عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Officials Say North Korea Has Sent Troops to Russia. What Would That Mean for the War With Ukraine?

Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. (AFP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. (AFP)
TT
TT

Officials Say North Korea Has Sent Troops to Russia. What Would That Mean for the War With Ukraine?

Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. (AFP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. (AFP)

American and South Korean officials said Wednesday that there’s evidence North Korea has dispatched troops to Russia in a potential escalation of the nearly 3-year-old war with Ukraine.
If the soldiers' goal is fighting with Russia in Ukraine, it would be the first time a third country puts boots on the ground in the war. Other countries on both sides of the divide have sent military aid, including weapons and training: Iran has supplied Russia with drones, and Western nations have provided Ukraine with modern weapons and financial and humanitarian assistance, The Associated Press said.
South Korea’s spy chief told lawmakers that 3,000 North Korean troops were being trained to use equipment including drones before being sent to fight in Ukraine. United States Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters during a visit to Rome that “we are seeing evidence that there are North Korean troops” who have gone to Russia.
“What exactly they’re doing — left to be seen," Austin said. Neither Austin nor South Korean National Intelligence Service Director Cho Tae-yong provided details about how they knew about the North Korean troops, and many questions surround the impact of North Korean participation.
What do we know about the North Korean troops? North Korean troops were arriving in Russia’s Kursk region as early as Wednesday to help Russian troops fight off a Ukrainian border incursion, Ukraine Military Intelligence Directorate head Kyrylo Budanov told the online military news outlet The War Zone on Tuesday.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters Monday that North Korean officers and technical personnel have already been spotted in Russian-occupied territories. He did not specify when.
“I believe they sent officers first to assess the situation before deploying troops,” Zelenskyy said. He has cautioned that the participation of a third country could escalate the conflict into a world war. Austin said that it would be a “very, very serious issue” if Pyongyang indeed did join the war on Russia’s side.
What is Ukraine doing? Ukraine is preparing as though combating North Korea in its territory is inevitable.
An injection of 10,000 North Korean troops, which is what both Ukrainian and South Korean intelligence have claimed, "could significantly destabilize Ukraine’s defense there and greatly accelerate the advancement of Russian forces,” said Glib Voloskyi, an analyst from a Ukrainian think tank, Come Back Alive Initiatives Center.
Ukraine’s “I Want to Live” project, a hotline encouraging Russian soldiers to surrender, published a video in Korean on Wednesday calling for North Korean soldiers to give up.
“We call for the soldiers of the Korean People’s Army, who were sent to help the Putin regime. You should not die senselessly on someone else’s land. There is no need to repeat the fate of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers who will never return home!"
How is the West reacting? Zelenskyy told reporters Monday that the European Union and the US have been cautious in publicly addressing North Korean troops fighting alongside Russia — describing their reactions as “very restrained.”
German and British officials also weighed in, with South Korea hinting that it could support Ukraine with military weapons in the event of North Korea’s confirmed involvement.
“We don’t even know whether we are talking about 1,500 or 12,000, or which kind of soldiers are coming to Russia and to fight where and against," German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said. “It’s a kind of escalation and it shows us a very important, a very important aspect. International conflicts are approaching very rapidly.”
United Kingdom Defense Secretary John Healey said there was "not just a concern about the potential for an escalation of conflict in Europe. There is an indivisible link with security concerns in the Indo-Pacific as well.”
Why does Russia need North Korea? North Korea and Russia, both in separate confrontations with the West, have deepened their military cooperation in the past two years. In June, they signed a defense deal requiring both countries to provide military assistance if the other is attacked.
For analysts, the introduction of troops would be a sign that the war isn’t going as Russia planned.
“I think Ukraine is wearing down the Russian army as we talk. You don’t get thousands of soldiers from North Korea if your war is going well,” said Justin Crump, a former British tank commander who heads Sibylline, a strategic advisory firm. “You don’t require them."
North Korea has already sent over 13,000 containers of artillery, missiles and other conventional arms to Russia since August 2023 to replenish its dwindling weapons stockpiles. Those missiles are being actively used against Ukrainian targets, officials in Kyiv say.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Iran Faces Tough Choices in Deciding How to Respond to Israeli Strikes

This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
TT
TT

Iran Faces Tough Choices in Deciding How to Respond to Israeli Strikes

This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)

It's Iran's move now.
How Iran chooses to respond to the unusually public Israeli aerial assault on its homeland could determine whether the region spirals further toward all-out war or holds steady at an already devastating and destabilizing level of violence.
In the coldly calculating realm of Middle East geopolitics, a strike of the magnitude that Israel delivered Saturday would typically be met with a forceful response. A likely option would be another round of the ballistic missile barrages that Iran has already launched twice this year, The Associated Press said.
Retaliating militarily would allow Iran's clerical leadership to show strength not only to its own citizens but also to Hamas in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah, the militant groups battling Israel that are the vanguard of Tehran's so-called Axis of Resistance.
It is too soon to say whether Iran's leadership will follow that path.
Tehran may decide against forcefully retaliating directly for now, not least because doing so might reveal its weaknesses and invite a more potent Israeli response, analysts say.
“Iran will play down the impact of the strikes, which are in fact quite serious,” said Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the London-based think tank Chatham House.
She said Iran is “boxed in" by military and economic constraints, and the uncertainty caused by the US election and its impact on American policy in the region.
Even while the Mideast wars rage, Iran's reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian has been signaling his nation wants a new nuclear deal with the US to ease crushing international sanctions.
A carefully worded statement from Iran’s military Saturday night appeared to offer some wiggle room for Iran to back away from further escalation. It suggested that a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon was more important than any retaliation against Israel.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran's ultimate decision-maker, was also measured in his first comments on the strike Sunday. He said the attack “should not be exaggerated nor downplayed,” and he stopped short of calling for an immediate military response.
Saturday's strikes targeted Iranian air defense missile batteries and missile production facilities, according to the Israeli military.
With that, Israel has exposed vulnerabilities in Iran’s air defenses and can now more easily step up its attacks, analysts say.
Satellite photos analyzed by The Associated Press indicate Israel's raid damaged facilities at the Parchin military base southeast of Tehran that experts previously linked to Iran's onetime nuclear weapons program and another base tied to its ballistic missile program.
Current nuclear sites were not struck, however. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed that on X, saying “Iran’s nuclear facilities have not been impacted.”
Israel has been aggressively bringing the fight to the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah, killing its leader and targeting operatives in an audacious exploding pager attack.
“Any Iranian attempt to retaliate will have to contend with the fact that Hezbollah, its most important ally against Israel, has been significantly degraded and its conventional weapons systems have twice been largely repelled,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, who expects Iran to hold its fire for now.
That's true even if Israel held back, as appears to be the case. Some prominent figures in Israel, such as opposition leader Yair Lapid, are already saying the attacks didn't go far enough.
Regional experts suggested that Israel's relatively limited target list was intentionally calibrated to make it easier for Iran to back away from escalation.
As Yoel Guzansky, who formerly worked for Israel’s National Security Council and is now a researcher at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, put it: Israel's decision to focus on purely military targets allows Iran "to save face.”
Israel's target choices may also be a reflection at least in part of its capabilities. It is unlikely to be able to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities on its own and would require help from the United States, Guzansky said.
Besides, Israel still has leverage to go after higher-value targets should Iran retaliate — particularly now that nodes in its air defenses have been destroyed.
“You preserve for yourself all kinds of contingency plans,” Guzansky said.
Thomas Juneau, a University of Ottawa professor focused on Iran and the wider Middle East, wrote on X that the fact Iranian media initially downplayed the strikes suggests Tehran may want to avoid further escalation. Yet it's caught in a tough spot.
“If it retaliates, it risks an escalation in which its weakness means it loses more,” he wrote. “If it does not retaliate, it projects a signal of weakness.”
Vakil agreed that Iran's response was likely to be muted and that the strikes were designed to minimize the potential for escalation.
“Israel has yet again shown its military precision and capabilities are far superior to that of Iran,” she said.
One thing is certain: The Mideast is in uncharted territory.
For decades, leaders and strategists in the region have speculated about whether and how Israel might one day openly strike Iran, just as they wondered what direct attacks by Iran, rather than by its proxy militant groups, would look like.
Today, it's a reality. Yet the playbook on either side isn't clear, and may still be being written.
“There appears to be a major mismatch both in terms of the sword each side wields and the shield it can deploy,” Vaez said.
“While both sides have calibrated and calculated how quickly they climb the escalation ladder, they are in an entirely new territory now, where the new red lines are nebulous and the old ones have turned pink,” he said.