South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law today.
The move, marking the first-ever suspension of democratic rights in South Korea since the end of military dictatorship in 1987, is poised to send a tremendous political shockwave through South Korean society.
Presumably, the decision is driven in large part by Yoon’s motivation to navigate through his mounting domestic political struggles and to confront what he views as the opposition party’s efforts to upend his presidency.
South Koreans have been strongly displeased with Yoon’s governance. For months, Yoon’s approval rating has languishing in the low 20s — recently falling as low as 17%. In a November survey, 58% of South Koreans stated they would like to see Yoon’s resignation or impeachment. This was expected to get worse against the backdrop of a looming corruption scandal involving Yoon, his wife, and a political broker over alleged election interference.
In light of this, a growing number of opposition party politicians have begun to call for Yoon’s impeachment in the National Assembly.
From Yoon’s perspective, the overall destabilizing political situation is being caused by the opposition party’s strident campaign to undermine his rule. Alarmed that his legitimacy is increasingly at stake and in need of a breakthrough, Yoon appears to have found a solution in martial law, which would suspend the National Assembly and other political gatherings that could cause “social disorder.”
In the martial law declaration speech, Yoon called for an urgent need to “normalize” the country and explicitly criticized the opposition-dominated National Assembly’s various activities undermining his governance — including its 22 attempts to impeach his administration officials since his inauguration and cutting of 4.1 trillion won from his administration’s proposed budget for next year.
Following the announcement, South Korean lawmakers gathered in the National Assembly and voted to lift the martial law. What happens next remains to be seen, but today’s shocking event may very well serve against Yoon’s presumed intention to safeguard his rule, by potentially driving South Korean public opinion toward greater support of impeachment.
The martial law declaration may evoke vivid and sensitive memories of military dictatorship across South Korean society and be perceived by many South Koreans as a direct challenge to their democratic system.
James Park is a Research Associate at the Quincy Institute’s East Asia Program. His research interests include South Korean foreign policy and domestic politics, Chinese security issues, and U.S. policy vis-à-vis East Asia.
Top photo credit Republic of Korea President-elect Yoon, Suk-yeol conducts an office call with his staff and personnel from Combined Forces Command at Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea, April 7, 2022. President-elect Yoon visited Humphreys to receive an overview of United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces Korea’s ironclad commitment to strengthening the US-ROK Alliance and providing a strong robust combined defense posture to maintaining peace, security, and stability of the Korean peninsula. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Kris Bonet)
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
The USS Diego Garcia
It’s not every day the U.S. military concentrates one of its most powerful weapons on a tiny island far from nowhere. After all, their vulnerability renders them a tempting target for troublemakers. But that’s just what the Pentagon has done, dispatching at least six B-2 bombers to desolate Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. That speck of land, 1,000 miles from anywhere, is basically an aircraft carrier that can’t move. Given that the radar-eluding B-2 has a readiness rate of just over 50%, sending six of the 19 in the Air Force’s inventory represents about half of the operational B-2 fleet’s firepower on an island smaller than Manhattan.
The $2 billion (each!) B-2s have been attacking Houthi rebels in Yemen, which is about as gross an example of “overmatch” as you can get. But the Houthis are aligned with Iran, and the U.S. is far more interested in sending Tehran a message than pulverizing second-rate Houthi military assets.
“If diplomacy fails, the next stage is likely war,” Axios reported April 8. “Bombs vs. diplomacy on Iran is a live debate within the Trump administration and the wider MAGA world.”
There’s lots of reasons this won’t happen. There are robust U.S. defenses protecting Diego Garcia, plus any such move by Iran runs the risk of a wider war. Then again, so did Trump’s decision to kill Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian general and terror boss, in 2020. But Trump was willing to take that risk, and, after minor-league retaliation by Tehran, the two sides resumed their tense, uneasy relationship. Best to keep those trigger-fingers crossed.
The world turned upside down
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly will be MIA when 50 nations gather in Brussels April 11 to coordinate military aid to Ukraine. It will mark the first time the group meets without the U.S. secretary of defense since the creation of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group after Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago.
The group has given Ukraine more than $126 billion(PDF) in military aid, half of which has come from the U.S. (although there is no new U.S. aid planned). The reinforcements have helped Ukraine keep its capital of Kyiv and 80% of its territory. Russian leader Vladimir Putin had hoped to conquer the country within weeks.
The SECDEF’s vanishing act takes place as Putin keeps pounding Ukraine while thwarting Trump’s efforts for a ceasefire. It is a shameful repudiation of the U.S.’s historical support of freedom over tyranny. It’s also a marked change from Trump’s 2023 rhetoric when he warned the Russian leader to end the war. “I would tell Putin: If you don’t make a deal, we’re going to give them [the Ukrainians] a lot,” he said. “We’re going to give them more than they ever got, if we have to.”
In an eerie echo, on April 2 Trump told Axios that Moscow was missing because existing U.S. sanctions on Russia “preclude any meaningful trade.” Yet the $3.5 billion in U.S.-Russia commerce last year topped total U.S. trade with countries like Brunei and Mauritius that Trump slapped with tariffs.
The Bunker’s not the only one flummoxed by the U.S. government’s recent bizarre actions on the world stage. “Denmark's naval modernization plan reflects threats from Russia, US,” read the head-scratching headline April 2 in Defense One about one of NATO’s founding members. The subhead tried to explain: “Copenhagen aims to buy one vessel to protect undersea cables and six or more that might defend Greenland.”
Duct tape and bailing wire
There is no better example of an overly-complicated military machine than the Pentagon’s V-22, the world’s only production tiltrotor. It’s an aircraft that could have sprung from the fevered mind of inventor Rube Goldberg, renowned for creating machines that solve “a simple problem in the most ridiculously inefficient way possible.”
Yes, it can take off and land like a helicopter, and then fly like a turboprop airplane as its rotors tilt forward. That’s why the Marines stormed Capitol Hill in 1989 to convince Congress to keep it flying despite then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s repeated efforts to kill it. The Marines argue they need hundreds of these vertical-lift planes, just like their F-35B, to launch obsolete amphibious assaults from their small-deck warships (the last such assault took place in 1950).
The latest V-22 Band-Aid involves installing four-pound “predictive maintenance capabilities” boxes on some V-22s to see if they can prevent gearbox failures implicated in fatal crashes. Developed by a company called Shift5, the technology lets V-22 crews watch parts degrade in real time, instead of trying to catch such damage during periodic, and maybe too-late, post-flight inspections.
“Given the criticality of solving some of these life-threatening issues that are happening on the V-22, it really is all about providing real-time insights to the crew for situational awareness so they can make better decisions,” Shift5’s Josh Lospinoso told Defense News.
The Air Force has established a new “doomsday” wing to improve control of its nuclear arsenal, Air & Space Forces Magazine said April 1. Seriously.
And serious thanks for dropping by The Bunker this week. Kindly consider forwarding this on to fellow travelers so they can subscribe here.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Alex Ovechkin, the captain of the National Hockey League's Washington Capitals, is seen on a screen in celebration of his 895th career National Hockey League goal, which he scored during a game against the New York Islanders to break the all-time record of Wayne Gretzky, in Moscow, Russia April 7, 2025. REUTERS/Evgenia Novozhenina/File Photo
Last Sunday, 39-year-old Russian ice hockey star Alex Ovechkin playing for the Washington Capitals surpassed Canadian-American Wayne Gretzky’s National Hockey League scoring record, netting his 895th goal.
What elevated this seismic moment in hockey history beyond stats was Gretzky’s response. “The Great One,” as he has been known throughout his career, has been a true class act — publicly cheering Ovechkin on and offering warm praise devoid of ego even as he saw his own record shattered.
Gretzky’s grace is a throwback to a time when hockey transcended the rink, serving both as a proxy for Cold War tensions and fleeting détente. As a kid catching the tail end of Gretzky’s career from behind the wrong side of the Iron Curtain in Riga, Latvia, I saw those echoes firsthand.
In 1972, for the first time, the Soviet team disembarked in North America for pioneering “Summit Series” which pitted the USSR’s best against the NHL stars playing for Canada and the United States. While Canada narrowly clawed past the Soviets on that occasion, in 1981, the “Red Machine,” a veritable juggernaut that the Soviet team has become by then, thrashed Canada 8 to 1 at the legendary final of the Canada Cup, in Montreal, no less.
1972 Summit Series between Canada and Soviet Union. Pictured Phil Esposito (Canada) Alexander Ragulin (USSR) (Credit: Frank Lennon. Library and Archives Canada/Flickr)
I watched that game on TV, wide-eyed, as the Soviets’ clinical precision dismantled the star-laden, intimidating Canadian team, captained by Wayne Gretzky. Back in Moscow, Soviet propaganda appropriated their team’s success as evidence of the superiority of the collectivist Soviet ways over Western individualism. It wasn’t just about hockey — it was a superpower bravado on ice.
But hockey didn’t just mirror the era’s rivalries — it softened them too. Between face-offs, involving occasional fistfights on the ice, players from these purported opposing ideological camps shook hands and swapped jerseys. Some even forged enduring friendships, including touring each other’s homelands. It felt like détente in action: competition, yes, but mutual respect beneath the gloves.
Fast forward to 2025. With Donald Trump back in the White House and tentative efforts to melt the ice between the United States and Russia, hockey diplomacy has come back to the fore. In March, amid a phone call about Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin, ever eager to flex hockey for nationalist gain, floated the idea of the hockey matches between NHL stars and Russia-led Continental Hockey League (KHL) talent, with games in both the U.S. and Russia. Trump, ever the dealmaker, backed the idea, perhaps anticipating “huge ratings” as an additional prop.
History knows examples of sporting events fostering détente between the rival nations. Think of ping-pong diplomacy with Communist China in the early 1970s which paved the way for President Richard Nixon’s ground-breaking visit to Beijing in 1972. The term “ping pong diplomacy” stuck because it captured how sport can bridge geopolitical divides.
Another example are the soccer World Cup matches between the U.S. and Iran in 1998 and 2022. Unlike the tennis games in China and hockey matches between the U.S., Canada and Soviet Union in North America, the U.S. – Iran encounters were the results of blind draws, meaning they were not explicitly intended to be diplomatic events. But even so, the human interaction between the peoples of two nations often at geopolitical loggerheads helped to somewhat soften mutual perceptions (Iran won 2 to 1 in 1998, while the U.S. emerged victorious in 2002, 1-0, with the winners graciously showing respect to the losers on the pitch after each game).
Can Trump – Putin hockey diplomacy smooth the way to a more general thaw? Unlike in the 1970s and early 1980s, such games, if they materialize, won’t be referendums on the comparative strengths of different political systems. After all, Ovechkin, born in 1985, growing up in post-Communist Russia and achieved stardom in America, is as much a product of the “capitalist” NHL as is Gretzky. But it can help mend fences in a more traditional sense of managing a great power competition — as was also the case with the original détente in 1970s, in addition to the ideological dimension.
There will be hurdles along the way. Russia has been and remains banned from the International Ice Hockey Federation since 2022 for its invasion of Ukraine, which precludes its participation in international hockey championships. Even if the U.S. were to be ready to use its influence to lift the ban on the Russians, other leading hockey nations could easily balk at the idea for political reasons — think of Sweden, Finland or Czech Republic. The liberal hawks who’d seldom miss an opportunity to disparage diplomacy with adversaries were quick to assail Trump for allegedly giving Putin a soft power gain “for free.” A coalition of Ukrainian-Canadian and Ukrainian-American organizations called on the NHL to unequivocally reject any collaboration with the KHL.
There is also a asymmetry in stakes and expectations: the prospect of the games is seen by the Kremlin as a way to symbolically skate back to the great powers league — a vision cherished by Putin. The White House downplayed that enthusiasm, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt saying that the U.S. “is more interested in securing the peace in Ukraine right now than scheduling hockey games.”
Indeed, the hockey games, in themselves, won’t stop the war in Ukraine. However, they are an approachable way to restart building confidence and improve the overall climate between Moscow and Washington that could be leveraged in efforts to bring about a diplomatic end to the bloodbath and usher into a new era of a more restrained, managed competition.
Gretzky and Ovechkin exemplified graciousness and respect that transcend geopolitical rivalries. Let’s see if Trump and Putin can lace up their diplomatic skates and do the same.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) holds up a copy of the U.S. Constitution as she votes yes to the second article of impeachment during a House Judiciary Committee markup of the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, December 13, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. Patrick Semansky/Pool via REUTERS
A group of House Democrats is calling on the Trump administration to halt its unauthorized attacks on Yemen’s Houthis and present a legal justification for recent strikes on the rebel group.
In a letter to the White House, first reported by the Intercept, the group of more than 30 Democrats — led by Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.); and Val Hoyle, (D-Ore.) — argues that presidents must go through Congress for a declaration of war or adjacent authorization to wield military force.
“While we share concerns about maritime security in the Red Sea, we call on your Administration to immediately cease unauthorized use of military force and instead seek specific statutory authorization from Congress before involving the U.S. in an unconstitutional conflict in the Middle East, which risks endangering U.S. military personnel in the region and escalating into a regime-change war,” the letter states.
“Congress must have the opportunity to engage in a robust debate on the rationale for offensive force and vote on its merits before U.S. servicemembers are placed in harm’s way and additional taxpayer dollars are spent on yet another Middle East war,” the letter asserts. “No president has the constitutional authority to bypass Congress on matters of war.”
“How does the Administration claim self-defense, deterrence, or response to an imminent attack as a justification for strikes, given the President’s remarks that attacks ‘will get progressively worse,’ until the Houthis are ‘completely annihilated?’” the letter asks. “What steps, if any, are being taken to mitigate further civilian casualties?”
The letter also pushed the Trump administration to justify its response to “Signalgate,” where a government officials’ group chat on messaging app Signal, which outlined plans to strike Yemen, had included Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg.
Today’s letter follows other lawmakers’ pushes for oversight regarding growing U.S. military involvement in Yemen. Previously, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) teamed up across the political aisle in an April 1 letter, questioning the constitutionality of ongoing U.S. airstrikes in Yemen. Considering tenuous U.S.-Iran relations, they pondered whether such attacks could set the stage for further conflict with Iran.
“Congress should be briefed about the recent strikes against the Houthis and the total cost expected to be incurred by this campaign at the American taxpayer’s expense,” Paul and Merkley wrote. “The Administration must also explain to Congress and the American people its expected path forward given the failure of previous such efforts and statements from the Administration that the military campaign will continue and possibly expand to include military action against Iran.”
To date, recent U.S. military operations in Yemen have cost nearly $1 billion, all with limited impact on Houthi fighting capabilities.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.