NATO needs to codify its role in the Pacific

The Russian Federation and the Republic of North Korea's shenanigans over flaunting ballistic missile complicates NATO's strategy in Ukraine due to transnational threats.

Executive Summary: President Putin is employing a transnational strategy to further his aims in Ukraine. Between the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea and the People's Republic of China, Russia leverages its U.N. Security Council vote to bite back at the U.S. and Europe. Once NATO Allies cooled talk to send troops to the Republic of Ukraine, the Russian Federation flashed INDOPACIFIC leverage through international political mechanisms. This places NATO's purpose of European deterrence and defense in an odd position to pivot momentarily for multi-regional defense.

The impact of North Korea on the European Theatre

On April 2nd, North Korea announced successful launch of a new intermediate range ballistic missile with hypersonic gliding flight warhead. Additionally, Kim Jong Un claimed North Korea "acquired the ability to build solid fuel, nuclear capable missiles of all ranges." No April Fool's Day here.  A claim to which South Korea contested the North Korean capability as overexaggerated.

Kim Jong Un's announcement comes on the heels of Russia using its chair and veto power to block a vote, represented by U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, at the U.N. Security Council. The measure set to renew the U.N. panel of experts who maintain overwatch of North Korea's military-related activities. In total, one member abstained while thirteen nations voted in favor.

The U.N. panel's checks on North Korea's missile and nuclear program ties directly to Ukraine. Reported in February of 2024, North Korea supplies ballistic missiles to Russia for its war in Ukraine. Given Kim Jong Un's nuclear fast talk over the past 6 months, it is no wonder the U.N. Security Council voted overwhelming yes.

This latest move on Russia's part unarguably shows President Putin's transnational and international political strategy. It seems President Putin recognizes the value of Russia's permanent chair at the U.N. Security Council. Russia's relationships with permanent and non-permanent members are leverage, too.

President Putin posits that the U.S. and the West are plotting to destabilize Russia. In President Putin's speech after the Crokus City Hall attack, he did not state specifically the West, the U.S. nor Ukraine perpetrated the attacks. President Putin held ISIS directly responsible.

President Putin placed ambiguous accountablity on the West. In his words, Ukraine and its territory inexplicably facilitated the attack. This nuance signals that President Putin is crafting a perception of Western conspiracy to influence U.N. nations to this end.

The Russian Federation has most sway, chiefly in the Power of Siberia, in its relationship with the People’s Republic of China. As a permanent member China abstained from the vote. It is possible China’s decision related to its own relationship with North Korea. President Putin's relationships with the two-year non-permanent tenures of Algeria, Guyana, and Educator are not insignificant factors in the short-term.  

The Republic of Ecuador voted in favor, but Ecuador had an arms deal with Russia in 2023 that the U.S. successfully blocked. The Cooperative Republic of Guyana, who voted in favor, was nearly invaded in late 2023 by Russia's ally in communism the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In 2023, President Putin underscored its relationship with the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria by stating, "...Algeria is a key partner for us in the Arab world and in Africa". The Russian Federation will continue to find leverage points in its relationships on the security council to aid its war efforts in Ukraine.

In a previous post, I detailed informational content depicting an extremely positive image of Kim Jong Un that targeted Russian speakers. In terms of messaging, Russia and North Korea seem to be in cohots. It is clear President Putin and Kim Jong Un align on certain aspects of defense capabilities and weapons trade. The unnerving uncertaintity is the extent to which these two nations will go to support each other's regional goals.

NATO's lessons learned from Afghanistan permeates the rationale of some NATO member nations. The counterterrorism mission and cultural dynamics in Afghanistan are fundamentally different than Ukraine. However, there is a lingering trepidation from the sense of perceived mission failures, public anger over maimed soldiers, or those killed from green on blue attacks. The perception of NATO nations entering nuclear war or a new, long war akin to Afghanistan in Ukraine divides people.

Like Afghanistan, a tête-à-tête between NATO and Russia will not be a swiftly won campaign in its totality. After President Putin's nuclear holocaust reaction, NATO distinctly clarified no boots on the ground language. In March 2024, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen reassured military aid to Ukraine without eliminating nor discussing the possibility of sending soldiers. While NATO is steadfast on its commitment to militarily aiding Ukraine, NATO treads lightly on escalation for yet another reason.

The Pacific is swarming with hotspots for escalation. In March 2024, USINDOPACOM Commander Admiral Aquilino stated publicly, "The security environment is the most dangerous I've seen in 40 years in uniform". The U.S., U.K., and Australia are working with Japan on the trilateral Aukus security pact for technology agreements. On April 11th President Biden, alongside Japanese Prime Minister Kishida, reaffirmed the U.S.’s investment in its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines to President Macros.

South Korea and Japan worry that North Korea will one day hit a target aimed at their countries. North Korea demonstrating a willingness to supply Russia and test launch these missiles, in addition to advancing its program, sends shivers across the Pacific. If there was a nudge by the Russian Federation, tied to an upset over Ukraine, for North Korea to aim with purpose, it could stir the entire Pacific region into active war. So, NATO responds to Russia’s nuclear dance with a political ballet.

Indicatively, the individual NATO Allies address issues in the Pacific separately from NATO to account for Russia's transnational strategy. Nevertheless, it is still valuable for NATO to codify the transnational implications on European defense of the INDOPACIFIC region given the Russian Federation's relationship with North Korea therein.

~E

©2024