By John Q. Hosedrinker 
North Korea’s substantial military support for Russia includes approximately 12,000 troops deployed to the Kursk region, providing an estimated 60% of ammunition used by Russian forces. These troops, lacking modern training and equipment, are reportedly employed as “cannon fodder” in offensive actions, resulting in significant reported casualties. This support, in exchange for technology, funding, and food, underscores the ongoing military cooperation between the two nations despite considerable risks. The captured North Korean soldier incident and reports of disguised rocket launchers further illustrate the nature of this assistance.
Read the original article here
The claim that North Korea supplies 60% of Russia’s frontline ammunition for the war in Ukraine is a startling revelation. This suggests a significant dependence on a nation with a questionable track record in arms manufacturing and whose own military capacity is likely being strained by this considerable supply commitment. It raises questions about the quality and reliability of this ammunition, implying a potential impact on Russian combat effectiveness.
The scale of this alleged supply necessitates examination of North Korea’s production capabilities. While North Korea’s manufacturing infrastructure is undeniably less advanced than Russia’s, its decades-long stockpile of ammunition, accumulated for potential conflict with South Korea, provides a readily available, albeit potentially outdated, supply. This pre-existing inventory may explain the large-scale transfer without requiring significant new production to meet Russian demand.
The motivations behind this arms deal are multifaceted. For North Korea, the transaction offers a significant influx of much-needed capital, potentially bolstering its struggling economy. Beyond financial gain, this arrangement might also secure technology transfers, possibly including nuclear technology, a crucial element in their strategic ambitions.
This reliance on North Korea casts doubt on the sustainability of Russia’s military operations. The quality of the supplied ammunition is a major concern. While decades-old ammunition might still function, its reliability and accuracy are likely compromised, leading to a higher rate of malfunctions and potentially impacting the overall efficacy of Russian artillery barrages.
The sheer volume of ammunition being requested and supplied points to a critical shortage in Russia’s own production capabilities. This shortage may be linked to sanctions, hindering access to crucial raw materials, or to the limitations of their industrial capacity to maintain a high enough rate of production to sustain the prolonged conflict. The dependence on North Korea highlights the limitations of Russia’s capacity to wage a long-term, high-intensity war.
The geopolitical implications of this relationship are far-reaching. North Korea’s involvement deepens the international complexity of the conflict, implicating another nation and raising questions about China’s role, given their close ties to North Korea. It is crucial to understand whether China is actively facilitating the arms transfer, either directly or indirectly. It would seem plausible that even with their close relationship, there are limitations to how much China can effectively support North Korea’s industrial capacity.
The quality concerns raised surrounding the ammunition from North Korea might also shed light on reports of a high failure rate among Russian weaponry. If a significant portion of the ammunition utilized on the frontlines is outdated or subpar, this could readily account for the reported malfunctions and inefficiencies. The question of whether this is a deliberate strategic choice by Russia or simply a consequence of its desperation remains open.
This situation also raises questions about international arms control and the effectiveness of sanctions. The continued flow of weapons, despite international efforts to restrict it, emphasizes the difficulties of enforcing such measures and the persistent need for stronger international cooperation. It underscores the need for more robust mechanisms to prevent the supply of weapons to conflict zones.
This supply chain highlights a striking paradox. While the war in Ukraine depletes Russia’s resources, it also depletes North Korea’s existing stockpiles. This presents a unique situation, where the prolonged conflict potentially weakens not only Russia but also a key arms supplier, offering a long-term strategic benefit to Ukraine. The implications of this interconnected depletion are profound and merit further exploration.
In conclusion, the revelation of North Korea’s significant contribution to Russia’s ammunition supply is a game-changer in the analysis of the war. It unveils a critical dependence, raises questions about weapon quality, and highlights the complex interplay of geopolitical factors that sustain conflicts. It is a clear indication of the extent to which the war in Ukraine is impacting multiple nations across the globe, far beyond the immediate battlefield.