logo
Is N Korea cranking out tanks to help Russia in Ukraine?

Is N Korea cranking out tanks to help Russia in Ukraine?

Asia Times06-05-2025

North Korea may be ramping up tank production in the next possible step of its quid pro quo assistance to Russia in the Ukraine war.
Multiple media outlets this month reported that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un inspected a major tank production facility, emphasizing the urgent need to modernize the country's armored forces with domestically developed tanks and self-propelled artillery.
According to state media outlet Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Kim toured the unnamed factory with senior officials, including Jo Chun Ryong and Kim Yong Hwan, to assess production progress and ongoing research into key technologies.
He praised advancements in firepower, engine output, electronic warfare and crew comfort, citing them as evidence of progress toward building high-performance, Korean-style tanks.
Kim called for a strategic rethinking of armored warfare and directed the development of large-scale production capacity—efforts he described as crucial to achieving the ruling party's 'second revolution in armored force.'
Although KCNA did not identify the facility's location, South Korean lawmaker Yu Yong-Weon suggested it may be in Kusong, North Pyongan province, and possibly linked to the models shown at a 2023 military exhibition.
Kim's factory visit underscores North Korea's broader drive to bolster its conventional forces alongside strategic weapons development, reflecting its military modernization priorities amid deepening cooperation with Russia.
While North Korean tanks are outmatched by the modern armored fleets of the US and South Korea, Pyongyang may see tank production as a means of supporting Russia's forces in Ukraine.
While unconfirmed, the timing and nature of the factory visit suggest this production drive may be aimed at future exports to Russia.
If so, this would extend its assistance beyond munitions, ballistic missiles and troop deployments to include tanks, reinforcing its quid pro quo arrangement in return for cash, technology transfers and political backing.
Newsweek reported in April 2025 that North Korea has earned an estimated US$20 billion from its involvement in the Ukraine war, mostly from munitions sales with a smaller amount for providing troops and technical personnel. Additionally, Asia Times has noted that Russian support may have significantly advanced North Korea's nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) programs.
Beyond transactional motives, North Korea's support for Russia may also reflect its strategic interest in diversifying partnerships and reducing reliance on China.
Choong-Koo Lee writes in a February 2025 War on the Rocks article that China's renewed dialogue with South Korea and Japan, coordination on sanctions on North Korea's nuclear program and resumption of military talks with the US could have dismayed the Kim regime, nudging it closer to Russia.
North Korea's tank production capacity could prove valuable to Russia, whose armored forces have been heavily depleted by over three years of high-intensity combat in Ukraine.
In a June 2023 article for the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM), Marcin Piotrowski notes North Korea has copied and modified Soviet-era T-62 tanks and maintains active production lines with at least 2,000 units.
Piotrowski emphasizes that although Russia no longer produces the T-62, it continues to draw on this model from Soviet-era reserves, making North Korea a valuable supplier of spare parts and compatible shells for 115mm and 125mm guns.
While obsolete by modern standards, these tanks use ammunition and parts compatible with Russian stockpiles. Russia's staggering tank losses and strained production capacity further raise the value of such assistance.
According to open-source intelligence (OSINT) group Oryx, Russia lost 3,960 tanks between February 2022 and May 2025. Veaceslav Epureanu, writing for Insider in February 2025, states that by December 2024, Russia had depleted half of its estimated 7,342 Soviet-era tanks in open storage before the war.
Epureanu also noted that Russia had 1,897 T-62s in storage in 2022, which had declined to 1,082 by 2024, with only half deemed in good or satisfactory condition. His data shows that the T-62 remains Russia's most numerous tank in open storage despite its age.
In a July 2024 Forbes article, David Axe points out that T-62s are relatively abundant and easier to restore than more modern types such as the T-72, T-80, and T-90.
He argues that even though Russia's factories can produce only 500-600 new tanks annually—a rate too low to compensate for attrition—relying on T-62s may be Russia's only viable short-term solution to sustain its armored strength.
However, this strategy has its limits. Pavel Luzin writes in a January 2025 article for the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) that 2025 may be the final year Russia can depend on Soviet-era reserves.
He cites equipment degradation, reliance on foreign components, shortages of skilled workers, inflation and a weak ruble as key constraints forcing Russia to shift toward newly manufactured equipment.
Similarly, Yurri Clavilier and Michael Gjerstad, in a February 2025 report for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), estimate that while Russia managed to refurbish around 1,500 tanks in 2024, the remaining units in storage are likely in poor condition and would require more extensive restoration efforts. Clavilier and Gjerstad say this situation complicates Russia's ability to replace battlefield losses at the current pace of attrition.
Even if North Korea can supply Russia with more T-62s or similar models, their impact on the battlefield may be limited. Peter Suciu notes in a January 2025 article for The National Interest (TNI) that the T-62 is highly vulnerable to modern threats such as drones, mines and anti-tank missiles, and is being deployed primarily because Russia lacks better alternatives.
Nevertheless, North Korean tank production could help Russia reconstitute its armored forces in quantity. The Robert Lansing Institute stated in a March 2025 report that it could take Russia up to a decade to rebuild its inventory of tanks, jets and armored vehicles to pre-war levels and regain the capacity for large-scale offensive operations against NATO.
In this light, North Korea's vintage tanks may be less about battlefield advantage and more about buying time for Russia's defense industry. The tank transfer would be a stopgap driven by mutual need and a shared rejection of the Western-dominated international order.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ukraine shows it knows wars are never won in the past
Ukraine shows it knows wars are never won in the past

Asia Times

time7 hours ago

  • Asia Times

Ukraine shows it knows wars are never won in the past

The iconoclastic American general Douglas MacArthur once said that 'wars are never won in the past.' That sentiment certainly seemed to ring true following Ukraine's recent audacious attack on Russia's strategic bomber fleet, using small, cheap drones housed in wooden pods and transported near Russian airfields in trucks. The synchronized operation targeted Russian Air Force planes as far away as Irkutsk – more than 5,000 kilometers from Ukraine. Early reports suggest around a third of Russia's long-range bombers were either destroyed or badly damaged. Russian military bloggers have put the estimated losses lower, but agree the attack was catastrophic for the Russian Air Force, which has struggled to adapt to Ukrainian tactics. This particular attack was reportedly 18 months in the making. To keep it secret was an extraordinary feat. Notably, Kyiv reportedly did not inform the United States that the attack was in the offing. The Ukrainians judged – perhaps understandably – that sharing intelligence on their plans could have alerted the Kremlin in relatively short order. Ukraine's success once again demonstrates that its armed forces and intelligence services are the modern masters of battlefield innovation and operational security. Western military planners have been carefully studying Ukraine's successes ever since its forces managed to blunt Russia's initial onslaught deep into its territory in early 2022, and then launched a stunning counteroffensive that drove the Russian invaders back towards their original starting positions. There have been other lessons, too, about how the apparently weak can stand up to the strong. These include: attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin's vanity project, the Kerch Bridge, linking the Russian mainland to occupied Crimea (the last assault occurred just days ago) the relentless targeting of Russia's oil and gas infrastructure with drones attacks against targets in Moscow to remind the Russian populace about the war, and its incursion into the Kursk region, which saw Ukrainian forces capture around 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory. On each occasion, Western defense analysts have questioned the wisdom of Kyiv's moves. Why invade Russia using your best troops when Moscow's forces continue laying waste to cities in Ukraine? Why hit Russia's energy infrastructure if it doesn't markedly impede the battlefield mobility of Russian forces? And why attack symbolic targets like bridges when it could provoke Putin into dangerous 'escalation'? The answer to this is the key to effective innovation during wartime. Ukraine's defense and security planners have interpreted their missions – and their best possible outcomes – far more accurately than conventional wisdom would have thought. Above all, they have focused on winning the war they are in, rather than those of the past. This means: using technological advancements to force the Russians to change their tactics shaping the information environment to promote their narratives and keep vital Western aid flowing, and deploying surprise attacks not just as ways to boost public morale, but also to impose disproportionate costs on the Russian state. In doing so, Ukraine has had an eye for strategic effects. As the smaller nation reliant on international support, this has been the only logical choice. Putin has been prepared to commit a virtually inexhaustible supply of expendable cannon fodder to continue his country's war ad infinitum. Russia has typically won its wars this way – by attrition – albeit at a tremendous human and material cost. That said, Ukraine's most recent surprise attack does not change the overall contours of the war. The only person with the ability to end it is Putin himself. That's why Ukraine is putting as much pressure as possible on his regime, as well as domestic and international perceptions of it. It is key to Ukraine's theory of victory. This is also why the latest drone attack is so significant. Russia needs its long-range bomber fleet, not just to fire conventional cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian and infrastructure targets, but as aerial delivery systems for its strategic nuclear arsenal. The destruction of even a small portion of Russia's deterrence capability has the potential to affect its nuclear strategy. It has increasingly relied on this strategy to threaten the West. A second impact of the attack is psychological. The drone attacks are more likely to enrage Putin than bring him to the bargaining table. However, they reinforce to the Russian military that there are few places – even on its own soil – that its air force can act with operational impunity. The surprise attacks also provide a shot in the arm domestically, reminding Ukrainians they remain very much in the fight. Finally, the drone attacks send a signal to Western leaders. US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, for instance, have gone to great lengths to tell the world that Ukraine is weak and has 'no cards'. This action shows Kyiv does indeed have some powerful cards to play. That may, of course, backfire: after all, Trump is acutely sensitive to being made to look a fool. He may look unkindly at resuming military aid to Ukraine after being shown up for saying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be forced to capitulate without US support. But Trump's own hubris has already done that for him. His regular claims that a peace deal is just weeks away have gone beyond wishful thinking and are now monotonous. Unsurprisingly, Trump's reluctance to put anything approaching serious pressure on Putin has merely incentivised the Russian leader to string the process along. Indeed, Putin's insistence on a maximalist victory, requiring Ukrainian demobilisation and disarmament without any security guarantees for Kyiv, is not diplomacy at all. It is merely the reiteration of the same unworkable demands he has made since even before Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. However, Ukraine's ability to smuggle drones undetected onto an opponent's territory, and then unleash them all together, will pose headaches for Ukraine's friends, as well as its enemies. That's because it makes domestic intelligence and policing part of any effective defence posture. It is a contingency that democracies will have to plan for, just as much as authoritarian regimes, who are also learning from Ukraine's lessons. In other words, while the attack has shown up Russia's domestic security services for failing to uncover the plan, Western security elites, as well as authoritarian ones, will now be wondering whether their own security apparatuses would be up to the job. The drone strikes will also likely lead to questions about how useful it is to invest in high-end and extraordinarily expensive weapons systems when they can be vulnerable. The Security Service of Ukraine estimates the damage cost Russia US$7 billion. Ukraine's drones, by comparison, cost a couple of thousand dollars each. At the very least, coming up with a suitable response to those challenges will require significant thought and effort. But as Ukraine has repeatedly shown us, you can't win wars in the past. Matthew Sussex is associate professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Now the hard part: Lee Jae-myung and S Korea's quest for balance
Now the hard part: Lee Jae-myung and S Korea's quest for balance

Asia Times

time7 hours ago

  • Asia Times

Now the hard part: Lee Jae-myung and S Korea's quest for balance

This article was originally published by Pacific Forum. It is republished with permission. When Lee Jae-myung last ran for the South Korean presidency in 2022 he campaigned for balance in Seoul's foreign relations. At a time when the Biden administration pushed for not just closer bilateral but trilateral cooperation with Japan on the security issues of the day and Lee found himself in a tight contest with a conservative candidate happy to accede to Biden's wishes, this meant stressing an open hand to China and a willingness to say no to the United States. Three years later, Korea has just finished a snap election following an aborted martial law declaration and impeachment process. Lee, in his now-successful campaign to win the presidency again, stressed balance. However, the circumstances around him and around the Korean Peninsula have shifted starkly – as has the meaning of 'balance.' Instead of a Biden administration eager to deepen cooperation with Seoul at all levels, Lee will have a counterpart in Washington who demands to see results in keeping with the US administration's goals. And while the US administration clearly does have its eyes on the Indo-Pacific and seeks to contain China's ambitions there, US-Korea ties have not flourished during Seoul's leadership vacuum over the past several months. Supporters of the alliance have been holding their breath to see how Korea's next president will gel with President Donald Trump on a personal level. Most recently, rumors of a US troop drawdown have set off fears of a decreased US commitment to South Korea, especially regarding the deterrence of North Korea. It is in light of these developments that some of Lee's recent remarks, including his praise of Trump's dealmaking skill and of the role of US Forces Korea in ensuring regional stability should be read. While such remarks may have surprised those who remember the foreign policy planks of Lee's last campaign for the presidency, they make sense under current conditions: North Korea remains a looming and unpredictable security threat. China – with its ambitions of regional hegemony – hovers over all, and not everyone in Washington is convinced of Seoul's indispensability. Whatever else is true of Lee, he seemingly recognizes that balance will not be achieved if the US role diminishes and China's grows unabated. Furthermore, Lee's previous stances on China, the US, Japan and other foreign policy matters, when coupled with his domestic policy proposals – such as supporting a universal basic income during the 2022 campaign – suggested that he would govern firmly from the left. Once Yoon Suk Yeol was removed over his ill-fated martial law declaration and Lee became the clear favorite, Lee has scaled back previous promises and even tried to rebrand himself as 'centrist-conservative.' All of which is to say that, ultimately, Lee Jae-myung is a less a progressive ideologue than a politician – for both good and ill. Yes, his policy proposals have in the past earned comparisons to Bernie Sanders; they've also earned him the sobriquet of 'Korea's Trump.' And now he has the presidency, a massive majority in the National Assembly and a fragmented opposition. Assuming he establishes a rapport with President Trump, he would enjoy broad room to maneuver over the next five years, including in the security sphere. There are some things to ponder in the meantime. First, will Lee's elevation and the Democratic Party's return to power mean more inter-Korean talks? The odds for such talks are certainly better than they were under Yoon, but not necessarily good. With Kim Jong Un officially swearing off unification with the South and enjoying ties with Russia, North Korea may be in no hurry to cozy up to Washington for sanctions relief. Even if he does, one lesson he appears to have learned from the Moon Jae-in years is that South Korea is irrelevant to his goals: Kim wants sanctions reduction and only the US is necessary for that. If North Korea bypasses South Korea entirely to achieve its diplomatic objectives over the next five years, Seoul may actually have a weaker hand in dealing with Pyongyang and its regional partnerships may become even more important. Second, 'balance' between China and the US may not be up to Lee. Enjoying the security benefits that come with being a US ally and the economic boon of partnering with China would be a difficult posture under any circumstances. It will prove especially challenging if the rumors of US troop withdrawal prove true, leaving Lee to convince the US to increase its engagement in other ways, whether economically, in terms of intelligence-sharing, or in bolstering defense through weapons acquisition. But Beijing presents other problems: China remains deeply unpopular in Korea, and not all governments that have shifted in the direction of the US since the Covid-19 pandemic did so voluntarily. Should Seoul's decisions in the security, trade, or tech spheres displease Beijing, the measures China takes in response may force South Korea down the path of Australia, India and the Philippines, whose domestic discontent with Chinese actions pushed them into Washington's arms. If that happens popular sentiment could force Lee into a more hawkish position than he is comfortable with, and into a confrontation with his own party. No one expects Lee to be as friendly to Japan as his predecessor, who made unprecedented (and unpopular) gestures toward Tokyo in the name of trilateral security cooperation. But just because Lee is not another Yoon Suk Yeol does not mean he has to be another Moon Jae-in, who regularly inveighed against the 'collaborators,' abrogated the 2015 comfort women agreement with Japan to the delight of activists but not defense specialists, and threatened more serious steps like ending South Korea's involvement in the GSOMIA. Even if Lee declines to meet the Japanese prime minister for a summit, stable ties – marked by continued dialogues in the bilateral and trilateral formats – are in Korea's best interests. It's one thing for Lee to request sincere contrition from Japan regarding its imperial past; it's another thing entirely to throw away those ties to the benefit of China's hegemonic present. For a non-movement conservative to bolster bilateral Japan ties, even incrementally, will do wonders for the relationship over the long term. Lee has come under fire for saying that his reaction to a China-Taiwan contingency would be to say ' xie xie ' to both sides and otherwise steer clear. One can certainly decry such indifference. While Lee has sought to frame this as seeking good relations with both Taipei and Beijing, for an autocratic power to attempt the forcible absorption of a liberal democracy would have serious repercussions for all free societies and for US security guarantees, across the Indo-Pacific. Neutrality is not good enough. However, the ambiguity of Korea's response to a Taiwan contingency did not begin with Lee and it is not up to him to solve alone. The United States must play a role in determining the parameters of Seoul's engagement, including by organizing discussions with Seoul at the track 2 level and above to help decide what Seoul's response to a Taiwan Strait emergency would be. A good first step would be for a US-ROK summit to include a statement opposing any effort to change the status quo by force. Given recent Chinese diplomatic initiatives, even that might count as a bold step from Seoul. Again, the key word is 'balance' – and not just in foreign affairs. In addition to the personal differences compared with his predecessor that Lee brings to the presidency, his party's base will have different demands. How he manages those expectations in the face of a rapidly changing security climate will determine his legacy, and maybe South Korea's future. Rob York ( rob@ ) is director for regional affairs at Pacific Forum International. He is the editor of Pacific Forum publications and spearheads Pacific Forum outreach to the Korean Peninsula and South Asia. He earned his PhD in Korean history in December 2023.

Hang Seng Index ends up, in line with regional markets
Hang Seng Index ends up, in line with regional markets

RTHK

time11 hours ago

  • RTHK

Hang Seng Index ends up, in line with regional markets

Hang Seng Index ends up, in line with regional markets The Hang Seng Index ended the day up 141 points, or 0.6 percent, at 23,654. File photo: RTHK Shares extended a global rise on Wednesday following data indicating the US economy remained resilient, with South Korean equities and the won standing out as the election of a new president ended months of political paralysis. In Hong Kong, the benchmark Hang Seng Index ended the day up 141.54 points, or 0.6 percent, at 23,654.03 The Hang Seng China Enterprises Index rose 0.67 percent to end at 8,576.75 while the Hang Seng Tech Index rose 0.57 percent to end at 5,219.02. In the mainland, Chinese stocks closed higher, with the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index up 0.42 percent to 3,376.20. The Shenzhen Component Index closed 0.87 percent higher at 10,144.58 The ChiNext Index, tracking China's Nasdaq-style board of growth enterprises, gained 1.11 percent to close at 2,024.93. Speculation that President Xi Jinping and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, will speak this week stoked optimism for a soothing of US-China tensions, though Trump indicated in a social media post his counterpart was "hard to make a deal with". The US leader's ramped-up tariffs on aluminium and steel imports – announced on Friday – kicked in on Wednesday, highlighting the uncertainty caused by the White House's off-the-cuff policies. Traders in Asia took the baton from a positive Wall Street, where all three main indices were lifted by data showing US job openings unexpectedly rose in April, calming worries about the impact of Trump's tariff blitz on the world's number one economy. In Seoul, South Korean shares ended the day at their highest levels in 10 months, as liberal presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung's election victory raised hopes of swift economic stimulus policies and market reforms. The benchmark Kospi jumped 2.66 percent to 2,770.84, posting its biggest daily gain in nearly two months and closing at the highest level since August 1, 2024. Japanese stocks snapped a three-session skid after the yen weakened and hopes rose for a potential Sino-US trade deal that could reopen the technology markets with China. The benchmark Nikkei 225 Index closed 0.8 percent higher, while the broader Topix added 0.5 percent. Gainers outnumbered decliners on the Nikkei, with 138 stocks advancing versus 82 ending in the red. (AFP/Xinhua)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store