The Deployment of North Korean Troops in the Ukraine War: A Tactical Analysis
In the autumn of 2022, approximately 11,000 North Korean soldiers were deployed to the Kursk region of Russia, a contested area that saw Ukrainian advances during the summer. This deployment has raised numerous questions regarding their effectiveness, tactical integration with Russian forces, and the overall impact on the battlefield. Investigations by media outlets like the New York Times, based on interviews with Ukrainian combatants, American defense officials, military analysts, and battlefield footage, paint a picture of a force employed in a manner distinct from their Russian counterparts, often with detrimental results.
The initial intention seemed to be integrating North Korean troops with Russian units. However, the reality on the ground depicts a different scenario. The North Koreans operate as separate entities, hampered by language barriers, differing training methodologies, and divergent military cultures. Despite primarily being drawn from special forces units, they are utilized as conventional infantry, launched in human wave attacks of 40 or more soldiers with minimal armored vehicle support, a stark contrast to typical Russian tactics. This lack of combined arms warfare significantly reduces their effectiveness against a modern, well-equipped opponent like Ukraine. Furthermore, their operational doctrine reveals a disregard for casualties and battlefield realities; they persistently advance across minefields and under heavy fire, often without pausing to regroup or retreat even after suffering substantial losses.
Once a position is captured, their strategy isn’t to consolidate and hold it. Instead, they retreat, leaving the newly gained ground to Russian reinforcements, and then prepare for the next attack. This peculiar tactic, coupled with reports of using their own soldiers as decoys to draw Ukrainian drone fire, and instructions to detonate grenades to avoid capture, suggests a disregard for individual soldier survival. This willingness to accept heavy casualties raises questions about the overall strategic goals behind their deployment and the value placed on their lives by their commanders.
Military analysts, like Lieutenant Colonel Johan Huovinen from the Swedish Defence University, have observed minimal impact from the North Korean presence on the battlefield dynamics. Their performance in offensive operations appears no different from poorly equipped Russian units in the region, who also lack sufficient armored support. Drone footage further reveals a lack of structured military movement, portraying the North Koreans more as a disorganized mass than a cohesive fighting force. This lack of tactical awareness in a battlespace dominated by drone surveillance, where both sides have adapted to the threat, highlights their inadequate training and lack of experience in modern warfare.
The cooperation between North Korean and Russian forces also appears to be minimal. Initially, instructors from Russia’s Asian regions were tasked with training the North Korean troops. However, it’s unclear whether these instructors remained to lead them in combat or were redeployed elsewhere. The prevailing assessment points towards the North Koreans operating largely independently, further hampered by the communication barriers arising from language and cultural differences. This lack of integration negates any potential benefit from their specialized training and renders their combat effectiveness questionable.
The deployment of North Korean troops raises a number of critical questions. Their tactical deployment, seemingly indifferent to heavy casualties, suggests an expendable force used to augment dwindling Russian manpower. Their lack of integration with Russian units, minimal armored support, and antiquated tactics render them ineffective against a technologically superior and highly motivated Ukrainian defense. Furthermore, the ethical implications of using soldiers as drone bait and the reported orders to commit suicide rather than be captured raise serious concerns about human rights violations and the disregard for the lives of these soldiers by their commanders. The overall picture painted by this deployment is one of a poorly equipped, inadequately trained, and strategically mismanaged force whose presence on the battlefield has had a negligible impact on the conflict’s trajectory.
