US and allies accuse North Korea and Russia of violating UN sanctions
The United States and 10 allies on Thursday said the military cooperation between Russia and North Korea flagrantly violates UN sanctions and has helped Moscow increase its missile strikes on Ukrainian cities.
They made the accusations in their first report since joining forces to monitor sanctions against North Korea after Russia vetoed a resolution in March 2024 to continue the monitoring by a UN Security Council panel of experts.
Advertisement
It had been issuing reports of Pyongyang's sanctions violations since 2010.
The 29-page report produced by the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team — comprised of the US, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea and the United Kingdom — said the evidence it gathered demonstrates that North Korea and Russia have engaged in 'myriad unlawful activities' explicitly prohibited by UN sanctions resolutions.
Russian President Vladimir Putin (Alexander Kazakov, Sputnik, Kremlin via AP)
It said North Korea has transferred arms and related materiel by sea, air and rail, including artillery, ballistic missiles and combat vehicles, for Russia's use in the war in Ukraine.
Russia has transferred air defence systems to North Korea, and its forces trained the North's troops deployed to support Russia's war, the team said.
Advertisement
And Moscow also has supplied refined petroleum products to Pyongyang in far excess of the yearly cap under UN sanctions, and has maintained corresponding banking relations with the North in violation of sanctions.
The 11 countries said this unlawful cooperation has 'contributed to Moscow's ability to increase its missile attacks against Ukrainian cities, including targeted strikes against critical civilian infrastructure.'
The cooperation has also provided resources for North Korea to fund its military and banned ballistic missile programmes, and it has allowed the more than 11,000 troops Pyongyang has deployed to Russia since October 2024 to gain first-hand military experience, the team said.
There was no immediate response from the Russian Mission to the United Nations to a request for comment on the report.
Advertisement
The report covers the period between January 1, 2024, and April 30, 2025, and points to evidence that Russia and North Korea intend to further deepen their military cooperation for at least the foreseeable future.
It cites an unnamed country in the team reporting that Russian-flagged cargo vessels delivered as many as 9 million rounds of ammunition for artillery and multiple rocket launchers from North Korea to Russia in 2024.
The report includes images of containers, which the team says were from North Korean and Russian ports and an ammunition dump in Russia.
Citing an unnamed team member, the report says North Korea last year transferred at least 100 ballistic missiles to Russia, which were launched into Ukraine 'to destroy civilian infrastructure and terrorise populated areas such as Kyiv and Zaporizhzhia.'
Advertisement
North Korean Public Security Minister Pang Tu Sop, right, meets with Russian Vice Interior Minister Vitaly Shulika at the Mansudae Assembly Hall in Pyongyang (AP/Jon Chol Jin)
It also transferred 'elements of three brigade sets of heavy artillery,' the report said.
It includes images of a North Korean 170mm self-propelled gun that it said was being transported through Russia, and North Korean multiple rocket launcher ammunition and an anti-tank missile, which it said were found in Ukraine.
The team said in a joint statement that it will continue to monitor implementation of UN resolutions 'and raise awareness of ongoing attempts to violate and evade UN sanctions'.
It urged North Korea 'to engage in meaningful diplomacy'.
Advertisement
The Security Council imposed sanctions after North Korea's first nuclear test explosion in 2006 and tightened them over the years in a total of 10 resolutions seeking, so far unsuccessfully, to cut funds and curb its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes
The last sanctions resolution was adopted by the council in December 2017.
China and Russia vetoed a US-sponsored resolution in May 2022 that would have imposed new sanctions over a spate of intercontinental ballistic missile launches, and have blocked all other UN action against North Korea.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Warfare is changing by the day, but Britain is still decades behind
When Lord George Robertson led the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in 1997, the GDP of the UK was greater than those of China and India combined. America reigned supreme, the only other superpower, the Soviet Union, having slowly dissolved after losing the Cold War eight years previously. Lord George is back as one of three leads of the latest SDR, widely expected to be published on Monday. But the geostrategic landscape is very different now. No longer can we afford to luxuriate in that uni-polar moment of Western and Nato supremacy. China, Iran and North Korea are functioning surprisingly well as a de facto alliance in supporting Russia in its war on Ukraine. And that is a real war of national survival, not the politically caveated, limited military interventions of the global war on terrorism. This is war at speed and scale, a war mixing the timeless requirements of industrial production with the cutting-edge technologies of the digital age: smart sensors, big-data, cloud connectivity, artificial intelligence, robotics. The new ways of warfare are evolving at dizzying speed. Technical evolution, the obsolescence cycle, is now measured in weeks. Dual-use technology – that with civil and military utility – is blended with more conventional munitions; decades-old assumptions are upended overnight; the ways and means of warfare are being comprehensively disrupted. Historically, this is a change that happens every century or so: Napoleon's Levée en Masse, sail to steam, the aeroplane. That a superpower's navy has, in the Black Sea, been defeated by a country without a navy is a wake up call to all. And here lies the big risk – the victor's paradox. 'Top Dogs' are loath to shed that which put them on top, that in which they have made big investments and of which they are masters. Paradigm shifts are the opportunity for smart challengers to abandon the previous, flagging chase and master the emerging world quicker than the current champions can adapt. China, especially, has had a plan to do exactly this for the last few decades, with massive investments in, inter alia, cyber, AI and hypersonic missiles to add a technological edge to the military mass it has built in parallel: its navy now has more ships than America's. It is using Ukraine, and Kashmir, as a proving ground. Russia has learned (slowly, as it is a corrupt kleptocracy) with grim determination the lessons of modern warfare – exemplified by its recent invention of fibre-optically steered drones. It also knows how to mobilise a war economy. In contrast, and despite much pumped-up rhetoric, most of Nato, including the UK, has demonstrated a reluctance to abandon the old paradigm. Yes, we have bought some drones, but we have bought them as if we were buying sophisticated manned warplanes. We may be buying them slightly quicker now, but these are percentage changes on a system that still takes years, and millions of pounds, to buy tens. Ukraine is on schedule to make four million drones this year. Allied to that is that Western militaries have mirrored a society that has become ever more regulated and risk averse. The British Army is down to 14 artillery pieces, which were bought as stop-gaps. There is still no certification and so no clearance to fire them on a UK range. Similar restrictions apply to innovative drone training – but what if one crashes? The paradox here is that by trying to eradicate every small risk we make the big one – war – more likely. Ultimately we aim to deter, and deterrence depends on credibility. Credibility hinges on the proven military capability to win and the political will to engage with force and see it through. Small forces, a limited production capacity and supply chain to rapidly expand and evolve them, and a risk averse culture that trains and employs them will not impress allies or deter enemies. The SDR's other authors alongside Lord George are Fiona Hill, a proven free-thinker, and General Richard Barrons who was one of the first to write about this changing paradigm ten years ago. Their SDR should not be read as recent reviews have been – a relative tally of platform numbers and the size of the residual, 'bonsai' military. That paradigm was already broken several defence reviews ago – tweaking it is but to fiddle with the increasingly irrelevant. The reader should ask instead: to what extent is this a root and branch reform of our now sclerotic system, and to what extent is it going to re-orientate our whole Defence Enterprise – MOD Head Office processes and accountabilities, agile adaptation and procurement, secure supply chains, rapid adoption of technological advances, expansion of reserve forces? If it charts a clear path to a revised 'theory of winning' that can credibly generate a wartime force with the mass and lethality to defeat our foes then it will be a good review. If it continues the usual horse-trading between the individual services over their peacetime structure then it will have been a missed opportunity. With the US making it clear that Europe must look after its own defence we have no safety net if we get it wrong. But America's position gives us an opportunity as well: the chance, the obligation, to show genuine leadership in Europe.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Europe ‘must get real' about Trump abandoning Ukraine
British and French officials drawing up plans for a peacekeeping force in Ukraine have discussed the need to 'get real' about Donald Trump abandoning the country. Officials agreed to shift the focus from deploying European troops to back up any ceasefire to sustaining Kyiv's long-term defence against Russia's invasion without American support. There is now a genuine concern that the US president will follow through on his threat to walk away from his role as a mediator, having failed to bring Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table. 'Let's get real and admit the US will never be on board,' a Western official told the Telegraph, describing the dire mood at the meeting in the Hague. A European diplomat added: 'It was mostly about how to sustain the necessary support to Ukraine when we assume that the US would only continue providing some specific assets, such as intelligence. 'We also agreed on the need to step up economic pressure on Russia.' The meeting in the Dutch capital, attended by 'political directors' from foreign ministries, marked a stark change in roles of the 'coalition of the willing' devised by Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron to uphold a possible ceasefire being pursued by the Americans. Sir Keir and Mr Macron have been pushing the 'coalition of the willing' proposal under which European allies would use their soldiers to help enforce any peace deal. More than 30 nations have indicated support, although only a handful have publicly offered to put troops on the ground in Ukraine. 'Ukraine in Nato not on the table' A central question had been whether Washington is willing to provide what has been described by UK figures as a 'security guarantee' or a 'back-up' for this force. The group still hasn't publicly conceded that its intentions have changed, with the chances of peace dwindling the longer Putin holds out against international pressure for a truce. The European nations also agreed to invite Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, to the Nato summit in The Hague next month. His attendance had previously been in doubt after Mr Trump's vocal opposition to Ukraine joining the Western military alliance. General Keith Kellogg, Mr Trump's Ukraine envoy, said on Friday: 'We've said that, to us, Ukraine coming into Nato is not on the table. 'And we're not the only country that says that. You know, I can probably give you four countries in Nato, and it takes 32 of the 32 to allow you to come into Nato.'
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump and Putin hint at US-Russia trade revival, but business environment remains hostile
Hundreds of foreign companies left Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, including major U.S. firms like Coca-Cola, Nike, Starbucks, ExxonMobil and Ford Motor Co. But after more than three years of war, President Donald Trump has held out the prospect of restoring U.S.-Russia trade if there's ever a peace settlement. And Russian President Vladimir Putin has said foreign companies could come back under some circumstances. 'Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic 'bloodbath' is over, and I agree,' Trump said in a statement after a phone call with Putin. 'There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED.' The president then shifted his tone toward Putin after heavy drone and missile attacks on Kyiv, saying Putin 'has gone absolutely crazy' and threatening new sanctions. That and recent comments from Putin warning Western companies against reclaiming their former stakes seemed to reflect reality more accurately — that it's not going to be a smooth process for businesses going back into Russia. That's because Russia's business environment has massively changed since 2022. And not in ways that favor foreign companies. And with Putin escalating attacks and holding on to territory demands Ukraine likely isn't going to accept, a peace deal seems distant indeed. Here are factors that could deter U.S. companies from ever going back: Risk of losing it all Russian law classifies Ukraine's allies as 'unfriendly states' and imposes severe restrictions on businesses from more than 50 countries. Those include limits on withdrawing money and equipment as well as allowing the Russian government to take control of companies deemed important. Foreign owners' votes on boards of directors can be legally disregarded. Companies that left were required to sell their businesses for 50% or less of their assessed worth, or simply wrote them off while Kremlin-friendly business groups snapped up their assets on the cheap. Under a 2023 presidential decree the Russian government took control of Finnish energy company Fortum, German power company Unipro, France's dairy company Danone and Danish brewer Carlsberg. Even if a peace deal removed the U.S. from the list of unfriendlies, and if the massive Western sanctions restricting business in Russia were dropped, the track record of losses would remain vivid. And there's little sign any of that is going to happen. While the Russian government has talked in general about companies coming back, 'there's no specific evidence of any one company saying that they are ready to come back,' said Chris Weafer, CEO of Macro-Advisory Ltd. consultancy. 'It's all at the political narrative level.' Russia's actions and legal changes have left 'long-lasting damage' to its business environment, says Elina Ribakova, non-resident senior fellow at the Bruegel research institute in Brussels. She said a return of U.S. businesses is 'not very likely.' 'We need to strangle them' In a meeting at the Kremlin on May 26 to mark Russian Entrepreneurs Day, Putin said that Russia needed to throttle large tech firms such as Zoom and Microsoft, which had restricted their services in Russia after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, so that domestic tech companies could thrive instead. 'We need to strangle them,' Putin said. 'After all, they are trying to strangle us: we need to reciprocate. We didn't kick anyone out; we didn't interfere with anyone. We provided the most favorable conditions possible for their work here, in our market, and they are trying to strangle us.' He reassured a representative from Vkusno-i Tochka (Tasty-period) — the Russian-owned company that took over McDonald's restaurants in the country — that Moscow would aid them if the U.S. fast food giant tried to buy back its former stores. Asked for comment, McDonald's referred to their 2022 statement that 'ownership of the business in Russia is no longer tenable.' Not much upside On top of Russia's difficult business environment, the economy is likely to stagnate due to lack of investment in sectors other than the military, economists say. 'Russia has one of the lowest projected long-term growth rates and one of the highest levels of country risk in the world,' says Heli Simola, senior economist at the Bank of Finland in a blog post. 'Only Belarus offers an equally lousy combination of growth and risk.' Most of the opportunity to make money is related to military production, and it's unlikely U.S. companies would work with the Russian military-industrial complex, said Ribakova. 'It's not clear where exactly one could plug in and expect outsize returns that would compensate for this negative investment environment.' Repurchase agreements Some companies, including Renault and Ford Motor Co., left with repurchase agreements letting them buy back their stakes years later if conditions change. But given Russia's unsteady legal environment, that's tough to count on. The Russian purchasers may try to change the terms, look for more money, or ignore the agreements, said Weafer. 'There's a lot of uncertainty as to how those buyback auctions will be enforced.' But what about the oil and gas? Multinational oil companies were among those who suffered losses leaving Russia, so it's an open question whether they would want to try again even given Russia's vast oil and gas reserves. US.. major ExxonMobil saw its stake in the Sakhalin oil project unilaterally terminated and wrote off $3.4 billion. Russia's major oil companies have less need of foreign partners than they did in the immediate post-Soviet era, though smaller oil field services might want to return given the size of Russia's oil industry. But they would have to face new requirements on establishing local presence and investment, Weafer said. Some never left According to the Kyiv School of Economics, 2,329 foreign companies are still doing business in Russia, many from China or other countries that aren't allied with Ukraine, while 1,344 are in the process of leaving and 494 have exited completely. The Yale School of Management's Chief Executive Leadership Institute lists some two dozen U.S. companies still doing business in Russia, while some 100 more have cut back by halting new investments. EU sanctions could remain even if US open U.S. sanctions are considered the toughest, because they carry the threat of being cut off from the U.S. banking and financial system. But the EU is still slapping new rounds of sanctions on Russia. Even if U.S. sanctions are dropped, EU sanctions would continue to present compliance headaches for any company that also wants to do business in Europe.
