Kim Jong Un could give up ICBMs but keep some nuclear forces

This combination of photos shows a file photo taken on June 11, 2018 of US President Donald Trump (L) during his meeting with Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (not pictured) at The Istana, the official residence of the prime minister, in Singapore; and a file image of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un (R) during his meeting with the Singaporean leader the day before on June 10, 2018, in Singapore. (AFP)
Updated 12 June 2018
Follow

Kim Jong Un could give up ICBMs but keep some nuclear forces

  • North Korea’s attitude toward dialogue in the past two years has seemed to shift with setbacks or progress in its weapons tests
  • Kim is probably modeling a nuclear future after Pakistan, which began building a nuclear arsenal in the 1990s to deter India

SEOUL, South Korea: After years of effort to develop nuclear missiles that can target the US mainland, is North Korean leader Kim Jong Un really ready to pack them away in a deal with President Donald Trump?
Perhaps, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean Pyongyang is abandoning its nuclear ambitions entirely.
Tuesday’s meeting in Singapore between Kim and Trump comes after a sharp turn in North Korea’s diplomacy, from rebuffing proposals for dialogue last year to embracing and even initiating them this year. The change may reflect a new thinking about its nuclear deterrence strategy — and how best to secure the ultimate goal of protecting Kim’s rule.
A look at how Kim’s appetite for talks swung amid the North’s ups and downs in weapons development and what that says about how he might approach his negotiations with Trump:

TESTS AND TALKS
North Korea’s attitude toward dialogue in the past two years has seemed to shift with setbacks or progress in its weapons tests.
Even after starting a rapid process of weapons development following a nuclear test in January 2016, Pyongyang constantly invited rivals to talks that year.
It proposed military meetings with Seoul to reduce tensions and indicated it could suspend its nuclear and missile tests if the US-South Korean military drills were dialed back. Washington and Seoul demurred, saying Pyongyang first must show genuine intent to denuclearize.
At the time, North Korea’s quest for a credible nuclear deterrent against the US was troubled. The military conducted eight tests of its “Musudan” intermediate-range missile in 2016, but only one of those launches was seen as successful. The country’s path toward an intercontinental-range ballistic missile appeared cut off.
North Korea’s stance on dialogue changed dramatically, though, following the successful test of a new rocket engine in March 2017, which the country hailed as a significant breakthrough.
The engine, believed to be a variant of the Russian-designed RD-250, powered a successful May flight of a new intermediate-range missile, the Hwasong-12, reopening the path to an ICBM. That was followed in July by two successful tests of an ICBM, the Hwasong-14.
Pyongyang’s demands for talks disappeared. Proposals to meet from a new liberal government in Seoul were ignored. Determined to test its weapons in operational conditions, the North flew two Hwasong-12s over Japan and threatened to fire them toward Guam, a US military hub.
The North’s state media brought up President Richard Nixon’s outreach to Beijing in the 1970s following a Chinese test of a thermonuclear bomb, saying it was likewise inevitable that Washington will accept North Korea as a nuclear power and take steps to normalize ties.
Kim talked of reaching a military “equilibrium” with the US By all signs, he was fully committed to completing an ICBM program he intended to keep.

THE DETERRENCE GAME
Kim’s turn toward diplomacy this year suggests he may have concluded the nuclear deterrence strategy was failing, some analysts say.
After a November test of a larger ICBM, the Hwasong-15, Kim proclaimed his nuclear force as complete, but his announcement may have been more politically motivated than an assessment of capability.
Although the Hwasong-15 displayed a greater range than the Hwasong-14, there was no clear sign the North had made meaningful progress in the technology needed to ensure that a warhead would survive the harsh conditions of atmospheric re-entry.
New US National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy reports released in December and January respectively also seemed to reduce the credibility of Kim’s deterrence plans, said Hwang Ildo, a professor at Seoul’s Korea National Diplomatic Academy.
In the documents, the US assesses it could sufficiently defend against the small number of North Korean ICBMs — believed to be about 10 or fewer — with its 44 ground-based interceptors deployed in Alaska. Missiles fired from North Korea would have to pass Alaska to reach the US mainland.
Experts are divided on whether the interceptors, which Washington plans to deploy in larger numbers soon, can be counted on to destroy incoming warheads. However, Hwang said, real capability doesn’t matter as much as Trump believing that the system works, which reduces the bargaining power of the ICBMs.
Kim can’t be the Mao Zedong to Trump’s Nixon if the US sees his weapons as containable. With North Korea’s limited resources, as well as the threat of a pre-emptive US attack, it’s difficult for the North to mass produce enough ICBMs to overwhelm the interceptors in Alaska.
Rather than prolonging his nation’s economic suffering, Kim may have concluded it would be better to deal away his ICBMs at the cusp of operational capability, especially when it was no longer clear the missiles would guarantee his survival.
“North Korea always tries to maintain flexibility and increase its options from step to step,” Hwang said.

A PAKISTANI MODEL?
What never changes for North Korea is that the survival of the Kim regime comes first.
Nam Sung-wook, a North Korea expert at Seoul’s Korea University, said Kim is probably modeling a nuclear future after Pakistan, which began building a nuclear arsenal in the 1990s to deter India. Pakistan is now estimated to have more than 100 warheads that are deliverable by short- and medium-range weapons and aircraft.
Kim may be seeking a deal where he gives up his ICBMs but keeps his shorter-range arsenal, which may satisfy Trump but drive a wedge between Washington and its Asian allies, Seoul and Tokyo. In drills with shorter-range weapons in 2016, the North demonstrated the potential to carry out nuclear attacks on South Korean ports and US military facilities in Japan.
In negotiations, Kim may try to exclude submarine technologies from a freeze or verification process to leave open a path toward sub-launched ballistic missile systems, Hwang said.
Then, if diplomacy fails and Kim goes back to building nuclear weapons, the systems would expand their reach and provide a second-strike capability to retaliate if North Korea’s land-based launch sites are destroyed.
North Korea successfully tested a submarine-launched missile that flew about 500 kilometers (310 miles) in August 2016. Analysts believe the solid-fuel missile can hit targets as far as 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles) away.
That said, it would take years for the North to develop a fleet of submarines that can quietly travel deep into the Pacific.
The immediate outcome of the summit in Singapore is likely to be a vague aspirational statement on the North’s denuclearization, Nam said. When it comes to details, Washington and Pyongyang are destined to “muddle through” a lengthy process, wrestling over the terms of monitoring and inspections, he said.
Still, such a process would halt the growth of the North’s nuclear program and prevent it from using its weapons to flex its diplomatic muscle, Nam said. It could take a decade or so for Kim to find his next move in nuclear deterrence if he’s eyeing a submarine-launched system. That could be enough time for Washington, Seoul and others to convince Kim he just can’t win the nuclear game.


Russia’s recognition of Taliban rule marks start of geopolitical shift, experts say

Updated 33 sec ago
Follow

Russia’s recognition of Taliban rule marks start of geopolitical shift, experts say

  • Afghan FM says Russia’s recognition would ‘set a good example for other countries’
  • No other nation has formally recognized Taliban government after its 2021 takeover

KABUL: Russia’s formal recognition of the Taliban government as the legitimate authority in Afghanistan could mark the beginning of a major geopolitical shift in the region, experts said on Friday. 

Russia became the first country on Thursday to officially recognize the Taliban rule, nearly four years since the group took control of Afghanistan. 

Moscow’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Dmitry Zhirnov, had “officially conveyed his government’s decision to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” during a meeting in Kabul with the country’s foreign minister, Amir Khan Mutaqqi, according to a statement issued late on Thursday by the Afghan Foreign Ministry. 

This was followed by the Russian Foreign Ministry announcing hours later that it had accepted the credentials of a new ambassador of Afghanistan, saying that “official recognition of the government of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will give impetus to the development of productive bilateral cooperation between our countries in various fields.” 

Muttaqi welcomed the decision and said in a statement that it would “set a good example for other countries.” 

No other nation has formally recognized the Taliban government after it seized power in 2021, after US-led forces staged a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan following 20 years of war. 

However, a handful of countries, including China and the United Arab Emirates have designated ambassadors to Kabul, while a number of foreign governments have continued the work of their diplomatic missions in the Afghan capital. 

“Russia’s decision to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a huge step. It’s one of the biggest achievements of the Islamic Emirate’s foreign policy in the last more than four years. It can be the beginning of a major geopolitical shift in the region and globally,” Naseer Ahmad Nawidy, political science professor at Salam University in Kabul, told Arab News. 

“The United States’ one-sided position to support Israel in the war against Gaza and attack Iran compelled Iran and Russia to take independent steps, ignoring the US in their decisions. It’s a new phase toward moving to a multipolar world.”

With Moscow’s role as a key political player in Central Asia, its recognition of the Taliban will likely influence other countries in the region to follow suit, he added.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has steadily built ties with the Taliban government, despite it being widely shunned by the international community due to repeated human rights violations. 

The rights of Afghan women in particular have been curtailed since the Taliban takeover. They are barred from secondary schools and higher education, restricted in public places and not allowed to take up most of the jobs available in the country. 

“I consider this recognition as a deep stab in the back as an Afghan woman and for Afghan women who have been deprived of life, education, work, freedom,” Afghan women’s rights advocate Riha Ghafoorzai told Arab News. 

Under the Taliban, Afghan society has been turned “into a political prison, with no free press, no political opposition, and no civil rights,” she said. 

“Recognizing such a rule is an insult to the sacrifices of thousands of Afghans who have fought for a modern, free, and democratic Afghanistan.”

With the recognition, Russia effectively broke an international consensus that was aimed at forcing the Taliban to listen to public demands, implement reforms and establish a legitimate system. 

But instead, Moscow is sending “a message to the Taliban that there is no need for reform, the international community will soften and the regime will eventually be legitimized, even if it is against the nation,” Ghafoorzai added. 

“Russia’s recognition of the Taliban is a profound political message that will have far-reaching and long-term consequences for the geopolitical balance of the region, international norms, and the fate of the Afghan people,” she said. 

“Recognizing extremism is a great political betrayal of democracy. I hope that the international community will closely examine this situation for the future of humanity.”


China helped Pakistan with ‘live inputs’ in conflict with India, Indian Army deputy chief says

Updated 04 July 2025
Follow

China helped Pakistan with ‘live inputs’ in conflict with India, Indian Army deputy chief says

  • India earlier noted no visible Chinese support for Pakistan during the four-day ​standoff
  • Pakistani officials have also denied claims of receiving active assistance from Beijing

NEW DELHI: China gave Islamabad “live inputs” on key Indian positions during Pakistan’s deadly conflict with its neighbor in May, the deputy chief of India’s army said on Friday, calling for urgent upgrades to the country’s air defense systems.

The nuclear-armed rivals used missiles, drones and artillery fire during the four-day fighting — their worst in decades — triggered by an April attack on Hindu tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir that New Delhi blamed on Islamabad, before agreeing to a ceasefire.

Pakistan has denied involvement in the April attack.

India fought two adversaries during the conflict, with Pakistan being the “front face” while China provided “all possible support,” Lt. Gen. Rahul Singh said at a defense industry event in New Delhi.

“When the DGMO (director general of military operations) level talks were going on, Pakistan ... said that we know that your such and such important vector is primed and it is ready for action ... he was getting live inputs from China,” he said.

Singh did not elaborate on how India knew about the live inputs from China.

The Chinese foreign and defense ministries, and Pakistan army’s public relations wing did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comment.

India’s relationship with China was strained after a 2020 border clash that sparked a four-year military standoff, but tensions began to ease after the countries reached a pact to step back in October.

India had earlier said that although Pakistan is closely allied with China, there was no sign of any actual help from Beijing during the conflict.

Regarding the possibility of China providing satellite imagery or other real-time intelligence, India’s chief of defense staff had said such imagery was commercially available and could have been procured from China or elsewhere.

Pakistani officials have previously dismissed allegations of receiving active support from China in the conflict, but have not commented specifically on whether Beijing gave any satellite and radar help during the fighting.

Beijing, which welcomed the ceasefire in May, has helped Pakistan’s struggling economy with investments and financial support since 2013.

The Chinese foreign minister also vowed support to Pakistan in safeguarding its national sovereignty and territorial integrity when he met his Pakistani counterpart days after the ceasefire.

Singh said that Turkiye also provided key support to Pakistan during the fighting, equipping it with Bayraktar and “numerous other” drones, and “trained individuals.”

Ankara has strong ties with Islamabad, and had expressed solidarity with it during the clash, prompting Indians to boycott everything from Turkish coffee to holidays in the country.

Turkiye’s defense ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.


Former Labour MP Sultana claims she will launch new party with ex-leader Corbyn

Updated 04 July 2025
Follow

Former Labour MP Sultana claims she will launch new party with ex-leader Corbyn

  • Sultana accuses government of being ‘active participant in genocide’ in Gaza
  • Talks held with pro-Palestine Independent Alliance MPs, but Corbyn yet to confirm role in new movement

LONDON: Former Labour MP Zarah Sultana has claimed she is set to start a new political party with Labour’s ex-leader, Jeremy Corbyn, after accusing the government of being “an active participant in genocide” in Gaza.

Sultana made the announcement on the social media platform X on Thursday evening, a day after Corbyn told the political TV show “Peston” on ITV that “there is a thirst for an alternative” in British politics. 

In her post, Sultana claimed the Westminster political system was “broken” and that the new movement would focus on social justice in the UK and abroad.

“Labour has completely failed to improve people’s lives. And across the political establishment, from (Reform leader Nigel) Farage to (Prime Minister Sir Keir) Starmer, they smear people of conscience trying to stop a genocide in Gaza as terrorists.

“But the truth is clear: This government is an active participant in genocide. And the British people oppose it.”

She added that the choice before voters at the next general election would be between “socialism or barbarism” and claimed, in relation to the vote earlier this week on changes to benefit rules, “the government wants to make disabled people suffer; they just can’t decide how much.”

Sultana continued: “Jeremy Corbyn and I will co-lead the founding of a new party, with other independent MPs, campaigners and activists across the country.”

Corbyn has yet to confirm whether he will be involved in the new party but admitted on “Peston” that he had been in discussions with the four Independent Alliance MPs elected in July 2024 on a platform of opposing the war in Gaza — Shockat Adam, Ayoub Khan, Adnan Hussain, and Iqbal Mohamed — about forming a party based on “peace rather than war.”

The BBC’s “Newsnight” program confirmed Sultana had held talks with Corbyn and the Independent Alliance earlier this week, but that the idea of co-leadership had not been received well by Corbyn.

Sunday Times journalist Gabriel Pogrund posted on X that a source told him Corbyn was “furious and bewildered” that Sultana made her announcement without consulting him first.
Israel denies it is committing genocide in Gaza.

Starmer has repeatedly demanded a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, describing the situation as “appalling and intolerable,” but has stopped short of accusing Israel of genocide.

Alastair Campbell, the former Labour director of communications, told the BBC that the “government’s handling” of the war in Gaza was a thorn in the side of the party, affecting people’s perception of Labour’s values.

Sultana was suspended by Labour last year for rebelling against the government in a vote on child benefits.

She has been a vocal critic of her former party, including last week, when the government sought to ban the group Palestine Action after activists broke into a Royal Air Force base and vandalized military aircraft.

Sultana posted “We are all Palestine Action” on X ahead of a vote to proscribe the group as a terrorist organization, which passed with just 26 MPs opposing the motion.

In her announcement about forming her new party, she said: “Westminster is broken, but the real crisis is deeper. Just 50 families now own more wealth than half the UK population. Poverty is growing, inequality is obscene, and the two-party system offers nothing but managed decline and broken promises.”

She continued: “We’re not an island of strangers; we’re an island that’s suffering. We need homes and lives we can actually afford, not rip-off bills we pay every month to a tiny elite bathing in cash. We need our money spent on public services, not forever wars.”

The announcement elicited mixed responses from Labour MPs.

John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor who was also suspended at the same time as Sultana, posted on X: “I am dreadfully sorry to lose Zarah from the Labour Party.

“The people running Labour at the moment need to ask themselves why a young, articulate, talented, extremely dedicated socialist feels she now has no home in the Labour Party and has to leave.”

Dawn Butler, the MP for Brent East, said she could “understand (Sultana’s) frustration”

But Neil Coyle, MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, told The Times: “The hard left (is) seeking to damage Labour while the far right are on the march. As shabby as they ever were.”


French air traffic controllers’ strike disrupts flights for second day

Updated 04 July 2025
Follow

French air traffic controllers’ strike disrupts flights for second day

  • Civil aviation agency DGAC told airlines to cancel 40 percent of flights at the three main Paris airports
  • Up to half of flights at France’s other airports, mostly in the south, were also affected

PARIS: A strike by French air traffic controllers entered its second day on Friday, leaving many passengers stranded at the start of Europe’s peak travel season.

Civil aviation agency DGAC told airlines to cancel 40 percent of flights at the three main Paris airports on Friday because of the strike, which the air traffic controllers say is over staff shortages and aging equipment.

Up to half of flights at France’s other airports, mostly in the south, were also affected, DGAC added.

“We are hostages of Paris,” said Mariano Mignola, an Italian tourist stranded in the French capital’s Orly airport with two young children.

“Today we had to go home and the first available flight is July 8. We have no flat, we can’t find a hotel, we can’t find a car, we can’t find a train, we can’t find anything,” he said. “We are in a panic, the children are scared and we don’t know what to do.”

French transport minister Philippe Tabarot called the strike unacceptable as did Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary, who branded it “another recreational strike by French air traffic controllers’ unions.”

On top of the cancelations, DGAC warned that passengers could be affected by delays and significant disruption.

The Airlines for Europe (A4E) lobby group said late on Thursday that 1,500 flights had been canceled over the two-day strike, affecting 300,000 passengers and causing cascading delays.


Germany in talks to buy Patriot missiles for Ukraine after US pause

Updated 04 July 2025
Follow

Germany in talks to buy Patriot missiles for Ukraine after US pause

  • “There are various ways to fill this Patriot gap,” the spokesperson said
  • Germany has sent three of the US-made systems from its military stocks to Ukraine

BERLIN: Germany is in talks on buying Patriot air defense systems for Ukraine to help it counter some of the heaviest Russian attacks since the war began in 2022, a government spokesperson said on Friday.

The US has paused shipments of certain critical weapons to Ukraine including 30 Patriot air defense missiles, sources told Reuters this week, due to low stockpiles, prompting warnings by Kyiv this would weaken its ability to defend itself.

“There are various ways to fill this Patriot gap,” the spokesperson told a news conference in Berlin, adding that one option being considered is buying the Patriot missile batteries in the United States and then sending them on to Kyiv.

“I can confirm that intensive discussions are indeed being held on this matter,” he said.

Germany has sent three of the US-made systems from its military stocks to Ukraine, and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius last month launched an initiative to chase down more of them at the Ramstein group of some 50 nations.

Pistorius will travel to Washington later this month for talks with his US counterpart about his initiative as well as production capacities, said a defense ministry spokesperson.

“Of course these issues will also be on the agenda,” said the spokesperson.

The US Embassy in Berlin was not immediately available for comment.

Pistorius has floated the idea of buying Patriot systems that could be freed up to bypass long industrial delivery times and ensure they get to Ukraine quickly.

Ukraine is increasingly desperate for the systems that it relies on to destroy fast-moving ballistic missiles.

Russia pummelled Kyiv with the largest drone attack of the war, injuring at least 23 people, just hours after US President Donald Trump spoke to Russia’s Vladimir Putin on Thursday.

Germany, Ukraine’s second largest donor after the United States, has sought to take on more of a leadership role in ensuring backing for Kyiv as US support has been thrown into question under Trump.

While Europe could sustain Ukraine’s resistance without US military support, according to a senior German military official, the challenges would be immense.

Germany has provided a total of 38 billion euros ($43 billion) worth of military aid to Ukraine, including funds earmarked for the coming years, according to the defense ministry.

A Bloomberg News report on Friday said Germany is preparing a 25-billion-euro tank order to ramp up its NATO brigades. The defense ministry had no immediate comment.