China and North Korea's Militaries Don't Trust Each Other: US Intel
North Korea's deepening security ties with Russia are likely part of Kim Jong Un's effort to "counterbalance" China, according to the latest U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report.
Pyongyang's "blood-cemented alliance" with Beijing, by contrast, dates back decades but does not extend to meaningful military cooperation. This suggests the two sides "do not trust each other on military issues," says Decker Eveleth, an analyst at the Virginia-based think tank CNA Corporation.
Vladimir Putin inked a landmark military assistance pact with Kim during the Russian leader's June 2024 visit to Pyongyang. The partnership shifted into top gear late last year with the deployment of North Korean troops to support Russian forces in the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
North Korea is also the only country with which China maintains a mutual defense treaty, and the People's Liberation Army was instrumental in pushing advancing U.S.-led troops back across the 38th Parallel.
Yet today, the two "have virtually no military cooperation," the DIA said. This stands in contrast to China's increasing military drills and joint patrols with Russia as they step up their challenge to U.S. dominance in the Asia-Pacific.
Newsweek reached out to the Chinese and Russian foreign ministries and the North Korean embassy in Beijing via email for comment.
The DIA released its Annual Threat Assessment on Tuesday, a document intended to inform strategic planning and decision-making in Washington.
"North Korea almost certainly is receiving reciprocal military cooperation from Moscow—including SA-22 surface-to-air missile systems and electronic warfare equipment—for providing soldiers and material to support Russia's war against Ukraine," the report says, echoing fears expressed by U.S. and South Korean officials since Pyongyang launched its military adventurism.
North Korea depends heavily on China, which accounted for a record 98.3 percent of official trade in 2023. Beijing has thus maintained strong influence over the reclusive country, though this influence has shown limitations, such as Kim's determination to expand his United Nations-sanctioned nuclear weapons program.
"North Korea's engagement with Russia likely reflects an attempt to counterbalance China's influence over Pyongyang," the DIA said.
Commenting on this finding, Eveleth wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that while discussions of the two neighbors often characterize them as inseparable, "China and the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] do not trust each other on military issues, but DPRK is happy to buy stuff from the Chinese commercial market."
Chinese Foreign Minister Guo Jiakun told reporters on April 28: "Regarding bilateral interactions between Russia and the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea], we've stated our position on multiple occasions. China's position on the Ukraine crisis is consistent and clear."
While China is likely unsettled by the trajectory of relations between its two nuclear-armed pariah state allies—both due to the reputational cost and the unwanted Western military attention they bring to its backyard—analysts say Chinese President Xi Jinping is willing to stomach this new reality amid his efforts to forge a less U.S.-centric world order.
Related Articles
China Warns Trump's Golden Dome Risks Turning Space Into 'Battlefield': Live UpdatesUS Launches Nuclear-Capable Missile in Arms Race With Russia and ChinaCan Trump's Tariffs Help Create a 'Golden Age' of US Manufacturing?China Issues No-Go Zone in Disputed Waters Claimed by US Ally
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's Iran strike certainty meets stiff resistance: ‘We don't know'
The Trump administration is struggling to convince skeptics of its claims that U.S. strikes on Iran have toppled the country's nuclear program and wiped out ambitions to rebuild it. In the past two days, a fiery Pentagon press conference and two classified congressional briefings have left one key question unanswered: How far was Iran's nuclear program set back? Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump said his claims about Iran's nuclear sites had been 'proven.' 'It's been obliterated. It would be years before they could ever get going,' he said, adding that the Iranians are 'exhausted, the last thing they're thinking about is nuclear.' But over on Capitol Hill, lawmakers were not convinced. CIA Director John Ratcliffe and other top intelligence officials briefed the Senate on Thursday and the House on Friday about the June 21 strikes on the Fordow Fuel Enrichment plant, Natanz Enrichment Complex and Isfahan nuclear site. Democrats said the meetings – which also included Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth – failed to answer key questions about how much enriched uranium Iran still possessed and how long it would take for Tehran to resume its battered nuclear program. While no one questioned that the bombing inflicted significant damage to the Iranian infrastructure required to enrich uranium, lawmakers said they were presented little evidence that the attacks would prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons in the future. It's 'premature' for anyone to be claiming that Iran will not try to continue its nuclear program, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Friday on ABC News Live, saying 'there are just too many unknowns.' Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip, said Friday's House briefing 'left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it.' And Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a former nuclear physicist, said there's no evidence that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small breakout time.' Top Trump administration officials since earlier this week have been rankled by a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) preliminary summary that assessed the U.S. attacks had only set Iran's nuclear program back several months, not by years as Trump has claimed. The DIA found the 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs dropped on Fordow and Natanz failed to collapse the two sites' underground buildings and that much of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium was still intact as it was moved before the bombing. Following reports on the finding from The New York Times and CNN, Trump has taken on a combative tone, suggesting those in the U.S. intelligence world are only guessing as to how much Iran's nuclear program has been damaged. He has also called for the reporters who obtained the report to be fired. The DIA assessment and media reports on it also prompted Hegseth to call a rare Pentagon press conference on Thursday, during which he lambasted the media's coverage of 'the most secret and most complex military strike in history.' But he and Caine pointedly did not offer new assessments of the true damage to Tehran's nuclear program, instead highlighting the technical aspects of the military mission. 'You want to call it destroyed, you want to call it defeated, you want to call it obliterated, choose your word,' Hegseth said. He also deflected questions as to whether Iran moved enriched uranium out of the Fordo site before the strike, saying that he was 'not aware' of intelligence suggesting anything was 'out of place.' Satellite imagery shows trucks were present at Fordow a few days before the bombing, which experts have suggested means some of Iran's enriched uranium was moved ahead of time. Following the Senate's classified briefing on Thursday, several Democrats said the intelligence presented contradicted the White House's sweeping claims of success. 'The point is: We don't know,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). 'Anybody who says we know with certainty is making it up because we have no final battle damage assessment.' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) accused Trump of 'lying to the American when he said that we had destroyed the program.' 'I have now seen a lot of the underlying intelligence. Nothing I have seen or heard has changed my belief that we have likely only set back this program by months. . . . it is probable that if Iran wants to re-establish what it had that they could do it rather quickly,' Murphy said in a video posted to X. Even staunch Trump supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was hesitant to tout the president's message that the Iranians had given up on their nuclear program. 'The program was obliterated at those three sites, but they still have ambitions,' he told reporters. 'They're obliterated today but you can reconstitute.' He also questioned whether hundreds of pounds of highly enriched uranium which appeared to have been moved in the days ahead of the strike was destroyed, saying 'it wasn't part of the target set.' Sen. Tom Cotton also acknowledged that eliminating Iran's uranium stockpile was not the mission's focus. 'It was not part of the mission to destroy all their enriched uranium or to cease it or anything else,' he said. Foster said that's exactly where America's attention should be focused. 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' Foster said after the House briefing. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.'
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
University of Virginia president resigns amid pressure from Trump admin over DEI initiatives
The University of Virginia president stepped down on Friday after facing intense pressure from the Trump administration over the institution's diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. James E. Ryan, who had led the school since 2018, said he had already decided that next year would be his last and decided not to "fight the federal government in order to save my own job" until then. To make a long story short, I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this University," Ryan wrote to the UVA community on Friday. "But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job. To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld." "This is especially true because I had decided that next year would be my last, for reasons entirely separate from this episode—including the fact that we concluded our capital campaign and have implemented nearly all of the major initiatives in our strategic plan," he continued. Robert D. Hardie, leader of the University of Virginia's governing board, said in a statement he accepted Ryan's resignation with "profound sadness," adding that he had been an "extraordinary president," led the institution to "unprecedented heights" and that the university "has forever been changed for the better as a result of Jim's exceptional leadership." This comes after the Trump administration had privately demanded that the university remove Ryan to help resolve a Justice Department probe into the institution's DEI practices, according to The New York Times. The Justice Department argued that Ryan had failed to dismantle the school's DEI programs and misrepresented the steps taken to eliminate them, amid the administration's efforts to root out DEI in higher education, the newspaper reported. The federal government's moves targeting higher education include pulling billions of dollars from elite universities such as Harvard, which has been the subject of investigations by various agencies over issues such as DEI initiatives, admissions practices and alleged antisemitism on campus. But this was the first time the administration had pressured a university to remove its president. "That sham virtue signaling of DEI has no place in our country, and the Trump administration is working tirelessly to erase this divisive, backward, and unjust practice from our society," White House spokesman Harrison Fields told Fox News Digital. "Any university president willingly breaking federal civil rights laws will be met with the full force of the federal government, and it would behoove every school in America to prioritize the civil rights of every student and end DEI once and for all," he continued. Ryan had focused on increasing diversity at the university, bringing in more first-generation students and encouraging community service. These efforts had ruffled the feathers of conservative alumni and Republican board members who argued he was "too woke" and wanted to impose his beliefs on students. Before his time as the university's president, Ryan served as the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where he received recognition for his commitment to DEI programs. In a joint statement, Virginia's Democratic senators said it was "outrageous" that the administration would demand Ryan's resignation over "'culture war' traps." "Decisions about UVA's leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia's well-established and respected system of higher education governance," Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said. "This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future." Conservative groups have lambasted Ryan for what they regard as insufficient steps toward compliance with the administration's plans to eliminate DEI. America First Legal, a nonprofit launched by Trump advisor Stephen Miller, accused the University of Virginia last month of rebranding DEI programs to skirt Trump's executive orders aimed at ending diversity initiatives. "Rebranding discrimination does not make it legal, and changing a label doesn't change the substance," Megan Redshaw, an attorney at America First Legal, said in a statement at the time. "UVA's use of sanitized language and recycled job titles is a deliberate attempt to sidestep the law." The group took direct aim at Ryan, noting that he joined hundreds of other college presidents in signing a public statement condemning the administration's "overreach and political interference." On Friday, the group vowed to continue to use every available tool to root out DEI. "This week's developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution," Redshaw said in a statement to The Associated Press. "They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority."
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Anna Wintour is hiring at Vogue. Here's how to thrive when your boss used to have your job.
Whomever replaces Anna Wintour in running day-to-day operations at American Vogue will have some enormous stilettos to fill. That's partly because Wintour, who's 75, has been at the job for nearly four decades and is a legend in the business. It's also because whoever comes next will report to her. Wintour, who became Vogue's editor in chief in 1988, is giving up that role. However, she'll remain global editorial director at the magazine and chief content officer for its parent company, Condé Nast, the company said Thursday. Taking on a senior role, similar to the one Wintour vacated at Vogue, is often challenging, especially when the predecessor remains on hand, leadership experts told Business Insider. Incoming leaders are wise to signal that they want to make changes without abandoning what makes an organization work, said Kevin Groves, a professor of management at Pepperdine's Graziadio Business School. "We're preserving what's most important to us, while recognizing our environment has changed," he said. Here are three pieces of advice on taking over after a leader who looms large — and who might still be down the hall. Don't be impatient Stepping into this position successfully starts with indicating sincere interest in the role and prioritizing what's best for the organization, Nancy Ho, an executive coach based in Singapore, told BI. "You cannot be impatient and rush into it. It should not be seen like you're power-hungry or claiming a role prematurely," Ho said. Instead, she said, new leaders need to focus on understanding a company's culture and how they can position themselves as an asset to the organization. James Reed, CEO of the UK-based recruitment company Reed, said there is no harm in declaring to your boss that you are ambitious and aim to lead an organization, "even if you avoid explicitly saying you're after their job." "Ask what you need to learn and what more you can contribute to support them," Reed said. "Then they will be aware of your ambition but appreciate that you are seeking to help and learn from them rather than undermine them." Don't rock the boat too early Ho said it's important not to make drastic changes too soon upon getting the job. Ho recommended that the first step is acknowledging the good work done before them. Then, they should gain the team's trust by carefully working with them and making small, gradual changes to improve the organization's effectiveness. "When there's a certain buy-in, and people are more comfortable with a different leader, then you introduce changes," she said. Sabina Nawaz, a US-based CEO coach, said new leaders should not make changes for at least the first three months because the first thing to do after receiving the title is "to be curious." "Go on a listening tour, excavate the reasons behind decisions or actions, try to make sense of things from the perspective of others: given that they're smart and well-meaning, what did they have in mind when they acted this way," Nawaz said. Christian Tröster, a professor of leadership and organizational behavior at Germany's Kühne Logistics University, told BI that new leaders can demonstrate they're becoming part of the organization by being careful not to suggest that everything should change. "Because then you're showing that you are not like them, that you cannot be trusted," Tröster said. "Then you don't have the commitment of your employees to actually go with you." Tröster said that when an incoming leader would have to report to the person who held the post in the past, it's important to have a conversation about expectations. He said that while org charts are often clear, layers are often not always evident, including what relationships people have and who they tend to go to for advice. "I would try to make that visible," Tröster said. That way, he said, workers know who they're expected to go to and leaders and employees can agree to the arrangement. Don't be afraid to be different For those taking over a new role while their predecessor is still around — especially someone as "established and admired" as Anna Wintour, it's important to take advantage of your access to them, Amanda Augustine, a career coach at told BI via email. "Start the job as a sponge, learning what you can from your predecessor and other colleagues," she said, adding that it's important not to stay in information-gathering mode forever. Jochen Menges, a professor of leadership at the University of Zurich and the University of Cambridge, told BI that new leaders should "be different" and avoid trying to replicate the exact leadership style or strategy of the person they're replacing. "If they're too close, then they'll seem to be a copy, and then they can never live up," he said. When new bosses are different in some ways, Menges said, they can be "a leader in their own right."
