> Belarus is a vassal of Russia, Japan is not a vassal of the US or NATO.

Very curious as to how you make that distinction. Both Belarus and Japan claim to be sovreign states and officially both are making decisions on their own, because they believe in it. If China and US fight over Taiwan, do you think Japan will not help the US like Belarus is helping Russia against Ukraine?

> It's also wrong to suggest that 'nations influence one another' as some kind of nefarious thing.

Nefarious or not is not the point, ability to say "no" is. If a nation cannot say "no" without risking the security and economic viability of its nation then it is not a sovreign state because in order to function at the most basic level it depends on another state.

> You have no idea what I think, or what I support and none of that can be inferred from my comment.

You are right. Apologies for the presumption.

> ??? 'North Korea' is not 'sovereign'. 'Kim Jong-Un' is.

Huh? What are you talking about? Only democratic nations are sovreign? The Kim family rules NK much like how the Queen england rules over the UK and the commonwealth (technically royal assent is required for passing laws there). No country considers NK Kim's property but it is recognized as a sovreign state, if one of his generals has a coup tomorrow it will still be the same sovreign nation.

> Only a wayward moral compass caught up in technical pedantry would 'applaud' the ruthless and totalitarian subjugation of millions of people to something worse than slavery as some kind of positive thing 'because sovereignty'.

There you have it. The mindset of the modern neo-colonialist. Your moral values and form of government are superior. Where did I mention my support for their domesti actions? I can have an opinion it but in this context their domestic actions have no bearing on their sovreignity. Their rulers, regardless of your opinion of them have a fundamental duty to protect their nation's sovreignity and I applaud them getting nukes to preserve that. Much like how I applaud France for gettinng nukes after WW2 or the Viet Kong for resisting US lead efforts to tamper with their internal conflict -- they resisted neo-colonialism because they already suffered from fench colonialism, I dislike communists but if I were vietnamese, a communist is better than a western puppet that is not a result of national self-determination.

> Who cares what you support?

Umm.. I do, I get to clarify my support and views so readers don't confuse my opinion with support of the subject of the topic.

> What do you think the people of S. Korea want?

None of my business. If they want a sovreign nation however, they need to self-determine and get whatever form of government they want. I don't get to have a say in that.

> The intervention in S. Korea was a UN mission - a broadly plural effort to help defend South Koreans from a fairly totalitarian North.

No, the war was a US/western effort. The peacekeeping mission after the cease-fire is a UN effort.

> South Koreans are very glad to have the support of Americans (and others by the way, who fought in the 1950's and would come to their aid again).

Why does that matter? Again with the neo-colonialist mindset. Your superior form of government which is democratic is best and as such, if you believe the people of a nation want something then by all means let the CIA and US mil interfere even though the US has no direct security concern there. Does that sum it up? And people wonder why the CIA exports revolutions and the US mil invades a country every 15-20 years!

> You're ranting on about 'sovereignty' but implying that the US has 'no business in S. Korea' even at the behest of South Koreans? 'Because you don't support it'?

Nope, because the US MIL/IC is there to protect americans not SK. The only time their security is a concern is if they are a neo-colony (or vassal if you prefer) which you seem to think so, as if their people are indirect subjects if the US? or if there is a mutual-defence agreement like with NATO (I didn't see SK troops dying like Danish and British troops in Afghanistan, did you?)

> Just step back from the keyboard for a few years. Active young minds start learning about the world and various so-called injustices have a difficult time putting them into context. There is a such thing a 'good' and 'moral'.

Yes there is, when did I disagree. There is also something called authority without which morals can't be enforced. Sovreignity means lack of subjugation to a higher authority, in other words you can have an opinion with regards to morals but you can't enforce them or expect others to care if you lack authority. There is also something called responsibility, in the case of nation states preservation of sovreignity over people and land is the most important responsibility without which there is no self-determination .