It's about time,the US is now structually weak,culturally dead,industrially stagnent and declining,with petrodollar on the verge of acclerating decline,the Western Empires has not been this weak for centuries,it's probable the West as a whole will be in turmoil for two hundred years before finally giving up like the Romans.
It's in Korea's best interest to not align with the US and also to not provoke China,Korean economy relies too much on the current arrangement to not be exposed to radical change.
You've raised some interesting questions in the matter of an 'occupied' state. Literally. In such condition one's footing is crucial/strategically nuanced in its placement.
Because of the three scenarios you have raised for 'Korean' autonomy and or potential nuclearization suggest to me that the 'deep state' within the us governing system will kick any such considerations of the nature you have raised down the proverbial road for there is much at stake in these regards.
That Korea itself is a mighty techno-industrial player on the world stage is a too important 'partner' to allow it free reign to think for its own good at this juncture.
Maybe you are correct to consider the option you noted for Seoul to pursue in light of the west Asian predicament belying the 'world.'.
This then reinforces the danger of the moment as a sole actor chosen to follow the lead of those under active kinetic actions who, as a result of injuries must reconsider their strategic alignments for sure.
Two completely different diplomatic theaters, with two different risks profiles in the current scene and each of whom who could be consequentially impacted at the nation-state level.
It's about time,the US is now structually weak,culturally dead,industrially stagnent and declining,with petrodollar on the verge of acclerating decline,the Western Empires has not been this weak for centuries,it's probable the West as a whole will be in turmoil for two hundred years before finally giving up like the Romans.
It's in Korea's best interest to not align with the US and also to not provoke China,Korean economy relies too much on the current arrangement to not be exposed to radical change.
Ha!
Did you see this:
https://substack.com/@thevulnerableadvocate/note/c-258319442?r=6kzym0&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
I saw. It's a scary world!
Ha!
You've raised some interesting questions in the matter of an 'occupied' state. Literally. In such condition one's footing is crucial/strategically nuanced in its placement.
Because of the three scenarios you have raised for 'Korean' autonomy and or potential nuclearization suggest to me that the 'deep state' within the us governing system will kick any such considerations of the nature you have raised down the proverbial road for there is much at stake in these regards.
That Korea itself is a mighty techno-industrial player on the world stage is a too important 'partner' to allow it free reign to think for its own good at this juncture.
Maybe you are correct to consider the option you noted for Seoul to pursue in light of the west Asian predicament belying the 'world.'.
This then reinforces the danger of the moment as a sole actor chosen to follow the lead of those under active kinetic actions who, as a result of injuries must reconsider their strategic alignments for sure.
Two completely different diplomatic theaters, with two different risks profiles in the current scene and each of whom who could be consequentially impacted at the nation-state level.