The pictures of Xi and Kim side by side during the state welcoming ceremony for Xi in Kim Il Sung Square in the traditional North Korean Baekdu bloodline style surprised me.

Still shot taken from DongA Channel A News, South Korea, coverage which seems to simply be a KCNA upload.
7년 만의 국빈 방문에…北 조중TV, 시진핑 방북 보도 40분 특별 편성 [현장영상] / 채널A
Channel A News (Korea)

Sagar and Krystal did their interpretation of the context of the summit-

There was a period after Russia and China became frustrated with US diplomatic efforts concerning North Korea, that they began evading the UN sanctions on North Korea based upon the latter's nuclear weapons development and missile testing. I don't think there was anything too sinister at that point. The US accused them repeatedly of violating the UN sanctions limits on oil exports to North Korea. The limit was set pretty low as I recall. The truck traffic on the Sinuichu bridge was definitely decreased after the 2017 UN sanctions to almost non existent. Then with the advent of Covid, the North Korean border was completely shut down and according to reports a "shoot to kill" order was issued to stop any smuggling across the rivers, the Amur and Tumen, that formed the northern border with China and Russia (in the northeast). My understanding was that sanctioned petroleum deliveries were carried out by "ghost" ships. I know the US and a few allies, tried to monitor these ships evading UN sanctions.

Don't think the "blockade" such as it might have been characterized was particularly effective. I don't even recall any confrontations in the East Sea/Sea of Japan where most of these exchanges seemed to be taking place. However, during covid, North Korea was completely cut off from the rest of the world by its own quarantine policy which was strictly enforced. Naturally these events had a crushing effect on the so called Jang Madang, private marketplaces that were springing up around North Korea to help people in the provinces to supplement their income. Much of the Jang Madang trading relied on smuggling, and was unofficially condoned.

Slowly, the traffic on the Dandong bridge over the Amur river starting making a hesitant comeback after the covid scare was over. To my knowledge personal traffic from Sinuiju to Dandong China did not come back. I surmise it wasn't allowed.

I think it's somewhat an exaggeration to say you would be executed if you were caught with bootlegged Kpop on a thumbdrive or other recording device. I think a distinction was made between simply being in possession (users in effect) and distributors. Social status and bribes might result in disparate treatment in terms of punitive outcomes. A sentence to the work camps definitely would have an impact on mortality prospects. I think summary execution was reserved for the those who trafficked in such recordings. Being in possession of news broadcasts from South Korea might result in the most severe outcomes. These are just my impressions and opinions after trying to observe or read reports about North Korea for almost 9 years now. Nobody has complete information on North Korea and I don't pretend to.

I anticipated improved conditions in North Korea economically if some real headway had been made in the denuclearization talks that seemed to offer promise after the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit. Once headway seemed in the offing, the US MIC mobilized against the negotiations. In retrospect, particularly now, we have to wonder who it was negotiating in bad faith. I gather that some, if not all, of the US old hands in nuclear talks with North Korea place all the fault upon the North Koreans. They can't be trusted, they would cheat, hide their facilities and nuclear sites, etc. I get the feeling that Andrei Lankov is in this school of thought. Would Kim ever give up a program Lankov says was initiated by Kim Il-seung? That's his view.

Lankov says that North Korea's single minded drive and determination to get nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the US wouldn't allow "denuclearization." It's probably true that they would have only contained their program to the extent already achieved to obtain very substantial sanctions relief and economic investment that the west implied but never delivered, and probably never had any intent of delivering. Woulda, shoulda, coulda. I think containing the warheads to a small number and precluding ICBM warheads would have been worthwhile enough to take a chance. Now their nuclear program can probably wipe out the entire US base structure in NE Asia. I've heard denials by US military commanders, but frankly don't think they're credible. Inasmuch as sanctions had virtually no effect on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, I think it would have been preferable to restrict nuclear weapons production, provide for an inspection protocol, aligned with a step by step negotiating process to build trust, than the US "all or nothing policy" aka the "Libyan model," and the situation we have now.

But the hard liners in the US got exactly what they wanted in East Asia, block politics, instability, and a continuing military threat with no end in sight.

One last note on the summit analysis, which I hadn't heard in the English language assessments but is common among South Korean analysts, is that China is looking for navigation rights on the lower Tumen River to gain access to the Sea of Japan. Their assessment is that if North Korea agrees to it, that Russia might also let it happen. The river would have to dredged, and the bridges across the river raised or modified or replaced in order to do this. Is such a tripartite agreement possible? Russia gained control of the lower Tumen bank around 1860 from China, after some imperial adventures that I'm not familiar with.

I started looking at this "border issue" recently after I heard some "expert" assert that China and Russia had no border disputes. My internet searches into this region also had come up with this photo about a month ago, which I had posted before.

Russian patrol boat using the hose on a Chinese fisherman in the lower Tumen River. May 1969

Don't know that we'll see enough of that tripartite cooperation required to overcome China's issue with lack of direct access to the sea of Japan. The region holds a place in the Korean imagination, North and South.

Tearful Tumen River Song So-hee

The song is a tribute to the Korean Independence Movement and the sacrifices made by Korean families during the Japanese occupation,* especially the separation of loved ones. A review of the Song So Hee performance by The Herald noted the original (1939) performer Kim Jung Gu, 김정구. In more recent times, the song is also performed in connection with events related to separated families from the Korean conflict. The popular rendition of the song title is Tearful Tumen River. My longed for love, perhaps better translated my longed for beloved, is understood to mean my beloved Korea, in occupation lexicon.

(with lyrics)

눈물 젖은 두만강 Tumen River of Tears