It seems like the author is trying to report this situation from NK's point of view as a counter to the west-biased media reports. I agree that the west's media is quite biased, however the author is not very successful in his attempt to shift any blame away from the North in regards to the current escalations.

In fact, much of what the author states can be refuted by what he writes later in the article. For example:

"North Korea may be guilty of verbal escalation, but the US is the only party that has actually escalated anything militarily"
Followed by "In 2006 North Korea exploded its first small nuclear bomb" and "retaliate with shelling of their own, which they did, killing seven civilians on the Island of Yeonpyeong" and "These current tensions were started by the North launching a satellite into orbit". Military escalation indeed.

Second, the author states "Then in March 2010, North-South relations deteriorated with the torpedoing of the ROKS Cheonan" and then links to articles including an American rising mine theory, disredited by the following Russian article suggesting that it was a "non-contact explosion" (i.e. how a torpedo sinks a ship). So was it a torpedo as the author states or not?

Then "The North talks of annihilating the US, while the US talks about bringing down the current regime in Pyongyang." followed by The "United States cannot really afford military action against Korea, it's not in their interest." You need to say if these statements came from the leaders of each countries.

However the main problem with this article is that is is completely superficial, ignoring all long term political, miltary and geostrategic context, relying on basic open source media reporting for the "facts" (opinions). This always leads to a biased "he said, she said" type of narrative.

Before anyone else posts, please consider that what we are really seeing is a complex geostrategic competition between multiple countries, with a complex historical wounds, internal and external politics, proxies and resources. Any view that tries to fault any single party is ignorant.

I appreciate this article because it gives a balance, which has been entirely lacking in mainstream coverage.
Stezza, you seem to be diminishing it by assertion.It is gratuitous to suggest that the author does not realise there is a complex geostrategic play going on here.

Fair enough, I suppose I was a bit harsh. When I open these types of aricles, I hope to read something new and interesting, rather than just a new spin of what is already well known. Usually Steven Meyer has something interesting to say on these topics.