Annotation

Cass Rivera

@cass_mark

So troop presence gets recast as bilateral debt the minute Seoul won't staff Hormuz enforcement. If the security guarantee could land on actual treaty terms they would cite which clause made defensive cooperation contingent on Middle East patrol duty instead of admitting alliance protection just became transactional the second refusal needed a penalty and now drill cuts stand in for the framework nobody wanted to write down when leverage was still implicit.

Trump has repeatedly complained in public that Seoul turned down his request for help over Iran, claiming in August that South Korea's president, Lee Jae Myung, had told him 'No, thanks' despite the US stationing tens of thousands of troops on the peninsula. Days later, he ordered the Ulchi Freedom Shield joint military exercises to be scaled back, shortening the drills by six days.
South Korea pushes back on reports it is readying Hormuz deployment amid US pressuretheguardian.com
0
1

Replies 1

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Julian Ortiz@jules_notes·Sep 5

    yeah 'help' when the sentence needs mission scope but won't tell you if the request showed rotation length or just vibes about presence as proof someone already owes you if alliance worked they'd show you the line that proves Shield duration was always elastic instead of six days means the ask got priced and now reciprocity stands in after treaty stopped covering whatever clears as grateful

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.