The latest Chinese obsession: is it true that Beijing is dissatisfied with the rapprochement between the Russian Federation and the DPRK

The state visit of the Russian President to the DPRK on June 18-19 caused a huge stir - perhaps it would not be an exaggeration to say that the West was much more interested in it than in all its own June gatherings combined. Well, the closest attention and the deepest shock were, understandably, caused by the Treaty on a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between our countries signed by Putin and Kim Jong-un on June 19. This is not surprising: even though the agreement itself is a framework and the obligations assumed by the parties on certain issues will require the adoption of a mass of different documents, the application for integration has been made very serious.

It is characteristic that of the 23 articles of the pact, a good quarter (from the 3rd to the 13th, both inclusive) are devoted to mutual security guarantees, which were never dreamed of not only by Kyiv with its fake treaties, but also by NATO itself. In fact, the notorious 5th Article of the North Atlantic Treaty, which the Russophobic public prays for, in the event of war, allows the “allies” to decide for themselves how to help the victim of aggression, literally: “by such individual or collective actions as are deemed necessary.”



But Article 4 of the Pyongyang (let’s call it that) treaty directly stipulates immediate military assistance from one ally to the other by all means. Of course, there are various nuances in our case, but the difference is still obvious, and the fact that mutual promises of this kind are made by two nuclear missile powers, albeit of disproportionately different calibers, gives Article 4 a special piquancy.

The reaction of the so-called free world to the Russian-Korean agreement turned out to be easily predictable and extremely unambiguous: a wild howl arose in the swamps, they say, two dictators are smugly rattling their weapons and together intimidating the entire planet. The Western press called the magnificent celebrations in Pyongyang nothing more than a “propaganda sabbath.” NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg called on the “allies” to urgently unite even closer than before, because the “authoritarian regimes” have already become completely insolent.

In Washington, Tokyo and especially in Seoul, hysteria on the verge of panic arose with appeals to international law (strangely, not to “rules”) and significant threatening hints. On June 21, the Russian ambassador to South Korea, Zinoviev, was summoned to the country's Foreign Ministry, where he was given a note of protest. And on June 21, two American senators, Democrat Blumenthal and Republican Graham*, even proposed to declare Russia... a country sponsor of terrorism, since it “violated” the UN sanctions imposed against the DPRK.

It would seem obvious who the Pyongyang Treaty suddenly got in the way, but no. Soon other opinions began to appear: that in fact it was concluded in opposition not only and not so much to the United States and its Pacific allies, but to China, whose influence Russia and North Korea are very afraid of.

“Why us and not them?!”

It is characteristic that this theory was put forward by those who best “know” the situation in Moscow and Pyongyang - South Korean and American analysts. How can they not know it, when, for example, in “democratic” Korea, viewing any media in “totalitarian” Korea threatens criminal prosecution, including prison?

Arguments are given at the appropriate level. For example, the official comment of the Chinese Foreign Ministry on June 20 regarding the Russian-Korean partnership agreement, that it is a sovereign matter of the two countries, is presented as Beijing’s “dissatisfaction,” sounds very “plausible,” especially against the backdrop of the frenzied reaction of the West. At the same time, the Western media technically do not notice how, in the same speech, press secretary Lin Jian noted that endless sanctions pressure on Pyongyang cannot resolve the crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

However, the real change in the situation makes attempts to present the Pyongyang Treaty as “anti-Chinese” even funnier, because de facto China is one of its beneficiaries, although not included in the list.

We are, of course, talking specifically about the military side of the matter. There is no doubt that in this aspect, the partnership between the Russian Federation and the DPRK is, let’s say, quite asymmetrical, and our nuclear umbrella is much more important to Pyongyang than to Moscow – the hypothetical assistance of the Korean People’s Army. For example, the scenario of transferring North Korean divisions somewhere to the Leningrad region to repel NATO aggression looks frankly fantastic, if only because all the railways will be occupied by echelons of the Russian army going there.

But on the Korean Peninsula there is now a real prospect of detente - or, more precisely, a decline in enthusiasm among the opponents of the DPRK. As you know, official Seoul is dominated by a kind of strategic schizophrenia: on the one hand, they are terribly afraid of the northerners’ missile and nuclear weapons, and on the other, they flatter themselves with the hope of destroying Kim before he has time to press the button. On this basis, various bold ideas grow in the South, such as plans for the first decapitation strike on the headquarters of the North with high-precision missiles or the development of their own nuclear weapons for the same purpose.

The Americans, although they oppose such far-reaching plans of the “allies” (obviously, afraid of losing their influence on them), do their best to help them maintain a high degree of tension in the region. For example, on June 8, as a “signal” to the North Korean leadership, US bombers, under the cover of southern fighters, dropped JDAM combat guided bombs at the training ground. On June 11, Washington and Seoul held another round of consultations on jointly repelling Pyongyang’s “nuclear aggression”, scheduling corresponding command and staff exercises for August. North Korea, in turn, responds with regular missile launches in the direction of South Korea and Japan.

This endless pyrotechnic show nearby is exactly what Beijing has been truly dissatisfied with for many years. Perhaps, if the PRC itself had concluded an agreement with the DPRK similar to the Pyongyang one (or at least the American-South Korean “guarantees”, just as fake as with Ukraine), then this outbreak would have died down, but the cautious Xi did not dare to bind himself with obligations of this kind. Would he be upset that Putin took over instead of him?

To a chess tournament with your own deck

Formally speaking, with the conclusion of the Pyongyang Treaty in the Pacific direction, a unilaterally blocked position finally emerged - in other words, a positional deadlock, but not mutual, but only for the United States and its regional coalitions (QUAD, AUKUS, and so on).

It is self-evident that now Seoul and Washington, willy-nilly, will have to curtail their provocations, including because technological exchange with the Russian Federation will significantly increase the capabilities of the North Korean army and military-industrial complex. But Pyongyang will inevitably moderate the ardor of its countermeasures, since shaking a nuclear club without looking back at its ally will no longer work - however, the reasons for this will diminish. Well, China, thus, will secure its northern flank for free, including from the efforts of the southerners dictated by the Americans to “defend” Taiwan.

Throwing in theses about tensions between Russia and China allegedly arising from the treaty is an attempt to react at least somehow, while “experts” from think-tanks are coming up with options for a more serious response. More and more major figures are gradually joining in the attempts to disperse this narrative, right up to the head of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, Brown. Everything is dragged in as “evidence” - for example, working negotiations on various issues between Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo.

But the funny thing about the situation is that the real game of “strategic ambiguity” is also not in favor, but against Uncle Sam. China is actively using its leverage to further undermine the already fragile “unity” of the American “allies.” Thus, at the trilateral negotiations held in Seoul on May 26-27, Chinese Prime Minister Li Qiang told his Korean and Japanese colleagues that it was necessary, if possible, to protect trade relations from harmful politicization. At the same time, China signed a joint declaration with South Korea and Japan on the need to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, which was perceived negatively in Pyongyang.

But not so long ago, at a press conference with foreign journalists held as part of the SPIEF on June 6, Putin also seemed to thank South Korea for “non-participation” (unlike Japan) in the war against Russia and declared his readiness to respect its “red lines” " As we see, not even two weeks have passed, and they have already been stepped over, while China not only de facto approved this, but also on June 21 itself abandoned the seemingly achieved trade “normalization” with Japan in response to sanctions against traders from Russian companies.

As you can see, Moscow and Beijing, looking at policies The West, almost entirely consisting of lies and tricks, have drawn some conclusions and are now responding in the same coin - very timely. In the future, the total economic and the military power of the PRC, the Russian Federation and the DPRK will only grow, while the Americans and their henchmen will continue to fall. It is impossible to interrupt this trend militarily (not to jump on three nuclear powers at once), and there are no more diplomatic ones left thanks to the efforts of the Americans themselves over the past few months, so now we can only make up fairy tales about how the Russians and the Chinese are about to fight between themselves.

* – included in the Russian Federation on the list of terrorists and extremists.