Korea in the Early 21st Century and Russia’s Interests

The article is a response to a new, pioneering book Modern Korea. Metamorphoses of Turbulent Years (2008–2020) written by a group of leading Russian experts on Korea from MGIMO University: Anatoly Torkunov, Georgy Toloraya, and Ilya Dyachkov. The book is a valuable addition to the existing literature and a product of a unique approach to modern Korean studies conducted at MGIMO. The article examines and develops the comprehensive analysis provided by MGIMO professors, point out pressing issues on the Korean Peninsula and assess Russia’s potential role in solving them. The fact that the goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula based on Pyonyang’s rejection of nuclear weapons not only has not been achieved, but became even more distant than before, leads us to questioning the logic behind the authors' recommendation for Russia to withdraw its support from the international system of sanctions against Pyongyang and to move closer to North Korean. We argue that easing the sanctions may mean recognizing that Russia does not believe in this goal and wishes to encourage North Korea's refusal to comply with the demands of the international community. Moreover, such an approach could be perceived as evidence of Russia’s support of some new academic theories which claim that the very system of nonproliferation has become outdated and can even be abolished altogether. At the same time, this position would reduce the role of Russia in the Korean settlement, which would inevitably have a negative impact on DPRK's renunciation of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. The article argues that such views, especially that the non-proliferation strategy is outdated, come into a direct contradiction with Russia's interests. The recognition of DPRK's nuclear status may spark a chain reaction in the quest for nuclear weapons in the region which in turn would create a serious security threat for Russia's eastern regions. In addition, an increase in the number of nuclear states would devalue Russia’s status as a nuclear power, thus, the policy of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons should remain a priority of Russia’s foreign policy. Overall, we conclude that Moscow's policy towards the Korean peninsula should be based on careful evaluation of the current international situation as well as Russia’s interests, and not on outdated and often counterproductive Soviet tradition.

1. Armstrong Ch.K., Rozman G., Kim S.S. (eds) (2006). Korea at the Center: Dynamics of Regionalism in Northeast Asia. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 344 p.

2. Bandow D. (2016). Let Them Make Nukes: The Case for “Friendly” Proliferation. Foreign Affairs. URL: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/2016-07-26/let-them-make-nukes (accessed: 21.01.2021).

3. Basargin V.D. (2015). Aktual'nye voprosy evakuatsii naseleniia, material'nykh i kul'turnykh tsennostei v bezopasnye raiony v sisteme grazhdanskoi oborony Primorskogo kraya / Sovershenstvovanie grazhdanskoi oborony v Rossijskoi Federatsii. Materialy Vserossiiskogo soveshchaniia s rukovoditeliami federal'nykh organov ispolnitel'noi vlasti i organov ispolnitel'noi vlasti sub"ektov Rossijskoi Federatsii po problemam grazhdanskoi oborony i zashchity naseleniia i XI Nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii “Sovershenstvovanie grazhdanskoi oborony v Rossijskoi Federatsii” [Topical Issues of Evacuating the Population, Material and Cultural Heritage Objects to Safe Areas in the Civil Protection System of Primorsky Kraj / Improving Civil Defense in the Russian Federation. Materials of the All-Russian Meeting with the Heads of Federal Executive Bodies and Executive Bodies of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation on the Problems of Civil Defense and Protection of the Population and the XI Scientific-Practical Conference “Improving Civil Defense in the Russian Federation”]. Moscow: DGO MCHS Rossii Publishers; FKU TSSI GZ MCHS Rossii Publishers; FGBU VNII GOCHS (FTS) Publishers. P. 53–55. URL: https://www.chuvsu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/sovershenstvovanie_grazhdanskoj_oborony.pdf (accessed: 12.01.2021).

4. Cha V. (2013). The Impossible State North Korea, Past and Future. New York: Ecco. 560 p.

5. Jeh Sung-hoon, Lee Hye-jung, Kim Jae-kwan. (2019). Sinhanbandocheje silhyeon-eul wihan mi·jung·leoui segyejeonlyag yeongu [A study on the Grand Strategies of the US, China, and Russia for the Realization of “New Korean Peninsula Regime”]. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 256 p. URL: http://www.kiep.go.kr/sub/view.do?bbsId=search_report&nttId=206474&searchIssue=&searchWrt=&pageIndex=12 (accessed: 12.01.2021).

6. Karaganov S.A., Suslov D.V. (2019). Novoe ponimanie i puti ukrepleniia mnogostoronnei strategicheskoi stabil'nosti [The New Understanding and Ways to Strengthen Multilateral Strategic Stability]. Report. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics. 150 p. URL: http://svop.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/REPORT_Rus_1.pdf (accessed: 21.01.2021).

7. Park Byung-in. Leosiaui dongjin jeonlyaggwa daehanbando jeongchaeg yeongu: ukeulaina satae ihu, gugje jeonlyaghwangyeong-ui byeonhwaleul baegyeong-eulo [Study on Russia’s Eastward Strategy and Policy toward the Korean Peninsula: With Change in the Strategic Environment since the Ukrainian Crisis as the Background]. Segyejiyeogyeongunonchong [Journal of International Area Studies]. Vol. 33. No. 3: 127–146.

8. Tan Hongmei. (2015). Сhaoxian bandao bainian guanxi yanhua yinsu yanjiu [The Study of the Factors Influencing the Evolution of North-South Relations on the Korean Peninsula]. Changchun: Jilin University Press.

9. Torkunov A.V., Denisov V.I., Li V.F. (2008). Koreiskii poluostrov: metamorfozy poslevoennoi istorii [Korean Peninsula: Metamorphoses of the Post-War History]. Moscow: OLMA Media Group Publishers. 544 p.

10. Torkunov A.V., Toloraya G.D., Dyachkov I.V. (2021) Sovremennaya Koreya: metamorfozy turbulentnykh let (2008–2020 gg.) [Modern Korea. Metamorphoses of Turbulent Years (2008–2020)]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie Publishers, 2021. 448 p.