Joohyun Moon
(Professor of Energy Engineering in the Department of Dankook University, ROK)

North Korea has recently shocked the international community by reportedly deploying troops to Russia amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. Though the exact scale and role of these soldiers remain unclear, experts suggest that North Korean involvement could significantly impact both the Russia-Ukraine war and the security dynamics on the Korean Peninsula. This deployment highlights the regime’s persistent prioritization of militaristic goals over the well-being of its people, raising critical questions about human rights abuses within North Korea.
North Korea’s troop deployment to Russia appears to be driven by several strategic motives, with the primary goal of solidifying its alliance with Moscow. In June, a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty” was signed between North Korea and Russia, ratified by the Russian State Duma in October.
This alliance extends beyond mere diplomatic formalities; North Korea seems to believe that a “blood alliance forged on the battlefield will better secure its future. Kim Jong-un’s administration likely believes that only deep ties with powerful nations like Russia can preserve its regime.

Additionally, Pyongyang’s relentless pursuit of nuclear and missile advancements has long overshadowed the welfare of its people. During the severe famine of the 1990s, known as the “Arduous March,” millions died of starvation while the regime prioritized nuclear development, culminating in its first nuclear test in 2006. Today, the state has achieved miniaturization and standardization of nuclear warheads, yet it continues to seek further advancements. Russia possesses critical technologies in re-entry capabilities for intercontinental ballistic missiles, reconnaissance satellites, and nuclear-powered submarines—all elements North Korea seeks to bolster its military power.
Possessing such technology would enable North Korea to pose a greater threat not only to South Korea but also to other neighbouring countries and even the U.S., further destabilizing the already fragile security landscape in the region. The North Korean regime’s decision to send its soldiers into a foreign war for combat experience marks another dimension of its strategic ambitions. North Korea’s forces, though numbering 1.2 million active-duty personnel, lack real-world battle experience. Engagement in intense warfare could provide its soldiers with valuable combat exposure.

If this deployment is paired with potential technology transfers from Russia, North Korea could significantly enhance its military capabilities, posing an even greater threat to South Korea and neighbouring countries. Financial motives likely play a role in this deployment. While it is not confirmed, each North Korean soldier is reportedly paid around $2,000 per month.
This means that if, as reported by the media, 12,000 soldiers are deployed, the total would amount to $24 million per month—funds that would almost certainly be funnelled to the regime. North Korea’s economy has long struggled under international sanctions, and though this deployment may offer some financial relief, these gains come at a tragic cost. Many young soldiers face a high likelihood of casualties, with former Ukrainian Défense Minister Andriy Zahorodnyuk estimating a 90% casualty rate for similar front-line forces.
For the North Korean regime, sending soldiers to fight in a distant war is a calculated exchange of lives for money, with little regard for individual safety or family consequences. Beneath these moves lies a much darker reality of widespread human rights abuses. Reports indicate that families of soldiers deployed to Russia are being forcibly relocated and isolated, likely to prevent desertion and dissent. Given that North Korea’s fertility rate is estimated between 0.9 and 1.2 as of 2024, it is likely that many of these soldiers are the only children in their family, dispatched into peril without just cause by the regime.
This grim tactic reflects a deeply engrained disregard for human life and familial bonds, raising moral questions that demand international attention. Human rights abuses in North Korea, however, extend far beyond these soldiers and their families. For decades, the North Korean population has endured extreme deprivation and systemic abuse.
Residents in regions near the country’s nuclear test site reportedly suffer from radiation exposure due to leaks and contamination of nearby rivers. This has led to increased health problems and even birth defects, a consequence of unregulated nuclear testing near civilian areas. According to South Korea’s Transitional Justice Working Group, over a million people live within 40 kilometers of the nuclear test site, relying on rivers that carry radioactive materials and compromising their health and livelihoods.
Furthermore, Kim Jong-un’s recent rhetoric surrounding a “two states concept, implying that reunification with South Korea is impossible, suggests an intention to deepen the country’s isolation from its southern neighbour. The recent destruction of inter-Korean transportation links aligns with this agenda. By controlling the flow of information from South Korea, North Korea aims to suppress awareness among its population of their own reality, particularly the stark contrast between North and South Korea. This isolation is enforced not only through physical barriers but also by a brutal system of control that includes public executions. Reports of teenage students being executed merely for watching South Korean videos illustrate that public executions have become routine in North Korea.
The international community must not merely bear witness to these abuses. Concrete actions can and should be taken to address the plight of North Koreans.
A stronger, united front of international pressure is crucial to compel the North Korean regime to improve the human rights situation for its people. This could include expanding existing sanctions, particularly those targeting the regime’s financial sources that fund its military programs. An increased focus on human rights abuses in North Korea in international forums, such as the United Nations, can help elevate awareness and mobilize diplomatic efforts.
Countries with diplomatic ties to North Korea should leverage their influence to push for greater transparency in Pyongyang’s human rights record. Humanitarian aid, when provided, should be carefully monitored to ensure it reaches those in need rather than the regime. Moreover, international media must continue to expose the North Korean regime’s oppressive practices to keep the global community informed and engaged.
Ultimately, creating lasting change in North Korea requires consistent, collective pressure. The world must not only monitor the regime’s future outward actions but also remain vigilant about ongoing abuses that threaten the lives and dignity of ordinary North Koreans. By shining a light on these hidden atrocities and urging action, the international community can play a pivotal role in advocating for the rights of the North Korean people. (The End]

***The Korean Peninsula’s Future in German Reunification

Since Germany’s peaceful reunification on October 3, 1990, the concept of “preparation for reunification” has become a significant part of South Korean discourse.
For South Korea, which has long aspired to reunite with the North, Germany’s experience serves as a dual source of shame for not achieving reunification and hope that Korea might follow in Germany’s footsteps.

The post-reunification integration process in Germany demonstrates that achieving reunification is a long-term undertaking that cannot rely solely on economic integration; social and cultural integration are equally vital.
Germany’s integration can broadly be divided into two phases: the first half focused on economic integration, while the second half exposed deeper issues in social and cultural integration, largely due to the incomplete embedding of democracy.

In the aftermath of reunification, over 9 million economically active East Germans faced unemployment, leading to a profound existential crisis. Initially, the urgency of resolving economic issues overshadowed internal conflicts within the newly unified Germany. The reunification, led by West Germany, treated East Germany as an illegal state under the Stasi regime, making it difficult for East Germans to voice their concerns early on.
This suppression led to the build-up of social and cultural conflicts, and as Ralf Dahrendorf predicted in 1990, the transplanted democratic system displayed instability under both internal and external pressures.

The 2024 state elections in Saxony and Thuringia, both part of the former East Germany, revealed significant political shifts. The far-right populist party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), emerged as a major force, becoming the second-largest party in Saxony and the largest in Thuringia.
In Thuringia, the AfD secured over one-third of the seats, allowing it to veto important decisions. Conversely, Die Linke, the successor to East Germany’s Communist Party, faced a dramatic decline, garnering only 4.5% of the vote, threatening its parliamentary presence.

This political transformation in former East Germany suggests a society evolving into something distinct from its past. Perspectives like that of Professor D. Oschmann, who described East Germany as a “West German invention,” persist, framing reunified Germany as a continuous conflict between East and West.

Through its reunification, Germany not only provides South Korea with a vision of potential unification for the Korean Peninsula but also reflects the current reality of division through its own historical experiences.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has publicly shifted the narrative regarding inter-Korean relations. During a Central Committee plenary meeting on December 30, 2023, he declared that these relations are now characterized as “a hostilerelationship between two states” rather than between compatriots.
This stance was reinforced during the Supreme People’s Assembly on January 15, 2024, where he asserted that the concepts of “unification” and “compatriots” should be entirely eliminated.

This shift in North Korea’s position mirrors East Germany’s historical response to West Germany’s overtures.
When West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, on October 28, 1969, renounced the claim to sole representation of Germany and effectively recognized East Germany as a state, he emphasized the need to “maintain national unity” for future reunification.
East Germany, in turn, asserted the existence of two separate nations, framing West Germany as a capitalist state and itself as a socialist one.

As South Korea contemplates its path to reunification, the lessons drawn from Germany’s experiences—both the possibilities and the challenges—will be crucial in shaping its future strategy toward the North.
The historical parallels suggest that while economic considerations are essential, understanding the social and cultural dimensions of integration will be key to achieving a harmonious reunification on the Korean Peninsula.

A representative of the NGO, North Korean Human Rights, has called for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to hold North Korea accountable for its involvement in supplying weapons to Russia, which have been used in the ongoing war against Ukraine.

On June 19, 2024, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin to Pyongyang in a high-profile visit, despite Russia being deeply embroiled in the conflict with Ukraine.
The summit resulted in the signing of a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement,” which committed both nations to mutual military assistance in the event of an invasion.
This agreement, alongside reported shipments of artillery shells and other weapons from North Korea to Russia, raises serious concerns about both nations’ violations of international law and United Nations (UN) sanctions.

According to the South Korean Ministry of National Defense, North Korea has shipped an estimated 12,000 containers of artillery shells to Russia since August 2023.
These weapons have reportedly been used in Russian attacks against Ukrainian civilians, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties governing the conduct of war.
The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, including those outlined under Article 8(2)(a) of the Rome Statute, such as willful killing and the targeting of civilians.
North Korea’s complicity in aiding Russia through the provision of artillery shells and ballistic missiles could constitute a violation of Article 25(3)(c) of the ICC Statute, which addresses aiding and abetting war crimes.
Reports indicate that North Korean missiles were used in multiple strikes on Ukrainian cities, causing significant civilian casualties.

The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for key Russian officials, including President Putin, for war crimes.
As North Korean weapons continue to contribute to these atrocities, the international community is calling for a similar ICC referral for Kim Jong-un.

This case highlights the need for increased diplomatic and psychological pressure on both Russia and North Korea to halt the unlawful attacks and prevent further civilian harm.