The global ramifications of the Russia-North Korea pact
The recent treaty between Russia and North Korea will reshape the Northeast Asian security landscape.

In a nutshell
- Russia and North Korea have now agreed to defend each other in case of attack
- The treaty serves as a warning to South Korea and Japan to prevent deeper military engagement with Ukraine
- The agreement also challenges U.S. security arrangements in the region
The signing of the “Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” between North Korea and Russia on July 19, 2024, occurred at a time of intense geopolitical complexity and is poised to have enduring consequences.
Subsequent to the agreement, there has been significant focus on Russia receiving military supplies and personnel from North Korea. While these munitions were already being deployed in the war in Ukraine, recent reports indicate that North Korean soldiers are now engaged in military operations in Russia’s Kursk region. However, this support may not be critically significant for Russia, as it appears to still be increasing its domestic military production and the number of contracted troops.
Conversely, there is considerable attention on North Korea, which, emboldened by the treaty, may escalate its rhetoric and actions against South Korea. Any direct confrontation on the Korean Peninsula could rapidly evolve into a nuclear standoff, potentially involving the United States, China and now Russia. The fallout from the treaty will likely be less dramatic but more profound than these two perceived outcomes.
Strategic win for North Korea
For North Korea, the signing of the treaty represents a significant win. In addition to its own nuclear arsenal and the longstanding mutual security alliance with China, North Korea is now also covered by Russia’s nuclear umbrella. According to the treaty, if foreign forces or weapons attack its territory, Russia is obligated to provide defense in accordance with the United Nations Charter and in conformity with its domestic law.
Perhaps more significantly, the treaty includes provisions for “joint activities to strengthen defense capabilities” and “tactical and strategic cooperation aimed at global strategic stability and a new just and equal international order.” Should these provisions extend to the exchange of military technology – such as intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines – the nuclear capability of North Korea could increase exponentially.
Facts & figures
Additionally, the agreement includes commitments to consultations and mutual cooperation at the UN on issues affecting shared interests and security. During a press conference in Pyongyang, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized that the UN sanctions against North Korea “must be revisited.”
Moreover, the recent joint statement between Russia and China from May 2024, signed during President Putin’s visit to Beijing, reaffirms their “unwavering commitment to resolving all issues on the Korean Peninsula exclusively through political and diplomatic means.” The statement also “strongly urges” the U.S. to take practical steps toward resuming the negotiation process with the participation of North Korea and other involved states.
Russia reclaims its role in Northeast Asian Security
The recent signing of the treaty has reestablished Russia as a key security player in Northeast Asia, mirroring the influence once held by the former Soviet Union. This return to prominence harkens back to the security treaty signed between the Soviet Union and North Korea in 1961.
The 1961 treaty, drafted shortly after the Korean War, comprised only six articles and a preamble. The treaty, which also referred to the purposes and principles of the UN, included a mutual defense obligation. The signatories committed to “not enter into any alliance or participate in any action directed against the other Contracting Party.” One article notably emphasized the peaceful and democratic unification of Korea, pointing out that any solution should contribute to maintaining peace in the Far East. The remaining articles focused on commitments to strengthen peace and enhance economic and cultural ties.
In contrast, the “Treaty of Friendship, Good-Neighborly Relations and Cooperation,” which replaced the 1961 treaty in 2000, omitted any clause on mutual military assistance.
The newly signed 2024 treaty between Russia and North Korea extends beyond mutual defense to include a wide array of collaborative efforts, which span trade, economics, investment, science, technology and more. The agreement also covers cooperation in combating terrorism, addressing energy and food security challenges, and opposing unilateral sanctions. Additionally, it promotes stronger ties across various sectors such as agriculture, education, health, sports, culture and technology – a much broader scope of cooperation compared to previous agreements.
Added complexity for China
For China, the new treaty between Russia and North Korea adds layers of complexity but does not significantly alter its regional stance.
China maintains its unique security treaty with North Korea, a relationship deeply rooted in shared history, described by President Xi Jinping as “bonded by blood.” Beijing views the potential unification of Korea – particularly one aligned with the U.S. and Japan – as a threat, thus deeming the survival of North Korea’s regime crucial to its security. Despite the ups and downs in their relationship, China has consistently maintained this alliance.
More by Zorigt Dashdorj
- A new railway highlights regional dynamics in Central Asia
- Mongolia strives for a more inclusive democracy
- Scenarios for a ‘new normal’ in geopolitics
Historically, even during the tense moments of its 1961 security treaty signings with Russia and China, North Korea managed to keep its distance from the Sino-Soviet split while maintaining ties with both nations. North Korea’s stance in security matters has traditionally been unaffected by external pressures, even from China which now holds control over most of its economic flows. Now a nuclear power with increasing capabilities, the Pyongyang regime continues to emphasize its self-reliance.
The recent treaty with Russia, therefore, does not substantially shift the dynamics of China’s relationship with North Korea. In an October 2024 letter, President Xi reaffirmed the enduring value of their friendship through changing times and expressed readiness to strengthen strategic ties and cooperation under the new global conditions, aiming to further solidify the historic bond between the two nations.
Scenarios
Unlikely: Sino-Russian relations sour over the treaty
It would be a mistake to interpret the treaty as a wedge between Russia and China, as it is improbable that Beijing was caught off guard or uninformed about the negotiations. The strong personal relationship between Presidents Putin and Xi is unlikely to be affected by peripheral developments. This is especially true in light of what Moscow and Beijing perceive as increasingly forceful “dual containment” of Russia and China by the U.S., as referred to in a joint statement from May 2024.
The partnership between Russia and China today encompasses frequent military exercises that show a high level of strategic trust and coordination, even though it is stated that their alliance is not confrontational or aimed at forming a military bloc against other nations. The often-repeated insistence by commentators that Russia and China are not military allies is naive, at best: Neither were the U.S. and China military allies in the 1970s and 1980s, but their mere positioning was enough to change the great power balance.
For China, the dynamics of its relationship with the U.S. and its allies are far more significant in economic, financial and human terms given today’s complex global structure with multiple powers and dependencies. In such a multipolar world, nations are likely to hedge their positions strategically until decisive moments.
Likely: Heightened regional tensions
The latest treaty between Russia and North Korea introduces a structured and staggered approach to mutual security, as highlighted by the clause that mandates security assistance in line with domestic legislation and the UN Charter’s right to self-defense. This clause is activated when one party faces an attack, and is preceded by an article requiring immediate consultations if there is an imminent threat of armed aggression.
This mechanism could serve to either restrain or encourage North Korea, signaling to South Korea and Japan the potential for significant escalation in regional security dynamics if lethal military equipment is supplied to Ukraine. President Putin, shortly after the treaty’s signing, communicated to South Korea that they need not worry, as the mutual defense clause is only relevant in the event of aggression. However, Mr. Putin explicitly warned against supplying lethal military equipment to Ukraine, indicating that such actions would prompt a response from Russia that South Korea would not welcome.
Additionally, President Putin used this opportunity to send a broader message to Washington and European capitals, asserting Russia’s right to supply weapons globally, and not ruling out North Korea as a potential recipient. He mirrored Western statements on arms supplies to Ukraine by stating that the subsequent control over the use of these weapons is not Russia’s concern.
This treaty is seen as a step to challenge the coordinated security mechanisms built up by the U.S. and its allies in the region. The May 2024 joint Russia-China statement pointedly criticizes Washington’s transfer of intermediate and short-range missiles into the Asia-Pacific region under the pretext of joint exercises, viewing this as a direct threat to their security and hinting at more permanent deployments.
On several recent occasions, the Russian leader has criticized what he described as the formation of “NATO-like military alliances in East Asia,” echoing his objections to the organization’s expansion near Russia’s western borders, though the rhetoric has not yet escalated to that level.
Given these dynamics, the region is likely to witness heightened tensions and a military buildup as the powers strive for a new balance. Thus, all parties, including those on the periphery, will need to engage in even more skilled diplomacy to navigate the forthcoming challenges and prevent a conflict that would unavoidably and rapidly turn into a suicidal all-out war. Such a clash would be a highly irrational choice for the region, which has thrived during the peace of the last decades.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.