°µÍø½ûÇø

Jonah Leff, executive director of Conflict Armament Research, gave the council a detailed analysis of the remnants of the , on Jan. 2.

He said the organization documented the missile’s rocket motor, its tail section and almost 300 components manufactured by 26 companies from eight countries and territories, and it determined the missile was either a manufactured in 2023 in the DPRK.

The organization reached its conclusion based on the missile’s unique characteristics — its diameter, distinct jet vane actuators that direct the missile’s thrust and trajectory, the pattern around the igniter, the presence of Korean characters on some rocket components, and other marks and components dating back to 2023, he said.

“Following the initial documentation, our teams inspected three additional identical DPRK missiles that struck Kyiv and Zaporizhzhia earlier this year,� Leff said. They also observed additional conventional weapons, including an artillery rocket produced in 1977, “that had been seized on the front lines and had not been observed on the battlefield previously in Ukraine� that were manufactured by the DPRK, and might have been part of a recent larger consignment of rockets.

The council discussed illegal arms transfers from North Korea at the request of France, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The meeting followed that ended the monitoring of sanctions against North Korea over its expanding nuclear program by a U.N. panel of experts. The U.S. and its European and Asian allies accused Moscow of seeking to avoid scrutiny as it for its .

U.N. disarmament chief Izumi Nakamitsu told the council Friday that before its mandate expired, the panel of experts was reviewing a report from Ukraine on missile debris it recovered “following information about short-range ballistic missiles manufactured in the DPRK and used by Russian armed forces in Ukraine.�

While the mandate of the experts, which had been extended since 2009 with Russia’s support, was terminated, Nakamitsu said “it is important to note� that the Security Council committee responsible for monitoring the implementation of sanctions against the DPRK “continues its work and will oversee the implementation of the sanctions regime.�

U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood called Leff’s presentation with its many technical details “quite compelling,� and told the council that while Russia may have ended the panel’s monitoring with China’s “tacit support,� the briefing showed that Moscow and Beijing “cannot prevent the public from learning about the unlawful arms transfers occurring between the DPRK and Russia.�

He said the independent findings by Leff’s research organization corroborate open-source reports and analyses. And he said that, in addition to the dozens of missiles Russia has transferred from the DPRK, it has also unlawfully transferred over 11,000 containers of munitions.

“As a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia has a responsibility to uphold and strengthen international peace and security,� Wood said. “Yet, Russia is launching ballistic missiles, which it unlawfully procured from the DPRK, against the Ukrainian people.�

Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused the meeting's Western sponsors of attempting to use the Security Council “to trot out an anti-Russian and anti-North Korean narrative and to disseminate baseless accusations in order to detract attention from their own destructive actions which foment escalation in the region.�

He called the claims that Russia is using DPRK missiles in Ukraine “absolutely false,� questioning the professionalism and expertise of those who examined the wreckage in Ukraine.

Nebenzia accused the United States of constantly and said Washington’s policy of “extended deterrence� on Russia’s eastern border “poses a real threat not just for the DPRK but also for our country.�

He said the purpose of the June 19 signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “is to play a stabilizing role in northeast Asia amidst an unprecedented escalation of tensions.� As for Article 4 of the agreement, providing for the delivery of mutual military assistance if either country is subject to an armed attack, he said this should not arouse “national security-related concerns� for countries that don’t plan to attack the DPRK.

North Korean Ambassador Kim Song called the United States “the world’s biggest arms exporter,� and accused the Western countries that called the council meeting of being “the main culprits� of disturbing global peace. They have caused “tragic bloodshed by extensive " and have cast “a cloud of war in every corner of the world.�

Song detailed U.S. arms shipments to South Korea and Japan and accused the U.S. and its followers of trying to obstruct the development of DPRK-Russia relations. He defended those relations as “completely of a peace-loving and defensive nature.�

China's deputy U.N. ambassador, Geng Shuang, warned that peace and security in all of northeast Asia will be affected if there is .

He called on all parties to be “rational and pragmatic� and “work together to cool down the situation.�

to realize long-term peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, Geng said, and he called on the United States to end its pressure campaign against the DPRK and “the myth of deterrence,� and demonstrate its sincerity in holding an unconditional dialogue “through concrete action.�

U.S. envoy Wood retorted: “If, indeed, China is so concerned about the security situation on the Korean peninsula, then it needs to use its influence with the DPRK to persuade it from undermining regional and global security.�

“It should also use its influence that it has with Russia through its new to end this increasingly dangerous military cooperation between DPRK and Russia,� he said.