the united states says weapons negotiations between russia and

north korea are moving forward. reports suggest a face-to-face meeting between the two leaders could happen this month. not much is being said, by either moscow or pyongyang, but their relations appear to be deepening. washington maintains moscow is desperate, and is further isolating itself amid the war in ukraine. so, is an isolated russia more dangerous for the west? and will forging ties with north korea give president putin more leverage? we will explore these issues with our guests. but first, this report. reporter: it is a friendship that is causing alarm in washington. russia and north korea. the united states says president vladimir putin a kim jong-un may meet in russia later this month. moscow is looking for weapons and north korea has plenty to sell. >> and heating

infrastructure as we head into winter, to try to conquer territory that belongs to another subornation is not going to reflect well on north korea and they will pay a price for this. in return for weapons, pyongyang will likely want food. >> they are not getting what they need from china. which i think is very interesting. reporter: the kremlin has not commented. moscow has been turned into

other heavily sanctioned nation such as iran and north korea for support, a move that could be used for political coverage. >> [indiscernible] russia will probably start doing something to create a north korean threat. reporter: the russian defense minister sergei shoigu travel to pyongyang in july for a weapons shopping spree. kim showed up as weapons and displayed missiles band by the united nations. their suspicion that north korea has already provided russia with artillery shells, rockets and

ammunition. the question is whether more weapons and an alliance will follow. imran: let's meet our guests. youngshik bong, research fellow at yongsei university institute for north korean studies and adviser to south korea's national unification ministry. julie norman, co-director of the centre on u.s. politics at university college london. sergei markov, former russian member of parliament and a former spokesperson for russian president vladimir putin. a warm welcome to you all. let's begin in moscow. the russians have not said anything about this meeting. the americans are making a lot of noise about it. what have you been hearing? >> i think that russia is

interested in having shells because north korea has a lot of preserves of shells. russia needs shells and north korea has shells. russia is interested in having some of the soldiers from north korea.

russia is one of the main agricultural superpowers and can feed north koreans very well. it is a point for discussion. [indiscernible]

imran: our guests in moscow is saying this is two subornation is doing a deal with each other. what do you think? >> whatever will be negotiated and decided between russia and north korea is up to those two countries. a lot will be held responsible for the outcomes of any agreements that is possibly forged. if a meeting is indeed going to take place. if russia provides military weapon technology we have russia not south korea cross in the redline first.

if south korea will provide to ukraine, russia will consider it an official declaration of war to russia and russia will provide weapons to north korea. if russia crosses the redline first, south korea will have free hands and russia will be accountable for the outcomes. imran: it is a bit of a master stroke the part of vladimir putin. the deal will have strict parameters if it happens. there is not a huge amount of the u.s. can do about it. >> that is exactly right. the u.s. has been watching this potential development of the close relationship between russia and north korea for some time and especially this potential movement of arms.

the u.s. already has sanctions on north korea. i think some in washington will be watching china's movements if and when this relationship develops, how much beijing intervenes or does not intervene. imran: one other thing that has been brought up is the transfer of advanced weapons technology by russia to north korea. you talked about food aid and other types of aid, but you did not talk about advanced weapons technology. do you think that might happen by russia? >> [indiscernible]

imran: that is not quite a green light to give ed wamp -- advanced weapons technology to north korea but certainly there is some wiggle room to give some. what does he do to south korea? >> south korea's response to

north korea's provocations has been strictly proportional. the key is proportional. if russia is not going to provide technology for north korea to help develop nuclear propulsive submarine's and south korea's response will be proportional. but if russia stops at providing north korea only with food aid and invitation to military exercises with china, then it will not satisfy the needs of north korea, which is struggling to salvage its failed economy. it has an ambition to develop

five major [indiscernible] russia is willing to provide north korea will not be satisfactory to the regime of north korea. there is a huge gap [indiscernible] if some meeting is going to happen. imran: that is a gap we have seen before. let's take for example negotiations between iran and the united states. when donald trump pulled out of deal, iran raised its stakes in the game by a reduction -- enriching uranium. russia here could do the same thing. it could give weapons and keep pushing it and then back away.

americans are on the back foot here. is there anything they can do that can stop anything like this? >> it is a good question and you are right. there is the short term concerns right now for washington in terms of more ammunition and artillery. there are also long-term concerns as well, especially the potential transfer of critical technology to further develop north korea's weapon system. the u.s. has been watching the acceleration of north korea's testing. in terms of pressure, i imagine it will not be unlike what we have seen in the past with the wrong -- iran, especially regarding any transfer of nuclear technology. it will be difficult for the

u.s. to control that. they are trying to bolster relations with other partners in the region, japan and south korea most prominently. imran: the russians have supported sanctions on nine north korea in the past. is this a complete change of position for russia? >> not a complete change. but a dramatic change. [indiscernible]

western countries behave as criminals as they do not respect [indiscernible] for example, russia's agreement of the grain deal. [indiscernible] they fully violated the agreement.

look at what happened with the military government in africa. [indiscernible] imran: he says there is literally nothing you guys can do. is there anything you guys can do? i do not think there is, is there? >> that is why i emphasized the

proportional response as a keyword. for any closer security partnership and possible weapons trade taking place between russia and north korea. the response will be proportional if russia gives advanced weapon technology. a likewise response should be expected. no country can force russia as a sovereign country to do something it does not want. it is truly russia's own choice as a sovereign country. likewise russia will be held responsible for the outcomes of its own actions and decisions as a permanent member of the security council of the united nations, which happened to vote

in favor of passing resolutions against north korea and other measures. russia as a sovereign country has all the freedom to make certain choices. but the responsibility will not disappear. imran: this is where we are at right now. we have a need for russia to get the type of weapons that north korea has in abundance. that is these shells. it does not have many partners. a shares a tiny border with north korea. if you are in u.s. politics right now and you realize your choices are absolutely limited, what are you going to be thinking? what are your options going to be in terms of getting out in front of this? are you going to twilight to sweep it under the carpet?

>> what we have seen so far is a strategy that the u.s. used in the early parts of the war, trying to get out the head of the story and expose what might be happening before it actually happens. u.s. intelligence wanted to broadcast the fact that this meeting was likely going to occur, forecasting was some of the agreements might be. that is part of the strategy right there, putting it out in the open. these are two sovereign states. the fact that the united states cannot change the decisions they are making is true, but the u.s. can obviously respond to the consequences there will be. there are international frameworks to stop some of these arms transfers. with that said, i think the u.s. right now is going to be doing their own bolstering of ukraine for similar types of artillery

and ammunition in terms of the war. imran: that is very interesting. the u.s. has a habit of publicly saying there is a redline. obama said this about syria and its use of chemical weapons. syria used chemical weapons. yes, the u.s. can supply ukraine with similar weapons, but it is likely they will need to make a strong statement and it is going to be some sort of redline that we have seen in the past. >> after obama's comments during syria, they are trying to avoid the redline terminology so to speak. we have heard comments from washington saying there would be a price to pay if the arm steel went through. we are not -- if the arms deal

went through. i do think syria was a lot different. there were options on the table at the time. the big u.s. is a bit more constrained with these two sovereign actors. they need to rely on different kinds of avenues. the direct leverage will be difficult for this one. imran: are you worried the u.s. is saying there might be a price to pay? >> russia worry about what united states can do?

united states made dictatorship to ukraine [indiscernible] about 400,000 ukrainian soldiers. the united states prohibited using russian language which is native-language for 75% of the population of ukraine. what united states can do more? imran: a very quick point because we are running out of time. your part of the national unification, we are about as far

from that as ever before. but is there any leverage south korea has on north korea? that might point to another way out of this? >> the situation is not ripe for any meaningful communication between them. it appears that the regime is putting everything on the a result of the upcoming presidential election in the united states. hoping donald trump is coming back. then all these sanctions might be quickly up the table. until then, north korea will not have an interest in cultivating

dialogue with south korea or any other countries. imran: we have not really heard of a north korean-russian detente. north korea was seen as something that was more convenient than perhaps a trade partner. has this come as a surprise to the u.s. establishment? >> this is a sort of turning up the tables with russia appealing to north korea for weapons. it is definitely a shift from the past. the united states has been watching these movements closely for the last year when it was indicated north korea might be given weapons to the wagner group. it has been on the radar for a while. it shows the need of russia

right now to be looking at states like north korea and iran because their own weapons are depleting and because sanctions are working. i think it is a pretty optimistic spin on it. there is a change in some of the geopolitics right now. if china leads into this for joint drills, that is solidarity think united states would not want to see. -- the united states will not want to see. imran: is it possible you can get this deal done on a practical level? >> on a practical level, rush and north korea have a common border.

the trade can be reasonably made. it would not be secret because almost nothing is secret in the modern world. this deal could be implemented without a problem. the problem is to make the deal, because north korea is a very unique country [indiscernible] is that possible at all? we do not know yet. imran: i want to thank all of our guests. i wanted to thank you as well for watching. you can see the program any time by visiting our website at aljazeera.com.

you can also join the conversation on x. from the whole team here, goodbye for now.

-puerto rico. a beautiful island with more than its fair share of mother nature and man-made issues -- earthquakes and hurricanes, struggles with identity, for equal attention and support from the mainland, all of which must sometimes seem like an unwinnable race for recovery and progress. but urban art has become a surprising catalyst for change here. stunning murals in some of the most hardscrabble barrios. murals that tell the history of the neighborhoods and the island that give people a voice, that inspire hope and pride in those that live here, that are simply beautiful.