North Korea says South Korea's peace overtures a 'pipedream'
Kim Yo Jong, who is a senior official in the North's ruling Workers' Party, also said a change made to the plan for annual joint military drills by South Korea and the United States was a "futile" move that does not change the allies' hostile intent.
Kim, who officials and analysts believe speaks for her brother, has in recent weeks rebuffed moves taken by South Korea's new liberal government aimed at easing tension between the two Koreas.
"I am confident that Seoul's policy towards the DPRK remains unchanged and can never change," Kim was quoted as saying by KCNA official news agency. DPRK is short for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea's official name.
South Korea's military has said it detected moves by the North's military to dismantle some propaganda loudspeakers directed at the South, following similar moves by the South.
There has been cautious optimism in the South that the North may be responding positively to a policy by President Lee Jae Myung to engage Pyongyang after a period of cross-border tension and even show willingness to return to dialogue.
Kim Yo Jong also said North Korea will not be sitting down with the United States for dialogue, saying reports raising the possibilities of such a development were "false suppositions."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
West must not be cowed by Putin, warns head of British forces
The West must not be cowed by Vladimir Putin, the head of Britain's Armed Forces has warned ahead of Donald Trump's high-stakes meeting with the Russian president. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said Nato allies must be 'assertive in every domain – nuclear, land, sea, air, cyber and space – as well as in the diplomatic and economic arenas' as he cautioned against submitting to Moscow's demands for peace. The rare intervention by Britain's most senior military officer comes ahead of Mr Trump's one-to-one meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday, which is expected to forge the conditions for peace in Ukraine. On Thursday night, Mr Trump said that Putin would not 'mess around with me' and threatened to impose further sanctions if he failed to offer a meaningful resolution to the war. He said he would know 'in the first two minutes... exactly whether or not a deal can be made '. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, he said: 'I want to set the table for the next meeting. I'd like to see it happen very quickly. 'We're going to find out where everyone stands. If it's a bad meeting, it will end very quickly, and if it's a good meeting, we will end up having peace in the very near future.' European leaders have become increasingly concerned that the pair could negotiate an end to the three-year conflict over Volodymyr Zelensky's head, but Mr Trump appeared to allay some of those fears on Thursday night. 'The more important meeting will be the second meeting that we're having, we're going to have a meeting with President Putin, President Zelensky, myself and maybe we'll bring some of the European leaders, maybe not,' he said. 'The second meeting is going to be very, very important, because that's going to be a meeting where they make a deal. And I don't want to use the word 'divvy' things up. But you know, to a certain extent, it's not a bad term.' Writing for The Telegraph to mark the 80th anniversary of VJ Day, Sir Tony emphasised the ongoing importance of the Nato alliance born out of the end of the Second World War. He said: 'Putin doesn't want a war with Nato because he would lose. So we should not be cowed by his rhetoric or his campaign of sabotage, outrageous as it may be. 'The one weapon that is most needed in our arsenal is confidence. Despite the global instability, Britain is secure at home. Nato is strong. Russia is weak. It is not complacent to point this out.' Mr Trump has insisted he would not make a deal to end the Ukraine war without Mr Zelensky, who has demanded a security guarantee – some kind of commitment that America would be willing to enforce the terms of any peace deal – from the US. 'We should draw reassurance from our place in Nato, recognising we are the very beneficiaries of the same security guarantees President Zelensky so desperately seeks, and then use that assuredness to back Ukraine to the hilt,' said Sir Tony. But Mr Trump could give ground to Putin and is expected to arrive at the meeting armed with a series of financial incentives hoped at smoothing the path to a peace deal. Sir Tony cautioned that Russia's territorial gains should not be overstated, saying 'Russia seized less than 0.4 per cent of Ukraine's territory in the first six months of this year even as the toll of Russian dead and wounded passed one million.' The first Russian delegates, including Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, and Andrei Belousov, the defence minister, arrived on US soil on Friday. Appearing to flatter the president, Putin said: 'The US administration… in my view is making quite energetic and sincere efforts to end the fighting,' he stated. Dampening claims that Putin was bluffing about peace, Mr Trump said: 'I am president, and he's not going to mess around with me.' He estimated that there was a one in four chance that his summit would end in failure, and said he was open to imposing further sanctions on Russia if the talks did not lead to peace. Meanwhile, sidelined from Friday's talks, Mr Zelensky visited Sir Keir Starmer in Downing Street. He wrote on X: 'We discussed in considerable detail the security guarantees that can make peace truly durable if the United States succeeds in pressing Russia to stop the killings and engage in genuine, substantive diplomacy.' On Wednesday, Sir Keir said that 'real progress' had been made over security guarantees for Kyiv following a call with Mr Trump. The US could provide air cover to Ukraine after the war and continue to allow European allies to buy weapons to give to Kyiv, including the much sought-after Patriot air defence systems. The Telegraph revealed on Thursday that Mr Trump is preparing to offer Putin access to rare earth minerals in occupied Ukraine and lift hard-hitting sanctions on Russian aircraft. Other incentives also include opening up Alaska's natural resources to Moscow Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, is understood to be among administration figures briefing Mr Trump. Mr Bessent is exploring the economic trade-offs the US can make with Russia in order to expedite a ceasefire agreement. Putin doesn't want a war with Nato – he knows he'd lose On Friday, I will be at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire to mark the 80th anniversary of VJ Day and reflect on the war in the Far East: from the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse and the fall of Singapore, to the terrible hardships experienced by Allied prisoners of war, through to the arrival of the British Pacific Fleet and the surrender of Japan, writes Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. As we commemorate the sacrifice of British, Commonwealth and Allied Forces throughout South-East Asia, I will also be reflecting on the idealism and resolve with which the same generation strove for a lasting peace. Britain was at the heart of that internationalist endeavour. The General Assembly of the United Nations met for the first time in Methodist Central Hall in Westminster. The first Nato headquarters was nearby in Belgrave Square, with General Montgomery serving as Eisenhower's deputy. Here were the foundations for a future peace, built around the principles of collective security and a commitment by responsible nuclear powers, led by America, to help temper the risk of nuclear proliferation. This construct – nuclear, Nato and America – has kept Britain and Europe safe for the past 80 years. It continues to do so, even in these turbulent times today. Not that its future was always certain. Twenty years ago, when there was little in the way of a pressing state-based threat, some argued to dispense with Britain's nuclear deterrent. Parliament nevertheless voted in 2007 to proceed with its renewal. Given everything that has happened since – especially Putin's bellicose nuclear threats – that choice was prescient, and proof that we do get the big decisions right in this country. Similarly, Nato has newfound relevance and an insurmountable position as the world's largest and most powerful alliance. It easily outmatches Russia across every conventional measure – troops, tanks, ships and aircraft – and is growing even stronger. Crucially, the transatlantic dimension to European security remains. America may be stepping up its focus on the Pacific, but she is not stepping away. The Trump administration has been clear that the US will continue to provide the vital nuclear guarantee for the continent. But America has challenged their European allies to step up in return. The decision of Nato nations to commit 5 per cent of GDP to defence and security – with 3.5 per cent for core military purposes – is evidence of their willingness to do just that. For Britain, this is a historic turning point – the end of the peace dividend. The Armed Forces will become stronger and more lethal and, in time, larger too. The Army will be recapitalised, with new equipment to double its lethality by 2027 and triple it by 2030, while an HQ and two divisions supplied by Britain will form the basis of one Nato Strategic Reserve Corps. The Royal Air Force will join the Alliance's nuclear sharing mission, and the Royal Navy will dominate the North Atlantic through a network of drones and sensors. We will also continue nurturing the Atlantic-Pacific partnerships that reflect our global connectivity, underpin economic security, and deliver what the PM describes as the 'defence dividend' for the British people. This includes building nuclear-powered submarines with Australia and a sixth-generation fighter with Japan and Italy – two projects that account for thousands of British jobs. But the one weapon that is most needed in our arsenal is confidence. Despite the global instability, Britain is secure at home. Nato is strong. Russia is weak. It is not complacent to point this out. We should draw reassurance from our place in Nato, recognising that we are the very beneficiaries of the same security guarantees President Zelensky so desperately seeks, and then use that assuredness to back Ukraine to the hilt. Russia seized less than 0.4 per cent of Ukraine's territory in the first six months of this year, even as the toll of Russian dead and wounded passed one million. Putin doesn't want a war with Nato because he would lose. So we should not be cowed by his rhetoric or his campaign of sabotage, outrageous as it may be. The strategy of Nato is deterrence, and we deter by demonstrating to Russia that we are stronger. That requires us to be assertive in every domain – nuclear, land, sea, air, cyber and space – as well as in the diplomatic and economic arenas. These last two, economics and diplomacy, matter most. We forget how strong the West remains. Europe and North America account for half the world's wealth. Nato spends more on defence than Russia and China combined. The world's intellectual capital flows to the tech hubs and universities of America and Europe. We don't have to watch helplessly as the post-1945 settlement deteriorates. We have the financial, military and intellectual might to buttress and defend the world order and confront those who undermine it. All we need is confidence, cohesion and resolve. The men and women of today's Armed Forces are committed to their part in the task and, in doing so, honouring the generation who sought to forge a new world from the ashes of the old.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
The Inquiry How are drones changing the landscape of modern warfare?
When the war in Ukraine began back in February 2022, the remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicle or drone as its commonly known, was peripheral to the conflict. But three years on, the drone in all its shapes and sizes has taken on a central role in this battle, in the air, on land and at sea, for surveillance, reconnaissance, combat and other purposes. Now drone technology is evolving even further into the area of autonomous weapons. But whilst the drone can offer greater strategic and operational flexibility and a possible reduction in the number of military casualties, there are concerns that the drone, particularly in Ukraine's case, has prolonged the war. Only last year the United Nations reported that 118 countries now had military drones, along with at least 65 non-state actors. And as an increasing number of countries have begun to manufacture and export their own array of military drones, many are concerned about how drone technology is presenting a big challenge in terms of defensive measures. So, on this week's Inquiry, we're asking 'How are drones changing the landscape of modern warfare? Contributors: James Patton Rogers, Author and Executive Director, Brooks Tech Policy Institute, Cornell University, New York State, USA. Dr Oleksandra Molloy, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia Stacie Pettyjohn, Director of the Defence Programme, Centre for A New American Security, Washington DC. USA. Dr. Elke Schwarz, Professor of Political Theory, Queen Mary University, London, UK Presenter: Gary O'Donoghue Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Toby James Production Management Assistant: Liam Morrey Image credit SOPA via Getty Images
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Five things Trump and Putin may discuss in Alaska — and one they won't
President Trump's summit with President Putin in Alaska will be the first meeting between the Russian leader and an American counterpart since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. When Putin launched the invasion, he gave a speech claiming that Russia was 'seeking peace'. He blamed the war on Nato encroachment in eastern Europe and said Ukraine was 'a puppet of the West'. There is little sign his views have changed in the three and a half years since. Meanwhile, Trump returned to the White House in January promising to go down in history as a 'peacemaker'. He appears determined to win the Nobel peace prize but has played down the chances of a significant breakthrough at his meeting with Putin in Anchorage, instead suggesting a three-way summit attended by himself, Putin and President Zelensky is more likely to end the war.
