No. They are the most indepedentest of the independent. They only serve one lunatic dictator and his family. And developed nuclear weapons against the wishes of US, china and russia. Can't get more independent than that. It's a country that literally starved itself to stay independent.
NK exists at the behest of China. China wants a buffer between it and South Korea. If that wish were to change, I'd expect NK to be either gobbled up by China or allowed to rejoin with SK.
Who's preventing it from rejoining South Korea? I can infer that China wants it as a buffer to South Korea; but how can China disallow it from joining South Korea?
No. China and NK was created with the backing of the soviet union. They were vassals of the soviet union until they decided not to be. Both china and north korea have been independent actors for a while now. Even before the soviet union collapsed.
> China wants a buffer between it and South Korea.
Why would china want a buffer between it and south korea? You mean between china and the US?
> If that wish were to change, I'd expect NK to be either gobbled up by China or allowed to rejoin with SK.
SK is a vassal of the US. You don't "rejoin" a vassal state. It'll be more likely north korea will one day liberate south korea than anything. South korea has a foreign occupation force. North korea doesn't. Think about it.
> It'll be more likely north korea will one day liberate south korea than anything. South korea has a foreign occupation force. North korea doesn't. Think about it.
LOL. IIRC, about all North Korea has for it (militarily) is MAD with South Korea (thousands of bunkered artillery pieces aimed as Seoul and nukes).
Russia's got a far better military than North Korea, and it's getting torn up in Ukraine. North Korea, in anything resembling its current state, is never going to "liberate" South Korea.
The only dictatorship in South America right now is Venezuela. Bolivia is the next closest country, but I'd be hard-pressed to call it a dictatorship.
Neither of those countries are remotely anything that could be called a US vassal. If anything, they are some of the most reflexively anti-American countries in South America.
No. South korea is a vassal. A vassal of the US. It has american troops occupying it. North korea is opposite of what south korea is. They have no foreign troop occupying it. And if north korea was a chinese vassal, they wouldn't have nuclear weapons. It's funny how people want to ignore the obvious.
> South korea is a vassal. A vassal of the US. It has american troops occupying it. North korea is opposite of what south korea is. They have no foreign troop occupying it.
That's one of your many misunderstandings. The presence of troops does not imply an occupation. If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances.
> The presence of troops does not imply an occupation.
70 years "presence" of troops does.
> If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances.
That's a nice way of saying vassalage.
If it was china occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. If it was russia occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. Somehow, when we do it, it's an "alliance".
> And if north korea was a chinese vassal, they wouldn't have nuclear weapons. It's funny how people want to ignore the obvious.
I agree with this view unfortunately. I find it a very harsh view. It's too harsh for my taste and I have the strongest wish that I didn't view things this way. With that said, the evidence is too strong in my opinion.
The evidence that supports it is that Ukraine was invaded by Russia, because they didn't have nuclear weapons. Ukraine used to have them and they were not invaded then. This means that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. It also means that promises are not made forever (since Russia promised not to invade Ukraine if they'd give back their nuclear weapons). More importantly, you don't know how long such a promise lasts.
Based on how Russia treated Ukraine we can state:
* Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. It doesn't matter what treaties and promises are in place. Nuclear weapons will fail as a deterrent if there's a proper defense against it. Currently, there is no proper defense against it. It will be unknown when there will be or if there ever will be.
* Promises and treaties show an intention. That intention may not be acted upon at any given point in time.
We know that North Korea has nuclear weapons. This means that North Korea has a deterrent against any other country including China. Moreover, North Korea has made this deterrent more potent by showcasing it is willing to starve its own population. This means they care less about having nuclear weapons targeted at them than the other way around. To see why this strategy is effective one could read up on the mentality Swiss pikemen in the 15th century [1].
If China invades North Korea, then they better have a way to defend against nuclear weapons. If they don't, then I estimate that they they risk about 50 million to 100 million people directly dying to being severely injured [2], not to mention the nuclear fallout would cause second order effects.
[1] In short: because they were willing to go on suicidal charges against other pikemen of other nations, they became the most feared pikemen to fight against. Fighting against a Swiss unit would mean certain death for both groups of pikemen.
Wut? North Korea is the vassalist vassal that ever vassaled. Russia might be getting there.