Youtube comments of JW Han (@jwhan2086).

  1. I laughed when he said, "Big-nose Yankees!" because my grandfather, who came from North Korea, said the same thing.
    1900
  2. Wait, 11:48 that's not Chinese, that's Korean alphabet! And as far as I know, Japanese has a similar typing system so I guess that Chinese may learn something from Japanese experience. My Chinese friends told me about their difficult experiences with typing their language alphabet. That's why ordinary Chinese people prefer voice chat to text. Anyhow, it's an interesting documentary and I appreciate it.
    231
  3. It looks like seeing a British old man talking about Chinese Prester John. Every liberal hawk who discuss any possibility of coup which is supposed to change authoritarian or totalitarian regime into Jeffersonian liberal order mistakes the very nature of dictatorship: Dictators do not dictate alone. They always have allies with systemic institutions. Without any structural change within the regime or the entire country, dictatorship won't go anywhere. Coups will just produce another dictatorship.
    190
  4. This video is not good enough to explain how much the issue is complicated. The Israelis-Iranian relationship is far more complex than this document briefly mentioned. For example, the Israeli ambassador to South Korea once said to Koreans "One day, we will have a peaceful relationship with Iran, I am sure. For we have no issue or argument with Iran as a country. Maybe around that time, the Korean peninsula would be united." The Israeli diplomat might have lied to Koreans, but I believe this comment shows that the Israeli foreign policy establishment sees their relationship with Iran in a multi-dimensional way. And Iranians are not as simple and homogeneous as this video describes. They have a sophisticated and institutionalised governance system. Some may be religious and ideological but others must be practical and competitive. That is why the Iranian regime managed to survive even though there was and is a lot of pressure to destroy it. To sum up, my point is this: do not underestimate how far both Israelis and Iranians are capable and how complicated each of their internal societies are. It's not that much simple. If it were, it would have been much easier to deal with this issue.
    103
  5. @someperson8649  Yeah. "Big-nose yankee" is a kind of typical stereotype. Not all American are Caucasian. Such an old-fashioned and outdated stereotype comes from the colonial periods, when my grandfather was educated by Imperial Japan. Some expressions North Korean defectors have introduced to me (I have personally meet some of them occasionally) are strikingly similar to that of my grandfather. He passed away more than a decade ago, and I still love & miss him while remaining rejecting his old & outdated ideas from the late 19th & early 20th century. So, the expressions North Korean defectors often use, such as "big-nose Yankee", gives me a mixed feeling. It reminds me of the fact that we are the same people who have the same language, culture, sentiment, and history, while exposing how huge the gap is, which we have to deal with.
    78
  6. 온갖 망상의 나열들을 듣던 중에 그나마 몇몇 이건 그나마 현실을 잘 설명해주는 국내 단 둘 중 하나의 설명.
    74
  7. Koreans themselves, and I, who leaves this comment, am one of them, do not often realise it, but the partnership with Poland would be one of the remaining great chances for the country not only to boost its economy but also to develop any sort of idea for its grand strategy. Koreans today, just as a Korean expert on international relations screamed in a conference at the CSIS, are "just power-mongering people" without any idea of what's going on. Some arrogant Koreans who are addicted to Germanphilia or Russophilia (sadly, it includes some of my closest friends) tend to neglect Poland's struggle to develop a grand strategy for their country, but it is the very thing Seoul should learn from Warsaw.
    65
  8. So Chinese gained the land, the UK gained the population who fled from the land, the US gained Taiwanese favour over PRC, and Singaporeans gained attractiveness as the financial hub of the region. For now, it seems that everyone has their own gain. So, is it good?
    36
  9. Asian democracies must react to this case. At least the South Korean government should impose sanctions on the junta. If the administration and the National Assembly fail to do so, it would be proved that they are cowards.
    28
  10.  @aleksaradojicic8114  Um............ Sorry sir, but I have to say Koreans, I mean, BOTH KOREAS basically see China as a threat more than Baltics see Russia. How long Baltic nations have had a relationship with Russians? Probably centuries. And North Koreans are saying "Japan is the enemy for centuries, while Chinese for millennia" which the peoples in the South agree. You might have misinterpreted the historical relationship between China and Korea. Chinese empires and Korean kingdoms may seem to have had a peaceful relationship from the late 14th to early 19th century. Prof Westad from Yale published a wonderful book on this period. But as many Koreans complain about this book, this period was exceptional. And even in this period China and Korea had had security tensions. Fortunately, these tensions did not develop into a major military clash in many cases. I'm not gonna describe Korea as a victim of history. Yes, Chinese empires have invaded and tried to conquer Korea many times, even more than Japanese has done - but Koreans have too invaded China(especially Manchuria) whenever they saw any windows for opportunity. So, if Sino-Korean relations are different to that of Ruso-Baltics, this would be the reason. But that does not mean China and Korea have no reason for hostility. We do have.
    28
  11. I'm really glad to hear about your well-considered strategic thinking from the US side. South Korean politicians pretend to be impressed by the Wilsonian ideal from American foreign policy tradition, something like a "crusade for the free world." And it is true that such rhetoric really stirs up South Korean public(and I guess it might be similar to American friends). But having and finding common strategic interests gives us stability and sustainability for the alliance. Even though some American pundits (and some American presidents) have argued for dissolving or ending the alliance for various reasons, the alliance will remain after the reunification of the Korean peninsula (it's no secret even if Pyongyang absorbs Seoul, the newborn Korean nation will have alliance treaty with Washinton.). -and that's the reason China does not want Korean reunification and has lost interest in denuclearising North Korea.
    27
  12. 어 어느새 지식램프 10만 찍었네요 축하합니다 그리고 하룬아빠 해외로케 영상들은 여행유툽컨텐츠라기보다는 국제정치 현지 특파원 취재같아서 좋았어요. 알파고 기자의 다양한 관심과 다양한 지식, 다양한 지역들에 대한 취재와 다양한 재능들이 우리 사회의 시야를 넓혀주고 부족한 부분을 채워줍니다. 솔직히 전 알파고 기자가 있는 줄은 이전에도 알고 있었지만, 알파고 채널을 찾아서 보게 된 것은 병무청 민방위 교육영상에 나온 것을 보고 나서였어요. 그 이후 흥미가 가서 찾아보게 된 것이 오늘까지 이르렀네요. 하룬아빠, 이 나라 이 사회의 한솥밥 같이 먹는 식구가 되어주어서 고맙습니다. 우리가 아직 미숙하고 부족한 부분이 많아서 불필요한 고생과 험한 꼴들도 겪었겠지만, 그 고생한 이상으로 알파고와 함께 행복한 미래를 향해 살아가고 싶습니다. 구독자 10만 다시 축하드리고 앞으로도 건승을 기원합니다.
    26
  13. 2:27 마음이 아픈 걸 넘어서 살짝 삐질 것 같은데요? 아아니 튀르키예는 말하기 힘든 그 문제가 있다손 쳐도 아랍어도 영어도 되는 한국 전문가가 여기 있는데 왜 중국이나 일본 전문가를....
    24
  14. I saw Prof Ditchman in the thumbnail, so I expected to hear some useful advice about digging ditches. From my experience serving in the Army as an infantryman, I PERFECTLY agree with this opinion about ditches. In fact, when my foreign friends often ask me, "You have served in the Army, so you have shot the gun! How was it?" I tell them, "Bros, the real weapon for an infantryman is not a rifle, but a shovel. Trust me"
    23
  15. 유럽쪽 소식통들로부터 비슷한 얘기들을 듣고는 있는데 반신반의했었습니다. 우크라이나 전쟁 발발 전에 독일쪽으로부터 러시아의 침공작전계획에 대해 듣기는 했었는데(그 소식통은 나토 사무총장이 독일언론에서 얘기해준 것이라고 했습니다) 허튼소리 취급했다가 그대로 러시아가 침공하는 걸 보고 깜짝 놀란 적이 있었는데, 그런 일이 있다보니 이번 얘기는 그냥 지나치기 힘들군요. 조회수가 얼마나 나올지는 모르겠는데, 이번에 문제가 되는 발틱3국에 대한 취재나 연구가 혹시 있을까요? 코로나 전에 유럽연합과 일본쪽의 합동연구로 발틱 3국에서 경제적 존재감에 대한 비교연구로 독일, 중국, 한국을 비교한 리포트를 본 적이 있었는데, 비슷한 시기 폴란드쪽으로부터도 동유럽과 중국의 경제협력인 17+1 계획에 대한 동유럽의 회의감과 그로인해 대체제로서 한국과의 경제안보협력을 고려하고 있다는 내용을 접했었습니다. 그리고 지난번에 폴란드와 많은 일들이 있었죠. 저야 나토 안에서 한국의 존재감이 커지는 것이 향후 한미관계에서 우리의 레버리지가 되어줄 수 있다고 봐서 찬성합니다만, 동유럽에서 한국에 대한 기대가 있는지, 있다면 어떤 종류의 기대를 어느정도로 하고 있는지 궁금합니다. .....아니면 지난번 폴란드 총선으로 정권교체가 되면서 폴란드 정국이 아수라장이 되었다던데 그거랑 폴란드와 한국의 방산협력이 뭐 엎어진다느니 만다느니 했던 썰들 사이의 관계를 적당히 버무리면 그건 조회수가 좀 나올까요? 하여간 항상 다양한 정보를 다방면에서 종합해주시는 점 항상 감사드립니다. 겨울날씨 추운데 감기조심하십시오.
    19
  16. "East Asia has become, if it hasn't always been, a hotbed of confrontation and diplomatic crisis between the three most powerful neighbours in the region: China, Japan, and South Korea." It's interesting to hear that ROK is one of the powerful nations because Koreans usually find ourselves one of the very marginal powers in the world. Anyhow, the dispute concerning the rock we Koreans call Dok-do has not only economic perspective but a strategic point. For Japan, if they gain the rock, it would help them defend Kanto plain, where their political and economical heart Tokyo lies, more easily against Russian airstrikes, because they could detect Russian attack faster from the rock. For Korea, on the other hand, we really don't want to lose control over the surrounding water, which we call the East Sea while others often call the Sea of Japan.
    18
  17.  @vinniechan  Do you think it is just the first time China intervenes Korean unification(if two Koreas are unified then it would be called "the third Korean unification.")? With or without American presence, it is determined for China to try to "divide and conquer" Korean nation. Every Korean knows it including the Kims in the North. The neutrality for Korea(whether it is divided or united) between Heartland powers and Rimland hegemon is just a myth.
    16
  18. 하룬아빠 목소리 많이 안 좋아서 마음이 아프네요. 언제나 시기적절한 좋은 분석 감사하고 유익하게 듣고 있습니다만, 그래도 건강도 살피셨으면 좋겠어요. 환절기 건강 조심하세요...
    15
  19. 알서방 솔직히 이 영상은 사우디 정부든 성지 관리하는 무슨 재단이나 기관의 협찬을 받아서 찍었어야 했어요. 흥미로운 영상 잘 보았습니다.
    14
  20. 아 진짜 우리 아버지 아들로서 하룬이 아버지한테 뭐라 하기 어렵다. 아버님 힘내십시오
    13
  21. 2016년 미국언론과 아사드의 인터뷰를 봤던 기억이 나는군요. '어, 영어 잘하네?'라는 점과 함께, 푸틴과의 관계를 묻는 질문에 답변하는 모습을 보면서 '나쁘게 말하자면 정치인이 너무 순진하고, 냉정하게 말하면 생각이 짧고 멍청해보이는군'이라는 감상이 들었던 기억이 납니다. 알파고의 분석과 판단에 동의합니다. 제 지인들 중에는 '내전이 끝났다!'고 환호하는 이들도 있습니다만, 저로서는 시리아 내전이 새로운 단계에 접어든 것처럼 보여서 씁쓸합니다. 앙골라 출장 건강하고 안전하게 다녀오세요!
    13
  22. 그러지 않아도 하룬아빠의 사우디 관련 영상들 보면서 MBS가 2030 엑스포에 절실할 것 같다는 생각을 하고 있었어요. 과연 본인이 구상하는 아라비아의 국가대전략에서 상당히 중요한 요소로 기능할 엑스포 유치에 얼마나 진심으로 철저하게 준비해왔을까 상상이 갈 정도였어요. 진중권 교수 같은 경우엔, 사우디 측의 홍보 웹사이트를 보면서 본인이 설득당해버릴 정도로 설득력이 있다고 하더군요. 상황이 이런데 한국에서 아라비아 관련 중동 오일머니 어쩌구 운운하는 수준에서 외교적 감각이 처참하다는 점이 저는 좀 많이 부끄러웠습니다. 요미우리 신문에서 일본이 부산선정을 지지하기로 내부적으로 결정했다는 보도를 한 것을 보고 저는 '아 그럼 일본이 한국편을 들어도 사우디 측이 기분이 상하지 않을 정도로 이미 판세가 기울었다는 뜻이구나'하는 기분이 들었는데, 그 불안한 예감이 맞은 것 같더군요. 이번 중동출장은 무슨 일로 가시나요? 가서도 우리 사회에 부족한 많은 교훈과 배움들을 전해주시길 바랍니다. 안전하고 행복한 여행되세요.
    11
  23. 와 설명 들어보니 진짜 절묘한 후보를 찾아냈네요... 대충 이란 국내정치의 각 세력이 각자 자기네 연줄이 있는 사람이라고 생각할 법한.... 우리네로 치면 대충 국민 통합형, 이런 느낌인 걸까요? 후속 영상 기대합니다
    11
  24. I'm a Korean, and we Korean have a lot of trouble with Japanese, from historical context to economic competition. But this Olympic is a kind of resistance against the humanitarian crisis: even this pandemic cannot stop human beings from dreaming "Faster, Higher, Stronger." So it's not just a challenge to the Japanese. It is also a challenge for every nation. Thus I believe that my government and my society should have been ready to support Tokyo Olympic 2020.
    11
  25.  @daniell1483  I fully agree with you.
    10
  26.  @danwelterweight4137  I deeply appreciate your criticism of South Korean politicians and society's terrible treatment of North Korean defectors. Not only to North Koreans but also to Korean nationals who are in China(Chaoxianzu), Japan(Jainichi), Central Asia and Russia (Koryo-saram), Korean society has shown very disappointing treatment to those people. South Koreans today pretend they are a cultivated and enlightened species but, as you already know, they are, no, we are the ones to be ashamed for it. South Korea have to face this issue and solve it. If it fails, it will fall. And I largely agree with your opinion on North Korean elites' position on national development. But I would like to point out, as you did as well, North Korean public is also "a proud people." As Koreans in the South do not accept their leaders' poor performance, Koreans in the North are the same. That's why Kims in the North have promised and tried to provide any sort of tiny development to their people. North Korea has economically grown since the 2000s, according to economists who conducted research on it. So North Koreans have become richer and wealthier; but not as much as they should have been.
    10
  27. 적절한 타이밍에 자세한 설명 감사합니다. 복잡한 시리아 내전 상황을 대강 골격을 이해할 수 있었어요. 그런데, 어 음, 종종 음성과 한국어자막과 영어자막의 의미가 다른 부분이 보여요. 그냥 그 정도면 괜찮은데, 의미가 정반대가 되는 부분들이 좀 보여서요. 3:47 "튀르키예 도 그 동안 사회주의 진영을 갖고 있는 쿠르드 얘들이랑 내전을 버렸기 때문에" ->"튀르키예도 그동안 사회주의 진영을 갖고 있는 쿠르드 애들이랑 내전을 벌였기 때문에" 5:53 "시스템이라는 일종의 휴전 아니거든요" ->"시스템이라는 건 일종의 휴전안이거든요" 사소한 오류는 그러려니 하는데 이 둘은 논리값이 정 반대가 되는 것 같아서, 혹시 영상의 질을 올리는데 도움이 될까 하여 염치 불구하고 제보해둡니다.
    10
  28. 헬조서니안들 중에는 그냥 맘에 안 들면 독재라고 싸잡어서 허수아비를 만든 다음에 그걸 때리면 이겼다고 믿는 사람들이 있어서 이런 오해들이 쉽사리 퍼지는 게 아닐까 싶네요. 조금 서글프군요. 항상 좋은 분석 듣고 있습니다. 공연 준비중에 찍으신 거 같은데 공연 잘 되셨으면 좋겠네요.
    9
  29. The problem is, as long as the Korean division lasts, he has to worry that his people will repeatedly compare his rule to South Korean democracy. The very existence of a democratic system in the South itself is the greatest security threat to his regime. And that's why it was a huge shock for North Korea observers that he said he wants to abandon the goal of unification.
    9
  30. "우리 대한민국은 세계 곳곳에서 전자제품하고 자동차 장사를 하면서 먹고사는 나라이니까 오세아니아에 있는 3만명도 안 되는 조그마한 나라라도 우리는 무관심하면 안된다" 100퍼센트 동의합니다. ....................아 그리고 알파고 쿠데타 관련 석사논문 참 재미있게 읽었던 기억이 아직도 나네요ㅎ 언젠가 그거 내용 썰풀어주는 방송을 기대해도 될까요??
    8
  31. It is frequently said "Trump deteriorated the ROKUS alliance" but as one who is watching the alliance from the ROK side, it is not true. If there was anything Trump damaged alliance, our great friend Xi counterbalanced it immediately. So, generally speaking, there has been no huge changes. The US troop (no, technically speaking, it is the UN army) has been still on the Korean peninsula. The US and ROK still have a stable trade relationship compared to that with China. Yeah, burden-sharing negotiation. Almost all Korean believed that what Trump really wanted was to push reluctant Korean leaders, in particular Moon Jae-in, to join in the strategic collision against China. If he seriously wanted just money, it would be something really surprising. Actually, yes, a number of channels told me that it is true that Trump really hated Moon, and many Korean voters, including my friends find it, strikingly, understandable, because they believe, if there is anyone who damaged the alliance, it would be Moon. But I also found that on a number of occasions, Trump actually defended Moon during his diplomacy. So I disagree with the notion "Trump deteriorated the ROKUS alliance." If there is any moment the alliance damaged during the 21st century, it must be during the Obama presidency. There are numerous cases that Obama deteriorated the credibility of the ROKUS alliance, but I will just mention two main examples. First, the disastrous "strategic patience", which means doing nothing while the North Korean was developing the nuclear program and violated the armistice treaty repeatedly. Even Obama threatened Lee Myung-back administration not to retaliate to North Korean provocation after the North bombed civilian residence in Yeonpyeongdo Island. Ok, that's quite acceptable. He might just want to keep peace within his presidency. But later is not acceptable. Second, the inactivity during THAAD retaliation. The South Korean government accepted the THAAD system NOT TO DEFEND its people BUT TO DEFEND the US military base on the southern part of South Korea. Actually, the system does not cover even Seoul where I'm sitting. Park Geun-hye administration agreed on the deployment of the THAAD system after long-hesitance because everybody expected China will retaliate against South Korea if it accepts deploying the THAAD system on its territory. And it happened. What Obama administration did? Nothing. He might wash his hands while watching what was going on ROK-China relations as if he had nothing to do with this issue. A similar thing has happened under the Biden administration as well. Three months ago, Iranians seized a Korean oil tanker on the Hormuz Strait. What did the US navy do? Just watching Iranian coast guards taking the tanker (yes they were there) and doing nothing. South Korean government had to deal with it by themselves alone. The Biden administration provided no support and no advice. Ok. the US can blackmail ROK (when Biden was the vice-president, he actually blackmailed president Park saying not to bet on the opposite side of the US, which was she had never imagined doing so.). The US can choose to appease China and to abandon ROK for its own, unilateral interest (actually the US had chosen to appease Japan and to abandon Koreans, and the result was the colonisation of Korea under Imperial Japan.). But when the US talking about the alliance, Americans needs to have a close look at the trajectory of the alliance. You can criticise Trump for his bad diplomacy. But it is not fair to criticise him for something he didn't. So, Biden said America is back and he is back, and guys we had seen during Obama presidency back. Why South Korean should expect the US under Biden will keep their commitment to the alliance? All of these people have just talked with no action. Many South Koreans are willing to run into the fog of war with Americans and they already proved it in Vietnam, Afganistan, and Iraq. How about Americans? (I recently conducted a vague survey on this issue. "We have a treaty obligation to engage in war if the US is under attack in Pacific area. If it would be the case that the People's Republic of China invades Tawan for "reunification", and if the US navy is attacked during this operation, what should be our response?" The answer from my friends, whether each of them comes from conservative, liberal, progressive camps, was very short. "WAR" And no sign of disagreement. The only matter is, the US keeps strategic ambiguity and has not yet decided what they will do if this happened. Remember your ally needs preparation.)
    8
  32. It seems that everybody has forgotten that China already has a treaty-based ally in the region since 1960s: Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so-called North Korea. Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty is formally a bilateral military alliance treaty. It's Article 2 imposes a treaty obligation on both contracting parties to do "all measures to prevent aggression" by "any state" which probably means the US. It also defines the treaty obligation that "In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal." They also share ideology, even though each of theirs seems to be quite different.
    8
  33. 맞아맞아맞아 궁금했어 정말 궁금했어 얼마전에 우리 어머니도 바샤커피 선물받으셔서.... 아 참 하룬아빠 생일 축하해요!
    8
  34. They aren't purely innocent. Just the same day of setting on fire, when around 40 unarmed civilians were killed nearby, Chinese owner and Myanmar workers had a debate over payment. The Chinese owner brought security force and shot workers. At least four shot and one labour leader killed, according to Reuters. I believe Beijing did nothing related to the coup and just want to keep doing business whoever rules Myanmar, but in such a situation it is natural for people in Myanmar to become believing that there is 'Chinese black hands.' Beijing needs to engage to stop the use of violence if it want to prevent such a belief from spreading across the Asean countries. But they cannot.
    8
  35. Koreans just tried to exploit Polish ambition. Warsaw wants industrial experience and technological support, which is required to play a leading role in Eastern Europe, while Seoul wants access to the EU defence market. And.............. .................................It was Americans who brokered the deal. Check what American strategies in CSIS are doing with South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration. They have worked together since 2016 and then South Korean military equipment transfer has skyrocketed. And what I would like to know is why Americans are doing it.
    7
  36. 3:57 Foreign policy. Japanese conservative politicians pretend to be interested in countering Chinese aggression or North Korean threat so that they increase defence spending and revise the Pacifist constitution. But what they are really interested in is to revise the Pacifist Constitution and become a "Normal Nation" so they use countering Chinese aggression, defending Taiwan, or the war in Ukraine as a justification tool. Japanese, in fact, are indifferent to these issues. If they were serious, their stance on Seoul would have been much different. All that Japanese politicians are really serious about is to "take back Japan("日本を取り戻す." It is one of the slogans from LDP)" and here "take back" means "make Japan great again as it was before WW2." And probably Washington knows it. 7:47 VisualPolitik is completely misinformed on this issue. It is true that new SK president Yoon expresses he wants to join CPTPP and QUADs and to work with Japanese. But many people are missing that it is Tokyo who firmly opposes Seoul's joining both CPTPP and QUADs. Why? What Japan really wants is not to enhance cooperation with Seoul but to make bent the kneel of South Korea. In this respect Japan has surprisingly a lot in common with their Chinese counterpart: both don't see Seoul as something that should have been their vessel state rather than an independent sovereign power. When Japanese talk they want to cooperate with South Korea on security, it means that they want to send Japanese Defeninto South Korean territory to rescue Japanese civilians there and take back them into Japanese archipelago. This was what Japanese really demanded when the GSOMIA negotiation started. Tokyo has zero interest to counter Beijing or Pyongyang militarily. 10:22 AND FINALLY ECONOMY. Well........ Well said, but what makes Kishida's plan different from Abe's chant? Both talk about increasing public spending, pushing the private sector to boost minimum wages, and encouraging investment. All of these is an old common chant from conservative Japanese. The only difference is to renounce the Quantitative Easing policy. (One of the new possible solutions would be to improve economic ties with South Korea. Japanese small business has tremendous potential in South Korean customers and their anti-Japan sentiment is not that strong compared to the past. It is a reasonable choice but somehow Japan is too inward-looking. Be ambitious, boys!) I would like to end my comment by quoting my Japanese friend's comment on three Japanese politicians when Kishida Fumio and Kono Taro were competing in the LDP leadership race. "Abe provided new bottles with old ideas... Kono seemed to try to something new in old bottles... And now Kishida has old bottle with old idea..."
    7
  37. Well, it is frequently said that democracy prevails over autocracy, but in the real world, autocracy has flipped democracy one by one throughout the 21st century(I'm not talking about election frauds). Democracy is weak, vulnerable, and in danger whenever you say it something perfect, irreversible, and indestructible. Now so-called leader of the democratic world says democracy will prevail over autocracy without any evidence or clues of it. So I expect there will be no democracy in Hong Kong, Myanmar, Belarus, and other countries, including my home, but only blood, blood, and more innocent blood over the globe.
    7
  38. There are various interpretations of Kim's statement about abandoning the unification of the Korean peninsula. First, his statement itself is really tricky. What kind of unification he was referring to? Because there are various versions of the unification model. Second, he also mentioned that South Korea is his country's permanent enemy. What does it mean? The Korean War was broken out by his grandfather for the unification of the Korean peninsula in the North's term. So if he decided to abandon the goal of unification, the war now become meaningless, so it would be the best time for negotiating a peace agreement. But he didn't. One of the interpretations I agree with is that nothing has changed. He erased the article about the call for unification from the North Korean constitution. However, the unification mentioned in the article does not mean all forms of unification: it meant peaceful unification by negotiation, such as forming the Korean Confederation. At the same time, he also mentioned that the war was ongoing, and the war was a war for unification by force in the North's terms. Furthermore, he at the same time ordered the North Korean military institutions to prepare for restoring the territory in the South, meaning the whole chunk of ROK territory. So it it can be inferred that he still wants to unify the whole chunk of the Korean peninsula by force. Interestingly, Andrei Lankov, one of the prominent researchers of North Korea, recently mentioned in a conference by Korea Economic Institute of America that "North Koreans are beginning to think seriously about a military solution of the Korean problem which is the invasion of the South" It seems that there is a wide agreement among Korea Watchers that Kim's recent comment on the unification meant he found the military solution is the most realistic option for him. There are two points to support this argument. The quantitative and qualitative conventional military superiority of the South could be (not easily but possibly) neutralised by tactical nuclear weapons which Kim and his advisors think usable. American support to its southern ally could be abandoned, not anytime soon but someday. They believe it because they found, from the Ukrainian case, that the decision-makers in Washington would not take the risk of a direct war against another nuclear power.
    6
  39.  @kes167340  튀르키에 대사관에서 클레임 걸거든요. 튀르키에 문제 뿐 아니라 중동문제 관련해서 지상파에 나오려고 하면 튀르키에 대사관에서 클레임 건다고 하더라구요. 그리고 알파고 스펙은 이미 충분해요. 뭐 저는 학벌에 너무 많은 강조가 들어가는 거 아닌가 싶어서 좀 언급하기 꺼리지만 알파고 그 S대 대학원 나왔어요. 논문이 아마 튀르키에와 한국의 군사쿠데타 이후 군부와 기존 정계 야권과의 정치적 긴장관계에 대한 거였을 걸요? 꽤 흥미로운 논문이에요.
    6
  40. ​ @JamesKerLindsay  The plan was to reform the legislative branch. For now, South Korea have a unicameral assembly, consisting of 300 seats, with 253 constituency seats and 47 proportional representation seats. The proportional representation seats were originally seats for the constituencies in the North. At the outset, the founding fathers of the Republic of Korea wanted the newborn republic to have a multicamera assembly but repeated constitutional crises, such as authoritarianism in the First Republic era and two coups, had made it impossible to form the House of Councillors, the upper house of the National Assembly. So the plan was to get the National Assembly back to the original structure: the House of Councillors with around 100-200 proportional representatives seats and the House of Representatives with around 300-600 constituency seats. They already had made chambers for each house. But if you look at the development of argumentation on National Assembly reform in South Korean society, almost everyone has forgotten it.
    6
  41. I have been always curious to know why both of the first and second island chains includes the entire Korean peninsula. It looks like Beijing is making a claim on the peninsula saying that Korea is a part of China. Perhaps we are going to see next decade Beijing argues that China must 'restore' Korean peninsula 'if necessary, by force.'
    5
  42. This case shows how far the CCP is not only ignorant but also arrogant. If they were really serious about regulation of youth's time spending on online gaming, they should have asked South Koreans about how they had imposed such regulations and why it has been ended. They did neither of them. Because they believe, first, they know everything on what they're doing, and moreover, they are so superior to anyone else so that they don't need to investigate anyone's cases. Here's the lesson from South Korean case: online gaming addiction, even if it does really exist, is not the real problem. The problem is, the children have been addicted to something: If they had not been addicted to online gaming, they would have been addicted to any other means else. This regulation is not the real method to counter the nature of the real problem, but just superficially touch the symptom of the problem. And such a pseudo-remedy very often leads to making things even worse.
    5
  43. Ian is too mush optimistic and exaggerating The Camp David summit. Equivalent to Abraham accord?? Are you serious? You have interviewed Mr Kushiner, who architectures the deal, so you should have noticed that something significant in the deal is absent from this summit: Japan is still arguing for a territorial claim over a rock which is considerably symbolic to Koreans. And Japanese Prime Minister still contributing to Yasukumi Shirine, where WWII war criminals are still commemorated. The sources for friction and division are still there. Nothing has changed significantly so far. This summit is rather, "symbolic" as Kurt Campbell, Asia Tsar, said, or "a sign of cooperation" said by Philip Goldberg, American ambassador to Republic of Korea said.
    5
  44. "Difference in itself is no cause for alarm. What does ring the alarm is arrogance, prejudice, and hatred. It is the attempt to impose a hierarchy on human civilization. Or to force one's own history, culture, and social system upon others. The right choice is for countries to pursue peaceful coexistence based on mutual respect and on expanding common ground while shelving differences, and to promote exchanges and mutual learning." Who is talking to whom?? I'm really confused, really.
    5
  45. 2:43 "Soft power through photo ops, so far it looks like it has been a piece of cake for Charles." with the scene the king takes a piece of cake. I love the sense of humour from the narrator.
    5
  46.  @dragosstanciu9866  It's not just mutual aid treaty. Formally, it's a bilateral military alliance treaty. Have a look at Article 2 of the treaty. In any case of being invaded by any state, both contracting parties have a treaty obligation to do all measures to militarily support one another. By any definition, they are treaty-based military allies. The problem with the treaty is that each of them does not trust one other. The Article 2 defines that contracting parties must deliver the treaty obligation immediately and automatically. Both Beijing and Pyongyang find it uncomfortable. Pyongyang has not forgotten that the Chinese, whether they are communists or liberal democrats, still want to conquer Koreans(or at least they believe it.). And Beijing wants to play only a little of this treaty card because of their economic relationship with Seoul: Chinese diplomats very often pretend this treaty is already brain-dead.
    5
  47. Amazing masterpiece documentary on 1997 Asian financial crisis.
    5
  48. 사위X장인 전통적이고 항상 훌륭한 콤비이죠. 근데 아산연구소 태그는 왜 걸려있는 거에요?
    5
  49.  @tng2057  "Hawkish" does not mean they are against unification. "Hawkish" or Conservatives in South Korean context, means they think South Korea has to have 1. South-led unification, 2. if necessary by force, and 3. the end state must be the same or similar to the current South Korean system. "Doves" or Liberal/Progressives, on the other hand, want unification through 1. a bilateral approach, 2. only through negotiation. And 3. in the end state, there might be some room for the North sides. So military authoritarians had such a plan for North Korean people to vote in a general election because they had in mind to absorb the North into the South Korean system. I don't know if Democrats have the same or similar idea.
    5
  50. 진짜 MBS는 하룬아빠한테 홍보비 입금해줘야 한다니까
    5
  51. @piotrp5668  Yes, and that's why Polish politicians want Warsaw to be a leader of NATO's Eastern flank. It will make you feel more confident if you are with the Baltics and Ukranians and other East Europeans when Russian army 'visits' Poland, won't you? Koreans (I mean, 'Both' Koreas) well know what it is like to live next to two brutal beasts because Seoul finds it being stuck with living among China, Japan, and.... Russia. And the best way to survive in such an environment is to be strong as much as you can, and the second best is to have a strong ally who has a security competition to either of beasts crying next to you. And it was why some Polish politicians told their American friends that they want to be South Korea of East Europe. (When one former polish defence minister said thatfew years ago he meant stationing more American troops in Poland. I think the idea of something like 'South Korea of East Europe' by Polish political elites has multi-folded dimensions.) But they also see far more than that, too. Warsaw also wants to build nuclear power plants and more socio-infrastructure such as international airports.
    4
  52. lolololololololololololololololololol Excellent!!
    4
  53. Let's assume that the same incident like the Capitol raid happened in Beijing. Could they have endured? Or, collapse and repeat old-fashioned division and civil war which have happened in the long Chinese history? Watching the Capitol incident from Korea, I'm actually surprised about how much the Senate and Representatives are resilient and how much American military are professional shown by their neutrality. I became posing more credit on the American political structure. And don't forget losing one race does not mean the total lost. Just as one defeat at one battle does not mean losing in the war. Final point. It seems that Mr. Maher is just satirical. The reason Ian looks too much serious would be he is missing the point that China could overcome this pandemic because they do have better administrative bureaucracy while American one inefficient and malfunctioning.
    4
  54. 7:33 Come on, man, don't play wishful thinking. If Beijing invades Taipei, Seoul will do two things. First, it will invade the North as Beijing invades Taipei. One China and one Korea principle. Second, Seoul will blockade the Yellow sea. No ship and no plane will pass the sea. So Beijing will starve. Or Shanghai will also be blocked. This channel sees things too naive. You don't know how much Koreans are terrible because you have considered what actually happened to the peninsula in the last century. This channel pretends to know the reality of the actual field, but it seems to me to have no idea what is the real world is.
    4
  55. 그냥 평범하게 생의 사투를 벌이는 흔한 헬조서니안 가장이 보였다
    4
  56. Sweden's joining in the NATO looks like a dangerous idea. For Russians perspective, it would be seen that Sweden becomes a threat to them. Of course, Stockholm must be prepared for war. But it seems that defending and controlling Gotland is enough for Sweden. Sweden's joining in the NATO is not Sweden's interest. It is even not the US's interest. It is German and Polish's interest.
    4
  57. 라방보다도 이렇게 10분 안밖의 짧은 토막상식 영상이 훨씬 부담도 적고 보기도 편해요
    4
  58. South Koreans should take this video seriously because the dilemma that the current German government is facing would be the prequal for them when Mainland China decided to invade Taiwan. Are they willing to support the defence of Taiwan even if it would mean catastrophic damage to South Korea's economic ties to Mainland China? Will Seoul provide Taipei with their cost-effective military equipment as they have done for Manila and Jakarta? Do they have any sort of courage to overcome historical animosity to Tokyo in order to help another fellow liberal democracy in the region? Or, are they, as it is said in this video that 'at heart politics is the most concentrated expression of economics, willing to swallow the sacrificed blood of liberal democracy in Taiwan which Beijing demands, as the incumbent government has actually done regarding Hong Kong's crackdown, and then crawl, in the front of the Xi's feet, like a snake, to be allowed to acquire the access to Beijing's honey jar.
    4
  59. "That's because it's multilateral economic order at the same time as it's unilateral unipolar security order." A good summary of what is happening around the world.
    4
  60. 이사람 민주 국힘 둘 중 한쪽에서 등용해볼만하다. 상당히 전략가인데
    4
  61.  @zeytelaloi  Of course. My point is, however, it would be far more important for Kim in the North WHO compares his rule to WHAT.
    4
  62. @julianpignat9095  Look at the map and read any book on Korean history. Kim in the North says The US is an enemy for decades, Japan for centuries, but Chinese for millennia. Russian refused to send an army during the Korean war. And Chinese sent an army not to save Kim's regime but to unify the peninsula in the Chinese term. Kims in the North are not idiot in this sense.
    4
  63. Holding hands, singing, and dancing on the muddy dirt in Siberia plain. The Ground still being frozen, as long as the people still dream. So far as long as the brave Russians, the true Russians stand, The Courageous against the propaganda will reap The gains of liberty and freedom of true Russians. I wrote this in weeping and tear after writing a statement to the National Assembly which opposes allowing the Ukrainian president has a speech in the House saying it is shameful of my nation which got help from international support during the brutal Korean war(Thank God, they will reconsider their reluctance for the speech of the Ukrainian president). I hope, I dream, and I pray, oh my Lord, the bravest among Russia would gain and enjoy the fruits of liberty and their legal rights, and the freedom of expression.
    4
  64. In my opinion, on your second assumption, whether or not the North loses or prevails, the Chinese will intervene from the beginning. They did in the 1950s, and still preparing for it.
    3
  65.  @chenwang5341  I'm already familiar with such an argumentation but I have to tell you that the terms of the power struggle in international politics are by its nature relative. I do not expect you would consider Brazil or Argentina, even though they possess a large number of population with rich resources, as one of the international major powers or even regional hegemons. Two reasons would be there. First, they are too close to the US to run away from the political gravity of the US. Second, no south American nations are overwhelming to their neighbours so that there is no regional hegemon. So I'm a bit worried that it may be you who do not realise that Korea is very marginal power because it is a geopolitical prisoner throughout bloody history with its relative powers. I would like to show you another evidence about how Korea is a minor power. Legally there is no country named 'South Korea.' Only Korea or Republic of Korea exists according to ROK constitution. Yes, there is the Korean version of 'One Korea Policy' just as Beijing has one china policy which they demand the entire world to 'respect' it. (And Kim in the North has respectively his own version of one Korea policy. Nominally, the nuclear program is internally the very mean to achieve this goal by force whenever if necessary) But Seoul has no capacity to put the issue on the table of international negotiations or even to speak out on the issue, while they were forced to leave their old ally, Taipei, by Beijing under the name of one China policy.
    3
  66.  @flagger2020  The animosity between Korea and Japan is not just childish, rather something disgraceful, because the latest environment has been brought out for unilateral political incentive for each of the ruling parties. Both Shinzo Abe and Moon Jae-in stirred up the public to distort the public's attention from their own political faults, such as failure in economic policy. Anyhow, it is always welcome to discuss the east Asia issue. We may have chances to exchange our opinions through email or social media platform such as Facebook, if you want. I have been in the UK before the deadly virus hit the UK, and now tries to go there again, I would like to know some of the British's viewpoint.
    3
  67. It's really a dangerous situation. I'm not going to say something like Thai democracy, but I would like to talk about the structure of the power and the mechanism moving it. The voters, largest chunk of voters who voted for MFP, will find that the system does not work for them because the action of Thai parliament showed that the power balance within Thai politics won't change even if an opposition party gets the largest number of votes. It will look like, for those who voted for the opposition, there is no chance of a peaceful transition of power in their country. And they already had a check that they are the majority. The number can be translated into the strength of any kind of power, from voting power to violence. If any kind of political group, such as an ethnic group, a state, an interest group, or a political faction, find out that they cannot achieve a certain goal peacefully but, at the same time, they are in a position of strength, they would be really tempted to try to take the goal by force. I'm worried that it may lead to the introduction of violence in the country.
    3
  68. @xmr7 pt95 SORRY but Chine cannot take over both of Korea and Japan even though they can surpass Americans. History can prove it. I'm not coming from my national background but from the concept of geopolitics which this channel is dealing with. If any regime in mainland China to dominate Korean Peninsular, they need a capacity to send their troops across the Yalu River and the Yellow sea due to the mountainous feature of the Korean Peninsula. It cost a lot. That's why the Han and Tang dynasty gave up it. Think about the fact that China has a lot of issues about other regional powers like India and Russia. TO BE HONEST, from my really sincere heart about my Chinese friends, IT IS A OLD KOREAN GEOPOLITICAL PLAYING OVER THE THOUSAND YEAR. .....And we Korean learnt it from Chinese history. Thanks to Sima Qian the Taishigong. (I always call him 'Taichigong' with respect. I'm really serious. If you disgrace him, I will curse you. He is obviously a person who deserves to be respected, as a teacher of Human civilisation.)
    3
  69. And it is one of the reasons why the Korean peninsula is a flashpoint where major direct military conflict between Beijing and Washington would like to happen. It's a structural problem in the region. 1. Let's assume that the North provokes the South by bombing by artillery or ballistic missiles like they actually did in the 2020s. 2. And then assume that the policymakers in Seoul decided to retaliate by military means, something like bombing or air raid (in the case of Yeonpyong islands bombing, it could have happened if Obama administration did not prevent Seoul from retaliating against the bombing). 3. It means that treaty obligation is imposed on Beijing, which could mean it is highly likely that the Chinese People's Liberation Army's North Theatre would attack Seoul, intentionally or accidentally. 4. Then, it's time for the bilateral military alliance between Seoul and Washington to come in. According to the treaty, now the US Senate and White House are obliged to decide whether they have to engage in or how far they have to go. (Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea does not impose contracting parties to deliver treaty obligation "in accordance with its constitutional processes") 5. Now we are on uncharted water. Policymakers in Washington can make a choice: whether to bite the bullet and run into the fog of World War 3 against China or whether to abandon their ally in Seoul and put their alliance system across the globe in danger. I'm not joking. This scenario is one of the realistic concerns among security strategies in Washington.
    3
  70.  @JWPanimation  I know. Both sides wanted to have a unified Korean peninsula on each of their side. Chinese wanted so they interfered in Korean War but they were not able to push the UN force out of the peninsula, while Americans wanted but were also unable to push the Chinese beyond the Yalu river. But let me make it clear. Those who take the Korean peninsula cannot rule Asia. You are talking about the largest continent on the globe lying from the Mediterrane sea to the Pacific Ocean. You cannot take over Asia just by taking the peninsula. Taking the peninsula means either you can threaten those who rule the Japanese archipelago or you can blockade the Yellow sea while having access to Manchurian plain. These are the strategic point each Chinese and American want the whole peninsula. Therefore, the current situation of the division is not the result of deliberate negotiation but of unwelcome compromise. I can see both Chinese and American desire the unification of the peninsula on their term. In a sense, they desire it more than Korean do. But both of them have no power to change the status quo.
    3
  71. 13:29 "The majority of policymakers in Beijing believe that international law is merely an instrument to keep China in check and vulnerable. Most of the Chinese decision-making body adheres to the idea that their country was defeated because of its defensive geopolitical orientation. And so to overcome this, Beijing has come to the belief that it must become more like the West and take a militarily aggressive posture in regard to geopolitical objectives. Thus in a way, China seeks to emulate the Monroe doctrine by establishing exclusive control in the Eastern hemisphere and thereby returned the country to the forefront of the World." For Koreans, this line of thought seems to be something they are familiar with if one changes China in the 21st century to Imperial Japan in the 19th century. Japanese imperialists tried to justify their behaviour in the Korean peninsula in a similar line of thought.
    3
  72. 3:10 "it's just a fluke of fate" My grandfather came from the North during the Korean War, leaving his own family including his son. When my mother's family decided to move from Manchuria(they were Korean resistance against the Japanese during WWII) to the South, one of my mother's uncles decided to remain in the North because he was a socialist. Just a fluke of fate. Not only of my kin blood in the North, but also of "Chaoxianzu" in China. My cousins who I have never been able to see could have lived just as ordinary South Korean have been. Now I have no idea how he is coming along, or even whether he is alive. My mother's Chaoxianzu cousin was lucky. We managed to reconnect with her and she moved to the South got married. South Korean society is an extremely racist society that discriminates against North Korean defectors and Chaoxianzu, but she could be supported by my mother and uncles when she got such a discriminatory issue. But not every North Korean defectors and Chaoxianzu are so lucky. It is always anguished whenever I try to tell my fellow South Korean that those North Korean defectors and Chaoxianzu are our kin blood and the same people so that we should not treat them as second-level citizens or foreigners. And try again to explain it could be just a fluke of fate. But the tragic truth is, most of them, including my closest friends who identify themselves as "Liberals", try to rationalise such a discriminatory attitude against North Korean and Chaoxianzu. What a shame on the nation.
    3
  73. I don't say "understand how you feel" because I believe it is somewhat arrogant to hastily say so. But I have to say the same reaction I had where you said you dropped tear. These young Hong Kongers, all of five, are all nice and good youngsters who love their home city and lives and dreaming the future to come. Something really wrong happened to them and then divided them and have made their lives too much difficult. It is regrettable and find that it is painful to see I have no strength to help them either of to heal such a deep division or to find any solution. The empathy which you and I had for either all of them or at least some of them, and which some of here say "cheap tear", would be something like just a single word in a book with large volume. But I believe the word could be a start of the new chapter of the book about a brighter story.
    3
  74. Ian underestimates Kim in the North. They are capable of offending the US cyber infrastructure, which is the case concerned for a long time. And the problem is that the US has no mean to retaliate against the North Korean in terms of cyber capability because Kim in the North has no internet.
    3
  75. 펀잡 취재기 올려줘요 빨리 올려줘요 궁금해서 현기증 날거 같아요 어디서 어떤 출처에서 정보를 득했고 어떻게 분석하는지까지 알려주고 고맙습니다. 하룬아빠 덕분에 한국 저널리즘도 조금씩 더 선진화될 거라고 믿어요. 앞으로도 좋은 취재 부탁드립니다.
    3
  76. It's not only in the military side but also in the intelligence as well.
    3
  77. Each of them may be. But if you have them all together, you will find it terrible to deal with them at the same table.
    3
  78. "The closest US ally in the region." Koreans bled with Americans in Vietnam, because American leaders had asked. Korean sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq when Americans had requested and they knew it would cool their relationship with the Arab world. Korean provided ammunition to Ukraine because their American friends told them it was necessary to protect the free world and rule-based order. But the closest US ally in the region is Japan because it is "the world's third-largest economy," id est, Japan has more money. So it is not important for the US how much their ally is loyal to them. How much their ally is wealthy matters. Is still Donald Trump the president of the US? Probably not. But Ian said the second-tier US ally should not come at him for it, and Ian is an honourable man. And one correction point. The two gentlemen repeatedly said China has no ally. But the truth is, China has a treaty-based ally. Of course, the ally of China has two problems. First, it is so-called North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Second, both participants are not committed to the alliance treaty, which imposes a treaty obligation to take all measures to support the other side against any country or a coalition of countries which might have attacked either side. But the treaty is still alive. The negligence of this shows how far these honourable gentlemen from the American elite circle are uninformed on the important issues in the region. But they are honourable men.
    3
  79. I always enjoy puppet regime, but one thing often makes me disappointed is that whenever I see Kim in the North on the show I couldn't find the guy who loves him and wanted to be his best friend: Moon in the South.
    3
  80. So, for my reaction to this video, first, I always enjoy listening to your voice, Hubert. Second, Chris Miller's Chip War has been hot in the last year since its publication. Your video deal with the topic in deeper detail than other videos including the author's interview with American think tanks such as CSIS. But it is already a familiar topic for someone who is navigating the blue sea of information like me. For me, one of the most impressive works done by this channel was an overview of Primakov doctrine and Russian strategy in the middle east. I think the analysis and details in the video were insufficient to help me understand the Russian grand strategy comprehensively. But it is still hard for me to find out who he was and why he is an important figure in Russian politics from other sources, particularly Youtube content. (After I watched your video, I managed to find other resources about Yevgeni Primakov, but the sources were usually short articles and my Japanese friend who studies Russian politics in Moskov. The other most impressive work second to the video I mentioned above was the video about Oleksiy Arestovych, a former advisor to the Ukrainian president. The information in these videos is still so unique in the Youtude world, and this is what I expected to see on this channel. I enjoy your videos regarding other general topics. This might be my unilateral desire, but I hope to see a certain area where this channel is specialised.
    3
  81. Oh, really? I thought they might forget that whenever I saw them fighting for Gerrymandering. If they still remember that, it would be good for the country.
    3
  82. 1:22 "People don't think that we are above the law" But how about Zhang Goili? What would happen when high-level members of the CCP or the CCP itself as an institutional body violate the law? It seems to me there are many under the law while somebody is above the law. It is not the rule of the law. It is the rule by the law.
    3
  83. The interesting point for me as a Korean Christian is, why the history of Korean Christianity in Caspian Report? Does it have any sort of geopolitical meaning today? (I'm just curious, really. We Koreans are really secular people. You can see it from the fact that there is no single meaningful party in Korean politics claiming they are representing or based on a certain kind of religious value or belief, unlike Europe.)
    3
  84. 좋았어 3분 너무 길지도 않고 짧지도 않 알차네
    2
  85. 원주 어떤가요 강원도 원주
    2
  86.  @bearsagainstevil  You have a point, and there GSOMIA(General Security of Military Information Agreement) comes in. This agreement is signed between Korean and Japanese military counterparts and ensure sharing military information between both directions. But trilateral alliance has not yet put detect facilities on the rock (let's be precise concerning the terms. In Korean and Japanese, rocks and islands are both called '도(do)' and 'shima(島)' and this usage sometimes causes confusion among the public both sides.). I believe the reason must have been that they consider Russian's march towards south as neither of likelihood event nor urgent threat in the near future, even though Russians recently invited Chinese airforce into the sea. I would like to add another issue you mentioned in the last section of your comment. You said Americans are neutral between Korea and Japan, and I personally thinks so, but as far as I have watched Korean public, in particular so-called 'liberal' or 'progressive' camps do not obviously. They firmly believe that Americans have been, are and will be 'pro-Japan' and Japanese lobby, like Israel lobby, are so much dominant among American politicians. That's one of the driving force in the incumbent administration of Korea to orient them to try get out from GSOMIA.
    2
  87.  @flagger2020  Well, the US diplomacy communities have persued a longterm strategy to help both countries being reconciled by fertilising cultural and private exchanges, and I think it has worked pretty well. As a fan of Japanese Otaku culture, I am in one of the most vulnerable position when any conflict or dispute between two sides emerges. We can feel that the pressure being put on us has gradually decreased both in degree and frequency. And it is true many Korean youngsters are affected by so-called 'the left' or 'the progressives' during their education. But hostility against China is higher than against Japan, especially in the 2030s. Sinophobic in Korea, I believe, dangerously high. For a long time, I have been called 'China-sceptic' by my friends who are progressives and used to be China-friendly. Now I find myself becoming the most friendly voice for China in any groups, even though I believe Korea and China are destined to war over the North Korea issue. All of the pro-China-and-anti-Japan voices among my friends have flipped the side recently and tiled to Japan. So Moon administration's pro-China foreign policy is not sustainable. Some of Moon's ally, such as Moon Jung-in, talks about 'transcendental diplomacy' but it won't be successful due to the young generation's extremely Sinophobic sentiment. Young voters clearly hate conservatives, but they hate China more. And if progressives lose these young votes, they couldn't win any election.
    2
  88.  @dr.lyleevans6915  Thank you, sir. But we Korean also know that only a few Americans, both in public and policymakers, have a sufficient understanding of the situation regarding the Korean peninsula.
    2
  89.  K Takezo  I'm not arguing that Korean does nothing wrong but all the fault comes from the American side. And I agree with you that threatening Japan to terminate the agreement was a foolish idea. First, however, I have to point out that the Obama administration had done nothing about building bilateral trust between Seoul and Tokyo when they forced Park Geun-Hye's administration to just sign the agreement. They just forced, literally. During the Obama era, the US allowed Japan to re-arm and what Korean saw was a massive investment in the Japanese ground force. We asked ourselves, why the Japanese invested so much in the ground force. And then there was a rumour(it is not confirmed yet) that Japanese demanded the Korean government provide all the information on every port where troops can land based on the agreement, while Japanese side repeatedly refused to provide any information on the North Korean missile launch. It was a chilling story because it reminded us of the incident in 1894: the Imperial army of Japan occupied Seoul and coup the incumbent Korean government. Shinzo Abe refused to recognise Japanese invasion of Korea in the late 19th and early 20th century, and one of his important ally Aso Taro fumed in the meeting with Park Geun-Hye that he believes we are the separationist and Japan should restore Korea someday. We had a deep distrust of Japan when the agreement came out. Still, there is a certain level of distrust of Japan among some of the so-called liberal-progressive side(Moon Jae-In's allies, in particular), but the situation has quite changed during the Trump administration. Even though Trump did not directly engage in bridging Seoul and Tokyo, many American officials in his government understand the importance of trust-building between two American allies. Two changes I would like to mention here. First, Japan started to provide information on North Korean missile launch after 2017. Second, according to H.R.McMaster, the former NSC advisor to Trump, the US asked Japan to focus on the maritime capability instead of enhancing the ground force, and they did. Moon's threatening to terminate the GSOMIA was a completely foolish idea because he neglected all of these American's effort to enhance the trilateral relationship under the Trump presidency(even though Trump actually did nothing on it.). In conclusion, my point is that the statement "Trump deteriorated the ROKUS alliance" is not true. If the ROKUS alliance was damaged, it would be what the Obama administration had done, or, Obama and two successive foolish Korean leadership, Park and Moon, had done collectively (what mistakes Park and Moon had made is another subject of wordy argument.).
    2
  90. ​ K Takezo  That's exactly the point the Obama administration criticised, in particular, Park Geun-Hye's presence in the Tiananmen military parade in 2015. To explain the full story is a really hard one because I will have to explain what is South Korea's 'Northern diplomacy', 'One Korea Policy', why Park Geun-Hye decided to go to Tiananmen and why it looked quite successful at the first glance while in real term total failure. In fact, I was writing the whole story for an hour but somehow it's gone and I lost time to write again. Sorry. Instead, I would like to make three quick points. First, yeah, Park Guen-Hye was so incompetent that she couldn't explain what is her policy goal of the engagement policy to China. She had a reason, and the reason was the containment of the North. But she failed to explain sufficiently it to her American counterpart. Second, the Obama administration neglected the North Korea issue under the name of 'strategic patience,' but actually, it was not a strategy, but just neglecting there is a problem. There were plenty of chances to prevent Kim in the North from achieving nuclear weapon and missile capability, Obama, clearly under the advisory of Biden, simply ignored it. The Obama administration reacted North Korean issue only after it became clear North Korea achieve a nuclear weapon that is capable to strike the US base in Korea. The final point is that the Obama administration actually didn't care about the alliance. Three evidence here. For one, Yonpyeng bombardment. North Korea obviously targeted and hit the South Korean civilians. What the Obama administration did just to issue a statement of contamination. They put more effort to deter Lee Myung-Bak administration react to North Korean provocation. Second, THAAD deployment. The controversial THAAD system was deployed not to defend the US ally but to defend the US military base. Third, the US reaction to Chinese retaliation to THAAD deployment. The first reaction was the statement from the State Department in March 2017. Chinses clearly said they will retaliate and the retaliation began in 2016. OK, it was the election year so the Obama administration would be too busy to issue a single statement. But the US side could have had plenty of opportunities to persuade the Chinese that the system does not damage their interest, but they didn't. They even didn't care what was happening to its ally who was working together with the US to defend the US base with the US military items. I expect Biden presidency would be similar to that of Obama. I've already collected several clues to support this expectation.
    2
  91. Where are Kim Jung-un and Xi Jinping??
    2
  92. Did everybody forget India was a part of the "Third World" during the Cold War between Washington and Moskow? They have kept their stance the same, in principle, since then. And they have several reasons to do so. New Delhi is smiling at Washington because Beijing is "bullying" India, not "threatening." Of course, Indian leaders may say to "the West" that they feel threatened by Chinese actions around the lines of actual control and Kashmir. First, however, it needs to be clarified that Chinese action is a threat to India in general. Second, even if Indian security is being threatened by Chinese action, the degree and the mechanism they perceive it could be totally different to the way the US imagined. Lastly, India also has its own domestic politics, which could hinder the Indian Prime Minister from making Indian foreign policy aligned with the US. Considering these factors, I think India will not sign any form of alliance treaty with the US, at least within three decades.
    2
  93.  @jailmoor  ........님 누구세요? 어디서 오셨어요? 혹시 국가정보조직에서 민간인사찰하세요? 어떻게 그걸 아셨죠? 물론 임박사님 말이 다 맞다고 보지는 않고 때로는 견강부회 아전인수 하는 거 아니냐고 비판하기도 합니다만 해외 싱크탱크나 전문가들이 내놓은 분석에 견줄만한 합리적 설명(물론 현실이 그다지 합리적이지 않아서 틀릴 수도 있지만)이라고 봐서...
    2
  94. 4:17 The first thing government of Japan should do is to digitalise its bureaucrat system. Koto Taro tried but has failed. It's a significant setback for Japan. South Korean can provide lessons and experience of building a digital bureaucrat system to Japanese. It's time for both South Korean and Japanese to stop the stupid mutual phobia against each other and to build a cooperationship. And, of course, from experience and my knowledge of public opinion in both countries, I know this will not happen.
    2
  95. @quyenluong3705  I already said that China is trying to "divide and conquer" Korea. You talked about "hundreds of years," but Chinese empires have tried it for thousands of years. Han tried it, Tang tried it, and even Qing wanted to try it but was defeated by Japanese Imperialists.
    2
  96. 6:55 Very brave man. Even though my Taiwanese friends don't like the idea of "Republic of China", as a citizen of "Republic of Korea", I feel a certain kind of sentimental affiliation with the idea. Anyhow, Korean might join in the defence of Taiwan when the PLA would invade Taiwan. Koreans are silently developing the debate on how we can support the fellow democracy in Taiwan, at least, I personally try to facilitate the debate among my friends. (remind of the statement from Moon Jae-in the last year. Even "Pro-China" Moon is willing to join in voicing the peace in the Taiwan Strait. Just because the Taiwan strait is too far from Korean peninsula, we have to develop a sophisticated plan for it.
    2
  97. ​ @alfonschoubek2984  You don't know China. They will invade us whether or not we support Taiwan. They did invade us during the Korean war. It was not an exception. China has repeated invasions of the Korean peninsula for the last two millennials since they believe our peninsula also belongs to them and we should be their slaves. The Korean war was just one of the examples (what the People's Volunteers Army was doing was not supporting the North Koreans. They were there to unify the Korean peninsula under their control, but failed). And we see the PLA's missiles belonging to their Northern Theatre are aiming at us, and the PLA's navy and airbases are placed to attack us. We are already a target. The only difference is we are just below Taiwan in the CCP's list. Foolish PLA generals already betrayed their intention to do it.
    2
  98.  @stevepoon6262  First, Chinese intervention in Korean war was Chinese leaders' decision. For China, it was not a proxy war. China actively interfered in Korea war and we all have watched president Xi Jinping's speech on the 70th anniversary of Chinese intervention in Korean war. Are you arguing that Mao was just Stalin's puppet at that time?? China was not victim. Second, none of Joint Command of the UN army is aiming at Shandong, including surveillance asset while Chinese assets are. And if you have close reading on the alliance treaty between China and North Korea, China will interfere in Korean affairs immediately if there is military conflict. And whenever North Korean provoke the South, China has voiced for Kim in the North. Third, you mistake Moon as neutral. He has been just hedging between China and the US. Americans agreed that it would be better for both Korea and the US to allow South Korea to play hedging tactics because it will provide the ROKUS alliance with broader diplomatic space. If you don't trust me, you should check several articles from Councils for Foreign Relations. President Moon, even though I don't like him, but I can confidently say he is Pro-Alliance. He is foolish and stupid, but not that much as failing to understand the value of the ROKUS alliance. Forth, Chian already intervened inter-Korean affairs, while South Korea has tried to respect One-China-Principle. China doesn't respect One-Korea-Principle. They have recognised both Koreas. Intervenes inter-Korean affairs and does not play a constructive role. Blackmails whenever Seoul try to retaliate Pyongyang's provocation such as Yoenpyong bombardment in 2010. China already has meddled in inter-Korean affairs so I firmly believe we have a good reason to have a voice in Taiwan-China issue. Finally, my concern on Chinese expansionist ambition does not come from the Western media. The Western scholars and media, in fact, do not make such propaganda. For example, Prof. Westad from Yale argued our concern over Chinese having such "profound, secret, well-planed intention" is outdated. But I arrived at this conclusion from Chinese rhetoric. Even today I found a number of Chinese, in Chinese website, in Chinese language, using their interpretation on Chinese history(especially using Han and Tang era), argued that China has a legislative territorial claim on two-third of Korean peninsula including Seoul. (I was just searching for how Chinese understand Sui Yangdi) And I personally met some Chinese who criticise Koreans of being "separationists" who exploit the US intervention to be independent from China. And many Koreans still remember Chinese diplomats language and behaviours. Especially we have not forgotten the name of Chinese diplomat Chen Hai. He called us, in a very insulting way, a small nation that must obey whatever great China demands. We also haven't forgotten Xi Jinping said we used to be a part of China. I don't believe that every single Chinese have such ambition: I have Chinese friends who mutually respect our differences and enjoy our similarities. But at least some hyper-nationalist Chinese, probably including somebody at the decision-making level, seems to have expansionist ambition. That would be the reason the CCP educates the Chinese public in that way.
    2
  99. 12:17 Oh, no. You should have include Russians. China and Russia is hostile neighbours, while Japan is the former imperialist power still believes that the peninsular should be their's. And the nation is spilt, by the South and the North. Have listen Korean national anthem? "God protect us, so that we will survive for tens of thousand generations. ... Let's keep Koreans as being Koreans for ever and ever." Official translation is different to this (May the government wanted to give more self-esteem impressions), but this is the real meaning of the lyrics. The very survival is the real stake of the country.
    2
  100.  @JWPanimation  You are talking too much again. It is true that many people imagine the unified Korean peninsula as a powerhouse in the region. Well, they say, just as you said, South Korean soft power. But, first, would it have been really a matter in international politics? The allies of the US have chosen to maintain the alliance with the US not because they love Hollywood movies but because they saw Uncle Sam's hard muscle. Furthermore, preference changes from time to time. The international audiences may prefer Korean drama or pop music today, but no one knows how it will be in the next year or next decade. Finally, South Koreans understand how their entertainment industry got succeeded on the international stage: they got American platforms' patronage. Could have Parasite, Squid Game or Pachinko have been successful without Netflix or Apple+? We are sceptical about it. Likewise, how about South Korean technology? The first thing anyone who tries to closely look at South Korean industrialisation is that Seoul's developmentalist behaviour has been possible because Washington acquiesced to it. Access to American technology is one of these acquiescence. Now China seems to reach the point South Korean economy reached around the 1990s. At that time American policymakers (especially Clinton administration) put pressure on South Korean side (Kim Young-sam administration) to push Seoul to adjust its mercantilist behaviour. Such pressure campaign keeps carrying our even today (think about Trump administration), but generally American policymakers show some generosity over their Asian ally. What would have happened to South Koreans if the US did something they had done for the rise of Chinese technology? Could South Koreans maintain their competitiveness in technology without scientists and mechanics educated and trained in the US? All in all, South Korea could not be a powerhouse in the region. It is where the US power projection to the region is multiplied. Some pundits from the Asian Group or Councils on Foreign Relations have argued that some of the demerits South Korean have today, for example, demographic problem, would be solved by integrating the North Korean population into the South Korean economy. But they missed that the North has demographic problems too. And it would be not easy to integrate the North Korean population who have lived under such an insane regime in isolation into the South Korean society. We can expect there must be chaos and turmoil in the earlier stage of the unification from the cases of North Korean defectors in the South. South Korea's hypocrisy and discrimination against North Korean defectors are not a joke. Even expressing support for the Third Unification of the peninsula could be a reason of being criticised. This is my daily experience of being offended by my own close friends whenever I say "we need the Third Unification" Anyhow, thank you for your warm interest in Korean issue. Looking forward to having another discussion with you in the future, as we have done so in this channel.
    2
  101.  @zsarimaxim692  Do you have any knowledge of geography in the region??
    2
  102. Love to see Just Saying come back even though I usually disagree with the opinions from this programme.
    2
  103. Just few days ago, Americans secretly and indirectly(it took a form of an idea from a think tank, a participant of the talk said. I believe it might have been suggested by Victor Cha of CSIS) suggested South Koreans to export their nuclear power plant to Australia to help Canberra build an acting nuclear industry. It is not official yet, but if incumbent Moon's administration, which has shown their desire of terminating nuclear industry in Korean peninsula, are gone and Conservatives take the office, then Washington would make an official suggestion to Seoul.
    2
  104. The Quad is nothing but only means Indian's disappointment over Chinese reaction to India's rise. Likewise, Lithuania's policy on Taiwan must have been related to Vilnius' disappointment with China's exaggerated promise about "17+1". The world should notice that when Chinese talking about "number", you should be careful because it may not about quantity. Rather, you should take it "sentimentally" because it may mean a certain kind of symbol. For example, when Chinese says "a ten of thousand (萬)", it may be the exact number, but sometimes it could mean just "somehow many". If Lithuanians were just disappointed with Chinese promise on "17+1", in particular the scale of Chinese investment in Lithuania, you should have taken their number in the promise as just a symbolic goal. It has usually not been kept, but trading with Beijing still has some merit. Of course, especially when you have trade relationships with both Beijing and Taipei.
    2
  105. 크으 좋다 이런 컨텐츠... 어딜 어중이 떠중이 유투브에서 사건 현지 거주 언론인과 직접 인터뷰를 할 수 있는 인적 네트워크가 있겠어요. 훌륭합니다.
    2
  106. So Baribie producers now need to meet political scientists like Ian to have a consultation. The new blue ocean is now open. Congratulation Ian!
    2
  107. After watching a parade of crazy fights in the National Assemble of my own country, not for any sort of policy or public interest, but for personal ambition and emotional hatred toward other assembly members, I find this new British parliament calm and civilised.
    2
  108. lolololololololololololol I always enjoy puppet regime!
    2
  109.  @alpagosinasi  어 좀전엔 떴는데 지금은 알파고의 지식램프 태그가 뜨네요. 이쪽 컴퓨터 오류였나봐요. 죄송합니다ㅜㅠ
    2
  110. Well, South Korea's position on Taiwan independence is quite complicated. This is because they also have reunification issue. Even Koreans have their own version of "One Korea Principle". They just have not forced any other members of the international community to recognise it. So technically speaking, South Korea says they hope for any kind of peaceful resolution on Taiwan-China relations, so may support the defence of Taiwan, not the independence of Taiwan. We have never made it clear that we will militarily react if China invades Taiwan. Now you can see Seoul's ambiguity has made military planners in China confused and has made it more complicated to plan the invasion. Because both Korean and Chinese may unconsciously agree that they don't know what South Korean will do in Taiwan contingency but know South Korean will do "something" which can make Chinese invasion of Taiwan crippled.
    2
  111.  @dphuntsman  Well.... I just told what I saw. First, export control is not going anywhere. It will still be there. Nishimura Yasutoshi, Japan's Trade and Industry Minister, stated that "(Japan) has not removed export control(措置を解除したわけではない)," according to Mainichi. I could not check in Japanese report yet, but some Korean media mentioned a report from Japan’s Kyodo News that Yasutoshi also said removing export control is an issue for further discussions and depending on Seoul's stance. Second, domestic politics in both countries. It's a really complicated issue, especially if you are not familiar with both countries. This is because the two nations have totally different views of not only each other but of the whole region. I wish I could deal with this issue in this limited space but it would be too long to address here. One of the visible outcome to Yoon Yoon Suk Yeol, the South Korean president's summit with Kishida Fumio, Japanese Prime Minister, is that the approval of Yoon's presidency is falling. I assume that this is not only due to the summit, but also there are several domestic issues such as labour hours and political infight within the ruling party. But Japan issue clearly takes a large portion of the fall. According to at least two polling conducted by Gallop Korea and RealMeter, around 60 percent of the respondents said they oppose Yoon's proposal to solve the "forced labour issue" during WWII by Imperial Japan(which Japan does not recognise as forced labour and refused to pay the compensation). And there are several rumours that something like "Japan raised the territorial claims Dok-do/Takeshima during the summit" or "Kishida demanded Seoul to import fishery products from Fukushima" which Korean consumers are worried about the possibility of being polluted by the nuclear plant incident in 2011. So, it seems that the damage to Yoon's presidency is at the begging for now. And the National Assembly, South Korean Legislative branch, is dominated by opposition parties. Without any significant positive response from Tokyo, Korean domestic politics, by South Korean public's anger and animosity to Yoon will lead to another impeachment (highly unlikely yet), the opposition camps' dictating the National Assembly after defeat in the next general election (likely), or change in the government who has deep-seated interest to try to null Yoon's legacy (highly likely). Several responses from Japan may be able to prevent these scenarios from happening. The top of the list would be Japan's abandoning the territorial claim over the rock called Dok-do/Takeshima. This issue is more than just a territorial issue. Koreans tend to think that this is related to Japan's stance to reluctant to recognise South Korea as an independent sovereign power but treat it as their former colony. This was part of a proposal called "Grand Bargain" suggested by several American pundits such as Scot Snyder, Director of the Program on U.S.-Korea Policy at CFR, during the Obama administration, but Japanese domestic politics will not allow it to happen. One of the other candidates would be something like Japan's inviting South Korea into the QUAD separately suggested by Christopher Johnstone, the Japan chair at the CSIS, or Ishii Masafumi, a retired Japanese diplomat and professor at Tokyo's Gakushuin University. But I'm not sure whenever I look into Japanese domestic politics. Kishida's premiership is not strong enough to maintain it. He needs many allies within his party. Some of his allies, such as Hayashi Yoshimasa, the incumbent Foreign minister, or probably Kono Taro, the former Foreign Minister and now current Digital minister, might agree with deepening corporation with Seoul. But others, especially from so-called "far-right" groups who are more important to Kishda, will oppose it and insist Kishida need to demand more from Seoul. So I predict Kishima may try to offer an olive branch to Seoul by inviting G7 meeting in his home constituency Hiroshima, but that would be the best thing he could do. I just briefly overviewed some visible elements of this issue. But this is more complicated than I presented here, there is a history of at least more than a century. It is not as simple as Ian said in this video.
    2
  112. The United States of Europe? Sorry, it sounds nonsense. American elites tend to try to make others looks like them. But each European national state has different national interests, identities, and foreign policies which make it hard for the EU to form a coherent foreign policy. Remember, you European guys have to have the embassy of your own nation even though you already have the EU embassy. Why? Because your government is worried that the EU policy may be against your own country's national interests from time to time. You European guys can be together because the American military presence has made neutralised your country's security concern against each of the European nations, just as Korean and Japanese, even though we often bark against each other, can seat together, thanks to the US alliance system in East Asia.
    2
  113.  @JamesKerLindsay  I'm not Chinese, I'm not British, American, nor Singaporean neither. But what I can say from the bitter historical experience of the country I'm living in is that it will not end here. If one strikes water with a sword, nothing will happen. If he does it to a pound of gold, it would be divided but the commercial value would be the same. But if we do the same thing to a living human being, the wounds may be healed, but there would be a scar.... with a painful memory accompanying animosity. Oh my Lord oh my God, how much are we familiar with this kind of story, but how are we incapable of dealing with this kind of tragedy...
    2
  114. 10:45 알파고, 이미 늦었어요. 지금 스코틀랜드 자치정부 수반이자 스코틀랜드민족당 당수가 누군지 안 알아봤어요? 웨일즈의 경우에는 분리주의가 부상할 뻔 했는데 그때 찰스가 가서 웨일즈 민족주의자들을 왕당파로 포섭하면서...
    2
  115.  @alpagosinasi  그러신 거 같더라구요ㅜㅠ 고생이 많으세요...
    2
  116. 아아아아아 이 소식 진짜진짜진짜진짜 기다리고 있었어요 고맙습니다
    2
  117. The British monarch has a German origin. House Windsor used to be Hanover, Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha, and then Battenberg. All of them are family branches of Haus Wettin, who came from Sachsen. Oh, English are so-called Anglo-"SAXON," aren't they? Empowered by the ancient degree, using her German loyalty, Ms Merkel might have a nationality claim over the British throne, perhaps.
    2
  118. 알서방 유명해져서 다음에 갈 때는 요르단 관광홍보관현 정부부처의 펀딩 받아서 가요
    2
  119. He has been a job regarding HK affairs. He might have learned English from HK with a British accent. And in addition, NKs study a British accent from British Councils. Their Chinese fellows might have had the same experience.
    2
  120.  @rufescens  Then Mr Xi might have learned the English accent from his daughter who studied in the US. Whatever the accent is, it does not matter as long as the Westerner audiences cannot distinguish Chinglish(should I separate Madaringlish and Cantonglish? Even for me it is hard to say), Japlish, Konglish, or any other various type of English accent among the East Asians.
    2
  121. 3:00 Hey guys, "In 2020, the top 100 arms-producing and military services companies recorded combined sales of $531 billion." Looks lucrative? The annual revenue of Walmart in 2020 was $599 billion. One single retail corporation in the US can earn more money than the top 100 military-industrial complexes combined. According to SIPRI data, South Korea has increased arms transfer more than 5 times from 2015 to 2020. Why? Because their American friends asked them to provide ASEAN counties, such as the Philippines and Indonesia, with their affordable military equipment so that can help these countries not rely on Chinese or Russian weapons (and help Indians reduce their dependence on Russian equipment. But Seoul failed to meet the goal because Indians preferred Russian technology). Seoul has sometimes provided these Asian nations that don't have budgets with their used coast guard ships free of charge. How much did Seoul earn? Well, it would have been much better for them just to make and sell much more cell phones. It's not the business of satisfying appetite. This is the business of necessity.
    2
  122. "States without a nation." A plausible conclusion.
    2
  123. You haven't listen carefully what was said here. NK's nuclear program started in1953 immediately after the armistice treaty of the Korean War which broke out by the North in 1950. Since then the North has violated the armistice a number of time. They even used chemical poison, which is banned by the international law, in an international airport in Malaysia 2017. Is there any reason for a state to commit such a crime against international community? Why did even China and Russia have to agree with sanctioning the North? This is because the North do not hesitate to threaten them as well if the Kim in the North feels he find something unsatisfied with them. If you find it hard to believe that, check it out to where the North launched their missiles in last 24th March. It was toward the west, against China. So the US and its allies didn't respond to 24th March's launch but only at ballistic missile on 25th March. Who threans who? It is clearly the North who threatens the world, both the East and the West.
    2
  124. They flew not only near Japan but also entered South Korea's air defence zone without notice. So ROK Airforce had to deploy F-15 and F-16 to the area. The trajectory of jet bombers' flying encircled Korean peninsula, which means Russian and Chinese do not respect South Korean sovereignty while Seoul has respected China's territorial water and airspace by refusing to invite the US navy or Japanese naval defence force. It has been repeated for the last five years when president Moon tried to improve tie with Beijing. So it is not surprising South Koreans are tilting toward Washington to maintain military balance and stability in the region.
    2
  125. 크으 알파고의 전공분야. 언제 한 번 석사논문 주제로 강의 한 번 해주세요. 마찬가지로 저도 계엄이 생방송으로 선포되는 걸 보면서 저도 5분만에 '어 이거 망했네?' 싶었어요. 계엄을 주도한 측이 계엄이 군사통치(martial law), 즉 군사적 조치라는 점을 전혀 이해하지 못했던 게 아닌가 싶어요. 옳고 그름의 문제를 떠나서, 너무 허술해보여서 당황했었던...
    2
  126. @tsubadaikhan6332  South Koreans are not good strategists in general. They are rather power-mongering(I'm quoting a South Korean political scientist's word. She really mentioned it) people. It must have been Americans who brokered the Canberra's deal with Seoul. (South Korean didn't expect the deal) Two years ago, if I remember correctly, Americans began talking about "Empty Bin" which is the idea that points out the risk of lacking capable defence industry among US allies. Fortunately, in the case of the war in Ukraine, they had South Koreans. But what if it were China who pulled the f××king trigger? The US will need more partners who can supply ammunition, for example. So, some American strategists suggested two candidates who are willing to and capable of sharing this burden. Yeah, surprise, surprise. They are Poland and Australia. (Australian ambassador to the US: we are a really credible partner because we haven't burnt White House!)
    2
  127. I'm sorry, really sorry. We Korean really like to achieve something first in the world, but the first Asian Cardinal of the Catholic church was Chinese. Google about His Eminence Thomas Tien Ken-sin.
    2
  128. "Empowering local leaders to recruit fighters within their community." It was the only meaningful information I could get from this video.
    2
  129. The meaning of South Korean soft power is absolutely exaggerated. Do you consider which pop star groups your people prefer when making your country's foreign policy? Perhaps not. You can see there is a horde of K-pop fans in China while the CCP publicly threating the South Korea allowing their diplomats calling ROK as "a small country which should not refuse whatever Greate China asks" and retaliate whenever Seould fails to appease Beijing. What about Japan? Japanese like traveling South Korea and enjoy K-culuture things but you know how much cold the relationship between Seoul and Tokyo is. And do the South Korean government, its officials and the policymakers in Seoul have any idea of global vision? If you have a look at what South Koreans are doing then you will immediately find out that most of their initiatives are decorative and symbolic. Even dealing with North Korean issue (even if we leave aside the nuclear isssue) would be a handful. Oh yeah, it must be the US who would benefit from a rise of South Korean soft power. It is a perfect kind of propaganda tool. "Ladies and gentlemen from the globe, look what South Koreans have built from the ashes of the brutal war and how much their success is enjoyable. The US led The Joint UN command led to save the poor country, have protected it as its loyal ally, and help them build it. You can be the next."
    2
  130. It is hardly surprising. Australia is just the third case in which the CCP plays this 'kneel if you want to keep trading with us' game. The first was Japan with rare earth, the second was Korea with tourism. Australians should have expected this sort of reaction from Beijing.
    2
  131. Sorry, Jonny, but I have to say this perspective wasn't that new to me. And what you have studied was not the full version of the story. If you want to understand the broader picture of this conflict, it would be helpful to have a look at the Chinese archive (of course, it is distorted for political reasons, and access to it is limited) and several pieces of research on modern Korean history (one of my recommendations is done by Dr David Fields. His book on the first Korean president Syngman Rhee has some deep insight into how the peninsula was split by the US government apparatus.) So I, in a sense, disagree with many of your points but thank you for your impressive work and attention.
    1
  132. You have no idea. NK intelligence agency has already been active in Europe. They have European supporters there and have constantly undergone a number of operations not only in Europe but also in the Middle East, China, Russia and Africa. Their hands can reach much farther than you think.
    1
  133. Hmmmmm Sound like listening to something like South Korean politics.
    1
  134. Hostility against China among the Korean young generation(particularly in 2030s) is CRAZILY high, while many in the middle age group(4050s), the stronghold for the Moon's administration, are in favour of China. It means that it is not sustainable to maintain the balancing strategy of the Moon's administration on China. Pro-China and anti-US sentiment among the Korean public is destined to fall as the hostility against China to up. Since the current government is quite or sometimes even silencing some critics on Chinese government behaviour, the suppressed opinion is becoming to be stronger and stronger. For example, it is actually reported that some of the youngsters from the liberal or progressive camps(where have been traditionally in favour of China) have turned against the Korean democrats after they found that their voices of supporting Hong Kong protesters were silenced. So the internal dynamics of Korean politics will not allow the current balancing policy to survive in the future. And it will reach a flashpoint anytime soon. The Moons' administration's behaviour is just to try to deter the doom day coming. I'm usually a critic of Moon's government policies, but I think it would be worth to mention on the different condition between Korea and Australia: the proximity. We are too close to China. Take an example scenario of military conflict against China, because the extreme thought experiment sometimes helps make differences clear. As far as I know, Australian political strategists have some plans for the situation any military conflict against China takes place and they are mostly about supporting the US navy in various sorts of skirmish around the South China sea. Koreans' are different. If we join in any military conflict against China on the side of the US, it means total war. We have no doubt the alliance will win, but also massive destruction and sacrifices would follow as well. Historically the Yellow sea has functioned as a great moat between the Chinese continent and the Korean peninsula, just as the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been for the US for centuries. But it does not any more, thank to the development of technology. So, in this case of thought experiment, Koreans needs a huge scale of American support, things like somethings Americans had done during the last Korean war. Similarly, even in the sort of economic and political cases against China, Seoul needs any kind of US support in the full-scale, which Washington will rarely provide. Seoul trust Washington will help them in the total war scenario but not in economic and diplomatic conflict. They already found the evidence during the THAAD crisis. Since Chinese punishment over the deployment of the THAAD system launched, the Obama administration actually did nothing and then Trump even demanded more burden-sharing cost from ROK while the punishment still stays. That's why both so-called conservative Park and so-called liberal Moon have played 'flattering Xi-da-da' card so long. Even though Beijing kept punishing Seoul, but the scale could have been minimalised. Have a look at what the US had done for Australians when Beijing punished Canberra by boycotting or cutting Australians' soybeans and beef, coals etc. Did Washing buy those things? No. What the Trump administration did was, instead, to make a deal with Beijing.
    1
  135. 언제 한 번 중동 주요 언론사들에 대해서 비교 정리하는 컨텐츠도 궁금해요!
    1
  136. Today's China has nothing to do with Confucianism even though they are pretending to be. This China is just a Marxist-Leninist communist regime translated into Chinese Mandarin.
    1
  137. @xmr7 pt95 Sorry again but let's be realistic. Geopolitics in the east Asia has completely changed since the advance of the US in the 19th century. Due to developments in transportation technology, the world becomes more compacted than before, which means other regional powers like India, Russia, and more importantly, the US become able to play power balancing card. And now it is no more secret that Korean peninsula is significantly important when you are playing power balancing card against China. One of the good examples is American military presence in the South Korea. China may have some economic influence on Korea but it cannot overwhelm American's hard power in Korea. Next, Koreans also want to contain China and restrict Chines influence. We have always wanted it throughout history. Chan Pasado Polska might have well understand this desire to contain strong neighbor. The trajectory of the current Korean administration illustrates this really well. President Moon has shown his favour of Chinese big brother and hatred against Japan and Uncle Sam. He even promised three 'No's to China publicly. Now he has been in the power three years and what he have done? Nothing. The THAAD system still operates, GISOMIA which is the cornerstone of the US-Korea-Japan military triad is still alive, and even Korea is going to join in missile defense system led by the US military. It is not because Republic of Korea is a satellite state or military colony of the US, as some people (especially supporters of Kim in the north) believe. You can see more and more President Moon pursues improving tie with China lower and lower he gets approval rates. So, if Beijing wields its influence to control Korea, Korean public will force politicians to cut off the relationship with Beijing, formalise its relationship with Taiwan. To sum up, China may have some influence on Korea, but it is not so much decisive.
    1
  138. @xmr7 pt95 "20 years in future where China will surpass US in economic, military and technological advancements" my point is that it will not happen because other regional players will not tolerate the rise of China. When the US was growing, the UK was obsessed with containing Napoleon in Europe continent. When the British empire found they had to balance the US during the Civil war, they noticed that it was too late. There was an obstacle for the British empire to play power balancing card at a proper moment: European peer competitors. By contrast, The US has no such geopolitical shackle. And they are reacting now. Thus, before China overwhelming the US in all of those three sectors, the US will do, more precisely, is already doing whatever they want to do without any meaningful hindrance. China is not going to be able to control it. For example, what will happen if the US navy blockade the Persian gulf, Malacca strait? These are just a moderate level of economic cards the US can play at least coming two decades and seem to be destructive to the economy of the People's Republic of China. One more point I will make. If there is any sign that the US is going to be surpassed by China who keeps trying to control Korea, Koreans will necessarily develop their own nuclear means as Kim in the north has done. Unlike Kim, just one year would be sufficient to complete it. I know it may sound crazy but 'Korea as nuclear power' has been Koreans long-held insane dream for the last seven decades. The US has been a shackle of it. Therefore, even if Beijing could surpass Washington within the next two decades, Beijing would not have been able to free to order Seoul to do whatever the CCP wants. Anyhow, it is quite interesting to see trying to ignore the current situation while drawing the future two decades later- that is not REALISTIC.
    1
  139. @greenweed3253  Sorry, but I think you missed my point. It seems that some countries that are not familiar with alliance treaty, such as Iran and India, are often confused it with any form of partnership. No. Alliance treaty we are talking about here is something different. It is a certain form of obligation imposed on participants. For example, the alliance treaty the US has with South Korea imposed treaty obligation that, if either side of the treaty is attacked by someone else in the Asian-Pacific region, the legislative branch of the other side MUST decide whether the state of war between them and the aggressor exists. What you mentioned that the Indian Prime Minister signed is not alliance treaty but a form of "comprehensive" partnership. The term "comprehensive" is, in fact, a kind of diplomatic rhetoric, which means that the partnership statement is not fixed but changeable. And the partnership is about broadly technologies and investments, not security and military, as far as I understand the statement issued by the White House.
    1
  140. They are not NATO - No Action Talks Only. They have developed, tested, and deployed their weapons, including Nuclear one. And............ a lot of espionage programs attempting to topple the South Korean regime, even though most of them have failed recently.
    1
  141. If South Korean soft power has any implication on international relations and foreign affairs, it must be either of two. First, it could be a vehicle for uniting the Korean identity among divided Korean ethnic communities from the South to the North and China(there are "Chaoxianzu", Korean ethnic minority in China), perhaps including Korean ethnic minority communities in Russia and Central Asia. It will clearly decrease cultural division among segregated Korean communities across the world. But it seems that policymakers in Seoul have no interest in this move. Second, just as the South Korean economic success has been, South Korean soft power would be another propaganda tool for the US diplomacy: move to liberal democracy instead of staying authoritarian dictatorship, and be a friend of mild American instead of being captured by extortionist Chinese communist, just as South Korean are. And I'm pretty sure that Americans are not stupid to miss this chance in Southeast Asia where now South Korean military industry has become an armoury to provide cost-effective arms for the allies of the US in the region who had considered buying cheap Chinese or Russian arms instead of luxury American arms.
    1
  142.  @Meonium  If you think so really, you are so much naive to be fooled. Mr. Putin don't sell military equipments officially not because he doesn't support Kim in the North but because he well understands that his official business of military material with North Korea will be crossing the redline put by the US and many of others. Another evidence of Mr. Putin's support for Pyongyang is the fact that Moscow tries to replace Beijing's export to the North Korea while Beijing decreed due to Washington's pressure. I'm not insisting that Mr. Putin and his administration help Kim in the North like Beijing supports the North Korea. Russians clearly has different interests and strategies on the North Korea. Russians will agree even the collapse of the Kim's regime and the North Korea if necessary while Beijing see the scenario as unacceptable. But for a while, the Kim will be Moscow's bargaining chips for Russians negotiation with Americans on another issues in different places. And Mr. Putin is so much smart not to miss the chance.
    1
  143. 4:59 "What the public notices, first of all, is an increase of personality cult in the recent weeks and months. The state media have exaggerated their praise of Xi Jinping. It became almost absurd. I mean it's comparable to the rhetoric of the North Korean regime almost." lol yeah, they sometimes pretend they are different, but they are in fact brothers in the ideology. Now we are watching the proof of this fact.
    1
  144.  @duyataksis5210  You really have no idea how terribly crazy and paranoiac northeast Asian nations have come along with each other.
    1
  145. Don't worry too much. Our dear supreme leader Kim in the North will make any sort of trouble soon so that China couldn't focus on the Taiwan strait. Or, there would be a good chance for the third Korean unification by force in terms which is really disappointing for Beijing.
    1
  146. Your point that we should ask what the project's end goal is clearly makes sense. But for the same reason, I became a bit more pessimistic. As you pointed out, yes, Russians have proved how much they are incapable. However, the premise of this video is that 'military support to Ukraine has significantly diminished the combat readiness of European armed forces.' Not only Europe has failed to achieve it at the outset, but it also has failed to stop Russians from continuing the war in Ukraine. Yes, the uncomfortable truth is, that Russians are incapable but Europeans are worse. Not because Europeans are poorer, weaker, or stupider, but because the EU in its complicated nature is fragile. I think it is the point this video is talking about, and I agree with it. And, to be honest, I think, what Europeans, to be precise, the EU commissioners are doing is, a game of bluff.
    1
  147. On January 6th, when I watched the mob flooded into the Capitol like vomit on Youtube across the Pacific, sorry Americans, I just laughed, saying, 'Look! Even Americans, the oldest republic on the Earth, doing that too!' And I told my friends that the US will suffer from the political turmoil caused by it and had to have some time to back to the ordinary politics, at least for weeks or even one or two months. I predicted a sort of civil war could break out in which Democrats may try to slaughter all the Republicans and Republicans punch back. And several hours later, I watched American journalists reporting about the Capitol raid and felt something I did expect from them. Well, you can get disappointed or frustrated when you see the political situation of your country going mad. But what I believe I saw from the face of one journalist was shamefulness. He looked as if he lost his own home country. While watching the reporting in my room, I shouted. 'Come on, man! A bunch of stupids just trespassed on a public building. It has happened in any other country! The member of parliament or national assembly in these countries even physically battled against each other!" I thought something must be going in a way I haven't thought about. The very next day morning, I came to read an article on the behaviour of Andrew Kim, a new member of the House of Representatives. The story was he helped clean up the Capitol. I was shocked again for two reasons. First, his action, at least in my view, was looked as if he got traumatised, just like a mad man looking up a shining stone for his dead son somewhere else. Second, the fact that he was allowed to enter the Capitol meant the ordinary institutional procedure already restored: I was completely wrong. There was no slaughtering. Nor civil war. The military kept politically neutral, just like the true guardians of the state in Plato's Republic. A month later, after completing my reflection on the Capitol sack, I reached a kind of conclusion. Before the incident, I thought Americans always exaggerate the resilience of their system, and the USA is not exceptional. Frankly speaking, I still have some complaints and criticism of the US. Some of Biden's policy, the dog fight in Republicans etc, etc. But now, I think, given their resilience and constitutional structure, the United States of America may be exceptional. And we, the Republic of Korea, should remain as its treaty ally and have some lessons from its constitutional experience (we are not going to copy it, since we are in different condition to the US. But there must be some wisdom we can learn.)
    1
  148. ........................was not vaccination mandate in the US???? Which one of the most valuable modern gifts? No way!!!
    1
  149. What about countering counterfeiting by counterfeiting? I mean, North Korea had had currency reform in 2009 and it was a disaster. Since the aim of the reform was to help the new Kim have control over the market, it had not paid sufficient attention to the currency itself. Thus it had failed. North Korean business community started to avoid using North Korean won preferring the US dollar. The credibility of the regime among ordinary North Korean eroded a lot. The NK regime is more vulnerable at this point than the US regime. The US can counter counterfeiting through various means. On the other hand, if the US launch a massive scale counterfeiting campaign against North Korea, which will lead to hyperinflation of North Korea won, the only means the North regime can do to counter it would be just to have another currency reform and it will test the stability of the regime again.
    1
  150. I will tell you why it will happen. Don't think both Koreas are fools. They know Chinese imperialist ambition. They know they are the next target. What is the evidence? Why the North Korean have developed nuclear weapons? Because they don't trust Beijing.
    1
  151.  @ktchong5800  You are a fool. Can you trust a regime that assassinated the brother of the head of the state with a biochemical weapon in an international airport??
    1
  152.  @jxz107  You push me to agree with you 140%. But I would like to point out that the real problem is not only the stance of LDP members in Parliament but that of overall Japanese elites. Kishida actually has no idea about foreign policy. Today's Japanese incumbent administration's approach to Seoul is coming from Hayashi Yoshihisa, the new foreign policy minister, not from Prime Minister himself. Some Japanese politicians even including some members of LDP such as Kono Taro, Nakatani Gen, Hayashi Yoshihisa etc, see Japan's national interest lies in the cooperation with Seoul. But they have one more thing in common: almost all of them are isolated within Japanese elite society. Yes, Japan is liberal democracy. Since key players in the Japanese election system, in particular Japanese elites, prioritise putting Seoul in its place and seeking nostalgic past-looking policies over pursuing Japan's national interests, Japanese policy on the Korean peninsula will hardly change.
    1
  153. Jean Lee only got the opinions from South Korean elites who have put their financial asset so much on China while the young generation and the public does not. Ian Bremmer's young South Korean acquaintances are outdated. Just look at the public poll. South Korean cannot choose not because of the reason Jean Lee said but because we had already made their decision: we are going to be with our ally. Why? Because you cannot enjoy financial benefits from China if you are dead! Have a look at what kinds of crazy stories Chinese propaganda machines is producing today. Go and read Xi Jinping's speech for the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Volunteer Army's intervention in "The War to Resist America and Aid Korea" and have a watch to Chinese propaganda movie Changing and some of the Chinese public's nationalist reaction. What do you expect from South Koreans, in particular, younger South Koreans when they watch all of these? Welcoming? Indifference? Or what? Chinese elites have disgraced us by calling us "a small nation which cannot refuse the great nation demand" and hindered us, laugh at our loss of lives during the war, mocked our gains from international audiences, scorned our nation, thwarted our reunification, cooled our kin blood both in the North and China, heated Kim's regime to invade the South. And what was the reason? Just as Odd Arne Westad's recent research "Empire and Righteous Nation: 600 Years of China-Korea Relations" concluded, today's China does not see the Republic of Korea as a genuine and sovereign independent power. Since Li Hongzhang, Chinese leaders have not seen Korea in the way. They see us as a potential colony since then. Thus, naturally, the idea of decoupling from China is, in a sense, dangerously popular, especially among the younger generation. China is not a reliable market, Chinese business leaders are reluctant to invest in South Korea except when they want to extort South Korean technology, they don't open their labour market to South Korean youngsters just as Japanese does, and above all, Chinese leaders have always defended Kim in the North whenever Kim provoke attacks against the South which always led to South Korean casualties. The financial future is exaggerated, and the security risk is too high to swallow.
    1
  154. Moon Jae-in's energy policy is not about energy security issues even in the begginging. It's about an ideological one. Why should South Korea get rid of nuclear power generating? Because any possibility the Team South can reach nuclear material is a treat to the North regime which leads to North Korean Nuclear crisis. Fukushima crisis is just a nominal reason. And why do South Korean Conservatives want to keep nuclear power? Because they believe that keeping nuclear power in Korean peninsula would provide South Koreans with any opportunity to arm with nuclear weapons. The only mean to deter their nuclear ambition is ROK-US alliance which provides the South with nuclear umbrella.
    1
  155. The idea of EU army is a fantasy. Europeans seem to forget what it means to have a grand-scale army. It is not just about money, not just about collecting several smaller pieces of armies. You need to unify them under a SINGLE command, making your officials and soldiers similar to one another. And where the manpower to fill these commanders, officials, and soldiers come from? YOUR CITIZENS, who are different to each other, often dislike or keep their distance from each other, at least stay distinct from each other. (or are you going to hire such a massive number of mercenaries from somewhere?) The current form of EU looks incapable of doing it. It is a kind of nation-building. The prerequisite of this would be a series of social and political reforms, which will be extremely painful. Your political leaders will not welcome the idea. Instead, some of them will say it would be better to work with Uncle Sam. Your societies are not ready to embrace other European nations. If it were super easy, you would have not had the immigration crisis. And above all, it would be much easier for you Europeans to send NATO army to Ukraine, the idea today almost everybody mocks.
    1
  156. It's a sort of Jacksonian democracy moment, I believe. It's a time of transition. The US is going through economic and social changes while facing external threats from continental Asia(or Eurasia). How could Americans react to it? I'm just watching it beyond the Pacific.
    1
  157.  @희망있음  설득된다고 한 건 다른 사람들이지 부산사는 사람들이나 부산시청은 아니니까요. 국가차원에서 그냥 진다고 손 놓을 수도 없었고. 제 말은, 여든 야든 좌든 우든 한국사회 총체적으로 중동을 아라비아라는 나라를 너무 백안시로 내려다보는 게 아니냐는 겁니다.
    1
  158. American army base in South Korea is likely to remain because Camp Humphreys is not in South Korea to defend Seoul from Pyongyang's invasion. Today's location of American military bases in South Korea looks like it is defending South Korea from a potential Chinese amphibious attack on its western shore. But the American military presence in South Korea now has more things to do with politics rather than military strategy. Without American boots on the ground, Seoul can trust the American alliance treaty obligation. Koreans don't trust Americans due to their historical experience with the US (and most Americans don't know it). If they find they cannot trust American security assurance anymore, they will go to nuke, just as their North Korean cousin has done. It would be the beginning of the end for the NTP system.
    1
  159.  @junli6065  Korean language have many vocabularies comes from ancient Chinese confusian texts, especially from Tang period (the pronunciation of Chinese-origin vocabularies in Korean is quite heterogeneous to modern Chinese so we believe that our pronunciation basically derives from medieval ages.) For a long period of time Chinese vocabularies have huge influence within Korean academic culture, just as English does today. So if you try to learn Korean language you can feel how deep Confucian philosophy has had a deep impact on Korean, in particular academic language, but it is not necessary for Koreans to use them in everyday life.
    1
  160. Hey, my European and American friends, have you guys forgotten how Chinese Qing Empire reacted when they disliked your ancestors' actions in the 19th Century (and then how Qing Empire got retaliated)?? It's normal and ordinary Chinese reaction to its "peripheries", or, in terms of Chinese traditional concept, "vessels". For Chinese Empires centuries to centuries, it has not been a case to have "mutual trade relationship", but the "generosity". It has been, for the Chinese traditional governments, the case that generous Chinese governments approved poor and uncivilised barbarian peripheries to access the prosperous Chinese market to allow those miserable barbarians to make their own livings. So when Chinese imperial courts found anything wrong from one of those peripheries, one of the first things the court responded to was these kinds of "punishment" For an Asian state which has watched Chinese states for millennials, it's not shocking or surprising, but tedious and tiresome. They must have still been living somewhere around the 10th or 11th Century.
    1
  161. 성일광 교수님 국제정치 설명해주시는 교수님들 중에 가장 재미있고 가끔 메소드 연기 하시는 듯 너무 전달력이 좋으신 분이라 즐겨보고 있었는데 이렇게 알파고 방송에서 케미섞어서 보니 너무 좋네요. 아 그리고 교수님 본인께서는 본인이 이스라엘쪽으로 기울어져있다고 하셨는데, 그래도 양측 모두가 왜 어떤 맥락에서 이러한 현재에 도달하게 되었는지 그점을 가장 잘 설명해주시는 터라 덕분에 팔레스타인 측 입장도 이해하게 되었습니다. 저는 그점에 감사하고 있습니다.
    1
  162. Is there any significant tactical benefit from so-called 'climate neutral arms'???
    1
  163. 도발이 너무 심해서 클릭 안 하고는 배길 수가 없었다
    1
  164. Soooooooooooo next pupet regime advertisement is going to come from Xi in Beijing? "Even in the Russian system, you have to go to the ballot box on Sunday, which is unnecessary for the Chinese system! Just trust the Chinese Communist Party! Don't waste your valuable time and effort on messy democracy! Just spend more time to make money! The party even don't impose taxation on your money!! It's perfect!!"
    1
  165. Trump's argument is not sincere. Consider what he did for South Korea, which has never spent less than 2% of its GDP on defence. He labelled its ally as a free-rider.
    1
  166. Perfect video for perfect timing. I tried to sum up some thoughts raised in me when I was watching the situation in Pakistan, in particular the North Korean nuclear issue, this video is really insightful for me. So.............................. nuclear weapons cannot guarantee the regime's survival, right?
    1
  167. 2:20 No, South Korean will come at you, Ian. Because they think they have sacrificed their relationship with Russians by sending ammunition to Ukraine while Japanese have actually done nothing with the war. And they still don't trust Tokyo. The reason they have swallowed the bargain with Tokyo is not because they trust Americans and Japanese, but because they believe Japan is now weak so they are not a threat to them anymore. Seoul's decision to restore the relationship with Tokyo was a unilateral one by President Yoon, whose political influence will be bankrupt next April (in his own party it is already eroded). Furthermore, Tokyo and Washington are in the same bed but with different dreams. So America's plan would not work as Washington had thought.
    1
  168.  @lu881  Well, you argue Chinese citizens have a right to express their opinion and criticise their government if it is not violation of laws. I would like to ask under what conditions the right is able to be used. Because as far as I remember, Professor Wenguang Sun was arrested in his home during a phone interview with Voice of America, when he criticised Chinese government's bad records in protecting human right. He did not use force, and seemed not to violate any laws. He just had a talk and express his complaint against his government. But it was enough for the government to take arrest of him. Is it sufficient to say Chinese people have freedom of expression??? Or, they are just allowed to express only what their government want them to say?
    1
  169.  @thetreekeeper143  Because that's much better to bend the kneel to Communist leaders whose brain is baptised and washed with crazzy communist ideology which is invented by white western European and then revised by white Russian European. Today's China is not a genuine Asian state. It is just pretending being the one but actually It's an artificial one implemented by Russian Soviets.
    1
  170. I always want to see Peter proved to be wrong, but in this case, I have to confess that I fully agree with him on this topic.
    1
  171. "Superiority complex" You got a perfect point about Japan.
    1
  172. I largely agree with Ian that zero COVID tactic is risky, but do think that chatting on it is unnecessary. The US and its allies should rather focus on managing our own domestic control. If our approach is correct, Chinese people will find it out. Just let the CCP activate landmines that they put under their feet. You are feeding attention-seeking Chinese communists with your valuable attention.
    1
  173. The government of the Republic of Korea is also responsible for those who died in the North Korea ghost ship. They should have sent navy fleets to rescue these fishermen before they die. The dead fishermen were technically Korean citizens according to the Constitution of Korea to which the administration should be committed.
    1
  174. It seems that the current Chinese communist party regards a democratic election as a democratic system's a weak point. BUT THAT IS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE. As a friend of Chinese, I sincerely recommend, please, please, PLEASE, stopping such a stupid thing. Please listen to 孫中山, the father of modern China. Which way is the way for 王道 what Sun Yat-sen said in the Gobe speech?
    1
  175. A part of state strategy?? Political weapon?? By South Korean?? Seriously?? We are just power-mongering and money-mongering people!! Without any deep-thoughtful strategic thinking! But the Canadian and Cuban cases introduced here are much more interesting cases. As a voter, I have to go to our stupid fame-mongering politicians, kick them and squeeze their throats then force them to study these cases.
    1
  176. My Chinese fellow gamers and policymakers in Beijing should have had a look and considered how and why "shutdown" regulation that had been employed in South Korea had served, failed, and finally annulled. China exceptionalism has made their eyes blinded.
    1
  177. Japanese export control on material for South Korean semiconductor industry is not going anywhere. Domestic politics in both countries will ruin this last opportunity to bring two nations together.
    1
  178.  @zeitgeistx5239  Yes, yes, they are. And they have tried to hide it by using the name "House Windsor." But now it looks like the king is exploiting his ancestry as his merit to build a bridge to Germany and Continental Europe.
    1
  179. I knew KADEX called Prun to its exhibition, which surprised me. But... Visual Politik, too?
    1
  180. Anyhow, it's good to hear your voice, Hubert, rather than anyone else's.
    1
  181. Well, I thought Sejong City was built to boost the birth rate and regional power politics. Democrats, mostly supported by Southernwesterners at that time, had found themselves isolated by the Conservative-led Southerneasterner coalition (PK-TK coalition). So they planned to build the city in the region to persuade regional players in Chungcheong(or Hoseo) to join them and form their own version of the Westerner coalition. Hoseo is a relatively smaller player when it is compared to other major plays like PK, TK, or Honam, but a wild card in nationwide-level elections, in particular, presidential elections. And it is why even conservatives have not been able to abolish the Sejong City plan even though it was the idea by Democrats to beat them.
    1
  182. 아 맞어맞어 그 이번 아랍연맹회의에서 사우디가 주도해서 심폐소생술중인 범아랍주의의 부활조짐이 튀르키에 이스라엘 이란에 대해 불편한 결과라면, 러시아에 대해서는 어떻게 나왔나요? 또는 러시아와, 또 러시아가 반응하면 반응 안 할 수 없는 미국의 반응은 어떻게 감지되나요? 팔레스타인 문제에 대한 아랍연맹의 강조가 구체적으로 아랍세계의 대이스라엘 정책에 어떻게 반영될 것 같은가요? 아브라함협정은 여전히 유효할까요?
    1
  183. The UK is trying to join CPTPP. South Korea is preparing for admission, and the US will join either soon or later. I don't like it because it was originally Japanese idea, but find it necessary. German brothers, join CPTPP. It could be an answer.
    1
  184.  @scepticalwalker3984  Right. That's the reason why strategic ambiguity functions well for Sweden. Keeping "Joining the NATO" card in hand effectively prevents Russians from becoming provocative in the region. So using this card much earlier is a dangerous idea. But when the moment comes, Swedish will need to use the card collectively with Fin and Norwegian. Reminding Russians that Swedish may use this card help keeping balance of the power in the region.
    1
  185. 그러나 하룬아빠 번역은 AI돌려도 분석과 비판적 고찰과 저널리즘의 핵심은 AI로 못해요. 뭐 기사 정리요약은 할 수 있을지 몰라도. 그리고 이 채널에서 제가 기대하는 바는 단순히 요약 정리 이상의 것입니다. 기업부스 인터뷰 영상도 기대할게요ㅎ
    1
  186. Iranians are not homogenous and monolithic. Iranian moderates and conservatives have always negotiated on various issues including domestic and foreign policy issues. So this election result seems to be an outcome of a new negotiation signed by internal power brokers. They must have arrived at a certain conclusion that Iran needs some sort of changes in cultural, economic, and foreign policy. But there won't be a tectonic shift. That's why conservatives accepted the result. So, there will be some change. It will be tightly controlled and limited, but clearly will be a change.
    1
  187.  @lincolnhaldorsen5649  That means reannexation of Korean Peninsula by Imperial Japan, which is going to make Korean crazy. In that case of scenario, Koreans will kick off American troops out of the peninsula and invite Chinese force. And American's reputation will collapse because they abandon their Korean ally again(it would be not the first time the US betrayed Koreans). And the last thing the US will have in the scenario is that the winner of the competition between Communist China and imperial Japan will looking for some space of influence in the Pacific Ocean which Americans would not allow it. The US already have gone through it: Pearl harbour. Much smarter strategy for the American is to enhance Korea. That's why the US recently called South Korea 'linchpin'.
    1
  188.  @bangmo7 @ bangmo7 Well, the uncomfortable truth is that Taipei and Seoul once were literally ALLY. But Taiwanese must have remembered how South Korea turned its back on them. Firm ally? Really? Then why is Cho Kyoung-tae one of the small exceptions who visited the inauguration of the new Taiwanese president? How badly the South Korean political elites from both sides (remember Cho used to be Roh Moo-hyun's man) have dealt with him? The relationship between Seoul, Tokyo, and Taipei is, in nature, a marriage for convenience, just as the marriage between Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang is.
    1
  189. @Stephen_Jabs  Are we here talking for nationalist pride or talking about strategy for national interest? In my opinion, the real shame for a country is to refuse to face a truth that is uncomfortable, in particular. Being a middle power? So what? Will such a hierarchical concept of status for a nation help us when we are in trouble? What a shame.
    1
  190.  @Zakaius  What they did may matter but not that much. It is more important than what kind of idea they have and what they want to do for now.
    1
  191. I'm really pessimistic the summit will reset the relationship between two American allies in Asia. In particular, domestic politics in both countries will ruin this last opportunity in this decade to bring two nations together. It's a complicated issue because the two nations have totally different views of each other and the whole region. But I'm not going to deal with this in detail and rather will focus on the outcome we would likely see in the foreseeable future. One visible outcome of Yoon Yoon Suk Yeol, the South Korean president's summit with Kishida Fumio, Japanese Prime Minister, is that the approval of Yoon's presidency is falling after the summit. I assume that this is not only due to the summit but also several domestic issues such as labour hours and political infight within the ruling party. But Japan issue clearly takes a large portion of the fall. According to at least two polling conducted by Gallup Korea and RealMeter, around 60 percent of the respondents said they oppose Yoon's proposal to solve the "forced labour issue" during WWII by Imperial Japan(which Japan does not recognise as forced labour and refuses to pay the compensation). And there are several rumours that something like "Japan raised the territorial claims Dok-do/Takeshima during the summit" or "Kishida demanded Seoul to import fishery products from Fukushima," which Korean consumers are worried about the possibility of being polluted by the nuclear plant incident in 2011. So, the damage to Yoon's presidency seems to be at the begging now. And the National Assembly, South Korean Legislative branch, is dominated by opposition parties. Without any significant positive response from Tokyo, Korean domestic politics, by South Korean public's anger and animosity to Yoon will lead to another impeachment (highly unlikely yet), the opposition camps' dictating the National Assembly after defeat in the next general election (likely), or change in the government who has deep-seated interest to try to null Yoon's legacy (highly likely). Several responses from Japan may be able to prevent these scenarios from happening. The top of the list would be Japan's abandoning the territorial claim over the rock called Dok-do/Takeshima. This issue is more than just a territorial issue. Koreans tend to think that the problem is related to Japan's stance to reluctant to recognise South Korea as an independent sovereign power but treat it as their former colony. This was part of a proposal called "Grand Bargain" suggested by several American pundits such as Scot Snyder, Director of the Program on U.S.-Korea Policy at CFR, during the Obama administration. Still, Japanese domestic politics will not allow it to happen. One of the other candidates would be something like Japan's inviting South Korea into the QUAD, separately suggested by Christopher Johnstone, the Japan chair at the CSIS, or Ishii Masafumi, a retired Japanese diplomat and professor at Tokyo's Gakushuin University. But I'm not sure whenever I look into Japanese domestic politics. Kishida's premiership is not strong enough to maintain it. He needs many allies within his party. Some of his allies, such as Hayashi Yoshimasa, the incumbent Foreign minister, or probably Kono Taro, the former Foreign Minister and current Digital minister, might agree with deepening corporation with Seoul. But others, especially from so-called "far-right" groups more important to Kishda, will oppose it and insist Kishida demand more from Seoul. So inviting Yoon to the G7 meeting in his home constituency Hiroshima is the best thing Kishida could do. The situation in Seoul is worsening every day. Just yesterday, Yoon's top foreign policy advisor resigned with a lot of rumours about the event. The unusual resignation and the rumour surrounding it would be, by themselves, problematic. But the fact that they have emerged matters. The emergence of the rumours shows that the South Korean public is losing their trust in Yoons' presidency. Today, a poll by Gallup Korea says that public approval of Yoon's presidency dropped to 30 percent, declined 4 percentage points from the last week. I just briefly overviewed some visible elements of this issue. But this is more complicated than I presented here. There is a history of at least more than a century.
    1
  192. Undoubtfully, SCO does have its future. Because the US and its alliance system are still stronger than Russia and China for now. Putin made it clear when he met President Biden. Even though it will constantly make creaking sounds and very often malfunction, the SCO will do exist in the foreseeable future. The EU might be more vulnerable than it.
    1
  193. I like Mr Kushiner but have to say that the Korean peninsula became more dangerous during the Trump era. He and his father-in-law might have thought that they were managing the risk, but, in fact, they were played by Kim in the North according to Kim's family's old playbook and flattered by Moon's lunatic romanticism over the North Korean dictatorship. Now we have not only one state with nuclear ambition, but two. South Korean has now given up hiding its nuclear ambition because they have witnessed what Trump administration had done with the North. I'm fully praising Abraham accord and Mr Kushiner's role in that, but Trump's North Korea policy was disastrous amateurism.
    1
  194.  @tz7710  I agree with your assessment of Japanese economic presence across the world. But have to point out some points you have made. First, Japanese experience. Japanese are in general not interested in the outside of the Japanese archipelago. Of course, Japanese diplomats and bureaucrats are really well-informed and competitive, but their superiority complex from their past experience of invasion and colonisation over some parts of Asia including China often makes them blinded to the reality. Japanese experience over China? well, it is hard to rely on, in my opinion. If their experience since the Meiji restoration has real lessons from history, why has their diplomacy to two Koreas so desperately failed? Second, Quad. the Quad is brain-dead because it has too many different voices within. I really don't know if there is any meaningful achievement by the Quad. Japan and India are in the same bed with Americans but having totally different dreams. My explanation of the Quad's braindead is that both Japan and India are not interested in containment but rather engagement, as we see their real behaviour. I'm not much sure about Indian case, but pretty sure about the Japanese. If you have a close look at Japanese expert who has advised and who are advising Japanese policymakers, someone like Kanehara Nobukatsu, the National Security advisor to Japanese former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, you will find that their real goal is not to form security architecture in Asia, but economic network to boost Japanese economy by exploiting American's security concern in the region. So the Quad is not working for containment of China because its two members are not interested in it. That's why American had to build AUKUS to replace Quad. Third, Japanese military capability. Sorry, it's fantasy. One of the best examples is, ironically, South Korean's reaction to Japan's military budget boost. First, Article 9 of the Japanese pacifist constitution is still alive. Even though LDP's lawmakers who allied with Shinzo Abe tried to amend it, the best thing they could do was to enact some laws to allow Japanese defence industry to export their equipment. No increase in military units, no increase in service personnel. South Korean did not oppose president Yoon's olive branch to Japan not because they thought Japan shares values with them, but because they now found that Japan could not be a threat to them in the foreseeable future. They have no capacity to do something. Japan has tried to build the finest military equipment like planes and tanks. But all the efforts were, for Koreans, seen as wasting budget and time to buy nationalist ego. And Japanese have only a small amount of ammunition, just as we have seen throughout the war in Ukraine. Were there any supplements of ammunition by Japan?? But, if you argue that Japan is one of the most important US allies, I fully agree with that. Not because of Japanese consultation, not because of Japanese military capacity, but because of Japanese geography. First, taking Japanese Archipelago is crucial for American to dominate all over the Pacific Ocean. Second, America's military presence in Japan allows the US to project their influence into the Indo-Pacific region incredibly easily. It's undeniable. And here comes why the Korean peninsula matters. The Korean peninsula is essential to protect Japan, and an independent sovereign nation-state in the peninsula makes a buffer room between two Asian great powers, China and Japan. Then, why aren't American leaders pushing Japanese to protect themselves and manage the complicated issues about the peninsula of hellfire, just as Mr Trump tried to do so in a sense? Because American leaders do not trust Tokyo 100%.
    1
  195. @UCW3EGYvg47Mzho_XK0irCaA Look. I didn't say Chinese always do bad things and must be blamed for everything. What I said was people do such and such things in such and such situations. There is high tension between different classes and different nationals. Naturally employers and employees have tension. Foreign investors and local communities have tension. From the start China has been assumed to support the coup which caused large number of deaths in local. Then China vetoed to engage to prevent military from killing more people in the United Nations Security Council. The decision must have been made for different reason but Beijing didn't explain it sufficiently just as they always do. People are already in turmoil and situation is perilous due to massive killing by it's own military, so that it makes precise thinking nearly impossible. Then one Chinese business owner brought security and killed Myanmar workers. In the night, somebody set on fire on Chinese-owned or Chinese-funded factories. Next day, Chinese authority demanded protecting Chinese interests in the region while its state-owned media keeping talking only about money caused by the damage. And then, as if it is an attempt to meet the Chinses request, historical massive shot-and-kill took place next day. All of these events, I believe, would not be related. It might be Myanmar worders who started to be violent first. Those who set on fire might not be workers or who got angry about the Chinese owner, just some Myanmar protesters claimed it must be military-backed-gangs and military ordered it to justify the use of violence. But people as human beings in such a harsh situation tend to believe those events are connected, and find it hard to distinguish individuals, such as evil employer and just another foreign investors. They just looks the same. That's why I said 'not purely innocent' since 'some' of them would do something. And why China becomes a scapegoat here? Because of Chinese politicians who refuse to take any responsibility while do not care where and to whom they are investing and bring about some changes which often damage local minority. And because of some 'patriotic' internet wolf warriors who ignore what's going on and why such a bad mood took formed while keeping playing just victimhood card and 'respect great China' card. I kept saying not everything is Chinses fault. But even China makes terrible mistakes and damages someone's life, just like others. But the problem is, Chinese authorities never recognise their faults and just keep talking about money and their exceptional prestige. This is not the way of building friendship and mutual understanding. Rather, it is the best way to feed hostility. I would like to end by adding that this unnecessarily long comment is not criticism but advice. This is about something like longterm goal. The arson and violence didn't take place just within days. It has it's own long history and context. Sinophobic (yes, it is something all of us must expel from our life!) as well. We must altogether take these seriously. In such a hope, I leave this unnecessarily wordy comment here. But I have become pessimistic day by day.
    1
  196. Carrie Lam is smart enough to be realistic. If she had a real talk with protestors or 'pro-democracy camp,' she could not have avoided making any compromising with them in the meeting. But that's not what Beijing wants. Beijing is too inflexible to solve this situation. That's another reason why Beijing has no alliance in this globe. p.s. My friends from mainland China, please trust me. Moscow is not your friend. Mr Putin is playing China. If you think not, it would be helpful for you to look at whether there is any comment Putin has made for you. I'm sincerely talking to you in goodwill. And if you think Pyongyang is a friend of China, well... SERIOUSLY?
    1
  197. 0:18 No, Kim in the North also play a fake election. The only difference to the Russian election is that only one candidate nominated by Korean Worker's party is allowed to run the election while Russians can have many candidates.
    1
  198. Laver, laver, I love laver and I'm sure you will love it too! Let's farm more laver! Laver is also a kind of kelp.
    1
  199. "Chinese don't have allies" Technically it's a wrong statement. People's Republic of China does have only one treaty ally: Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as known as North Korea.
    1
  200.  @squizhy1  I've never said autocracy is something good. What I said is democracy will be in danger if you are overconfident about it. My country is often said that it is vibrant democracy but I can still feel the legacy from the days of military autocracy. And I also see some countries is going to fall into the abyss of autocracy like Myanmar. And the people who were singing the song of liberty are now beaten down by authoritarian regime without any support from international communities. And just stating democracy will prevail over autocracy?? It seems to be really irresponsible given the reality we are facing.
    1
  201. They are in fact brothers in Marxist-Leninist socialism and military alliance based on the treaty.
    1
  202.  @MuhammedChand  To be honest, I have thought about whether we just skip Tokyo 2020 or other alternatives are available. My conclusion is that it is structurally impossible to cancel Tokyo 2020. It's already not up to the government of Japan or Tokyo. The IOC will not accept the cancellation because too many sports community's vital interests is tied to it. And for the athletes from developing nations, as we see in this documentary, there would be not so much difference between staying in their home country and going to the Olympics (for some it might be even better to go to Japan rather than staying in their home). And let's assume that somehow we magically managed to cancel Tokyo 2020. Then who will pay for the all costs related to the preparation of the Olympics? The international community could mutually share the financial burden? Or the government of Japan and Tokyo will unilaterally take all the cost of it abandoning everything? Well, I think both are unrealistic. From the beginning of this pandemic, I have argued that the best option for the Olympics was to delay every game for the next four years. But Beijing and Paris won't accept it. Both have some reasons to host Olympic games respectively in 2022 and 2024. Thus, for the structural reason, Tokyo 2020 is unavoidable. Then, since it is unavoidable, the best alternative which is available for us would be to maximise the deterrence to the spread of the virus during the Olympic games and to strengthen international cooperation such as supporting vaccination for the athletes, providing protective gear, etc.
    1
  203. @Lim S.K Funny guy, that's why you are called sometimes "RACIST," LOSER. Do you want to maintain such a "PURE BLOOD" which that stupid North Korean regime hope to have?? If you do, you must have come from 西朝鮮. And be careful, my friend, your idiocy could betray a tragic reality that a Chinese girl you like has non-Chinese boy.
    1
  204. @Delly Thezar Oh, yes, I got it. HAHA I'm not a Chinese but have a bunch of Chinese friends, and they are not that kind of stupid- actually, most of them are nice gentlemen. Your theory is really plausible.
    1
  205. No ways. Yoon's foreign policy is just to step back on such international security issues. And whatever his foreign policies are, the election result will hardly have a huge impact on it. Two prominent Korea experts, Victor Cha and Scot Snyder already concluded so.
    1
  206. But the most significant and manifest failure of Xi's diplomacy would be China's initial response to Russian invasion to Ukraine. This decision has made a lot of European nations cooled and aligned with the US. Xi Jinping finally managed to make Europeans to recognise China question for Europe as security question. No American president, diplomat nor lobbyist could have done it. Allas!! How great Xi and the CCP under his leadership great are!!
    1
  207.  @coderentity2079  No lessons from Beijing. If it were previous to the Russian invasion, your claim that the US was escalating could have made a point. But it is not obsolete. And Chinese was first supported and then acquiesced to the Russian invasion, so that no European counties, including Ukraine itself, hardly trust China now. Don't forget Wang Yi and Qin Gang declined American requests to stop Moscow from invading Ukraine (And if you are not stupid you can find and read what Chinese authorities had agreed with Mr Putin. They just sided with Moscow). They were helping hands. Now Beijing just requested a vain call for negotiation without any definition of the current situation because they, at last, have found that the EU states watching them as an enabler to feed the Russian beast to hunt European states. But it is too late.
    1
  208. To prevent a financial crisis or to maintain control over the economy? I think both. Considering the Chinese economy arrived at the point when South Korea reached just before the IMF crisis, I have long predicted that China should prepare for such a crisis in the near future. It is quite natural, for nationalist leaders who want their economy to boost rapidly, to concentrate national resources into specific areas, according to Alfred Mashall's theory on industrialisation. So, during rapid economic development, both governments pushed banks to lend money at the lowest interest rate to certain companies which are designated by the government as being prioritised, like South Korean big giants, Samsung, LG, and Hanhwa et cetra. At the point where the national economy is transferring into the info-tech economy of which the service sector and high-value industry possess the largest potion, some of the prioritised companies could be exposed to the risk of finance credit crises. I'm not an expert in finance but from my knowledge, as one of those who experienced the IMF crisis, I would not be surprised when China runs into such a crisis. On the other hand, from my watching at Chinese society, there seems to be a certain sort of complaint about the CCP's control over the economy among the business community in China. And old-fashioned power infight among the CCP nobles too.
    1
  209. So, the US intelligence intercepted this conversation, right?
    1
  210. The two things Peter has said in this video Brits also know them very well. Actually, Brexits was about them. First, they tried to resurrect the economic empire called the Common Wealth. But generations have passed, and the death of the Queen has plainly shown that the personal ties with former colonies inherited from the colonial period have now completely gone away. Then they tried to join the TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, while not in the Pacific. Well, Japanese, while rejecting Koreans' joining the group, welcomed Brits somehow. Unfortunately, however, the UK is too far away from the Pacific to enjoy the benefits of the group. Second, yeah, Brits have always talked about industrial policy. Brexiteers complained about the European Union's tight regulations which they believed it was hindering them from boosting their deindustrialization. Brit wanted to replicate technological innovation that had happened in the Industrial Revolution and hoped the Astra Zeneca vaccine could be the poster boy of it. But Both Theresa May and Boris Johnson were incapable of making it happen, and Liz Truss... Oh my Lord oh my God. She is yelling she saved the West, but in fact, what she had done was just giving a finishing bow to the UK economy. Conservatives managed to drag Truss out of Downing Street before the lettuce had wilted and replace her with Sunak. But it was already too late and Sunak was just as incapable as his former boss, Johnson. Will Britain successfully or partially avoid the grim fate Peter predicted in this video? Well......
    1
  211. It is interesting. From her Majesty's speech, I felt I've heard of Dominic Cummings' voice. Funding massively R&D and pushing the UK to be a pioneer in science & technology.
    1
  212. I do believe China already possesses the cultural capacity to display collaboration of its modern innovation and cultural heritage in a sophisticated way. I have played some mobile games from Shanghai China, such as Girl's Frontline or Arkknight. And I even cannot forget when I got to know Girl's Frontline. It completely changed my view on the modern Chinese entertainment culture. Some of my friends underestimate saying that it's just a gun-version-copy of Kan-kore or B-rank SF, but I and my comrades who play it found certain genuinity and cultural attractiveness from it. And even though I haven't watched it but I was also struck by the promotion video of Youth(2017). Its message and theme were so impressive that I become really eager to watch it (just I don't know where I get it). It is hard to neglect Chinese drama, especially dramas based on Chinese ancient and medieval history, such as King's War, The Advisors Alliance, and Growling Tiger, Roaring Dragon. They are historically incorrect in some parts(especially the way The Advisors Alliance set historical events are not correct). Some may raise the scandal issue of the actor who played the protagonist (I mean Wu Xiubo). Others can say their CG quality is terrible. But I would like to say, as a drama, the method these dramas developed their narrative and discourse was outstanding. For these reasons from my own experience, I am firmly convinced that China already has potentiality as a soft powerhouse. But the problem is, I think, it does and it will remain as the only potentiality for now, and in the foreseeable future.
    1
  213.  @user-yc2hg4pq4s  Yeah because I'm coming from the peninsula of hellfire and I took an oath to protect it at the cost of my own blood during the military conscription. There is a lot of good reason to hate Korea as much as I hate myself in a sense.
    1
  214. Since his coming into office, for the last three months, what I have seen from Biden's administration is that "all talks no action" just as Trump condemned him during election debate. Sanctions, now everybody knows that it is a paper tiger. It works only when you have huge assets in the US. Just look at Kim in the North, Myanmar military Junta, Carrie Lam, and Ayatollah in Iran. It is just matter of convenience for them, so they find no reason to change the course of their behaviour. Americans tend to overestimate their sanction tactics partially due to their mindset of exceptionalism.
    1
  215.  @blackStar-fr3nh  Hmmmmm... You make a point. I know some Korean Christian who are pro-China and pro-Kim in the north (even among the leadership in hardcore evangelist groups), but it matters how the CCP perceives the situation. Make a sense.
    1
  216. 4:21 "관련된 기관들"을 other organs라고 영어자막을 다셨는데, 제가 영어를 알파고만큼 하겠습니까만은 보통은 이럴 때 organs보다는 institutions라고 하지 않나 싶어요. organ을 기관이라고 할 때는 신체기관들을 말하지 않나 싶네요. organisations라는 표현을 본 거 같기도 하지만서도... 그나저나 스웨덴 나토 가입 관련 블링컨이랑 튀르키에 외교장관이 합의문 교환할 때 튀르키에 외교장관의 그 함박웃음이 아직도 기억나는데 역시 미국 영수증을 확실히 끊나보네요 아 그리고 현지 기자와의 인터뷰 영상 기대하고 있어요!!
    1
  217.  @ericcartman9594  It is me who really can't understand what you're talking about. My nation's motto and philosophy from the ancient Korean heritage is "benefit human beings as far ss you can". An now I'm just hoping that both both Ukrainian and Russian can live in liberty and democracy with peaceful mutual understanding. And this Russian invasion to Ukraine is opposite to what I wish and I think Mr Putin's behaviour is in an opposite side of real Russian interest. As long as he continues to do what he is doing, I will cotinue to demand my government to provide Ukrainian with ammunition to help them protect themselves from Putin's invasion. But at the same time I also hope that true Russians who are not decived by Russian government propaganda would bt set free and someday they also could cherish the fruits of liberty and democracy which I am enjoying. Is this hope so bad and evil and do I have to wish all of my cousins in Russia have to live under such a regime or do I have to wish my cousins in Ukraine and Russia have to try to kill other?? What do you want to tell me??
    1
  218. @someperson8649 It's me who should be worried about whether I did some offence toward you. If you've felt so, I'm really sorry. Anyhow, regarding the stereotype of the "big-nose Yankee," it's not clear where exactly such a stereotype has come from. As far as I know, the term 'Ko-jaeng-yi (코쟁이.. It literally means a guy with a big nose')' was quite commonly used in South Korea. We can find it in some literature from the 1960s. As far as I remember, some old people still used the term in 1990 when I spent most of my childhood. Interestingly, the term was mainly used to refer to Americans. I think this was because Americans, particularly politicians, diplomats, business leaders, scholars, Christian missionaries or military personnel, were the foreign group most frequently exposed to Korea at that period. And most of them were somehow Caucasian males. And somehow, again, there was a stereotype that Caucasians are big-nosed. We don't know when it was derived. It may be imported from Japan or China. For example, we can find the term 'Daebi-Dalja(대비달자)' was introduced to Koreans in the 17th century. This 'Daebi-Dalja' is a Korean version of the pronunciation of Chinse word '大鼻㺚子,' which means 'big nose barbarian,' originally referring to Tartar or Cossack. In 17th century Korea, the term was used to refer to Russians, who employed Cossacks in the border conflict with the Chinese Qing empire. But I cannot find this expression in 18th or 19th-century literature. So quite sceptical. Maybe the term independently originated in 19th-century Korea. Koreans at that time may have thought that the most distinctive physical feature of 'Westerners' was a 'big nose' So they might have invented the expression by themselves. Whatever the origin of the term would be, the term 'Kojaengyi' must have a negative sentiment. Because the Korean suffix '-jaengyi' is used to mean a guy with a certain characteristic in a quite negative way. For example, 'Gupjaengyi(겁쟁이)' is literally a guy with a lot of fear(겁), which means a coward. It seems that the term 'Kojaengyi' is rarely used in South Korea today. At least, the younger generation may not know this expression. For example, several months ago, I was asked what kojaengyi means. The guy asked the question had heard the word from an old lady who saw a group of foreign tourists. "It's kojaengyi, it's kojengyi!' He said he had no idea.
    1
  219. hahahahahahahahahahahaha Americans always talk as if they are going to be doomed. Do you think the allies of the US trust the US because America is trustworthy??? Well, it seems that they trust Americans because of American economic and military muscle. The US has always been a great power so they don't understand what minor powers like Korea thinks. Forget the Quad if you want to focus on countering China. Instead, focus on Southeast Asia. ASEAN is not efficient to deal with not only the rise of China but also even regional issues such as Myanmar. You Americans may need some different framework and the Quad members clearly don't want to challenge China directly, but probably want to invest in the region. As long as the American military is present in Korean peninsula, you are holding their balls. If you wanted to make them join you militarily, you should have used a different institution there: Joint UN command.
    1