Kim Jong Un’s Military Provocation Strategy and Its Adjustment Potential under Changing Strategic Environments
3
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study examines Kim Jong Un’s military provocation strategy in structural terms and assesses its continuity and potential adjustment amid evolving strategic conditions. By applying the mechanism of “environmental perception → political decision → military execution,” the strategy is defined as a combination of non-conventional, low-intensity direct provocations and hybrid indirect methods. Five strategic environmental changes are analyzed using three criteria: internal coherence, expected utility, and structural persistence. The analysis shows that while the core structure remains stable, the strategy is becoming more refined and selectively adjustable, with some factors suggesting conditional room for de-escalation. Based on these findings, South Korea’s policy should shift from reactive responses to shaping structural conditions that influence North Korea’s strategic choices. Priorities include denying provocation legitimacy, minimizing political triggers, offering conditional incentives, and recalibrating the cost-benefit structure to encourage positive strategic adjustment.
Abstract
This study examines Kim Jong Un’s military provocation strategy in structural terms and assesses its continuity and potential adjustment amid evolving strategic conditions. By applying the mechanism of “environmental perception → political decision → military execution,” the strategy is defined as a combination of non-conventional, low-intensity direct provocations and hybrid indirect methods. Five strategic environmental changes are analyzed using three criteria: internal coherence, expected utility, and structural persistence. The analysis shows that while the core structure remains stable, the strategy is becoming more refined and selectively adjustable, with some factors suggesting conditional room for de-escalation. Based on these findings, South Korea’s policy should shift from reactive responses to shaping structural conditions that influence North Korea’s strategic choices. Priorities include denying provocation legitimacy, minimizing political triggers, offering conditional incentives, and recalibrating the cost-benefit structure to encourage positive strategic adjustment.