In June 2026, North Korea conducted a series of ideological lectures for officials to commemorate the second anniversary of its Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty with Russia. This treaty, signed in June 2024 by Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin, encompasses cooperation in various domains, including political, economic, cultural, defense, and security. The lectures aimed to reinforce the narrative of the alliance as a significant achievement of Kim Jong Un's leadership while addressing the growing concerns regarding the deaths of North Korean soldiers deployed in Russia's conflict against Ukraine.
The lectures began on June 19, 2026, following directives from higher party organs issued the day before. They emphasized the treaty as a legal foundation for the bilateral relationship, highlighting recent developments such as the resumption of passenger flights between Pyongyang and Moscow, the establishment of a friendship hospital, and the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia. Lecturers argued that these actions demonstrated the practical implementation of the treaty and the unprecedented levels of cooperation achieved over the past two years.
A particularly poignant aspect of the lectures was the treatment of North Korean soldiers who had died while fighting in Ukraine. Their deaths were framed as noble sacrifices for the homeland, made in the context of a united front against the United States. Kim Jong Un was portrayed as a caring leader who personally took responsibility for the soldiers and their families. However, the emotional response from officials in Haeju city revealed a more complex reality. While they publicly applauded the diplomatic achievements, many officials were visibly distressed, shedding tears not out of gratitude but for the soldiers lost in a foreign land and the fear that their own children could be sent to similar battlefields.
The urgency of the week-long lecture campaign reflected the authorities' awareness of the internal anxiety surrounding the deployment of troops. Officials expressed skepticism about the rationale behind the deployment, questioning how the sacrifices of the soldiers could be justified to the general populace unless they resulted in tangible benefits such as stable market prices or relief from hunger. The lectures aimed to present the alliance in a positive light, framing it as a victory for the country and a testament to the leader's benevolence, but the emotional turmoil among officials indicated that the government's efforts to quell dissent were only partially successful.
