Analysis

NATO will not enter East Asia soon despite North Korea sending troops to aid Russia in its war against Ukraine, according to experts.

North Korea’s latest move to aid Russia is seen as a “significant escalation” and “dangerous expansion” of the conflict, according to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.

NATO is committed to supporting a free and democratic Ukraine, because “Ukraine’s security is our security,” he said.

“Today, we discussed the need to further strengthen military support to Ukraine. We are actively consulting within the Alliance, with Ukraine, and with our Indo-Pacific partners on these developments, and we continue to monitor the situation closely.”

How Much Will North Korea Get Involved?

Related Stories

10/28/2024

10/26/2024

“North Korea’s involvement is driven by the Kim regime’s desperate need for cash and resources,” he told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Pyongyang literally is selling its troops to Russia for cash, oil and probably food as well as other raw materials the regime desperately needs. He has deployed approximately two brigades of troops.”

Schuster said that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un views the Russo-Ukraine War as a laboratory to study and update its doctrine and tactics, much like Germany used the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s.

“North Korea’s military has an outdated military doctrine that dates back to the 80s. Kim knows it needs updating but Pyongyang’s isolation limits its ability to acquire, practice, and adopt the procedures, tactics, and operational concepts of modern warfare. Participation in the Russo-Ukraine War will change that,” he wrote.

“The majority of North Korea’s military equipment is obsolete or obsolescent. Replacing that equipment and reforming its military to optimize the use of that new equipment will be expensive (hence the need for money and resources from Russia and possibly China).”

Experts: NATO Will Not Enter East Asia

Schuster said he believes that NATO will not deploy forces to East Asia other than naval forces and an occasional deployment of aircraft for exercises.

“NATO member country leaders are too worried about Russia’s next move than what is going on in East Asia,” he told The Epoch Times.

He listed several reasons.

First of all, after nearly 30 years of “almost ignoring their military forces and requirements,” most NATO member countries don’t have the resources to do more than make a politically symbolic deployment to East Asia.

“NATO member countries lack the resources and will to assist the US in protecting shipping from al-Houthi attacks, so I don’t [see] anything more than a small naval deployment and participation in naval exercises with countries like India, Philippines, and Japan,” he said.

In addition, naval exercises signal NATO’s political interest in a region and provide a temporary presence but present a much lower risk of involvement in any conflicts. Similarly, temporary air force unit deployments offer the same benefits as a naval deployment, and they last as long as the planes are there.

“The majority of NATO members have long shown their reluctance to be involved in conflicts, employing very restrictive rules of engagement that all but prohibited their involvement in anything other than a direct attack on their units,” he said.

Anders Corr, principal at Corr Analytics Inc. and publisher of the “Journal of Political Risk,” agreed that it’s unlikely that NATO forces will enter East Asia soon, “though NATO is strengthening relations with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.”

“These countries could at some point host a NATO office to better coordinate between U.S. allies in Asia and U.S. allies in Europe,” he told The Epoch Times.

“There are certainly linkages between the conflicts in Ukraine, Iran, and with North Korea, though in Asia it is better described as a new Cold War,” said Corr.

“The key to keeping these conflicts separate and from spiraling into a much more damaging world war is to limit their geographic extent and the types of weapons used,” he said.

“No country wants war, but none want to back down or lose the territory of its allies either. So they threaten each other with escalation that could get out of control. Whichever country is more willing to endure the risk of escalation is more likely to win.”

Schuster, on the other hand, believes that there is very little chance of another world war at this time.

“Pyongyang is showing it has no interest in starting a war on the Korean Peninsula at this time. Kim is destroying border bridges, rails and roads. One does that to impede an attack, not launch one yourself,” he analyzed.

“China finds the Russo-Ukraine War too useful as a distraction from its aggression in Asia. Putin’s War is drawing U.S. and Western attention and resources away from Asia, limiting the deterrent actions the U.S. in particular can undertake.

“Israel has taught Iran that its military is not capable of fighting a determined modern opponent, so Iran itself will do little to provoke Israel into a repeat of last week’s strikes on a larger scale ... those conflicts are in their final 6-8 months.”

However, he added that the situation may change in two to four years.

“[The possibility] will be as dependent on Xi and Kim’s perception of Western military capabilities and likely response to their actions as it will be on their confidence in their own forces’ ability to achieve their assigned objectives,” he said.