The evolving political balance between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, which is unfolding in the context of continuous local conflicts and international realignments, has the potential to trigger proper adjustments in the international and security policies of vital regional players, including South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan.
As Trump signals a renewed willingness to engage with Pyongyang, regional players are closely monitoring these advancements, recognizing that any change in the US-North Korea strong could affect the balance of power, stability calculations and political alignments in Northeast Asia:
- For South Korea, it might require revisiting its commitment to inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation with Washington.
- If U.S.-DPRK ties increase, China may be under pressure to increase its strategic influence over North Korea.
- Russia, currently a critical backer of Pyongyang, must weigh the implications for its own regional influence and its military-economic ties with the North.
- In the meantime, Japan is likely to advocate for a more robust multilateral strategy that will prevent any potential bilateral agreement between Trump and Kim from ignoring its security concerns, particularly those relating to missile threats.
Thus, this diplomatic transition has the potential to have profoundly reshape regional security architectures and alliance dynamics.
As Trump expresses renewed interest in reengaging with Pyongyang, the possibility of a third U. S. DPRK summit is increasingly coming into focus.
It is crucial to examine the underlying motivations behind Trump’s strategy, assess the potential” small deal” with North Korea, and consider the significant influence that external actors have had on the development of trilateral relations, particularly Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump’s renewed attention to US-North Korea diplomacy, which has been fueled by increased rhetoric and his close ties to Kim Jong Un, has sparked debates about the strategic value and potential risks of rekindling diplomatic relations with Pyongyang.
Set against the backdrop of his involvement in high-stakes conflicts such as the Israel-Hamas war and the Russia-Ukraine crisis, this pivot to the Korean Peninsula appears to be more than an attempt to revisit unfinished diplomatic efforts, it reflects a deliberate strategic move within the broader context of the US-China geopolitical rivalry.
North Korea’s de facto nuclear status
Trump’s most recent explicit mention of North Korea as a “nuclear power” is a notable departure from the cautious language used by previous US administrations, which have traditionally avoided using terms that might be interpreted as ratifying Pyongyang’s nuclear status.
Although Trump’s statements fall short of formal recognition under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT )– which designates only five states as official nuclear-weapon states – they signal a pragmatic, albeit controversial, acknowledgment of North Korea’s entrenched nuclear capabilities and its growing strategic relevance.
This change in rhetoric has significant implications. It alters the underlying presumptions of any upcoming diplomatic engagement and may unintentionally restore North Korea’s nuclear standing internationally. It also risks undermining long-standing global non-proliferation norms by blurring the line between de facto and de jure nuclear powers.
Over the past ten years, North Korea’s nuclear arsenal has grown significantly both in terms of quantity and sophistication. According to estimates from independent arms control organizations, Pyongyang may have 40 to 60 nuclear warheads, but the exact number is unknown due to the regime’s opacity.
The country has conducted six nuclear tests since 2006, the most recent and powerful of which occurred in September 2017, reportedly involving a hydrogen bomb with a yield exceeding 100 kilotons.
North Korea has significantly improved its missile delivery systems, in addition to its nuclear weapons. It has successfully tested a number of ballistic missile technologies, including those that have the potential to reach the continental United States, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBMs) like the Hwasong-14 and Hwasong-15.
In 2022, North Korea unveiled the Hwasong-17, a massive ICBM capable of carrying multiple warheads ( MIRVs ), signaling a further leap in its strategic capabilities.
Additionally, North Korea has expanded its short- and medium-range missile arsenal by using systems like the KN-24, which are mobile, mobile, and maneuverable and are designed to evade interception and target U.S. and allies in South Korea and Japan.
The government has also been conducting research on submarine-launched ballistic missiles ( SLBMs), including the Pukguksong series, to show its intention to create a second-strike capability.
These developments underscore the reality that North Korea is no longer a fledgling nuclear aspirant but a fully armed nuclear state, in practical terms.
Trump may be trying to redefine diplomacy to revolve more around realism than idealism in order to acknowledge this fact. It raises important questions about how the US and its allies should go about avoiding nuclear weapons, deterrence, and strategic stability in a region that is increasingly influenced by the presence of a North Korea that is nuclear-armed.
Nobel dreams
Trump’s foreign policy strategy has historically incorporated strategic engagement and personal branding. His retort toward Kim may be seen as part of a wider campaign to promote peace, possibly with consideration for domestic political or international recognition objectives.
However, if substantive denuclearization objectives are compromised in favor of headline-generating summits or symbolic agreements, the long-term security costs could outweigh the short-term diplomatic gains.
Detachment of North Korea from its traditional ally, China, is a crucial component of Trump’s outreach strategy. This action is in line with his wider geopolitical goal of preventing Beijing from balancing its interests by developing alternative bilateral relationships.
Simultaneously, Russia’s expanding involvement with North Korea complicates this equation. Putin’s role as Kim’s principal military and economic partner has made Moscow an essential player in shaping Pyongyang’s calculus, especially in light of Western sanctions against Ukraine.
Trump may have indirect influence over Kim if he can negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine or increase his diplomatic leverage over Russia. Conversely, failure to secure Russian cooperation could entrench the Pyongyang-Moscow axis further, diminishing the efficacy of US diplomatic overtures.
evaluating the small deal option
The subject of the most recent rumors is the possibility of a” small deal” in which North Korea would freeze some of its nuclear programs in exchange for partial sanctions relief.
While politically attractive in the short term, such arrangements have historically yielded mixed outcomes, particularly when verification mechanisms and compliance conditions were weak or unenforceable.
Any proposed agreement must satisfy a number of crucial conditions in order for it to be effective. It ought to be
- ensure full transparency in the declaration of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities,
- establish robust verification procedures involving trustworthy international actors, and
- include clearly defined consequences for non-compliance.
Most importantly, such a deal must be explicitly tied to a broader framework within the new emerging global order – one that accommodates and balances the core security interests of both sides involved.
Kim Jong Un has an indefinite term of office, which allows for a long-game approach to negotiations, in contrast to US presidents who are limited by electoral cycles. Depending on US leadership changes, North Korea has historically shown flexibility in tone and behavior. Trump’s inability to seek a third term further undermines his long-term leverage, making any agreements potentially fragile and reversible.
Kim’s track record suggests he may choose partial cooperation to get immediate concessions, but then to resign when the US leadership changes or when Russian support is assured, especially from Russia.
The actual test is awaiting.
Trump may seek to cast himself as a unique figure capable of bridging divides with adversaries, but his credibility in this endeavor will be judged not by rhetoric but by results.
Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and the rest of the world are all monitoring how Trump deals with the world’s current conflicts, particularly those in Ukraine. It’s unlikely that Pyongyang will take his proposals seriously unless he refuses to appoint them with important commitments from Moscow.
For Washington and its allies – particularly Tokyo and Seoul– the strategic focus should be not on opposing Trump’s reengagement with North Korea, but rather on actively shaping it to reflect their security interests, regional priorities, and long-term policy objectives.
Future diplomatic ties with North Korea should be based on a number of fundamental ideas. Chief among them is the understanding that if North Korea commits to concrete, verifiable steps toward denuclearization, it should receive appropriate and timely sanctions relief to address its pressing economic challenges.
Instead of being delayed until the entire denuclearization process is over, it should be gradually and in accordance with the progress made, thereby encouraging continued compliance.
At the same time, continued cooperation with China and Russia is necessary to prevent North Korea from feeling pressured to withdraw from the deal due to conflicting pressures from its key allies and security partners.
 , Furthermore, any negotiation framework must be resilient enough to endure beyond Trump’s political tenure, recognizing the historical volatility of US policy shifts between administrations.
Given that Russia is gaining more and more power over North Korea, it is crucial to watch closely and consider the effects of Trump’s changing relationship with Putin.
In the end, maintaining a sophisticated balance between credible deterrence and diplomatic engagement is essential to preserving stability and advancing denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.