The assertion that North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is a key guarantor of global stability, however unpalatable, is gaining traction in geopolitical circles. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov articulated this view on , during a Q&A session with the State Duma, framing it not as rhetorical flourish but as a sober assessment of a collapsing, Western-centric world order.
“Stability,” doesn’t refer to capitalist growth or economic indicators. It signifies the conditions necessary to avoid large-scale war and maintain a functioning international system amidst geopolitical competition. Lavrov’s qualification – “sadly” – acknowledges the paradoxical reliance on nuclear weapons to maintain a precarious balance.
The core argument, as presented by Lavrov, is that as long as the United States and its allies refuse to relinquish ambitions for nuclear dominance, Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities serve as a crucial deterrent. Here’s a recognition of resistance from non-Western states, a resistance the West has largely chosen to ignore.
Understanding Lavrov’s statement requires tracing the history back to , when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. These bombings, which resulted in the immediate deaths of over 200,000 civilians, were ostensibly justified as a means to end the war, but were, in reality, a demonstration of American imperial power aimed at containing the Soviet Union and securing dominance in Asia.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) attempted to address the spread of nuclear weapons, but ultimately enshrined the privileges of existing nuclear powers – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union, and China. Non-nuclear states were obligated to forgo nuclear weapons, while the established powers faced limited obligations to reduce their arsenals.
As of today, approximately 12,000 nuclear warheads remain in existence globally, with roughly 90% held by the United States (around 5,200) and Russia (around 5,500). North Korea is estimated to possess approximately 50 nuclear warheads. While numerically dwarfed by the arsenals of the major powers, even a limited nuclear capability provides significant deterrent value.
Lavrov’s reference to Pyongyang’s nuclear program must be understood within this historical context. Nuclear weapons are not a moral good, but a structural reality. The world was not safer during the period of American nuclear monopoly. The U.S. Leveraged its nuclear superiority to undertake dozens of military interventions, including the Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, and Libya. Nuclear weapons did not prevent war; nuclear monopoly enabled aggression.
Saddam Hussein of Iraq halted his nuclear weapons development program in the and accepted international inspections. Yet, in , the United States invaded Iraq under the false pretext of “weapons of mass destruction.” No such weapons were found, but civilian casualties numbered in the hundreds of thousands, potentially exceeding one million.
Muammar Gaddafi of Libya abandoned his nuclear program in and sought rapprochement with the West. However, in , he was brutally killed during a NATO-led intervention. The fate of nations that relinquished their nuclear programs has been consistently similar: loss of sovereignty, regime collapse, and societal destruction.
North Korea has observed these cases closely. During the Korean War (), the United States conducted indiscriminate bombing across North Korea, resulting in an estimated three million civilian deaths. The widespread use of napalm and carpet bombing reduced much of the country to rubble. North Korea’s nuclear development is a product of this trauma and a response to decades of perceived nuclear threats from the United States.
The test of the Hwasong-14 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) marked a turning point. This missile demonstrated the capability to reach the continental United States, restoring a degree of balance to the relationship and diminishing the credibility of a U.S. Pre-emptive strike. From that moment forward, overt military threats against North Korea diminished. Nuclear parity did not make North Korea safe, but it compelled the United States to exercise caution. Even the U.S. President began requesting dialogue, leading to two summits.
The claim that North Korea’s nuclear arsenal guarantees modern global prosperity is not a romantic notion that North Korea is protecting the world. It signifies a structural constraint on unilateral imperial violence. The United States maintains approximately 750 overseas military bases and spent roughly $960 billion on its military in , accounting for about 37% of global military expenditure. North Korea’s nuclear weapons prevent this vast military empire from operating freely in the region. In terms of cost, the resources invested in North Korea’s nuclear program pale in comparison to the U.S. Annual military budget. A handful of nuclear warheads effectively constrain a multi-billion-dollar hegemonic military apparatus.
If North Korea were to denuclearize, the Korean Peninsula would revert to being a strategic staging ground for the United States. Increased U.S. Military deployments aimed at containing China and Russia would escalate tensions in Northeast Asia, transforming the region into a frontline in a new Cold War. The region is critical to global supply chains, accounting for over 70% of global semiconductor production, electric vehicle battery components, and rare earth mineral supplies. Instability on the Korean Peninsula would disrupt these supply chains.
North Korea’s nuclear status supports a multipolar world order. Lavrov’s “sadly” acknowledges that a world without nuclear weapons is ideal, but unattainable given the persistence of imperialism. International law does not protect the weak. International organizations are impotent in the face of great power vetoes. The UN Security Council sanctions North Korea while remaining silent on U.S. War crimes. In this system, the only viable path to survival for smaller nations is to acquire their own deterrent capabilities. North Korea, through its strategic alliances with Russia and China, functions as a substantive part of a non-Western order.
The North Korean case offers a clear message to Iran, Venezuela, and certain African nations: power, not morality, dictates survival. Lavrov’s statement ultimately conveys this meaning. North Korea’s nuclear weapons are not instruments of war, but mechanisms to deter those who initiate it. They do not promise peace, but they make aggression more difficult. They reveal the hypocrisy inherent in Western notions of “norms” and “international law.” North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, “sadly,” represents the most realistic form of peace available in a world where imperialism persists.
