More Than 7,000 North Korean Soldiers Reportedly Died in Kursk, Kyiv Says

Introduction: a number that surpasses every previous estimate

A revelation from Ukrainian military intelligence

Ukrainian military intelligence, known by its acronym HUR, claims that more than 7,000 North Korean soldiers have been killed or wounded in Russia's Kursk region, a figure markedly higher than the previous estimate of roughly 6,000 casualties put forward by South Korean and British sources (Kyiv Independent).

My name is Maxime Marquette, and I have to state an essential limitation right away: the Kyiv Independent itself acknowledges that it could not independently verify these figures, a crucial nuance I refuse to pass over, even though the story itself remains gripping and revealing.

Why this claim deserves attention despite the uncertainty

Even without full independent confirmation, this claim from HUR deserves attention because it fits within a documented, verifiable context: the presence of North Korean troops on Russian soil, as part of Pyongyang's support for Vladimir Putin's war effort, is a fact widely corroborated by several Western intelligence services since late 2024.

Pyongyang, for its part, has made no official comment on these alleged losses, a silence that, on its own, constitutes neither confirmation nor denial, but fits squarely within the North Korean regime's well-established tradition of never disclosing its military losses, wherever they occur.

The context of the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk

A bold operation launched in August 2024

To understand why North Korean troops ended up fighting in the Kursk region, we have to go back to the Ukrainian incursion launched in August 2024, a bold operation that saw Kyiv's forces push into Russian territory, a first since the start of the full-scale invasion of 2022, forcing Moscow to respond with considerable resources.

This incursion, which continued until March 2025, represented a strategic and symbolic shock for the Kremlin, forcing Russia to pull troops from other sectors of the front and to call on its North Korean ally for help retaking the lost territory.

The Ukrainian withdrawal and the operation's outcome

After several months of intense fighting, Ukrainian forces eventually withdrew from most of the Kursk territory they had initially occupied, but the operation had already achieved its main strategic objectives: exposing the vulnerability of Russian territory and forcing a costly redeployment of the Kremlin's military resources.

It is precisely within this context of Russian forces, backed by their North Korean allies, retaking the Kursk territory that the massive losses now cited by Ukrainian intelligence would have occurred, over a period of several months of particularly intense fighting.

The strategic alliance between Moscow and Pyongyang

A partnership sealed by a formal treaty

The presence of North Korean troops in Russia falls under the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty signed between Russia and North Korea in October 2024, a treaty that formalizes deep military and political cooperation between the two regimes, potentially including a mutual-assistance clause in the event of conflict.

This treaty marks a significant milestone in relations between Moscow and Pyongyang, going far beyond simple economic or diplomatic cooperation into the much more sensitive territory of direct military engagement in an active conflict on European soil.

Troop numbers that keep growing

According to the South Korean news agency Yonhap, roughly 11,000 North Korean soldiers are now believed to be deployed in support of the Russian war effort as of early 2026, a figure suggesting that Pyongyang continues sending reinforcements despite the already considerable losses its troops have suffered since their initial deployment.

This persistence of North Korean involvement, despite proportionally very high losses according to Ukrainian estimates, reflects the strategic importance Kim Jong Un's regime places on this alliance with Russia, likely in exchange for military technology and crucial economic support.

North Korea's material role in the Russian war effort

An essential supplier of artillery ammunition

Beyond sending troops, North Korea plays an essential logistical role in the Russian war effort by supplying massive quantities of 122-millimeter and 152-millimeter artillery shells, ammunition crucial to sustaining the intensity of Russian bombardments along the entire Ukrainian front.

This material contribution, less visible in the media than sending troops into combat, could actually have an even more decisive impact on Russia's ability to sustain its war effort, given the massive consumption of artillery ammunition in this high-intensity conflict.

The supply of ballistic missiles

Several Western intelligence services have also documented Pyongyang's supply of ballistic missiles to Russia, weapons that have been used in strikes against Ukrainian targets, demonstrating the growing scale and sophistication of this military cooperation between the two authoritarian regimes.

This combination of troops, ammunition, and missiles makes North Korea a now-indispensable actor in Russia's ability to continue its aggression against Ukraine, a reality that should, in my view, carry more weight in Western discussions on sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

The limits of independent verification

Why these figures remain hard to confirm

It is essential to remember that these casualty figures, however precise they may appear, come exclusively from Ukrainian military intelligence, a source that obviously has a strategic and communications interest in emphasizing the scale of losses inflicted on enemy forces, including their North Korean allies.

The Kyiv Independent, in its own coverage of this story, explicitly noted its inability to independently verify these figures, a piece of journalistic transparency I want to highlight and respect in my own analysis of this situation.

Pyongyang's deafening silence

The total silence from Pyongyang on this issue, while it constitutes neither confirmation nor denial of the figures put forward, fits a well-established pattern: the North Korean regime has never officially acknowledged the scale of its military involvement in Russia, preferring to maintain strategic ambiguity on this sensitive question.

This total lack of transparency from Pyongyang makes any complete independent verification all the more difficult, leaving researchers and journalists dependent on estimates provided by the intelligence services of the countries involved in this conflict, each with its own strategic interests.

What this story reveals about the state of the conflict

A war of attrition with considerable human costs

Whether the exact figure is 6,000 or 7,000 losses, the sheer scale of these estimates reflects the extreme intensity of the fighting in the Kursk region, confirming once again the war-of-attrition nature this conflict has taken on for several years now, with considerable human costs for every party involved, including Russia's allies.

This reality directly contradicts the sometimes complacent narratives that present North Korean aid to Russia as a simple, low-cost diplomatic gesture, when it in fact represents a considerable human sacrifice for a regime that has strictly no direct stake in this European conflict.

Implications for the rest of the conflict

According to a recent analysis by Al Jazeera, the Russian advance is reportedly showing signs of running out of steam on several segments of the front, a situation fueling growing anxiety in Moscow over Russia's ability to sustain its war effort without ever-larger outside support, notably from North Korea and Iran.

If North Korean losses continue piling up at this rate, it is not out of the question that Pyongyang will begin reconsidering the scale of its future involvement, a factor that could, over time, further weaken Russia's capacity to sustain its aggression against Ukraine in the long run.

The Western response to this military cooperation

Sanctions still deemed insufficient

Despite increasingly solid documentation of military cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang, several Western analysts believe the sanctions currently imposed on North Korea remain largely insufficient to deter continued military support for Russia, notably because of persistent gaps in the enforcement of existing sanctions regimes.

This inadequacy of sanctions is partly explained by the difficulty of effectively monitoring transfers of military equipment and troops between two regimes that operate with a high degree of secrecy and largely evade the usual international verification mechanisms.

China's role in this equation

China, while not directly involved in sending troops, plays an ambiguous role in this dynamic by continuing to maintain substantial economic ties with both North Korea and Russia, without exerting the diplomatic pressure Beijing could theoretically apply to limit this military escalation.

This ambiguous position from Beijing confirms, in my view, that China remains a key player in sustaining this authoritarian axis, even as it prefers to avoid direct, visible involvement in the Ukrainian conflict itself.

The questions that remain unanswered

The real scale of the losses, a persistent unknown

Despite every estimate put forward by different intelligence sources, the real scale of North Korean losses in Kursk remains an unknown that only independent verification, currently impossible in the context of this war, could confirm with certainty, leaving observers dependent on the sometimes contradictory estimates of the intelligence services involved.

This persistent uncertainty should not, however, prevent the West from drawing important strategic conclusions about the nature of this Russian-North Korean alliance, even in the absence of precise, fully verified figures.

The uncertain future of North Korean involvement

One question also remains without a clear answer: how long is Pyongyang willing to keep sending troops into a costly foreign conflict, with no guarantee of direct benefit for the North Korean population itself, which remains largely kept in the dark about the real scale of this military involvement.

It is this question, more than any other, that will determine whether the alliance between Moscow and Pyongyang continues to deepen or eventually reaches its limits in the face of the growing human cost it imposes on the North Korean regime.

Conclusion: a war with increasingly globalized alliances

What can be stated with confidence

What can be stated with reasonable confidence, beyond the precise casualty figure that remains impossible to verify independently, is that the war in Ukraine long ago stopped being a strictly European conflict: it now directly involves North Korean troops, Iranian ammunition, and growing strategic coordination among several authoritarian regimes that share a common interest in weakening the Western-led international order.

This globalized dimension of the conflict should, in my view, push the West to strengthen its own coordination and support for Ukraine, rather than continuing to treat this conflict as a simple regional matter between two neighboring countries with interests confined to the European continent.

The lesson to take from this story

The most important lesson from this story, in my view, is not the exact figure of North Korean losses in Kursk, but rather the striking demonstration that the axis formed by Russia, North Korea, Iran, and, to a lesser extent, China, now represents a coordinated threat that extends well beyond the Ukrainian conflict itself.

It is this broader geopolitical reality, more than any figure of military losses, that I will keep watching closely in my future columns on a conflict that is redefining the world's alliances in our time.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

My sources and my limits

This essay relies primarily on information reported by the Kyiv Independent, citing data from Ukrainian military intelligence HUR, as well as articles from Ground.news and Al Jazeera for broader geopolitical context. I want to explicitly note that the North Korean casualty figures could not be independently verified, either by the Kyiv Independent or by myself.

My acknowledged biases

I firmly support Ukraine in this conflict, and I consider the alliance between Russia and North Korea a serious threat to international security. That said, I strive to treat the figures put forward by Ukrainian intelligence with the same critical rigor I would apply to any other source, without partisan complacency.

Sources

Primary sources

Kyiv Independent — North Korean troops took over 7,000 casualties in Russia's Kursk Oblast, HUR claims

Al Jazeera — Russian advance collapses in Ukraine as anxiety rises in Moscow — July 3, 2026

Secondary sources

Ground News — Ukraine reveals new figures for North Korean troop losses in Russia's Kursk Oblast

Wikipedia — Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)

Ukraine's Ministry of Defense — Official statements

Ukrinform — Ukrainian news agency