North Korea is believed to be preparing to send another group of soldiers to come to Vladimir Putin’s aid in the war in Ukraine, despite heavy combat losses already suffered by troops from the east Asian country.
When Ukrainian forces crossed the border into the Kursk region of Russia in August 2024, Ukraine’s military commanders hoped that their surprise move would force Moscow to withdraw troops from eastern Ukraine to defend Russia’s own territory.
Kyiv did not expect its troops to end up fighting North Koreans.
This article is the opinion of the author, Jennifer Mathers, Aberystwyth University, and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Neither Moscow nor Pyongyang have officially confirmed that North Korean troops are fighting side by side with Russians. But South Korean intelligence has been reporting on their presence since October 2024, when approximately 1,500 North Korean special forces were observed to have arrived in Russia’s far eastern city of Vladivostok, initially for training.
This group was later joined by another 10,000 or so of their comrades (some of whom are also believed to be from North Korean special forces units). They were transported nearly 7,000 kilometres across Russia to reach the combat zone.
North Korean soldiers were first spotted fighting in the Kursk region alongside Russian forces in early December, according to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. By mid-January more than 40% of the North Koreans are believed to have been killed, injured, missing or captured – with as many as 1,000 thought to have been killed. There are some reports that North Korean troops are now being pulled by from the front lines due to those losses, potentially for extra training.
North Korea, an isolated dictatorship with few allies, is one of Russia’s most reliable suppliers of weapons, including missiles and millions of rounds of ammunition that Russia needs to continue to fight its war against Ukraine. North Korea, however, would seem to have little reason to send its own people to risk their lives in that conflict. But North Korean soldiers appear to be at the heart of a deal struck by North Korea’s supreme leader Kim Jong-un and Russian president Vladimir Putin.
What does Putin want?
For Putin the gains are clear. His campaign in Ukraine has received a much-needed influx of trained soldiers to shore up efforts to retake Russian territory occupied by Ukrainian forces.
Although the numbers of North Korean troops are relatively small, their strategic deployment allows Russia to push the Ukrainians back without diverting any of its forces from their offensive operations in eastern Ukraine. Expectations are high that Donald Trump’s return to the White House could mean an end to the war – or at least a pause – sooner rather than later. This gives Putin an incentive to occupy as much Ukrainian territory as possible ahead of a ceasefire, when occupied areas are likely to form the basis of territorial settlements.
The suggestion that Russia is not capable of maintaining its position in Ukraine and also defending its own territory without the addition of foreign troops is very revealing.
Moscow is struggling to recruit enough of its own citizens to fight in Ukraine. This is despite offering salaries and benefits packages to prospective soldiers that are beyond generous. The lack of resistance to Kyiv’s summer incursion into Russian territory made it clear that Russia is relying upon barely trained conscripts – that is, teenage boys doing their one year of compulsory military service – to defend its borders rather than professional soldiers. And while Russia has regained control of a substantial proportion – perhaps more than 60% – of the area seized by Ukraine in the summer, this has taken nearly six months to accomplish.
What does Kim Jong-un want?
For Kim Jong-un, sending his soldiers to fight with Russia provides his troops with valuable experience of combat in a conflict that is rapidly defining how war will be waged in the future.
Since the end of the Korean War (1950-53), Pyongyang has placed a high priority on maintaining a large and heavily armed standing army. After training, North Korean soldiers are mostly used for patrolling the de-militarized zone that marks its border with South Korea. Participating in Russia’s war against Ukraine provides the North Korean military with its first experience of combat in more than 70 years.
Observations from Ukrainian soldiers suggest the North Korean soldiers are courageous and determined fighters but with no experience of actual combat. The Ukrainians have described the North Koreans as relying on strategies typical of the second world war – for example advancing in large groups on foot, where they provide easy targets for artillery and drone strikes. They were also apparently bemused by the appearance of drones on the battlefield and had no idea that these objects could deliver lethal attacks.
This degree of inexperience, together with Russia’s tactic of using the North Koreans to draw the fire of the Ukrainians and clear the way for the Russians to advance, is believed to be the reason for such high losses so soon after their deployment.
In January the Ukrainians managed to capture two North Koreans and question them, which has provided the clearest picture so far of their experiences of fighting with the Russian armed forces. The North Korean soldiers both had false identity papers with Russian names, which is consistent with official denials of their presence. The men, who do not speak any foreign languages and had to be questioned through an interpreter, said that they had both been soldiers for several years. This supports the Ukrainians’ impression that the North Koreans are trained and disciplined. Both prisoners, however, reportedly believed they were being sent to Russia to participate in training exercises, not to fight in a war.
Considering the heavy losses and the brutal treatment that North Korean troops have already suffered, Kim Jong-un might be expected to seek the speedy return of his soldiers rather than preparing to send more of their comrades to fight with Russia. But high casualties on the battlefield seems to be a price that North Korea’s president is willing to pay for combat experience that might give his army an edge in any future war that he fights on his own behalf.
Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Fresh meat for the grinder.
Just in time for that clowns peace plan.
It is reported that NK is also sending some artillery this time: M-1978 Koksan 170mm howitzers
It will aim at Ukraine soldiers an land on kindergarten playgrounds.
The Ukrainians have fought honourably and are about to be stabbed in the back. We in Europe only have ourselves to blame, the US public have had enough of bankrolling our defence whilst we were indulging everybodys whim with generous payouts. The chickens are now coming home to roost.
The majority of aid has come from Europe my dude..
Belatedly.
I do actually wonder if the European nations need to send a response to North Korea.
With what is the sudden effect collapse of the European US alliance, this geopolitical shift has not really been reacted to properly.
But the fact is an East Asian nation has sent troops to help influence and support an attack on a European democracy. That is a very big thing and makes Europe look weak geopolitical and geostrategically.
Personally I think Europe needs a massive reassessment of what it’s happening and possibly one of the first things is to make an example of North Korea in some way.
What way would you suggest, though?
What exactly can we do about it?
There are many options..one includes simply telling North Korea it’s a red line. Others could include strengthening security ties with South Korea, another could include sending increased vessels for the policing of UN sanctions, another could include placing further sanctions via the UN, finally there is the options that are more threatening..like sending a large well equipped carrier battle group to the Korean Peninsula and playing war games with South Korea…finally if North Korea kept sending troops, then kinetic actions could be undertaken against North Korea navel units and as a final act kinetic action on North Korea itself…
UN is a joke. Time for change
Hi Johanthan,
I have been saying for ages that if Chinese troops deployed West of the Ural Mountains to support Russia it would represent a huge threat to NATO. North Korea sending troops to Ukraine is obviously pretty much in the same ball park and needs to be reacted to. Worse they appear to have gone straight into action..!
I believe that with the US politically withdrawing or at least creating significant doubt about its commitment to NATO then Europe is left with to choices. Learn to speak Mandarin or rearm ASAP.
Ukraine is our Spanish Civil War and Donald Trump is the Chamberlain of our time. Trouble is Europe has off-shored a lot of its industrial base so rearmament also means reindustrialisation. Not cheap or easy, so our politicians have a hard sell on their hands and I fear they are not up to it. Reindustrialisation will take years, do we have that long?
CR
Depends on how it’s sold.
Reindustrialising means a lot of jobs created, meaning more opportunities, more money in people’s pockets and a boost to local economies – and ultimately, the national economy.
I doubt we have long to do it so we need to start soon.
True enough, but trying to sell rearmament as part of an economic plan will be a challenge. One I think can easily be met, but I have my doubts that the politicians would able to pull it off after decades of cuts dressed up as efficiency measures! They have made a rod for their own backs. I suppose that this Labour Government could argue they are new to the job and after 14 years most are indeed new to it, but HM Treasury still lurks in the wings and reportedly they resent every penny spent on defence!
The best thing that Boris did was kick start the frigate building program, Tempest might be another plus for the previous governments but overall the loss of industrial base will take more time than I think we have and Europe isn’t much better off so we can’t going shopping there and if Trump cuts US spending to 1.5% of GDP then the US cupboard will be on the bonfire!
The world has gone bonkers!
CR
We should ask the Israelis to take out the Iranian drone factories. One good turn deserves another.
What does Kim Jong-un get in return? I hope it’s not access to Russian Nuclear weapons.
One chilling thought is that he gets some modern battlefield experience for his army which has not see action in 70 years. He may have plans of his own…
No wonder Seoul is so worried.
Cheers CR
You are assuming that Russia hasn’t already provided technical assistance to North Korea. The recent treaty between Russia and North Korea didn’t just pop out of a vacuum, it is quite possible that it is the icing on the cake..!
This whole scenario gets more chilling the more I think about it. Our politicians have been sleep walking to this point since Putin started bullying is near neighbours. Donald Trump has just made it easier for him, big time.
CR
The most chilling is that the moment china has started to develop a working anti U.S/western alliance the U.S. decides it’s time to essentially blow the whole founds of the western alliance apart..Xi will be wetting himself and china will be more refocused than ever on going to war with the U.S….which it was essentially planning to do even when it though the US had a totally committed ally in Europe ( that has 23% of the worlds wealth and industrial capacity)…now it thinks there is a good chance it will only have to face the US and it’s pacific allies…I think the chances of china going for the US would be inevitable if the western alliance does split.
And what is really sad if Trump does push this agenda geopolitically it’s probably better for Europe if it develops a neutral relationship with china…
If/when it comes to war between the US and China I think we and the rest of Europe should steer well clear of it.
Let the Orange Shitgibbon do it all himself, since he’s so convinced that the US does it all anyway.
Exactly! If the US cuts ties with Europe we make a deal with China!
It cannot work both ways.
I fear Europe might be too busy dealing with a Russian incursion at the same time. If China goes after the US in the east, drawing off US forces from Europe, a rearmed Russia with North Korean support could think it has an opportunity.
As I say elsewhere nothing is off the table, we are in entirely new territory and the risks are escalating. Uncertainty, is the enemy of stability and we are totally unprepared.
CR
Non of this is good news as it suggests a determination to win through at any cost and means that European politicians are really going to have to get their acts together to not only to come up with a creditable plan to defend Europe with limited or negligible US support but to sell the need for increased defence sending to their populations at home. Europe’s defences are in a very poor state.
In round numbers the main military powers army strengths are:
French Army: 118,000
Italian Army: 97,000
Spanish Army: 86,000
British Army: 73,000
German Army: 63,000
These numbers obviously include a lot of non deployable personnel which begs the question where is Europe going to get the 100,000 peacekeeping troops for a long term mission in Ukraine. Roulement means you need a lot more than 100,000 troops to maintain a peacekeeping force of that size in the field for any length of time. We may also need to beef up eNATO standing forces in the Baltic States… The big five European countries are going to have to up their game if they are to provide meaningful leadership.
The politicians need to tell their people just how dangerous things are getting… fat chance!
CR
Just had this very conversation on anther site! The general opinion there was rock up,walk up and down the front line shouting “don’t shoot chaps we are British’ and it would all finish in a couple of weeks🙄
Oh, good grief!
Sadly, I can believe it. When I tell my neighbours that the RN has about 16 or 17 escorts, so less than 10 available I’m pretty sure they just don’t believe me! That’s the trouble with the politicians consistently saying our service are amongst the best in the world. One on One that might be the case, but numbers count and it wouldn’t take that long to count ours these days!
Cheers CR
Doesn’t help when the last govt used to announce Frigate batch replacement for T26 and T31 as ‘growing the Royal Navy’, when it was just based on tonnage.
Don’t forget Poland
102,000 + 40,000 reservists
Lets remember these are not going to be neutral peace keepers these are essentially going to be re enforcements to the Ukrainian army so there will be a base there and there are 250, 000 Ukrainian ground forces..so essentially the European nations will be adding hard hitting mobile combined arms units as well as air power to that mix…
You add 4-5 squadrons of 4.5 gen to 5 gen aircraft as well as 2 western combined arms divisions to the mix and adequate supplies of long range cruise missiles. That completely changes the balance of power..
As well as that NATO actually needs to develop its offensive capabilities across the eastern boarder..Russia needs to know that if it starts something E nato will not sit back and defend, but crush the Russian airforce and navy in massive offensives… essentially sweep its bastions and destroy its air bases.
But it also needs a credible nuclear deterrent as well not just an adjunct..
So the UK and France need to push 100 warheads into each of there deployed SSBMs and the two nations need to work to see if they can get 3 boats out at anyone time, France may need to forward deploy its airborne nuclear option and build more ASMP-A ASmp-Rs essentially moving to something like 200-300 missiles and getting them operational on typhoons so Germany and Italy can have a number as well..
ASN4G Needs to become a pan European project… with every major nation buying into it…I would even go so far as to say E NATO needs to be working with France around security an ICMB/IRBM program based around M51…I don’t think European can really trusts the US nuclear umbrella or to be honest even long term access to trident…( which does need to be considered…what happens if Donald in peace treaty with Russia agreed not to support UK access to trident. We would be f%£ked.)
I agree with what you say, but I would suggest that the need to provide 100,000 peacekeepers, certainly in the short term would seriously deplete Europe’s ability to deploy reenforcements into the Baltic States for example. I really do not believe eNATO can fight on two fronts at the sametime, even with the Polish troops included in the calculations. European ground forces would just too thinly spread.
Modern air power would be a great leveler but there is a shortage of munitions right across the board, air, ground and maritime. A German defence minister recently suggested that Germany had one to two days of supplies available if it had to fight a high intensity war! It is probably similar for the rest of Europe as well, just a few days or perhaps a few weeks munition supply if we are very lucky at high intensity and we would be reduced to shouting rude words at them, tongue in cheek perhaps but you get it.
We have been tentatively being investing in production in support of Ukraine but it is no where near enough to fight even a partial CRINK nation group of forces. We would do huge damage in the short term but they would out last us.
As for the nuclear thing? That has crossed my mind as well and it is very scary. The Dreadnaught class is being fitted with Trident launch tubes, would M51 fit? How long to fit our own warhead? Would France even share their tech?
We are entering a new and even more uncertain age and nothing is impossible, sadly.
2.5% is a joke, it will not deter Russia / North Korea. If Donald Trump negotiates cut in defence spending to 1.5%GDP with China and Russia as he has proposed will they stick to the deal or, more likely, will they continue to rearm while Trump tells his supporters what a clever chap he is and look at the huge tax cuts he has made… Then one day the world will wake up and find that the US is no more than a regional power in North America!
Europe will need a serious Nuclear Deterrent, in fact Europe needs to plan for a future with an isolationist US fully withdrawn from Europe.
CR
Your comment about outlasting is the key.. it’s were trump is an idiot.. China is going to hit the US hard if it thinks it’s isolated, trump going to 1.5% could see the US defeated and humiliated.
The peacekeeping force may involve using Turkey’s 350K active troops, as well as troops from no NATO members, such as India. Russia will not want a 100k European army in Ukraine and Trump simply wants his name on a peace deal so will bow to Putins demands.
Ukraine may be happy with 50% European and 50% Asian peacekeepers. Europe may also be happy with this as it makes defence of the Baltic more feasible.
Just very sad that Western European armies have fallen so low.
Hard to see what NK are actually learning! The only people that will be allowed to return are a few high ranking officers that are not at the front experiencing what is going on. The rank and file will never be allowed to return after being exposed to life outside NK.
I think that’s just a thin smokescreen.
Behind the scenes Russia will be helping North Korea with missile technology, maybe even looking to sell them some fighter jets and other such equipment. Even Russian crap is a big improvement over North Korean crap.
This talk of ‘peacekeeping’ misses the point. There may well be a cease fire, but Putin will not give up his delusion that Ukraine is part of greater Russia. What we will have is a Korean 38th parallel adversarial style situation for as long as Putin is in office supported by Kirill, possibly longer. Its an action replay of BAOR cold war with a frontier moved slightly eastwards.