Oh yeah I can see that, especially given that the opposition seems receptive towards normalizing relations with the north.
People were definitely getting high on their own supply after a full year of propaganda of how Russians were fighting with shovels, and Russian army was on the verge of collapse. I imagine most of NATO planners also genuinely believed in superiority of western tech.
The empire is clearly much weaker today than it was at its zenith in the 90s. While the US is able to continue causing chaos around the world, the the chaos is increasingly backfiring, and the effects reinforce each other. The world is now dedollarizing, BRICS is rising as a direct competitor to G7. The US is starting to lose political control of Africa and Latin America. Meanwhile, western economies are in a crisis, and things in Europe are becoming critical already. These aren't problems that can be solved using a nuclear arsenal. The reality is that the cost of maintaining the empire now outweighs the plunder. As a result, the core is becoming hollowed out leading to political unrest domestically.
It's hard to imagine that either would take the bait. The most likely outcome would be that occupied Korea implodes internally.
That's kind of the crux of it, Chinese industrial power is order of magnitude larger than the US. On top of that, China would be fighting on their land while the US would be forced to ship weapons half way across the world. Even with support from their puppets in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines it's clearly a losing game.
Iraq is now largely under Iranian influence with US position there becoming more precarious by the day. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is now making deals with China and Russia. I'm pretty sure neither scenario was the plan. I think there are real consequences for both invasions for the US because decades of endless wars have demoralized the military. Recruitment is at all time low, and veterans actively discourage people from joining now.
I think the US military might be a bit more realistic about their own limitations though. There are many different factions in control of different parts of Syria. The whole place is now an incredibly volatile, and holding territory there is going to be very costly for Israel. Just look at how things went in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no reason to expect anything different happening here.
I can't see something like that being carried out without a green light from the US. So, at the very least they were willing to look away. Yoon is precisely the kind of dictator the US would want to install, he's rabidly anti China and pro Japan. Biden admin isn't exactly known for their competence or subtlety. It does seem like they misjudged public backlash here.
The spectacular failure of the 2023 offensive really exposed just how clueless NATO planners are.
I think US is definitely an actor here, but it seems like there are a lot of different players each with their own goals. The US is obviously the ring leader, but both Israel and Turkey have their own objectives here, and those don't always neatly align with what US wants. Both Turkey and Israel see this as an opportunity for a land grab, and the US has little leverage to stop them. Furthermore, Israel wants the US to be actively involved so from their perspective doing reckless shit makes sense.
Exactly, and thus the real question is why the US would want to turn Korea back into a military dictatorship.
Oh yeah, even when they discuss a nuclear war they just conveniently assume the US would be spared for some reason.