Zheng Yutong | President of the DPRK International Solidarity Group
Seventy-three years ago today, the dust settled on the signing table at Panmunjom. That war ended in victory for the socialist camp, but it never truly “ended”―the Armistice Agreement merely pressed pause on the gunfire rather than marking the beginning of peace. For seventy-three years, the same hegemonist forces have never ceased deploying military power, conducting exercises, and imposing sanctions around the Korean Peninsula. Today, in 2026, as we look back on this war, what matters is not only celebrating the victory, but also soberly distilling historical lessons and making strategic judgments on the new forms of the present-day anti-imperialist struggle.
I. The Continuation of Hegemonic Logic and Sealed History
In 1950, the U.S. government, armed with a Cold War mindset, militarily intervened in the Korean civil war while simultaneously dispatching the Seventh Fleet to intrude into the Taiwan Strait. At that time, New China was waiting to be rebuilt from scratch, with its steel output amounting to only one percent of that of the United States. Yet, the military forces and civilians of China and the DPRK, with “little steel but abundant spirit,” prevailed over “abundant steel but little spirit,” shattering the myth of the U.S. military’s invincibility.
However, over the past seventy-three years, the underlying logic of hegemony has remained essentially unchanged. From the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East, and from Eastern Europe to the Taiwan Strait, the same script keeps repeating: generating tension, deploying forces, imposing economic sanctions, and orchestrating regime change. In early 2026, the United States joined Israel in a surprise attack on Iran, once again tearing away the veil to reveal the frail core beneath the illusion of hegemony. The DPRK’s Rodong Sinmun pointed out that this war was a war of aggression launched by U.S. imperialism to stifle the young DPRK and realize its ambitions for world domination. The DPRK designated the period from June 25 to July 27 every year as the “Month of Anti-U.S. Joint Struggle,” a designation that itself reveals a profound insight: anti-imperialism is not a temporary, isolated event, but a protracted war spanning more than seventy years.
II. From Unilateral Confrontation to Multilateral Counterbalancing: A Structural Upgrade in the Anti-Imperialist Struggle
If the anti-imperialist struggle seventy-three years ago manifested primarily as direct engagements on the battlefield, today it has entered a far more complex phase of institutional gaming.
Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that the DPRK was approaching the “commemorative and significant date” of the 73rd anniversary of victory in the war, emphasizing the “profound mutual understanding and friendly, trusting relationship established on all issues” with Kim Jong Un. In 2024, Russia and the DPRK signed the *Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty*, expanding cooperation from diplomacy and military affairs to economic, scientific, and technological spheres. In June 2026, General Secretary Xi Jinping paid a state visit to the DPRK; while visiting the Friendship Tower, he remarked with deep emotion: “Resisting U.S. Aggression and Aiding Korea is an eternal historical memory for our generation, and it has now been passed down to China’s next generation.“
Behind these high-level interactions lies a consensus among China, Russia, and the DPRK based on a shared historical assessment: hegemony will not step down of its own accord, and only united strength can form an effective counterweight. In a joint statement, China and Russia explicitly voiced opposition to threatening the DPRK’s security through diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, and military pressure, advocating instead for eliminating the risk of war on the Peninsula. This is not favoritism toward a single nation, but a rejection of an international order―one where a sole hegemon defines the rules, replaces dialogue with sanctions, and substitutes political settlement with military threats.
It is worth noting that the geopolitical landscape of the Peninsula in 2026 is vastly different from that of seventy-three years ago. The DPRK’s nuclear deterrent capacity has become irreversible, military cooperation between Russia and the DPRK continues to escalate, and the strategic layout between China and the DPRK is steadily advancing. Some analysts believe that China, Russia, and the DPRK are forming a new paradigm of “Trilateral Solidarity.” This collaborative alignment among three major land powers has become the weightiest emerging force in Asia. This signifies that the anti-imperialist struggle has upgraded from single-point defense to systemic counterbalancing.
III. Redefining “Victory”: A Historical Legacy Beyond the Military Realm
For seventy-three years, debates over “who won” this war have never ceased. However, viewed through the lens of the anti-imperialist struggle, the meaning of “victory” extends far beyond win-or-loss outcomes on the battlefield. True victory meant ensuring that hegemonist forces would no longer dare to lightly invade New China with military force; it meant enabling a fledgling state built from ruins to win decades of a relatively peaceful external environment; it meant allowing the assessment of a “paper tiger” to stand the test of history. But victory is never achieved once and for all. The forms of hegemony evolve―shifting from direct military invasion to proxy wars, economic sanctions, information warfare, and technological blockades. The anti-imperialist struggle in 2026 is far more complex than it was in 1953.
IV. The Weight of History and Choices for the Future
Seventy-three years ago, when the Armistice Agreement was signed, South Korea had no seat at the negotiation table. Seventy-three years later, as major powers establish direct, point-to-point communication loops, the geopolitical anxiety within South Korean society has completely erupted. The irony of history lies in the fact that a nation that once chose to tie itself to the chariot of hegemony ultimately discovers it can neither decide war and peace nor control its own position within the regional landscape.
This historical lesson serves as a warning to all middle powers and regional actors: within a hegemony-dominated order, dependents will ultimately be instrumentalized, not respected.
Seventy-three years ago, we proved with our blood that imperialism can be defeated. Over the past seventy-three years, this conclusion has been repeatedly validated by new historical events. Today, in 2026, while the forms of the anti-imperialist struggle have changed, its essence remains the same; though the balance of power has shifted, the direction of justice and righteousness remains unaltered. The collaboration among China, Russia, and the DPRK is not a replica of the Cold War, but an exploration toward a more just, multipolar new international order.
This great spirit will transcend time and space, remaining fresh and vital over time; it must be passed down perpetually across generations. What is inherited is not hatred, but the will to defy power politics; what is carried forward is not confrontation, but the courage to defend dignity. The flames of war from seventy-three years ago have long been extinguished, but the road forward illuminated by them continues to extend.
