North Korea declares nuclear status ‘irreversible,’ shuts door on Seoul

Welcome to Within The Frame, where we bring the most pressing issues across the globe into focus. I'm Kim Mok-yeon.

North Korea is recalibrating its posture on all fronts.

Kim Yo-jong, the sister of leader Kim Jong-un, has flatly rejected dialogue with the Lee Jae Myung government and declared Pyongyang's nuclear status irreversible — drawing a clear line against both Seoul and denuclearization talks.

But the message doesn't stop there.

As direct flights to Moscow begin and millions of artillery shells flow to Russia, North Korea's alignment with the Kremlin is no longer symbolic — it's operational.

Still, China remains its primary trade partner, signaling a careful balancing act.

In response, Seoul is hinting at flexibility on U.S. joint exercises while investing in missile defense, and President Trump says he's still open to talks.

With the peninsula in flux, the bigger question is: what kind of long-term game is Pyongyang playing now?

For a deeper discussion on this, we're connecting to Bruce Klingner, non-resident senior fellow at The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation in Washington. Welcome.

Also joining us is Chung Ku-youn, associate professor of political science at Kangwon National University. Good to see you.

Let's start with Pyongyang's most direct message: Kim Yo-jong has now doubled down, saying there is "nothing to discuss" with the Lee Jae-myung government. She also reaffirmed North Korea's nuclear status as irreversible and dismissed personal diplomacy as irrelevant to denuclearization. What does this sharper tone tell us about how Pyongyang plans to frame inter-Korean relations?

Following this, Seoul's Presidential Office said it "takes note" of Pyongyang's message but will continue pushing for peace. In your view, is Seoul showing strategic patience, or leaving itself vulnerable by staying conciliatory?

And amid this, Unification Minister Chung Dong-young has now said the government is open to proposing adjustments to ROK–U.S. joint exercises. What do you think of the feasibility of these, and if they materialize, do you think it could help thaw relations with Pyongyang, or will it be seen as weakness?

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has said he's still open to dialogue with Kim Jong Un and remains committed to the goals outlined in the 2018 Singapore Summit. Given the current climate and Kim Yo-jong's comments, is there a realistic pathway back to U.S.–North Korea talks — or is Washington misreading the moment?

Now shifting to ties with Russia, Moscow has launched its first direct commercial flight to Pyongyang, but beyond symbolism, Ukrainian intelligence now says North Korea has provided over 6.5 million artillery shells and hundreds of missile systems to Russia. How does this change the nature of the Moscow–Pyongyang relationship, and what risks does this pose regionally?

On that point, despite growing ties with Russia, North Korea still leans heavily on China for trade. Is this a vulnerability the U.S. and its allies can exploit, or has Pyongyang successfully weaponized that dependency?

Let's widen the lens to economics. North Korea's trade volume in 2023 was its highest in five years, with China accounting for 98% of it. How does this economic rebound affect Pyongyang's leverage? Is it giving the regime breathing room, or deepening dependency?

Meanwhile, Seoul is facing its own military challenge. A defense study says South Korea needs 500,000 troops to deter a northern first strike, but demographics could drop that to under 300,000 by 2040. Is this a looming security crisis?

But Seoul isn't standing still, South Korea has just deployed its upgraded Cheongung-II missile defense system. What significance does this carry? From your perspective, how much does this shift the deterrence equation?

And finally, with Pyongyang tightening its axis with Russia, hedging on China, and closing the door on Seoul — do you see North Korea building a new long-term strategic alignment?