Intention doesn't always carry over well via text, but going from "shocking" and "I guess..." to "Do you not understand...?" comes across as a bit condescending/aggressive. Perhaps you thought I was being hostile? Or, perhaps I'm misreading the intent.

At any rate, keeping in mind the things that don't carry across over text, I wasn't disagreeing with you and was merely speculating in a parallel fashion about those that don't return and/or are deemed unacceptable defection by the leadership in Pyongyang. I haven't picked over my initial comment but it's possible that I put a period somewhere a question mark was supposed to go or something. Regardless, I apologize if I came across as trying to argue against what you were saying, it was not my intention. I don't tend to process things in a strictly linear progression and that translates to words that come out sometimes a bit disordered seeming or perhaps seemingly lacking in explicit context where it might be needed to ensure clarity in what I'm saying.

To answer the question rather than treat it as rhetorical: It’s quite possible that I don't know how North Korean defection usually works because I'm not North Korean nor a policy analyst/SME specializing in North Korea. I read the article and your comment and found myself speculating, given the situation and deepening ties with Russia (who are objectively experts at tracking down dissidents abroad) about what policy and procedures might be in place now the event of would-be permanent defectors that end up becoming anti-Pyongyang mouthpieces or are high rank enough to leak meaningful intel to an adversary (I doubt they are sending any such people to Ukraine). But, I'm not an expert, I'm just a person speculating and commenting because I enjoy doing so and seeing what others have to say (including you). Thanks for sharing the article, have a good one.