Implications Of NATO-South Korea Defense Cooperation – Analysis
In mid-June this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited North Korea and signed the “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty” with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Putin emphasized the importance of this document as a foundation for further development in bilateral relations. He stressed that according to the treaty between Russia and North Korea, each party would provide assistance to the other in case of aggression by a third party. He also hinted at the possibility of military technology cooperation with North Korea. Kim Jong-un, assessing the signing of the treaty, stated that the agreement between North Korea and Russia “accelerates the building of a new multi-polar world”, raising bilateral relations to an alliance level.
Since then, rumors have surfaced about North Korea officially sending troops to the Donetsk region. South Korea’s TV Chosun channel reported on June 21, citing an anonymous South Korean government official, that North Korea plans to deploy active-duty soldiers to assist in the “rebuilding” of cities destroyed by fighting in Russian-controlled Donetsk. According to the report, the anonymous source suggested that North Korea expects to send troops to Ukraine as early as next month, viewing it as a means to earn foreign currency. On June 24, Reuters published an article quoting North Korean military officials condemning the United States for allowing Ukraine to use American-made weapons to retaliate against Russian targets, referencing the earlier report by TV Chosun.
Subsequently, at a routine press conference held by the U.S. Department of Defense on June 25, a journalist asked Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder about the situation. The journalist referred to the North Korean Central Military Commission’s statement announcing North Korea would join forces with the Russian military. As part of this military alliance, North Korean army engineering units would be dispatched to Donetsk, still occupied by Russia, with the earliest deployment expected next month. Ryder responded cautiously, acknowledging the need to monitor the situation and expressing skepticism about North Korea sending its troops to Ukraine as “cannon fodder”. This dialogue was quickly picked up by the UK tabloid Daily Express, which on June 26 published an article titled ” World on the brink as North Korea sends ‘cannon fodder’ troops to Ukraine “. The article asserted with certainty that North Korea would send military forces to Ukraine to support Russia’s war efforts. On the same day, Ukrainian media outlet Kyiv Post quoted the Daily Express’s report and published an article titled ” Pyongyang Says It Will Send Troops to Ukraine Within a Month” without verifying the source of the information. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Defense Express remained cautious about the reports.
While there is currently no concrete information confirming that North Korea has decided to dispatch its troops to the Donetsk region, one cannot completely dismiss this possibility at this moment. Moreover, following the signing of the new treaty between North Korea and Russia, South Korea has clearly indicated that it is seriously considering directly supplying lethal weapons to the Ukrainian government. Despite condemning Russia and participating in a series of sanctions against Russia after the Russia-Ukraine conflict erupted, South Korea overall maintains a stance of “non-direct involvement” and does not directly provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. During times when Western military production capacities were strained, the West led by the United States often purchased military equipment from South Korea and then supplied it to Ukraine. South Korea’s direct sales of military goods are primarily targeted at NATO’s Eastern European members affected by the conflict, such as Poland. Consequently, South Korea has risen to become the world’s ninth-largest arms provider.
However, the signing of the new agreement between North Korea and Russia undoubtedly has unsettled South Korea and reinforced its own sense of insecurity. The essence of the new treaty between North Korea and Russia is derived from the outbreak and prolongation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and South Korea’s subsequent actions suggest that the international impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is further spreading to include the entire Northeast Asia, including the Korean Peninsula. ANBOUND’s founder Kung Chan believes that the current relationship between NATO and South Korea is highly noteworthy. Currently, NATO is lobbying South Korea to quickly amend its laws to provide weapons and equipment to Ukraine. However, South Korea is not naïve and would undoubtedly seek something to gain if it were to become involved. Therefore, the progress and evolution of defense relations between NATO and South Korea will be an area of significant attention. Chan suggests that South Korea may request NATO’s involvement in the situation on the Korean Peninsula, potentially reaching an agreement.
As is well known, since the Cold War era, the strategy for building America’s East Asian alliance system has been markedly different from that in Europe. In East Asia, the U.S. has primarily established one-on-one mutual defense relationships with each ally through bilateral treaties, rather than forming a collective security treaty mechanism akin to NATO. This divergence is partly because East Asia has not historically been a focal point of America’s global strategy, unlike Europe. Additionally, deep historical and territorial disputes exist among America’s various Asian allies such as between Japan and South Korea, coupled with significant ideological differences, which diminishes the feasibility of a collective security treaty.
However, with the current development of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the deepening of relations between North Korea and Russia, particularly in military cooperation, a series of profound changes have occurred in the security situation in Northeast Asia. ANBOUND has previously pointed out that Russia’s main offerings to North Korea are primarily military equipment and food supplies. Military cooperation is prioritized, and there is even the possibility of Russia providing nuclear military technology. Isolated North Korea needs more advanced military technology to protect itself and to potentially “blackmail” the West, which undoubtedly further concerns South Korea.
Researchers at ANBOUND believe that the future NATO-South Korea defense cooperation agreement will likely include the following elements: 1. NATO providing guarantees for South Korea’s national security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; 2. Enhanced military cooperation with South Korea, including increased transfers of military technology; 3. Increased cooperation in nuclear armament technology to address North Korea’s potential nuclear capabilities, with intensified efforts in technology transfer to bolster South Korea’s nuclear capabilities; 4. Strengthened collaboration and technology transfer in military-civilian dual-use technologies with South Korea; 5. NATO military personnel enhancing cooperation with South Korea in military exercises and operational scenarios, further integrating South Korea into NATO’s global command structure. Previously, South Korea’s integration into NATO’s global military cooperation system primarily focused on participating in cyber warfare systems. In the future, South Korea’s defense partnership with NATO is expected to shift from virtual to tangible realms due to heightened military relations between North Korea and Russia. This transformation will likely impact security dynamics across Northeast Asia and broader East Asia.
Firstly, NATO’s “Asia-Pacificization” will become a strong trend. Previously, senior NATO officials had explicitly stated that there was no necessity for NATO to “Asia-Pacificize”. However, with the deepening military cooperation between North Korea and Russia and the prolonged conflict between Russia and Ukraine, further integrating NATO into Northeast Asia to safeguard its own security and counterbalance both North Korea and Russia has become an essential goal shared by South Korea and NATO. Against the backdrop of Japan’s ongoing integration into NATO’s global defense cooperation system, South Korea’s participation undoubtedly reinforces the clear trend of NATO’s “Asia-Pacificization”.
Secondly, the deepening of NATO’s defense cooperation with South Korea will extend its influence throughout East Asia. Unlike Japan, which faces greater international regulations in military development and external military projection, South Korea’s potential in military defense cooperation and arms exports to Southeast Asian countries will greatly expand once NATO meets its requirements and the country modifies relevant domestic regulations. Additionally, South Korea is expected to make significant progress in military cooperation and arms exports to Taiwan in the future.
Thirdly, the entire Northeast Asia region will once again be plunged into a quagmire of bloc-based confrontation. During Joe Biden’s presidency, China has already been successfully molded into a common adversary of the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. Military cooperation between North Korea and Russia, coupled with existing cooperation between China and Russia, could realistically lead to a scenario where NATO’s formal intervention on the Korean Peninsula in response to South Korea’s request pits “China-Russia” against “U.S.-Japan-South Korea”. However, China is almost coerced into this bloc confrontation. The escalation of bloc-based confrontation in Northeast Asia will severely worsen China’s security situation. Development progress at the mouth of the Tumen River will be significantly delayed, and Northeast economic development will face numerous security challenges. Furthermore, China’s diplomatic flexibility will be greatly constrained by North Korea and Russia’s alignment and Western hostility.
Final analysis conclusion:
Whether it is North Korea formally sending troops into the eastern regions of Ukraine or South Korea officially selling lethal weapons to Ukraine, even if these scenarios are not current realities, they both have potential for further escalation. The development trend of NATO’s defense cooperation with South Korea is crucial. Moreover, in terms of the evolution and deepening of this situation, China itself is likely to be the biggest victim, therefore it should closely monitor and track the progress of these developments.