Trump, Putin discuss nuclear weapons and Venezuela in phone call, Aljazeera, 3 May 19,
US President Donald Trump tweets he ‘had a long and very good’ phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke for more than an hour on Friday, discussing the possibility of a new nuclear accord, North Korean denuclearisation, Ukraine and the political situation in Venezuela, the White House said.
“Had a long and very good conversation with President Putin of Russia,” Trump said in a post on Twitter, noting they had discussed trade, Venezuela, Ukraine, North Korea, nuclear arms and Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential campaign.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters that the call was an “overall positive conversation”…….
Putin told Trump that any external interference in Venezuela’s internal business undermines the prospects of a political end to the crisis, the Kremlin said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by phone on Wednesday that further “aggressive steps” in Venezuela would be fraught with the gravest consequences, the Russian ministry said…….
New START treaty
Sanders told reporters Trump and Putin talked about the possibility of a new multilateral nuclear accord between the US, Russia and China, or an extension of the current US-Russia strategic nuclear treaty.
She did not say which arms control agreement Trump and Putin discussed, but the Russian state news agency Tass reported that they talked about the New START treaty, the last major arms-control treaty remaining between the US and Russia.
The 2011 New START treaty expires in February 2021 but can be extended for five years if both sides agree. Without the agreement, it could be harder to gauge each other’s intentions, arms control advocates say.
The New START treaty required the US and Russia to cut their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades, and limit delivery systems – land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
It also includes extensive transparency measures requiring each side to allow the other to carry out 10 inspections of strategic nuclear bases each year; give 48 hours notice before new missiles covered by the treaty leave their factories; and provide notifications before ballistic missile launches.
Trump has called the New START treaty a “bad deal” and “one-sided”.
“They discussed a nuclear agreement, both new and extended, and the possibility of having conversations with China on that as well,” Sanders said.
The Kremlin said the two sides confirmed they intended to “activate dialogue in various spheres, including strategic security”.
Trump earlier pulled the plug on a decades-old nuclear arms treaty with Russia. Trump accused Moscow of violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with “impunity” by deploying missiles banned by the pact. Moscow denies violating it and has accused Washington of being in non-compliance……
North Korea
Trump also raised with Putin the issue of getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. Trump has met twice with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un but Kim has yet to agree to a disarmament deal.
Sanders said Trump mentioned several times “the need and importance of Russia stepping up and continuing to put pressure on North Korea to denuclearize.” The Kremlin said both leaders highlighted the need to pursue denuclearisation of the region.
Trump to begin nuclear bomb-reduction talks with Russia, maybe China, ‘very shortly’ Washington Examiner, by Steven Nelson, May 03, 2019 President Trump said Friday that he expects to begin brokering a nuclear disarmament deal with Russia “very shortly,” with a possible addition of China later.
Trump spoke about a possible deal after broaching the topic during a more-than-hour-longphone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin: “I think we’re gonna probably start up something very shortly, between Russia and ourselves to start off, and I think China will be added down the road. We’ll be talking about nonproliferation. We’ll be talking about a nuclear deal of some kind. I think it will be a very comprehensive one.”…….
Official: US renews Iran sanctions waivers for civilian nuclear work, The Times of Israel, May 2019
Move allows Russia and European nations to continue work at nuclear sites without incurring US penalties; 2 waivers relating to heavy water and uranium enrichment not extended.
By MATTHEW LEE3 May 2019, WASHINGTON (AP)— The Trump administration on Friday renewed five of seven sanctions waivers that allow Russia and European nations to conduct civilian nuclear cooperation with Iran, even as the US steps up the pressure on Tehran, a senior US official said.
The waivers, which were due to expire Saturday, are being extended for between 45 days and 90 days, shorter periods than had been granted in the past. But they will permit work at several Iranian nuclear sites to continue without US penalties. Under the terms of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Russia and several European nations help to maintain the facilities and are engaged in converting equipment there for exclusively civilian use.
Facilities included in the waiver extensions include the Bushehr nuclear power plant, the foenrichment facility, the Arak nuclear complex and the Tehran Research Reactor, the official said.
His comments, and those out of the foreign ministry, were relatively upbeat. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, however, was a lot less hopeful, saying that he doesn’t think Trump’s proposal was at all serious, and that Russia and China had already talked on the matter.
There is hope on all three sides for a deal that could cut the increasingly exorbitant cost of nuclear arms modernization, while ensuring that all sides retain a deterrent force that makes nuclear exchanges unlikely. At the same time, Trump has long talks of arms races as though he was eager for them, so his sudden suggestion of talks is being viewed with more than a little suspicion.Jason DitzApril 28, 2019
Trump’s talk of three-way nuclear deals emerged last week, and Ushakov says Russia will definitely take part, if-talks ever emerge. At the same time, he said that existing nuclear deals should be more closely respected.
His comments, and those out of the foreign ministry, were relatively upbeat. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, however, was a lot less hopeful, saying that he doesn’t think Trump’s proposal was at all serious, and that Russia and China had already talked on the matter.
There is hope on all three sides for a deal that could cut the increasingly exorbitant cost of nuclear arms modernization, while ensuring that all sides retain a deterrent force that makes nuclear exchanges unlikely. At the same time, Trump has long talks of arms races as though he was eager for them, so his sudden suggestion of talks is being viewed with more than a little suspicion.
Ben Brown 29/04/2019 By CCN.com: As India and Pakistan continue to throw nuclear threats back and forth, a senior Indian government official tasked with diplomacy in external affairs has dampened any hopes for peace between the two nations.
India’s minister of state for external affairs V.K Singh said this weekend that India and Pakistan will never be friends:
“A country which has been triggering proxy wars against India besides being a terrorist hub can never be treated as a friend. Treating Pakistan as a friend will be the biggest weakness of India.”
INDIA AND PAKISTAN: MONTHS OF NUCLEAR TENSION
The statement comes after months of tension between the two nuclear neighbors. The military posturing reached a peak last week when India’s prime minister Narendra Modi threatened Pakistan with the “mother of nuclear bombs.”
The military aggression first flared in February when Pakistan-based terrorist group JeM killed 40 Indians. India responded with airstrikes over the border and a series of aggressive military action followed on both sides.
PAKISTAN’S F-16 FIGHTER JET AGGRESSION: A VIOLATION OF US TERMS?
The United States has also been dragged into the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan, but the Trump administration remains firmly on the sidelines. The US has refused to comment on Pakistan’s possible violation of US terms.
In February 2019, Pakistan shot down an Indian jet and captured its pilot. India claims this aggressive action was carried out by a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet, sold to Islamabad by the United States.
If India’s claims are true, it may be a violation of international terms. According to the US arms agreement, Pakistan is only permitted to use the F-16 fighter jets defensively.
Pakistan maintains it did not use the F-16 in the dogfight and, despite India’s claim that it shot down a Pakistani F-16 in the clash, a US count found that all jets were present and correct. India, however, submitted some evidence in the form of call-signs and weaponry used which are associated with Pakistani F-16s.
US STAYS ON THE SIDELINES
This weekend, the US refused to share any information with India about the possible violation of terms. Speaking to the Indian Express, an unnamed official said it was a matter solely for the US and Pakistan:
“Soon after we were informed by the Indian side about Pakistan using F-16 aircraft on Feb 27, we informed the Indians that we will not be sharing any information on the subject as it is a bilateral matter between the US and Pakistan.”
Pakistan maintains it did not use the F-16 in the dogfight and, despite India’s claim that it shot down a Pakistani F-16 in the clash, a US count found that all jets were present and correct. India, however, submitted some evidence in the form of call-signs and weaponry used which are associated with Pakistani F-16s.
The official said it was a strictly unbiased position and it would do the same if the tables were turned:
“If a third country tomorrow wants information about the C130 or C17 or Apaches that the IAF [Indian Air Force] uses, our answer would be the same. It is a bilateral matter between India and the US.”
PEACE IN THE INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT?Pakistan is on a mission to dispel fears of conflict, but not everyone is convinced. The country invited a handful of journalists to learn about Islamabad’s desire for peace, summed up by this Reuters commentary:
“Pakistan says it is tired of conflict, opposed to extremism, open for peace talks and clamping down on corruption. It also insists it is run by politicians, with the military partnering rather than dominating.”
But with constant military posturing from both Pakistan and India, the peaceful rhetoric doesn’t quite match the nuclear grandstanding.
–‘Don’t test our resolve’: Pakistan warns India against mentioning its nuclear power lightly https://scroll.in/latest/921739/dont-test-our-resolve-pakistan-warns-india-against-mentioning-its-nuclear-power-lightly– 29 Apr 19, Pakistan’s military spokesperson Major General Asif Ghafoor reiterated Pakistan’s denial of India’s claim that it was responsible for the attack in Pulwama. Pakistan on Monday warned India against testing its military’s resolve and said that it was capable of protecting its citizens. Pakistan’s military spokesperson Major General Asif Ghafoor accused India of relying on false claims about the Pulwama attack in India and the Indian Air Force’s air strike in Balakot.The military spokesperson urged India to be a more responsible nuclear power. “In your [Indian] rhetoric, you keep using nuclear power as a threat,” Ghafoor said. “Nuclear powers are not a threat, they are a weapon of deterrence that should not be mentioned lightly…Do not test our resolve.”
Ghafoor was referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remark earlier this month that India’s nuclear weapons are “not meant for Diwali”. Modi had received criticism from several quarters for that statement.
Ghafoor denied that it was responsible for the attack in Pulwama that killed 40 Indian security personnel. “We told them we were not involved,” Ghafoor told reporters at a press conference. “India then violated our airspace, we then gave the ultimatum that we will respond when we see fit. Two months have passed since and India has told countless lies on the matter. We have not responded to the lies, not because we can’t, but because we don’t want to retaliate.”
Ghafoor reiterated that Pakistan had incurred no damage from India’s air strike in Balakot. He said hiding the downing of a plane is impossible in today’s day and age.
“International media came to Pakistan, we told them that they should go to the place and see for themselves what had happened. India had said that 300 people had died in their attack [in Balakot]. Then they said that they had used a small-scale missile that bore a tiny hole in the ceiling of the building and then exploded inside. We again offered to show your own [Indian] media the site,” he said.
Report on Modi’s remark on nuclear weapons sent to EC, says election official in Barmer https://scroll.in/latest/921705/report-on-modis-remark-on-nuclear-weapons-sent-to-ec-says-district-election-officialThe prime minister had warned Pakistan at the rally last week, saying India’s nuclear weapons are ‘not meant for Diwali’.Election authorities in Barmer district of Rajasthan on Monday said they have submitted a factual report to the Election Commission after looking into the Congress’ allegation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had “brazenly violated” the poll code by repeatedly invoking the armed forces at an rally in the district on April 21, PTI reported.
At the rally, Modi had said that India does not get scared of Pakistan’s nuclear strike threats anymore. “Every other day they used to say, ‘We have nuclear button, we have nuclear button’,” the prime minister had said. “What do we have then? Have we kept it for Diwali?”
Following the complaint by the Congress the following day, the Election Commission had sought a report on the prime minister’s address. “The report has been forwarded with the copy of PM’s speech as per the direction of the commission,” said district election officer Himanshu Gupta.
This is not the first instance of the ruling party invoking the armed forces during the campaign for these Lok Sabha elections. On April 18, the Election Commission warned Union Minister for Minority Affairs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi for referring to the defence forces as “Modi ji ki Sena [Narendra Modi’s Army]” and asked him to be careful in the future. This came a few days after a warning was issued to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath for making the same remark.
Apart from the Opposition parties, military veterans have also complained about such speeches made by BJP leaders. On April 12, more than 150 veterans of the Indian armed forces wrote to President Ram Nath Kovind, urging him to stop the politicisation of the military during election campaigns. The letter urged Kovind to “take all necessary steps to urgently direct all political parties that they must forthwith desist from using the military, military uniforms or symbols, and any actions by military formations or personnel, for political purposes or to further their political agendas”.
The Election Commission has issued multiple advisories asking political parties not to indulge in political propaganda involving the defence forces.
US and Moscow are at loggerheads on nuclear weapons after Trump announced in February that he’s pulling out of a landmark Cold War-era treaty banning short- and medium-range missiles
Olga Tanas | Bloomberg April 27, 2019Russia is interested in the details of a potential U.S. plan to push for new arms-control agreements, Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, told reporters Saturday in Beijing.
US President Donald Trump has questioned the cost of maintaining a nuclear arsenal and has asked administration officials to prepare options for potential new arms-control agreements with Russia and China, the Washington Post reported April 25, citing an unidentified senior administration official.
Peskov said while it would be ideal to rid the world of nuclear weapons, such a move would also remove the “restraining parity” that guarantees that no nuclear power makes a “monstrous mistake.” There had been no contacts with Russian experts on the issue, he said.
The US and Moscow are at loggerheads on nuclear weapons after Trump announced in February that he’s pulling out of a landmark Cold War-era treaty banning short- and medium-range missiles. The U.S. withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, after accusing Russia of violating the pact, has raised the threat of a renewed missile build-up in Europe.
Russia has warned that time is also running out to begin talks on extending the other key nuclear weapons accord between Russia and the U.S., the New START treaty, before it expires in 2021.
Russia ready to discuss nuclear treaty with China, US,https://nypost.com/2019/04/26/russia-ready-to-discuss-nuclear-treaty-with-china-us/ By Associated Press, April 26, 2019 , MOSCOW — A top Russian diplomat says Russia is willing to negotiate a new nuclear weapons treaty with the United States and China.Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told reporters on Friday Moscow is closely following reports in the United States that the U.S. would like to reach a nuclear weapons deal with both Russia and China, and is “willing” to negotiate.
The story was reported by CNN earlier Friday.
Ryabkov also said that Russia “would like to convince” the U.S. to adopt a joint statement that would condemn any use of nuclear weapons.
Ryabkov’s comments come just months after the U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a cornerstone of the post-Cold War security, and Russia followed suit.
After Meeting Kim Jong-un, Putin Supports North Korea on Nuclear Disarmament, NYT, By Andrew E. Kramer and Choe Sang-Hun, April 25, 2019, MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia made a public show of support for North Korea on nuclear disarmament, seeming to undermine President Trump’s approach to nuclear diplomacy, as Mr. Putin and Kim Jong-un on Thursday wrapped up their first summit meeting.
Russian officials have long insisted they wanted to support Mr. Trump’s efforts at one-on-one nuclear negotiations with Mr. Kim, the North Korean leader. But speaking to reporters after the meeting in Vladivostok, on Russia’s Pacific Ocean coast, Mr. Putin said that North Korea needs security guarantees from more nations than just the United States before abandoning its nuclear arsenal.
Mr. Putin also reiterated Russian backing for a gradual process of trading disarmament for sanctions relief. “If we take one step forward and two backward, then we would fail to achieve the desired result,” Mr. Putin said. “But it will eventually be possible to achieve this goal, if we move forward gradually and if we respect each other’s interests.”
At talks in February in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, Mr. Trump had proposed a “big deal” to lift punishing economic sanctions in return for a quick and complete elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Mr. Kim offered, instead, only a partial dismantling of nuclear facilities — while keeping his arsenal of nuclear warheads and missiles — in exchange for relief from the most harmful sanctions.
With each side calling the other’s plan unacceptable the talks collapsed — in sharp contrast to the rosy picture both leaders painted of their first meeting in Singapore in June.
After the breakdown in talks in Hanoi, North Korea vented its frustration with a weapons test and accusations that Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, John R. Bolton, and secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, were sabotaging negotiations.
In his first trip abroad since the talks in Vietnam, Mr. Kim sought to stress his friendly relations with the Kremlin as a counterweight to the hard-line tactics of the Trump administration.
…….. Mr. Putin suggested Russia might welcome a revival of multilateral talks on North Korea, known as the six-party negotiations, which have been dormant for a decade and were previously derided by Mr. Trump
…….. “The most important thing, as we have discussed today during the talks, is to restore the rule of international law and revert to the position where global developments were regulated by international law instead of the rule of the fist,” Mr. Putin said. “If this happens, this would be the first and critical step toward resolving challenging situations such as the one on the Korean Peninsula.”
….. Before they collapsed in 2009, the six-party talks among China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, the United States and Russia had produced agreements to halt North Korea’s nuclear program, but the North later abrogated them.
Any Russian attempt to revive them now is bad news for Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly cited them as the prime example of the failed tactics of previous administrations. He has claimed that his own leader-to-leader diplomacy with Mr. Kim stood a far better chance of bringing about the North’s denuclearization.
Russian foreign policy has a different starting point. “In Moscow’s thinking, Kim Jong-un has learned from the fates of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi that for an authoritarian regime, the only safeguard against U.S. military intervention is the possession of nuclear weapons capable of hitting the American mainland,” Aleksandr Gabuev, a fellow at the Moscow Carnegie Center, wrote……… https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/world/europe/summit-kim-putin-trump-nuclear-north-korea.html
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un received a red-carpet welcome when he arrived by armoured train in Russia’s pacific port of Vladivostok for his first summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. After four summits with Chinese President Xi Jinping and two with US President Donald Trump, Mr Kim has now turned to Mr Putin. The US-North Korea talks in Hanoi in February broke down in acrimony. Since then, North Korean state media has said they no longer wanted to deal with Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, as a nuclear negotiator and that they wanted to work with someone “more careful and mature in communicating”. Mr Kim was also claimed to have launched a new missile designed to carry a “powerful warhead” and that the test was “of a very weighty significance in increasing the combat power of the (Korean) People’s Army”. “Chairman Kim Jong Un himself personally asked us to inform the American side about his position and the questions he has about what’s unfolding on the Korean Peninsula,” Mr Putin told reporters after the summit ended. “[And] of course I will speak tomorrow in Beijing, probably with the leadership of the People’s Republic of China.” INGRAM PINN
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un received a red-carpet welcome when he arrived by armoured train in Russia’s pacific port of Vladivostok for his first summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. After four summits with Chinese President Xi Jinping and two with US President Donald Trump, Mr Kim has now turned to Mr Putin. The US-North Korea talks in Hanoi in February broke down in acrimony. Since then, North Korean state media has said they no longer wanted to deal with Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, as a nuclear negotiator and that they wanted to work with someone “more careful and mature in communicating”. Mr Kim was also claimed to have launched a new missile designed to carry a “powerful warhead” and that the test was “of a very weighty significance in increasing the combat power of the (Korean) People’s Army”. “Chairman Kim Jong Un himself personally asked us to inform the American side about his position and the questions he has about what’s unfolding on the Korean Peninsula,” Mr Putin told reporters after the summit ended. “[And] of course I will speak tomorrow in Beijing, probably with the leadership of the People’s Republic of China.”
Open Forum: Time for a reality check on nuclear diplomacy, San Francisco Chronicle, By Jerry Brown and William Potter April 24, 2019On Monday,diplomats from around the world are meeting at the United Nations in New York to review the state of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This treaty, commonly known as the NPT, came into force 49 years ago, and is widely regarded as the cornerstone of international disarmament and nonproliferation diplomacy.……..In some respects, the promise of the NPT has been realized. The pace of proliferation has been much slower than anticipated, and the treaty’s membership now includes almost all the nations of the world. To be sure, three nuclear-armed states — India, Pakistan and Israel — refused to join. A fourth — North Korea — joined and then chose to withdraw. But of the 13 past and present nuclear nations, four countries (South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine) renounced those weapons and ratified the treaty.
The size of the global nuclear arsenal is much smaller today than it was at the peak of the Cold War — a fact that the two states with the largest nuclear forces, the United States and Russia, say shows their good faith under the treaty to pursue negotiations to stop the nuclear arms race at an early date and eventually achieve nuclear disarmament.
What is less evident is whether any of the nuclear-armed states actually believes in nuclear disarmament.
It is also unclear if the overall reduction in nuclear weapons has made the world a safer place. Indeed, we believe that the use of nuclear weapons is actually more likely today than at any time in recent memory.
The greatest nuclear danger today is the potential for a military confrontation among nuclear-armed states because of mistake, miscalculation or accident. The danger of nuclear blunder has always existed. In fact, there have been a large number of “close calls” in the past that did not escalate into military conflict.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un arrived in the Russian city of Vladivostok on Wednesday for a summit he is likely to use to seek support from Russian President Vladimir Putin while Pyongyang’s nuclear talks with Washington are in limbo.
“There are no other efficient international mechanisms at the moment,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
“But, on the other hand, efforts are being made by other countries. Here all efforts merit support as long as they really aim at de-nuclearisation and resolving the problem of the two Koreas,” he told reporters.
Forget oil sanctions, end of nuclear cooperation waivers could quietly kill Iran deal https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/04/iran-jcpoa-nuclear-deal-sanctions-waivers-trump-arak-fordow.html Esfandyar Batmanghelidj April 24, 2019 Much of the current debate on the Donald Trump administration’s “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran concerns its decision not to extend waivers allowing eight nations – including China, India and Turkey – to import limited amounts of Iranian oil. However, it is the possible revocation of waivers that allow the remaining parties to the deal signed in 2015 to engage in civil nuclear cooperation with Iran — with the aim of reducing the proliferation risks of the Iranian nuclear program — that poses the greatest threat to the future of the nuclear deal.
US national security adviser John Bolton and a group of hawkish lawmakers in Congress are agitating for the Trump administration to cancel three key waivers issued in November 2018, when the United States reimposed secondary sanctions on Iran. These waivers pertain to technical work on Iran’s civil nuclear program required under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and cover activities at three sites: Fordow, Arak and Bushehr. The aim of this cooperation is to jointly work toward significantly reducing proliferation risks.
In Arak, a waiver is necessary to enable Iran to redesign its heavy water research reactor in order to “support peaceful nuclear research and radioisotope production for medical and industrial purposes.” The proposed redesigned Arak reactor would vastly cut the potential for a plutonium path to the bomb. The underground uranium enrichment facility of Fordow is being converted into a “nuclear, physics and technology center.” The aim here is to keep uranium enrichment literally closer to the surface and thus more vulnerable in case of an Iranian dash for the bomb. At Bushehr, the site of a Russian-built nuclear power plant that became operational in 2011, the waiver is necessary to allow Iran to continue to purchase the fuel it needs to run the reactor and produce electricity.
A decision to revoke the waivers for civil nuclear cooperation would constitute perhaps the most direct US assault on the JCPOA to date. For this reason, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other figures in the Trump administration, worried about political blowback, have been arguing for their continuation, with European governments lobbying the United States aggressively on the issue. Note, however, that even with the present waivers in place, it is apparent that implementation of the nuclear cooperation has been faltering. Revocation of the waivers would have further and grave consequences for the future of the JCPOA.
What Russia thinks about North Korea’s nuclear weapons, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Anastasia Barannikova, April 24, 2019, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un arrived in Russia today for a meeting with President Vladimir Putin….. Despite Russia’s past vote in favor of sanctions on Kim’s regime, Moscow has many reasons not to lean too hard on Kim over nuclear disarmament…………
Russia wants a stable North more than a non-nuclear North. Although, Russia continues to officially oppose North Korea’s nuclear status on the basis of its strict interpretation of the NPT, experts already speak about “nuclear emancipation” for the North, meaning recognition of its status as a lesser nuclear state. These ideas coincide with an idea some Chinese scholars have developed whereby North Korea would reduce its nuclear arsenal but keep some weapons as a deterrent. From Russia’s perspective, nuclear weapons now guarantee the security of the North Korean regime. The weapons can prevent attempts at violent regime change by external force. Through them, North Korean leadership has the independence to make changes within its borders. That’s good for Russia.
Many Russian analysts consider North Korea’s nuclear program to be defensive. Looking at the North’s nuclear doctrine, it seems likely the country wouldn’t use its nuclear weapons against a country that isn’t planning an attack. While little is known about Russia’s military planning beyond its publicly available doctrines, the specifics of the bilateral relations it holds with the North may guarantee that Russia has no plans to attack its neighbor.
……….The security of Kim’s regime, in turn, guarantees stability near Russia’s eastern borders. For Russia, a stable North Korean regime guarantees the absence of refugees flows, a normal feature of conflict zones, but also prevents US troops from deploying in a potentially disintegrating North. And with its nuclear weapons as diplomatic leverage, North Korea can maintain some independence from China. Thus, Moscow views Kim’s stability as providing something of a buffer between Russia and China.
Do North Korean nuclear weapons pose a threat to Russia? From Moscow’s perspective, the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia are relatively stable and don’t pose any immediate threats to security. Relations between Russia and North Korea are neutral, if not friendly. North Korean leadership appreciates Russia’s cautious, slow approach to the relationship, in contrast to China’s activist take on issues on the Korean Peninsula. Russia’s emphasis on the need to respect state sovereignty as a fundamental principle of international relations further lubricates the bilateral relationship: Russia avoids any attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the North, so Pyongyang does not consider Russia as an external threat.
Many Russian analysts consider North Korea’s nuclear program to be defensive. Looking at the North’s nuclear doctrine, it seems likely the country wouldn’t use its nuclear weapons against a country that isn’t planning an attack. While little is known about Russia’s military planning beyond its publicly available doctrines, the specifics of the bilateral relations it holds with the North may guarantee that Russia has no plans to attack its neighbor.
But there is one scenario whereby North Korea’s nuclear weapons could threaten Russia. If Kim launches missiles against the United States, experts say they’ll fly over Russian territory. A US anti-missile response could, thus, risk a war between Russia and the United States. But Russian experts don’t believe that North Korea would ever attack the United States; they consider Kim Jong Un too rational for that. ………https://thebulletin.org/2019/04/what-russia-thinks-about-north-koreas-nuclear-weapons/
nuclear-news 