Jovan Lim is a first year Philosophy, Politics and Economics student. He is passionate about the intersection between global affairs and politics, as well as exploring the dynamic forces shaping international relations.
Mansudae Grand Monument, Pyongyang. (Stephan, 2007). CC BY-SA 2.0.
Background
The reported deployment of some 10,000 North Korean soldiers to Russia for training as well as the subsequent dispatch to the frontlines in Kursk, Russia [1] marked a significant juncture in the Russo–Ukrainian war. While it sparked speculations of Russia’s weakening warfighting capabilities [2], it also signalled a shift in the dynamics of a tense East Asian region that was seemingly far removed from the ongoing European conflict. This is not least because of two reasons: an enhanced security dilemma and the embroilment of conflicting international alliances.
Enhanced Security Dilemma
The North Korea–Russia relationship is unique. With similar ideological stances against the West, both countries have forged a partnership based on mutual strategic interests to make up for the losses as a result of Western sanctions. In the case of the Russo-Ukrainian war, this transactional relationship manifested in the form of North Korea providing troops and ammunition along with demands for advanced nuclear technologies [3].
This is particularly worrying for the United States’ allies in the region. Indeed, North Korea had previously established its status as a nuclear state by enshrining its nuclear policy in the constitution [4], indicating its willingness to engage in preemptive strikes as a form of strategic deterrence. However, this particular transaction with Russia has two main implications. Firstly, this evidently signifies a huge advancement in North Korea’s physical nuclear capabilities as it gains access to technologies from the largest nuclear weapon state in the world. In response, this almost invariably leads South Korea and Japan to raise their own defence capabilities as they aim to avoid a technological mismatch, unless diplomatic intervention is underway. Secondly, on a broader scale, this represents a broader strengthening of ties between North Korea and Russia that could spell even more mutual agreements of a similar nature. This only exacerbates the difference in capabilities between North Korea and its opposing neighbours. As a whole, by assessing North Korea’s nuclear toolkit through the lens of its nuclear policy, it can be seen that its reinforced nuclear capabilities supplement its constitutional right to anticipatory attacks, rendering it more reactive to any perceived threats. This might result in an enhanced military posture in the region that is predicated on assumptions regarding the significance of threats.
For instance, South Korea has established the ‘Three-Axis’ system against North Korean threats. This strategy involves a preemptive attack if it determines signs of impending missiles, as well as retaliatory strikes on North Korean leadership if an attack has already occurred [5]. Coupled with North Korea’s similarly precautionary nuclear stance, this subjectivity of danger complicates the security dilemma as both sides act on perceived threats that can easily be misinterpreted. South Korea could assess North Korea’s weaponry buildup as a threat to its security and raise its own defences preemptively, while North Korea could perceive a possible attack on its leadership as incendiary and an overly disproportionate response. This means that a perpetual cycle is inclined to form in which both sides continue to act defensively in view of perceived aggressive actions. In the long run, the hope of diplomacy diminishes for as long as neither side steps back. This goes to show that the military policies on both sides can lead to an increasingly tense region with each added manoeuvre. The attainment of advanced Russian technologies by North Korea will be no exception.
Complex Alliance Dynamics
As these developments unfold, the geopolitical landscape will be more complex beyond the scope of regional stakeholders. Crucially, the involvement of international stakeholders, such as the United States and China, in this entanglement not only impacts the dynamics of East Asia, but also adds an additional layer of complexity in analysis.
Since the Korean War Armistice in 1953, South Korea has been committed to the Mutual Defence Treaty with the United States, which allows United States troops and resources to be deployed in South Korea and provides for assistance if South Korea is attacked [6]. The United States’ support has therefore served as a foundation for South Korea’s diplomatic and military actions, establishing a robust defensive posture through advanced weapon systems, joint military exercises, and strong rhetoric against security threats. Hence, North Korea’s technological advancement, alongside potential Russian support, complicates the security dilemma with the additional factor of the United States being a force multiplier with compounded threats.
Against this backdrop however, while the South Korea–United States alliance is secure, the furtherance of American interests in global conflicts elsewhere has diluted its efforts, raising questions about its commitment to the defence of South Korea. In the eyes of South Koreans, an overwhelming 72.8% majority believe in the need to develop nuclear weapons independently [7]. This indicates a high level of drive towards self-reliance, and more generally, a propensity for independence in decision-making.
These sentiments calling for nuclear autonomy are amplified by the fluctuating political landscape. The Yoon administration employed a more hawkish approach away from the trust-building mechanisms and engagements pursued by the Moon administration. This shift highlights the wariness of the South Korean public regarding the reliability of security by the United States. Ultimately, this means that the strategies employed by South Korea would draw more inspiration from domestic politics and social pressures as opposed to the guidance and strategic interests of the United States. If North Korea develops its capabilities more significantly with the provisions of Russian technology, the extent of the United States’ involvement will affect the strength of South Korea’s response. It will have to balance the effectiveness of its own capabilities as well as its political drive to send a firm response, all while mitigating friction with the United States.
Bringing the attention back to North Korea, its attachment to Russia denotes a larger shift in its disposition towards alliance-forming. The concrete nature of this deal involving North Korean troops (fighting in a conflict that violates international laws) and Russian technology indicates a more outright defiance of the rules-based order, and that North Korea might be more emboldened in terms of its military ambitions going forward. If the tensions in the region therefore evolve into one that is more warlike, China will then establish its role more strongly as a great regional power and stabiliser, distancing itself from any military actions that are inflammatory. This is in line with its long-standing stance of non-intervention in others’ internal affairs and being a mediator for peace. Leveraging on its strong economic ties with South Korea and diplomatic relationship with North Korea, China is definitely well-positioned to promote stability through non-military means. As a major player, the tactfulness of China’s political response is vital in ensuring a principled outcome for the future of the region amid the progressive tensions of security.
Interestingly, China’s need to be more sensitive also means that its relationship with the United States might be more conciliatory as it seeks to establish an environment of reduced tensions through mutual disarmament in the region. By extension, other issues between the top two global superpowers have the potential to be viewed in a less belligerent manner where cooperation is favoured. Where North Korea sets the course of rising tensions, the global powers have the collective influence to rein it in.
Looking Ahead
The latest development of North Korea’s involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war will undoubtedly have profound implications for the security landscape in East Asia, despite its distance from Europe. As North Korea develops alongside Russian assistance, the security dilemma increases in complexity within an environment grounded on assumptions and apprehension. Without effective diplomacy, there is little hope for compromise. Additionally, key players wield the capacity of stable influence and negotiation. This should be harnessed sensitively to balance an otherwise fraught region.
This demonstrates that events in the Russo-Ukrainian war have broader consequences owing to their connections with security, cooperation, and balance. In spite of the new circumstances, as long as international relationships are managed strategically and meaningfully (whether it be between the two Koreas or with global powers), there will be a reduced likelihood of aggravation resulting from the complexities in the region. Nevertheless, a path towards consolidated security can still be forged in the foreseeable future.
References
[1] Al Jazeera (2024) NATO, Pentagon confirm deployment of North Korean troops to Russia, Al Jazeera. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/28/nato-pentagon-confirm-deployment-of-north-korean-troops-to-russia (Accessed: 28 October 2024).
[2] NBC News (2024) What does North Korea get out of sending its soldiers to fight Russia’s war?, NBCNews.com. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-north-korea-soldiers-fight-russia-ukraine-war-putin-kim-rcna177239 (Accessed: 30 October 2024).
[3] Kim, T.-H. (2023) Kim Jong Un meets Vladimir Putin in Russia. What do Pyongyang and Moscow want from each other?, AP News. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/north-korea-russia-kim-putin-summit-c44735b9903e6f30e7e8d673ef4c77f3# (Accessed: 30 October 2024).
[4] KCNA (2023) 9th session of 14th spa of DPRK held, www.kcna.kp. Available at: http://kcna.kp/en/article/q/9c38c667ab8fc1a8ab39bded693ee120.kcmsf (Accessed: 30 October 2024).
[5] National Defense Strategy Division (2023) 2022 Defense White Paper. Available at: https://www.mnd.go.kr/cop/pblictn/selectPublicationUser.do?siteId=mndEN&componentId=51&categoryId=0&publicationSeq=1057&pageIndex=1&id=mndEN_031300000000 (Accessed: 30 October 2024).
[6] U.S. Government Printing Office (1957) Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea; October 1, 1953. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
[7] Shin, K.-J. (2024) 72.8% of Koreans support S. Korea’s nuclear weapon development, 동아일보. Available at: https://www.donga.com/en/article/all/20240206/4731163/1 (Accessed: 31 October 2024).
