BACK TO WAR

For more than seventy years, North and South Korea, which never signed a peace treaty following the 1950-1953 Korean War, have been in conflict. Tensions along the 38th parallel have never subsided. Now, observers indicate that they are once again on the verge of war.

Exchange of Drones

The latest source of tension was the deployment of South Korean drones, which were observed dropping subversive leaflets targeting the North Korean authorities in Pyongyang. It is worth noting that Pyongyang has recently launched balloons carrying debris towards South Korea, while Seoul has resumed propaganda broadcasts using loudspeakers positioned along the border. As a consequence of this "cultural exchange," the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) has placed its artillery on alert, destroyed roads leading south, and accelerated the construction of a defensive barrier along the 38th parallel. In response, South Korea conducted artillery exercises in the vicinity of the border and initiated comprehensive training programs to prepare for potential military action.

It would be a mistake to assume that the current tensions will not escalate to the point of war, even in the event of an accidental incident. Moreover, a novel and profoundly perilous variable has emerged in the confrontation between the two Koreas: the potential for it to extend into Ukraine, where it is presumed that North Korea will align with Russia, while Seoul will support Kiev and the West.

What then, is the significance of this development? In essence, this suggests that the fundamental issues between North Korea and South Korea remain unresolved. The North Korean government maintains its position of opposition to the continuation of military cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the USA, while the South Korean government reiterates its stance of insistence upon the complete and irreversible relinquishment of nuclear weapons by North Korea. Pyongyang has formally stated its intention to refrain from military action against the Republic of Korea (ROK), asserting that it does not intend to invade South Korea.

Remarkably, as observers have observed, the North Korean destruction of roads appears to indicate a defensive rather than an offensive posture. The roads in question facilitated connectivity between the two countries and were regarded as emblematic of a process of rapprochement that commenced following the 2018 meeting between their leaders and the subsequent assurances of a peaceful outlook. Seoul characterized the destruction of communication infrastructure as "a rather peculiar manifestation of displeasure." South Korea harbours a profound sense of distrust towards Pyongyang and aspires to dismantle North Korea in order to unify the two Koreas. In essence, there has been no change in the fundamental situation between the two Korean capitals but in global geopolitical circumstances.

Geopolitics through Ukraine

By the end of the year, the situation on the Korean peninsula had become inextricably linked with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. There emerged reports at various levels regarding the potential deployment of troops from the North Korean People's Army (KPA) to Ukraine to support Russian operations. It is highlighted that the involvement of North Korean military would be advantageous for Russia for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it could help avoid the necessity of another partial mobilisation, thereby mitigating potential public dissatisfaction. Furthermore, North Koreans could be easily depicted as representatives of ethnic groups residing in Russia. For North Korea, involvement in the Ukrainian conflict may offer a distinctive opportunity to gain combat experience and assess the efficacy of their weapons and equipment in actual battle conditions. Furthermore, it is anticipated that they will be furnished with Russian military technologies, including those pertaining to nuclear capabilities, as a gesture of appreciation. Furthermore, Russia may provide assistance in the form of energy resources and food supplies. It is noteworthy that actions which serve to undermine Western countries are generally in alignment with the interests of North Korea.

Remarkably, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not explicitly deny the presence of North Korean military personnel in Russia during his final press conference at the BRICS summit in Kazan. However, he did not clarify their purpose for being there. In response to an inquiry from an American journalist, Putin stated that Russia's actions were not the cause of the escalation. Interestingly, during the same period, the Russian State Duma ratified a "comprehensive strategic partnership" treaty with North Korea, which was signed by Putin in Pyongyang earlier that summer. Article 4 of the agreement stipulates that "in the event that one of the parties is engaged in armed conflict as a result of an attack by one or more states, the other party shall provide immediate military assistance in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter and the laws of North Korea."

Furthermore, reports of the deployment of North Korean military personnel have been documented by South Korea, Ukraine, and the United States. On October 10, South Korean Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun disclosed that a resolution had been reached concerning the redeployment to the front lines of the Ukrainian conflict and convened a special meeting to address this pressing matter. On the preceding day, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had asserted that Washington had obtained intelligence indicating the presence of North Korean military personnel in Russia. In the event that KPA forces are indeed deployed to Ukraine, this would be regarded as a "serious escalation" by NATO's new Secretary General, Mark Ruegge. The estimated size of this potential contingent ranges from 2,000 to 200,000 troops, with reports indicating that some have already arrived at Russian bases in the Far East.

A number of hypotheses have been proposed regarding the potential involvement of the Korean Peninsula in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. However, these theories are all contingent upon the assumption of an internationalization of the war. The "unspoken Western version" posits that Moscow is aware that Ukraine has reached an agreement with Western nations regarding NATO membership, albeit not in full, but only for territories currently under Kiev's control. To avert this scenario, Kremlin officials may have opted for a pre-emptive strike by initiating the internationalization of the conflict with assistance from North Korea. This strategy would aim to prompt Washington and Seoul to reconsider their stances, recognizing that an escalation could occur in places far removed from Ukraine and become uncontrollable. Such an escalation could potentially involve the use of nuclear weapons. An alternative perspective, dubbed the "Russian version," suggests that Ukraine is disseminating information about North Korean military involvement in order to internationalize the conflict and highlight Russia's direct engagement with its allies. The willingness of South Korea to provide support for this version is indicative of its readiness to engage rapidly. Seoul has indicated that it is contemplating sending military and intelligence personnel to Ukraine, along with direct arms deliveries, which would contravene its own governmental regulations. In light of Seoul's technical and export capabilities, this represents a significant step that could fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict in Ukraine.

Important Aspect

The signing of a treaty with Russia would enhance North Korea's status. It is as yet unclear how China, which previously enjoyed near-monopolistic geopolitical influence over North Korea, will react to this development. From Beijing's perspective, there are two potential outcomes. On the one hand, there is the risk of losing its exclusive influence. On the other hand, there is the possibility of becoming entangled in the Russia-North Korea axis, which it would likely prefer to avoid. China is already confronted with significant challenges pertaining to Taiwan.

The United States and other Western countries are concerned about China's unease and the potential implications for regional stability. For example, remarks made by Xi Jinping during his visit to a missile brigade of operational-tactical nuclear forces were misinterpreted, resulting in headlines that proclaimed he had called on the PLA (People's Liberation Army of China) to "prepare for war." It is likely that speculation on how authorities in neighbouring capitals reacted at that moment would prove futile. The question of whether this was a deliberate statement or an inadvertent slip is now irrelevant; what matters is its timing.

The situation in this region of the world is characterized by a high degree of volatility. Consequently, the stakes have risen not only in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict but also in regard to tensions on the Korean peninsula. In the context of ongoing developments in the Middle East and the intensifying tensions between Iran and Israel, coupled with the imminent US presidential elections, the global landscape is facing a critical and precarious juncture.