Hello Ron, I have no disagreement with the Washington Post article you posted other than the implied emphasis on relative positioning, as in who is really sweating bullets, with lots at stake, and who is simply reacting in a 'oh, I better do something about this manufactured crisis, it may help, and to extract some fun' fashion.
I analyze the situation thus ... the status quo, unless disturbed, may stay for awhile. And the status quo is objected to by which countries, in order of perceived urgency?
On <<Strangely, that might see N. Korea recognizing that reapproachment with the US and S. Korea is their only hope to fend off China>> ... you should meet a N.Korean sometime, and once you do, you will perish the above thought, readily, and maybe at least for another generation. The reapproachment is unlikely until the old guards of N.Korea go away, and when that happens, S.Korea will naturally take over, presumably, and thus ushering in a new era of NEAsia geopolitics, quite possibly reverting to an age long before the US was around, especially because the US will likely be very busy elsewhere at that time, exporting soldiers, and very dependent on financing, to keep the fuel lines open.
On this <<"crisis" ... Chinese symbol ... defined as both danger and opportunity?>>, as in "xian ji", absolutely, always ... and yes, the current world offers plenty of both, in large helpings. I think of it as a buffet of crisis and a bouquet of opportunities:0)
This may sound heartless, cold, and real; all of us must play our hand of cards to the best of our respective abilities, because there is no null-position.
How are you positioned and how will you likely bet?
Chugs, Jay |
