Comparative analysis of Russian approaches towards the UN Role in conflict resolution on the cases of North Korea, Ukraine and Syria

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs

“HSE and University of London Parallel Degree

Programme in International Relations”

Comparative analysis of Russian approaches towards the UN Role in conflict resolution on the cases of North Korea, Ukraine and Syria

Romanova Arina

Moscow, 2020



Table of Content

Abstract

Abbreviations

Introduction

Significance of the United Nations in Russian Foreign Policy

Factors that shape Russian foreign policy approach

Theoretical Framework

North Korea case

Ukraine Crisis

Syrian Crisis

Conclusion

References



Abstract

It is undoubtedly true that the United Nations is perceived as a highly critical international platform for prevention and resolution of international issues in Russian Foreign Policy Concept. Despite its obvious advantages that it has for Russia in terms of projecting its national interests, an ability to shape agenda and regain its great power status, it is also an effective tool to resist the attempts of states to act on a unilateral basis and reconsider the universally accepted principles of international law and sovereignty of states. The position of Russia at the United Nations organization presents it an opportunity to counter the rule-based order notion that is highly criticized by Russia and endorsed by the West. Apart from that, it enables Russia to counter the decisions that contradict its national interests, what is achieved through the use of veto power. Although, the principles of partnership, multilateralism and the role of international law are highly appreciated by Russia, the foreign policy decisions and strategies conducted by Moscow in certain international conflicts indicate that approaches undertaken by Russia are flexible, and determined first and foremost by its national interests. Nevertheless, Russia tries to tie all its actions in the framework of international law, what is frequently disputed and criticized by international community. These considerations are explicitly evident in the way Russia differently conducted its foreign policy towards such states as North Korea, Ukraine and Syria in the period between 2011-2020, by the nature of the patterns and argumentation used in relation to each of the cases. The overall approach used by Russia making its foreign policy decisions, is notably pragmatic and can be best described through the lens of neoclassical realism which can explain the behavior of the state and include other variables to the analysis such as domestic policy,unique characteristics of current leader of state and most importantly how state perceives itself on the international arena. The aim of the research is to identify the conditions and factors that drive certain foreign policies and how Russia explains its motives and actions in the realm of international law. To be more precise, what argumentation Russia presents to legalize its decisions.



Abbreviations

ASEANAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations

BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States

DPR Donetsk People's Republic

DPRK Democratic People's Republic of Korea

EEU Eurasian Economic Union

EU European Union

FSA Free Syrian Army

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NK North Korea

NPT Non-Proliferation Treaty

OSCE Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe

ROK Republic of Korea

R2P Responsibility to Protect

THAAD Terminal High Attitude Area Defense

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNAAUnited Nations Association of Australia

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UNSCUnited Nations Security Council

UNSCRUnited Nations Security Council Resolution

US United States



Introduction

With the dissolution of the USSR in December of 1991, Russian Federation became an independent state the inherited the status of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council with the signing of the declaration between the members of Commonwealth independent states (CIS) to pass all the rights and obligations of the previous USSR under the responsibility of Russian Federation.

Russia acquired a permanent seat in the UN Security Council along with China, the USA, France and the UK.

The United Nations Organization has always been perceived by Russia as a unique platform for the discussion of the most striking international events by all powers all over the world. Its significance is repeatedly mentioned in Russia's foreign policy concepts as it is not only a basement for discussion, but also a tool of prevention of large scale international challenges in a variety of fields, a peacekeeping tool and a post-conflict resolution tool. Besides, the legal status of the UN Charter and its consensus-based mechanism of the decision-making conduces more transparency and helps to manage chaotic structure of the international system. Therefore, the principles of sovereignty and equality listed in the United Nations Charter, which by the way are highly praised by Russia, contribute not only to the ability of all states to express their opinion, but also to deter more powerful states like the US and promote multilateralism principles. In addition to that, Russia's privileged position in the permanent-five of the United Nations Security Council helps to obtain a highly important foreign policy tool - veto power, which is regarded as one of the most crucial mechanisms that assists Russia not only to voice up its vital interests and shape international agenda, but also to perform them under the International law basis. Conducting its foreign policy activities, Russia, in its major documents makes an emphasis on the rule of the international law. It is vital to highlight that Russia narrows the international law strictly to the UN Charter and the resolutions of the UNSC, trying to avoid promotion of the so-called “rule-based order”highly endorsed by Western powers, which in Russia's view blends universal principles of the international law. Although Russia insists on a strict obedience to international law, certain approaches used in Russian foreign-policy decision making indicate that Moscow is considerably more flexible and pragmatic than it may seem from the first sight. The way it uses the mechanisms given by the current UNSC system, namely, veto power that enables Russia not to pass resolutions that contradict Russian interests, for instance, towards Syria. Through the precedents such as International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to justify and give legal argumentation for the Russian actions in Crimea, prove that Russia's foreign policy is determined mostly by its national interest. The universally agreed principles that Russia reinforces, are flexible and can be perceived differently by Moscow according to the considerations surrounding a certain situation.

Literature review

There are not so many academic researches aimed at providing comparative analysis of the Russian strategies in diverse international conflicts and factors that determined certain foreign policy approaches. Nevertheless, there are plenty of academic works that explicitly examine particular international conflicts and Russian role in them. One of such works is famous article by Mearsheimer (2014), in which he explained the logic behind Russian policy in Ukraine crisis and the following annexation of Crimea. Whereas Tsygankov (2018) in his book on the Russian Foreign Policy, makes an emphasis on the complexity of approaches in Russian decision-making. According to Tsygankov (2018), there are three most prominent assumptions that describe Russian foreign policy choices. The first idea argues that policy is mostly determined by geopolitical issues, meaning that Russia as a geopolitical actor seeks to protect its spheres of influences. Russian influence and status in the region identify the policy choices. Other scholars make another assumption, they persuade that Russia defines its policies in accordance with its view of international system, to be more precise, Russia conducts policies in a way that strengthens multipolar system and the multilateralism and therefore heavily relies on the universally agreed rules and norms and the role of international institutions. Finally, he identifies a group of scholars who insist that Russia conducts its policy in a way to undermine the West's values and project its great power status. international politics russia ukraine

In addition to that, there are numbers of short articles in online sources covering certain cases which are related to the topic of the research.

What stands for theoretical background behind the research the works related to the neoclassical realism interpretation of Russianforeign policies are important. Russian foreign policies are highly pragmatic and rely on ideas of realpolitik. However, the author clarifies that Russia does not perceive the world as zero-sum, whereas Russian realism is more flexible and adoptive to the complex and continuously evolving international system. Another author Kropatcheva (2012) examines Russian foreign policy through the lens of neoclassical realism, insisting that it is selective and includes both cooperative and non-cooperative tactics.

The closest work to the research question posed in this paper is an article by Remler (2020). The author argues that there are numerous concepts and conditions that determine how Russia arrange its decision-making. He makes a statement, that Russia's position in the UN is determined byseveral concepts, for example, regarding its definition of international law, which is narrowed to the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions and opposed to a “rules-based order” that Russia defines as a promotion the Western interests. The reluctance of Russia to agree on rule-based order reject on principle commitments regarding human rights and democratic governance. Another useful information concerning Russian activities in the United Nations Security Council is covered in the report by Nikitin (2012).

To provide a more comprehensive analysis on the research the articles concerning the cases of the Ukraine crisis, Syria and North Korea are relevant.

There are numerous articles regarding the complicated issue of the Ukraine crisis. For example, the article by Becker (2016) makes a statement that despite the fact that states usually endorse the role of the international norms, states continue their pursuit of the national interest. The group of authors also offers insights into the drivers and circumstances that led to the decision of Moscow to take over Crimea in 2014 in the framework of neoclassical realism. Allison (2017) analyses Russian legal argumentation in defense of its exercise of power since 2014. Precisely, the author investigates two approaches: the legal revisionism and the concept of realpolitik.

The study by Mercier (2016) is examining the legal basis behind the Russian airstrikes and intervention by invitation policy in Syria and what arguments Russia presents to describe that decision. Another report by Chaziza (2014) that is concerned with the Syria issue builds its analysis around the Russian voting behavior and particularly its vetoes in the UNSC in questions about Syrian crisis. According to the author, Russia is one of the most frequent users of veto right, especially when it comes to the Syrian crisis. A similar study is conducted by Mund (2013), the author explored the motivation for Russian voting behavior, according to Mund (2013) Russia is more imminent to use veto power in questions concerning the state sovereignty norms.

The case of North Korea is covered in paper by Woo (2018) .the research examines Russian policy towards North Korea until the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations in 2016. It goes on to analyze Russia's policy on sanctions against North Korea after the 4th nuclear test. Another author Joo (2016) focuses on the Russian interests and policies toward the Korean peninsula.

Methods

The research is a case study based on three crises in which resolution Russia took an active part on the basis of the United Nations Security Council. The cases analyzed in the research are Ukraine Crisis, Syrian Crisis and the situation with North Korea. The qualitative methods are making the basis of the research as they are best at describing and interpreting the information gathered. The major sources used in the analysis are transcripts of speeches of the main representatives of Russia in the United Nations and most importantly the head of foreign ministry Sergey Lavrov, and other important political figures of Russia. The speeches and opinions are considerably useful in comparing the intentions and real actions, in addition, they help to see the official view of Russia in certain issues, their perception and tone in which they address these issues. Another crucial source for the analysis is the official United Nations resolutions of General Assembly and Security Council, which assist to understand the trajectory of Russian politics towards the issues in Ukraine, Syria and North Korea and identify how the approaches for resolution of these questions differ from each other and whether Russia applies its logic of sovereignty equally in relation to the three cases presented. Besides, the research is also consisted of expert's opinion such as works of political scientists listed in the literature review.

The quantitative methods were used such as the data on voting, in order to better understand whether there is correlation between the level of assertiveness and unilateralism of Russian policies and the frequency of the use of veto right in the discussions related to the cases of Syrian crisis, Ukraine crisis and the situation with North Korea. The data on voting was gathered in period between 2012 and 2020.

Expected Outcomes

Hypothesis: Russian position is defined by political consideration in any particular case what influences Russian political and legal argumentation.

Despite the fact that Russia attaches great importance to the role of the international law, state sovereignty and the international institutions that reinforce these principles, the empirical examples of the cases analyzed in the research indicate the versatility of Russian interpretation of international law's core principles and its application. The emphasis is made on the assumption that there are certain conditions that force Russia to perceive particular cases differently and choose distinct strategies to deal with them in order to satisfy its national interest. The theoretical framework used to explain these narratives is neoclassical realism, due to its more profound and deep analysis of the state behavior and the ability to identify its motives referring not only to external forces, but also domestic and due to its analysis of other important variables such as state's perception of itself.

Significance of the United Nations in Russian Foreign Policy

A Platform for collective action

The organization of the United Nations is regarded as the most important institution for maintaining international peace and security in Russian Foreign Policy. It is perceived critical not only as a base for collective action and ability to discuss and solve issues globally, but also in terms of the strategic benefits that Russian mission enjoys under the auspices of the UN.The United Nations is a platform that enables Russia to promote and secure its vital interests by using veto power at the UN Security Council which resolutions for international conflict have a binding character and therefore should force states to comply with their resolutions. The veto power gives Russia an opportunity to deter unilateralism of powerful states like the US and have control with its own voice in certain conflicts. The right to put a veto on certain ideas is the main mechanism to block unfavorable decisions and make other great powers unable to follow their most preferable path which contradicts the interests of other powers. There is a clear correlation between the periods of tense relationships with the Westand the frequency of the use of veto power by Russia. For instance, in the short period between 2014-2015 Russia used its veto more frequently than in the longer period between 1992-2013 with 4 times and 9 times respectively (Tsygankov, 2018).

Tool to resists global challenges

The United Nations is one of the most critical tools for Russia to enhance its role as a center of global power in the current international system and be able to shape the new architecture of the world together with other great powers. This is explicitly underlined in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation of 2016. Besides that, the mechanisms of the United Nations go on par with Russian view of the modern international system. It supports the multipolarity, idea that is highly promoted by Russia, China and other BRICS countries.

Global dramatic changes, which are transforming the affairs between different actors and present serious challenges to the international community, and competition for resources and capabilities causes greater mistrust between states and other actors. Chaotic or anarchical structure of the international system only accelerate disparities and lack of trust. Such institutional arrangements as the United Nations bring all parties into a dialogue and provide forum for the collective resolution to these challenges.

Core values

Apart from that, the United Nations Charter supports the basic values of equality, sovereignty, non-interference and territorial integrity of states, considerably refraining hegemonic states from taking unilateral decisions. Referring to the official statement on the Kremlin's website dated back to 2004, the relationship of governments should be based on equality short of any double standards, should recognize the inviolability of state sovereignty, respect for state borders (non-intervention) and no use of military force. Russia has always made emphasis on these principles, pointing that violation of these core ideas is regarded as a robust violation of the international law and most precisely the UN Charter, therefore opposing popular western idea of rule-based order and responsibility to protect, as Russian officials usually point out, it is an instrument of western powers, most notably, the US to justify and legitimize the interference to the domestic affairs of the weaker states.

The “rules based order” is a collection of agreements and treaties undertaken by states, which can evolve and change over time. (UNAA, 2016)The characteristic, most striking to the Russian principles, is probably that of “rules that evolve over time”, meaning that certain events can be treated differently, adhering to the interests of most powerful nations. Russia, as a status quo power, prefers universal and untouchable concepts that adhere similarly to all cases in the international system, and cannot be changed in accordance to the desires of certain powers. What brings more transparency, clarity and confidence, therefore cannot be manipulated and cause the appearance of double standards. Besides, the potential abuses that were conducted in the cases of Kosovo in late 90s, Iraq in 2003, Libya and Syria in 2011, which received high condemnation from Russia. The permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council and the right to use veto, gives an ability to block decisions and binding resolutions that contradict the view of international affairs that is not desirable by Russia and is unacceptable to its interests. To be more precise, the concepts of human rights and promotion of democratic order which can cause a violent regime change and contradict the principles of states sovereignty.

The responsibility to protect (R2P)one of the central ideas of the “rules-based order”, states that governments are responsible for providing their citizens with security, prevent genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless, if the state is not able to perform its most important role as a defender of its citizens and allows the suffering of its population, therefore the right to end atrocities is transferred to the international society. Although, this concept was entrenched by the United Nations General Assembly at the UN 2005 World Summit, it is a highly controversial issue, debates are still going between counter restrictionists, that insist on the legal right of humanitarian interventions and that it is not contradicting to the existing UN Charter, where it stands that state has a duty to protect human rights, whereas other counter restrictionists argue that humanitarian intervention has no legal basis. The absence of a clear position on humanitarian interventions in the international law contributes to the continued debates over the legality of the idea. Besides legal concerns, the moral case is also an issue. The proponents of responsibility to protect insist that it is a moral duty of states to stop atrocities, mass killing and genocide irrespective of legal basis (Baylis, 2014).

From that point, it is logical to add that Russian view of the international system is first and foremost based on realist thinking.

Factors that shape Russian foreign policy approach

Russian foreign policy is identified by several characteristics and strategies that it used to provide political and legal argumentation for its policies in different cases and conflicts.

This paper will focus on the three cases of Russian policies towards Syrian Republic, Ukraine and North Korea. Each of the three cases were different due to, firstly, the level of importance in security terms, secondly the status, level of economic and political benefit and what is also important, the level of Russian influence in a certain region. In accordance with these factors Russian policies have been modified and ranged from less to more assertive, some which were based more on diplomatic efforts and soft power tools and some which were defined by the use of hard power andmore decisive actions. For instance, Russia tends to make more emphasis on collective action institutions, global governance and multilateralism in questions and issues which do not relate to the vital security interests of Russia and do not present a direct threat to its interests. Consequently, where Russian influence is relatively low or limited,in contrast to other participants of the conflict regulation, it tried to endorse the importance of conducting decision-making under the auspices of the United Nations. This is explicitly evident in regions where Russia is not able to fully project its Great Power pressure like the case of North Korea as other powers such as China and the United States got the leading roles in the conflict due to different reasons, China was the major partner of North Korea in economic and security terms, the United States plays its own game on the Korean Peninsula and provides military assistance to North Korean neighbor Republic of Korea. These stakeholders with no doubt acquire more influence in the Korean conflict.

In sharp contrast to the approach applied towards North Korean crisis, is the level of unilateralism Russia adhered to its approach in Ukrainian crisis. It is undisputable, that the level of Russian influence and status in the Post-Soviet space is considerably higher and the extent to which this region is important to Russia is not comparable to other cases. As Ukraine plays a significant role in the number of spheres that have direct relation to Russia's most vital national interests.

Besides that, there is also a correlation between the capabilities that Russia had and the level of assertiveness of its foreign policies, for instance in the beginning of the Syrian Civil War in 2011-2013, Russian efforts were quite discreet. Moscow generally appeals to the active enforcement of collective solutions rather than taking risky unilateral actions when it experiences economic downturn. On the contrary, high material straight forces Moscow to exercise more coercive mechanisms in its diplomacy and policies. In comparison to 2015, when Russia announced its military missions and assistance to the Syrian government.

Therefore, it is obvious that three of the cases presented indicate three different approaches to the performance of foreign policy objectives. In which North Korean case was first and foremost based on the key role of the United Nations in managing appropriate measures of decreasing nuclear threat posed by North Korea and legal ways of denuclearization process based on international agreements and institutions. Syrian conflict is a mix of the UN mechanisms for conflict resolution and other platforms which present ability to include other parties to the negotiation table, and besides, to have more influence over the conflict resolution. Whereas the Ukrainian crisis is a primarily realist-based approach of Russian policy. Which regards only those actions which are directly connected to the state's survival and have nothing to do with the collective action and close consideration of international law provisions.

Thus, an inference can be made that Russian diplomacy is highly flexible and can vary in its tools considerably depending on internal and external environment.

Apart from considering different factors that shape and modify Russian strategy in certain conflict, Moscow has number of specific characteristic that it uses in defense of some of its controversial policies in order to justify them.

Criticism

Very frequently Russia provides argumentation of its approaches in conflicts adhering to the strategy of criticizing. Russian Mission at the UN or Russian key figures often appeal to it when conducting their speeches and presenting its position and view on topic. More frequently it is used when Russia is being accused in breaching of the international law or vice versa when Russia condemns others for violation of the universally agreed principles by attacking the antagonist with blame. It especially relates to the cases when it regards humanitarian interventions. For instance, the statement of the Russian President in his famous speech to the State Duma in 2014 after conducting successful operation in Crimea: “Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun”

Policy of Complete Denial

Another method to which Russia persistently appeals to, is that of complete denial.

When it comes to questionable acts handled by Russia which may be regarded as direct violation of international law or as it was in the case of Russian involvement in civil war in Ukraine on the side of pro-Russian separatists, Moscow rejects and attempts to disapprove any of its involvement and activities. It is evidenced in the way Russia portrayed its role in the regulation of war in Donbass in the provisions listed in the Minsk Protocols, where Russia is not mentioned as a participant of the conflict, therefore, denying its implication, rather portraying itself as a mediator and the guarantor of agreements.

Another prominent example is Russian conviction of non-violation of international norms in the accession of Crimean Peninsula to the Russian Federation (Servettaz, 2014)Russian officials continue denying the blame and persist that each action is conducted in accordance with international law and does not violate the UN Charter.

Flexibility in the Understanding of the International Law

Russia tends to present different interpretation of its conduct of humanitarian interventions. It is widely-known fact that Russia always makes a significant emphasis on the principles of non-interference and expresses great criticism towards the ideas of Responsibility to Protect and regards them as a tool of powerful states to interfere to the domestic affairs of the sovereign state. Instead, Russia persistently insists that its interventions are justified and legal, therefore not breach the principles listed in the UN Charter Article 2. To provide justifications for its intervention, Kremlin makes attempts to tie this decision with legal basement, by going beyond the frameworks of the UN. As it was in the case of intervention in Syria. Which usually referred to as “intervention by request”. In the cases of interventions in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014, Moscow used different interpretation of its act, persuading that it was morally justified and acted in accordance to the duty to secure its Russian nationals from security threat, using the term peace-keeping or peace-enforcement.

Theoretical Framework

Although Russia usually points out the importance of adherence to the international law and the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention in domestic affairs when conducting foreign policy activities and this principles are listed in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, some of its actions are regarded disputable, especially the case of Syria as one of the most controversial and bright examples of flexible understandings of non-intervention principles in Russian politics. According to Nikitina (2014) the conflict in Syria highlighted the difference in approaches in relation to the concept of R2P. Russian approach to the settlement of the conflict in Syria was initially characterized as a normative one and considered talks between conflicting parties, non-intervention and no regime change, it is obvious that Russia is always trying to resolve disputes firstly by diplomatic efforts and round-table discussions acting as a mediator between conflicting parties therefore avoiding any armed-intervention and not letting other actors involved into the conflict to intervene and influence the settlement into its most favored outcome.

Nevertheless, it is not right to claim that Russia violates its own principles and use double-standard strategy in justifying its actions similar to interventions, the current global trend indicates that international community puts a high emphasis on domestic conflicts of states as it has a high probability of escalating into the large-scale regional or international conflict. Therefore, the sustainability of the non-intervention and sovereignty principles are hard to achieve and compel Russia to take more decisive actions not to let other parties being involved into conflicts of states that are regarded Russian areas of high importance which have a strong connection with Russian national security concerns.

the best description of Russian logic and perception of international relations is best described in the realm or realism, Kropatcheva (2012) stresses the neo-classical realism approach which includes other levels of analysis such as domestic factors and state's self-perception. The proponents of neo-classical realism argue that Russian decisive actions are caused not only due to the security concerns, but also in accordance with Russian self-persecution, domestic factors and certain relations with neighboring states , in contrast to structural realism, which identifies chaotic structure of international system as the only and main reason that compels states to experience continuous struggle for power and the need to ensure its relative power capabilities in accordance to other powers due to the absence of world hegemon that will act as a global arbitrary and resolve disputes between states. In the condition of the absence of such judge, states are insecure and mistrustful, therefore they pursue only one goal- survival which is the most critical and core national interest of any state. Capabilities that a state possess such as economic, military, political identify what relative power a state has in comparison to other powers. Possessed capabilities then identify the security a state holds. Neo-realist's contribution to the resolution of the anarchic structure of the international system and its consequences is balance of power theory. Which idea is based on balancing against the states which strive to achieve hegemonic position to insure its survival.

Therefore, the logic applied to the understanding of Russian assertive actions in Ukraine in 2014 or in Georgia in 2008 rests on the persistent global competition between states.

Feklyunina (2016) emphasizes the role of the constructivist thinking in describing Russian controversial actions that sometimes tend to contradict their own ideas, their acceptable norms and approaches towards inviolability of state sovereignty. She points out the importance of the perception of the significant other of Russia, most notably, the US. To be more precise how it recognizes Russia as a great power. According to Feklyunina (2016), Western disrespect for Russian great power status causes assertive episodes in Russian Foreign policy making such as the annexation of Crimea.

Other proponents of neo-classical realism highlight the influence of the state's leader on the formation of foreign policy strategies. Tsygankov (2018) argued that Russia experienced a significant shift in the modification of Russia's identity and strategy. In contrast to Medvedev's term, the new inauguration of Putin in 2012 was associated with new era of Russia-West relations, which was characterised by growing confrontation and the changing nature of Russian diplomacy which took a more coercive shape. Besides that, the new episode of Russian political change was defined by the shift towards more assertive policies in foreign policy strategies, involving threat of military force.

North Korea Case

Russian strategy in North Korea is different from the Ukraine and Syria, as it was already mentioned above, Russian foreign policy strategy differs according to the region and the nature of the issue, it is dependent on the status of Russia in a particular conflict, the influence it has over this problem and capabilities to settle the problem. What stands for North Korea, Russian role in the conflict settlement is quite limited in comparison to the United States and China. In contrast to the Ukraine and Syria crises, in the case of DPRK, Russia is less capable of bringing great changes and dictating its rhetoric. Therefore, Russia insists on the issue settlement in accordance with the framework of the United Nations in order to have an ability to influence the outcome through the mechanisms of the membership in the permanent 5 of the UNSC.

Brief outline of the issue

The year 2017 marked a critical turn in the situation around North Korea. It is caused by the active actions conducted by North Korea in the advancement of its nuclear and missile program. What has led to unprecedented security concern of the neighboring state in the Korean Peninsula. The series of ballistic missiles tests provoked the international community to put North Korea back to the central security agenda. The Secretary-General of the United States Antonio Gutteres has accused North Korea of violation of the adopted UNSC resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009). And expectedly adopted new resolutions with the strongest sanctions ever imposed against North Korea. The UNSC Resolutions 2371, 2375, 2397 which were designed to cut North Korean revenues to continue the advancement of its nuclear capabilities and missiles. To be more precise, the Resolution 2371, which bans North Korean exports of natural resources such as coal, iron, and lead. Besides that, North Korea is not allowed to export seafood. The UN estimated that it would prevent DPRK from acquiring revenues up to $1 billion. In addition to that, countries members of the UN are prohibited from having any joint ventures with North Korea. The UNSCR 2375 brings another portion of strong restrictions. Among them, the total prohibition of North Korean exports of textiles, which is regarded as their major industry, freezes assets in NK entities, and bans gas imports. And finally, the provisions listed in the UNSCR 2397, according to which obliges countries to deprive all North Korean labor of work in foreign countries and expel them back to DPRK. Additionally, it puts certain restrictions on the ability of North Korea to import goods such as heavy machinery and equipment.

Most importantly, North Korean politics resulted in the growing tension between North Korea and the United States. As Trump warned North Korea on 8th August in 2017, it will be met "with fire and fury" if they fail to freeze nuclear tests. Although two leaders conducted several meetings in 2018, the Kim-Trump summits did not manage to show any real progress in negotiations. Therefore, the question of North Korea is still opened. Referring to the US political strategy towards the North Korean crisis, the contradiction and sanctions will last till DPRK manages to free itself absolutely from the development of nuclear weapons and stops conducting testing of the ballistic missiles.

Russia- North Korea past and current relations

In the times when the Soviet Union was the leading communist state, North Korea was regarded as its major ally. The Soviet Union invested considerably in North Korea, provided it with aid, support, and close cooperation. However, with the end of the Soviet era, Russia-Korea relations worsened and lacked the basis for considerable cooperation (Woo, 2018). It was also intensified in the mid-90s as a response to Russia's normalization and improvement of relations with North Korean biggest rivalry - the Republic of Korea. It resulted in declaring Moscow the enemy of Pyongyang (Shin, 2014). As the Soviet Union ceased to exist and modern Russia started to shift its attention to the development of its relations with the Republic of Korea, North Korea started to rely on China, and this economic and security strategy dependence continues to these days, although DPRK makes attempts to reach a certain level of self-reliance.

Nevertheless, the rivalry between DPRK and Russia did not last forever. The bilateral relations started to recover after the situation around the Ukrainian crisis in 2014 and following a political and economic confrontation with the West caused by series of sanctions imposed on Russia for its policy in Crimea, East region of Ukraine, and possible downing of Malaysian aircraft MH 17.

On the international level, it can be seen that from 2018 after the series of meetings with the US president, although quite ineffective because of the coercive approach charged but the US, it was rather unexpected, but another rapid shift in North Korean strategy was observed in its heavier reliance on the partnership with Russia in the security field, rather than with its old partner China and its long-term dependence on it. However, it is wrong to argue that Russia-North Korean relations can reach the level of DPRK-RPC. The new strategy of North Korea is more balancing between various parties. West, Russia, and China.

Moscow showed significant signs of its readiness to build a new base for the improved relationships with Pyongyang by the decision to write off some debts that the DPRK owed to the Soviet Union. Besides, the decision not to stop the exports of oil. The highest point of Russian-DPRK relations is associated with the first meeting of the Russian president Vladimir Putin with the leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un during the Summit in Vladivostok in April 2019. Lukin (2019) stated that Russia showed the international community that it is a player in the Korean game, however, its influence is limited in contrast to other stakeholders such as China.

Significance of North Korea for Russia

Active participation of Russia in the settlement of North Korean crisis is viewed as an opportunity to restore its great power status and an attempt to rebuild the current architecture of Northeast Asia. Besides, Russia has a chance to portray itself in a different light, significantly different from its decisive role in Syria or aggressive in the Ukraine crisis. In the process of regulation of the North Korean issue, Russia is perceived more as a mediator, insisting conflicting parties to initiate talks and refraining the parties from seeking coercive ways of conflict resolution.

According to the National Bureau of Asian Research (2019), Russia is interested in sustaining good relations with both the Korean Republic and the DPRK to bring to side several projects. For instance, the long-planned Trans-Korea gas pipeline, which now seems to have the moment to get back into the agenda. Kremlin is highly in favor of the effective settlement of the issue with North Korean advancing of its nuclear program as it becomes the obstacle for the continuing development of the agreement on the supply of gas to South Korea through the territory of the DPRK. The ability and power of North Korea to cut the supplies to South Korea as a transit county complicates the negotiations on supply.

Nevertheless, political issues are not the only constraint to the development of gas export to the Republic of Korea, but most importantly, the sanctions that prohibit economic partnership with North Korean companies. According to the UNSC Resolutions 2270, 2371, 2375 which ban any joint projects with North Korea, therefore making the transit through DPRK impossible for now. And the Resolution 1718 which states that the member states of the UN are not allowed to sale or transfer any products to the DPRK.

Another reason for Moscow's aversion towards the sanctions imposed on North Korea by the UNSC resolutions is that it threatened the sustainability of Moscow-Pyongyang trade relations. Although the total volume of the Russia-DPRK trade is not big, it constituted roughly around $70 million (Burghart, 2019), Russia hoped for further development of trade between states, as Moscow benefits from the cheap North Korean labor. The sanctions adopted by the UN resolution 2397 ban the ability of North Korea to send its workers in foreign countries, moreover, the countries where the citizens of North Korea employed, according to the resolution, should be immediately exported back

Sanctions imposed on Russia in the gas and oil industry, plus sanctions imposed on North Korea and penalties for countries that cooperate with Korean firms, open market for American-produced shale gas, thus closing a profitable market for Russian gas companies.

Another ambitious project in the Korean peninsula is a Trans-Korean Main Line, which allows the transportation of freight from Asia to Europe through Russia. This project beneficial for both Republics as it allows them to take benefit from transit fees.

The role of the UN in Russian approach on North Korea

As long as Russia has limited influence over the talks on the problem of North Korean nuclear development program, what is explained by Russian inability to take a critical role in the negotiations, for instance, the Hanoi summit between the United States and North Korea which took place on 27- 28 February 2019, where Moscow's role was somewhat discrete, it is logical to make an inference that Russia is not satisfied with the lack of its ability to shape the problem settlement process, and as a result, Kremlin insists on the settlement inside the mechanisms of the United Nations.

However, its mechanisms should be changed and act to facilitate the negotiation process and not to cause the deadlock and absolute inability and unwillingness of parties to participate in the talks and follow provisions for de-escalation of the conflict. Moscow argues that current coercive policies have contributed to today's failure in negotiating with Pyongyang and continues to discourage already stalled dialogue. This opinion is rested on the assumption that unilateral coercive policies only de-escalate the crisis. Russia also expresses support for the United Nations as it calls for the collective efforts in the format of the Six-Party Talks, which includes only those parties which are relevant for the problem settlement among which North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, The United States, and Russian Federation. The most recent efforts in this format were made in 2009.

Despite Russian opposition to the coercive methods towards North Korea, it is clear that Russia does not support North Korea's nuclear ambitions. This is evident by Russian voting in the Security Council, which clearly shows its position towards the NK advancements of nuclear capabilities. All decisions on the NK crisis and the following packs of sanctions were unanimously adopted by all permanent members of the security council.Apart from that, North Korean nuclear program contradicts one of the major agreements on the nuclear non-proliferation (NPT), which was approved and signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1968 and 40 other states member of the UN. A treaty from which North Korea withdrew in 2003.

The Russian position on the problem of North Korean development of the nuclear program is also clearly realist. According to this logic, North Korea will be reluctant to stop its nuclear missile development in the conditions of total insecurity and direct threat. Therefore, the nuclear weapon for North Korea acts as the guarantor of their state security. In the absence of this distrustful military capability, North Korea loses the only tool to provide itself security from the rest of the world.

Even though Russia voted in favor of sanctions against North Korea in retaliation to their conduct of nuclear and ballistic missile tests, Russian diplomats persuade that there is a number of tools short of sanctions that can encourage North Korea to go to the negotiation table, way more useful than the destructive nature of sanctions.

As long as Russia has economic interests in North Korea, it is logical that Russia will criticize the United States for imposing unilateral sanctions against North Korea, which directly affect Russian economic interests on the Korean Peninsula. A number of Russian - Korean projects are frozen by the threat of the following US penalties. For example, such projects as Khasan-Rajin rail-and-port venture RasonConTrans in which Russia invested 300 million dollars prove to be irrelevant and useless since its activity is at severe risk, and companies try to avoid transferring through North Korea to avoid being sanctioned. Consequently, Kremlin puts the emphasis on the collective negotiations in the frames of the United Nations.

The impact of the Sino-Russian partnership on Russian strategy

Russia has shifted considerably towards China and overall towards the Asian vector after the crisis in Ukraine in 2014 and the subsequent rise of Anti-Russian rhetoric in the Western world. Although Russian and Chinese interests not always coincide, this growing cooperation with the Asian region is a logical attempt to achieve balance in the international system against the United States. Therefore, Russia and China have a strong base for future strategic cooperation in the region. Besides that, two players in the region recognize each other as Great Powers, the status which is highly essential for Russian self-identity and perception. The attempt to balance against the West is a challenge posed to the U. S and a reaction to Russian isolation and the sign of the consequences it can bring. (Kuhrt. 2016)

Wishnik (2019) argues that Russian - Chinese partnership in the Korean crisis is based on convergent interests, even though not identical interests, which for China are related to the security questions and the need to decrease the US influence over the Korean Peninsula, for Russia it is the matter of economic and great-power status. Lukin (2019) adds that Sino-Russian cooperative relations in the North Korean issue are not likely to end up as Korean competition, as Russia does not oppose Chinese ambitions in the Korean Peninsula. On the contrary, the policy of mutual support will be resulted in Chinese support of Russia in Europe and the Middle East and Russian support for China in Asia.

Russia shares a 17km border with North Korea nearby the biggest city of Russian Far East - Vladivostok. Consequently, it is critical for Moscow to have confidence in the stability in the Asia-Pacific region and not allow escalation near the boarders. Instability in North Korea can result in the flow of refugees to Russia. Besides that, a sustainable relationship with North Korea will avoid security concerns connected to the unexpected, extraordinary style of leadership (which usually goes beyond international provisions) of the country that is actively developing its nuclear capabilities regardless of international treaties that abandon that and the development of the long-range missile systems.

Apart from that, Russia and China have a convergent interest to dismantle the influence of the United States over the Republic of Korea, to be able to project their geopolitical ambitions. To achieve that result, China uses North Korea as a buffer zone between the US and the Republic of Korea. But most importantly, China has a strong desire for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which will normalize the balance of power and make US military presence in South Korea unnecessary. Therefore, it is logical that joint Chinese and Russian policies towards the Korean peninsula present a real challenge for the positions of the United States (Joo,2016).

Russia's support of China's dual-track approach to the North Korean nuclear program, whose main goal is the establishment of peace and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. If performed successfully, will result in the withdrawal of American troops and make the US presence in the Korean Peninsula irrelevant and unnecessary.Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and his Russian college Sergey Lavrov shared the same opinion in the ASEAN Forum in Manila in August 2017 on the double freeze proposal, which means the freeze of North Korean nuclear and ballistic missiles tests and similarly prohibition of joint US-ROK large scale military drills. Apart from that, countries shared mutual suspicion and opposition against the idea to deploy Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in South Korea as a response to the series of tests conducted by North Korea. For China, the placement of an anti-ballistic missile defense system is perceived as a direct threat, what is more, it leads to de-escalation of the situation in the Korean Peninsula (Panda, 2016). China, regardless of its close relationship with South Korea, imposed sanctions against its regional partner mostly in the tourism sector and announced the terms on which it is ready to lift these measures. One of the conditions was obviously no more THAAD deployments and, in whole, no participation in the US missile defense system and finally no participation in joint US-Japan-South Korea military alliances. Whereas for Russia, anything that strengthens US military positions in the Korean Peninsula and goes against its security interests near its border is always a relevant and critical concern. Both Russia and China agree that tensions and complicated security situations between DPRK and ROK should not encourage other states, most notably, the United States, to increase its military presence in the region, as it brings more complexities and insecurity to all parties involved in the efforts to establish peace. Although Russia and China express their frustration about the deployment of the THAAD, neither of the countries is interested in further advancement of North Korean nuclear capabilities, the consequences it can cause, such as renewed nuclear arms race and military instability in Northeast Asia. Nevertheless, it is not only a security issue but also an inefficient tool to catalyze the DPRK folding of its nuclear program (Wishcnick, 2019).

...