North Korea’s Shadow in Ukraine: Analyzing Potential Alliances and Global Shifts

As the world watches Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an unsettling new player may be drawn into this conflict: North Korea. While global powers rally around either side, North Korea’s possible entry presents a unique axis of alliance rooted not in geographical proximity but in ideological solidarity, autocratic governance, and a shared aversion to Western influence. In this analysis, we’ll explore how political philosophy, theories of international relations, and historical precedent shape and project the potential consequences of North Korea’s support for Russia.

North Korea’s Calculated Autonomy and Realpolitik

At the heart of North Korea’s foreign policy lies a paradoxical relationship between fierce isolationism and selective alliances that support its political autonomy. Realist theory, particularly Hans Morgenthau’s principles of power and interest, informs North Korea’s motivation for aligning with Russia. Morgenthau asserted that political actors prioritize national interest and survival over ideological consistency, often choosing allies that amplify their power regardless of historical enmity or philosophical misalignment (Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, 1948). For North Korea, backing Russia offers strategic leverage over the West, positioning Pyongyang as a powerful symbol of Eastern resilience.

This alignment underscores the realist perspective that states operate in a self-help system, seeking security through alliances and power projection. However, Pyongyang’s interest is likely not a reflection of its commitment to Russian hegemony but rather a gambit to solidify its stature as a formidable autocratic regime. Just as Machiavelli observed that “the ends justify the means,” North Korea’s potential engagement in Ukraine is a calculated step toward its ultimate end — an enduring and undisputed regime survival (Machiavelli, The Prince, 1532).

Ideological Symbiosis: Autocracy Against the Liberal Order

Theories of ideological alliances argue that countries often ally based on shared governance models and mutual opposition to perceived common threats. This notion can be drawn from Carl Schmitt’s “friend-enemy distinction” concept, wherein political identity and solidarity are derived not merely from positive affiliations but from shared enmity toward an ‘Other’ (Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, 1932). For North Korea and Russia, the United States and its allies serve as this “Other.” Their ideological solidarity transcends pragmatic calculations, representing a form of what Schmitt would call an “existential alliance” against the liberal international order.

This projection suggests strengthening the Russo-North Korean alliance, solidified by a common narrative of Western hostility. Within this framework, North Korea’s alignment with Russia is more than a strategic partnership; it symbolizes the rallying of autocratic states against perceived Western imperialism. Through this lens, Ukraine’s plight becomes a pawn in a giant ideological game, with North Korea using its support for Russia to reinforce its standing as a bastion against Western democratic pressures.

Projections and Global Ramifications

The implications of a North Korea-Russia axis could ripple globally, ushering in a multipolar world order reminiscent of Cold War dynamics. Proponents of the structural theory of international relations, like Kenneth Waltz, would argue that such alliances disrupt the balance of power, creating a more volatile global stage (Waltz, Theory of International Politics, 1979). With North Korea’s participation, the potential for a proxy conflict in Eastern Europe intensifies, as it adds a layer of complexity to the West’s diplomatic calculus.

Furthermore, scholars of political realism like John Mearsheimer might suggest that the West’s containment policies could be more challenging as an autocratic bloc anchored by Russia, North Korea, and potentially other aligned states begins to solidify (Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 2001). In this projection, North Korea’s involvement would represent a geopolitical tipping point, creating new pressures on Western powers to reconsider their engagement and defense strategies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific.

Conclusion: Autocracy’s Ascent or a Gamble on Survival?

In a world where alliances are often fluid, and interests are paramount, North Korea’s support for Russia may appear as a foregone conclusion. Yet this alliance raises crucial questions about the future of global governance. Does North Korea see this as a path toward regional supremacy, or is it merely buying itself short-term security? Only time will tell if this gambit will yield the existential security North Korea seeks or if it will provoke an international response that erodes Pyongyang’s longstanding isolation.

References

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Translated by W. K. Marriott. New York: Penguin Classics, 1532.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948.

Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political. Translated by George Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932.

Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1979.