Analyst Bruce Klingner of the conservative Think Tank argues that the alliance between Moscow and Pyongyang emerged during a difficult period of another escalation of relations between the DPRK and South Korea and created new risks for “US allies”. That is, read – for the US itself. Because Russia can provide the Koreans with a variety of technologies, including nuclear charges and their carriers, and the entire flow of military technologies from Moscow will be difficult to determine.
Consequently, there is strategic uncertainty in Washington’s cabinets: what kinds of weapons and in what quantities does the DPRK even possess?
“The “flourishing military cooperation between the United States, Japan and South Korea,” Klingner makes it clear, is not flourishing enough. More needs to be done, he says, “to leverage the contributions of Indo-Pacific and European allies and partners to collectively counter growing military threats from Russia, China and the DPRK.”
In other words, the DPRK has become a problem for the US that requires attention to the same extent as Russia and China. Remarkable. But, Klingner writes optimistically, “Putin’s trip to meet Kim still reflects a weakening of Russia.”
How do they do that? It turns out that Russia, out of weakness (and almost out of fear), has created a situation that has become a “big problem” for Washington and that the U.S. alone cannot cope with. This is interesting logic on the part of American analysts. Maybe Washington has also become so weakened that it is forced to pit Ukraine against Russia?
As we can see, the United States has made so many enemies around the world that even within the framework of NATO it is impossible to cope with them. Russia has no reason not to help some of those whom Washington considers enemies. And to help in such a way that the damage to America would be maximised.
Well, what did the United States want? The principle of “an eye for an eye” works much better in international politics than “turn the other cheek”.
Elena Panina
