Statecraft’s Post

Senior envoy sees Putin’s statement as signal of Russia’s readiness for military responses Sergey Ryabkov stressed that Russia has its underlying security interests "that will be ensured by every means that we have at our disposal" MOSCOW, November 25/ The recent televised address by President Vladimir Putin following the use of Russia’s latest Oreshnik missile sent a signal to the West that Moscow can find military answers to new challenges, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in a comment for Izvestia. "That primarily was a signal that we are determined to respond to provocations and escalatory steps by the Western sponsors of the Kiev regime in such a way that they understand how serious the moment is and that we can find military responses to the latest challenges," the senior Russian diplomat said, commenting on Putin’s statement. In this context, Ryabkov stressed, Russia has its underlying security interests "that will be ensured by every means that we have at our disposal.". In his televised address to the nation on November 21, Putin said that the United States and its NATO allies had authorized the use of long-range high-precision weapons before US and British missiles attacked Russian military facilities in the bordering regions of Kursk and Bryansk. According to him, Russia responded to these attacks by launching its latest Oreshnik hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile with a non-nuclear payload at a Ukrainian defense plant, Yuzhmash, in Dnepropetrovsk. The West’s provocative policy course can lead to major consequences in the event of further escalation, the Russian leader warned. #business #finance #financialservices

The G7 Foreign Ministers, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the High Representative of the European Union, have expressed grave concerns regarding the deployment of Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) troops to Russia, potentially for use on the battlefield against Ukraine. The deployment of DPRK troops would mark a dangerous expansion of the conflict, with serious consequences for European and Indo-Pacific peace and security. The G7 condemns the increasing military cooperation between DPRK and Russia, including the export and unlawful procurement of DPRK ballistic missiles, breaching multiple UN Security Council resolutions. They also express concern about the potential transfer of nuclear or ballistic missile-related technology from Russia to DPRK in violation of relevant UNSCRs. The G7 urges the DPRK to stop providing assistance to Russia's war of aggression and reaffirms their commitment to support Ukraine as it defends its freedom, sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. They are working with international partners for a coordinated response to this new development.

Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun asserted that sending a South Korean observer team to Ukraine is essential for military insight and would be a dereliction of duty if not executed. He noted historical precedents for South Korea's involvement in monitoring roles during conflicts and highlighted the relevance of understanding modern warfare, particularly in light of North Korean troop movements toward Russia. Kim clarified that South Korea is not considering sending troops to Ukraine but emphasized the importance of military preparedness through monitoring and analysis teams for potential future emergencies. He also addressed North Korea's recent provocations, warning that the launches of balloons into South Korea could breach the 1950-53 armistice agreement and indicated that measures are being developed in response. Highlighting concerns about North Korea potentially seeking advanced military technology from Russia, Kim indicated that such developments could enhance North Korea's tactical nuclear capabilities and missile technologies. He reassured that South Korea is prepared to address any threats from the North, regardless of external technological support. Additionally, he outlined plans for phased assistance to Ukraine, dependent on the conflict's development and international cooperation, while underscoring ongoing information-sharing efforts with NATO and Ukraine. #AsiaRisk #GeopoliticalConflictandDisputes #SouthKorea Get a full accounting of the security situation in Asia by subscribing to Security Asia. Subscribe now--free of charge--at https://lnkd.in/g7Cs8Gkf https://lnkd.in/gh3zDKEd

North Korea condemns joint military drills by US, Japan, and South Korea, calling them an "Asian version of NATO" and warns of "fatal consequences." The drills were conducted as a sign of unity in response to North Korea's nuclear threats and China's regional influence. Pyongyang denounces the exercises as provocative and vows to oppose efforts to strengthen the military bloc led by the US. The joint drills involved an aircraft carrier, a guided-missile destroyer, and a fighter jet. North Korea has always viewed such exercises as preparations for invasion. Relations between the two Koreas have been strained, with recent tit-for-tat balloon campaigns and growing concerns over North Korea's ties with Russia. North Korea is accused of arming Russia for its conflict in Ukraine, and a summit between Russian President Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has sparked further apprehension. #AsiaRisk #GeopoliticalConflictandDisputes #India Follow us for daily updates on risk and operations in Asia! https://lnkd.in/g_6sy3_j

The defense chiefs of South Korea and the United States, Shin Won-sik and Lloyd Austin, urged North Korea to stop its ongoing campaign of launching trash-carrying balloons into South Korea. This call was made during their meeting in Tokyo, where they also discussed enhancing deterrence capabilities against North Korean threats. Shin described the balloon launches as a violation of South Korea's sovereignty and the Armistice Agreement. Since late May, North Korea has released thousands of balloons in response to anti-Pyongyang leaflets from South Korean defector groups. The defense chiefs condemned illegal arms trade and military technology transfers between North Korea and Russia, viewing them as violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions. They highlighted the recent signing of "Guidelines for Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Operations on the Korean Peninsula" to strengthen extended deterrence cooperation. In addition, the meeting took place alongside a trilateral ministerial meeting, where a Memorandum of Cooperation on Trilateral Security Cooperation was signed among South Korea, the U.S., and Japan. #AsiaRisk #NorthKorea #SouthKorea Follow us for daily updates on risk and operations in Asia! https://lnkd.in/g4cTwDNZ

Me and Colin Rubenstein – an Australian “traitor”? I first came across Colin Rubenstein of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) in March 2001 – twenty three years ago – when I was involved in a debate with him about the proposed USA National Missile Defence (NMD) system at an event organized by the Australian Institute of International Affairs (Sydney branch). Unfortunately, the paper that I prepared is no longer on the Institute’s internet site. However, it is still on my own site: https://lnkd.in/gSFUaZnJ It seemed strange to me that Rubenstein would have such strong views on US National Missile Defence (NMD) and push them in Australian media – particularly as he clearly knew little about Russia. His 16 January 2001, article in the Australian Financial Review (AFR), “Exploding Missile Myths” is here: https://lnkd.in/gPqm68jn It was clear that Israel would benefit from missile defence systems, with the ever-aggressive US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, saying that the US was prepared to assist friends and allies threatened by missile attacks to deploy such defences. But, I argued in the debate that Australia would not benefit the NMD because of the great danger of an anti-missile arms race involving the US, Russia and eventually China Rubenstein had tried to counter this in his AFR article writing that “Russia is reportedly prepared to co-operate with the US in developing boost-phase and tactical systems which would not directly affect Russia’s nuclear deterrent”. I first went to Russia in 1991 and by the time of our 2001 debate had spent quite a bit of time there and met many Russians in various walks of life — and I had read a few history books! What Rubenstein was saying was wishful thinking about Russia almost on a par with those people arguing that NATO expansion could not be seen by Russians as aggressively aimed at them. Come 2024 and we now have a situation where general Russian security fears – some might even call it paranoia — which I covered extensively in my paper for the 2001 Institute debate, have led to the invasion of Ukraine. Overall, it seemed to me that Rubenstein was more interested in providing security benefits to Israel than Australia.

MY ANALYSIS of why the #RANDCorporation's latest study is wrong in concluding that America can beat #China in a hypothetical war over #Taiwan by using the denial option. The study assumes that China will make an amphibious assault and the US will destroy the PLA's sea and airlift assets. RAND assumes that the US will only need to deny China local air and sea control for the invasion to succeed. Instead, China will probably launch a massive, crippling cyberattack on US and Taiwanese military and civilian infrastructure before striking them with missiles and also destroy US carriers and bases to prevent an American denial. Subsequently, it will launch an amphibious invasion. #PLA #Taiwanwar #ChinaTaiwanwar #Chinese

29 Nov 06:25: UKRAINE BUSINESS NEWS 🇺🇦📈: Highlighted Single 29 Nov Article: ‘DEFENSE: The European Parliament 🇪🇺 calls for Ukraine 🇺🇦 to be provided with Taurus 🇩🇪 missiles and additional Patriot systems 🇺🇸 amid the war's new phase: Me: About ******* time: The European Parliament 🇪🇺 has adopted a resolution on strengthening the EU's unwavering (Me: ‘What a ******* joke - weak as dish-water is the proven verdict, I suggest’) support for Ukraine's 🇺🇦 (Me: ‘ … lonely and near abandoned … ‘) struggle against Russia's 👺 (Me: ‘ … increasingly escalated and … ‘) aggressive war, in which it strongly criticises the deployment of North Korean troops in support of Russia's military operations in Ukraine. (Me: ‘ … you naughty naught boy, Putin - a hopelessly inadequate EU response! … ‘) The resolution also calls on Russia to cease all forms of military and technological cooperation with the DPRK and to comply with its obligations under nuclear weapon non-proliferation treaties . (Me: ‘ … well THAT’S sure to work. Putin must quaking in his boots!’) . MEPs ask the EU and its member states to strengthen their military support for Ukraine by providing aircraft, long-range missiles, Taurus missiles, modern air defense systems, Patriot and SAMP/T missile systems, and ammunition. Me: ‘About ******* time’. The European Parliament further calls on all member states to lift their restrictions on the use of weapons to destroy military facilities in Russia. Me: ‘About ****** time’ The European Parliament calls for further strengthening the sanctions against Russia, Belarus, Iran, and the DPRK. Me: ‘About ****** time’. MEPs also demand that China stop providing aid to Russia, as this could further affect bilateral relations between Beijing and Brussels. Me: ‘That’ll work (irony). Useless. Pathetic. Dangerously weak. No change there’:

White House spokesman John Kirby was just asked if NATO's plans to deploy more nukes are a "provocation." His response: It can't be a “provocation” because NATO is a “defensive” alliance. Suuure, it’s a defensive alliance, except for all the times it wasn’t. Except for the times it fought illegal, aggressive wars in Serbia, Libya, Afghanistan, and so many others. Therefore, is it really that difficult to understand that this isn't a defensive alliance? Is this why the U.S. military is pre-positioned and maintains nearly 750 bases in 80 countries around the world and has five aircraft carriers ready to lead wars if necessary. [1] Meanwhile, Biden has said it intends to break with a half-century of tradition and will develop nuclear weapons "without numerical constraints." [2] Sooo...I guess nobody will complain then if Russia or China deploys nukes in Cuba and Mexico as a "defensive action"? 😊 But today, it's “Russian propaganda” to claim the U.S. and NATO foreign policy bears any responsibility for the situation in Ukraine. This even though, over 25 years ago, more than 40 foreign policy experts, including Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Gary Hart, Paul Nitze, and Robert McNamara warned about this very expansion as both expensive and unnecessary given the lack of an external threat from Russia. They also believed “that NATO expansion would “decrease allied security and unsettle European stability” and was a “policy error of historic proportions”. [3] Update: Added sources in comments

Zelensky shook up by Russia’s response to permission to attack it — Lavrov According to the Russian foreign minister, the West is directly involved in the use of long-range weapons against Russia, as not a single missile could be launched without its involvement BREST, November 22/ Vladimir Zelensky was shook up by Moscow's response to the West's permission to attack deep into Russian territory with long-range weapons and admonished his masters for putting him in such a position, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said. "As for the reaction to our response (the use of Russia's latest Oreshnik hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile - TASS), I understand that Zelensky got scared and started to directly blame his masters for leaving him defenseless against Russia’s decisive action," Lavrov said at a press conference following a regular joint meeting of the Russian and Belarusian foreign ministries’ boards. "This is probably a useful outcome," the top diplomat pointed out. "Because being closer to reality, feeling it firsthand, that’s helpful." According to Lavrov, the West is directly involved in the use of long-range weapons against Russia, as not a single missile could be launched without its involvement. "It’s difficult to speculate on the reasoning of those who claim they granted Zelensky permission to use these weapons. The truth is, they permitted themselves to act against Russia. This is clear to everyone," he said. "The Russian president has repeatedly said this. Not a single one of these missiles would have flown anywhere without their (the West’s - TASS) direct involvement." Russian President Vladimir Putin said on November 21 that the United States and its NATO allies had announced their approval of the use of long-range precision weapons. Following this announcement, Russian military sites in the Kursk and Bryansk regions were attacked with American and British missiles. In response, Russia used its newest intermediate-range ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, in a non-nuclear strike targeting Ukraine’s Yuzhmash defense plant in Dnepr (formerly known as Dnepropetrovsk). Putin emphasized that the West’s provocative policies could lead to severe consequences if the conflict continues to escalate. #business #finance #financialservices