The United States has confirmed that 3,000 North Korean troops are deployed in Russia’s war with Ukraine and South Korean intelligence suspects another 10,000 will be deployed by December. North Korea’s strategic decision to support Russia in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is based on a mix of transactional interests and deeper political calculations. As the war enters its third year, Russia faces pressing needs for skilled labor, manpower and military supplies, paving the way for closer collaboration with North Korea. This relationship has taken on new dimensions, with North Korea reciprocally seeking economic and technological assistance, while Russia benefits from additional reinforcements to support its military objectives.
The June 2023 mutual defense agreement between Moscow and Pyongyang allows for reciprocal military support in the event of an armed invasion, potentially legitimizing the deployment of North Korean forces to reinforce Russian front lines. Furthermore, relatively competent North Korean troops could allow Russia to redistribute its forces southward, where it is poised to break through Ukraine’s defenses in Donetsk. This repositioning could shift the balance near Kursk, potentially leading to advances towards Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro. Any Ukrainian response to the North Korean presence could inadvertently strengthen Russia’s defenses, as even a limited North Korean deployment would act as a force multiplier for Moscow, putting even more pressure on Russia’s strained human resources. Ukraine, which have now become a bigger challenge than material supply.
North Korea’s role as a supplier of munitions and equipment to Russia has become increasingly vital to Moscow’s war effort, filling critical gaps in Russian military efforts. Beyond material support, North Korea could deploy technical personnel to monitor and repair its equipment, demonstrating multifaceted assistance to the Russian military campaign. Historically, North Korea has deployed troops to conflicts such as the Vietnam War and the Yom Kippur War, although this would be the first time in decades that it has so directly engaged in an overseas conflict . With an initial deployment of 10,000 troops, Pyongyang could provide Russia with valuable manpower to supplement its ongoing operations, although such numbers alone are unlikely to be enough to sustain the Russian military. North Korea’s potential contributions of troops, munitions and short-range missiles contrast with the supply challenges facing Ukraine’s Western allies, highlighting a stark disparity in the capability of each side’s supporters.
From North Korea’s perspective, this engagement has several advantages. Participation in the conflict would provide North Korean forces with essential battlefield experience and technical training, thereby improving their operational readiness. North Korea’s elite special forces, while relatively inexperienced, could gain valuable knowledge of modern combat tactics and infiltration techniques, knowledge that would bolster Pyongyang’s military capabilities upon their return. Strengthening ties between North Korea and Russia represent a new level of security coordination between two members of the “axis of upheaval,” a coalition of authoritarian states including Russia, China, Iran and Korea from the North. Pyongyang’s support for Moscow could be accompanied by increased military and economic assistance, and some speculate that this partnership could facilitate the advancement of North Korea’s nuclear and satellite programs, potentially in violation of U.N. sanctions . In the same way that South Korea modernized its military after helping the United States in Vietnam, North Korea could benefit from helping Russia in its battle. President Kim will likely be much more empowered to take an even more assertive stance in and around Korea thanks to North Korea’s growing involvement.
The Russian alliance offers Pyongyang geopolitical leverage, allowing North Korea to diversify its foreign partnerships and reduce its dependence on China, which maintains a complex and sometimes ambivalent relationship with the regime. This change could allow Kim Jong-un to adopt a more assertive stance in Northeast Asia. The psychological impact of North Korean troops on Ukrainian forces, combined with Moscow’s growing international coalition, could serve to intimidate Ukraine and demonstrate Russia’s ability to mobilize a wide range of international supporters. Russia’s decision to potentially employ North Korean soldiers is likely a tactical rather than desperate move aimed at consolidating its focus on the Eastern Front, where it has enjoyed incremental success. The deployment could allow Russia to stabilize its territorial control in Kursk while making progress elsewhere, a maneuver that could become even more significant as winter strains Ukraine’s energy resources and political dynamics in the region. United States, creating uncertainty about future Western support.
The implications of North Korea’s involvement are potentially far-reaching. Direct combat experience could significantly improve the strategic skills of North Korean forces, which could shift the regional balance of power in East Asia and prompt a recalibration of the policies of states like China, Japan, South Korea and the United States. With North Korea’s constant supply of rockets, missiles and artillery shells to Russia, Pyongyang’s actions symbolize a worrying globalization of the Russo-Ukrainian war. These developments could bring South Korea and other Indo-Pacific allies closer to European theaters of conflict. Therefore, South Korea is likely to deepen its ties with the US-led alliance in the Indo-Pacific region and could expand its support for Ukraine, possibly extending to the realm of aid deadly if North Korea’s involvement in the conflict continues to grow. In addition to bolstering its military prowess, North Korea’s strategic support for Russia in the Ukraine conflict challenges the status quo of the geopolitical order. This emerging alliance could significantly alter the current political landscape and increase tensions in Northeast Asia.
At the BRICS summit held in Kazan from October 22-24, 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin pursued two interrelated goals: a short-term goal to demonstrate his resilience in the face of international criticism over his invasion of Ukraine and a long-term goal to advance a multipolar world. order; and a planned message to the West – with President Putin in the background of North Korean soldiers potentially deploying to Russia to fight Ukraine – paints a strange picture of how a multilateral framework can be exploited. This scene highlights how leaders of multilateral platforms like BRICS can legitimize controversial actions and reorient international narratives, often in ways that serve individual agendas rather than collective principles. BRICS leaders’ silence on possible Russian military collaboration with North Korea in the backdrop of the summit reflects a complex geopolitical balancing act, where condemnation risks fracturing alliances, while inaction suggests a tacit approval of power politics rather than norms of sovereignty. This reveals a multilateral framework vulnerable to exploitation, in which members selectively defend the principles of a multipolar order, sometimes at the cost of addressing pressing ethical and legal concerns.
On the one hand, the Kazan Declaration sums up a more democratic, inclusive and multipolar world order based on international law and the United Nations Charter; on the other, President Putin has said that any peace agreement would have to recognize Russia’s control over parts of Ukrainian territory. The Declaration’s idealized vision is being tested by Russia’s direct actions in Ukraine, which contradict the declared commitment to sovereignty and peace. The Declaration notably avoids explicitly condemning Russia’s actions, reflecting a broader ambiguity within BRICS when it comes to confronting their members’ controversial policies. This diplomatic restraint appears rooted in mutual interests in opposing Western-dominated institutions, demonstrating how shared grievances against Western hegemony can bind nations together, even when underlying values differ considerably. As a result, the Declaration’s emphasis on multipolarity and “peaceful conflict resolution” risks being seen as symbolic, lacking concrete mechanisms or unified accountability.
The troop movements further complicate the BRICS narrative and cast doubt on the bloc’s coherence as a promoter of peace and stability. North Korea’s potential involvement highlights a geopolitical realignment in which countries like Russia are increasingly turning to non-traditional alliances for support, regardless of the reputational risks of those allies or their potential impacts on global stability. The use of BRICS as a backdrop for these maneuvers suggests an opportunistic exploitation of the multilateral forum for image management, while signaling to the West its rejection of its criticisms and sanctions. This scenario raises questions about the limits of multilateral institutions in managing the individual behavior of their members, as they become susceptible to internal divisions that prioritize state interests over collective responsibility and legitimacy in global governance.
The geopolitical implications extend beyond Ukraine as North Korea’s military support for Russia challenges norms and sanctions, creating potential shifts in Asia’s security balance. ballast. Russia’s influence over BRICS as a platform to legitimize its actions, although it avoided direct condemnation at the Kazan summit, reveals the forum’s susceptibility to being exploited for the benefit of state agendas, in particularly by authoritarian regimes. As multilateral institutions struggle to hold their members accountable, a growing alignment of authoritarian states is increasingly willing to bend norms, signaling a polarized geopolitical future and likely inciting Western allies, particularly in Indo -Pacific, to reconsider their defense strategies.
Further reading on international electronic relations