AS North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was being hosted like royalty in Russia this week, back home his military was firing two ballistic missiles that shook the fragile peace with neighbours South Korea and beyond.
Such is the character of the leader known as the “Rocket Man” – unpredictable, daring, fearless and as he once warned former US president Donald Trump: “My finger is (always) on the trigger.”
The North Korean leader travelled to Russia on a rare state visit in his personal train just as his grandfather and father did when they led North Korea.
President Kim’s first notable stop in Russia was Vostochny Cosmodrone, an advanced space launch facility in the country’s Amur region.
The visit by the Korean had initially been clouded in secrecy. The Kremlin only confirmed it in the eleventh hour, primarily for security reasons as Kim travels by road amid the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
The US-led Nato is heavily backing Kyiv in the conflict, and has consistently provided dangerous weapons for use by the Ukrainian forces against Russia. This week, Ukraine managed to successfully attack a Russian shipment base in the breakaway province of Crimea. The mainly Russian-speaking province voted to secede from Ukraine following the 2014 coup that ousted the pro-Russian, democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych.
Kim’s visit to Russia also took place at a time when the Western backers of Ukraine led by Washington vow to support the regime of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “for as long as it takes”.
The war-talk from both Brussels and Washington – backed by tangible financial, military and material support for Kyiv – has served to heighten the hostilities to the point where Moscow describes the conflict as a Nato proxy war aimed at breaking the Russian Federation into smaller states of little or no bearing in geopolitics.
But concern was raised by Kim’s visit largely because the contents of discussion between the two leaders are managed in strict terms. And, in the absence of the flow of information, guess work and speculation reached fever point. Western media quoting anti-Russian voices mainly in Washington alleged that Presidents Putin and Kim were likely making an arms sales deal for use in the Ukraine conflict.
North Korea has been under UN sanctions for many years, and whilst under isolation, continued to develop nuclear weapons in anticipation of confrontation with its US-backed neighbour South Korea, which has strong US military presence.
The arms sales between Moscow and Pyongyang worry the Western powers. They see deepening bilateral co-operation between the nations they consider as “pariahs” to be of major concern in light of the ongoing conflict.
Basically, North Korea’s entry into the picture is viewed like petrol being poured on the fire. President Kim’s declaration of unwavering support for Moscow in the conflict added to the concerns and fears across the West.
Pyongyang will support Moscow to defeat the “hegemonic forces and imperialism”, the “Rocket Man” said as he assured his host.
Russia and North Korea were great allies during the 1950s civil war on the Korean Peninsula. In the same conflict, the US was a major backer of South Korea.
Back in Washington, the White House national security advisor Jake Sullivan threatened serious repercussions against both Moscow and Pyongyang should they enter into any arms deal. “They will pay a price for this in the international community,” Sullivan warned.
But the recent take by the influential Wall Street Journal (WSJ) paints a different picture. The paper said Western governments had overestimated the willingness of non-aligned states of the Global South to join anti-Russian policies in support of Ukraine.
Quoting Jan Techau of the consulting firm Eurasia Group, the WSJ wrote: “It’s clear that the West overall has been surprised by the pretty wide-spread reluctance by many of the countries in the so-called Global South…to come on board.”
The WSJ referred to the “animosity toward US and Europe” in the Global South coupled with the determination of rising powers such as Brazil and South Africa “to assert their independence.”
The latest rise in the stock of BRICS Plus cannot be overlooked. The recent BRICS heads of state summit held in Johannesburg attracted global media coverage and audience, and sparked great debate about the role of the emerging bloc in geopolitics.
The resolution by the five-member bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) to expand the membership by a staggering six more regional powers that include Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Argentina, Egypt and Ethiopia has sent a stern warning about the rapidly changing framework of the international world order.
BRICS has accused the wealthy nations of the West led by the US for turning the world order into a unipolar one. This, they argue, is at odds with the founding UN Charter that espouses the notion of a consensus-based multipolar world order.
On top of the BRICS, BRICS Plus is leading a global move to topple the US dollar as a preferred currency in global trade. Already, when trading among each other, BRICS Plus countries have barred the use of the US dollar in their transactions.
Next year’s presidential elections in the US are also proving to be a referendum on the open-ended support of Kyiv. Leading Republican contender Donald Trump is vehemently opposed to the war and has vowed to end it on day one of his presidency, should he be elected. During his previous tenure as the US president before Joe Biden, Trump held a successful summit with the North Korean President Kim and managed to lower the temperature that saw North Korea reduce its threat level in nuclear armaments. Things took a turn for the worse since Trump left office.
President Putin has meanwhile played down any arms deal between Moscow and Pyongyang. However, he said there was massive room for co-operation in many, many other spheres between the two countries without going into the details.
It beggars belief, though, that the West should be surprised by the flourishing bilateral ties between Russia and North Korea. When friends are few, it is easy to tell who one can trust. The world is not monolithic. Freedom of association, choice and movement are inalienable rights at the disposal of all.