The DPRK's history has been a rollercoaster, with admirable highs and heartbreaking lows, most notably the Korean War and the fall of the USSR. Its steadfast commitment to Juche, a variant of Marxism-Leninism that focuses on self-sufficiency, has both made the DPRK a target for imperialist genocidal powers, and allowed them to survive these attacks.
Lately, we seem to be seeing a transition from surviving to thriving. China and the DPRK have always had a much more complicated history than Western education and media allows its population to know, with periods of quite strong disagreement - it's not the case that China is somehow the DPRK's master. Russia is the DPRK's other neighour that isn't US-occupied, and while they obviously differ substantially in ideology since the USSR fell, the tsunami of sanctions on Russia has changed things. The stick has been removed from the equation, with Russia facing no possible punishment from the West because they were unable to enact sanctions effectively and used all their ammunition in the first few barrages rather than turning the screws over time (I don't care if we're on the 14th sanctions package, it's all been meaningless for Russia since the end of 2022).
The carrot is also more visible, with an alliance making a lot of sense for both. Once again, Western education and media would have you believe a Parenti-esque reality in which Korea is a massive and unpredictable danger to the world, but is simultaneously so poor and destitute that their artillery pieces are made of wood and their missiles out of paper-mache. The truth is that Korea has innovated greatly in missile technology, with some of their weapons matching or even exceeding those of the Russians, hence the Russians' use of them in Ukraine. Russia also finds it advantageous to invest in Korea to strengthen the anti-hegemonic alliance's presence in the Pacific, countering the US-occupied lower half of the peninsula who has naturally sided with Ukraine. Additionally, Russia is investing deeply in the Arctic sea route. This will open up as climate change continues; is naturally quite defensible for Russia so long as Korea is there to provide further defense at its eastern edge; and is both a faster and safer route for Russia to access China - especially in a world where straits can be blockaded by even impoverished yet determined countries like Yemen. The situation in the Red Sea benefits Russia and China now, but in the coming years, the US may apply the same lesson for their own benefit elsewhere.
It is perhaps this new sense of self-confidence that has let Korea give up on reunification with its lower half via peaceful measures. A new Korean War would be devastating for both sides even if it remained non-nuclear, but with a rising DPRK and with the South falling yet further into hypercapitalist exploitation and misery, and a US that remains non-committal to its "allies" when times get difficult (as in Ukraine and Europe), a reality where Korea may finally hold the upper hand and have the ability to liberate its south may be approaching in the years and decades to come.
The COTW (Country of the Week) label is designed to spur discussion and debate about a specific country every week in order to help the community gain greater understanding of the domestic situation of often-understudied nations. If you've wanted to talk about the country or share your experiences, but have never found a relevant place to do so, now is your chance! However, don't worry - this is still a general news megathread where you can post about ongoing events from any country.
The Country of the Week is *the DPRK! Feel free to chime in with books, essays, longform articles, even stories and anecdotes or rants. More detail here.
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section. Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war. Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language. https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one. https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts. https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel. https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator. https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps. https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language. https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language. https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses. https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Apartheid in South Africa ended with a one state solution where Blacks and Whites are equal citizens under shared government. Why should there be any difference for Palestine, especially now that Israel has destroyed most of Palestine's infrastructure. Israelis owe Palestinians generations worth of reparations. Wouldn't an endorsement for two-state solution be an endorsement for a literal ethnostate?
Wouldn't an endorsement for two-state solution be an endorsement for a literal ethnostate?
The two-state solution seems more like a liberal attempt to buy off the Palestinians just enough to legalize the land grab and keep the status quo going than a genuine attempt at a just and lasting solution.
If the two-staters' vision of a Palestinian state became a reality, that state would be a mere Bantustan, thoroughly penetrated by American and zionist intelligence agencies and NGO's and it is unlikely that its hostile zionist neighbour would allow them any form of independence. The geography of the amputated Palestine imagined by the two-staters would also be impossible as it would be split in two by the zionist entity and not have room or resources to allow the refugees to return.
A just solution for Palestine would be a unitary secular and multiethnic state built on the principle of "room for all who makes room for all". Such a state would need comprehensive property reforms to make up for generations of apartheid and immiseration of the indigenous population. To heal the wounds of apartheid, strict ethnic quotas for housing, employment, government services and politics would probably need to be imposed for a transitional period. A legal aftermath of zionist apartheid would also be necessary, preferably with Jews and Palestinians being represented proportionally among judges and juries.
Israel - Palestine has progressed much further than the situation ever did in apartheid South Africa, it's a much worse scenario. While apartheid in South Africa was extremely violent, the air force was not bombing African homelands in the way that Israel is bombing Palestine right now. A two state solution is more of a realistic starting point for negotiations and peace than an ideal solution.
Can't remember who it was that said that the difference between South Africa and Israel is that South Africa wanted the African population as a servant class. Israel just wants the Palestinians gone, and would gladly take Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan if it thought it could.
Not really, the South African nuclear program during apartheid was performed and tests carried out with the assistance of Israel. This happened during the 1960s and 1970s. See the Vela incident. Apartheid South Africa and Israel were major allies. A lot of the military equipment, some of which is still used today, was Israeli in origin or made in co operation with Israel. The standard issue service rifle was, and still is, a locally produced IMI Galil. The old Atlas Cheetah fighter jet was a co operation project with Israel, with a lot of technology shared with the Israeli Kfir fighter jets.
The nuclear weapons were dismantled during the end of apartheid for two reasons, the first being that the apartheid government did not want the new black majority government to have nuclear weapons, and secondly because the new ANC led government did not want nuclear weapons anyways. So it fit both parties mutual interests.
I don't think either pflp fatah or hamas or pa advocate for one state with equal rights. I believe they are maybe unrealistic, seeing it as a compromise with genocidal zionists, but two state solution is also compromising with them and a worse one, as i see it.
The two-state solution was basically a gerrymandering scheme. Israel wants a (white) Jewish majority. The two-state solution would essentially give them that without ("too much") genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Would it be an ethnostate? Probably. But it'd at least be a slight step back from the current apartheid. It'd be an ethnostate like the U.S. is an ethnostate. Or like the U.S. plus Mexico is an ethnostate.
But I think it's a very theoretical question anyway. The two-state solution would require (far more) autonomy for the Palestinians. Is Israel going to give up control of the resources, the border, their ability to black ball any government they don't like? Is it going to give up the ability to invade any chance it likes? Is it going to stand for Palestinians to have an actual military right next door? No. It's incredibly clear that Israeli fascists are never going to let that happen. It's basically the antithesis of the Zionist project.
The main benefit that the two-state solution (or temporary settlement) once had is that the rest of the world saw it as legitimate and might be convinced to help enforce it. I mean, it was basically the consensus of the U.N. general assembly for decades.