With a ridiculously large nuclear arsenal and a history of aggression against other countries, the belligerent Americans continue to paint the DPRK as a threat to the rest of the world. Gullible clowns in the West proudly wear their ignorance like big red noses, giving pseudo-intellectual analyses of why Kim Jong-Un is an irrational or bad leader who can destroy the world.
Now why would a Socialist like me defend a 'monarchist tyrant' like Kim Jong-Un? The USA told you that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and you're really going to believe that the DPRK is a tyrannical regime under the sole leadership of one person? If you study the history, actions, and stances of the DPRK, you'll realise that it has maintained a consistent character regardless of who the leader has been (and a competent person would recognise that there must be a reason for this). Also, realistically, a single person can't simply hold onto power like that; obviously others support the leadership enough to maintain it.
What some persons may say is that the North Koreans who support the government are brainwashed. This is nonsense. Why do they not say the same of themselves? Do they not consume Western propaganda like food? Among the most upsetting ideas is by someone named Ralph Peters, who wrote that it's better for millions of Koreans to die than it is for thousands of Americans to die. The violent rhetoric of Americans is peddled in such a barefaced and careless manner.
It reflects a sense of exceptionalism, which is the idea that the USA should be able to do things that other countries are not able to do, and that the lives of Americans are worth more than the lives of people from other countries.
A lot of hype has surrounded the DPRK's missile tests and its bomb detonations, with Western media focusing much less on the USA's similar tests and its military drills which make other countries weary. Persons posing as legitimate environmentalists have whined about how the DPRK is ruining the world's environment with nuclear tests, while being silent on similar actions by the USA. The USA conducted over 1,000 nuclear detonations since 1945, while France (another NATO country) continued until 1998.
Yes, 1992 is a long time ago, so why does it matter now? The tests were only a part of the development of the USA's aggressive nuclear programme; with these tests being successful, the USA has over 1,500 nuclear weapons deployed and thousands more in their stockpile. The US has still been testing and developing Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (which would deliver nuclear warheads) up to last month.
Why is the US allowed to do this, while the DPRK and Iran aren't? Unlike the USA, the DPRK and Iran haven't been going around invading multiple other nations and toppling their governments. The USA is the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons against another country, an instance where they murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in response to an attack on a military port.
The DPRK has never used nuclear weapons on another country. For some comparative perspective, they have only conducted 6 nuclear weapons tests, and they most likely have less than 30 nuclear weapons. Remember, the USA has conducted over 1,000 nuclear weapons tests, and has thousands of nuclear weapons. The USA still continues to develop and test missiles even today, but it gets much less media attention because the USA building its capacity to use violence is 'normal' while the DPRK doing the same thing is somehow unacceptable.
The latest developments are a missile test that flew over Japan, and the detonation of a Hydrogen bomb on a test site in their own land. Bear with me here, but these developments have arguably brought more peace and stability to the world than harm; the cards are in the USA's hands, and whether the world is plunged into war is left up to them.
The reason for the DPRK's perceived belligerence is that the USA has been threatening them for decades, and engaging in military drills that seem like rehearsal for an invasion. Remembering the devastating Korean War in which the US engaged in genocide, and in a refusal to end up like Iraq or Libya, the DPRK has taken every measure to defend itself and deter war.
Global rhetoric and actions have slightly shifted since the most recent developments. It has been revealed that the USA's capability to prevent a missile strike is not as great as they may bluff (they are skilled at destroying lives, but incompetent in defending them). Another important development is that the DPRK has successfully tested a Hydrogen bomb which can be feared.
Russia and China, who failed to veto anti-DPRK resolutions in the UN Security Council, are now more firmly acknowledging that sanctions won't change anything. Their overall stance on the issue has been a call for a 'double-freeze' plan, where the DPRK would stop its missile tests and nuclear tests, and the USA would stop its military drills on the Korean peninsula. The USA has rejected this plan. While the DPRK has faced sanctions for continuing with its tests, the USA hasn't faced any sanctions for the continuation of its drills.
Russia's position is correct; trying to starve the DPRK will not get it to end its programmes that it sees as necessary for sovereignty. As far as the DPRK is concerned, its nuclear programme is the sole thing that is deterring the US from invading and murdering its people again. Now that the DPRK is definitely a force to be reckoned with, Russia and China will do all they can to prevent a war, and the USA would be foolish to engage in a war with the DPRK.
Despite condemning the DPRK's tests, Russia is honest in admitting why the DPRK sees these tests as necessary. The rest of the world needs to be honest about this as well. The DPRK would only give up its nuclear programme if it knew that it would not be invaded. As long as the US exists as an imperial power, this is not an imaginable scenario. The USA is hypocritical; it is ready to use nuclear weapons against any country, while preventing any country from having the same power to deter it from invading them.
Now that Russia no longer sees sanctions as a sensible solution, hopefully they will veto UNSC resolutions that repeat the stale knee-jerk response. Hopefully we can work towards a real solution to peace. Until that real solution is drafted on paper, the DPRK is happy that it has a feared deterrent in the real world, and that the US will think twice about invading now.
The major threat to world peace is not the DPRK; it is the USA. Since its existence, the USA has been nothing but a stain on the world. It was a settler-colony established on violence and genocide, and it grew into an empire which continuously seeks to subordinate other countries to its own will. It is responsible for countless acts of genocide even outside of its claimed borders. It continues to engage in acts of aggression against Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, the DPRK, and other nations. The peoples of these nations are resilient, refusing to give up their sovereignty and yielding to the stale bag of crackers that continues to get recognition as a legitimate country.
It secures its recognition and hegemony through violence. As it establishes its own order in the world, the forces that resist it must be allowed to exercise their own right to use violence as well. Some persons will be appalled by this, because of their ingrained sense of American exceptionalism. Oh, how dare I tolerate the idea of a country (that is not the USA) using violence! How dare I justify a country's right to defend itself from the USA's will! Violent rhetoric against other countries has become so normalised. Hopefully the day comes when all lives are valued equally, instead of being valued less than the lives of Americans.