The reality of North Korean troops deployed to Russia is becoming clearer. A North Korean soldier captured by Ukrainian forces revealed during questioning, “I didn’t know I was joining actual combat. They said it was training like real combat.” He also said, “I was sent to the battlefield on Jan. 3, and after seeing my comrades die, I hid in a bunker until I got injured on Jan. 5.” This testimony was made possible because a South Korean National Intelligence Service (NIS) officer created a comfortable atmosphere by questioning him in Korean. If Ukrainian forces had used a machine translator, the frightened soldier might not have spoken properly.
The NIS reported to the National Assembly that over 300 North Korean soldiers deployed to Russia had died, and about 2,700 were injured. The agency attributed the heavy casualties to a “lack of understanding of modern warfare, such as pointless long-range firing at drones and frontal assaults without rear artillery support.” This real-time intelligence and battle analysis would have been impossible without South Korean government personnel on-site.
The Democratic Party and others have proposed a special investigation bill on President Yoon Suk-yeol’s martial law declaration, adding charges of inducement of foreign aggression. They allege that Yoon attempted to provoke war or armed conflict and, unexpectedly, included “dispatching troops to foreign conflict zones” in their accusations, despite no such deployment existing. Criticizing the deployment of military or NIS analysis teams to Ukraine undermines national security. Understanding North Korea’s military operations, battlefield conditions, capabilities, tactics, and the benefits Kim Jong-un is receiving requires direct intelligence from the ground.
A Democratic Party lawmaker argued that even sending a single military analyst to Ukraine constitutes a “troop deployment.” While Western military officials are active in Ukraine, no one refers to their presence as a deployment. How can the Democratic Party still accuse the NIS of inciting foreign hostility when they are simply gathering real-time intelligence on North Korean forces?
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in the National Assembly on Jan. 14, “Using the term ‘foreign aggression’ for military operations fundamentally disrespects the military.” Normal operations, such as loudspeaker broadcasts and leaflet campaigns in response to North Korean provocations, should not be labeled as inducement of foreign aggression. Such accusations could disrupt critical military actions and training. Regarding drone infiltration of Pyongyang, he said, “Why should I verify something Kim Jong-un can confirm at his own expense?” Charges of foreign aggression could be investigated separately if clear evidence emerges.
