Speaking at a session of the Supreme People’s Assembly, Kim said expanding a “self-defensive nuclear deterrent” was essential for national security, economic development and regional stability, according to the official KCNA news agency.

Kim rejected the possibility of exchanging nuclear disarmament for economic incentives or security guarantees, saying North Korea had already demonstrated that it could pursue development alongside maintaining nuclear capabilities.

He said global conditions, marked by what he described as violations of sovereignty through force, underscored the necessity of nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantee of state survival.

Analysts in South Korea said the remarks appeared to indirectly reference recent U.S. military actions against Iran, reinforcing Pyongyang’s longstanding position that nuclear deterrence is essential to prevent external intervention.

Kim said South Korea had been designated the “most hostile state” and warned that any infringement on North Korea’s sovereignty would be met without hesitation.The comments signal a continued shift in Pyongyang’s policy away from reconciliation, effectively redefining inter-Korean relations as those between two adversarial states rather than potential partners for reunification.

Officials at South Korea’s Blue House described the remarks as detrimental to peaceful coexistence, calling for dialogue and cooperation to ensure stability on the Korean peninsula.

Economic plan and defence spendingAlongside security policy, Kim outlined a new five-year economic plan focused on industrial modernisation, increased energy production, agricultural output and housing expansion.

The assembly also approved a 2026 state budget allocating 15.8% of total expenditure to defence, with explicit funding for nuclear and military capabilities, according to KCNA.

A message from Vladimir Putin was delivered during the session, pledging deeper strategic ties between Moscow and Pyongyang.

President Donald Trump’s decision to restart U.S. nuclear testing after more than three decades has reignited worldwide discussions about global security, deterrence, and the future of nuclear disarmament.

While the announcement drew mixed reactions, it also opens a new chapter in redefining international cooperation, transparency, and responsible management of advanced defense technologies.

In a major policy move, U.S. President Donald Trump directed the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing after a 33-year hiatus, signaling a shift in America’s defense posture amid growing competition with Russia and China.

The announcement, made during his Asia visit, marks the administration’s effort to ensure the United States maintains strategic parity with other global powers in an evolving security landscape.

Trump made the statement while traveling to South Korea for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, emphasizing that the United States must test its nuclear systems “on an equal basis” with other nations.

The decision reflects growing concerns about rapid advancements in nuclear technology worldwide, particularly as other countries continue to modernize their arsenals.

The move comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions and increasing global focus on nuclear modernization programs.

Trump stated that the step was necessary to safeguard U.S. national security and strengthen deterrence capabilities, ensuring that the American arsenal remains both effective and secure.

While the announcement has sparked debate, some experts view it as an opportunity to reignite meaningful discussions about arms control, verification mechanisms, and responsible use of nuclear technology.

The decision may serve as a catalyst for a new round of negotiations aimed at balancing deterrence with non-proliferation goals.

The Kremlin responded cautiously, expressing hope that the United States would act responsibly while reaffirming its own adherence to international norms.

Russian officials clarified that their recent weapons tests did not involve nuclear explosions, signaling continued support for stability and restraint in the nuclear domain.

China, too, called for renewed dialogue and the preservation of global stability. The Chinese Foreign Ministry reiterated that any form of nuclear testing should be handled with extreme caution and within the framework of existing international commitments.

Their statement reflected a shared global concern for maintaining peace and preventing escalation in nuclear activities.

The United Nations also emphasized the importance of avoiding actions that could lead to misunderstanding or tension among nuclear-armed nations.

Officials reiterated that past decades of disarmament efforts have significantly reduced nuclear risks and urged countries to build upon those achievements through diplomacy and collaboration.

Despite the concerns, Trump’s directive may push the global community toward re-examining existing treaties, modernizing verification systems, and addressing the realities of emerging technologies such as hypersonic weapons and nuclear-powered delivery systems.

Experts argue that greater transparency and international oversight could help ensure accountability and trust among world powers.

The decision comes at a time when China has expanded its nuclear arsenal significantly, and Russia continues to showcase advanced delivery systems such as the Poseidon nuclear-powered torpedo.

The U.S. aims to ensure its deterrent capabilities remain credible while exploring avenues for renewed talks on disarmament and security cooperation.

Trump reaffirmed that the U.S. remains open to future negotiations on arms reduction, emphasizing his hope for eventual denuclearization.

He said discussions with Russia are ongoing and that China could be invited to join future rounds of dialogue, potentially creating a new multilateral framework for nuclear stability.

While some critics worry that renewed testing could escalate competition, others believe it could lead to a more transparent and modernized approach to nuclear stewardship.

With careful coordination and adherence to safety protocols, the United States could reinforce its global leadership role in maintaining responsible defense practices.

Industry observers believe that this policy shift could prompt renewed attention to scientific research, nuclear safety, and non-explosive testing technologies, enabling more precise and controlled assessments of the arsenal’s readiness.

Modern computer simulations and subcritical testing methods could minimize environmental impact while ensuring reliability.

In the broader context, Trump’s move underscores the need for renewed commitment to dialogue and international cooperation. As global powers adjust to shifting strategic realities, the decision could serve as a reminder that peace and security require both strength and openness.

By reigniting conversations about deterrence, transparency, and collaboration, the United States’ new approach may ultimately strengthen the global framework for managing nuclear capabilities.

If handled with prudence and diplomacy, it could pave the way for a more secure, balanced, and stable international order.

The Kremlin emphasized that its defense strategies and technological advancements are guided by a commitment to safeguarding national sovereignty, maintaining global stability, and ensuring security through preparedness and innovation.

During a media briefing in Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov underlined that Russia’s military and scientific initiatives are not intended to provoke or escalate tensions with any nation.

Instead, they reflect the country’s ongoing efforts to maintain a secure and balanced defense posture in a rapidly changing world.

Peskov reiterated that the testing of the Burevestnik missile was part of Russia’s broader strategy to strengthen deterrence capabilities and ensure the safety of its citizens in an evolving global security landscape.

He noted that such advancements are conducted transparently and within the framework of international norms. Russia’s approach, he explained, is based on a principle of responsible defense development—where the focus lies on stability, peace, and readiness rather than confrontation.

The Kremlin spokesperson emphasized that Russia remains open to dialogue with all nations, including the United States, on matters of arms control, nuclear safety, and strategic cooperation.

Observers see Moscow’s statement as a sign of balance between firmness and diplomacy. While Russia continues to protect its strategic interests, it also expresses willingness to engage constructively with global partners to reduce misunderstanding and promote peace.

The ongoing discussions about global security, arms limitations, and disarmament remain areas where Russia believes transparent communication and mutual respect are vital.

Peskov highlighted that Russia does not seek to undermine international trust but to strengthen it through technological advancement and responsible governance.

The Burevestnik missile test, according to defense analysts, represents a continued pursuit of innovation and scientific excellence within Russia’s defense sector, reflecting the nation’s emphasis on technological self-reliance and modernization.

The test also underscores the government’s ongoing investment in research, safety mechanisms, and oversight to ensure that advancements serve peaceful deterrence purposes.

He further mentioned that Russia’s defense priorities have always been shaped by its historical experiences and the necessity to remain self-sufficient in a world of shifting alliances and evolving security challenges.

The aim, he said, is to achieve long-term stability, peace, and global balance through strong but responsible defense measures.

At the same time, the Kremlin acknowledged the importance of maintaining open channels with Washington and other key partners.

Diplomatic experts in Moscow believe that constructive dialogue, rather than criticism or confrontation, will pave the way toward a more cooperative global environment.

They stress that issues like arms control and conflict resolution require a spirit of partnership and shared responsibility among leading powers.

Russia’s reaffirmation of its sovereign course comes at a time when global security discussions are intensifying. Moscow’s message conveys both confidence in its scientific and military capabilities and a broader call for diplomatic engagement.

The Kremlin’s position reinforces that technological progress in defense should coexist with dialogue, transparency, and peacekeeping efforts.

As nations navigate complex geopolitical realities, Russia continues to emphasize that every sovereign state has the right to protect its national interests, develop its defense systems, and contribute responsibly to international peace and security.

In reaffirming this stance, the Kremlin sends a message not of defiance, but of determination—to act independently while remaining open to collaboration and understanding in the pursuit of a safer and more stable world.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine.

In a rare public commentary from a senior U.S. military scholar, John Spencer—executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute and coauthor of Understanding Urban Warfare—has described India’s four-day military campaign, Operation Sindoor, as “a decisive victory in modern warfare.” Writing on Wednesday, Spencer called the operation “a model of limited war with clearly defined ends,” asserting that it could redefine how nations respond to state-sponsored terrorism in the nuclear age.

Operation Sindoor was launched by India on May 7, 2025, in response to a deadly terror attack in the tourist town of Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22. The massacre, which killed 26 Indian civilians, mostly Hindu pilgrims, was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a group widely recognized as a proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and backed by Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Unlike previous Indian responses, this time there was no diplomatic wait-and-see. India struck back with calibrated military action, marking a major departure from its historically cautious approach.

“This was not merely a symbolic gesture,” Spencer wrote. “It was decisive power, clearly applied.”

A New Doctrine Revealed

What makes Operation Sindoor unique, Spencer argued, is the strategic doctrine that underpinned it. While India has not formally declared the operation over, military activity has halted in what officials are calling a “stoppage of firing”—a careful semantic choice that avoids the term “ceasefire” and underscores India’s desire to retain initiative and control.

“The halt in operations is not the end,” Spencer emphasized. “It is a pause. India holds the initiative. If provoked again, it will strike again.”

According to Spencer’s analysis, India achieved four major strategic objectives:

Destroying Terror Infrastructure: Precision strikes targeted key terrorist hubs in Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, and Muridke—well beyond the Line of Control.

Demonstrating Military Superiority: India’s ability to launch and defend against retaliatory strikes—including a massive Pakistani drone swarm—highlighted the growing prowess of its domestically developed and internationally supported air defense systems.

Restoring Deterrence: By responding forcefully yet limiting escalation, India signaled to both adversaries and the international community that terror attacks would no longer go unanswered.

Asserting Strategic Independence: India acted without seeking Western mediation or U.N. intervention, a move that signaled its readiness to set and enforce its own red lines.

Four Days That Changed the Region

The timeline of Operation Sindoor was rapid and deliberate:

• May 7: Indian Air Force conducted nine high-precision strikes deep inside Pakistani territory.
• May 8: Pakistan retaliated with a massive swarm drone attack, largely intercepted by Indian air defenses.
• May 9: India escalated with attacks on six Pakistani military airbases and UAV coordination hubs.
• May 10: India declared a halt in operations, maintaining the ability to resume at any moment.

This sequence, Spencer notes, was textbook execution of limited warfare—a campaign designed to achieve political and strategic goals without sliding into open-ended conflict.

“This wasn’t just tactical success,” he wrote. “It was doctrinal execution under live fire.”

Modi Doctrine: “No More Nuclear Blackmail”

The boldness of India’s response also lay in its public messaging. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements during the operation signaled a sharp turn from the past.

“India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail,” Modi declared. “India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.”

Spencer interprets this as India laying down a new strategic doctrine—one that separates nuclear deterrence from proxy terrorism, and no longer allows the threat of nuclear escalation to paralyze its counter-terror responses.

Critics of the operation—both domestic and foreign—have raised concerns about potential escalation or destabilization. However, Spencer counters that these critiques overlook the deliberate restraint India displayed.

“India retaliated forcefully but stopped short of full war,” he wrote. “That’s not recklessness—that’s control. It’s the foundation of modern deterrence.”

A Model for Limited War?

Spencer’s praise is significant not just for its content but for its source. As a leading expert on urban warfare and military doctrine, his words will likely be studied in military academies worldwide.

“In an era defined by ‘forever wars’ and cycles of violence without strategic direction, Sindoor stands apart,” Spencer wrote. “It offers a model of limited war with clearly defined ends, matched ways and means, and a state that never relinquished the initiative.”

This could have broader implications for global counter-terrorism strategy. If the international community accepts India’s precedent—that terror attacks emanating from a neighboring state will be treated as acts of war—it could signal a seismic shift in the rules of engagement for statecraft under the nuclear umbrella.

The Next Phase

What happens next remains uncertain. India has not demobilized its forces and retains a high alert status across its western front. Pakistan’s public response has been muted, likely due to the scale of its internal damage and lack of international support. Both countries have avoided crossing nuclear red lines, but the threat of further conflict remains.

Spencer ends his essay with a stark warning—and a call to attention for other democracies facing state-sponsored terrorism:

“India didn’t just respond to an attack. It changed the strategic equation.”

Operation Sindoor, he argues, will not just shape India’s national security policy—it may well influence global strategic thinking about limited war, deterrence, and the role of conventional force in a nuclear world.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine. And for Pakistan, it’s a reminder that the old playbook may no longer offer protection.

This is not just India’s victory, Spencer concludes. “This is deterrence restored. This is a doctrine revealed. And it should be studied by all nations confronting the scourge of state-sponsored terrorism.”