> Military transfers between the two countries would violate multiple UN Security Council resolutions and be subject to additional sanctions by the United States and its allies.
Am I misunderstanding: does anyone think Kim of North Korea or Putin's gang in Russia cares?
In the slight case that you are arguing in good faith. What does US/Russia affairs have to do with Russia following the UN resolutions they sign themselves?
UN resolutions as I imagine are in the form of "We all agreed it is a good idea if we collectively did the following".
Then of course every side can just walk away from such memorandum once it becomes taxing without moral repercussions. Not sure about the US law but Russian law disallows coercion into contracts which overhelmingly favor one side taking advantage of the other one.
There are mechanisms of coercion but they are not functioning as of now since any sanctions that US could place on Russia for dealing with NK it will place regardless.
So to summarize, the sides agreed it would be great if they limited trade with NK. If one of the sides no longer thinks it's a great idea, that's it.
If you still think it's an universally good idea, go nag China so it uses its influence on Russia, since their opinion Russia will take into account.
North Korea doesn't care because they are as sanctioned the west as a country can be - there's no additional leverage.
Russia is not in the same situation - they have been sanctioned, but there's many more sanctions that can be applied.
However, since they're most likely buying artillery ammunition and other weapons from North Korea, and they know that this traffic can't really be concealed, they have likely decided that obtaining this stuff is more important than avoiding whatever additional sanctions would be applied.
I used to think so. According to this page https://freekorea.us/sanctions/ existing sanctions are not enforced as strongly as they could.
North Korea and Russia are much more reliant on foreign technology than one may know. See this fascinating article about Western CNCs used in the production of Iskander missiles: https://rhodus.substack.com/p/how-to-make-an-iskander
Think also secondary sanctions, i.e. sanctions against countries and organizations that help circumvent sanctions. For example, companies in, say, China or Uzbekistan profiteer by selling to Russian companies components bought from the West. Let’s make them face a dilemma: if you do business with Russia or NK you will be cut off from the West.
>See this fascinating article about Western CNCs used in the production of Iskander missiles
Pretty much all Russian factories run on US/Europe equipment. It's not really a secret, not sure what's surprising about that.
>Think also secondary sanctions, i.e. sanctions against countries and organizations that help circumvent sanctions. For example, companies in, say, China or Uzbekistan profiteer by selling to Russian companies components bought from the West. Let’s make them face a dilemma: if you do business with Russia or NK you will be cut off from the West.
You'll have to sanction dozen of countries then. It's not really practical.
If west really wants to deal a blow to Russia then they need to make oil super cheap somehow, that would stop Russia really fast. Unfortunately that will never happen too...
> Pretty much all Russian factories run on US/Europe equipment. It's not really a secret, not sure what's surprising about that.
More of a little-known fact than a secret. For me at least: two years ago I had no idea.
> If west really wants to deal a blow to Russia then they need to make oil super cheap somehow, that would stop Russia really fast. Unfortunately that will never happen too...
"Image may not be republished without permission."
I wonder what is the legal status of doing a photo of other country's territory and then selling that photo without the consent of the country on display.
Between countries, the primary rule is “might makes right”. (Disrupted in relatively recent history with fears of mutually assured destruction.) If some number of countries’ leadership agree closely enough about what’s “right”, they don’t generally resort to “might” against each other.
As I understand it all the UN sanctions against North Korea have an expiry date in them and since Russia has veto power in the UN they likely won’t be renewed.
Perhaps we in the west could have offered North Korea something rather than sending them into the arms of Russia? Or maybe we don’t really care …
well this is a saber rattling wannabe nuclear weapons state. If you look at the history of deals between the US and the DPRK and that of missile launches then you'll likely conclude they don't negotiate in good faith. They also frequently threaten Japan and the US with nuclear strikes and launch missiles into the Sea of Japan.
"Air Force general Curtis LeMay, head of the strategic air command during the Korean War, estimated that the American campaign killed 20 per cent of the population. “We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea,” he said."
I am not defending NK. But they fought a total war and maybe there is a reason why they are paranoid.
What concerns me more then the delivery of weapons form NK to Russia is the possibility that they send soldiers. Kim would get money for it. And something his current army does not have. Combat experience.
That's funny, because MacArthur's whole justification for driving to the Yalu and bombing Chinese hydroelectric plants there was that the Chinese would NOT get involved like they did. Really he wanted to push into Manchuria and start WWIII because he was a genocidal fucking maniac, thankfully the Chinese and Truman managed to shut that down.
Killing off Ghadaffi was perhaps the worst blow to any broader denuclearization efforts.
As long as Libya pursued weapons of mass destruction, but the leadership was more or less unmolested. Sanctions and sabre rattling don't actually pose a personal risk. But when they started playing nice with the global community, a coup and assassination followed conspicuously soon after.
Nuclear weapons were always a guarantee of security and regime continuity for Kim, but that reminds us it works on two layers. The US or RoK can't directly call for war without Seoul ending up glowing by tea-time, but they also need to keep the cloak-and-dagger guys on a leash too. Trying any of the zany plans they had saved for Castro could result in a bunch of nuclear weapons and know-how ending up in less stable hands. (I could imagine an apocalyptic cult, for example, being willing to fire an acquired weapon, in a way that even the most violent nation state would think twice about)
I don't think reading too much into the absolute numbers makes that much sense when we're talking about "how much was seen in one satellite image". It's not like this is a count of every rail-car that passes through, it's just an indicator that the line is much busier than normal.
I feel like this thing is sort of overblown. It’s frankly pathetic that Russia needs North Korean weapons.
North Korea has “a lot” of stuff. But the sense of scale needs dramatic scaling to the conflict in Ukraine. Like… I don’t really believe that North Korea is going to give upwards of 20% of their supply. And I think most of their supply is half a century old. And I think they will be a shitty unreliable partner. It doesn’t really account for the limiting factor being Russia’s crappy westward train line dependency as the thing that keeps most of the important front line alive.
Edit: like… what does it say about Russia’s level of attrition that its Soviet Union era stockpile is so badly depleted that it needs North Korean weapons. I don’t see how anyone can say north Korea’s supply will be able to meaningfully support the Russian war machine while having no real industry of its own on the basis of what it has in cold storage for a significant amount of time. That’s just stupid. Forget any questions about who’s more truthful in reported attrition numbers in Ukraine. How can Russia possibly be in this position where it feels it’s necessary to get North Korea as an arms dealer and expect that to be sustainable? This implies to me that equipment is being lost at such a ridiculous rate that any attempts to supply it from a fixed cache will be futile. This is a sign of incredible weakness, not something to be concerned about.
I'd agree that it's somewhat pathetic that Russia needs NK production, but I think we have every reason to believe that NK could actually give very large % of supply and production, and for NK to actually work reasonably well as partner. NK has consistently shown that it understands that it is its long-range nuclear capabilities that best guarantees the continuation of the government. Trading stockpiles of old shells for know-how (or maybe even material) to boost their missile capabilities seems like a reasonable trade. I'm sure the Russians aren't dummies either and will structure agreements to get the best behavior possible out of NK.
NK conventional artillery remains a significant threat to SK population and economic centers, but the 'crown jewel' (bombarding Seoul directly) is only reachable with their largest weapons systems (170mm shells and 240mm rockets) - while what Russia will probably be looking for is 122/152mm shells. Even if NK traded away all of their 122/152mm shells, they would still retain significant deterrence in conventional arms (not even considering potential nuclear arsenal).
I would give Russia's military planners just a smidge more credit than to run their supplies down to where they really really need North Korea's howitzers and ammo.
Russia's military has other potential hotspots to mind, like a coup in Belarus, or Moldova getting Transnistria back.
But, in a few months, it is likely to come down to the same thing: Russia will start losing, if not on the front line in Ukraine, then in other peripheral areas like Africa, Middle East, and European clients.
> It’s frankly pathetic that Russia needs North Korean weapons.
Norks is most likely China's beard. China is officially not in the conflict, but is likely channeling its sales through norks and letting them take a cut.
The China+NK+Russia tripoint is interesting. Russia controls a narrow strip of coastline leading over to it, which prevents China from reaching the Sea of Japan. There have been historical negotiations between Russia and China about leasing rail lines or similar, to a port there, which would expand China's access. But, that same line would cut off Russia's direct connection to NK.
Rail is certainly not an efficient transport between the DPRK and Russia. They run on different rail gauges, so all freight would need to be manually transferred to Russian box cars, or the bogeys on each rail car would need to be swapped out.
52 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadAm I misunderstanding: does anyone think Kim of North Korea or Putin's gang in Russia cares?
Then of course every side can just walk away from such memorandum once it becomes taxing without moral repercussions. Not sure about the US law but Russian law disallows coercion into contracts which overhelmingly favor one side taking advantage of the other one.
There are mechanisms of coercion but they are not functioning as of now since any sanctions that US could place on Russia for dealing with NK it will place regardless.
So to summarize, the sides agreed it would be great if they limited trade with NK. If one of the sides no longer thinks it's a great idea, that's it.
If you still think it's an universally good idea, go nag China so it uses its influence on Russia, since their opinion Russia will take into account.
Ok, now remind me why Putin was describing Ukraine’s position on the Minsk agreements with the following:
Нравится, не нравится—терпи моя красавица
Not every reference to history is whataboutism.
So much that it's a habit and nobody should believe anything they say or promise.
Russia is not in the same situation - they have been sanctioned, but there's many more sanctions that can be applied.
However, since they're most likely buying artillery ammunition and other weapons from North Korea, and they know that this traffic can't really be concealed, they have likely decided that obtaining this stuff is more important than avoiding whatever additional sanctions would be applied.
Think also secondary sanctions, i.e. sanctions against countries and organizations that help circumvent sanctions. For example, companies in, say, China or Uzbekistan profiteer by selling to Russian companies components bought from the West. Let’s make them face a dilemma: if you do business with Russia or NK you will be cut off from the West.
Pretty much all Russian factories run on US/Europe equipment. It's not really a secret, not sure what's surprising about that.
>Think also secondary sanctions, i.e. sanctions against countries and organizations that help circumvent sanctions. For example, companies in, say, China or Uzbekistan profiteer by selling to Russian companies components bought from the West. Let’s make them face a dilemma: if you do business with Russia or NK you will be cut off from the West.
You'll have to sanction dozen of countries then. It's not really practical.
If west really wants to deal a blow to Russia then they need to make oil super cheap somehow, that would stop Russia really fast. Unfortunately that will never happen too...
More of a little-known fact than a secret. For me at least: two years ago I had no idea.
> If west really wants to deal a blow to Russia then they need to make oil super cheap somehow, that would stop Russia really fast. Unfortunately that will never happen too...
That’s the idea behind the price cap on Russian oil. Agreed, it should be lower. And seem to have found a way around it: https://www.npr.org/2023/01/21/1149745629/russia-oil-shadow-...
Except it doesn't work, like at all. China, India and others still buy russian oil way above the price cap.
I wonder what is the legal status of doing a photo of other country's territory and then selling that photo without the consent of the country on display.
Between countries, the primary rule is “might makes right”. (Disrupted in relatively recent history with fears of mutually assured destruction.) If some number of countries’ leadership agree closely enough about what’s “right”, they don’t generally resort to “might” against each other.
Perhaps we in the west could have offered North Korea something rather than sending them into the arms of Russia? Or maybe we don’t really care …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_t...
Is this surprising?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-t...
"Air Force general Curtis LeMay, head of the strategic air command during the Korean War, estimated that the American campaign killed 20 per cent of the population. “We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea,” he said."
I am not defending NK. But they fought a total war and maybe there is a reason why they are paranoid.
What concerns me more then the delivery of weapons form NK to Russia is the possibility that they send soldiers. Kim would get money for it. And something his current army does not have. Combat experience.
The point is McArthur was probably right.
That's funny, because MacArthur's whole justification for driving to the Yalu and bombing Chinese hydroelectric plants there was that the Chinese would NOT get involved like they did. Really he wanted to push into Manchuria and start WWIII because he was a genocidal fucking maniac, thankfully the Chinese and Truman managed to shut that down.
As long as Libya pursued weapons of mass destruction, but the leadership was more or less unmolested. Sanctions and sabre rattling don't actually pose a personal risk. But when they started playing nice with the global community, a coup and assassination followed conspicuously soon after.
Nuclear weapons were always a guarantee of security and regime continuity for Kim, but that reminds us it works on two layers. The US or RoK can't directly call for war without Seoul ending up glowing by tea-time, but they also need to keep the cloak-and-dagger guys on a leash too. Trying any of the zany plans they had saved for Castro could result in a bunch of nuclear weapons and know-how ending up in less stable hands. (I could imagine an apocalyptic cult, for example, being willing to fire an acquired weapon, in a way that even the most violent nation state would think twice about)
What type of deal were you thinking that the west could offer? How could we even enforce those deals? What would prevent NK from double dealing?
North Korea has “a lot” of stuff. But the sense of scale needs dramatic scaling to the conflict in Ukraine. Like… I don’t really believe that North Korea is going to give upwards of 20% of their supply. And I think most of their supply is half a century old. And I think they will be a shitty unreliable partner. It doesn’t really account for the limiting factor being Russia’s crappy westward train line dependency as the thing that keeps most of the important front line alive.
Edit: like… what does it say about Russia’s level of attrition that its Soviet Union era stockpile is so badly depleted that it needs North Korean weapons. I don’t see how anyone can say north Korea’s supply will be able to meaningfully support the Russian war machine while having no real industry of its own on the basis of what it has in cold storage for a significant amount of time. That’s just stupid. Forget any questions about who’s more truthful in reported attrition numbers in Ukraine. How can Russia possibly be in this position where it feels it’s necessary to get North Korea as an arms dealer and expect that to be sustainable? This implies to me that equipment is being lost at such a ridiculous rate that any attempts to supply it from a fixed cache will be futile. This is a sign of incredible weakness, not something to be concerned about.
NK conventional artillery remains a significant threat to SK population and economic centers, but the 'crown jewel' (bombarding Seoul directly) is only reachable with their largest weapons systems (170mm shells and 240mm rockets) - while what Russia will probably be looking for is 122/152mm shells. Even if NK traded away all of their 122/152mm shells, they would still retain significant deterrence in conventional arms (not even considering potential nuclear arsenal).
Besides, maybe NK we become transport proxy for China to supply weapons.
Russia's military has other potential hotspots to mind, like a coup in Belarus, or Moldova getting Transnistria back.
But, in a few months, it is likely to come down to the same thing: Russia will start losing, if not on the front line in Ukraine, then in other peripheral areas like Africa, Middle East, and European clients.
Norks is most likely China's beard. China is officially not in the conflict, but is likely channeling its sales through norks and letting them take a cut.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93North_Korea%E2%8...
Here is a market (no participation yet) for whether anything will move forward on these lines: https://manifold.markets/Ernie/china-gets-direct-land-access...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/world/asia/north-south-ko...
I guess when every state is an adversary and your nation is paranoid, then you need to spend a trillion dollars annually keeping an eye on them.
If I was RU and NK, I'd just keep a dozen empty trains going back and forth, to keep the satellites busy, and for the lols.