Latest news with #ballisticmissiles
The Guardian
23-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
North Korea's military is being transformed on the battlefields of Ukraine – so why is Seoul silent?
When North Korea fired multiple ballistic missiles from its eastern coast in May, South Korea's response was swift. Within hours, Seoul joined Washington and Tokyo in condemning the launch as a 'serious threat' to regional peace and security. But just weeks earlier, when a North Korean KN-23 missile – designed to strike South Korean targets – hit a residential building in Kyiv, killing 12 civilians, Seoul said nothing. That silence fits a broader pattern. There was no response when Russia reportedly deployed a surface-to-air missile system to protect Pyongyang, nor when Ukrainian intelligence revealed that Russian instructors were training North Korean drone pilots on home soil, even as Kim Jong-un voiced 'unconditional support' for Moscow's war. Relations between the North and South, technically still at war, remain tense and the muted response has raised questions from analysts over whether Seoul fully grasps the consequences of what many see as North Korea's most significant military transformation in decades – one shaped in real warfare, on the battlefields of Ukraine. 'We definitely should be alarmed,' says Chun In-bum, a former South Korean special forces commander. 'But it's just the nature of people to avoid catastrophe or be indifferent to the terrors of reality.' According to Ukraine's military intelligence agency, North Korea supplies 40% of all munitions used by Russia in its war against Kyiv. It has dramatically increased arms production at home, with Moscow paying Pyongyang directly. In autumn last year, Pyongyang dispatched an estimated 12,000 troops to fight in Russia's Kursk region. That deployment has since expanded significantly. An additional 6,000 soldiers are now joined by 1,000 military engineers, hundreds of railway engineers, bridge-building specialists, logistics personnel, electricians, military police, and even interpreters, focused largely on rebuilding the battle-scarred Kursk region, according to Ukrainian officials. This military partnership with Moscow has been invaluable for Kim Jong-un's regime, Maj Gen Vadym Skibitskyi, deputy head of Ukraine's military intelligence agency, the HUR, told the Guardian. 'North Korea's armed forces got new ammunition [from Russia]. Its soldiers gained experience of modern conflict. No other army in the region – Japan, South Korea and other countries – [has] participated in a modern war between two huge regular armies.' The ideological commitment of their forces became clear when Ukraine captured two wounded North Korean prisoners in January. 'We were shocked by them. They were bio-robots. They tried to kill themselves by biting their own veins,' Skibitskyi says. When one was asked if he wanted to return home, he replied: 'Yes, because I will be treated like a hero. I fought in a modern war.' North Korean troops are learning about combined arms warfare and the operation of strike and reconnaissance drones, electronic warfare systems, and other technologies previously unfamiliar to them. Moscow has transferred advanced weaponry and has helped upgrade the accuracy of North Korea's KN-23 ballistic missiles, which have since targeted Ukrainian urban centres, including Kharkiv. In June, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, issued a pointed warning identifying South Korea directly: 'This must be addressed now, not when thousands of upgraded Shahed drones and ballistic missiles begin to threaten Seoul and Tokyo.' However, a mix of strategic, economic and political factors are discouraging more visible action from South Korea, says Dr Yang Uk, a defence expert at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul. Acknowledging North Korea's military experience as a direct threat to Seoul would create pressure for a more robust domestic response, including potential weapons transfers to Ukraine that remain deeply unpopular in South Korea. 'Defence officials are particularly wary after December's events,' Yang said, referring to the failed declaration of martial law by South Korean's then president, Yoon Suk Yeol. 'They're really afraid of political attack and prefer to stay unseen by the public and press.' Yang warns that Russia is working to integrate North Korea into its long-term defence supply chain – a partnership that could reshape Asia's military balance long after the war ends. Some analysts see Seoul's silence as an extension of its longstanding 'strategic ambiguity': a reluctance to engage in foreign conflicts or unnecessarily alienate key powers, particularly those that might retain influence over Pyongyang. Economic factors weigh heavily too. Prewar, Russia was one of South Korea's top trading partners. Amid Donald Trump's tariff threats, the new Lee Jae Myung government's focus on economic recovery and 'pragmatic diplomacy' leaves little appetite for confrontation. Domestic politics also play a role. Lee's Democratic party supports engagement with the North, reflecting how South Korea's left-right divide centres more on North Korea policy than on western progressive values. Voices on the left argue South Korea owes Ukraine nothing. Some of Seoul's inertia may be bureaucratic. Chun points to procurement and planning processes that can take years, even as threats evolve within months. 'We are dealing with a level 10 super Godzilla,' he said. 'But the bureaucracy only sees a tiger.' North Koreans are already employing what they have learned in battle, he warns. 'This should be a real wake-up call.' Skibitskyi echoes that concern, suggesting South Korea's military doctrine is outdated and modelled on a pre-drone era. When asked by the Guardian whether it viewed North Korea's deployments and combat experience in Ukraine as a security concern, South Korea's defence ministry avoided addressing the implications directly. 'The participation of North Korean military personnel in the war in Ukraine constitutes a flagrant violation of the UN charter and relevant UN security council resolutions,' a spokesperson said. 'The Republic of Korea strongly condemns such inhumane and unlawful acts in concert with the international community.' Whether Seoul's cautious approach reflects calculated long-term strategy or institutional paralysis remains unclear. But for Chun, the warning signs are impossible to ignore. 'This is like a speeding train coming towards you,' he said. 'You better move aside or start making preparations – while you still have time.'
The Guardian
23-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
North Korea's military is being transformed on the battlefields of Ukraine – so why is Seoul silent?
When North Korea fired multiple ballistic missiles from its eastern coast in May, South Korea's response was swift. Within hours, Seoul joined Washington and Tokyo in condemning the launch as a 'serious threat' to regional peace and security. But just weeks earlier, when a North Korean KN-23 missile – designed to strike South Korean targets – hit a residential building in Kyiv, killing 12 civilians, Seoul said nothing. That silence fits a broader pattern. There was no response when Russia reportedly deployed a surface-to-air missile system to protect Pyongyang, nor when Ukrainian intelligence revealed that Russian instructors were training North Korean drone pilots on home soil, even as Kim Jong-un voiced 'unconditional support' for Moscow's war. Relations between the North and South, technically still at war, remain tense and the muted response has raised questions from analysts over whether Seoul fully grasps the consequences of what many see as North Korea's most significant military transformation in decades – one shaped in real warfare, on the battlefields of Ukraine. 'We definitely should be alarmed,' says Chun In-bum, a former South Korean special forces commander. 'But it's just the nature of people to avoid catastrophe or be indifferent to the terrors of reality.' According to Ukraine's military intelligence agency, North Korea supplies 40% of all munitions used by Russia in its war against Kyiv. It has dramatically increased arms production at home, with Moscow paying Pyongyang directly. In autumn last year, Pyongyang dispatched an estimated 12,000 troops to fight in Russia's Kursk region. That deployment has since expanded significantly. An additional 6,000 soldiers are now joined by 1,000 military engineers, hundreds of railway engineers, bridge-building specialists, logistics personnel, electricians, military police, and even interpreters, focused largely on rebuilding the battle-scarred Kursk region, according to Ukrainian officials. This military partnership with Moscow has been invaluable for Kim Jong-un's regime, Maj Gen Vadym Skibitskyi, deputy head of Ukraine's military intelligence agency, the HUR, told the Guardian. 'North Korea's armed forces got new ammunition [from Russia]. Its soldiers gained experience of modern conflict. No other army in the region – Japan, South Korea and other countries – [has] participated in a modern war between two huge regular armies.' The ideological commitment of their forces became clear when Ukraine captured two wounded North Korean prisoners in January. 'We were shocked by them. They were bio-robots. They tried to kill themselves by biting their own veins,' Skibitskyi says. When one was asked if he wanted to return home, he replied: 'Yes, because I will be treated like a hero. I fought in a modern war.' North Korean troops are learning about combined arms warfare and the operation of strike and reconnaissance drones, electronic warfare systems, and other technologies previously unfamiliar to them. Moscow has transferred advanced weaponry and has helped upgrade the accuracy of North Korea's KN-23 ballistic missiles, which have since targeted Ukrainian urban centres, including Kharkiv. In June, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, issued a pointed warning identifying South Korea directly: 'This must be addressed now, not when thousands of upgraded Shahed drones and ballistic missiles begin to threaten Seoul and Tokyo.' However, a mix of strategic, economic and political factors are discouraging more visible action from South Korea, says Dr Yang Uk, a defence expert at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul. Acknowledging North Korea's military experience as a direct threat to Seoul would create pressure for a more robust domestic response, including potential weapons transfers to Ukraine that remain deeply unpopular in South Korea. 'Defence officials are particularly wary after December's events,' Yang said, referring to the failed declaration of martial law by South Korean's then president, Yoon Suk Yeol. 'They're really afraid of political attack and prefer to stay unseen by the public and press.' Yang warns that Russia is working to integrate North Korea into its long-term defence supply chain – a partnership that could reshape Asia's military balance long after the war ends. Some analysts see Seoul's silence as an extension of its longstanding 'strategic ambiguity': a reluctance to engage in foreign conflicts or unnecessarily alienate key powers, particularly those that might retain influence over Pyongyang. Economic factors weigh heavily too. Prewar, Russia was one of South Korea's top trading partners. Amid Donald Trump's tariff threats, the new Lee Jae Myung government's focus on economic recovery and 'pragmatic diplomacy' leaves little appetite for confrontation. Domestic politics also play a role. Lee's Democratic party supports engagement with the North, reflecting how South Korea's left-right divide centres more on North Korea policy than on western progressive values. Voices on the left argue South Korea owes Ukraine nothing. Some of Seoul's inertia may be bureaucratic. Chun points to procurement and planning processes that can take years, even as threats evolve within months. 'We are dealing with a level 10 super Godzilla,' he said. 'But the bureaucracy only sees a tiger.' North Koreans are already employing what they have learned in battle, he warns. 'This should be a real wake-up call.' Skibitskyi echoes that concern, suggesting South Korea's military doctrine is outdated and modelled on a pre-drone era. When asked by the Guardian whether it viewed North Korea's deployments and combat experience in Ukraine as a security concern, South Korea's defence ministry avoided addressing the implications directly. 'The participation of North Korean military personnel in the war in Ukraine constitutes a flagrant violation of the UN charter and relevant UN security council resolutions,' a spokesperson said. 'The Republic of Korea strongly condemns such inhumane and unlawful acts in concert with the international community.' Whether Seoul's cautious approach reflects calculated long-term strategy or institutional paralysis remains unclear. But for Chun, the warning signs are impossible to ignore. 'This is like a speeding train coming towards you,' he said. 'You better move aside or start making preparations – while you still have time.'
The Guardian
19-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Russia launches ‘hellish' aerial attack on eastern Ukrainian city of Pavlohrad
Russia launched its biggest ever attack on the eastern Ukrainian city of Pavlohrad early on Saturday, as part of a large wave of strikes across the country involving hundreds of kamikaze drones and ballistic missiles. The six-hour bombardment was the worst in the city's history. The head of the Dnipropetrovsk region, Sergey Lysak, said a factory was damaged, a fire station destroyed and a five-storey residential building hit. 'A hellish night and morning for Pavlohrad. The most intense attack on the city. Explosion after explosion. Russian terrorists targeted it with missiles and drones,' Lysak said. Drones could be heard flying over Pavlohrad in the early hours of Saturday. There were cacophonous booms and orange explosions lighting up the night sky. The streets echoed with machine-gun fire as anti-aircraft units tried to shoot them down. In the morning, thick black smoke hung above the city. There were several fires. One exhausted resident, Oleh, said it was the worst night he had known. 'Nobody slept. We were all in shelters. There was a thunderstorm as well. We had explosions and rain together,' he said. The attack came soon after Gen Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy to Ukraine, flew back to Washington after a six-day visit to Kyiv. This week the White House announced a large-scale arms package to Ukraine, including additional Patriot anti-aircraft systems, to be paid for by European allies. The Kremlin refrained from carrying out a large-scale bombardment while Kellogg was in the country. Social media was awash with memes depicting Kellogg as a cat protecting the capital, since Keith sounds similar to 'kit', or cat in Ukrainian. On Friday, Russia's former president Dmitry Medvedev promised Moscow would escalate its aerial attacks in response to the EU's latest sanctions package, which was agreed after the pro-Kremlin government in Slovakia dropped its objections. The city of Pavlohrad is a strategic hub for the Dnipropetrovsk oblast. Russian troops are close to capturing territory in the region – which borders Donetsk province – for the first time since Vladimir Putin's 2022 invasion. In recent days they have captured several neighbouring villages. Sign up to Headlines Europe A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day after newsletter promotion Early on Saturday, Russian forces also targeted the Black Sea port of Odesa, setting fire to a nine-storey apartment building, the city's mayor said. Five people were rescued from the top floor, and one woman subsequently died. Odesa's mayor, Hennady Trukhanov, writing on the Telegram messaging app, said at least 20 drones had converged on the city, a frequent target of Russian strikes. 'Civilian structure has been damaged as a result of the attack,' Trukhanov wrote. 'A high-rise apartment block is on fire. Rescuers are taking people out from the flames.' Ukraine's new prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, said Moscow had launched another 'brutal attack' on Odesa and other Ukrainian cities. 'One person killed, several more wounded, families destroyed. This is the cost of hesitation. Without bold response, the strikes will come again,' she said.
Russia Today
19-07-2025
- Business
- Russia Today
US Patriots struggling against Russian weaponry in Ukraine
US-made Patriot air defense systems, long hailed as a cornerstone of Western military aid to Ukraine, are now struggling to intercept advanced Russian ballistic missiles, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing sources. One unnamed Ukrainian official told the outlet that Russian ballistic missiles have become more maneuverable, allowing them to evade Patriot radar detection. He did not clarify what type of missiles he was referring to. Meanwhile, in light of the EU's efforts to wean itself from the American military-industrial complex amid uncertainty regarding continued US support for Ukraine, a next-generation European alternative is seeking to dethrone the Patriots, the report says. The upgraded Samp/T missile system, developed by the Franco-Italian joint venture Eurosam, is being promoted as better suited to handle current threats and features a new radar that reportedly detects targets at a distance of more than 350km while being able to fire missiles in all directions, the paper notes. The Samp/T also requires fewer operators, with the entire system able to run with as few as 15 people, compared to roughly 90 troops needed for a US Patriot battery, according to the WSJ. Ukrainian forces have reportedly expressed concerns about Samp/T's performance. Nevertheless, an Italian defense official told the paper that the system had received 'positive feedback' from Kiev. On Monday, US President Donald Trump announced 17 Patriots were 'ready to be shipped' to Ukraine, although his remark caused some confusion in Kiev as he did not clarify whether that number referred to full systems or their individual components. Trump has also insisted on a scheme in which European NATO members would purchase US weapons for Ukraine. The EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, has welcomed his readiness to send Patriots but urged Washington 'to share the burden' for the deliveries. Russia has consistently condemned Western arms shipments to Ukraine, saying they only prolong the conflict without altering its outcome.
Reuters
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
The ever-evolving 'Trump doctrine' and the fight for US strategy
WASHINGTON, July 11 (Reuters) - As some 20 Iranian ballistic missiles headed for the U.S. airbase at Al Udeid in Qatar last month following U.S. strikes against Iran, the only U.S. personnel at the almost entirely evacuated base were some 40 air defence personnel manning a Patriot missile battery flown in a few weeks earlier. According to a press briefing by U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Daniel Caine, a few days later, together with another Patriot detachment from the Qatari military also present at the base, the U.S. team fired more of the defence missiles than in any previous engagement since the system was first deployed in the first Gulf War in 1991. 'They crushed it,' he said, noting that damage to the base was minimal with no casualties. On the surface, officials from the Trump administration have painted last month's U.S. strikes against Iran as an unusually decisive use of U.S. power, talking of a new 'Trump doctrine' in which military force is used with much clearer aims than under previous presidents. They argue it has 'restored American deterrence', sending a clear signal to other potential foes including Moscow and Beijing. The administration had also presented its 52-day bombing campaign against Houthi militants in Yemen as being similarly successful in restoring freedom of navigation there – only for the Houthis to restart attacks on shipping in recent days. All of that comes amid growing divisions within the administration over the future use of U.S. military force, while still leaving open questions over how the U.S. might respond to potential future crises, particularly a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or Russia attack on eastern NATO states. On that front, recent events in the Gulf have already had consequences in Washington and beyond. According to reports this week, the U.S. has barely 25% of the Patriot missile stockpile the Pentagon believes it needs. Consumption of those missiles in the Middle East and Ukraine has made growing those stocks impossible despite heightened production. Last week, that prompted a Pentagon edict stopping shipment of several weapons types to Ukraine including Patriot, long-range HIMARS strike rockets and artillery shells, described at the time as a deliberate decision to help rebuild U.S. stocks. That decision, however, has since been reversed by President Donald Trump amid reports it had never received White House authorisation in the first place. 'We have to,' Trump told a press conference in Washington. 'They have to be able to defend themselves.' The U.S. president has become increasingly critical of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in recent days, accusing him of being uninterested in Trump's efforts to mediate a peace deal as Russian forces have launched the largest drone strikes of the war against Ukraine. That will likely worry the powerful group within the current administration known as 'the restrainers', keen to rein in the multi-decade U.S. tendency to make open-ended defence commitments and become entangled in long-running 'forever wars'. The result is several increasingly apparent divisions over policy, between them opening up huge uncertainties over future U.S. military posture. On one side are those including several top U.S. military commanders who argue Ukraine should be supported as its defeat would likely empower Moscow and Beijing to launch future attacks. On the other are individuals including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Pentagon number three civilian official Elbridge Colby who have argued publicly that sending too much support to Ukraine helps China by driving down already limited U.S. weapons stocks. Ironically, that group – including Vice President JD Vance, among the most publicly committed U.S. officials to reducing America's overseas military footprint – had been among the most supportive of Trump's actions on Iran, presenting it as an example of a new and much more limited approach to U.S. intervention. "What I call the Trump Doctrine is quite simple," Vance told an Ohio fundraising dinner last month. "Number one: you articulate a clear American interest ... in this case, that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Number two, you try to aggressively diplomatically solve that problem. Number three, when you can't solve it diplomatically, you use overwhelming military power to solve it and then you get the hell out of there before it becomes a protracted conflict.' Attempting to classify Trump's presidential decisions within a defined doctrine, however, still brings several challenges. The first is the man himself, who as far back as the 1980s was describing his unpredictability and habit of making last-minute decisions on investments as a central tenet of his 'Art of the Deal'. More recently since taking office, attempts to lock him into one course of action can readily backfire and lead to him endorsing another. Another even more significant challenge is that the threats the United States now most needs to deter – a potential Chinese attack against Taiwan, or a Russian assault into Eastern Europe – are likely impossible to counter through a single U.S. strike. Instead, Trump or his successors would likely face a choice between either unleashing a massive open-ended U.S. conventional military campaign – at the very least an air, drone and missile offensive against advancing Russian or Chinese forces – or abandoning Taiwan and eastern European allies to their fate. In his first term in office and also early in last year's presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly questioned whether European NATO members deserved U.S. protection if they were not spending enough on their own defence. But audio recently released of a fundraising speech last year showed him claiming he had taken a much tougher line with both Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in private, warning he would launch U.S. military action if they attacked Taiwan or Ukraine, neither of which has a binding defence treaty with the United States. "If you go into Ukraine, I'm going to bomb the shit out of Moscow. I'm telling you I have no choice," Trump said he told Putin on an undisclosed date. "And then he goes, like, 'I don't believe you'," Trump continued. "But the truth is he believed me 10%." He said he also made a similar threat to Xi: 'He thought I was crazy,' Trump told his fellow diners, adding that he believed that even if they only believed him 'five or ten percent' the deterrent was effective. Since that audio was released, some have questioned whether the conversations Trump described ever took place – his former national security adviser John Bolton said he was aware of no such conversations before his own 2019 government departure. If they did take place, however – or even if they did not but reflect his broader conclusions over the necessity to sometimes threaten or use force – it would broadly reflect the experience of previous presidents as well as Trump's own record during his first administration. In the aftermath of World War Two, presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy all wrestled with the challenge of confronting both the Soviet Union and Communist China, particularly after the perception the U.S. would not come to the aid of South Korea was seen as having inadvertently led to the start of the Korean War in 1951. Their conclusion, often quite reluctantly, was that to avoid further bloodshed and perhaps escalation to catastrophic global war they must deepen commitments to threatened U.S. allies, including warning the U.S. would use conventional or atomic force to protect them if attacked. On several occasions in his first term, Trump authorised U.S. action on a scale that might have been rejected by the Obama or Biden administrations – but which those around the president believe were successful in at least partially deterring and restraining adversary behaviour.
