After more than three years of fighting, the Korean War culminated in a stalemate. On July 27th, 1953, China, North Korea, the United States, and South Korea signed an armistice agreement in which all parties would “complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force until a final peaceful settlement is achieved.” The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) was established along the 38th parallel to separate the North and the South, and it currently operates as one of the world’s heavily militarized borders. 

Last year marked the 70th anniversary of the truce between the two nations; however, peace on the Korean Peninsula grows more precarious each day. The armistice agreement remains the only legally binding agreement that holds the peace between the North and South, yet it is merely temporary. Every effort to replace this armistice with a permanent peace agreement, from the 1991 Agreement on Reconciliation to the 1954 Geneva Conference, has failed. 

Many experts, including Brookings Senior Fellow Andrew Yeo, note that relations between the North and South have deteriorated to a historic low. North Korea's stance toward the South has varied significantly over the years. While periods of high tension have led it to label South Korea as its primary foe and issue threats of nuclear obliteration, the official goal remains reunification. However, the increasing economic disparity between the North and South, coupled with escalating tensions, has cast a shadow over hopes of peace between the two nations. 

In January 2024, in reaction to the growing hostility, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un announced that the nation would no longer pursue reconciliation with South Korea. In the speech delivered at the Supreme People’s Assembly, Kim called for a revision of the North Korean constitution to permanently strike the idea of shared statehood between the two countries. Even further, Kim identified South Korea as “[their] principal enemy,” with threats to annihilate the country if provoked. 

Kim Jong-il, the former leader of North Korea and father of Kim Jong Un, established a statue near Pyongyang called the Arch of Reunification, which symbolized the efforts of Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong Un’s grandfather, to set guidelines for uniting North and South Korea. In January 2024, Kim Jong Un ordered the destruction of this statue, signifying a move away from reunification efforts and towards hostility. The statue, built during Kim Jong Un’s father’s leadership, represented two generations of gradual commitment to reunification efforts with the South. In response to his announcement, South Korea's President Yoon Suk Yeol criticized the decision as "anti-national and ahistorical." 

President Kim emphasized, "We're not seeking war, but we're not shying away from it either." This is evident in the fact that Pyongyang has intensified its missile testing amid rising tensions with Seoul, showcasing its latest achievement with the successful testing of a solid-fuel hypersonic missile in mid-January. 

While the boldness of Kim’s statement emerged, inciting global sensation, it did not come as a surprise. Kim has continued to use rhetoric to suggest anything but sentiments of reconciliation and peace for many years. The statement also reveals the growing polarization between the U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral and the China-Russia-North Korea partnership. While North Korea's stance towards the U.S. is clearly negative, this latest statement could be perceived by Moscow and Beijing as facilitating deeper collaboration within their trilateral framework.

On January 24, AP News reported that the Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergey Lavrov, accused South Korea, the U.S., and Japan of preparing for war with North Korea. While the three nations describe their recent military exercises as defense efforts in light of growing North Korean nuclear threats, Lavrov states that relations between Moscow and Pyongyang are “proceeding nicely” and “developing quite actively.”

An assessment of the geopolitical risks of Pyongyang's policy change is crucial for the U.S., China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea as the region is heading toward increased hostility. Kim, no longer feeling he is bound by his father and grandfather's legacy of policies inclined toward unification with the South, is now free to take bold steps in foreign policy. 

The implications of North Korea’s current stance introduce greater uncertainties about when and how Kim might incite instability and how the region should respond. With Kim's growing nuclear capabilities and sudden policy shift, the threat of Pyongyang to sow chaos in the region is at an all-time high.