North Korea has gained over US$20 billion from supporting Russia in Ukraine war
Source: Newsweek, an American weekly news magazine, citing a report by the Korea Institute for Defence Analyses (KIDA)
Details: The majority of North Korea's economic gains came from supplying ammunition to Russia, though it also profited from sending thousands of troops to fight in Ukraine and providing technical support.
However, casualties were heavy, with around 4,000 of the 11,000 North Korean soldiers sent to fight, mostly in Russia's Kursk Oblast, reported dead.
The report says North Korea likely prefers "in-kind and technical assistance" from Russia in exchange for its support, including high-tech weapons that help bolster its military capabilities and advance its strategic goals.
KIDA's report is accompanied by a separate analysis from Reuters and the Open Source Centre (OSC), a UK-based non-profit specialising in open-source research on global security threats. The study revealed that North Korea sent over 15,800 containers of munitions to Russia between August 2023 and March 2025.
The OSC and Reuters used satellite and detailed three-dimensional imagery to estimate that 64 shipments by four Russian vessels likely carried between 4.2 million and 5.8 million individual munitions from North Korea.
Background: In July 2024, Russian coal exporters began supplying fuel to China via North Korea.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BBC apologises to Jenrick over suggestions he is xenophobic in Radio 4 broadcast
The BBC has apologised to Robert Jenrick after a refugee charity boss suggested the shadow justice secretary is xenophobic during Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Jenrick has accused the broadcaster of smearing 'millions of worried citizens as 'xenophobic' for their completely understandable fears'. While appearing on the radio on Wednesday, Krish Kandiah, a director of Sanctuary Foundation, claimed Mr Jenrick had increased 'fear of the stranger' among people. Mr Kandiah added: 'The technical name for this is xenophobia. 'All phobias are by definition irrational. Nevertheless, they have a huge impact. 'Over the past year, xenophobia has fuelled angry protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers, deepening divisions in our communities.' In a letter to the Conservative MP, the broadcaster's head of editorial standards Roger Mahony said the comments went 'well beyond' what is expected of its Thought For The Day segment. Mr Mahony said: 'I have concluded that, while its reflection on fear in society from a faith perspective is broadly in line with expectations of Thought For The Day, some of the language it used went beyond that. 'I have asked for the two references to xenophobia to be edited from the programme on BBC Sounds. Please accept my apology for their original inclusion.' The content has since been removed from the programme on BBC Sounds. Mr Jenrick said: 'Illegal migration is obviously fuelling crime and the public are right to be concerned about it. 'It's extremely disappointing the BBC thought it was acceptable to smear millions of worried citizens as 'xenophobic' for their completely understandable fears about undocumented men entering illegally.' A series of protests have been held outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, over recent weeks after an asylum seeker was accused of attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, denies the charges of sexual assault and is due to stand trial this month. In a statement, the BBC said: 'During this episode of Thought For The Day, criticism was made of recent comments by shadow secretary of state for justice Robert Jenrick, about hotels housing asylum seekers. 'While the programme's reflection on fear in society from a faith perspective was broadly in line with expectations of Thought For The Day, some of the language used went beyond that and we apologise for its inclusion. 'It has been removed from the version on BBC Sounds.'
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump debanking order will have limited impact on crypto, experts say
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing bank regulators to rescind guidance that could lead to 'politicised or unlawful debanking.' Crypto businesses, and even some prominent conservatives — including the president himself — have alleged they were denied or lost access to bank accounts at the behest of politically-motivated, Biden-era regulators. But last week's executive order, entitled, 'Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' won't do much for crypto businesses that fear they've been locked out of the traditional financial system, according to experts who spoke to DL News. That's because the order does little to root out 'reputation risk.' The term refers to regulators' ability to dissuade banks from engaging supposedly controversial customers, such as pornographers, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders, and crypto companies. Critics of the practice say that banks should only consider objective criteria, such as a customer's financial risk, when deciding whether to offer someone a checking account. Guidance documents and manuals 'This is going to make people happy who have been asking for it, but it's not clear how much good it's going to do them,' Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told DL News. The executive order directs bank regulators to remove the use of reputation risk 'or equivalent concepts' that could result in 'politicized or unlawful debanking' from their 'guidance documents, manuals, and other materials.' But it isn't clear that examples of debanking were motivated by politics, according to Stevenson. 'It's not clear to me that they couldn't still allow for reputational risk that would apply to, say, an AI company, because that's not exactly a political issue or something that's unlawful,' he said. And reputation risk can have a downstream effect on banks' profits. 'If you have risk averse investors at one of the gigantic pension funds, or mutual funds, and they find out that Wachovia has gone gung ho about crypto, that might be a reason for them to switch to a more conservative bank,' Stevenson said. Moreover, banks were always free to ignore guidance documents and manuals according to Stevenson. As such, removing references to reputation risk from such documents will likely have little practical effect. 'If you're an agency, you can't go into court and say, 'This person violated our guidance document,'' he said. 'You have to show that they violated the statute or that they violated a codified regulation that went through notice and comment rulemaking.' Management reports Julie Hill, the dean of the University of Wyoming's law school, noted that Trump-appointed bank regulators have already said they will stop using reputation risk. While the regulators have new leadership, they are largely staffed by the same people who served under the Biden administration, Hill added. And reputation risk isn't the only tool regulators can use to pressure banks to reject certain customers. Anti-money laundering laws are one reason banks often reject customers, according to Hill. 'The vast, vast majority of suspicious activity reports don't lead to any sort of follow up, let alone any sort of enforcement,' she told DL News. Moreover, banks are not allowed to tell customers that their account was flagged for suspicious activity. 'We have a situation where banks had to file one or more SARs, and they decided it's just not worth it, we should debank, because we don't want our regulators upset with us, and it's getting expensive to file all these SARs.' Another tool at regulators' disposal: management reports. 'If a regulator suggests to a bank, 'We think this is risky, maybe you want to stop doing it' [but] it's not really that risky, banks might do it anyway,' Hill said, 'because their management rating will get downgraded and then that impacts all sorts of things, including their capital requirements.' Those ratings are also secret, according to Hill. 'Anytime you see a really broad authority with very little limit, and then also a lot of secrecy or lack of transparency about how regulators or banks implement that, you're likely to set up claims for debanking,' she said. Banks' responsibility The executive order also directs the regulators to identify financial institutions that had any 'past or current, formal or informal, policies or practices that require, encourage, or otherwise influence … politicized or unlawful debanking.' Finding examples of politically-motivated debanking could be straightforward if the orders came from federal regulators, according to Hill. 'It's a much harder thing if what you think happened is the banks, for whatever reason, just decided to debank people for political reasons, unconnected with risk or profit or whatever,' she said. 'There's a real question about how we think regulators are going to figure that out and whether we think there's any duty on the bank to voluntarily disclose it.' Whatever the effect of the executive order, both professors agreed that a new administration could reinstate the use of reputation risk unilaterally. 'It kind of highlights how unsticky changes made by the executive branch are when it comes to discretionary enforcement,' Hill said. 'This is one of those things that can change from administration to administration.' Stevenson agreed. 'If we ever get to have other presidents, the next president can just do another executive order and put it all back, like, overnight,' Stevenson said. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Premier League chief calls for patience as Man City legal case drags on
LONDON (AP) — The Premier League's top official called for patience Wednesday while the seismic legal case involving Manchester City drags on into another season. City was charged by the league in February 2023 with more than 100 financial breaches, including providing misleading information about its sources of income. The case was heard by an independent commission between September and December last year but no verdict has been reached. Punishment could be as extreme as expulsion from the top flight. City has always denied the charges. The issue hangs over the start of another Premier League campaign, with the 2025-26 season starting Friday. But Richard Masters, the competition's chief executive, reiterated the league has no control or say over the timings. Asked in an interview with British broadcaster Sky Sports News why the league could not hurry the process along, Masters said: 'I can't answer that specific question. All I can tell you about is the system and how it works. 'I mean, it's an independent judiciary, essentially. So once the allegations, the charge, has been put forward, they go before an independent panel, which is independently selected, and they are then in charge of the process and its timings. They hear the case, they decide the outcome, and we have no influence over that, over it or its timing. That's right from an independence point of view." Masters said 'my frustration is irrelevant.' 'I just have to wait,' he said, "and legal processes rarely take less time than you anticipated, but we have to be patient.' Taking the Premier League abroad The Spanish league has recently approved a request for a match, between Villarreal and Barcelona, to be played in the United States in December and Masters was asked whether the Premier League had any similar desire to take a game abroad. Masters said the need has lessened. 'We did look at the '39th game' way back when, with lots of controversy. I recall that very clearly," Masters said of a controversial proposal made back in 2008 of having an extra round of matches played overseas. 'Our objective at the time, when thinking about it, was to help grow the Premier League around the world. 'And we've been able to do that through different means, through brilliant broadcast partnerships, through digital technology, investing in other areas, like the Summer Series tournament we've just had in the U.S., and now the Premier League is a genuinely global league. There are billions of people who will be tuning in over the course of the next next nine months to watch Premier League action. So we've achieved that objective by different means, that necessity has dissipated.' ___ AP soccer:
