North Korea-Russia ratifies 'military treaty'...What is North Korea's position on Trump's election?

■ Host: Kim Sun-young Anchor
■ Starring: Lee Ho-ryeong, Director of the Security Strategy Center of the Korea Institute for Defense Development

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN 24] when quoting.

[Anchor]
It is a Korean Peninsula review time to analyze North Korean issues and diplomatic security news on the Korean Peninsula in depth. Today, Dr. Lee Ho-ryeong, the head of the Security Strategy Center of the National Defense Research Institute, came out. Welcome. North Korea and Russia have ratified the Strategic Partnership Agreement. Since both sides have signed, in a way, they can be put forward as the basis for dispatch of troops, can they be seen like this?


I don't think it was a problem to send troops and not to ratify it. Since the actual dispatch of troops becomes an international issue, it can be said that there was a great effort to speed up the issue of ratification and give legitimacy accordingly. So, Putin signed it on the 9th, Kim Jong-un signed it on the 11th, and on the 12th, he went through such a procedure to inform the North Korean people of the Rodong Sinmun. As you all already know, there are almost 10,000 to 11,000 North Korean soldiers in the Kursk region, right? Even if it was ratified under such circumstances, North Korea's dispatch to the Kursk region is a violation of the UN Security Council's resolution on sanctions against North Korea.

[Anchor]
As you said, the process of sending troops seems to be progressing very quickly, but after the North Korean military dispatched troops to Russia this time, in which areas and what strategies do you think they are being used?


Now, as you would expect in the Kursk region, the Kursk region was attacked by Ukraine last August, and now the Russian land is taken away. That's the Kursk region, and after Trump is elected now, the new government sends a strong message that it will end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours as soon as the new administration begins, so what will the end of the war be based on? Then, there is a high possibility that the current war will focus on occupying each other's land. Then, from President Putin's point of view, he will be the leader who has been in power for a long time and has a strong Russia, but he will be the first leader to lose Russian land despite being in power for the longest time since Stalin. Therefore, it is highly likely that it will be an early end to the war, but the precondition for this early end is Putin's position to completely restore the Kursk region and then end the war, which is why the North Korean military in the Kursk region is evaluated as likely to go there and fight in the future.

[Anchor]
Is there something in mind that President-elect Trump vowed to finish this war in 24 hours because I nailed it anyway, and he said he would finish it so quickly?


Rather than having a plan, in a way, the biggest difference compared to the first Trump period is that two wars are going on right now and the second Trump administration begins under these two wars. In that sense, if the Trump administration is trying to achieve isolationism and neo-conservatism, the international system must be stabilized. When the United States calls for isolationism, the international system needs to be stabilized in order to maximize the interests of the United States through that isolationism. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, isolationism in the United States was possible because the international system and the international order were stable at the time, but now we're calling for isolationism and calling for protectionism, but the international situation is very unfavorable to the United States. That's why we're talking about an early end to the two wars.

[Anchor]
Since the presidential election, he has emphasized that Putin is my friend. Is there a possibility that there will be a communion between Putin and Trump over a solution? What do you think?


In a way, politicians are in strategic communication with each other. In practice, as I said earlier, a number of variables are working much more now to end the war. [Anchor] Is that right for the interests of the two leaders?


It doesn't mean that it fits the interests of the two leaders. Because if the end of this war is recognized as a victory for Putin and the war ends, there's no way it's going to benefit the United States. In that case, the cooperation between countries like Europe and China and the conflict is much bigger, so even if we create an end to the war, one of the most important variables in that is how to deal with Putin's victory.

[Anchor]
Anyway, from our government's point of view, we have been thinking about a phased plan such as supplying defense weapons, but if President-elect Trump decides his position with such a quick end to the war, should we also change our plan? What do you think?


There are variables depending on how President-elect Trump comes into the government and really leads the war in Ukraine, but I think it's also very important for us to see how the war in Ukraine ultimately goes. No one knows what form the war in Ukraine will take, whether it's a ceasefire, an end, or a cessation of fighting. In such a situation, I think there will be our flexible step-by-step countermeasures depending on how this part develops in relation to the issue of the North Korean military's dispatch of troops.

[Anchor]
You said you need to look at the changes, but I don't know if it's because of the dispatch problem, but North Korea hasn't responded since the confirmation of the U.S. president-elect. Do you think this is strategic?


It's not strategic. This reaction is not unusual. In the first term, he didn't respond for more than 10 days, criticizing us and saying, "Who is the president-elect of the United States?" and the Biden administration didn't talk about it for two months at all, but said, "The new president of the United States became Biden after taking office."

[Anchor]
You didn't come in right away.


That's right. I think it's similar this time, too. In particular, if there is a position related to North Korea policy, who will be elected in the future accordingly, and the story will come out like this.

[Anchor]
I thought it would be a little different this time because we met in person, but I think it's a situation where they're not taking a position anyway. Anyway, what will be the diplomatic direction if the Trump cabinet is launched in earnest? Look at the secretary of state nominee, Senator Marco Rubio. Looking at the article, he was a person who made a lot of tough remarks.


Not only the Secretary of State but also the Secretary of Defense is now a Fox News anchor that no one expected, and the security adviser is a very hardliner on the public, and he is also a little tough on North Korea. Next, the DIA's intelligence director can also be seen as a hardliner on the public and North Korea. If you look at it now, most of the foreign and security camps are young people in their 40s and 50s, and in a way, relatively young people. Most of them are made up of people who have a strong attitude toward China, and Rubio has a very strong stance toward North Korea. So when it comes to future foreign and security policies, in the Indo-Pacific region, President Trump's strategic competition with China has, in a way, deployed those who take the lead in foreign and security policies.

[Anchor]
Candidate Marco Rubio even used the expression, "Looking at his past remarks, he's crazy about Chairman Kim Jong-un." If it is officially appointed, it may go hard on North Korea rather than Trump's first term, so there is such an analysis. Do you agree with that analysis?


In the case of current nominee Rubio, he is very tough on China as well as North Korea, which has been on the sanctions list twice. As I mentioned earlier, decoupling with China is the top priority, and then the war in Ukraine should drive all the situations toward the end of the war. Isn't North Korea's variable at stake there? In that respect, if you think about how to approach it again, if you think about us as allies, you need to end the war in Ukraine early in achieving peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula as soon as possible.

[Anchor]
Listening to the doctor's explanation, President Xi Jinping will also be worried as the intensity of adhesion between North Korea and Russia has been increasing recently and public hard-liners continue to be nominated in Trump's cabinet. What card is President Xi Jinping considering?


From China's point of view, the current situation is not easy. In a way, it would seem intimidating that China's absolute influence on North Korea is now substantially diminished by Russia.

[Anchor]
You haven't even announced your position on sending troops yet, have you?


I haven't released it yet. In the end, China secures its influence on the Asia-Pacific region, which competes strategically with the United States, and in the end, if Russia closely engages in such relations with North Korea, Russia can also use North Korea strategically to come out to the Asia-Pacific region. Perhaps for that reason, it can be said that China has been very active in emphasizing cooperation with Korea and peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula.

[Anchor]
Anyway, North Korea has repeatedly used strategies to attract U.S. attention while provoking every U.S. regime change, what do you think this time? People kept saying that the preparation for the nuclear test was all over.


Looking at it now, North Korea has become a key growth engine that continues the Kim Jong-un regime over time, and has continued to upgrade it almost identically with its own system, but now it seems to have reached a limit. It seems that we're leaning towards Russia to break through those limits, but the problem is that we're in a situation where we're putting all our national resources into all our capabilities because we're in that security dilemma. In other words, I thought that having nuclear weapons would have a relative advantage over the ROK-US Combined Forces and over South Korea, but not at all despite having nuclear weapons. Then, even if the test-fire of the 22nd, 23rd, and this year's Hwasong-19 type is carried out, there is no response at all. In addition, in terms of modernization related to conventional power, and in terms of self-destructive attack drones, we are also investing heavily in the modernization of conventional power generation. In the end, just as sending young North Koreans to the battlefield through the dispatch of troops, North Korea is so obsessed with upgrading its nuclear and missile capabilities that all resources of the country are put into the top national defense policy.

[Anchor]
We're at the stage of claiming that we've completed nuclear weapons. Finally, doctor, let me ask you this. Anyway, it is not known whether Chairman Kim Jong-un is waiting for the resumption of U.S.-North Korea dialogue in the future, but unlike the first Trump period, the North Korea-U.S. dialogue was based on denuclearization. The atmosphere has changed now. Therefore, it will be difficult for President-elect Trump to actively engage in North Korea-US dialogue until then. How do you view that? [Lee Ho-ryeong] It can be said that the priority has been pushed to the back. With regard to North Korea's nuclear issue, China, Russia, and North Korea are all now moving further toward strengthening the U.S. with regard to the nuclear issue, and the U.S. is also working on modernizing its nuclear weapons, so we have no choice but to continue to take the issue of North Korea's complete denuclearization, which is at the center of the talks, but it is unlikely that North Korea will come to the dialogue table. In this situation, even if the second Trump administration begins, it seems that it is much more likely to go toward strengthening extended deterrence or strengthening sanctions rather than dialogue.

[Anchor]
Looking at Trump's 2nd term so far, I thought that North Korea would be a very tough opponent. This has been Dr. Lee Ho-ryeong. Thank you.