With Kim Jong-un’s recent statements that he considers the Republic of Korea (ROK) the “primary enemy” and no longer seeks peaceful unification, analysts in Korea and the United States are rightly concerned with the possibility that he may conduct an unprecedented provocation or even an attack on the ROK. To assess the risks and determine mitigation measures, it is necessary to examine Kim Jong-un’s thinking, policy failures, historical influence, and possible actions.

Despite the wealth of speculation about Kim Jong-un, he can be described simply as a leader with no strategic vision and a reckless thinker, making him unpredictable to a certain extent. On the other hand, he can only follow the seven decades-old “playbook” of the Kim family regime.

Kim Jong-un has been advocating that the nation’s strength and the happiness of its people lie in a powerful nuclear capability since the early days of his regime. However, after more than ten years in power, the country’s economy and people’s lives have been devastated due to Kim’s decisionmaking.

Kim Jong-un’s major dilemma is how to lead the country while possessing nuclear weapons. He lacks any vision for ensuring the well-being of the people through his nuclear weapons program. If he truly desires the prosperity and happiness of the nation, he must abandon nuclear weapons and embrace a market economy. However, he fears that opening the country will lead to the collapse of his regime. This is Kim Jong-un’s paradox. On the other hand, he is emboldened by “ungrounded confidence,” which makes him dangerous.

Putin’s war in Ukraine and Kim’s buoyed relationship with Putin have made the former feel strong. However, the actions and non-actions of the United States throughout the world raised Kim’s confidence in his ability to act without fear of retribution. This really began with the withdrawal from Iraq, the lack of a response to the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and later in 2022 in Ukraine, and the deal with the Taliban and bungled Afghanistan withdrawal. This impression was reinforced by the unsure and tepid responses to continued Russian aggression, Hamas’ terrorist attack in Israel, and Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. Perhaps most importantly, Kim sees Congressional dysfunction, particularly the blocking of military aid to Ukraine and Israel, as a telling signal of irresolution.

What makes........

© The National Interest