First: The real existing North Korean state is a revisionist state, that is to say, a regime deeply dissatisfied with the current configuration of the international chessboard and fundamentally committed to transforming it.
A lot of people made this comparison -- Bismarck's Germany was not a messianic, universalistic, or revisionist state, but it was very big and powerful, and it had a lot of national interests.
The dangers from the other revisionist states, Hungary and Bulgaria, were controlled by the Little Entente, an alliance of Romania, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia created in 1920 21 and backed by the French.
Revisionist states are those trying to undermine the legitimacy of hegemonic status quo powers, which define the system.
The main threats generated by this domain turned out to be caused by revisionist states, states with an offensive security doctrine and by the existence of weak states.
Those criteria allowing for the defence to gain the upper hand over the offence generally do not apply to revisionist states, as the rational logic established above loses its validity with regard to powers attempting to change the status quo.
This logic does not apply to revisionist states, though, which, by definition, will attempt to change the status quo despite rational calculations that would otherwise have favoured the defence.
This meeting seems alarming in the context of a later event, led by Gary Schmitt, that asked, "Is the US military ready to fight and win potential conflicts against revisionist states?" – meaning China, Iran and Russia.
And it's becoming clear, as realist scholars like John Mearsheimer have been warning for years, that a rising China will probably not be substantially different in terms of its ambitions and behavior from other revisionist states in the past.
Political scientists remind us that transitional periods can often prove disruptive, as "status quo" powers (in this case, the United States) resist challenges to their dominance from "revisionist" states seeking to alter the global power equation.
They are depicted in the document as "revisionist states," openly defying what the Pentagon identifies as "international security and stability"; that is, the distinctly un-level playing field created by globalized, exclusionary, turbo-charged casino capitalism and Washington's brand of militarism.
