Implications of North Korean Support for Russia

March 24th, 2025

Cody Brown

The invasion of the Kursk region in Russia by Ukrainian forces in August of last year has become pivotal to the drawn-out conflict. The incursion into Kursk, a historic landmark for the Russian Federation, has signaled urgency in the Kremlin with an intense effort being directed to the western front. In February, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un crystallized his support of Russia and its ambitions in Ukraine, stating that “[North Korea] will invariably support and encourage the just cause of the Russian Army.” Following this proclamation, North Korea continued pouring soldiers to fill the hollowing mold of Russian forces according to South Korean spies reporting on the situation in Kursk. Yet, as the situation in Kursk continues to evolve, many academics are now questioning the true intent behind Kim’s contributions.

Despite the deaths of anywhere from 1,100 to 3,000 North Korean soldiers in Kursk back in December, North Korea has continued to back Russia. This is the result of a durable relationship forged across the several years since the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Since 2023, there have been 18 accounts of North Korean and Russian leadership convening to discuss security, energy, and intelligence. Most pertinently, the two leaders signed a mutual defense treaty which mandates support in case of an armed attack. The plethora of talks, treaties, and cooperation have led to a simple truth for Kim: Russia is a definitive ally. And given the high stakes of their transformation from a transactional to militarized relationship, it’s imperative that this bond doesn’t shatter. Furthermore, by offering unwavering support, North Korea is engaging in a strategic investment to put the Kremlin in symbolic debt. While North Korea continues to suffer immense losses, the very notion of having Russia indebted to them is a bountiful reward, especially for nuclear programs. These efforts all consolidate to form a geopolitical realignment in favor of North Korea—if Russia prevails. The question then becomes whether North Korean support is enough, and when looking at the current status of Kursk, the answer appears to lean towards the affirmative. While U.S. and European intelligence data has allegedly disproved Putin’s claim that Ukrainian forces are surrounded in the combat zone on March 20th, the reality is still grim. Ukrainian forces acknowledged that North Korean troops have become a key element in Russia’s strategy to reclaim Kursk. According to Ruslan Mykula, the creator of the Deep State war map, “These were massive reinforcements, much larger than our group.We simply lacked enough ammunition and drones to eliminate them all.”

Given the apparent success of North Korean support, it seems possible that a Russian victory could embolden cooperation on a litany of ideas proposed by Kim, however, the spoils don’t end there. Beyond potentially winning over Russia, Kim’s sights might just be set on the United States. Following the November election in which Donald Trump emerged victorious, several public statements have illuminated the chance for a budding allyship between Trump and Kim. With Trump on record as saying “I have a great relationship with Kim Jong-Un . . . but certainly he's a nuclear power.” Inversely, while North Korea has yet to issue any statements echoing these sentiments, Ri Il Kyu—the highest-ranking official known to have defected from North Korea—speculated that Kim hedged his bets on the Trump administration returning to power, and subsequently negotiating nuclear deals. Russia peculiarly falls into place to finish a puzzle of geopolitical relationships, with a recent phone call between Trump and Putin illustrating a strong connection. Where North Korea stands to gain is still unclear, as navigating the rocky path of Trump’s supposed denuclearization plans in conjunction with his cooperation with many North Korean adversaries is a major concern. Nonetheless, opening the door to conversation could signal the triangulation of three leaders intent on aggressively pursuing their policy. Even disregarding the underlying intentions, the humanitarian cost is an unavoidable truth as well, with the combined death tolls of both sides hiking above 50,000. These global and humanitarian implications should be continually assessed for their validity over the following months, as the stability of a democratic world hangs in the balance.