The signing of a comprehensive offensive partnership between North Korea and Russia in June of 2024 has sent ripples through global security dynamics, prompting many nations to rethink their foreign policy strategies. The deployment of 12,000 North Korean troops in Ukraine has further intensified tensions, compelling major powers to recalibrate their approach to international security. China, in particular, has been unsettled by the bilateral rapprochement between Moscow and Pyongyang, as it threatens to diminish Beijing’s regional influence. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its Asia-Pacific allies have grown increasingly concerned about the alliance’s potential repercussions, fearing it could strengthen the autocratic axis and shift the balance of power.
Bilateral Benefits: Military and Strategic Gains
The growing partnership between Russia and North Korea has yielded significant military advantages for both nations. For Russia, the alliance serves as a practical solution to its dwindling manpower and military resources amid the protracted war in Ukraine, which has caused over 600,000 casualties. North Korea has stepped in by supplying artillery and soldiers, alleviating some of Russia’s recruitment challenges. While North Korean troops may lack the proficiency to use Soviet-era weaponry, their presence allows more experienced Russian soldiers to focus on strengthening strategies, supporting Russia’s war of attrition.
For North Korea, the benefits are primarily economic and technological. The isolated and struggling economy is poised to gain from a steady and cheap supply of Russian oil. However, Pyongyang is also driven by the opportunity to acquire advanced military technologies, something becoming more and more likely as Russian compensation in exchange for North Korean support and lives. This could include ballistic missiles and technologies critical to enhancing its nuclear capabilities – essential for narrowing the qualitative disparity between North and South Korea’s armed forces and advancing its national security agenda.
A cornerstone of the partnership is North Korea’s role in supplying artillery and missiles to aid Russia’s war in Ukraine. However, this raises questions about the partnership’s sustainability if North Korea struggles to sustain its flow of war material. Should North Korea’s contributions wane, Russia may reevaluate the relationship and consider a more resource-rich partner like China, whose larger economy and global clout offer greater possibilities.
Declining Chinese Influence
While the strategic partnership has bolstered Russia and North Korea, it has simultaneously disrupted regional power dynamics, undermining China’s security objectives and complicating its geopolitical strategy. Beijing has long maintained moderate relations with Western states to advance its global ambitions, but the deployment of North Korean troops in Ukraine complicates this strategy, positioning one of China’s allies against Western powers. This development may bolster trilateral security cooperation among the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, potentially increasing Western military presence in the China Sea, heightening China’s security concerns, and weakening its regional control.
Moreover, the Russia-North Korea alliance creates a regional security arrangement that excludes China, tarnishing its image as a dominant power. The partnership also signals a growing Russian influence over North Korea, to China’s detriment. While China retains financial leverage over North Korea, the power shift has raised alarms, particularly regarding Russia’s apparent role in advancing North Korea’s nuclear program – a move China views as destabilizing. Despite Beijing’s recent diplomatic ouverture, such as participating in the 2+2 dialogue in Seoul and the Japan-China-Korea summit, the Russia-North Korea partnership has stalled the expansion of its influence. This alliance underscores the growing complexities of regional geopolitics, highlighting China’s struggle to maintain control over its strategic priorities.
Autocratic Economic Networks
On a surface level, the recent bilateral partnership does not seem to represent direct novel threats to Western countries. Rather, it codifies the long-standing dual burden between Russia and North Korea, that the West has observed over time. The Biden administration’s approach to North Korea exemplifies the broader Western stance: a policy of relative indifference that has allowed Pyongyang to deepen its ties with other autocracies like Russia quietly. This laissez-faire attitude has, in part, enabled North Korea to advance its nuclear program to its current state.
The strengthened ties between Moscow and Pyongyang, coupled with Western inaction, have facilitated the emergence of “common market autocracies”. These covert economic networks operate outside the reach of democratic institutions and sanctions, enabling autocracies to support one another with little interference. Such markets not only undermine the effectiveness of sanctions but also provide autocracies with the means to modernize their military capabilities. Through these networks, Russia and North Korea have expanded and modernized their munitions industries, with Moscow benefiting significantly in its ongoing war efforts. The growth of these shadowy markets poses heightened security threats to Western countries, which are increasingly losing leverage over autocratic behaviour.
The Strategic Partnership’s Uncertain Future
The offensive strategic partnership between Russia and North Korea has provided clear military benefits for both parties but has come at a cost to other global players. China’s regional and global influence has declined, while Western countries have seen their leverage over autocratic behaviour erode. Despite its initial success, the alliance faces uncertainty. Russia, seeking a reliable arms provider, may ultimately turn to China, the region’s largest and most stable economy. This potential shift conveys the fragile footing of the partnership, which could unravel as quickly as it was formed.
Edited by Alice Viollet & Margaux Zani
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by FMT