North Korea has sent rockets, missiles and soldiers to Russia, helping ‘terrorize' Ukraine, report finds
North Korea has sent soldiers and millions of munitions, including missiles and rockets, to Russia over the past year, according to a new report by an international watchdog, which details the extent to which Pyongyang has helped Moscow 'terrorize' Ukraine's population over its three-year war.
The report was released Thursday by the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT), an initiative made up of 11 United Nations members, formed after Russia forced the disbandment of a previous UN panel that monitored the implementation of sanctions against North Korea.
While some of the team's findings have been well documented – such as North Korea sending troops to fight for Russia – the report lays out the stunning scope and scale of weaponry sent from Pyongyang since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
That includes as many as 9 million rounds of artillery and ammunition in 2024; more than 11,000 troops last year, and another 3,000 troops in the early months of this year; rocket launchers, vehicles, self-propelled guns and other types of heavy artillery; and at least 100 ballistic missiles 'which were subsequently launched into Ukraine to destroy civilian infrastructure and terrorize populated areas such as Kyiv and Zaporizhzhia,' the report found, citing participating states.
'These forms of unlawful cooperation between (North Korea) and Russia contributed to Moscow's ability to increase its missile attacks against Ukrainian cities including targeted strikes against critical civilian infrastructure,' the report said.
In return, Russia provided North Korea with various valuable pieces of weaponry and technology, including air defense equipment, anti-aircraft missiles, electronic warfare systems and refined oil, the report said.
Moscow has also provided data feedback on Pyongyang's ballistic missiles, helping improve its missile guidance performance, it said.
These actions 'allow North Korea to fund its military programs and further develop its ballistic missiles programs, which are themselves prohibited under multiple (UN Security Council resolutions), and gain first-hand experience in modern warfare,' the report found.
It said its findings were based on MSMT participating states and cited supporting evidence from the Open Source Centre (OSC), a UK-based non-profit that uses publicly accessible information for research, and Conflict Armament Research (CAR), a UK-based research organization.
Both Russia and North Korea are violating the UN arms embargo and are transferring arms and military equipment through actors and networks that evade sanctions, the report alleged. The two countries will likely continue their military cooperation 'at least for the foreseeable future,' it added.
In a joint statement, the member nations behind the MSMT – Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States – urged North Korea to 'engage in meaningful diplomacy.'
Western governments have become increasingly concerned about the long-term implications of what appears to be a deepening strategic partnership between the two nations.
In recent months, the US has warned that Russia may be close to sharing advanced space and satellite technology with North Korea in exchange for continued support for the war in Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged in April for the first time that North Korean soldiers took part in the fighting to recover Russian territory after Ukraine's incursion into the Kursk region last year. North Korea also confirmed its troop presence there for the first time in April.
Though North Korean troops had been deployed to Kursk since at least November, they withdrew from the front lines in January after reports of mass casualties, Ukrainian officials said.
Both countries have denied that Pyongyang is supplying arms to Moscow, despite overwhelming evidence. However, as part of a landmark defense pact struck last year, they have both pledged to use all available means to provide immediate military assistance in the event the other is attacked.
Putin has warned he would provide arms to Pyongyang if the West continues arming Ukraine.
In recent weeks, Ukraine's allies have lifted a ban on Kyiv firing long-range missiles into Russia, after days of Russia bombarding the Ukrainian capital and other regions with massive aerial attacks and as the US grows increasingly frustrated with Putin over the lack of a peace deal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Lawrence Lepard Predicts 'The Big Print'
Although the Federal Reserve and other major central banks, even the Bank of Japan, are not today buying bonds or increasing the base money supply significantly, many people suspect that more overt financing of governments via the money-creation process may lie not too far ahead – what, in the past, often took the form of literally printing paper banknotes; although today, the process is likely to be more digital in character. One such person is Lawrence Lepard, author of The Big Print (2025). Lawrence Lepard's new book The Big Print Lawrence Lepard Just in recent weeks, Japan's government bond market has had a price breakdown of the sort not seen since, perhaps, the late 1970s. People have been predicting disaster there literally for decades; but perhaps now the time is upon us. Even the US Treasury market, although one of the better credits in the developed world, has had a notable trend toward weakness. Bond buyers can see that today's historically huge deficits – the Congressional Budget Office predicts 6%+ of GDP deficits basically forever – do not seem to have any upcoming resolution. Despite the heroic recent efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency, Congress has not yet found the will to cut its spending in any meaningful way, preferring instead minor tweaks. But, decades of minor tweaking, in lieu of significant reforms, are what brought us to this point in the first place. Lawrence Lepard is well qualified as a guide to this era. His history, first in the Venture Capital world in the 1980s, and later as a fund manager, has given him a front-row seat to the whole historical process. Most people don't have the time to follow these things very closely, or the expertise to judge them. About the best they can do is read certain business journalists. Fund managers have both the time (it's part of their job) and also the expertise, enough expertise to point out where the journalists are wrong, missing the main points, or, often, biased by certain interests. My favorite account of the crisis of 1907 was that of Jesse Livermore, one of the largest speculators of the time. Unfortunately for the rest of us, fund managers are often very busy, far too busy to write books. Ray Dalio, after his retirement from daily management of a large hedge fund, has benefited us with several insightful books. (His latest book, How Countries Go Broke, is due June 3.) I hope other fund managers also feel inspired. Lepard begins his story around the introduction of the Federal Reserve in 1913, which followed the introduction of similar monopoly central banks around the world in the late 19th century. Immediately afterward, with the outbreak of World War I, these central banks were pressed to help with war financing efforts, with the result that floating fiat currencies erupted across the global landscape. But things really took a turn for the worse in 1971, when a combination of abject incompetence, and also a spreading enthusiasm for using monetary distortion to attempt to manage the macroeconomy (President Nixon wanted to be re-elected in 1972), resulted in the outbreak of floating fiat currencies around the world again, even in the midst of peace, balanced budgets and unprecedented prosperity. There is a lot to tell along the way, taking things up through the Financial Crisis of 2008, and the Covid era of 2020. Lepard's expertise shows through, as his brief descriptions hit on the most important points and correct conclusions. The 2020 period, in which central banks around the world engaged in unprecedented monetary expansion, showed their increasing willingness to essentially 'run the printing presses' whenever things got tough. Unfortunately, along the way, they also showed Congress (and other governments worldwide) that no real discipline is needed, because every problem can ultimately be solved with the central bank printing press. The natural conclusion of such logic is a Big Print somewhere down the line here, and maybe not too far away. The fact of the matter is, debt/GDP ratios have become so high, throughout the developed world, that the 10%+ interest rates of the early 1980s are no longer tolerable. Even at 6%, with a 100% debt/GDP ratio, that implies 6%-of-GDP in debt service costs alone, on top of 'primary deficits' (perhaps 3%-4%) driven by unreformed 'mandatory spending' programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Either a decline in currency value, or 'monetary inflation' as we called it in our recent book Inflation, or even more direct purchases of government bonds by central banks, may become necessary to inflate away the existing debt, and finance continued deficits at tolerable rates. Unfortunately, coming this far, Lepard loses the plot entirely toward the end of the book, championing Bitcoin as some kind of improved 'Sound Money' system. It is not. The idea is that Bitcoin's supply is limited, so that wanton 'increases in the money supply' can't come about. This is true, but the reason why 'Sound Money' has always meant gold in the past, is because gold has been proven, over centuries of human experience, to be reliably stable in value. It's this stability of value that makes gold work so well as a basis for monetary systems. This error, mistaking 'stability of supply' for 'stability of value,' is an old one, going back at least to Milton Friedman's flawed proposals of the 1950s. Or, as I put it here more than a decade ago, 'Bitcoin Proves Milton Friedman's Big Plan Was A Joke.' Basically, Lepard is a bullish Bitcoin speculator. And, perhaps Bitcoin will rise in value, in coming years. It seems to be persistently popular. But it is this tendency to rise in value (or fall in value, dramatically, from time to time) that makes it unusable as a currency; and why it is not, today, used as a currency. If you want to see what a currency looks like, look at the US dollar stablecoin Tether (USDT). Since its value is linked to the dollar, we can be pretty sure that almost nobody is using it as a speculative vehicle. (Forex traders have better platforms, such as FXCM, to do their speculation on.) But, Tether has also had an enormous increase in popularity, with the number of outstanding Tether coins rising from $2 billion in 2019 to $153 billion today. It is popular because it works pretty well, as a kind of monetary alternative. Bitcoin and gold are not really competitors. They are completely different. If gold is a pretty good hammer, to hit the nail of Stable Currency Value, Bitcoin is not a better or worse hammer. It is more like a lemon meringue pie. But, if you are wondering why an experienced hedge fund manager might be bullish on Bitcoin today, Lepard will give you an excellent list of arguments. For now, gold-based stablecoins have not been very popular. They still look like Tether in 2019. Even Tether's own gold alternative, Tether Gold (XAUT), still has a sub-$1 billion market cap. But, since USDT Tether is linked to the US dollar, Tether's value would also fall, in some kind of 'Big Print' situation. Around that time, people might become more serious in their search for monetary alternatives that achieve the ideal of Stable Value. Neither Tether nor Bitcoin would qualify.
Entrepreneur
44 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
Historic Perspectives on Tariff Policies and Modern Impacts
Today, global trade debates over tariffs and trade policies often dominate headlines. A closer examination of these issues reveals that the roots of today's tariff practices extend far back in... This story originally appeared on Due Today, global trade debates over tariffs and trade policies often dominate headlines. A closer examination of these issues reveals that the roots of today's tariff practices extend far back in history. Once designed to aid the recovery of nations emerging from conflict, these policies have taken on new dimensions in today's global economy. The discussion centers on how a policy intended to support post-war reconstruction now influences automotive trade and international business strategies. The Origins of Tariff Policies Tariffs were initially implemented with specific goals in mind. After World War II, several countries that suffered significant devastation had to rebuild their economies. In that context, the United States allowed other nations to impose taxes on American exports. This arrangement helped protect developing markets by limiting the competition from large, well-established American companies. The measure was not designed to penalize the United States. Instead, it was a way for many European and Asian cities, which had endured extensive damage during the war, to gain a foothold in their economic recovery. Cities such as Berlin, Tokyo, and London were among those that benefited. These measures enabled local industries to grow and stabilize, thereby supporting broader recovery efforts during a time when rebuilding was paramount. Over the decades, however, the global economy has seen substantial changes. While the original intention was clear and rooted in the necessities of the post-war period, many of these tariffs have persisted in modern trade regulations. The continued existence of such tariffs now invites scrutiny and debate, as they impact international competition and domestic industries in ways that were not foreseen at their inception. View this post on Instagram Modern Applications and Effects Today's tariff policies continue to influence global trade practices. Authorities still enforce tariffs that were initially designed for a very different time. A key example is evident in the auto industry, where tariffs play a significant role in shaping market dynamics and international competitiveness. The persistence of older tariff rules has led many experts and market watchers to question their continued application. They argue that there is little justification for protecting specific international auto industries when market conditions have evolved dramatically since the post-war era. European manufacturers, such as those from Germany, have grown strong enough to compete in global markets without the need for the historical shields that once protected their nascent industries. The Case of the Auto Industry The automotive sector serves as a clear example where historical tariff policies clash with modern market demands. European countries impose higher tariffs on American-made cars. This protection was once beneficial when U.S. auto makers were expanding their reach and dominating global trade. However, the industry dynamics have shifted. In addition to the auto industry, other sectors are also feeling the impact. The historical justification for high tariffs was protection and recovery support. However, local and international players now argue that tariffs can hinder competitiveness and increase costs for consumers. These criticisms suggest that policy reforms in the tariff system may be necessary to better align with modern market dynamics. Contemporary Critiques of Tariff Policies Recent political debates have brought new perspectives to the forefront. Recent events have sparked controversy over measures to implement reciprocal tariffs. Critics of these new policies see them as mismatched to modern economic circumstances. Some prominent figures have openly questioned the merits of such measures. They point out that the current policies are an extension of historical practices that may no longer have the same benefit. Their arguments assert that applying these old policies in a modern context might create more tension than support economic recovery or growth. The market reactions have been mixed. On one hand, the introduction of reciprocal tariffs has generated political support among certain groups. On the other hand, many economic experts criticize these moves as ill-suited for a globalized market. They argue that such tariffs have a historical basis that does not justify their blanket application in modern times. Examining the Historical Context To fully appreciate the current debates over tariffs, it is essential to examine their historical context. After World War II, Europe and parts of Asia were in dire need of support to rebuild their industries and economies. The tax measures imposed on U.S. goods were part of a broader strategy aimed at jumpstarting these economies. The case of tariffs on automobiles effectively demonstrates this point. With separate tariff rates for U.S. vehicles and those produced elsewhere, questions of fairness and relevance are continually raised. Consumers ultimately bear the costs, and the protective measures may end up stifling competition rather than promoting it. Historical Intent: Tariffs were initially introduced to help rebuild economies after a major conflict. Tariffs were initially introduced to help rebuild economies after a major conflict. Modern Challenge: Outdated tariff rules now clash with current economic realities. Outdated tariff rules now clash with current economic realities. Sector Impact: Industries such as automotive manufacturing face differing tariff rates that affect international trade. Balancing Policy with Modern Economy Modern trade policies must navigate the challenge of adhering to historical precedents while remaining relevant to today's dynamic economy. Policymakers face the task of determining whether longstanding tariff rates continue to serve the best interests of contemporary industries and consumers. The auto industry story is a clear indicator of the broader implications. As European countries impose higher tariffs on American vehicles, the inherent inequities in the system become more pronounced. Industry observers note that the protection once extended to struggling domestic sectors may now contribute to market inefficiencies. For many, the answer lies in modernizing these systems to reflect current global trade practices. Reducing or realigning tariffs could lead to improved relationships between trading nations and more balanced competition. Such adjustments might also foster an environment where domestic companies are encouraged to innovate and compete on a level field. Confronting Political and Economic Debates Political discourse surrounding tariffs has intensified in recent years. The debate centers on whether these measures, which once helped rebuild economies, still play a valuable role. Critics argue that policies introduced many decades ago do not translate well into the current era. They express concerns that continuing with such policies helps fuel trade tensions and creates economic challenges for consumers. Some political figures have been vocal in their criticism. They point out that reciprocal tariffs, intended to create balance, have instead become a source of contention. Critics note that these tariff adjustments often seem disproportionate and fail to address the underlying changes in market conditions. As the debate continues, it is clear that finding a balance will require input from economists, policymakers, and industry representatives alike. The situation calls for a collaborative approach that considers historical context and the demands of modern trade. Looking Ahead The discussion on tariffs is far from over. As international trade evolves, so too will policy debates about how best to protect domestic industries while engaging in a fair exchange with other nations. The historical reasons for imposing tariffs now serve as a reminder of a past era. Yet they also challenge today's policymakers to decide whether these measures continue to meet their intended goals. Looking forward, adjusting these policies might not only reduce tensions but also pave the way for a more efficient trading system. As industries mature and global competition intensifies, many believe that a careful reevaluation of tariff rates is warranted. Such reconsideration could lead to a reduction in consumer costs and stimulate further economic growth. Though tariff policies have deep historical roots, the current economic climate presents an opportunity for reform. The evolution of technology and production methods means that nations can engage in trade with less dependency on protectionist measures. A modern approach could encourage fairer competition and promote innovation in a way that benefits both producers and consumers. Many experts, market analysts, and policymakers continue to monitor trade discussions. They suggest that this issue is not about discarding history but rather about adapting policy to serve modern economies better. The lessons from decades past inform the current debate, and in doing so, offer guidance for possible future changes. In conclusion, examining the history behind tariff policies provides valuable insights into why they exist and how they affect today's industries. The auto industry stands as a clear example where historical practices continue to influence modern trade. With ongoing debates and a call for reform, the future of tariff policies remains a topic that warrants close attention from both policymakers and the public. Featured Image Credit: Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko; Pexels The post Historic Perspectives on Tariff Policies and Modern Impacts appeared first on Due.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
India Confirms It Lost Fighter Jets in Recent Pakistan Conflict
Anil Chauhan, chief of defense staff of the Indian Armed Forces, spoke to Bloomberg's Haslinda Amin on Saturday while attending the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. He called Pakistan's claims that it shot down six Indian warplanes "absolutely incorrect," though declined to say how many jets India lost. It's the first time the Indian military confirmed that it lost an unspecified number of fighter jets in clashes with Pakistan in May. Sign in to access your portfolio
