Why are DPRK troops in Ukraine such a big deal?

Question

Presence of DPRK troops in Russia and likely already in Ukraine has been considered by media and politicians as a serious development. E.g., this has been cited as a reason for Joe Biden authorizing Ukrainian long-range missile strikes deep into Russia, even though these risk dragging the US and Europe in an open war (possibly nuclear.)

However, it is far from obvious why about ten thousand troops, with no combat experience, present any change in military balance (according to Wikipedia, current Russian deployment in Ukraine is about 700,000 vs. about 800,000 Ukrainian troops - that is North Koreans amount to increase of Russian numbers by about 1.2%.)

Answer 1

First, it shows an increased level of implication of North Korea in the conflict. This is noteworthy by itself. You did already read the answers to Why is sending troops different from sending military equipment? about why sending troops is considered different than sending weapons, so I will not repeat those.

Second, these things always have a potential to escalate. Both the USA in Vietnam and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan started sending troops for secondary duties; but that was only the prelude of a more massive intervention.

Answer 2

This is a big deal on the other side. Russia and North Korea have a mutual defense treaty, so an attack on one member is an attack on the entire alliance. Sending North Korean troops in response to a Ukrainian attack near Kursk has little value in itself, but it also means that Russia will do the same if anyone attacks North Korea, and that makes the ROK-US alliance nervous.

Answer 3

This is what the situation looks like:

Where you put the "we are here" arrow is highly subjective. Some people for example think Russia's nuclear threats are all bluff, in which case they might place the arrow further on the left.

But: wherever you put that arrow, the fact that DPRK troops are fighting in Ukraine moves the arrow towards the right (don't forget the DPRK is also a nuclear-armed power). Maybe you don't think it moves the arrow by much. After all, it's only "ten thousand troops, with no combat experience, [not likely to] present any change in military balance". Still, no matter how you spin it, it moves the arrow to the right. And because Ukraine and its allies view it as escalatory, they are presumably going to respond. However they respond, they move the arrow to the right (and because whatever they do will be viewed as escalatory by Russia, they are presumably going to respond, etc.).

Maybe one day those of us still alive will commiserate amidst a nuclear winter and reminisce over how we got there, and we'll think about the DPRK's troops in Ukraine.

Answer 4

Zelensky claims that North Korea plans to send 100K troops. This may or may not be real. Reportedly from your wiki source there are only "300K+" Russian combatants in Ukraine. So, 100K extra troops would be bigger deal, i.e. like a 25% force boost, assuming the North Koreans won't stick to the Kursk region, which they may or may not. Even if we take Putin's June 14, 2024 claim of 700,000 Russians in the combat area, 100K is still a 14% boost. (Somewhat tangential, but AFAICT, Ukraine's intelligence officials have generally said that Putin overstates the number of Russian soldiers in Ukraine.)

FTWT, one Ukrainian 'expert' claims that the threat of being hit with ATACMS in assembly areas might cause Kim Jong Un to reconsider sending more troops to the front. I'd say that needs to be taken with the appropriate large measure of salt.

The closest thing to the US calling it a big deal I found is this:

In a press briefing Monday, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said the involvement of North Korean troops in the war was “a major escalation by Russia, bringing in an Asian military to a conflict inside Europe.”

Clearly he isn't talking about numbers, but mostly symbolism thus far.

Russia is understandably more muted on this. But they did say they wanted 500K North Korean workers.

As for the connection with ATACMS strikes in Russia. I've not been able find anything truly official, but some of the press said that some "officials" have made the link, off the record. BTW, ATACMS also happens to not be the only escalation by the US recently. They've also approved sending anti-personnel mines to Ukraine now. At least for the latter a more clear reason was officially provided.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin [...] told reporters on Wednesday that the decision was motivated by Russia’s changing tactics on the frontlines.

“Because the Russians have been so unsuccessful in the way that they have been fighting, they’ve kind of changed their tactics a bit,” Austin told reporters in Laos.

“They don’t lead with their mechanized forces anymore. They lead with dismounted forces who are able to close and do things to kind of pave the way for mechanized forces,” he explained.

Austin said Ukraine’s military needs “things that can help slow down that effort.”

BTW, Russia now rather claims ATACMS are no big deal either because they say they shot down most of them. The US thus far seem not have confirmed ATACMS policy change on record (as opposed to off the record)

The Biden administration hasn't publicly confirmed the ATACMS policy change. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told journalists at a Monday briefing he would not confirm or deny approval for ATACMS use inside Russia, but said the U.S. response to Russian and North Korean military cooperation in the war "would be firm."

Likewise:

In a Monday morning briefing in Rio de Janeiro, U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Jonathan Finer evaded questions from reporters about Biden's [ATACMS] authorization.

"I'm not confirming any decisions that have or have not been made about U.S. assistance when it comes to these operational questions," Finer said. "I will say, with regard to the comments that came out of Russia, the fire was lit by Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

And anyhow, Ukraine apparently received a rather limited supply--around 50 of them ATACMS.

I'll also note here that the US statement in May that coincided with allowing GMLRS strikes into Russia was pretty vague. Officially little was disclosed what Ukraine was allowed to do and what it still wasn't. Only by observing actions over time the limits were inferred by the press.

Also, this last bit is entirely my speculation, but with Trump slated to take office in a couple of months, Biden's team may have decided to call bluff on Putin's claim that he'd regard a strike with longer range US missiles by Ukraine as direct involvement of the US in the war. What's Putin going to do now? Hit some US targets? Formally declare war on the US? Neither of these actions are likely to sit well with Trump. There's a fair bit of expectation that Trump will lower US support for Ukraine. But if Russia were to escalate directly against the US now, all that might go out the window, even when/after Trump takes office. So, like with many other escalations before this one (Western tanks, HIMARS, HIMARS [meaning GMLRS] strikes into Russia etc.) we might see the usual pattern with Russia warning about WW3 before such a step is taken (and more or less vaguely threaten direct strikes on Western targets) and then downplaying the escalation by Western supply (or rules on use that come attached) after it happens.

Another angle is that reportedly the US relaxation of rules was also followed by the British. And since they've promised to stick with Ukraine even if Trump changes tack, that's also a way for Biden to push the boundaries beyond the end of his mandate. Once Storm Shadow strikes into Russia are 'normalized' now, it would be harder for anyone to call WW3 over them later. Anyhow, the British government likewise "refused to comment on the reports for operational reasons".

Answer 5

I wish people thought more about the way warfare has changed over the last 80 years or so. Up until the mid-20th century warfare was a bit like chess or American football: a slow grind of pieces against each other to get progressively better positional advantage until an end is in sight. But now war is something different, and more primitive: there are no hard-and-fast rules; combat is preferentially conceived as overwhelming power delivered from a safe distance; victories are marked in economic and symbolic terms, not the martial terms of battle success and acquisition of position. Modern warfare is a bit like playing God and a bit like organized terrorism: an effort to smite your enemies with bolts out of the blue until they collapse in dismay, all done without ever revealing your face.

With that in mind, 10,000 DPRk troops is a symbolic victory meant to demoralize Ukraine and its allies:

• It shows international support for Russia's campaign
• It counters the attrition narrative that the West has been using against Russia
• It signals that Ukrainian troops might face more than the old, war-weary, under-trained Russian regiments they've faced so far
• It tells the Russian people that they are not shouldering the burden of this war alone

A mere 10,000 troops isn't going to affect the military situation much at all. But Putin is not thinking that much about the military details. Putin is seeking out symbolic victories, and as a symbol those troops are quite effective.

Answer 6

I think the primary cause of Western liberal complaints is less because it radically alters the situation in Ukraine - although it obviously does not alter the situation there positively for liberals - but because it is a sign that the worldwide embargo on North Korea is breaking down, and they are coming in from the cold and aligning with what is now a powerful enemy of liberals.

You could see this liberal policy of embargo in effect when Trump was last president and agreed to unconditional talks with Kim, whilst liberals fulminated about the meeting at the time.

It is almost beyond living memory when North Korean troops last had actual combat experience, so the benefit to their armed forces and the wider regime will be immense. Putin is also providing other resources to NK in exchange for the participation of their troops.

In turn, this alters the stalemate between North Korea and the liberal-backed South Korea, the latter of which is itself occasionally involved in small Western wars (e.g. Iraq) but is facing a population collapse imminently and has a heavily-aged existing population.

The two sides, North and South, officially remain in a state of war, and practically speaking they are in a cold-war style ideological conflict.

The North has a unique ideology called "Juche" based around the Kim dictatorship, and although neither the Soviets/Russians, nor the Chinese, are reconciled to it, they are more ideologically tolerant toward it than Western liberals. The policy of NK's neighbours tends towards promoting its stability, whilst liberals promote its destruction and absorbtion by SK into a reunited, pro-liberal regime (similar to the fate of East Germany).

So it's very much in this wider context of sustained liberal conflict against the NK regime specifically, where a NK troop deployment to anywhere in the world (let alone Ukraine) is deemed an unwelcome development.