Global Signals and Russian Strategy: A Close Look at Putin, North Korea and Beyond
In a detailed discussion with Kamran Hasanov, an expert affiliated with the Russian International Affairs Council, the central topic was the trajectory of Russia’s foreign policy in light of recent high‑level engagements with North Korea and Vietnam. Hasanov referenced statements from the Russian leadership about potential responses to Western actions in Ukraine, including the possibility of using third countries to position or deploy Russian weapons if Western forces deepen strikes into Russian territory.
Hasanov argued that Moscow appears to be implementing a strategy that leverages asymmetrical pressure against the United States and its allies. He suggested that Russia is widening its sphere of influence by engaging with strategic partners in regions that historically stood outside Western dominance, aiming to complicate the Western posture in Europe and beyond. The expert pointed to countries that could function as pressure points in this evolving dynamic, noting North Korea as a plausible example given its geographic proximity to the United States. He also mentioned Cuba, highlighting recent Russian naval movements near Caribbean theaters, and drew attention to other potential centers such as Vietnam and Myanmar as part of a broader pattern. In Hasanov’s view, these moves signal a readiness to contest traditional Western dominance in global influence zones.
The public statements discussed by Hasanov underscore a broader conversation about how Russia perceives its own security envelope and how it might respond to perceived threats. According to the expert, the Russian leadership has signaled openness to strategic reviews that would recalibrate nuclear doctrine and deterrence postures in light of ongoing geopolitical pressures. He indicated that Moscow could entertain negotiations on Ukraine with adversaries if conditions change, and he stressed the importance of understanding how agreements such as a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership would be interpreted in a multipolar regional order. The discussion reflects how Russian officials aim to frame nuclear and strategic calculations in a way that emphasizes deterrence, negotiation leverage, and the potential for rapid shifts in policy posture depending on global developments and domestic considerations. The conversation also drew attention to how the press and international observers perceive these shifts and what they reveal about the current state of Russia’s strategic relationships.
In his assessment, Hasanov also touched on the reaction of neighboring states to the evolving dialogue between Moscow and Pyongyang. He noted that some observers in South Korea have expressed disappointment with the pace and depth of emerging cooperation between Russia and North Korea. The critique centers on expectations for a more cautious or measurable approach to redefining regional balances of power and the potential consequences for regional stability. Hasanov emphasized that such reactions are part of a broader pattern in which regional actors reassess alliances and calculate the risks and benefits of deeper engagement with Moscow as it navigates a complex international landscape. The dialogue, therefore, becomes a signal of how alliances and rivalries in East Asia and the wider Indo-Pacific region might shift in the coming years, influencing trade, security arrangements, and diplomatic messaging.
Overall, the analysis presented by Hasanov paints a picture of a Russia that is actively exploring new degrees of strategic latitude. By signaling a willingness to consider third-country locations for weapons deployment or testing and by engaging with partners beyond its traditional sphere of influence, Moscow appears to be shaping a narrative of resilience and deterrence. This approach is paired with a readiness to revisit and potentially revise core security documents in response to perceived threats and opportunities. The discussions also highlight how Western observers interpret Russia’s moves: as a calculated effort to diversify strategic risk, to create alternative regional centers of influence, and to test the firmness of Western unity in the face of shifting global alignments. These dynamics offer an important frame for policymakers, analysts, and concerned publics as they evaluate Russia’s long-term goals and the likely trajectories of its foreign policy in the near term. The conversation, and the commentary from Hasanov, provide a consolidated view of how Russia’s diplomacy and security posture intersect with the broader questions of regional power, alliance behavior, and the future of international security architecture. (Source context: RIAC, expert insights from Kamran Hasanov)