The USA has confirmed that 3,000 North Korean troops have been deployed in the Russia-Ukraine war and South Korean intelligence suspects that 10,000 more will be deployed in December. North Korea’s strategic decision to support Russia in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is based on a combination of interests and deep political calculations. As the war enters its third year, Russia is facing pressing needs for skilled workers, personnel, and military equipment, creating a way for closer cooperation with North Korea. This relationship has taken on new dimensions, with North Korea repeatedly seeking economic and technological assistance, while Russia benefits from further reinforcements to support its military goals.
The June 2023 defense agreement between Moscow and Pyongyang allows for mutual military support in the event of an armed attack, which would likely authorize the deployment of North Korean troops to reinforce Russia’s borders. In addition, a capable North Korean military would enable Russia to redeploy its forces to the south, as it nears success against Ukrainian defenses in Donetsk. This repositioning may change the balance near Kursk, which may lead to advances toward Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro. Any Ukrainian response to North Korea’s presence could indirectly strengthen Russia’s defenses, as even limited North Korean deployments would act as leverage for Moscow, further straining Ukraine’s manpower resources, which have become more of a challenge than material supply.
North Korea’s role as a supplier of ammunition and equipment to Russia has become increasingly important to Moscow’s war effort, filling critical gaps in Russia’s military efforts. Besides material support, North Korea can send technical personnel to monitor and repair its equipment, providing various assistance to Russia’s military campaign. Historically, North Korea has sent troops to conflicts such as the Vietnam and Yom Kippur Wars, although this will be the first time in decades that it has directly participated in an overseas conflict. With the initial deployment of 10,000 troops, Pyongyang could provide Russia with vital personnel to supplement its ongoing operations, although such numbers are unlikely to single-handedly support the Russian military. North Korea’s potential donations of troops, ammunition, and short-range missiles contrast with the difficulty of the supply facing Ukraine’s Western allies, highlighting the stark differences in the strength of each side’s allies.
From North Korea’s perspective, this engagement has several advantages. Participating in the conflict will provide North Korean forces with valuable battlefield experience and technical training, improving their operational readiness. North Korean special forces, though inexperienced, could gain valuable insight into modern combat tactics and infiltration techniques, knowledge that could strengthen Pyongyang’s military capabilities upon their return. The strengthening of North Korea’s ties with Russia represents a new level of security cooperation between the two members of the “center of chaos,” an alliance of authoritarian nations that includes Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Pyongyang’s support for Moscow may come with expectations of increased military and economic aid, and there are speculations that the relationship could further advances in North Korea’s nuclear and satellite programs, potentially violating UN sanctions. In the same way that South Korea developed its military after helping America in Vietnam, North Korea can benefit from helping Russia in its war. President Kim will likely be empowered to take a more assertive stance in and around Korea due to North Korea’s growing involvement.
The Russian alliance gives Pyongyang power geopolitically, enabling North Korea to diversify its foreign relations and reduce its dependence on China, which has had a complicated and sometimes ambiguous relationship with the regime. This change may give Kim Jong-un the power to assume a more assertive position in northeast Asia. The psychological impact of North Korean troops on Ukrainian forces, combined with the expansion of Moscow’s international alliance, may threaten Ukraine and demonstrate Russia’s ability to mobilize many international allies. Russia’s decision to recruit North Korean troops is likely strategic, rather than desperate, aimed at consolidating its focus on the eastern half, where it has seen little success. The deployment would allow Russia to stabilize its territorial control in Kursk while advancing elsewhere, an approach that could continue to gain momentum as the winter squeezes Ukraine’s energy resources and US political power creates uncertainty about future Western support.
The implications of North Korea’s involvement could be far-reaching. Direct combat experience can greatly improve the strategic strength of North Korea’s forces, which may change the regional balance of power in East Asia and restructure the policies of states such as China, Japan, South Korea and the United States. With North Korea’s steady supply of rockets, missiles, and artillery shells to Russia, Pyongyang’s actions symbolize the globalization of the Russia-Ukraine war. These changes may bring South Korea and other Indo-Pacific allies into closer cooperation with European arenas of conflict. As a result, South Korea is likely to deepen its ties with the US-led Indo-Pacific alliance and may increase its support for Ukraine, which may move into the realm of lethal aid if North Korea’s involvement in the conflict continues to grow. In addition to developing its military capabilities, North Korea’s strategic support for Russia in the Ukraine conflict is challenging the country’s political order. This emerging alliance has the potential to dramatically change the current political landscape and increase tensions in Northeast Asia.
At the October 22-24, 2024 BRICS summit in Kazan, Russian President Vladimir Putin pursued two interrelated goals: a short-term goal to show his resilience to international criticism of his invasion of Ukraine and a long-term goal to advance a more inclusive world. organization; and the planned message to the West—with President Putin behind North Korea’s possible deployment of troops to Russia to fight in Ukraine—shows a strange picture of how multilateralism can be exploited. This scene emphasizes how international forums like BRICS can be used by leaders to legitimize controversial actions and reorient international narratives, often in ways that serve individual agendas over collective values. The silence of BRICS leaders regarding the possible military cooperation of Russia and North Korea after the summit shows a complex act of balancing the state of the country, where the condemnation threatens the alliance, yet the inaction suggests the silent approval of power politics over the principles of sovereignty. It presents an international situation that is vulnerable to exploitation, where members selectively choose the principles of the multipolar order, sometimes at the expense of dealing with pressing ethical and legal issues.
On the one hand, the Kazan Declaration outlined a democratic, inclusive, and international world order based on international law and the UN Charter; on the other hand, President Putin said that any peace agreement would have to recognize Russian control over parts of Ukraine. The logic of the Declaration is being tested by Russia’s direct actions in Ukraine, which contradict its stated commitment to sovereignty and peace. The Declaration notably avoided overt criticism of Russia’s actions, reflecting the broader confusion within BRICS when it comes to dealing with members’ controversial policies. This bureaucratic restraint appears to be based on common interests to oppose Western-dominated institutions, which shows how shared grievances against Western nationalism can bind nations, even if the underlying values differ greatly. As a result, the Declaration’s emphasis on pluralism “and the peaceful settlement of disputes” risks being seen as symbolic, lacking concrete mechanisms or collective accountability.
The military movement further complicates the BRICS narrative and casts doubt on the bloc’s unity as a promoter of peace and stability. The possible involvement of North Korea highlights the restructuring of the world in which countries like Russia are increasingly turning to non-traditional alliances to secure support, regardless of the reputational risks of these alliances or the potential implications for global stability. The use of BRICS as a hub for these approaches suggests an opportunistic exploitation of the international arena for image manipulation, while demonstrating the West’s refusal to criticize and punish them. This situation raises questions about the limits of international institutions in controlling the behavior of individual members, as they are vulnerable to internal divisions that prioritize state interests over collective accountability and legitimacy in global governance.
The political implications extend beyond Ukraine, as North Korea’s military support for Russia challenges norms and sanctions, creating potential changes in the East Asian security balance. Russia’s use of BRICS as a platform to legitimize its actions, despite avoiding direct criticism at the Kazan conference, shows that this forum is vulnerable to manipulation by state-run programs, especially authoritarian regimes. As international institutions strive to hold members accountable, the growing alignment of authoritarian states is increasingly willing to exceed standards, which indicates a divided political future and may cause Western partners, especially in the Indo-Pacific to reconsider their defense strategies.
Further Studies in E-International Relations
Source link
