By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukraine’s military intelligence reported that North Korea has supplied Russia with over 100 short-range ballistic missiles and over 5 million artillery shells, including various artillery systems. This arms transfer, ongoing since last month, follows a visit by the Russian defense minister to Pyongyang, signifying deepening military cooperation between the two nations. The substantial North Korean military aid is believed to bolster Russia’s efforts to regain territory lost in Kursk Oblast, a key objective before potential peace negotiations. North Korea has also reportedly deployed over 10,000 troops to support Russia’s war effort.
Read the original article here
Ukraine claims that North Korea has supplied Russia with over 100 ballistic missiles and a staggering 5 million artillery shells. This revelation highlights a significant escalation in the conflict, showcasing the extent to which Russia is relying on external support to sustain its war effort.
The sheer volume of artillery shells is particularly striking. Five million shells represent a massive quantity, even considering potential dud rates. Reports suggest a substantial portion of these shells, possibly as much as half, are non-functional due to age and poor maintenance. These shells, dating back to the 1970s and 80s, are also reportedly inaccurate, with some even detonating prematurely within the gun barrels themselves. Despite the high dud rate, the sheer number still represents a considerable threat, capable of inflicting significant damage and casualties.
The provision of ballistic missiles further amplifies the gravity of the situation. While the exact capabilities and reliability of the 100+ missiles remain unclear, their presence significantly bolsters Russia’s offensive potential, adding another layer of complexity to the conflict.
The motivations behind this arms deal remain a subject of speculation. While “economic and military cooperation” is often cited as a rationale, the specific benefits accruing to North Korea remain somewhat opaque. Potential benefits could include access to crucial resources, technological advancements, or even financial incentives. The deal might also be interpreted as a strategic alliance against shared adversaries.
This situation raises concerns about global security. The transfer of such a large quantity of weaponry underscores the potential for further escalation and destabilization. The reliance on outdated and unreliable equipment also raises questions about the overall competence of Russia’s military logistics and resource management.
The contrast between the scale of North Korean support for Russia and the perceived inadequacy of aid from neighboring European nations is stark and often discussed. While the reasons for this disparity are complex and multifaceted, it underlines the ongoing challenges in forging a unified and effective response to the conflict.
The discussion often involves criticism of the West and NATO’s support for Ukraine. Some argue that the aid provided, while substantial, is insufficient to decisively turn the tide of the war. This perspective highlights the frustration felt by many who see a slow and inadequate response to the crisis, particularly when contrasted with the sheer volume of military equipment being provided by North Korea.
The origin of the 5 million artillery shells is also a key point of interest. This substantial stockpile raises questions about North Korea’s production capacity and its long-term strategic goals. It also suggests that North Korea might have vast, previously unknown reserves of older munitions. The re-emergence of this older equipment onto the battlefield, even with its flaws, demonstrates the enduring significance of older weaponry in modern warfare.
Despite the significant quantity of weapons transferred, the effectiveness of these supplies remains questionable. The high dud rates of the artillery shells and the uncertain reliability of the missiles raise serious doubts about their battlefield impact. While some may argue that even a fraction of these weapons remain functional and poses a significant threat, the overall quality of the transferred equipment appears to be far below contemporary standards.
Ultimately, the reported transfer of weapons from North Korea to Russia represents a significant development in the ongoing conflict. This move underscores the multifaceted nature of the war and its far-reaching global implications. The implications for regional stability and the broader balance of power remain a significant source of concern and uncertainty. The longevity and overall impact of these older weapons on the conflict will be revealed over time, but their very presence is a powerful statement.