By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Reuters investigation reveals the significant extent of North Korea’s military support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. This aid includes millions of artillery shells shipped in 64 voyages over 20 months, at times comprising the majority of shells used by some Russian units. Furthermore, approximately 14,000 North Korean troops, including replacements for battlefield losses, have been deployed to bolster Russian forces, particularly during a Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk region. This substantial military partnership provides Russia with a critical advantage in the war of attrition, impacting the battlefield significantly. The collaboration highlights the growing ties between the two sanctioned nations.
Read the original article here
North Korea has sent 17,000 combat troops to fight for Russia in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This represents a significant commitment of military personnel from a nation known for its isolationist policies and fraught international relations. The scale of this deployment underscores the depth of the alliance between Russia and North Korea, and raises serious questions about the international implications of this military involvement.
The West, on the other hand, has not sent any official military troops to fight alongside Ukraine. This decision reflects a complex array of factors, including the potential for escalating the conflict into a larger war, the desire to avoid direct military confrontation with Russia, and the logistical challenges of deploying and supporting a significant military force in a war zone. The absence of direct military intervention by Western powers doesn’t negate the substantial support provided to Ukraine in other forms.
However, the narrative that the West has offered zero support to Ukraine is demonstrably false. The provision of substantial military aid, including advanced weaponry, air defense systems, and intelligence, plays a critical role in bolstering Ukraine’s defense capabilities and pushing back against the Russian invasion. The sheer volume and strategic importance of this aid are hard to overstate; some argue its value far surpasses that of the 17,000 North Korean troops. This support, while indirect, has fundamentally shaped the course of the conflict, offering a lifeline to the Ukrainian defense effort.
Furthermore, the issue of volunteer fighters from Western nations adds another layer of complexity. While not an official military deployment, the significant number of volunteers fighting with the Ukrainian forces demonstrates a degree of Western support that goes beyond mere material assistance. These volunteers, many of whom have military experience, contribute actively to the battlefield dynamics. Conversely, it appears there’s no comparable influx of Western volunteers fighting for Russia. This asymmetry further underscores the stark contrast between the actions of North Korea and the West.
Some argue that the sheer volume of Western aid effectively constitutes a participation in the war, blurring the lines between support and direct involvement. This interpretation, however, is debatable. The provision of aid, while significant and influential, remains fundamentally different from direct military deployment. The distinction lies in the level of commitment and the degree of risk involved. The West, by providing aid, has helped Ukraine defend itself without directly entering the war, thus avoiding a potentially catastrophic escalation.
The contrasting approaches of North Korea and the West highlight fundamental differences in their geopolitical strategies and objectives. North Korea’s direct military intervention reflects an unabashed commitment to supporting Russia’s war aims, regardless of the risks involved. The West’s approach, while less overtly militaristic, has nevertheless been crucial in bolstering Ukraine’s resilience and maintaining a crucial balance of power in the region. The absence of Western ground troops is a calculated decision, reflecting a conscious attempt to manage the potential for conflict escalation.
The narrative surrounding the West’s reluctance to send troops is often framed as an unwillingness to engage in a direct conflict with Russia. Yet this interpretation overlooks the substantial support already provided to Ukraine and the considerable risks to international stability that any direct military intervention would create. The question of Western troop deployment is not simply about capability or willingness but also a matter of calculating the strategic risks and evaluating the broader geopolitical implications of escalating the conflict.
The deployment of North Korean troops also raises concerns about the potential for future conflicts. It’s a clear indication of Russia’s willingness to seek allies in its war against Ukraine, regardless of their international standing or human rights record. The situation highlights the complexities of modern warfare and the potential for unexpected alliances to emerge in times of conflict.
The contrast between North Korea’s direct military involvement and the West’s strategic approach to supporting Ukraine is striking. This difference in approach highlights the intricate geopolitical dynamics at play and underlines the diverse ways nations can engage in and influence a conflict without necessarily committing their own ground troops. The absence of Western troops fighting alongside Ukraine is a nuanced issue with both strategic and practical implications, a decision not based on cowardice or indifference but on careful consideration of the global consequences.