Why must the alliance be ominous?? Just because the US thinks so? ? Hasn't the writer his own thoughts on the matter?

Expand full comment


Expand full comment

The only thing to "fear" in the Russo-North Korea apparent alliance if Pyongyang's missile development and nuclearization program. The two are not mutually exclusive. NK has developed some "indigenous" capability on this front but the fact of the matter is that rogue states like Iran and failed states like Pakistan have been shipping old technologies to NK. Babyface Kim needs new technology that matches, say, Russia's, India's, Israel's -- all this before we even start talking old colonial and sinking power Britain, the old imperial but declining power, the US. Until then the fear is minimal, not for the likes of Philip Bowring to make a mountain out of a molehill. What NK doesn't have is a "society" that is cohesive, rich in education and economics. Why? Because Babyface Kim plunders NK's coffers like the thug that he is, like so many corrupt Asian autocrats past and present. And he knows he operates in the nuclear program under the threat of deterrence.

What Bowring should have focused on is not NK but the supposedly developing axis between Beijing and Moscow. Will it come to anything that might worry the rest of Asia along the Pacific and Indian oceans? Or is this yet another flash in the pan where both sides want to rattle the supposed hegemony of the US -- until one side backs down and pronounced a kind of reverse Fukuyama-ian end of history? Which I think is what all this boils down to -- for now. And which explains why scaredy-cat rest of East and Southeast Asia are privately hiding US skirts for geostrategic protection, much as Australia has been doing -- shamelessly -- since 1945. The problem with Asia is how two-faced it is, especially its so-called leaders (though their western counterparts are no better). They want more liberalised trade with China (as if China practices this) but US military protection against China's projection of imperial power (just like the US if one goes back in history).

As for Donald Trump and what he might do if he is president again (hope bloody not; it'll be the end of America, for sure): of course of lowlife scumbag like Trump will sleep with Putin and Babyface Kim. If it's not for commercial reasons that makes him money, it will be to show Americans and the world what a pathetic "leader", compulsive liar and fraud he is (still). It's showman's stuff and immature by any definition, the form of a low-intellect.

Point is, there's not much to worry about in the Pyongyang-Moscow axis, if it materializes. Russia is basically broke financially and cannot modernize its military or any of its hardware. It can print more rouble but it'll send the sick Russian army into septic tank that Putin runs. His promise of taking over all of Ukraine win a month or two was always exaggerated, just as China's dictator Xi Jinping tends to exaggerate things when, clearly, the "emperor" is protecting his power and his golden goose (personal wealth) and disallowing scrutiny of the latter by any means.

It's not all "foreign policy" or "inernational relations" stuff. It's not all state-state politics. What feeds into these categories, like it or not, is domestic politics and domestic policies. Philip Bowring should know this by now.

Expand full comment