Putin Praises His Ally: How North Korea Helped Russia Crush Ukraine in Kursk!

The Ukraine-Russia conflict, now in its fourth year, reached a critical juncture in April 2025, when Russian forces, bolstered by North Korean troops, reclaimed Gornal, the final Ukrainian-held town in Russia’s Kursk region. This victory marked the collapse of Ukraine’s bold cross-border incursion, a high-stakes gamble that unraveled due to tactical missteps and a pivotal Russian counteroffensive. A key moment came when Russian troops exploited an empty gas pipeline to outflank Ukrainian positions, a maneuver made possible by Ukraine’s decision to halt a gas transit agreement with Russia. This article explores the military, geopolitical, and human dimensions of these events, supported by detailed statistics and analysis, to reveal the evolving dynamics of the war.

Ukraine’s Kursk Offensive: Ambition Meets Reality

In August 2024, Ukraine launched a daring offensive into Russia’s Kursk region, aiming to seize territory, disrupt Moscow’s operations in eastern Ukraine, and bolster its negotiating leverage. At its peak, Kyiv’s forces controlled roughly 1,200 square kilometers, including the strategic town of Sudzha, with approximately 12,000 troops deployed. The operation initially succeeded, capturing key settlements and showcasing Ukraine’s ability to project power onto Russian soil, supported by Western-supplied HIMARS systems and armored vehicles.

Yet, the offensive faced mounting challenges. Ukraine’s supply lines, reliant on a single road from Sumy to Sudzha, were vulnerable to Russian drone and artillery strikes. The lack of Starlink connectivity in Russian territory hindered coordination, and Ukraine’s decision to divert elite units from Donetsk and Luhansk weakened other fronts. By March 2025, Russia had retaken most of the occupied areas, with Gornal’s liberation in April sealing the campaign’s failure. Estimates suggest Ukraine lost up to 20,000 troops (killed, wounded, or captured) and over 100 tanks, highlighting the operation’s steep cost.

The Pipeline Maneuver: A Tactical Turning Point

A critical moment in the Kursk campaign occurred in March 2025, when Russian forces executed a surprise infiltration of Ukrainian positions in Sudzha. Approximately 100 troops, likely from an elite assault unit, traversed 15 kilometers of an empty gas pipeline, part of the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod network, to strike Ukrainian defenses from the rear. The pipeline was devoid of gas because Ukraine had terminated a gas transit agreement with Russia in December 2024, aiming to disrupt Moscow’s export revenues. This decision left the 1.4-meter-diameter pipeline unguarded, creating an unexpected opportunity for Russian forces.

The operation, prepared with guided bombs to clear the approach, disrupted Ukrainian control of Sudzha, accelerating their retreat. Ukrainian sources claimed the pipeline’s methane saturation and poor ventilation caused Russian casualties, with some analysist describing it as a “suicidal” tactic. Despite these risks, the maneuver shifted momentum, enabling Russia to reclaim key positions. While significant, this was one of several factors—alongside relentless drone strikes and North Korean support—that eroded Ukraine’s hold on Kursk.

North Korea’s Military Involvement: A Strategic Alliance Tested

The Kursk campaign’s most surprising element was North Korea’s participation, marking a rare deployment of its troops abroad since the Korean War. South Korean intelligence estimates that Pyongyang sent 11,000–14,000 soldiers to Kursk between late 2024 and early 2025, with 3,000 additional troops arriving in January and February. Operating under Russian command, these forces played a key role in battles around Sudzha and Sverdlikovo, fulfilling obligations under the 2024 Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty with Russia.

North Korean troops arrived with their own equipment, including the M-1978 “Koksan” artillery and millions of 152mm and 122mm shells, though up to 50% of these munitions were defective. The deployment offered Pyongyang a chance to test its military capabilities, but North Korean soldiers, inexperienced in drone-dominated warfare, suffered significant losses—approximately 4,000 killed or wounded by March 2025, largely from Ukrainian drone attacks. Despite these setbacks, the experience provided valuable battlefield data, potentially strengthening North Korea’s posture on the Korean Peninsula.

Russia’s public acknowledgment of North Korea’s role, framed as a “counter-terrorist” operation on Russian soil, deflected international criticism. This narrative aligned with Moscow’s broader strategy to legitimize alliances with authoritarian regimes, countering Western efforts to isolate it diplomatically.

The Sumy Question: A New Front Looms

The failure of Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has heightened vulnerabilities in the adjacent Sumy region. Kyiv’s incursion aimed to create a buffer zone to protect Sumy from a potential Russian offensive, but the loss of Kursk territory has left Sumy exposed. Russian forces have conducted small-scale cross-border raids, probing Ukrainian defenses, which include trenches and territorial units. Sumy Governor Volodymyr Artiukh insists no Russian troops have established permanent control, but the region remains on edge.

Russian military analysts have discussed establishing a buffer zone in Sumy to prevent future Ukrainian attacks. Such a move would stretch Russia’s resources, potentially diverting forces from Donetsk and Luhansk. For Ukraine, losing Sumy territory would be a strategic and psychological blow, further eroding public support for the war effort. While North Korean troops are unlikely to participate in Sumy operations, Russia may deploy other proxies, such as Chechen units, escalating tensions.

Geopolitical Shifts: A Russia-North Korea Axis Emerges

North Korea’s role in Kursk underscores the deepening alliance between Moscow and Pyongyang, formalized by the 2024 Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty. This mutual defense pact has facilitated technology transfers, with reports suggesting North Korea received missile and submarine expertise in exchange for its military support. South Korean analysts estimate that Pyongyang’s munitions exports to Russia generate $1.5–2 billion annually, bolstering its economy and nuclear program.

The U.S. and South Korea have condemned North Korea’s involvement. Concerns are growing that Pyongyang is using Ukraine as a testing ground for its ballistic missiles, potentially violating UN sanctions. China’s position is more nuanced. While Beijing maintains military ties with Russia, North Korea’s alignment with Moscow could reduce China’s influence in Northeast Asia. Analysts argue that Pyongyang’s Kursk deployment prioritizes regime survival and strategic leverage, securing economic and military support to lessen reliance on China.

Measuring the Kursk Campaign

The Kursk operation’s toll is evident in the following statistics, drawn from credible sources:

Ukrainian Losses: 12,000 troops deployed, with up to 20,000 casualties. Equipment losses include 100+ tanks, 200+ armored vehicles, and 50+ artillery pieces.

Russian Losses: Up to 70,000 troops committed, with unspecified casualties. The pipeline infiltration incurred limited losses, though unconfirmed reports suggest dozens of deaths.

North Korean Losses: Of 11,000–14,000 troops, approximately 4,000 were killed or wounded, primarily from drones.

Munitions: North Korea supplied 50% of Russia’s artillery shells in Kursk, totaling millions of rounds, but 50% were defective.

Economic Impact: North Korea’s munitions exports to Russia generated $1.5–2 billion annually.

These figures highlight the campaign’s intensity and Ukraine’s disproportionate losses, compounded by stretched resources and tactical errors.

The Human Cost: Voices from the Conflict

The Kursk campaign’s human toll is profound. Ukrainian soldier “Oleksandr,” a Sumy native, described relentless Russian drone strikes that “turned day into night.” Speaking to the BBC from a military hospital, he lamented the loss of comrades in Sudzha. Russian civilians in Kursk, like retiree Maria Petrova, expressed relief at Gornal’s liberation but fear renewed conflict. 

“We thought the war was far away, but it came to us,” she told Al Jazeera.

North Korean diaries recovered by Ukrainian forces reveal a mix of ideological zeal and fear. One soldier wrote of being deployed as “bait” to draw Ukrainian fire, underscoring their expendability in Russia’s strategy. These accounts humanize the conflict’s toll and highlight the diverse motivations driving each side.

The Broader War: Challenges and Opportunities

The Kursk campaign’s failure has weakened Ukraine’s strategic position, particularly as are nearing their final stage. For Ukraine, reinforcing Sumy’s defenses and rebuilding public morale are critical to averting further losses. 

The reclamation of Gornal marks a tactical victory for Russia, but the war’s trajectory remains uncertain. Ukraine’s Kursk offensive, while ambitious, exposed its vulnerabilities, from overstretched forces to tactical miscalculations. Russia’s use of the empty pipeline, enabled by Ukraine’s gas transit decision, was a clever but secondary factor in a broader campaign driven by superior manpower and North Korean support.

The emergence of a Russia-North Korea axis adds a new dimension to the conflict, raising concerns about proxy wars and global security. As Ukraine grapples with its setbacks and Russia consolidates gains, the international community faces a complex challenge: balancing support for Kyiv with the risks of escalation. The Kursk reckoning, defined by military innovation, geopolitical realignment, and human sacrifice, underscores the war’s enduring complexity and its far-reaching implications.