N. Korea says dialogue with US an option but not a must for national interest

Kim Yo-jong described dialogue with the United States as one possible path to peace. But she rejected the idea that peace talks automatically serve North Korea’s national interests. Her statement made dialogue conditional rather than urgent.

She said Washington’s continuing “hostile signal” was forcing Pyongyang to reconsider the “true nature” of the United States. She also pointed to the cryptocurrency accusation, trilateral diplomacy, and joint military drills as evidence of hostility.

Kim said North Korea had no reason to sit face to face with “unreliable and hostile persons” who would not abandon confrontation. Dialogue therefore remains technically available, but the article presents it as unlikely unless the United States changes its approach. She warned that North Korea would respond to continued hostility, though she did not specify how.

North Korea says Washington must abandon its hostile policy toward Pyongyang before the two countries can seriously consider talks. Kim Yo-jong described that change as a major premise and the key to solving all problems. This makes a shift in US policy the condition North Korea says must come first.

Kim linked the demand to several actions North Korea views as confrontational. These included the United States’ accusation over the cryptocurrency theft, a trilateral diplomatic meeting, calls for North Korea’s complete denuclearization, and joint military drills. Together, they shape Pyongyang’s stated view of Washington.

For now, North Korea says it has no reason to meet with US officials who refuse to abandon confrontation. The article does not identify any specific policy change Washington has offered. Kim warned that continued hostility would bring “reflective counteraction,” but she did not say what that response would be.

The alleged theft was worth more than $6 billion in cryptocurrency. The United States, citing Federal Bureau of Investigation findings, accused the North Korean regime of carrying out the theft from Binance, described in the article as the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange.

The figure matters because it gives the dispute an exceptional financial scale. North Korea denies responsibility. Kim Yo-jong called the accusation a “grave political provocation” and said the so-called cryptocurrency hacking case was only the “tip of iceberg” showing US hostility toward Pyongyang.

The article does not provide a date for the alleged theft or explain how the money was taken. It presents the accusation as a major point of tension between the countries. Kim used it alongside military drills and diplomatic statements as evidence that Washington was continuing a hostile policy.

Cryptocurrency is a form of digital asset that can be transferred electronically and recorded on a blockchain or similar computer network. Unlike ordinary coins and banknotes, it exists digitally. Its value can change sharply, and ownership is usually controlled through digital keys.

A cryptocurrency exchange is a service where people or organizations can buy, sell, or trade cryptocurrencies. Binance is an example. The article identifies it as the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange and says the United States accused North Korea of stealing more than $6 billion from it.

These terms matter because the alleged theft became part of a larger political dispute. The FBI findings were cited by the United States, while Kim Yo-jong rejected them as a hostile political act. The article gives no technical details about the alleged hacking, the assets involved, or how the money was moved.

Joint military drills and demands for North Korea’s complete denuclearization affect talks because Pyongyang interprets them as hostile pressure. Kim Yo-jong said these actions, together with diplomatic statements, showed that the United States had not abandoned confrontation. That makes dialogue harder to begin.

The article gives a concrete example: South Korea, the United States, and Japan held a trilateral meeting of top diplomats. They reaffirmed their commitment to North Korea’s complete denuclearization. Kim also cited various joint military drills. North Korea treats both the words and the exercises as connected signs of US hostility.

This creates a diplomatic obstacle. Washington and its partners emphasize denuclearization, while Pyongyang demands an end to what it calls US hostility first. Kim said North Korea had no reason to meet under those conditions. She warned of counteraction, but did not specify what it would be.

The security discussion described in the article involved South Korea, the United States, and Japan. Their top diplomats held a trilateral meeting. The article presents this meeting as part of the wider regional response to North Korea’s nuclear issue and its relationship with Washington.

South Korea and Japan’s role was to join the United States in reaffirming a commitment to the complete denuclearization of North Korea. The three countries therefore presented a shared position. Kim Yo-jong viewed that position, along with military drills, as another example of US hostility toward Pyongyang.

The article does not describe separate South Korean or Japanese proposals. It also does not explain the meeting’s date or list the diplomats who attended. It does show how coordinated diplomacy can affect the talks environment: North Korea sees the joint stance as pressure, while the three countries emphasize denuclearization as a shared goal.

Denuclearization generally means ending, removing, or preventing a country’s nuclear weapons capability. In this article, it refers to the demand that North Korea become completely free of nuclear weapons. That demand is central because it is a stated goal of the United States, South Korea, and Japan.

The article gives a direct example. Their top diplomats reaffirmed commitment to North Korea’s complete denuclearization. Kim Yo-jong cited that position, along with joint military drills, as evidence of Washington’s hostile policy. The mechanism is political: a demand intended as a security goal is interpreted by Pyongyang as confrontation.

Nuclear weapons therefore sit at the center of the disagreement over conditions for dialogue. The three countries emphasize denuclearization, while North Korea says the United States must first abandon hostility. The article does not explain North Korea’s nuclear arsenal or its history, so those details are outside its scope.