If North Korea indeed deploys its military forces, that would signify an endeavor for war.
Russian troops in Ukraine could potentially get aid from North Korea, according to some reports. In an interview with ntv.de, Colonel Reisner discussed why he's unsure about a deployment in Donbass, if it happens at all, and why this topic is sensitive in terms of international law.
ntv.de: Colonel Reisner, there's been talk of Russia interfering heavily in a referendum in Moldova. President Maia Sandu calls it unprecedented manipulation. Does this relate to Ukraine at all?
Markus Reisner: Russia is trying to destabilize the country, that's how hybrid warfare works. They want to divert attention from Ukraine and create new friction points and conflicts. This is to tie the West to new conflicts and potentially divert resources. Attention and resources allocated to Moldova could then be lacking in Ukraine.
Some reports this week suggested that North Korean soldiers were fighting alongside Russia in Ukraine. This was initially said to be around 1,500 soldiers, possibly up to 12,000 in total. What impact would that have militarily?
Many unanswered questions remain. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin mentioned he hasn't received any concrete evidence yet about North Korean soldiers being deployed in Ukraine. There's also speculation about this on Russian social networks. They suggest the North Koreans would only be deployed in the Kursk region, meaning on Russian territory.
Why is that important?
If North Korea sends soldiers to fight alongside Russia in Ukraine, I'd consider it clear North Korean involvement in the war. This could give the West a reason to do the same, i.e., to send their own troops to Ukraine.
Would the deployment of North Korean troops on Russian territory mean participation in the war?
Legally, it's debatable. If their troops are fighting alongside others in another country, one could speak of participation in the war. However, if they were deployed on their own territory, the situation would be less clear and less legally certain. Russia could argue they're seeking help because another state invaded their territory. In my opinion, this justification is a pretext. Russia remains the aggressor. They cannot claim the right to self-defense against Ukraine and its supporters from the outset.
There's a lot to argue about here.
Exactly. It's interesting that the topic is being discussed in Russian social networks. They're clearly aware of the sensitivity of the situation. Therefore, it's quite possible that North Korean troops would be deployed primarily in the Kursk region, where up to 12,000 troops could make a difference.
Selenskyj stated this could be the first step towards a world war. Do you agree?
If more and more states openly enter a conflict on another state's side, we have more warring parties and participants in an international armed conflict. It's a question of when one could speak of a world war. Where does it start, where does it end? The last two world wars began locally. We're still trying to understand the full potential impact. Future historians will have an easier time. The idea that we could be on the brink of an even greater conflict is alarming, but not implausible.
How do you view the Ukraine war currently? Where are we?
(No direct translation provided as the question is open-ended and does not require a specific response.)
First, I think of President Selenskyj's journey through Europe. Countries are expressing more willingness to provide weapons and equipment. But on critical issues like delivering advanced weapon systems, it seems the brakes are being applied. From the US, it's being suggested that Ukraine should set realistic goals. No one's saying this openly, but Selenskyj needs to realize that Europe also expects a realistic plan. And that's not the victory plan he presented.
"Realistic" means giving up some territory?
Eventually, yes. There are new figures on losses on both sides. The "Wall Street Journal" reports this, citing US intelligence. They say the Russians have lost up to 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 wounded. These numbers aren't surprising. The Ukrainian numbers, however, are. They report up to 80,000 soldiers and 400,000 wounded. This is significantly more than what's been published so far. It seems this is meant to highlight how difficult the situation is for Ukraine. I assume that's the case.
The Russians have stepped up attacks on power plants and other infrastructure recently. What's the current situation there?
The damage to infrastructure is substantial. Up to 80% is reportedly damaged or destroyed. The Russians are sending more drones into Ukraine. Many are shot down, but the damage to critical infrastructure is still significant. We see attacks by Shahed drones almost every night, averaging 35 to 40 per day. In September, a total of 1,124 were shot down. In October, it's around 640. Additionally, there are attacks with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles every 10 to 14 days. The question is how Ukraine will survive the winter.
Ukraine is also struggling to find enough soldiers. Can it withstand the attacks in the coming months?
The Russian aggression is reaching its zenith in the summer campaign. Russian troops are relentlessly assaulting across the entire front line, causing an average of one to two villages to succumb to them weekly. Though this might seem insignificant, in the long run, the side with greater resources shall triumph. In the Donbass, south of Kupyansk, the Russians have breached through at Pischane and reached the Oskil River, thereby splitting the Ukrainian forces. Towards Pokrovsk, further south, the Russians are establishing two additional pockets, advancing slowly but surely. The situation remains relatively tranquil near Kharkiv.
What's currently happening in the contested territories under Russian control in Kursk?
The Russians have been pushing forward significantly towards Sudzha, a strategic location they have not yet managed to eradicate. This allows the Russians to expand their territory in the surrounding areas unchecked.
Recently, there was a report stating that Ukraine has successfully destroyed 400 Shahed drones. Is this a trend or an isolated incident?
Such striking incidents are certainly noteworthy. However, for it to be more than a one-time occurrence, there should be at least two to three such attacks each week. Only then will a discernible impact be detected, forcing the Russians to reduce their usage of Shahed drones. Regrettably, the opposite is happening. The Russians are boosting their utilization of such drones, as well as their guided bombs, with President Zelenskyy mentioning over 900 dropped per week.
Interview with Volker Petersen and Markus Reisner
The European Union could potentially express concern over the potential involvement of North Korean troops in Ukraine, given its commitment to upholding international law and promoting peace. If North Korean soldiers are indeed deployed in Ukraine, it could further escalate the conflict and potentially draw in more international actors, increasing the complexity of the situation.
