in stopping the nuclear ambitions and now, the regime is at its best in exploiting and extorting with a real nuclear armed missile. Nothing wrong if Trump escalates with ‘fire and fury’. Of course, that comes not as a strategy but as a natural (rather naturalized) response. To be true, that’s the only language Kim Jong Un can understand, that’s the only way ‘carrot and stick’, diplomacy can work with DPRK.
Controlling tantrum and tweets
So its difficult to control a tantrum throwing child, especially if he is in the driving seat, you have no controls and your fate is critically and essentially dependent on this driver.
Visit my blog – ‘The world on a leash’ click here
Excerpts from National Review below –
‘First, North Korean leaders know that they would not only lose a war with the United States, they would also lose their regime and, quite possibly, their lives’.
‘Second, to the extent that North Korea has any hope at all of achieving a victory, it has to strike first, achieve a degree of surprise, and find a way to deter the planned American counterattack’.
‘What does this all mean? So long as North Korea does not believe that we are preparing to launch an aggressive attack, they are highly likely to maintain the status quo. They’re keenly aware of the first rule. If there’s a war, they’ll lose. If, however, the DPRK believes the United States is preparing aggressive military action, it may well gamble on a first strike. But, given the first rule, its leaders would have to truly believe the end of their regime was at hand. Only perceived desperate times would justify desperate measures’.
‘Trump’s rhetoric are most troubling. It’s not clear what he stands to gain with his aggressive words, and to the extent they have an effect, they seem to be backfiring. There’s no indication that his words are deterring the DPRK from pursuing an active ICBM force. To the contrary, they are incentivizing North Korea’s rush to create deliverable intercontinental weapons. They aren’t “scaring” North Korea into any sort of compliance with American wishes. Kim Jong-un is countering Trump rhetoric not just with rhetoric of his own but also with actions that frighten every American ally in the region — the kind of actions that raise tensions and increase the chance of miscalculation. Nor is there much evidence that Trump’s rhetoric is triggering a Chinese response decisive enough to force the DPRK into compliance’.
‘Trump, thankfully, has surrounded himself with careful military advisers, but he is not making careful statements. Indeed, he is reportedly ignoring his advisers’ advice. It’s too much to say that he’s actively courting nuclear conflict or even a second Korean War. It’s not too much to say, however, that he’s increasing risks without any clear reward’.