It is still unclear how many North Korean soldiers will find their way to the battlefields in eastern Ukraine. What is clear is that the drive to recruit combat troops from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is at least partly politically motivated. But is it also a tactical masterstroke that increases the Russian war machine's chances of ultimate victory?

The political aspect seems straightforward. The use of foreign forces by an enemy of the United States is a clear sign of opposition to the Washington-led world order. It is also a further blow to the myth that the Russian Federation is isolated as an international pariah in a world led by Western powers.

But despite the increasing troop numbers, there are several problems with these would-be mercenaries from the Far East joining Putin's forces on the front lines in Europe. North Korea is impoverished and authoritarian. This means that the staff is usually poorly equipped, unmotivated and malnourished. Where and how they are deployed is therefore likely to be crucial.

Sending them into new theaters of war against cutting-edge NATO-supplied weapons could mean throwing waves of ill-prepared cannon fodder into the meat grinder of the Donbas trenches. Most would certainly be killed by FPV (first-person view) drones or Western tank fire.

Defects could certainly pose an additional risk. If the command takes place outside the immediate control of Korean officers on the ground, some will undoubtedly see it as a chance to escape the oppression and poverty in their homeland. Desertions en masse on the Ukrainian side could become a possibility. This is even more true if the Ukrainian or other special forces on the ground are identified and ordered to surrender.

Given these seemingly obvious flaws, one might easily assume that the deliberate display of training camps for North Korean soldiers in eastern Russia is little more than a political gimmick. One aimed at instilling fear in the already struggling Ukrainian army and in the face of its Western supporters. At the same time, there may be reason to believe that there is more to this move than just pure politics.

Rules of engagement

The difference between delivering artillery shells to Russian guns and using corpses on the battlefield is huge.

However, this fundamental difference does not necessarily mean that the deployment of Korean forces on the battlefield has no tactical value. The key probably lies in where and how they are used.

The immediate question of international law arises. Or, perhaps more importantly, how NATO countries might respond to further violations of established rules of engagement by Russian-led foreign forces. Certainly, deploying Korean mercenaries to fight in the Donbass region, recognized by Western allies as Ukrainian territory, would be a gross violation.

NATO's response could be swift and definitive, as it would effectively justify the proportionate use of force, including foreign personnel, to counter any subsequent Russian advances. This would likely result in an own goal for Putin. Any initial advantage would quickly be lost as friends of Ukraine legitimately intervene in the fight to push back an illegal alliance of aggression between Moscow and Pyongyang. Escalation after that would also be a serious and serious problem.

Conversely, the benefits of additional manpower become more credible when they are used in a combination of technical and logistical functions or primarily to defend Russian territory. Last but not least, from an international law perspective, it appears legitimate for Russia to ask allies for help in repelling Ukraine's invasion of the Kursk region in southwest Russia.

This could deal a double blow to Kyiv. On the one hand, it would likely provide enough personnel to quickly destroy the already weak Ukrainian forces holding captured sovereign Russian territory. At the same time, Moscow's own military apparatus would be able to focus all of its attention on the already growing progress on the Donbass front.

Distraction from the endgame

North Korea's influence on the international stage has grown since the start of the war in Ukraine, as its vast munitions stockpiles have proven significant to Russia's attrition tactics. In this regard, the addition of foreign fighters could represent another factor in Moscow's favor if they are used and managed skillfully.

Ultimately, however, the limited deployment of inexperienced Korean troops into a war zone where they have no legal or moral basis may prove crucial. As it stands, Russia's brutal military advance is likely to continue with or without the help of North Korea's despotic leader Kim Jong-Un.

In this respect, the arrival of the North Koreans in Europe's worst war in a generation is probably little more than another bizarre episode in this cruel conflict. The real concern is how to transform authoritarian states like Russia and North Korea into something like civilized societies that may pursue more positive foreign policy paths.