War on the Rocks’ Post

G7 leaders have condemned North Korea's exports of ballistic missiles to Russia, citing a direct violation of relevant UNSCRs. The leaders also expressed concern about the transfer of dual-use materials and components for weapons and equipment from businesses in China to Russia. They also welcomed the expansion of the Multi-agency Donor Coordination Plat for Ukraine to include South Korea, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the G7 leaders reiterated their steadfast support for Ukraine as it enters the third year of the war. #AsiaRisk #GeopoliticalConflictandDisputes #SouthKorea Follow us for daily updates on risk and operations in Asia! https://lnkd.in/gMqFd728

A State Department official called on all countries to honor U.N. Security Council resolutions against North Korea's weapons of mass destruction programs amid reports of Russian President Putin's possible visit to Pyongyang. Putin's visit, if realized, would be the first in 24 years. The U.S. is concerned about deepening military ties between Pyongyang and Moscow, with Washington revealing North Korea's shipments of munitions to Russia and seeking assistance in return. U.S. officials voiced concerns over this collaboration and reiterated the goal of complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. #AsiaRisk #GeopoliticalConflictandDisputes #SouthKorea Follow us for daily updates on risk and operations in Asia! https://lnkd.in/gmcA6YdA

Neither Russia nor any other state has the right to view its sovereign territory as inviolable in a war of aggression that it has initiated. Establishing the principle that nuclear-armed states can earn such inviolability through threats of escalation encourages other such potential predators to imagine that they, too, can attack with impunity and demand sanctuary in their own territory. US restrictions on Ukraine's use of US-provided weapons were one thing when the question was of a possible long-range strike into the deep Russian rear. Preventing Ukraine from using all of the resources at its disposal against a renewed cross-border invasion makes no sense.

Excellent report Jean Mackenzie, It's not just in numbers, finding US computer chips in NK missiles, but also the pure speed of #NorthKorea's missile production. "It was bursting with the latest foreign #technology. Most of the electronic parts had been manufactured in the #US and #Europe over the past few years. There was even a US computer chip made as recently as March 2023. This meant that North Korea had illicitly procured vital #weapons components, snuck them into the country, assembled the missile, and shipped it to #Russia in secret, where it had then been transported to the frontline and fired - all in a matter of months." "But the missile fired on 2 January, that Ms Kimachuk took apart, was seemingly Pyongyang's most sophisticated short-range missile - the Hwasong 11 - capable of travelling up to 700km (435 miles)." "This then raises the question of how many of these missiles the North Koreans can produce. The South Korean government recently observed North Korea has sent 6,700 containers of munitions to Russia, it says that Pyongyang's weapons factories were operating at full-tilt, and Dr Lewis, who has been studying these factories through satellites, reckons they can churn out a few hundred a year." "Since the 1980s North Korea has sold its weapons abroad, largely to countries in the North Africa and the #MiddleEast, including #Libya, #Syria and #Iran. They have tended to be old, Soviet-style missiles with a poor reputation. There is evidence that #Hamas fighters likely used some of #Pyongyang's old rocket-propelled grenades in their attack last 7 October." #NATO #UkraineWar #Korea #internationalrelations

The US is concerned that Russia may be sharing information with China about American and European weapons used in the Ukraine war. A bipartisan US congressional committee has requested the Biden administration to assess this issue and determine the extent to which Russia has shared information with China. The committee believes that Russia has found vulnerabilities in American weapons, undermining their effectiveness. China and Russia have strengthened ties in response to the conflict in Ukraine, with both countries aiming to reduce the influence of the US and the West internationally. Additionally, Chinese and Russian companies are reportedly developing an attack drone similar to an Iranian model used in Ukraine, raising concerns about China's support for Russia. #AsiaRisk #GeopoliticalConflictandDisputes #India Follow us for daily updates on risk and operations in Asia! https://lnkd.in/gvKKQqYS

The United States condemns North Korea's recent ballistic missile launches as a violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions. The State Department spokesperson stated that these provocative activities will be discussed during Secretary of State Antony Blinken's upcoming trip to Shanghai and Beijing. The launches come after North Korea conducted a power test for a cruise missile and fired a new anti-aircraft missile. The U.S. will address North Korea-related issues during high-level meetings with China, urging them to rein in Pyongyang's actions and promote dialogue. #AsiaRisk #GeopoliticalConflictandDisputes #SouthKorea Follow us for daily updates on risk and operations in Asia! https://lnkd.in/gpM9v9Cs

International Norms and Precedents: The conflict in Ukraine and the involvement of various nations raises questions about international norms and precedents. The use of long-range missiles and other advanced weaponry may set a precedent for future conflicts, potentially destabilizing regional security and global relations. Additionally, the international community's response to Russia's actions in Ukraine may influence how other nations address similar situations in the future. This consideration highlights the importance of diplomatic efforts and international cooperation in establishing clear norms and guidelines for military intervention and conflict resolution. It also underscores the need for a comprehensive and inclusive approach to addressing the crisis in Ukraine, one that takes into account the complex geopolitical dynamics at play.

Predicting the future is inherently uncertain, but based on current trends and dynamics, here are some possible developments in the next 60 days: 1. Continued Escalation: The conflict in Ukraine may continue to escalate, with both sides using advanced weaponry and tactics. The risk of miscalculation or unintended consequences remains high. 2. Diplomatic Efforts: International pressure may mount, leading to renewed diplomatic efforts to negotiate a ceasefire or political settlement. However, the success of these efforts is uncertain. 3. Russian Leadership: Russia's political landscape may experience changes, potentially impacting the trajectory of the conflict. This could include shifts in leadership or policy adjustments. 4. Ukrainian Counteroffensive: Ukraine may launch a counteroffensive using newly acquired weaponry, aiming to reclaim occupied territories or disrupt Russian supply lines. 5. Global Economic Impacts: The conflict's economic repercussions may worsen, affecting global markets, trade, and energy security. 6. Humanitarian Crisis: The humanitarian situation in Ukraine and surrounding regions may deteriorate, with increased displacement, casualties, and human suffering. 7. International Involvement: Other nations or organizations may become more directly involved, either militarily or diplomatically, influencing the conflict's dynamics. 8. Military Stalemate: The conflict could reach a stalemate, with both sides dug in and unable to achieve decisive victories. 9. Political Shifts: Political developments in Ukraine, Russia, or other involved nations may alter the conflict's trajectory or create new opportunities for resolution. 10. Unpredictable Events: Unexpected events, such as accidents, miscalculations, or external interventions, can significantly impact the conflict's course. Keep in mind that these predictions are based on current information and are subject to change as the situation evolves.

"Escalating Risks, Shifting Balance: U.S. Provides Long-Range ATACMS Missiles to Ukraine" The developing situation with the U.S. providing long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine is a significant escalation that carries serious risks, but also understandable motivations from both sides. Here is my overall analysis: Risks and Escalation Potential: - Providing longer-range strike capabilities to Ukraine increases the likelihood of attacks deeper into Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine, potentially striking more strategically valuable Russian assets and forces. - This could provoke further retaliation from Russia, both through intensified attacks in Ukraine but also potentially expanding the conflict beyond Ukraine's borders if Russia feels existentially threatened. - The introduction of longer-range missiles risks a cyclical escalation, with both sides continually providing more powerful and longer-range weapons systems to match the other side. - Miscalculation or misinterpretation of intent by either side could rapidly deteriorate into a broader regional or even global conflict drawing in other powers. Motivations and Potential Benefits: - Ukraine has urgently requested these weapons to counter Russian artillery dominance and strike sources of attacks on Ukraine from a safer distance. - The longer range gives Ukraine's forces better ability to disrupt Russian logistics, command centers, and concentrate firepower while minimizing their own exposure. - The U.S. portrays this as a response to Russia using its own imported long-range missiles, attempting to maintain a rough parity of capabilities. - Improved striking ability for Ukraine could help shift the operational momentum and put more pressure on Russian forces to ultimately negotiate a settlement. Overall, while the escalation risks are substantial, the U.S. and Ukraine likely calculated that providing the ATACMS was a necessity to regain the military initiative and strengthen Ukraine's hand diplomatically. However, with both sides now possessing long-range strike capabilities, the conflict has certainly entered an even more dangerous phase where any miscalculation could rapidly ignite a wider conflagration. Vigorous diplomacy and clear communication of limits must accompany the military aid to prioritize an off-ramp rather than further escalation spirals. Reference Read "Ukraine uses long-range missiles secretly provided by US to hit Russian-held areas, officials say" on SmartNews: https://lnkd.in/g695-_Mc

Here is my updated analysis taking into account the additional risks and warnings from Russia regarding the provision of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine by the US: Strategic Context: - Russia has strongly warned against the US providing longer-range missiles to Ukraine, calling it a "red line" that will prompt "unhesitant reactions." - This delivery dramatically expands Ukraine's ability to strike valued Russian military assets and logistics nodes in occupied areas of Ukraine and Crimea. - For the US and Ukraine, these missiles help counter Russia's artillery advantage and disrupt its operations from safer distances. Escalation Risks: - Russia may view the missiles as an existential threat requiring major retaliation, increasing the risk of a broader regional war. - There is now a higher potential for strikes on Russian territory, either intentionally or due to missiles missing intended targets in occupied Ukraine. - Russia could respond with expanded air/missile campaigns against Ukrainian cities or deploy more powerful weapons systems itself. - With both sides possessing long-range strike capabilities, the threshold for explosive escalation in response to perceived attacks is lowered. Nuclear Risks: - While neither side wants nuclear war, the increased conventional conflict intensity raises the risk of miscalculation or desperation nuclear escalation. - If Russia perceives an existential threat to its forces in Ukraine, it could consider limited nuclear weapon use as a deterrent or battlefield equalizer. - Even low odds of nuclear use are catastrophically high stakes, requiring utmost restraint and clear communication by both sides. Diplomatic Implications: - This escalation reduces momentum for near-term diplomatic solutions as both sides now have renewed offensive military capabilities. - However, it could also increase pressure on Russia to eventually negotiate if Ukraine's strikes prove effective enough. - Crucial that guardrails against further escalation are clearly defined and enforced, with potential offramps identified. Overall, while providing Ukraine greater offensive punch is understandable, Russia's fierce warnings mean the escalatory dangers and instability have sharply increased. Restraint, diplomacy and defined "redlines" are essential to prevent this wider risk of regional war or worst-case nuclear weapon use from being realized. Vigorous crisis management is required alongside the military aid. I've aimed to incorporate clear acknowledgment of the major additional risks Russia has amplified, including threats of "unhesitant reactions," potential strikes on Russia itself, higher chances of uncontrolled escalation drawing in more powers, and the admittedly low but consecuentially severe risks of potential nuclear weapon use that both sides must work to avoid at all costs.