Evaluation of Kim Jong-un’s 2025 Liberation Day Speech

The Intersection of External Hardline Stance and Internal Cohesion Strategy

Lee Seung-hyun

Research Fellow, Sand Research Institute, Ph.D. in Public Administration

On August 15, 2025, North Korea staged an elaborate commemoration of the “80th Anniversary of National Liberation,” highlighted by a keynote address from Chairman Kim Jong-un. The speech drew significant attention both domestically and internationally, as it was the first time Kim had personally delivered a Liberation Day address. 

While the speech adhered to the traditional themes of honoring the anti-Japanese struggle and national liberation, its substantive focus was on deepening the strategic partnership with Russia and promoting international anti-imperialist solidarity. Far from a routine commemorative statement, the address provided a window into Pyongyang’s evolving foreign policy orientation and the mechanisms by which the regime seeks to consolidate internal legitimacy.

Reframing the Liberation Narrative

Kim characterized August 15 as “the great day of victory when we regained our independent dignity,” lauding the resilience of the Korean people under Japanese colonial rule. Strikingly, however, he omitted any reference to Kim Il-sung, a departure from North Korea’s longstanding tradition of attributing national liberation to the late founder’s guerrilla struggle. 

For decades, official discourse equated liberation with Kim Il-sung’s personal achievements, a pattern reinforced under both Kim Jong-il and during the early years of Kim Jong-un’s rule. By contrast, the 2025 speech elevated the collective “struggle of the entire nation” and explicitly acknowledged the Soviet Union’s contribution, signaling a deliberate recalibration.

This rhetorical adjustment can be interpreted in several ways. First, the speech emphasized external diplomatic signaling over internal ideological education. By framing liberation as both a national and joint Korean-Russian struggle, Kim sought to recast the bilateral relationship as a “blood alliance” rooted in history. The choreography surrounding the event—President Putin’s congratulatory message, the visit of a Russian delegation, and the performance of the Russian national anthem—reinforced this framing.

Second, the omission of Kim Il-sung may reflect Kim Jong-un’s effort to assert his own independent authority. Reliance on the “anti-Japanese myth” underscores continuity with the past but can also tether legitimacy to the legacy of a previous leader. By downplaying his grandfather’s role, Kim highlighted his own diplomatic leadership and contemporary achievements as the foundation of regime legitimacy.

Third, minimizing Kim Il-sung’s centrality allowed space to elevate Russia’s role. A narrative dominated by Kim Il-sung would risk overshadowing the Soviet contribution, which Pyongyang now appears eager to highlight as it seeks to elevate its partnership with Moscow to a strategic level.

Diplomatic Calibrations: Avoiding South Korea and the United States

Another notable feature of the speech was its avoidance of direct references to South Korea or the United States. While Kim criticized “imperialist arrogance” and infringements on sovereignty, he refrained from naming Seoul or Washington. 

This rhetorical restraint suggests a calibrated strategy: emphasizing universal themes of anti-imperialist resistance for international audiences, while avoiding unnecessary escalation in inter-Korean or U.S.–North Korea relations. It also underscores Pyongyang’s prioritization of strategic solidarity with Russia while preserving flexibility in dealing with Seoul and Washington.

Strategic Implications

Taken together, the speech can be understood as a layered message revealing both external and internal priorities. 

Recasting legitimacy: By broadening the liberation narrative beyond Kim Il-sung, Pyongyang signaled that it no longer relies solely on revolutionary tradition for legitimacy. Instead, Kim Jong-un emphasized his own leadership credentials and foreign policy achievements.

Strengthening the Russia axis: By defining relations with Russia as a “historic blood alliance,” North Korea sought to consolidate its alignment within a multipolar international order, positioning itself more firmly against the United States.

Maintaining diplomatic maneuverability: The omission of South Korea and the United States points to a strategy of managing tensions while leaving the door open for future negotiation or tactical engagement.

Conclusion

Kim Jong-un’s 2025 Liberation Day address went beyond commemoration, serving as a platform to articulate the regime’s evolving ideological and strategic orientation. The omission of Kim Il-sung’s central role, the elevation of North Korea–Russia ties, and the careful avoidance of direct reference to Seoul and Washington all function as indicators of Pyongyang’s recalibrated approach.

These shifts suggest that the regime is selectively reinterpreting its traditional ideological assets, deploying them flexibly to meet current strategic needs. At the same time, Kim Jong-un is cultivating new sources of legitimacy rooted in external diplomacy and substantive alliances.

The 2025 Liberation Day speech, therefore, should be read not only as a historical commemoration but as a programmatic statement on how the regime intends to navigate its legitimacy and security challenges in an increasingly contested international environment.