NORTH KOREA, Russia, and the United States have each put forward conflicting accounts of each other’s role in the Ukraine War. Contradicting accusations over secret arms deals between North Korea and Russia exposes the possible use of “deception” as a tactic to pursue domestic interests and take control of the conflict’s narrative. The popularity of “post-truth politics” as a buzzword steers us to investigate this concept in relation to the discussion on international relations and conflict.

Arms deals according to the United States, Russia, and North Korea

   In early September, U.S. intelligence declassified findings revealing that Russia was in the process of buying millions of artillery shells and rockets from North Korea[1]. The reports suggested that Western sanctions had created struggles for Russia, leading the nation to turn to Pyongyang to replenish arms stockpiles amid President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. North Korea, however, denies supplying weapons to Russia[2], accusing the United States of making “reckless remarks” to “pursue its base political and military aims[3].” Moscow similarly denies the claims.

  The United States’ accusations indicate that North Korea is breaking United Nations (UN) Security Council sanctions, which ban the nation from importing or exporting weapons. With the current volatility in the Security Council due to rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine’s allies, the stakes of North Korea breaking sanctions are all the more dangerous[4]. Three major nuclearized states exchanging accusations over arms deals creates a security issue of considerable global impact, adding onto the already tense relations of the Ukraine War.

“The world’s a stage”: Post-truth politics on the international security stage

   “Post-truth politics” was Oxford Dictionary’s 2016 word of the year, and the term has enjoyed enduring popularity by being linked to events like the Brexit referendum, the Trump administration, and the 2017 South Korean presidential election. The concept refers to the rising tendency of political discourse to be emotionally charged, with actors prioritizing personal beliefs over objective facts[5]. Yet, this is not necessarily a new phenomenon: deception is an age-old trait of politics. “Post-truth politics” is simply a repackaging of an ancient tradition. Though the term is typically used to analyze political communication in modern media, deception and emotional charge are also relevant in situations like the conflicting accounts in the Ukraine War. 

   The international security arena is characterized by high stakes, polarity, and arguably, fear. According to realist theory, nations, as self-interested actors, maximize their power and security—usually through military power— creating a global battle for hegemony. However, post-truth politics allows countries to pursue power and security through less costly and more admissible means, substituting military dominance with threat and deception. Actors involved in political negotiations recognize that to help maximize a state’s security, hiding or manipulating the truth can be a valuable tool. 

“All the men [and women] merely players”: Thinking critically about each player’s claims

   There are aspects of deceit in the differing accounts of the Ukraine war. By reprimanding North Korea for supplying weapons to Russia, the United States antagonizes both North Korea and Russia. And in doing so, the United States also reinforces its power and status as a “global hegemon.” North Korea has expressed support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a retort against the Western “hegemonic policy[6].” So, the United States affirms its international leadership as rising powers threaten and question its position; first, by establishing the antagonism of these nations, then showing that the United States refuses to back down from challenges posed by “dangerous” North Korea and Russia. Here, the United States places itself in a “war of morals”—it links “truth” and “justice” to its international goals,which reinforce domestic desires and the preservation of national security. This gives reason to question the United States’ account of the events.  Hence, the United States may bear elements of post-truth politics in its discourse, using them to maintain itself as the global hegemon and “good superpower” without expending any military resources. 

   Russia is divulging its own account of the truth to feign the image of strength. Amidst reports of retreats and leaked phone calls exposing an army in disarray, Putin consistently declares the power of his nation. In fact, he warned in a televised address that the Kremlin would “certainly use all the means at [its] disposal to protect Russia and [its] people[7].” This claim implies that Putin is prepared to use the nation’s nuclear arsenal in the Ukrainian conflict, redefining Russian capabilities[8]. The use of such threats revises the global security situation; nuclear weapons—once a tool of deterrence—now threaten to move beyond their rhetorical functions to cause very real damage with their capacity to inflict physical suffering and destroy the international order. Even though reports point to a weak Russia, Putin’s statements prompt insecurity in global actors. Ultimately, by using the mere threat of nuclear war, Russia restores a perception of strength to the nation and uses fear to keep a semblance of power in the Ukraine conflict.

   North Korea’s denial of sending arms to Russia arguably comes with a rocky track record of deception in their security agenda, as the nation is reportedly preferential to “under the table” arms deals[9]. North Korea’s support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a rebuttal to Western hegemonic policy, as well as Kim Jong-un’s statements expressing North Korean desires to have “more comprehensive and constructive” relations with Russia, underlines North Korea’s alliance with Russia. This gives weight to U.S. claims of undercover arms deals, as there is an alignment with North Korea’s domestic objectives and international relations. Reinforcing the strength of another authoritarian state like Russia in invading a democratic nation undermines global democracy and the United States’ liberal international order. Moreover, North Korea accusing the United States of lying reinvokes post-truth politics’ view of truth as a non-critical factor in security relations. Nonetheless, denying involvement is preferential for North Korea in order to protect itself from the scrutiny of the UN Security Council. Russia and North Korea seek domestic interests at the cost of Western sovereignty and deception may potentially be a useful tool for them to achieve their ends.

*                 *                 *

   Recognizing the role of deception in international security negotiations comes at a cost: we must accept both the obscurity of “the truth” and the difference between what leaders say and the reality of the situation. Tying in with elements of “post-truth,” conflict is inherently tied to the discourse around it, where leaders pursue their own domestic agendas in conjunction with international security efforts, and truth is not a vital nor useful value. Thus, we must critically question “truths,” looking at how they (re)shape the reality of a conflict and each state’s role in it. Hans Schattle (Prof., Dept. of Political Science & Intl. Studies) highlights the importance of teaching “media literacy across all grade levels in education.” He believes that doing so forms a public which is less susceptible to the rapid worldwide spread of “false or distorted information,” and able to recognize truth. A well-informed public would be able to recognize how Russia, North Korea, and the United States all have stakes in the Ukraine War and that their discourse inevitably reflects this fact.

[1] The New York Times

[2] The Guardian

[3] Japan Times

[4] Financial Times

[5] Oxford English Dictionaries

[6] The Guardian

[7] War and Peace by Jack S. Levy

[6] Financial Times

[7] The New York Times

[8] CNBC

[9] The Guardian