The U.S. Department of State evaluated South Korea and Japan’s strong partnership in dealing with the threats posed by Russia ahead of the upcoming NATO summit to be held in Washington D.C. next month. James O’Brien, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Europe and Eurasia, spoke on the matter during a pre-summit briefing at the Department of State’s Foreign Press Center in Washington D.C.
O’Brien mentioned the NATO alliance issue of building partnerships with India and the Pacific and guaranteeing Ukraine’s success as the headlines of the summit. He stated that the security concerns faced in the India-Pacific region are very similar to the security concerns on NATO Article 5 territory (collective defense). Therefore, it is logical to share lessons and cooperate against similar collective threats.
O’Brien expressed his expectation that the summit will be an opportunity to construct habits of cooperation and substantive areas of joint action between NATO and India-Pacific partners on top of sharing views on such affairs. Regarding the guarantee of Ukraine’s success, he said, “We will devote a considerable amount of time,” emphasizing, “We expect the alliance to agree to lay the bridge for Ukraine’s NATO membership.”
Concerning the war in Ukraine, he pointed out that “Ukraine must show Russia that it can continue the fight as long as Russia chooses to persist with its unjustified invasion.” Citing the G7’s agreement to support Ukraine, he emphasized, “Ukraine must be in a position to persist this fight until 2025,” and “Time is on the side of Ukraine, not Russia.” He revealed, “Russia’s stay on the battlefield is guaranteed by substantial support from China,” adding, “More than 70% of the machine tools used to make Russian weapons and over 90% of electronic equipment are produced in China.”
O’Brien criticized, “We have been asking Chinese authorities if they could use leverage to bring Russia to the negotiating table sooner, but they (China) seem reluctant to do so.” He pointed out, “Russia can fight because China can assist, so we will carry on to discuss this matter. He added, “Furthermore, seeing Russia increasingly act together closely with Iran and North Korea, two countries that have repeatedly concurred to sanctions in other contexts, we can see how thin Russia’s (war) support level is.”
In response to a question about whether India and the Pacific are included in the defense plan discussions at the NATO summit, O’Brien stated that the defense plan is “for NATO Article 5 territory (NATO member countries).” He added, “We will talk over lessons and methods that we can continue to pull together regarding the India-Pacific region, but I don’t want to mention specific measures.”
Coming back at the question about whether there could be collective action against China, which supports Russia’s defense industry, he stressed, “The United States and the European Union have taken action against Chinese companies that circumvent international sanctions against Russia,” adding, “There is already a powerful international statement that China’s actions are incompatible with efforts to resolve this conflict.”
He further explained, “What we are asking for is for China to use leverage to bring Russia to the negotiating table to resolve this conflict according to the UN Charter.” O’Brien explained the reason why the U.S. government does not designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism is that “flexibility is needed at this time,” and “Designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism would change the flexibility to use resources for supporting Ukraine.”
In this regard, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller stated at a briefing on the same day that referring to Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism could have various side effects. He emphasized, “We believe it is more effective to hold Russia accountable for its actions.” Miller also stated, “We will continue measures such as sanctioning Russian officials or weakening Russia’s military power through export control measures.”
Answering back to the question about what side effects would follow from designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, he said, “We have seen that it is difficult for relief workers and aid officials to do their jobs. It becomes difficult for them to perform their duties when a natural disaster occurs.” He added, “We have weighed the pros and cons,” and “It’s not easy when considering the cost versus benefit (of designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism).”
