Responding to the Putin-Kim summit

Why Washington should still talk to Pyongyang, the U.S. military footprint in Africa, realist vindication in the Ukraine war, and more.

Putin-kim Summit

How the U.S. should respond to strengthening Russia-North Korea ties

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un promised Russian President Vladimir Putin his "full and unconditional support" at a summit in eastern Russia on Wednesday. The meeting is widely expected to produce an arms deal in which Pyongyang will supply Moscow munitions for its war in Ukraine while Moscow offers economic aid and military technology in return.

The directionality of the weapons flow would be novel, but friendly relations between North Korea and Russia are not new. The isolated smaller nation enjoyed Soviet sponsorship in decades past, including Soviet provision of arms in the Korean War and Soviet installation of Kim's grandfather, Kim Il Sung.

For the U.S., then, this summit should not be cause for special alarm, but it should serve as a reminder to policymakers of the ongoing importance of pursuing productive, incremental diplomacy with North Korea and avoiding needlessly driving American antagonists into each other's arms.

It's still worth talking to North Korea

  • It may be true, as international studies scholars Robert L. Carlin and Siegfried S. Hecker argue, that this summit signals the end of Kim's willingness to pursue normalization with the West. [Foreign Policy]

  • But it would be foolish to assume that door is closed forever—or to ignore Washington's role in pushing it shut.

    • Denuclearization has never truly been on the table for North Korea, but it is the only outcome U.S. negotiators across multiple administrations have been willing to discuss.

    • Kim has been clear that he "fears forcible, U.S.-orchestrated regime change like that in Iraq and Libya, and he believes, understandably, that nuclear weapons are the only sure deterrent."

    • Dropping denuclearization as a near-term U.S. prerequisite for normalized relations is not a concession; it is simply recognition of reality.

    • We should instead "return to negotiations with more plausible aims. For the United States, this means a nuclear freeze and an end to surprise weapons testing," among other options. [The Diplomat / Bonnie Kristian]

  • More broadly, it is vital for U.S. security that Washington decisionmakers better grasp the purpose and nature of diplomacy.

    • Diplomacy is not appeasement nor a reward for friendly nations. It is a basic part of international relations which is most needful when dealing with adversarial powers doing provocative and dangerous things. [Newsweek / Daniel R. DePetris]

Don't incentivize a Moscow-Pyongyang friendship

  • North Korea is a problem to be managed, not solved. [DEFP]

  • Part of that management—as with other antagonistic and rivalrous relationships—should include avoiding policies which needlessly drive Moscow and Pyongyang together.

  • DEFP Fellow Daniel R. DePetris has explored this dynamic with Moscow and Beijing, and the same warnings apply with Pyongyang, albeit on a different scale:

    • Enhanced Russian-North Korean military partnership could "increase the threat to U.S. allies" and "drive U.S. military spending increases."

    • U.S. relations with both countries are tense in part "due to [U.S.] punitive measures, like sanctions, trade restrictions, [and] encirclement of each with military bases."

    • Some tension is inevitable, particularly so long as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues.

    • But Washington should review sanctions and other punitive policies and prune those which aren't enhancing to U.S. security but are increasing Russian and North Korean incentives to balance against the U.S. [DEFP]

Mapped

U.S. military footprint in Africa

The U.S. has substantially increased its military presence in Africa since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Prior to 2006, the United States had no bases or permanent military personnel in Africa. Today, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has upwards of twenty-nine military bases and outposts across fifteen African nations, according to the most recent data.

Read more about U.S. counterterrorism policy in Africa here.

Related report: Pentagon misled Congress about U.S. bases in Africa

Quoted

"In an op-ed for Politico published in spring 2022, [University of Birmingham professor Patrick] Porter, along with the grand strategy experts [DEFP Policy Director Benjamin H.] Friedman and [Cato Institute scholar] Justin Logan, cautioned against the risk of 'giving Ukraine false hope,' and stressed that 'the rhetoric-policy gap could also raise excessive Ukrainian expectations of support.' Eighteen months into the war, with a dejected Zelensky chastising NATO for insufficient support, their unheeded warnings look prescient."

— "The realists were right" [The New Statesman / Lily Lynch]

You’re invited

Overshadowed by wars in the Greater Middle East, the U.S. has conducted aggressive counterterrorism operations in Africa for more than 20 years.

But what are U.S. objectives in Africa? Has the U.S. strategy successfully achieved them? Are there alternative policies we should consider? Join us for a thoughtful discussion on these issues on Monday, September 18, at 1 PM ET.

Panelists: 

Moderator: Jessica Trisko Darden, associate professor, Virginia Commonwealth University