📖
16 min read • 3,149 words

Table of Contents

N Korea, Russia bound in ‘blood’ of war, Kim tells Putin in New Year note

The dawn of 2024 was marked by a chilling exchange between two of the world’s most isolated leaders.

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Russia’s Vladimir Putin exchanged New Year’s greetings that framed their alliance not in terms of diplomacy, but of shared violence.

Kim’s message, as reported by state media, declared the two nations were “cemented with the blood” of the Korean War, forging a strategic partnership that now poses a direct challenge to the U.S.-led world order.

This rhetoric signals a profound and dangerous deepening of a relationship that has moved from cautious diplomacy to a full-fledged military-technical collaboration with global repercussions.

The Historical Echo: Revisiting the “Blood”-Sealed Bond

Kim Jong Un’s invocation of blood is a deliberate and calculated reference to a specific historical chapter.

It harks back to the 1950-1953 Korean War, where the then-Soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, provided critical material and political support to the nascent North Korean state.

Stalin’s Calculated Gamble in the Korean War

The Soviet Union’s involvement was the war’s essential enabler.

While Stalin hesitated to commit Soviet troops directly, fearing a wider conflict with the United States, his support was comprehensive and decisive.

He approved Kim Il Sung’s invasion plan, provided the blueprint for the North Korean military’s structure, and supplied the tanks, artillery, and aircraft that initially overwhelmed South Korean forces.

This historical context is the bedrock upon which Kim’s “blood” metaphor is built, transforming past Soviet logistical aid into a mythologized sacrificial bond.

The Mythmaking of “Fighting Side-by-Side”

North Korean historiography actively constructs a narrative of direct Soviet combat participation.

While Soviet pilots did indeed fly covert missions in Chinese-marked MiG-15s, engaging in fierce dogfights with American jets over “MiG Alley,” the scale is often exaggerated in Pyongyang’s propaganda.

This mythologized history serves a vital purpose: it creates a foundational legend of shared struggle against a common American enemy.

By invoking this past, Kim Jong Un is not merely stating a fact; he is activating a powerful nationalist and ideological symbol to legitimize the present-day alliance.

“The ‘blood’ reference is classic North Korean rhetoric, but its use here is exceptionally significant. It elevates the relationship from a transactional, arms-for-munitions deal to a sacred, generational pact. This makes it harder for either side to back away from commitments, as doing so would be framed as betraying the sacrifices of the past,” notes a senior analyst for Reuters.

The Ukraine Catalyst: From Estrangement to Embrace

For decades after the Cold War, the Russia-North Korea relationship was often strained and distant.

Russia, under Yeltsin and early Putin, sought better ties with the West and viewed the DPRK as a difficult and costly relic.

How Western Sanctions Forced a Reunion

The tectonic shift began with Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and accelerated dramatically with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Facing unprecedented international isolation and crippling sanctions, Moscow found itself in a position eerily similar to Pyongyang’s decades-long reality.

This shared status as pariah states became the new glue for the relationship.

Russia, desperate for munitions to sustain its grinding war of attrition, turned to one of the world’s largest stockpiles of Soviet-era artillery shells and rockets.

The Wagner Connection and the Arms Pipeline

The initial arms transfers were facilitated through the now-defunct Wagner Group, a private military company with direct ties to the Kremlin.

Satellite imagery revealed a dramatic increase in rail and maritime traffic between Russia’s Far East and North Korea’s Rajin port.

This established a tangible, logistics corridor that proved the relationship was operational, not just rhetorical.

The flow included millions of artillery shells, rockets, and short-range ballistic missiles, directly impacting the battlefield dynamics in Ukraine.

Artillery Shells: North Korea’s massive stockpiles of 152mm and 122mm shells are directly compatible with Russian systems, providing a crucial ammunition lifeline.
Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs): Missiles like the KN-23 and KN-24 have been used against Ukrainian targets, demonstrating a significant escalation in technology transfer.
Rocket Artillery: Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) rockets have been documented in use by Russian forces, sourced from North Korean warehouses.
Infantry Weapons & Mortars: Smaller arms and mortar rounds supplement the high-volume artillery transfers.
Potential Chemical Precursors: Some analysts warn of possible transfers of chemical weapons components, though this remains unconfirmed.
Munitions for Small Arms: The vast demand for basic ammunition is also likely being met by North Korea’s militarized industry.

The Pyongyang Summit: A Formal Pact of Pariahs

The relationship moved from covert logistics to a formal, public military alliance with Kim Jong Un’s extended visit to Russia’s Vostochny Cosmodrome in September 2023.

The summit was rich with symbolism, held at a space launch facility to underscore the technological dimension of their cooperation.

What Was Agreed: Beyond the Headlines

While no public treaty was signed, the outcomes are clear from subsequent events.

Putin hinted at assistance with North Korea’s satellite and missile programs, a direct violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions that Russia itself had previously voted for.

In return, Kim pledged full and unconditional support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, framing it as a “sacred fight” against Western hegemony.

The summit effectively announced a new axis of authoritarian cooperation, one explicitly designed to undermine the global sanctions regime.

“The Vostochny Summit was a point of no return. It wasn’t just about buying shells. It was about Russia providing technological insights that could leapfrog North Korea’s missile reliability and satellite reconnaissance capabilities. In exchange, Russia gets a vast, cheap arsenal and a partner willing to openly defy the West,” reports a correspondent for AP News.

The Strategic Payoff for Pyongyang: More Than Just Food Aid

For North Korea, this reinvigorated alliance is a strategic windfall of historic proportions.

It breaks decades of enforced isolation and provides a powerful patron capable of shielding it from international pressure.

Military Technology Leapfrogging

This is the most significant payoff.

Russian assistance could accelerate key nuclear delivery system challenges, such as solid-fuel missile technology, warhead shielding for ICBM re-entry, and perhaps most critically, space-based reconnaissance.

A functioning spy satellite would dramatically improve North Korea’s targeting capabilities, making its nuclear threat more credible and dangerous.

It also seeks technical help for its submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) program and modern fighter aircraft.

Economic and Diplomatic Shields

Russia provides a crucial buffer at the UN Security Council, where it can now veto any new sanctions against the DPRK.

Economically, the relationship provides hard currency and potentially oil and food supplies, mitigating the impact of existing sanctions.

This external support allows Kim to double down on his military-first policy without the same fear of domestic economic collapse.

It also normalizes his regime on the world stage, granting him a photo-op with a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Satellite Launch Technology: Guidance, engine, and payload expertise for successful reconnaissance satellite deployment.
Solid-Fuel Propulsion: Key for making missiles faster to launch and more mobile, enhancing survivability.
Nuclear Warhead Miniaturization & Re-entry: Advanced materials science to ensure a warhead survives atmospheric re-entry on an ICBM.
Submarine Technology: Quieting and propulsion tech for ballistic missile submarines.
Cybersecurity & Electronic Warfare: Sharing of tactics and tools used extensively by Russia in Ukraine.
Aerospace & Radar: Modernization of North Korea’s aging air force and air defense networks.

The Strategic Payoff for Moscow: A War-Fighting Lifeline

For Vladimir Putin, North Korea is not just a symbolic partner but a vital component of his war machine.

The war in Ukraine has devolved into a brutal artillery duel, consuming ammunition at a rate far exceeding Western production capabilities.

Solving the Artillery Ammunition Crisis

North Korea’s artillery arsenals are vast, built up over decades under a siege mentality.

Estimates suggest it could have tens of millions of shells in storage.

This supply allows Russia to sustain high-intensity bombardment, a central tactic in its strategy to overwhelm Ukrainian defenses.

It buys Russia precious time to ramp up its own domestic military production, which is a key national priority.

Testing Ground and Geopolitical Diversion

Ukraine has also become a live-fire testing ground for North Korean weapons.

Russian military engineers can assess the performance and limitations of DPRK missiles and artillery, providing valuable intelligence on a potential adversary’s capabilities.

Furthermore, the alliance forces the United States and its allies to divide attention and resources between Europe and Asia, stretching strategic bandwidth thin.

This creates a two-front deterrence challenge for Washington, complicating its security planning immensely.

The International Response: A Sanctions Regime Under Siege

The Kim-Putin alliance represents the most serious challenge to the international non-proliferation and sanctions regime in decades.

It is a direct assault on the rules-based order.

The Failure of UN Security Council Mechanisms

The UN panel of experts monitoring North Korea sanctions, a key investigative body, is now on the brink of dissolution due to a Russian veto.

This move effectively blinds the international community to the specifics of the sanctions-busting trade.

Russia and China are systematically blocking any action against the DPRK, rendering the Security Council impotent on this issue.

This creates a sanctions-proof partnership where the traditional tools of international pressure are neutralized.

Regional Allies on High Alert

The response from South Korea and Japan has been one of heightened alarm and militarization.

Seoul has suspended parts of the 2018 inter-Korean military agreement and intensified joint military exercises with the U.S. and Japan.

Tokyo is pursuing significant increases in defense spending and acquiring counterstrike capabilities.

The region is entering a new, more dangerous phase of arms race dynamics, reminiscent of global tensions seen elsewhere, such as when Militants Storm Government Complex in Capital cities create sudden security crises.

“We are witnessing the deliberate dismantling of the architecture that has contained North Korea’s capabilities for 20 years. Russia is not just violating sanctions; it is taking a sledgehammer to the very system. The message to other rogue states is clear: find a powerful patron, and you can operate with impunity,” states a former UN sanctions coordinator.

The Ideological Dimension: A New Authoritarian International?

Beyond weapons and tactics, the exchange reveals a shared ideological narrative.

Both regimes frame themselves as besieged fortresses of tradition and sovereignty, fighting against a decadent and aggressive West.

The “Sacred Fight” Against Western Hegemony

Kim and Putin’s rhetoric consistently describes their struggles as existential and spiritual.

They position the U.S. and its allies not as geopolitical competitors but as moral corrupters seeking regime change.

This allows them to justify any action, no matter how brutal or illegal, as self-defense.

It also provides a framework for recruiting other discontented states into a loose coalition opposed to U.S. leadership.

Contrasting Visions of Global Order

The alliance promotes a world order based on spheres of influence, where great powers have absolute authority in their regions.

This directly contradicts the liberal international order based on universal rules and state sovereignty.

Their partnership is a practical experiment in building an alternative system, one where autocratic solidarity trumps international law.

This ideological battle has real-world consequences, shaping conflicts and alliances globally, even as domestic issues like Beyond the Boasts: A Deep Dive into the Economic Reality for American Households dominate other headlines.

The China Factor: The Silent Third Partner

Any analysis of this axis is incomplete without considering the role of China, North Korea’s traditional patron and Russia’s “no-limits” partner.

Beijing watches this burgeoning relationship with complex and likely conflicted feelings.

Strategic Benefits for Beijing

The alliance distracts and drains U.S. resources, which aligns with China’s strategic interests.

It creates a persistent thorn in the side of American foreign policy, potentially making Washington more cautious in its approach to Taiwan.

A more capable North Korea also ties down U.S. and Japanese forces in the region.

This allows China greater freedom of maneuver in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Potential Risks and Anxieties

China values stability on the Korean Peninsula above all else and does not want a crisis that could lead to war or refugee flows.

An emboldened, nuclear-armed North Korea with Russian backing might become more difficult for Beijing to control.

Furthermore, China may not want to see Russia become the dominant external influence in Pyongyang, diluting its own leverage.

Beijing’s challenge is to manage this triangular dynamic without being drawn into a direct confrontation it does not seek.

Diversion of U.S. Military Focus: Forces the Pentagon to plan for two near-peer conflicts simultaneously.
Testing Western Resolve: Provides a case study in how the West responds to blatant sanctions erosion.
Undermining the Dollar’s Dominance: Trade between Russia and North Korea is conducted in rubles, yuan, or via barter, challenging the global financial system.
Normalizing Military Blocs: Accelerates the formation of explicit, opposing alliances in Asia (e.g., U.S.-Japan-South Korea vs. China-Russia-North Korea).
Erosion of Norms: Makes the use of ballistic missiles and nuclear threats seem more commonplace in international relations.

The Future Trajectory: Escalation and Entanglement

The trajectory of this alliance points toward greater integration and higher risk.

The “blood” bond rhetoric sets a high bar for loyalty, making disengagement politically difficult for both leaders.

Scenarios for Deepened Military Integration

We could see Russian military advisors stationed in North Korea, particularly at missile and satellite launch sites.

Joint naval exercises in the Sea of Japan are a distinct possibility, which would be a massive provocation to Japan and South Korea.

There is also the risk of technology transfer flowing the other way, with North Korean missile designs or tactical insights from its massive artillery forces influencing Russian military development.

The ultimate escalation would be a formal mutual defense treaty, though both sides may prefer the current ambiguous, yet potent, arrangement.

The Risk of Miscalculation and Blowback

The greatest danger lies in the potential for a local crisis on the Korean Peninsula to rapidly escalate into a broader conflict.

Would Russia feel compelled to support North Korea in a clash with South Korea? Would China?

Similarly, increased North Korean confidence could lead to more aggressive provocations, such as another nuclear test or a direct attack like the 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island.

This creates a tinderbox scenario where an incident spirals out of control, pulling in major powers, much as sudden crises in other regions, like a Spurs continue dominance over OKC with 3rd-quarter run can change a game’s dynamics in an instant.

“We are in uncharted territory. This is not a Cold War proxy relationship. It’s a partnership between two nuclear-armed states who are actively engaged in hot wars—one direct, one through a proxy—and who share a deep-seated grievance against the current system. The potential for spillover, accident, or deliberate escalation is higher than at any point since the 1980s,” warns a professor of international security.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “bound in blood” actually mean?

It is a direct reference to the Korean War (1950-53), where the Soviet Union provided crucial military aid to North Korea. Kim Jong Un uses this historical link to frame the modern alliance as a sacred, unbreakable pact forged in shared sacrifice against the United States.

Why is Russia, a former superpower, relying on North Korea for weapons?

Russia’s war in Ukraine has consumed artillery shells and rockets at a staggering rate, far exceeding its current production capacity. North Korea possesses one of the world’s largest stockpiles of compatible Soviet-era ammunition, making it a vital, ready-made source to sustain Russia’s high-intensity bombardment tactics.

What is North Korea getting in return from Russia?

Pyongyang seeks advanced technology for its weapons programs, particularly help with spy satellites, solid-fuel missiles, and nuclear submarine development. It also gains economic benefits, diplomatic protection at the UN, and a powerful patron that legitimizes its regime on the world stage.

How has the international community responded to this alliance?

The response has been largely ineffective. Russia has vetoed the renewal of the UN panel monitoring North Korea sanctions, crippling oversight. The U.S., South Korea, and Japan have imposed new sanctions and intensified military drills, but the core sanctions regime is being systematically dismantled by Russian and Chinese actions.

Does this alliance involve China directly?

Not directly, but China is the silent, crucial third factor. While likely uneasy about losing influence in Pyongyang, Beijing benefits from the U.S. being distracted. China is carefully managing its own relationships with both Moscow and Pyongyang, seeking to avoid instability while undermining U.S. global leadership.

What is the biggest immediate danger from this partnership?

The biggest danger is the acceleration of North Korea’s military capabilities, particularly a functional spy satellite network, which would improve its nuclear targeting. This could trigger a new arms race in Northeast Asia and increase the risk of miscalculation during a crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

Key Takeaways

The alliance is rooted in a mythologized history of the Korean War, now being weaponized to justify a deep, modern military partnership.
It is fundamentally transactional: North Korea provides artillery and missiles for Russia’s war in Ukraine; Russia provides technology and diplomatic cover for North Korea’s weapons programs.
The partnership directly undermines the global sanctions regime, with Russia actively blocking UN monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
Technological transfer is the core payoff for Pyongyang, with satellite and advanced missile technology at the top of its wish list.
The alliance forces the U.S. and its allies to confront a two-theater challenge, stretching military and diplomatic resources between Europe and Asia.
It promotes an alternative, authoritarian world order based on spheres of influence and the rejection of Western-led institutions and norms.
The risk of regional escalation is significantly heightened, as a crisis involving North Korea could now draw in Russia, complicating deterrence calculations.
This relationship is likely to deepen, moving towards more integrated military cooperation and posing a persistent, long-term threat to international security.

Final Thoughts

The New Year’s exchange between Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin was far more than diplomatic pleasantries. It was a stark declaration of a new and dangerous phase in international relations. By invoking the “blood” of a past war, they have consciously framed their present collaboration as an existential struggle, one that justifies the flouting of international law and the pursuit of mutual empowerment at the expense of global stability.

This axis of isolated powers is not a temporary marriage of convenience but a strategic recalibration with profound implications. It signals the fracturing of the post-Cold War order and the rise of a world where pariah states can, through collaboration, circumvent the constraints meant to contain them. As this partnership deepens, the challenge for the United States and its allies will be to craft a response that is simultaneously firm enough to deter aggression and agile enough to manage the complex, dual-front reality it now faces—a task as daunting as any in recent memory, and one that will define the geopolitical landscape for years to come.