Russia-North Korea pact is striking in its strategic ambiguity

On November 12, North Korea announced that it had ratified its comprehensive strategic partnership treaty with Russia, which Russian President Vladimir Putin had already signed into law on November 9, completing the process for both sides. This formalises an alliance that the US and its allies view with growing alarm. This treaty – which took five months to ratify on both sides following the initial announcement during Putin’s visit to Pyongyang in June – aligns the two countries in mutual defence, marking a significant shift in Northeast Asian geopolitics. The Kremlin’s seemingly cautious framing of this alliance appears at odds with Pyongyang’s more overt enthusiasm. For Russia, deepening ties with North Korea represents an attempt to resist Western pressure amid its war in Ukraine. However, the treaty’s conditional nature suggests Russia is wary of overcommitting. Since the treaty was announced, Russia has moved cautiously, emphasising the partnership without echoing North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s hyperbolic language. While Kim lauded the relationship as an “invincible alliance”, Putin described it more temperately as having reached an “unprecedentedly high level”. This careful wording hints at Russia’s strategic ambivalence, balancing the alliance’s symbolic value against the potential risks of a formal defence commitment with North Korea. Russia’s ambivalence was also evident in its handling of the treaty ratification process. Despite the high-profile announcement in June, the Kremlin did not start the legislative approval process until October when North Korea reportedly deployed troops to Russia, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky who condemned the alleged deployment. This timing has led some to speculate that Moscow’s sudden push to ratify the treaty was more of a diplomatic favour to Pyongyang in response to its support. Yet Russia’s reluctance to rush the treaty through suggests it is wary of escalating tensions with the West, particularly as it faces mounting sanctions and international isolation over its actions in Ukraine. For its part, Pyongyang has embraced the alliance with characteristic zeal, with North Korean foreign minister Choe Son Hui calling it an “invincible military comradeship” during her latest visit to Moscow where she met Putin on November 4. The trip was Choe’s second visit in six weeks and the third in the past year. North Korea’s own ratification process remained unclear until the formal announcement in November. However, North Korea’s rhetoric and support for Russia signal a genuine commitment to the partnership, regardless of the opaque nature of the ratification process. A closer examination of the treaty reveals important distinctions from previous Cold War alliances as well. Though it echoes the 1961 Soviet Union-North Korea alliance treaty, this recent pact introduces significant constraints on mutual defence: it references Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and requires compliance with each nation’s domestic laws. These stipulations effectively dilute the binding nature of the treaty compared to past defence pacts, such as the US-South Korea mutual defence treaty of 1953, which does not explicitly mention Article 51. By incorporating Article 51, which affirms the right to self-defence while granting the UN Security Council authority to oversee such actions, the treaty between Russia and North Korea introduces a layer of strategic ambiguity. In practice, the UN Security Council – where Russia, China and the United States all wield veto power – is unlikely to act against the interests of these major powers. Thus, the reference to Article 51 may be more about projecting compliance with global norms than about binding Russia to intervene should North Korea face an armed attack. The second consideration – compliance with domestic laws – adds another layer of flexibility. Under Russia’s constitution, the decision to deploy armed forces abroad rests with the country’s Council of the Federation. The president is designated as the supreme commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This gives the Kremlin significant discretion over its military commitments. In North Korea’s constitution, while decision-making power for defence matters lies with its State Affairs Commission, chaired by Kim Jong-un, it remains accountable to the Supreme People’s Assembly. This decentralised approach allows both Moscow and Pyongyang to interpret the mutual defence obligation as they see fit, enabling either side to respond to crises selectively, depending on their strategic interests. Despite the official formalisation of their partnership, bilateral relations are likely to remain largely transactional. Russia stands to benefit from North Korea’s symbolic and material support in its geopolitical stand-off with the West. However, Russia likely wants to avoid a full defence commitment that could draw it into conflict on the Korean peninsula. The timing of this treaty’s finalisation, just months before the scheduled inauguration of US president-elect Donald Trump, appears calculated. With this formalised alliance, Russia and North Korea add a new layer to the strategic landscape. Moscow may leverage the alliance as a bargaining chip to counter Trump’s anticipated “maximum pressure” tactics and hardline stance. Pyongyang also gains strategic leverage by aligning itself more closely with Moscow to resist US influence in the region. Ultimately, the defence pact seems less about binding military commitments and more about signalling a shared front against US hegemony. For Russia, the treaty formalises North Korea’s value as a strategic partner without fully binding Moscow to Pyongyang’s defence. For North Korea, the alliance offers international legitimacy and a counterweight to diplomatic isolation. As the geopolitical landscape shifts, this alliance may serve as a strategic hedge rather than a definitive military bond. The world should view this alliance with caution but the terms of the treaty suggest that Russia intends to keep its options open.

Russia-North Korea pact is striking in its strategic ambiguity

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}The text of the treaty suggests the partnership will function more as a strategic hedge than a definitive bond

The text of the treaty suggests the partnership will function more as a strategic hedge than a definitive bond