The China-Russia summit held in May casts a dark shadow over global order, regional order, and the security and peace of the Korean Peninsula. Chinese President Xi Jinping invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to his home turf just four days after U.S. President Donald Trump's state visit to China. China and Russia showcased their close ties by issuing a 21-page "Joint Statement on Further Strengthening Comprehensive Strategic Coordination and Deepening Good-Neighborly Friendship and Cooperation." This stands in sharp contrast to the U.S.-China summit, which produced no joint statement or press conference, with each side later releasing materials containing only the content it wished to publicize. The U.S. fact sheet ran less than two pages.
China and Russia shared a worldview centered on a "multipolar international order" and "more equitable international governance." This aligns with the "fair and just multipolar order" that North Korea emphasizes. While not explicitly naming the United States, the statement clearly revealed an anti-American, anti-Western discourse. Representative is the assertion that the two countries "resolutely oppose hegemonism and unilateralism, and seek to remove obstacles erected to infringe on the sovereignty of other countries, suppress the economic and technological development of other countries, and impede the building of a multipolar world." Unpacked, this means China and Russia are arguing that the United States infringes on the sovereignty of other countries — for instance by abducting former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and invading Iran — and undermines the principles of free trade by banning the export of high-end semiconductors and technology to China. Such behavior, they declare, will ultimately pull the United States down from its position as a superpower and lead to a multipolar order in which China rises as a hegemonic power on par with the United States. Russia, in this process, has once again declared it will stand on China's side. In short, China has expressed its determination to consolidate the anti-U.S. camp around a trilateral cooperation framework linking North Korea, China and Russia, and to push back against the U.S.-led "camp."
To this end, China and Russia openly took North Korea's side and targeted South Korea. There is no mention whatsoever of denuclearizing North Korea or denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula; the statement only includes language about "safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula." It goes further, declaring opposition to "threatening North Korea's security through means such as diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions and military pressure." Instead, the two countries unveiled a "Tumen River Initiative" to strengthen economic cooperation among North Korea, China and Russia. Under the rationale of developing the region, the initiative calls for deepened cooperation in trade and investment, transportation, energy, the digital economy, agriculture, tourism and the environment. In effect, China and Russia have excluded North Korea's denuclearization from the discussion altogether, demanded the lifting of economic sanctions on North Korea, and signaled that — even if sanctions are not lifted — they will provide breathing room for the North Korean economy through trilateral cooperation projects.
By contrast, China and Russia raised very specific objections to the deterrence strategy that South Korea, facing an existential threat from North Korea's nuclear weapons, is pursuing with the United States. Effectively singling out South Korea, the statement specified opposition to "pre-launch active deterrence, deep precision strikes, kill chains and counterstrike capabilities by non-nuclear-weapon states." It also took direct aim at decapitation strikes and disarmament of the adversary, calling them "serious destabilizing factors" that pose strategic threats to the country being attacked. All of these are core elements of the tailored extended deterrence and Conventional-Nuclear Integration (CNI) that South Korea and the United States have been developing. China and Russia are arguing that North Korea's nuclear weapons are an unavoidable choice for its own security, while the South Korea-U.S. efforts to deter them are "provocative acts that destroy security." More worrying still, at the end of these arguments, China and Russia included a declaration that they would "respond jointly." In the end, they are siding entirely with North Korea and pledging to confront South Korea and the United States.
The problem is that while ties among North Korea, China and Russia are tightening, cooperation among South Korea, the United States and Japan is nowhere to be seen. The trilateral South Korea-U.S.-Japan partnership has not held a joint exercise for nearly a year, since maritime drills in international waters south of Jeju in March of last year. This year, the United States proposed exercises, but South Korea has effectively declined for various reasons, resulting in a pattern in which only the United States and Japan train together. Under such circumstances, no matter how much South Korea strengthens "self-reliant defense," it will struggle to mount an effective response to the North Korea-China-Russia alignment. On top of this, the South Korean government is pushing all-out for a transfer of wartime operational control driven by the kind of "political convenience" that Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, has warned against. Is South Korea's security safe?
