Why North Korea’s Support for Russia in Ukraine Is a Dangerous Gamble

Table of Contents

Swirling beneath the headlines of the Ukraine conflict lies an unexpected protagonist: North Korea. Under Kim Jong Un’s direction, Pyongyang has become one of Moscow’s most reliable suppliers of ammunition, rockets, and even soldiers—transforming a distant war into a strategic wager with profound risks for both Koreas and the broader world. While some hail these moves as savvy realpolitik, an unpopular truth suggests Kim’s Ukraine gambit may ultimately undermine North Korea’s security, deplete its own resources, and further isolate the regime without yielding lasting gains.

Mile-High Munitions, Ground-Level Consequences

In less than two years, North Korea has funneled immense quantities of weaponry into Russia’s war effort. A joint Reuters investigation traced 64 separate shipments—totaling over 15,000 containers—of artillery shells, multiple‐rocket launchers, and KN-23 ballistic missiles, amounting to roughly four million rounds of ammunition. The Stockholm-based Open Source Centre estimates that Pyongyang’s deliveries now account for up to 40 percent of Russia’s frontline artillery supplies. These figures underscore that North Korea is not merely a peripheral arms dealer but a linchpin in sustaining Moscow’s grinding offensives—at a steep cost to its own military readiness.

Troops on Foreign Soil: Overextension or Expertise?

Beyond materiel, evidence suggests that North Korea has deployed tens of thousands of its soldiers to Russia’s Kursk region, with casualty reports reaching into the low thousands. South Korean and U.S. intelligence assessments place the figure near 15,000 troops, of whom approximately one‐third have been wounded or killed. According to a Wall Street Journal report, North Korean soldiers featured prominently in Russian propaganda reels, hailed as heroes returning from battle ﹣ a narrative at odds with accounts describing under-trained conscripts suffering heavily under Ukrainian counter-battery fire. Such a deployment risks hollowing out North Korea’s limited manpower and exposing inexperienced fighters to modern combined-arms warfare.

A Sovereign Right—or Strategic Misstep?

Kim Jong Un has defended his regime’s Ukraine involvement as an exercise of sovereign prerogative. In a recent speech, he declared, “Our participation in the conflict was just, and it falls within the sovereign rights of our Republic,” lauding returning veterans as “heroes” of the Kursk operation. Yet this assertion of autonomy masks a deeper dependency: Moscow’s willingness to share advanced air-defense, submarine, and missile technology with Pyongyang in exchange for men and munitions. Far from enhancing North Korean self-reliance, this quid pro quo binds the regime more tightly to Russia’s fortunes, diminishing its flexibility on the peninsula.

Financial Windfall, Fiscal Fallout

Economically, the arrangement has yielded perhaps $20 billion in military and technological assistance for North Korea, according to South Korean estimates. Given chronic food shortages and international sanctions, such inflows seem alluring. However, much of this “aid” comes in the form of complex military hardware that requires Russian support for maintenance and integration—resources that Pyongyang cannot deploy elsewhere without Moscow’s acquiescence. Moreover, basing economic strategy on war-time exchange risks future shortages if Russia’s economy falters or alternative suppliers emerge.

Propaganda Alliances and Credibility Costs

State media in both capitals now trumpet the “sacred mission” of Korean-Russian solidarity, staging joint drills and celebratory receptions for returning troops. Yet these spectacles ring hollow when contrasted with international condemnation. By publicly aligning with an aggressor repeatedly sanctioned for war crimes, North Korea further alienates potential diplomatic partners, including China—which, despite its own ties to Russia, remains cautious about overt support that might trigger secondary sanctions. In this light, the regime’s propaganda plays may win domestic applause but erode Pyongyang’s already fraught global standing.

Testing Grounds for Future Conflicts

Ukraine has also become an experimental proving ground for North Korean munitions. Ukrainian intelligence claims that various KN-23 and KN-24 ballistic missiles have been tested on Eastern Front positions, offering Pyongyang battlefield feedback at Ukraine’s expense. Similarly, crews have trialled upgraded 240 mm rocket launchers and re-purposed self-propelled howitzers, knowledge that could be turned against South Korea in a future clash. In effect, Ukraine is paying the price for an accelerated North Korean research-and-development cycle—an outcome deeply counterproductive to regional stability.

Breaching UN Norms and International Law

Pyongyang’s troop dispatch not only violates multiple UN resolutions but also sets a dangerous precedent for state-sponsored mercenary activity. The South Korean foreign ministry has explicitly warned that North Korea’s actions contravene longstanding UN prohibitions against third-party combat involvement. Such blatant disregard for international norms undermines the very principles of sovereignty and non-intervention that North Korea claims to uphold, inviting further sanctions and potential isolation within multilateral forums.

A False Parallel with the Korean Struggle

Some commentators draw analogies between Ukraine’s fight for self-determination and North Korea’s own historical narrative of resistance against foreign occupation. Yet equating Kim’s voluntary intervention alongside an imperial aggressor with Ukraine’s defensive stand against invasion is a rhetorical inversion. Whereas Ukraine defends its territorial integrity, North Korea is exporting aggression under the guise of solidarity—and in doing so, betrays the anticolonial ethos it professes.

Strategic Distraction from Domestic Imperatives

By fixating state resources and public attention on a distant front, Kim Jong Un diverts scrutiny from urgent domestic crises—ranging from food insecurity to crumbling infrastructure. The regime’s elite narrative paints this diversion as patriotic sacrifice, but on the ground, it exacerbates shortages and curtails civilian investment. In effect, North Korea’s Ukraine policy acts as a pressure valve for internal discontent, yet it also compounds the regime’s governance challenges by prolonging economic stagnation.

Conclusion: Reassessing the Gamble

Kim Jong Un’s Ukraine adventure may secure momentary gains—propaganda victories, Russian support, and battlefield data—but it constitutes a high-stakes gamble with skewed odds. By entangling North Korea’s security and economy ever more deeply with Russia’s fortunes, Pyongyang risks strategic overreach. Should the Kremlin face setbacks or diplomatic isolation, its North Korean patrons will find themselves bereft of crucial support. Moreover, the regime’s overt breach of international norms further restricts any prospects for easing sanctions or normalising relations. In the end, this unpopular opinion holds: North Korea’s involvement in Ukraine is less a masterstroke of diplomacy and more a perilous diversion that jeopardises its own future—while deepening the fissures of an already dangerous global conflict.