Kremlin’s Foreign Legion: North Korea’s Role in Russia’s War and the New Global Divide
The emergence of thousands of North Korean soldiers on the battlefields of Ukraine does not merely add a new player to the bloody conflict but catalyzes tectonic shifts in global security, creating unprecedented challenges for Kyiv, strengthening the axis of authoritarian states, and forcing the West to reassess its strategic calculations from Seoul to Washington.
A New “Fiery Friendship”: The Strategic Alliance Between Moscow and Pyongyang Takes Shape
Relations between Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), long dormant in a state of strategic lethargy since the collapse of the USSR, are undergoing an unprecedented revival. The catalyst for this process has been Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, which has compelled the Kremlin to seek allies in the most unexpected corners of the world.
The culmination of this rapprochement was the signing of the “Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” during Vladimir Putin’s visit to Pyongyang in June 2024. This document is not a mere declaration of intent; it formalizes a military-political alliance born out of mutual desperation and shared hostility toward the West.
Signed on June 18, 2024, by Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, this treaty became the most significant document in bilateral relations since the Soviet-Korean treaty of 1961. Both leaders spared no superlatives in describing it: Kim called it “the strongest treaty in history,” while Putin labeled it a “breakthrough document,” signaling the long-term, rather than temporary, tactical intentions of the parties.
Comprising 23 articles, the treaty covers a wide range of cooperation: political, trade and investment, scientific-technical, and, most crucially, security-related. It includes provisions for expanding collaboration in sensitive areas such as “peaceful nuclear energy” and space technologies, raising particular concerns in the West. The ideological foundation of the treaty is a shared resistance to “unilateral coercive measures of an extraterritorial nature” (i.e., sanctions) and a commitment to building a “new, just, and equitable international order.” This represents a direct challenge to the current global order, still led by the United States.
At the heart of the treaty is Article 4, which effectively revives Cold War-era mutual defense commitments. It declares that if one party “finds itself in a state of war due to an armed invasion,” the other party “shall immediately provide military and other assistance with all means at its disposal.” This wording almost verbatim echoes the provisions of the 1961 treaty, indicating a return to the logic of military blocs.
However, the article includes legal caveats that provide significant flexibility to the parties. First, assistance is to be provided in accordance with “Article 51 of the UN Charter” (the right to self-defense) and the “legislation of the DPRK and the Russian Federation.” This allows Moscow and Pyongyang to independently determine the scope and nature of assistance, avoiding automatic entanglement in a full-scale war.
Second, the activation of the article requires an “armed invasion.” This condition enabled Russia to claim that its “special military operation” does not justify direct DPRK intervention, while Ukraine’s counteroffensive in the Kursk region was presented as such an invasion, legitimizing the deployment of Korean troops to Russian territory. Thus, Article 4 serves not only as a military commitment but also as a tool of hybrid warfare, combining legal casuistry with strategic ambiguity to maximize pressure on adversaries while minimizing risks to themselves.
Motivations of the Parties: A Global Threat from an Alliance of Desperation and Opportunism
The rapprochement between Moscow and Pyongyang is a classic example of an alliance based not on shared values but on pragmatic, albeit desperate, calculations.
Russia’s Calculations. For the Kremlin, mired in a protracted war of attrition, the alliance with the DPRK is a lifeline. The primary goal is to gain access to North Korea’s vast, albeit outdated, arsenals of artillery shells and a new source of manpower. Facing monthly ammunition shortages and an unwillingness to launch another unpopular wave of mobilization, Putin views North Korea as a strategic reserve of “cannon fodder” and munitions. Additionally, this alliance allows Russia to enhance its influence in the Asia-Pacific region, creating additional challenges for the United States and its allies while gaining leverage in relations with China.
North Korea’s Calculations. For Kim Jong Un, this alliance is a strategic jackpot. First, it provides the regime with vital resources: food, fuel, and financial assistance, significantly alleviating the pressure of international sanctions. Second, and most importantly, Pyongyang gains access to the “holy grail”—advanced Russian military technologies. This includes technologies for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), military satellites, and nuclear submarines, which could fundamentally alter the balance of power on the Korean Peninsula and pose a direct threat to the United States. Third, Russia’s veto in the UN Security Council, which has already led to the dissolution of the sanctions monitoring expert group, effectively dismantles the international containment regime, granting Kim unprecedented freedom of action.
This treaty is not merely a bilateral agreement but a formal declaration of the creation of a new “Axis of Disruption.” The ideological foundation of the treaty, which calls for resisting “hegemony” and building a “new world order,” aligns Russia and the DPRK with other authoritarian regimes, such as Iran, and finds resonance in Beijing.
Russia’s actions—from blocking UN sanctions to providing technologies and accepting troops—are aimed not only at achieving victory in Ukraine but also at actively dismantling the post-Cold War security architecture and non-proliferation norms. Thus, this alliance is less transactional and more a strategic partnership designed to create a multipolar world where authoritarian states can act with impunity, mutually shielding each other from international pressure.
The Korean Expeditionary Corps: The Military Dimension on the Ukrainian Front
The deployment of North Korean troops to Ukraine, made possible by the new defense pact, is an unprecedented step for the Kim Jong Un regime and marks a new, dangerous phase in the war. This military dimension has both quantitative and qualitative aspects that require careful analysis to understand its real impact on the course of hostilities.
According to intelligence from Ukraine, the United States, and South Korea, the initial deployment of the North Korean contingent, which began in October 2024, numbered between 10,000 and 12,000 soldiers. This contingent is not a random assortment of conscripts. Reports indicate that it includes units from elite forces, such as the XI “Storm Corps,” as well as a significant command structure, including approximately 500 officers and three generals.
The deployment process is meticulously organized. Soldiers arrive at ports in Russia’s Far East, where they receive Russian military uniforms and, likely, cover documents to conceal their origins. They then undergo training at Russian ranges, where they are taught the basics of modern warfare, including drone operations and assault tactics, before being sent to combat zones, primarily in the Kursk region.
The combat effectiveness of North Korean troops is paradoxical, combining clear strengths with glaring weaknesses.
Strengths. According to battlefield reports, North Korean soldiers demonstrate high discipline, physical endurance, and ideological motivation. They are capable of operating in harsh conditions and are reportedly proficient with small arms. For the Kim regime, this war is a unique opportunity to gain invaluable combat experience. The Korean People’s Army (KPA), which has not participated in major conflicts since the Korean War of the 1950s, now has a chance to test its weapons, tactics, and command structure against a modern army equipped with Western technology. Particularly valuable is the experience of conducting combat operations in an environment dominated by drones, electronic warfare (EW), and precision artillery.
Weaknesses. The KPA’s main Achilles’ heel is its outdated weaponry, largely consisting of copies or modernizations of Soviet designs from the 1950s to 1970s. Its tank fleet comprises thousands of T-55s, T-62s, and their local variants (Chonma-ho, Pokpung-ho), which are significantly inferior to modern Western and even upgraded Russian tanks in terms of armor, firepower, and fire control systems. The army lacks experience in conducting complex combined-arms operations and is highly vulnerable to modern threats. This leads to catastrophic losses. Some estimates suggest that the contingent lost 40–50% of its personnel to casualties within the first few months of fighting. Additional challenges include logistical difficulties, language barriers, and low interoperability with Russian forces, further reducing their effectiveness.
Role on the Battlefield: Human Shield or Assault Fist?
Initial assumptions that North Korean troops would primarily be used in rear areas for engineering or logistics tasks have proven incorrect. In reality, they are being thrown into the front lines, where Russian command uses them as “cannon fodder.” Most often, they are employed in “human wave” tactics—mass infantry assaults designed to exhaust Ukrainian defenses and expose firing positions at the cost of massive losses. There are reports of them being used as “human minesweepers.”
Despite this, signs of tactical adaptation are emerging. After initial devastating losses, North Korean units have begun operating in smaller, more covert groups and improving their drone countermeasures. This indicates a capacity to learn, albeit at an extraordinarily high cost.
This participation in the war is a risky military experiment for the Kim regime. On one hand, the KPA, which has prepared for war in theory for decades, gains a unique “live laboratory” to test its doctrines, weapons, and personnel in the context of the most modern conflict. Senior officers, including the head of the intelligence bureau, are personally present at the front to collect data. The cost of this experiment is thousands of lives. However, the potential reward is a generation of battle-hardened veterans and commanders who, upon returning home, could transform the KPA from a “paper tiger” into an army with real combat experience, significantly increasing the threat to South Korea.
At the same time, the deployment of North Korean troops presents an unprecedented opportunity for Western intelligence. The “hermit kingdom” has suddenly exposed thousands of its soldiers in a heavily monitored zone. This allows real-time analysis of KPA tactics, communication systems, morale, and the actual effectiveness of its weaponry. Captured prisoners and equipment become sources of unique intelligence that can be used to refine defense plans for the United States, South Korea, and Japan, as well as to develop effective psychological operations against the North Korean army.
The Scale Effect: What Would 30,000 North Korean Soldiers Change?
Reports from Ukrainian intelligence and Western media about Pyongyang’s potential preparation to send an additional contingent of up to 30,000 soldiers signal a possible new phase of escalation. Although subsequent clarifications refuted the exact figure for combat units, confirming plans to send 6,000 engineers and builders instead, analyzing the hypothetical scenario of a 30,000-strong contingent is critical for understanding potential changes on the battlefield and their strategic implications.
Increasing the North Korean contingent nearly threefold, to a total of over 40,000 personnel, would have a significant, though ambiguous, impact on the dynamics of hostilities.
Quantitative Factor. For Russia, which is suffering massive losses and seeking to avoid unpopular domestic mobilization, such a contingent represents a substantial manpower reserve. These troops could be used to reinforce Russian formations on key fronts, such as during offensive operations in the Donetsk region, where Moscow is concentrating up to 110,000 soldiers near Pokrovsk. Even if their combat effectiveness is low, their sheer numbers would allow Russian command to continue “meat grinder” tactics, exhausting Ukrainian defenses and forcing them to expend ammunition.
Qualitative Aspect and Logistics. It is expected that new units would be fully equipped with Russian gear, weapons, and communication systems, partially addressing interoperability issues. However, their effectiveness will depend on how they are used. If they are thrown into frontal assaults without adequate artillery support or coordination with other units, they will continue to suffer catastrophic losses, as the initial contingent did. If integrated into defensive lines or used for engineering tasks, they could free up more experienced Russian units for offensive operations.
Even if only the deployment of 6,000 engineers and builders is confirmed, this still represents significant support for Russia. These units could focus on infrastructure restoration, building fortifications, and demining in rear areas, such as the Kursk region, allowing Russian engineering units to concentrate on tasks directly at the front line.
Overall, the deployment of such a significant foreign contingent would mark an unprecedented escalation, definitively transforming the war in Ukraine into a globalized conflict.
Political Signal. This would demonstrate the readiness of the axis of authoritarian states to challenge the West by using proxy forces to achieve their goals. For Russia, it is a way to prolong the war of attrition, shifting part of the human losses to its ally and reinforcing the propaganda narrative of the “impossibility of Ukraine’s victory.”
Western and Allied Response. Such a move would likely compel Ukraine’s partners to take more decisive actions. It could serve as the final argument for lifting all restrictions on the use of Western weapons on Russian territory and providing more advanced weapon systems. For South Korea and Japan, this would pose a direct threat, as the combat experience gained by the KPA in Ukraine could be applied on the Korean Peninsula. This would strengthen their cooperation with NATO and may push Seoul to reconsider its policy of not providing lethal weapons to Kyiv.
China’s Position. Beijing finds itself in an even more uncomfortable position. On one hand, the weakening of the West in Europe benefits China. On the other, such overt escalation by its allies increases the risks of uncontrolled conflict expansion and intensifies U.S. pressure on China itself.
Thus, whether it involves 30,000 combat troops or a smaller number of engineering units, the increased North Korean presence represents a qualitative leap in escalation. It provides Russia with additional resources for waging a protracted war but simultaneously creates new risks for the Kim regime and forces Ukraine and its partners to seek asymmetric and more resolute responses.
Geopolitical Consequences: Global Reactions and the Formation of New Axes
The direct participation of North Korea in the war in Ukraine has far exceeded the confines of the battlefield, causing significant geopolitical shifts and forcing key global players to reassess their strategies. Reactions to this move range from harsh condemnation and consolidation in the West to strategic dilemmas and silent observation in Beijing.
The United States, NATO, and G7 countries have unanimously condemned the deployment of North Korean troops, calling it a “significant escalation,” a “dangerous expansion” of the war, and a gross violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions. This move by Pyongyang and Moscow has catalyzed further strengthening of alliances aimed at countering authoritarian regimes.
The most notable development has been the intensification of trilateral security cooperation between the United States, Japan, and South Korea. In response to the rising threat, these countries have increased joint military exercises, including those involving strategic bombers, and deepened intelligence sharing. Moreover, North Korea’s participation in a European conflict has erased the boundary between the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security theaters. NATO has begun holding formal consultations with its Indo-Pacific partners—Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea—to develop a joint response. This signals the formation of a global coalition of democracies that recognizes the interconnectedness of threats emanating from the axis of authoritarian states.
In response to Russia and North Korea’s actions, the West is intensifying sanctions pressure. New restrictive measures target both Pyongyang and individuals and entities facilitating their military-technical cooperation.
China finds itself in an extremely difficult position. Beijing’s official response has been restrained and evasive. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokespersons typically claim they “lack information on the situation” and continue to call for a “political resolution” to the conflict. This caution conceals a deep strategic dilemma.
On one hand, Beijing benefits from a situation where North Korea and Russia bear the brunt of direct confrontation with the West. Pyongyang’s support for Russia’s war machine allows the depletion of the U.S. and its allies in Europe without requiring China to provide direct lethal aid, which could trigger devastating secondary sanctions against its economy.
On the other hand, the deepening Russian-North Korean alliance creates serious problems for China. First, it undermines Beijing’s exclusive influence over Pyongyang, which now has an alternative patron in Moscow. Second, it increases instability on China’s borders and draws even greater U.S. military attention to the region.
The greatest concern is the prospect of Russia transferring advanced nuclear and missile technologies to North Korea, which could spark an arms race in Asia and force Japan and South Korea to reconsider their non-nuclear status. Thus, China is attempting to balance, tacitly allowing its “junior partners” to create problems for the West while fearing a loss of control over the situation.
By openly aligning with a pariah state like North Korea, Russia has burned the last bridges connecting it to its status as a responsible member of the international community. This move marks a final break with its previous policy, when Moscow, albeit with reservations, supported UN Security Council resolutions on sanctions against North Korea’s nuclear program.
The veto on extending the mandate of the UN expert group monitoring these sanctions was not just a tactical move but a deliberate dismantling of the non-proliferation regime, in which Russia once played a key role. Such blatant disregard for international law and embrace of the Kim regime further isolates Russia internationally. Even many Global South countries, which maintain a neutral stance on the war in Ukraine, view Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions and flagrant disregard for the UN Charter with caution. The alliance with North Korea makes Russia a “toxic” partner, damaging its diplomatic efforts on the global stage.
North Korea’s participation in the war accelerates the merging of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security theaters into a single strategic space. Previously, conflicts in Europe and tensions in Asia were seen as separate issues. Now, North Korean shells are killing Ukrainians, and the combat experience gained in Ukraine directly threatens South Korea and Japan.
In response, NATO is officially consulting with its Asian partners, and Seoul is considering supplying weapons to Kyiv. A direct feedback loop has emerged: events in Ukraine have immediate consequences for East Asia, and vice versa. The U.S. concept of “integrated deterrence” is no longer theoretical but a practical reality, as the “axis of disruption” forces the democratic world to mount a global, coordinated response.
Meanwhile, China plays a double game. It provides Russia with critical economic and technological support, without which its war machine would grind to a halt, and remains North Korea’s primary economic lifeline. By allowing its partners to engage in the most egregious forms of cooperation (deploying troops, openly violating sanctions), Beijing maintains plausible deniability of its involvement.
This allows China to criticize the “irresponsible” actions of Moscow and Pyongyang to Western audiences, enhancing its value as a potential mediator for de-escalation, while its support makes the conflict possible. Thus, China is not a passive observer but actively exploits the chaos created by its allies to achieve its own strategic goals: weakening the U.S., fracturing Western alliances, and elevating its global status as an “indispensable” state for resolving crises.
Challenges for Ukraine: New Threats and Opportunities Arise
The appearance of a North Korean contingent on the front lines creates a dual situation for Ukraine: on one hand, a new serious military challenge, and on the other, a unique diplomatic opportunity to strengthen international support.
The introduction of thousands of fresh, albeit poorly equipped, soldiers creates additional pressure on Ukraine’s exhausted units, particularly in areas like the Kursk region. The willingness of North Korean troops to sustain massive losses in “meat grinder” assaults allows Russian command to employ attrition tactics similar to those used with Wagner Group prisoners and “Storm-Z” units. Such attacks force Ukraine’s Defense Forces to expend precious ammunition and human resources to repel them, complicating their own offensive operations and the maintenance of defensive lines. Even if the combat effectiveness of individual North Korean soldiers is low, their sheer numbers make them a factor that cannot be ignored.
The direct participation of a third country in the war on Russia’s side provides Kyiv with a powerful argument on the international stage. Ukraine’s leadership, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is actively using this fact to criticize the “restrained” response of some Western partners and to justify the urgent need for enhanced military assistance.
The presence of North Korean troops strengthens Ukraine’s case for several potential steps. First, it may involve the provision of more advanced long-range systems, such as German Taurus missiles, which would allow strikes on logistical hubs and enemy troop concentrations deep in the rear.
It also reopens the question of lifting all restrictions on the use of Western weapons. Ukraine insists on the right to strike legitimate military targets on Russian territory from which aggression is launched, including airfields, military bases, and industrial facilities.
Additionally, there is a need to increase annual commitments for military financing. The European Parliament has already called on NATO member states to allocate at least 0.25% of their GDP annually to military support for Ukraine.
The discourse is shifting from a bilateral conflict to a global confrontation between democracies and the axis of authoritarian regimes. Supporting Ukraine in these conditions becomes not just an act of solidarity for its partners but an investment in their own and global security.
North Korea’s involvement significantly complicates any peace negotiations. Russia may use the presence of North Korean troops as leverage, demonstrating its ability to prolong the war indefinitely at the expense of foreign contingents. This reinforces Russian propaganda about the “impossibility of Ukraine’s military victory” and aims to pressure Kyiv and its partners into agreeing to peace on unfavorable terms, effectively legitimizing Russian aggression.
Further involvement of North Korea in the war could be the factor that helps the West overcome its own “escalation paralysis.” Throughout much of the war, Western partners hesitated to provide Ukraine with certain types of weapons, fearing they might provoke Russia into direct confrontation. However, by involving the troops of a third nuclear state in combat operations, Russia itself has crossed one of the main “red lines.”
This move has demonstrated that Putin’s threats are largely rhetorical and flexible. This, in turn, provides Western leaders with political cover for a more decisive response. They can now argue that lifting restrictions on strikes into Russian territory or providing long-range missiles is not an unprovoked escalation but a necessary and proportionate response to Russia’s dangerous expansion of the conflict. Thus, the Kremlin’s attempt to gain a tactical advantage through North Korean soldiers may have a counterproductive strategic effect, unlocking access for Ukraine to more advanced and less restricted military aid.
Prospects for Expanded North Korean Participation: New Conclusions and Strategic Forecasts
The direct military participation of Pyongyang in Russia’s war against Ukraine is a paradigm-shifting event, not only for the conflict itself but also for the global security architecture. This is especially true if additional contingents are deployed. This is not merely a tactical move but a strategic shift with far-reaching consequences for all parties involved.
The deployment of North Korean troops has transformed the war in Ukraine from a regional conflict into a multidimensional global confrontation. It has formally established an anti-Western authoritarian axis of Moscow-Pyongyang, acting in coordination with Iran and with the tacit support of China. This alliance has definitively dismantled post-Cold War non-proliferation norms and international law, demonstrating that a permanent member of the UN Security Council is willing to openly collaborate with a pariah state to achieve its military objectives. For North Korea, the Ukrainian front has become a bloody but invaluable “live laboratory,” the combat experience from which will have long-term consequences for security in East Asia.
Situation Forecast. Short-Term Perspective (6–12 Months). Cooperation between Russia and North Korea is likely to deepen. Continued rotation of North Korean troops and expanded “weapons-for-technology” exchanges should be expected. Russia will use Korean soldiers to maintain pressure on the front and offset its own losses, seeking a breakthrough before Western aid to Ukraine reaches full capacity. Pyongyang, in turn, will aim to adapt its tactics to reduce losses and maximize the absorption of combat experience.
Medium-Term Perspective (1–3 Years). The key variable will be the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine. Russian success, even partial, will significantly strengthen the position of the entire authoritarian axis, embolden Kim Jong Un, and increase threats to both Europe and Asia. Conversely, a military defeat or strategic stalemate for Russia would place the Kim regime in an extremely precarious position. It risks being left with massive human losses, undermined military legitimacy, and without the promised technological dividends, potentially sparking internal instability.
Ihor Petrenko, founder of the “United Ukraine” Think Tank, Doctor of Political Sciences