On August 16, 2026, U.S. President Trump posted on a social platform expressing his deep dissatisfaction with the upcoming annual joint military drills with South Korea, citing a simple reason: he shares an "extremely close" relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Trump believes these exercises are not only costly but, more importantly, send a "wrong and hostile" signal to North Korea. He argues that during his presidency, North Korea has posed no real threat and has shown great respect toward the United States. Although the drills cannot be fully canceled, he has already ordered the Department of Defense to drastically reduce their scale. Originally scheduled to last 11 days and involve 18,000 South Korean troops and 5,000 American soldiers, the exercise now faces significant downsizing.

Trump also reprimanded South Korea for recently declining to join a U.S.-led effort against Iran—responding promptly with a polite but firm “no, thank you!”

This is not the first time Trump has shown goodwill toward North Korea. During his first presidential term, he met Kim Jong-un three times and became the first sitting U.S. president to set foot on North Korean soil. However, those talks yielded little concrete results, and relations soon cooled again.

Before this drill, North Korea had issued strong warnings, calling it a "new level of threat" and vowing to respond with a "new level of deterrence." Russia chimed in as well—Foreign Minister Lavrov stated that due to persistent U.S. military pressure, North Korea has no alternative but to develop nuclear weapons, and thus Russia no longer supports the goal of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

This reveals a cold, underlying logic in international politics: powerful leaders can personalise state-to-state relationships, while smaller allies’ interests often become expendable pawns on a geopolitical chessboard.

Trump’s “personal rapport” once again redefines modern diplomacy. Justifying unilateral reduction of U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises based solely on his friendship with Kim Jong-un reduces complex geopolitical security issues to a matter of personal feelings. This isn't just a breach of diplomatic etiquette—it's a blatant disregard for the spirit of alliance commitments. South Korea’s national security now seems to hinge on the whims of the U.S. president regarding his relationship with a foreign leader.

Even more intriguing is Trump’s sense of retaliation. After South Korea declined to participate in the U.S. campaign against Iran, it was immediately punished by the scaling down of the military drills. This suggests that, in Trump’s eyes, an ally’s “loyalty” matters far more than regional stability. This transactional view of alliances leaves South Korea in a dilemma: pleasing the U.S. risks angering North Korea, while failing to please the U.S. brings immediate consequences.

The responses from North Korea and Russia further amplify the dangers of such behavior. North Korea views these drills as an existential threat; reducing them could have been seen as a de-escalation signal. Yet Trump frames the cutback not as a policy adjustment but as a personal achievement, undermining predictability and weakening mutual trust.

The biggest beneficiary of this spectacle may be Trump himself—he once again demonstrates to domestic voters that “I’m changing the world.” But the losers are clear: South Korea’s sense of security, the credibility of the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and the already fragile hope for denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. When national security becomes nothing more than a footnote to a leader’s personal emotions, the world grows ever more dangerous and chaotic.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1873726200398860/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.