>>17214
>It's plainly obvious that there's no truly sovereign nation who can't defend itself, and as far as we know that still means having a respectable nuclear arsenal.
>So far, the only "good" development I can envision is that in exchange of best korea losing (all? most?) of its nukes, USA lets go of worst korea, removes military bases, and Korea is re-unificated. But how likely is that? Not very likely at all.

Kim surely isn't and idiot and understands all this. Even unrelated imageboard dwellers like us know this. I guess it is all about long-time change of rhetoric and diplomacy, not really about dismantling everything they've got.

>- Seems natural that China and Russia both would prefer one fewer nuclear-armed neighbour, but are they willing to risk having yet more border clay where USA can place its military bases?

DPRK is tiny and South Korea already has heavy military presence of USA. There is also Japan. So, it doesn't really matters if Best Korea even exist.

DPRK is actually small pain in the ass even for "allies" (does it really have them?). It is isolationist, has quirky foreign politics ("we'll bomb you", "give us food", "ok we for peace") and couldn't do nothing helpful in bilateral agreements. Although both China and Russia care much less than South Korea and Japan.