conflict armament research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Weapons Tracing Study Implicates Russia in Ukraine Conflict

One of the most comprehensive studies to date of weaponry in the war in Ukraine shows a panoply of Russian-supplied arms that has helped fuel the war.

By Andrew E. Kramer

KYIV, Ukraine — A study of weapons and ammunition used in the war in Ukraine shows that Russia has been systematically fanning the conflict with arms shipments, according to a new report funded by the European Union and the German government.

The study is hardly the first to reach this conclusion: the United States and European countries have sanctioned Russia for years for arms transfers to separatist forces they say Moscow is supporting in Ukraine.

But the study is one of the most comprehensive to date on the issue. While unlikely to change the overall picture, it offered a fine-grained view of illicit weapons transfers in Ukraine and illustrated the scope of the arms trade that is fueling Europe’s only active war .

Earlier analyses of Russian weapons transfers in Ukraine leaned on photographs or government intelligence. The new report focused on actual armaments.

Researchers studied dozens of rifles, grenade launchers, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and thousands of rounds of ammunition taken from captured or killed separatist fighters or positions they had occupied.

The researchers examined the recovered weapons and traced serial numbers and other identifying marks back to manufacturers. It provided “a window into a largely forgotten conflict that, since early 2014, has persisted on the edge of Europe,” the report said.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Security Council

Pyongyang’s Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons Continues to Undermine Global Disarmament, Non-Proliferation Regime, High Representative Warns Security Council

Amid a deepening strategic alignment between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, numerous speakers observed that Moscow’s veto of the Panel of Experts’ mandate renewal served as a cover-up for its unlawful arms transfers from Pyongyang, while others warned about the establishment of the Washington, D.C.-Tokyo-Seoul military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region.

Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, said that Pyongyang’s persistent pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes continues to undermine the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.  Since 2022, the country has conducted more than 100 launches of ballistic missiles, and most recently, on 26 June, it reportedly undertook a launch using ballistic missile technology.

Spotlighting recent allegations of the transfer of ballistic missiles and ammunition from that country to the Russian Federation for use in the conflict in Ukraine, she emphasized that any transfer of weapons and ammunition must comply with the applicable international legal framework, including relevant Council resolutions and the sanctions regimes they establish.

In this regard, she underlined that — while the mandate of the Panel of Experts expired on 30 April — the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) continues its work and will still oversee the implementation of the sanctions regime.

Jonah Leff, Executive Director, Conflict Armament Research, said that since the outset of the conflict in Ukraine his organization has documented more than 270 advanced conventional weapons there.  “Throughout this year we have uncovered a new trend in the conflict — the use of conventional weapons manufactured by the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea],” he stated.

Detailing a field investigation that physically documented the remnants of a ballistic missile that struck Kharkiv on 2 January, he said the Conflict Armament Research documented the missile’s rocket mortar, its tail section and almost 300 internal components, manufactured by 26 companies from eight countries and territories.  Based on several unique features, it determined that this missile was either a KN-23 or KN-24, manufactured in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in 2023.  The collected evidence “irrefutably establishes that the missile fired on Kharkiv was indeed of DPRK origin”, he stated.

Dismissing the allegations about his country’s use of weapons manufactured by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the military operation in Ukraine, the speaker for the Russian Federation said the so-called inspections report of the sanctions experts is “classic made-to-order material” riddled with numerous procedural errors and logical inconsistencies. He added that the wreckage from unidentified missiles was “provided to the so-called experts” by Kyiv.

On the comprehensive strategic partnership between Moscow and Pyongyang, he said it is intended to play a stabilizing role in North-East Asia, noting that article 4 of the treaty “provides for the delivery of mutual military assistance only if one of the parties to it is subject to an armed attack”.  This should not arouse national security-related concerns for those countries who do not plan to mount military aggression against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he said, adding that the hysterical reaction from the West suggests that these are specifically the plans that were prevented.

“I wonder how much more proof is needed to verify that the munitions are from [the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea]”, countered the representative of the Republic of Korea, Council President for June, speaking in his national capacity.  Expressing concern over the military cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow through the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, he echoed the words of Russian Federation President Vladimir V. Putin that his country “does not rule out developing military and technical cooperation with [Pyongyang]”. Underscoring that Seoul will resolutely respond to any actions that threaten its security, he stated:  “Any change in our policy depends on what [Moscow and Pyongyang] will do.”

The representative of the United States condemned Pyongyang’s 25 June ballistic missile launch, which “only underscores the contempt that Pyongyang consistently demonstrates towards this Council”.  He stressed that — “with China’s tacit support” — Moscow ended the mandate of the Committee’s Panel of Experts in March 2024 “in a vain bid to escape reproach for its own violations”.  Also, “by refusing to condemn Russia’s violations, China only emboldens Pyongyang to further provocation that, ultimately, destabilizes China’s regional security.”

His counterpart from China, meanwhile, underscored that to resolve the Peninsula issue, States must abandon the practice of “pursuing one’s absolute security at the expense of the security of other countries”. However, certain countries use the Peninsula issue to advance their geopolitical strategies, he observed, noting that such actions will only exacerbate tensions.  Warning that the situation on the Peninsula can descend into “a spiral of escalating confrontation”, he urged Washington, D.C., to “end the myth of deterrence and pressure and demonstrate sincerity in unconditional dialogue”.

For his part, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stressed that ever since the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, the United States has escalated its military aid for Ukraine and, lately, has given free rein to Ukraine to strike any part of the Russian Federation with its weapons, thus “driving the whole of European into a dangerous phase of all-out armed conflicts and a new world war”.  Washington, D.C., has also been supporting Israel’s bloody genocide operation with their weapons, he added.

Furthermore, he observed that in its efforts to form “the Asian version of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]”, the United States formed a military and political bloc of exclusive and confrontational nature in the Asia-Pacific region and is accelerating the establishment of a tripartite military alliance with Japan and the Republic of Korea.

At the outset of the meeting, the representative of the Russian Federation raised procedural objections to the participation of Ukraine and the European Union in the meeting, while the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and France underscored that the participation of both is legitimate, given that Ukraine’s security is clearly impacted by the transfer of ballistic missiles and ammunition from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the Russian Federation for use in its war in Ukraine. “The Council must be able to adapt its practices in response to events in the real world,” the representative of the United Kingdom stated.

NON-PROLIFERATION/DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

IZUMI NAKAMITSU, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs , said the Security Council has recently been briefed on the launches of ballistic missiles or satellites using ballistic missile technologies by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  In recent months, there have also been allegations of the transfer of ballistic missiles and ammunition from that country to the Russian Federation, in violation of relevant Council resolutions, allegedly for use in the conflict in Ukraine.  She noted that, while the mandate of the Panel of Experts expired on 30 April, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) continues its work and will still oversee the implementation of the sanctions regime.  In response to the risks associated with illicit and unregulated arms transfers, States have established numerous international, regional and bilateral arms control treaties, agreements and frameworks to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade and diversion of conventional arms, regulate the international arms trade and promote transparency in weapons transfers.  She added that the Council sanctions regimes are at the top of such international collective efforts.

“Importing, transit, producing and exporting States must act responsibly at every step along the arms and ammunition transfer chain to prevent diversion, illicit trafficking and misuse,” she asserted.  In this regard, re-transfer risk assessments, marking and record-keeping practices and tracing capabilities are of utmost importance.  Effective physical security, stockpile management of arms and ammunition and customs and border control measures are also vital.  Additionally, any transfer of weapons and ammunition must comply with the applicable international legal framework, including relevant Council resolutions and the sanctions regimes they establish.

However, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continues its nuclear weapons programme and development of its means of delivery, she observed, adding that it has significantly increased its ballistic missile launch activities in recent years, in line with its five-year military development plan, unveiled in January 2021.  Since 2022, the country has conducted more than 100 launches of ballistic missiles, including solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles using ballistic missile technology, in violation of the relevant Council resolutions.  Most recently, on 26 June, Pyongyang reportedly undertook a launch using ballistic missile technology, which exploded shortly after launch.  The country, nevertheless, claimed that it successfully conducted a test launch of a new type of multiple warhead missile.

On Pyongyang’s continued pursuit of a nuclear programme, in his statement of 21 December 2023, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi said that “the discharge of warm water from the cooling system of the light water reactor at Yongbyon was observed”, which is “indicative that the reactor has reached criticality”.  More recently, he said that the IAEA also observed indications of the ongoing operation of the reported centrifuge enrichment facility in Yongbyon and the expansion of another facility in the Kangson Complex.  While there are no recent indications of change at the nuclear test site at Punggye-ri, the site remains occupied.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s persistent pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes continues to undermine the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, she stressed.

She further expressed concern over the reports of malicious cyberactivities attributed to Pyongyang-affiliated actors, noting that a high volume of such malicious activity continues through the targeting of cryptocurrency-related companies.  Other trends observed include the targeting of supply chains.  Calling on the country to comply with its international obligations, she stated:  “Diplomatic engagement remains the only pathway to sustainable peace and the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

JONAH LEFF, Executive Director, Conflict Armament Research , said the lack of detailed data and reporting on conventional arms trade has prevented the international community from minimizing the loss, theft or intentional retransfer of legally acquired arms to unauthorized users.  His organization seeks to fill this gap, he said, highlighting its approach which “places the physical item at the centre of its investigations”.  Deploying field investigation teams to conflict zones, it recovers unique, traceable information from weapons, ammunition and related materials, which identify an item individually from the point of production and enable it to be traced through the supply chain.  Conflict Armament Research has been operational in Ukraine since 2018, he said, adding that since the current conflict commenced in February 2022, it has documented more than 270 advanced conventional weapons.  “Throughout this year we have uncovered a new trend in the conflict — the use of conventional weapons manufactured by the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea],” he said.

Outlining a field investigation which physically documented the remnants of a ballistic missile that struck Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city, on 2 January, he said his organization documented the missile’s rocket mortar, its tail section and almost 300 internal components, manufactured by 26 companies from eight countries and territories.  Based on several unique features, it determined that this missile was either a KN-23 or KN-24, manufactured in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in 2023.  Showing photos of various findings, he detailed how his organization reached the conclusion.  Among other findings, investigators documented the presence of the mark “112” on several different components found in the missile wreckage.  “This mark likely refers to the year 2023 in the Juche calendar, the official calendar of DPRK,” he said.  “The aforementioned evidence irrefutably establishes that the missile fired on Kharkiv was indeed of DPRK origin,” he said.

Further, he added, his organization’s discovery of recently produced non-domestic electronic components in the missile shows that the country has been able to integrate components produced as recently as 2023, despite sanctions.  “It also suggests that the country has developed a robust acquisition network, capable of circumventing, without detection, the sanctions regime that has been in place for nearly two decades,” he said.  Stressing that field documentation and monitoring are critical to the effectiveness of any sanctions mechanism, he said none of the components in the missile were manufactured in the country, which highlights its reliance on external acquisition networks to sustain its domestic missile programme.  That raises concerns about the sanctions compliance of other Member States responsible for implementing these regimes, he said.  Although the transfer chain is complex and layered in nature, his organization’s “boots-on-the-ground approach characterized by field documentation, collaborative tracing with industry and Governments, triangulation and targeted trade mapping” allows for the effective identification of entities, he added.

The representative of the United States condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s 25 June ballistic-missile launch, which “only underscores the contempt that Pyongyang consistently demonstrates towards this Council”.  Recalling that Moscow ended the mandate of the 1718 Panel of Experts in March 2024 “with China’s tacit support”, he observed:  “The briefing we just heard shows that Russia and China cannot prevent the public from learning about the unlawful arms transfers occurring between the DPRK and Russia.”  As a permanent Council member, Moscow has a responsibility to uphold and strengthen international peace and security; yet, it is launching ballistic missiles it unlawfully procured from Pyongyang against the Ukrainian people.  Further, the Russian Federation cynically obstructs joint Council action “in a vain bid to escape reproach for its own violations”, he stressed.  He added: “But, by refusing to condemn Russia’s violations, China only emboldens the DPRK to further provocation — with ballistic-missile launches and other behaviour — that, ultimately, destabilizes China’s regional security.”

The representative of France said that in September 2023, during General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea, President of the State Affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Kim Jong-Un’s visit to Moscow, military equipment — including drones — was offered to Pyongyang.  Noting that independent researchers have corroborated that the ballistic missiles, used against Ukraine, were produced in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he condemned the export of these missiles and their use by Moscow.  The Russian Federation has supported Security Council resolution 1718 (2006) but “now it is violating it”.  “Russia is misleading nobody.  This military cooperation with North Korea in no way corresponds with the legitimate development of the supposed relationship of traditional friendship,” he stressed.  With the new agreement, the risk of transfer of ballistic and nuclear technologies is “all the more real”.  Moscow’s support has emboldened Pyongyang — which has undertaken more than 100 ballistic missile launches since 2022 — and encouraged it to continue provocations, he added.

The representative of Japan , warning that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continues to develop its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programmes unabated, voiced regret that the Council was compelled to silence the Panel of Experts, which had played a crucial role in countering that country’s proliferation activities.  “If the Panel still existed, its reports would have certainly included further investigations on sanctions evasion and even on violations by Russia itself,” he stressed, condemning Moscow’s transfer of weapons from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and its use against Ukraine.  “Right after his visit to Pyongyang, the Russian leader even suggested the possibility of providing weapons to North Korea,” he cautioned, adding that the world stands at “a critical historical juncture” for preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.  If these acts go unchecked, the global non-proliferation regime will be shaken to its foundations, he added.

The representative of the United Kingdom recalled that, since 2006, the Council has adopted nine resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, all condemning Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity.  The Russian Federation has repeatedly violated these resolutions — there is now a continuous cargo flow between the two countries.  “Russia does not even attempt to hide its behaviour,” she asserted, noting that the country brazenly vetoed the renewal of the Panel of Experts, and during Russian Federation President Vladimir V. Putin’s visit to Pyongyang in June, Kim Jong-Un praised the active cooperation between the two countries, including in military affairs.  These violations have very real consequences for millions of people worldwide, she observed, stating:  “North Korean missiles are being used in the destruction of Kharkiv, bringing misery, injury and death to Ukrainian civilians.”  By damaging the fabric of the non-proliferation regime, Moscow is making the world a more dangerous place, she added.

The representative of Malta said that the use of Pyongyang’s missiles against Ukraine allows the testing of their efficacy and reliability on the battlefield and advances the unlawful weapons of mass destruction programme of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  “Through these actions, the DPRK and the Russian Federation demonstrate their willingness to undermine the global non-proliferation architecture”, he stressed, reiterating disappointment over Moscow’s vetoing of the mandate renewal of the Panel of Experts.  He added:  “The Panel of Experts may be gone, but sanctions remain in place and must be implemented by all Member States.”  He also voiced concern over the recent reports of the mutual assistance pledge between Pyongyang and Moscow, underscoring that any agreement that involves the transfer of arms and ammunition is in violation of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) sanctions regime.

The representative of Ecuador expressed “categorical condemnation” of the launch of a ballistic missile by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and said any transfer of weapons must respect the applicable international legal frameworks. Regretting that the independent verification mechanism has been dismantled, he said this situation weakens the Council’s ability to respond.  Expressing support for the quest for a peaceful solution on the Korean Peninsula, he reaffirmed belief that “good faith dialogue is the way for mutual understanding”.

The representative of Guyana , expressing concern over the recent missile launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, called on Pyongyang to honour its obligations under relevant Council resolutions. Further, she urged all Member States to strictly enforce measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer of munitions to or from that country.  Noting the recent signing of a “comprehensive strategic partnership” between Moscow and Pyongyang — “and the concerns this has sparked among Member States” — she stressed the parties’ obligation to ensure that implementation thereof “fully aligns with international law” and relevant Council resolutions.  As the situation on the Korean Peninsula remains volatile, denuclearization is critical to de-escalate tension and resolve the conflict.  She therefore urged the early resumption of dialogue between the parties concerned and encouraged Pyongyang to “abandon its nuclear-weapons programme in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner”.

The representative of Sierra Leone said it is regrettable that the Security Council and its members can no longer benefit from the Committee’s Panel of Experts’ “valuable source of information” and called for a solution to resolve this gap.  “The easy availability of weapons exacerbates existing conflicts, whether internal or international, and increases the risk of new ones”, he observed, noting that the transfer of advanced weapons technology increases the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other lethal arms.  While he acknowledged the legitimate framework for States to engage in arms trade, he underscored the importance of strict adherence to international legal frameworks to that end.  This includes bilateral engagements, which must comply with Council resolutions, sanctions and mechanisms that are binding on Member States.

The representative of China said that the persistent tensions on the Korean Peninsula are deeply disturbing, adding that “the world is already chaotic enough”.  The more tense the situation becomes, the more critical it is for all parties to remain calm, exercise restraint and maintain peace and stability on the Peninsula, he asserted.  To resolve the Peninsula issue, States must refrain from building one’s own security on the insecurity of other countries and abandon the practice of “pursuing one’s absolute security at the expense of the security of other countries”. However, certain countries use the Peninsula issue to advance their geopolitical strategies and increase their military presence, he observed, noting that such actions will only exacerbate tensions and make achieving long-term security in the region more difficult.  Warning that the situation on the Peninsula can descend into “a spiral of escalating confrontation”, he called on the countries concerned to be rational and find a solution.  In particular, he urged the United States to “end the myth of deterrence and pressure and demonstrate sincerity in unconditional dialogue”.

The representative of Algeria , noting that his statement will focus on the agenda item of the meeting, said the discussion within the Council should be guided by a spirit of constructive dialogue and sincere desire to find a lasting solution.  The Committee remains the most appropriate forum for discussing matters related to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea sanctions regime, he said, adding that its mandate and expertise make it better suited to handle these issues in a technical and “less politicized manner”.  Cautioning against excessively politicizing this issue, he said a balanced and comprehensive approach is needed to address the complex situation on the Korean Peninsula.  Sanctions alone are unlikely to resolve the matter, he said, noting their impact on the civilian population of that country and calling for more effective implementation of humanitarian exemptions.  “We support the idea of a gradual road map,” he said, underscoring the need for limited sanctions, a flexible diplomatic approach that addresses the underlying security concerns of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and a permanent peace mechanism.

The representative of Mozambique , stating that the escalating situation on the Korean Peninsula threatens international peace and security, said that “confrontational rhetoric and military activities” have pushed the region to the brink of conflict.  The proliferation of nuclear weapons is “an existential threat to humanity”, he underscored, urging all Member States to take “decisive steps” towards reducing — and, ultimately, eliminating — nuclear arsenals. “While geographically distant from the Korean Peninsula, Mozambique recognizes that nuclear proliferation threatens all nations,” he said.  The possibility of nuclear material falling into the hands of non-State actors poses a particular risk to countries with limited defence capabilities, and he therefore called on the international community to strengthen arms controls to prevent weaponry from reaching unauthorized actors.  Urging a return to diplomacy, he stressed:  “The stakes are too high for inaction.”

The representative of Slovenia said that Pyongyang should abandon its nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, adding:  “Until then, we will keep calling on all States to implement fully and effectively the sanctions in force.”  Noting that the absence of the Committee’s Panel of Experts is a “tremendous setback” for the non-proliferation architecture, he said that Slovenia sees a chance of bringing it back.  “We should spare no effort,” he added.  While the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is illegally developing ballistic missiles, Moscow is illegally procuring them, he observed, adding that this dangerous situation is destabilizing two separate parts of the world at the same time. Pointing to the strengthening of ties between Pyongyang and Moscow, he observed:  “Advertising this as friendly cooperation between two sovereign States is misleading.”

The representative of Switzerland expressed concern that the Russian Federation’s military aggression against Ukraine appears to continue to be fuelled by transfers of arms and munitions from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  She underscored that any such arms transaction is a flagrant violation of the Council’s sanctions regime — including the sale, purchase, import and export of weapons to or from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Underlining the need to break the supply chains of Pyongyang’s weapons of mass destruction programme, she said that the non-proliferation architecture must be maintained through the effective implementation of multilateral agreements and instruments, including those related to arms transfers.  This architecture must be further strengthened through global ratification of the Outer Space Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

The representative of the Russian Federation said the United States is attempting to impose “bloc-based mindsets” upon the Asia-Pacific region, and regretted that Seoul has been subordinating itself to Washington, D.C.’s pressure while risking its own national interests.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has been upholding its right to independent development, on the basis of “its own political, social and civilizational templates”, he said, also denouncing hypocritical concern about the plight of its people and the failure to recognize that sanctions are not helping. The comprehensive strategic partnership between his country and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is intended to play a stabilizing role in North-East Asia, he said, adding that article 4 of the treaty “provides for the delivery of mutual military assistance only if one of the parties to it is subject to an armed attack”.  This should not arouse national security-related concerns for those countries who do not plan to mount a military aggression against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he said, adding that the hysterical reaction from the West suggests that these are specifically the plans that were prevented.

Dismissing the allegations about his country’s use of weapons manufactured by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the military operation in Ukraine, he said the so-called inspections report of the sanctions experts is “classic made-to-order material” riddled with numerous procedural errors and logical inconsistencies.  The wreckage from unidentified missiles was “so kindly provided to the so-called experts” by the Kyiv “regime”, he said, adding that three of the seven experts who traveled to Ukraine were the representatives of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea and Japan.  “Does this say anything to you?” he asked, adding that the United States is pushing Europe to the threshold of a new great war.  “It seems this is not enough for you” and you are bent on breaking out a new conflict in Asia, he said.

The representative of the Republic of Korea , Council President for June, speaking in his national capacity, condemned Pyongyang’s launch of a ballistic missile on 26 June.  He noted that the assessment presented by Mr. Leff — who visited the site and analysed the remnants of ballistic missiles — coincides with the conclusion of the Panel of Experts after their visit to Ukraine in April.  In addition, his country’s Ministry of National Defence assessed that since the summit of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation in September 2023, Pyongyang shipped to Moscow at least 10,000 containers, which could hold 5 million artillery shells.  He also observed that 122mm artillery shells made in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were among the weapons the Russian Federation used against Ukraine.

“I wonder how much more proof is needed to verify that the munitions are from the DPRK,” he stressed, pointing to that country’s illicit ship-to-ship transfers of petroleum and coal, violations of sectoral bans and luxury goods, illicit cyberactivities and arms dealings.  Also expressing concern over the military cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow through the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, he cited Russian Federation President Putin:  “The Russian Federation does not rule out developing military and technical cooperation with the DPRK under the document signed today.” Underscoring that his country will resolutely respond to any actions that threaten its security, he added:  “Any change in our policy depends on what Russia and the DPRK will do.”

The representative of the United States , taking the floor a second time, said that — “if, indeed, China is so concerned about the security situation on the Korean Peninsula” — Beijing must use its influence to persuade Pyongyang from undermining regional and global security. It should also use its influence over Moscow, through its new “no-limits” partnership, he stressed, to persuade its partner to end the “increasingly dangerous military cooperation” between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation.  Then, noting that “Russia’s threatening rhetoric is nothing new”, he said that Moscow should understand that its growing military cooperation with Pyongyang is dangerous and isolating.  “It is Russia, through its threatening and unhinged rhetoric, that is demonizing the country,” he added, pointing to “refrains” often heard in the Council regarding certain countries’ desire to demonize Moscow.

The representative of China stressed that his country has taken a “prudent and responsible attitude” towards the Korean Peninsula issue. The international community has witnessed this, and Beijing will decide — on its own — its future position and action on the Peninsula.  “We do not need any other country to point our way,” he said.

The representative of the Russian Federation then said: “I will not spare my time, nor the precious time of the Security Council, to reply to the remarks made by my colleague from the United States.”

The representative of the United States said that his delegation will continue to call out any State violating Council resolutions, particularly those concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Ukraine.  To the representative of China, he said that “the US and its allies will have to take steps to defend their security” if the situation on the Korean Peninsula continues on its current trajectory.  “Use your influence,” he urged — “you have a great deal of it”.

The representative of China , responding, stressed that his country has always promoted dialogue and made positive efforts towards peace and security on the Korean Peninsula.  “But we need cooperation from other sides — particularly from the US,” he added, encouraging that country to “change your old habit” of shifting blame, which is “not very constructive”.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea pointed out that the countries that called this “illegal meeting” are the world’s biggest arms exporters, having caused tragic bloodshed by extensive shipment of weapons into various parts of the world.  On 23 June, the “ATACMS” missiles provided to the Ukrainian authorities by Washington, D.C., hit the city of Sevastopol, resulting in 150 casualties.  He further denounced that country for the delivery of cluster bombs and other inhumane weapons prohibited by international law to “the neo-Nazi puppet authorities of Ukraine and its allies”.  Ever since the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, the United States has escalated its military aid for Ukraine and, lately, “has given free rein to the neo-Nazis of Ukraine to strike any part of the Russian territory with its weapons”, thus “driving the whole of Europe into a dangerous phase of all-out armed conflicts and a new world war”.

Despite supporting Israel’s bloody genocide operation with their weapons, the United States called for this meeting to discuss other countries’ alleged “weapons transfers”, he stated.  Washington, D.C., and its allies are “engrossed in hegemonic ambition and hell-bent on pursuing bloc-forming foreign policy”, casting “a cloud of war in every corner of the world”.  Not only has it created the Ukrainian crisis with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) reckless eastward policy, but the United States also formed a military and political bloc of an exclusive and confrontational nature in the Asia-Pacific region and is accelerating the establishment of a tripartite military alliance with Japan and the Republic of Korea, in their efforts to form “the Asian version of NATO”.  Unlike this aggressive alliance, he emphasized that the Pyongyang-Moscow relations are of a peace-loving and defensive nature, as “they do not target a third party but promote the progress and well-being of the people of the two countries”.

The representative of the European Union , in its capacity as observer, condemned Pyongyang’s recent ballistic missile launch, noting that today’s meeting is a “timely opportunity to discuss the DPRK’s illegal and destabilizing behaviour” and its cooperation with Moscow.  “The urgency is highlighted by the 19 June summit in Pyongyang, where Russia and the DPRK concluded an agreement aimed at deepening cooperation, including in the military domain,” he said, noting that the Russian Federation is “trampling” on the Charter of the United Nations, while pretending — as recently at the BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa] meeting of foreign ministers — that this Treaty should be at the core of international relations.

He observed that several independent entities confirmed that Pyongyang provided the ballistic missiles that Moscow used against Ukraine, adding:  “Such DPRK-Russia arms transfers support Russia’s war of aggression”.  Emphasizing that the Kremlin continues to gear up for a prolongation of the war, he said that the Russian Federation’s proclamations about a ceasefire in Ukraine and negotiations are insincere.  Reiterating condemnation over Moscow’s veto to extend the mandate of the Committee’s Panel of Experts, as an effort to conceal illegal arms transfers from Pyongyang, he observed:  “The UN sanctions regime itself remains in place as will the 1718 Committee.”  Sanctions serve as an important tool to incentivize Pyongyang to find a diplomatic solution for peace and security on the Korean Peninsula through dialogue, he said.

The representative of Ukraine said that since the end of 2023, the Russian Federation has been using ballistic missiles procured from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in its full-scale war of aggression against his country.  Several were found and examined by Ukrainian authorities, he said, highlighting the inspection of the remnants of one of the ballistic missiles used in the strike on Kharkiv on 2 January.  His country provided Conflict Armament Research the opportunity to physically document the debris of that ballistic missile, he said, adding that the organization confirmed that the missile was of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea origin, he said.  The transfer of ballistic missiles, along with any other arms and related material, from that country to the Russian Federation, flagrantly violates multiple Council resolutions, he said, and his country has been informing the Council of such violations for at least six months.

Further, he said, in response to the relevant requests of the Committee’s Panel of Experts in January, Ukraine provided it with evidence-based information on this matter.  In its final report, the Panel of Experts confirmed the receipt of that information.  Noting that the Russian Federation ended the mandate of the Panel, he expressed concern that this deprived UN Member States of fact-based objective assessments and recommendations.  Noting the Panel’s visit to Ukraine, he said it concluded that the debris recovered from the missile that landed in Kharkiv derives from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and that this constitutes a violation of Council resolution 1718 (2006) which prohibits Pyongyang from exporting such items.  Expressing concern about the “treaty of comprehensive strategic partnership” between Pyongyang and Moscow, he said this agreement effectively paves the way for further deepening military cooperation between the two countries.  This impacts the security situation “both in our region and on the Korean Peninsula”, he stressed, urging Member States to condemn their violations and prevent the proliferation of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea weapons and ammunition.

Facebook Twitter Email Print LinkedIn

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

How North Korea gets around global sanctions to manufacture its weapons

Ayesha Rascoe

NPR's Ayesha Rascoe talks to Andrew Yeo of the Brookings Institution about a recent report raising questions about North Korea's weapons manufacturing capabilities.

Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

ISLAMIC STATE WEAPONS IN HIGH-PROFILE OPERATIONS IN NORTH-EAST SYRIA

On three occasions in 2021 and 2022, Islamic State (IS) cells in north-east Syria attempted to carry out major, complex attacks on detention centers housing IS prisoners and suspected affiliates. In this report, CAR investigates the weapons used in the attacks, showing how common links between the materiel used by the different cells shows that they were closely linked and supported by a centralised distribution network that equips top-tier members for specific, high-profile, operations.

DIVERSION DIGEST – ISSUE 05

This fifth edition of CAR’s Diversion Digest  presents cases from the field showing how field monitoring and trace investigations support a range of upstream efforts to address the threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Additional links:

• Explore the case studies

ILLICIT WEAPONS IN AFGHANISTAN – ISSUE 03

Night vision equipment includes a range of imaging systems enabling humans to see at night, including thermal imaging devices. The Taliban's ability to access and deploy night vision equipment was a significant factor in the years before the group's takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021.

This Frontline Perspective, the third in a series from CAR's field operations in Afghanistan between 2019 and 2021, reports on two commercial supply lines through which the Taliban sought to procure thermal imaging weapon sights. These sights, manufactured in the past five years, were commercially available in the United States and United Arab Emirates.

• Explore the interactive storymap

DIVERSION DIGEST – ISSUE 04

An analysis of how using customs and shipping records can inform investigations into the diversion of precursor materials used in improvised explosive devices.

• Explore the storymap

IDENTIFYING MATERIEL MANUFACTURED IN THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK)

A guide to identifying weapons and ammunition produced by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) using examples of materiel documented by CAR in the field. This field guide provides diagrams showing distinguishing features of AK-pattern small arms, small-calibre ammunition (7.62 mm to 14.5 mm), and medium to large calibre ammunition (40 mm rockets and 130 mm artillery ammunition). Diagrams also show distinguishing features of packaging, including false descriptions of package contents.

This guide was updated in 2023 to include newly-observed rifle models as well as a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

MISSILE COMPONENTS USED IN DRONE ATTACKS IN NORTHEAST SYRIA

Between September 2021 and June 2022, CAR investigations have documented the physical remnants of 17 air-to-surface missile attacks in north-east Syria. The missile systems were manufactured in Türkiye and likely fired from uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs). This Frontline Perspective provides a technical overview of the missiles themselves, including CAR’s identification process and the internal components identified within the system. It then focuses on how electromagnetic brakes, which are used in accurate steering in missile technology, were manufactured by a company based in the European Union (EU) and were subsequently diverted from their stated end use in medical vehicles.

WEAPON SUPPLIES FUELLING TERRORISM IN THE LAKE CHAD CRISIS

In 2019 CAR investigators travelled to the Diffa region of south-eastern Niger to document weapons and ammunition seized from terrorist groups operating in the areas around Lake Chad. In this Dispatch from the Field, CAR provides a first systematic assessment of the origins and supply sources of some of the illicit weaponry deployed by militants affiliated with Jama’atu Ahlis Sunnah Lidda’awati wal-Jihad (the Sunni Muslim Group for Preaching and Jihad, or JAS)—more commonly referred to as Boko Haram—and the emergent Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).

ILLICIT WEAPONS IN AFGHANISTAN – ISSUE 02

Since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in mid-August 2021, concerns have grown over the changing terrorist landscape in the country and the threat posed by groups such as the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP). This second Frontline Perspective focuses on weapons used in two high-profile attacks in Kabul: the May 2019 Taliban-claimed attack on Counterpart International, and the November 2020 ISKP-claimed attack on Kabul University. It helps shine a spotlight on tactics and weapon selection for such high-profile attacks, and highlights important similarities between the weapons used.

WEAPONS OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE

Since 2018, CAR field investigation teams have carried out forensic documentation of the military equipment that has been recovered from armed formations of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk 'People's Republics' (DPR and LPR) in eastern Ukraine.

This report is the result of a three-year study into the supply sources of weapons, ammunition, vehicles, armour, and artillery used in the conflict.

Explore dynamic case studies and interact with the data from these investigations in CAR's Ukraine iTrace Resource Centre

ILLICIT WEAPONS IN AFGHANISTAN – ISSUE 01

Recent Taliban seizures of equipment previously provided to Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF) by the United States and NATO probably constitutes one of the most significant large-scale diversion of military equipment in recent history. This Frontline Perspective, the first in a series from CAR's investigations in Afghanistan, explores the long-standing capacity of the Taliban and other armed actors in Afghanistan to access weapons that had been issued to ANDSF, and considers the systemic challenges that have enabled weapon diversion from national custody.