The vessel was flying the flag of the Pacific Island of Palau; however, prior to the drone hit, Palau withdrew the registration, leaving the crew vulnerable to accusations of being without official papers. Israel had also made accusations of terrorism, claiming that the crew of activists were Hamas militants. There is no basis to the claim that the peaceful activists have any military connections or intentions. The crew are internationals of conscience, who had gathered together from various countries in an attempt to break the blockade of Gaza, carry essential supplies, and draw attention to the desperate plight of people in Gaza.

A nearby Maltese tug boat was the first to arrive at the boat’s aid, having been alerted by the authorities to the SOS distress call. The tug boat was equipped with a fire hose and managed to extinguish the fire totally. However, with holes in the boat from the drone attack and extensive damage to the generator, the boat has been slowly taking on water. When the authorities arrived shortly after, the captain of the ‘Conscience’ informed them that the crew would not abandon their vessel or let any of the authorities board it.

The fears of the crew of sabotage from an unknown person or persons boarding their boat are not unrealistic. Besides incidents of sabotage, activists from the earlier Freedom Flotilla Coalitions, in attempting to break the siege of Gaza, have experienced deaths, arrests, theft, and the destruction of vessels. In 2008 the ‘Dignity’, was rammed – with clear lethal intent by the Israeli military. The damage was so extensive that the boat took on water, leaving it unseaworthy. Although the authorities in Israel and Egypt ignored the call for help, the Lebanese responded and rescued the sixteen international activists on board. In 2010, ten activists were murdered by the Israeli military. In 2018, Dr. Swee Ang, a passenger on the ‘Al Awda’ freedom boat, describes how prior to reaching the Gaza coastline, they were boarded by the Israeli military, arrested, humiliated, and stripped naked. Their boat was confiscated.

The young, well-known environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, is already in Malta and, along with other internationals, hopes to join the ‘Conscience’ as early as possible. However, being well-known is no guarantee of survival or success, as orthopaedic surgeon David Halpin can testify from his experience on the ‘Dignity’. The Israelis have a documented history of committing crimes against anyone – Palestinian or international, if they are perceived to challenge their Zionist aspirations to turn all of Palestine and beyond, into a Jewish State.

The Maltese authorities agreed to allow the boat to come into Malta and to assist with repairs. However, they insisted that the boat go through the normal customs procedures of inspection. With concerns for Malta’s security and a responsibility for the security of those on the boat from further attack, the Maltese Navy blocked all vessels from approaching the ‘Conscience’. Included in those blocked, from the area around the boat, were activists connected with the freedom flotilla. This led to a standoff between the two groups as each tried to express their security concerns while also addressing the vessel’s evident need for assistance.

All eyes turned away from Israel’s war crime and toward Malta. Sandwiched between Zionist political pressure from Israel on one side and pressure from international humanitarian groups on the other side, the Maltese authorities were thrown into the spotlight as the potential villains. The Maltese people and the internationals were ready to protest in the capital city of Valletta in support of the humanitarian venture. However, the protest was called off after it appeared that the crew and supporters of the ‘Conscience’ were in genuine negotiations with the Maltese Government.

This is a narrative that is still unfolding. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations between the activists and the Maltese Government, we must remind ourselves that the real villain here is not Malta, but Israel. If justice is ever to be achieved, the Israeli Government must be held accountable for its ongoing theft and coveting of Palestinian land. Only then will Palestinians be free of this hundred-year-plus catastrophe that has led to displacement, occupation, and genocide.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Heather Stroud.

A human rights agency has called for an investigation into the drone attacks on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla aid ship Conscience with Israel suspected of being responsible.

The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said in a statement that the deliberate targeting of a civilian aid ship in international waters was a “flagrant violation” of the United Nations Charter, the Law of the Sea, and the Rome Statute, which prohibits the targeting of humanitarian objects.

It added: “This attack falls within a recurring and documented pattern of force being used to prevent ships from reaching the Gaza Strip, even before they approach its shores.”

• READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla attacked in an apparent Israeli drone attack in international waters
• Kia Ora Gaza page on the Freedom Flotilla

The monitor is calling for an “independent and transparent investigation under Maltese jurisdiction, with the participation of the United Nations”.

It is also demanding “guarantees for safe sea passage for humanitarian aid bound for Gaza”.

“Any failure to act today will only encourage further attacks on humanitarian missions and deepen the catastrophe unfolding in Gaza,” said the monitor.

A spokesperson for the Gaza Freedom Flotilla said the group blamed Israel or one of its allies for the attack, adding it currently did not have proof of this claim.

Israeli TV confirms attack
However, Israel’s channel 12 television reported that Israeli forces were responsible for the attack.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) is a grassroots people-to-people solidarity movement composed of campaigns and initiatives from different parts of the world, working together to end the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza.

The organisation said its goals included:

• breaking Israel’s more than 17-year illegal and inhumane blockade of the Gaza Strip;
• educating people around the world about the blockade of Gaza;
• condemning and publicising the complicity of other governments and global actors in enabling the blockade; and
• responding to the cry from Palestinians and Palestinian organisations in Gaza for solidarity to break the blockade.

The MV Conscience — with about 30 human rights and aid activists on board — came under direct attack in international waters off the coast of Malta at 00:23 local time.

The Maltese government said everyone on the ship was safe following the attack. Although several New Zealanders have been on board past flotilla ships, none were on board this time.

In May 2010, Israeli security forces attacked six vessels in a Freedom Flotilla mission carrying aid aid bound for Gaza.

Nine of the flotilla passengers were killed during the raid, with 30 wounded — one of whom later died of his wounds.

• More information about the Freedom Flotilla at Kia Ora Gaza.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

A ship carrying humanitarian aid for the Gaza Strip sent out a distress signal overnight after it was bombed by drones in international waters near Malta. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, the organizer of the voyage, is blaming Israel for the attack, which set the ship on fire, punched a substantial breach in its hull and cut off communication with those aboard. “We are dealing with a brutal attack on an innocent ship,” retired U.S. Army Colonel Ann Wright, who was in Malta waiting to board the flotilla, tells Democracy Now! “While we cannot yet identify the source of the drones, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a history of violence that has been directed toward the flotillas from the state of Israel.”

The climate activist Greta Thunberg was also set to join the flotilla and said in an online video that activists would “continue to do everything in our power to do our part to demand a free Palestine and demand the opening of a humanitarian corridor.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Photograph Source: Andrewj0131 – CC BY-SA 4.0

New Mexico professor Dr. Mostafa Hassanalian has devised a way to disguise an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) – popularly known as a drone – inside a stuffed pheasant or pigeon to better study the activities of real-live birds in flight. Until now, when researchers attempted to use drones to study birds up close, they generally got scared off, scattered or in some cases, attacked. Hassanalian is hoping that birds in flight will be fooled long enough for his camouflaged drone to enter their flock and film their movements, potentially aiding current bird conservation efforts. But will it work?

Videos of Hassanalian’s early drone prototypes posted on YouTube reveal them to be surprisingly life-like in appearance and movement. They not only look like birds but actually flap their wings – rather convincingly – while flying. So far, the professor has only tested his creation briefly outside the lab in secluded fields with no birds or wildlife present. To move forward, he will need permission from federal and local authorities to fly a taxidermy drone in the wild in the presence of live birds, without causing them harm.

Drones and birds

UAV pioneers have long been fascinated with birds as an inspiration to their drone designs. Other drone engineers have designed drones with bird-like feet and claws that can perch on branches and roofs and swoop and dive like birds. They’ve even tried to train actual birds – especially eagles and falcons – tointercept and take down drones that are threatening to wreak havoc on humans or property. Another important drone role is to serve as mobile scarecrows – either on farms, to protect seeds and crops from aviary poachers, or on piers – to chase away pigeons.

Despite these promising applications, systematic study of how birds and drones interact in conservation settings is still in its infancy. Conservationists have utilized drones to study a wide range of marine and land animals, from sharks, whales, dolphins, seals and turtles to lions, elephants, orangutans and moose. A key issue is whether drones can improve observational accuracy relative to more conventional field methods. Research suggests that aerial drones, when properly deployed, do offer substantially improved results compared to those obtained by human field inspectors equipped with binoculars, telescopes or stationary zoom cameras alone.

For example, drones can improve the actual count of individual species living in specific habitats by as much as 96%, according to one important study. Such research is critical for understanding the extent to which a species may have become endangered and the resources needed to ameliorate the trend.

It is generally agreed, however, that there is potential downside to drone-based observation, even for benign conservation purposes. Improperly deployed drones might disrupt an animal’s behavior and its habitat, skewing the findings of conservation research while also damaging the animals’ health and safety.

Some researchers have addressed these issues squarely in the context of bird conservation research. For example, one early study with drones and mallards noted that differences in drone design and speed had little or no impact on the way birds reacted behaviorally but a drone’s approach angle and proximity did. Drones that flew past or alongside bird populations while filming and that remained at a distance of four meters or more did little to provoke an obvious reaction from the birds under observation, the study found. However, drones that hovered over birds vertically and drew closer than four meters might well cause them to flee.

A more recent study with various raptor species discovered that drones at a distance of even ten meters might provoke the birds under study to flee – or in some cases, even attack, especially if the drone were a fixed-wing aircraft as opposed to a smaller quadcopter. Many birds would return to their nesting spots if the provocation were limited – but after five minutes, might not, the study found. Another factor was the type of species; more territorial raptors were more likely to become defensive and aggressive, researchers noted.

A third even more recent study – this one with vultures — a highly vulnerable bird species that also plays a critical role in the maintenance of eco-systems – arrived at similar findings.  Some but not all vulture species were more likely to respond negatively to drone intrusions, especially during nesting seasons. In addition, drones that flew directly overhead nesting vultures were more likely to provoke a negative response, regardless of the vulture species, the study found.

All of these research studies note that potential threats to bird life go far beyond the possibility of collisions resulting in bird death or injury. In fact, disruptions of bird life and their consequences might not be easily detectable, but could still prove harmful. Most notably, an increase in bird stress due to drone intrusions could undermine successful mating and breeding, leaving the young, especially, vulnerable to abandonment and death, researchers found. Death could come due to starvation or to nest falls or because of increased exposure to predators, researchers found.

Even the loud whirring of clacking noise from drone propellers could prove stressful, reducing mating time and bonding between mothers and their young, some researchers have noted.

Concerns about wildlife safety, especially bird safety, due to drone intrusions, are not just hypothetical. As drone flying has proliferated in recent years, unintended drones and bird encounters – many unrelated to conservation research – have also grown. One of the most dramatic and consequential incidents occurred three years ago when the flight of a single drone into the Bolsa Chica bird sanctuary in southern California disrupted the entire breeding season of endangered Elegant Terns. The terns mistook the errant drone for a bird predator and promptly fled their breeding grounds leading to the deaths of thousands of small chicks, undermining the goals and mission of the sanctuary.

In response to this incident, the sanctuary has posted new signage warning visitors not to fly drones on or near its property, with new stiffer penalties for those caught doing so.  In addition the state, under pressure from conservationists, has launched a formal inquiry that may result in new and stricter guidelines for drone flying at or near the dozens of bird sanctuaries located up and down the entire California coast.

Current regulatory void

How to regulate drone flying is an important issue in the drone industry and a top priority for the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, the agency charged with regulating all commercial and private aircraft operations. However, most FAA regulations pertain to protecting other aircraft, physical infrastructure or humans from the risk of collision and injury due to drone intrusions – not to protecting animals per se.

That said, the FAA as well as the National Park Service (NPS) are not oblivious to the potential risk to wildlife. For example, NPS regulations do prohibit drones from launching and landing drones in federal parks, forests and wildlife refuges. In addition, in those federal parks where drones, with an approved permit, are allowed to fly and film, if they so choose, their operators are instructed to maintain a “safe” distance from wildlife. However, to date more precise rules, including proscribed “safe” distances, have not been stipulated by the FAA or by any other federal, state or local agency.

Past and ongoing experience of bird interactions with drones and the current regulatory void pertaining to drone flying amid bird populations raise unavoidable questions about the purpose, viability and safety of the taxidermy drone project as well as its ethical implications.  The project’s main mission, according to its director, is to film and collect sensor data on birds while in flight to gain new insights into their flight patterns and to learn more about how birds conserve energy to fly long distances without resting.

However, while billed as a contribution to “wildlife monitoring,” and bird conservation, it is not entirely clear how his team’s research will actually contribute to this purpose. Conservation research typically involves observation of nests and breeding patterns; however, no such purpose appears to be in mind in the case of this project – far from it.

In fact, Hassanalian, when citing the research’s implications in interviews, also highlights its prospective value to the “aviation industry.” One of his assistants notes on camera that the color of an aircraft as well as its aerodynamic design are key factors in its flight efficiency; these factors likely play a similar role in bird flight efficiency, he suggests. Hassanalian also hypothesizes that the precise formation of large bird flocks, like airplanes flying in unison, could greatly affect their flight efficiency, including their use of fuel, as well as their maneuverability.

Pentagon spy birds?

Another potential implication of Hassanalian’s research is that taxidermy drones might be used for clandestine military operations, including spying. In enemy territory, the drones, equipped with cameras and other devices (including perhaps, explosives), would not appear as drones but merely as birds and might easily evade detection. Studying birds up close to better mimic their movements in flight could therefore prove useful for warfare purposes, not conservation. Hassanalian not only admits this possibility but seems to welcome it, perhaps as another source of future interest in and funding for his research.

Hassanalian wouldn’t be the first university researcher to collaborate with the Pentagon on military drone research disguised as a civilian endeavor.  Normally, though, these projects are kept separate – or designated “dual use” – with the commercial application in the lead, while the military services pursue their own version of the same technology, informally sharing research results along the way. Both the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and the Air Force Research laboratory (AFRL)are exploring “biomimetic” drone projects in which drones are configured  as birds – or in more recent cases, as insects as small as a few centimeters long. To the naked eye, the insect drones, with catchy names like “Robo-Fly” and “Robo-Bee,” look and fly like the real thing and come equipped with super-miniaturized cameras that can capture HD images of enemy troop concentrations and installations. The new insect drones are not only nearly impossible to see – let alone detect, but they also fly inaudibly – unlike most drones, which are fairly noisy.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, is heavily invested in similar drone projects, which normally feature collaboration with civilian technology firms that specialize in AI and robotics – companies like Arion, with offices worldwide. DARPA began investing in these micro- and nano-drone projects over a decade ago and their prototypes are just now beginning to come online. In fact, the US Army’s “Black Hornet,” one of the first to be deployed, already conducts reconnaissance  missions in Ukraine. It weighs just a few ounces and flies at a speed of 13 miles per hour and at a maximum altitude of 1.5 kilometers, and can stay airborne for 22 minutes without the need for recharging. Ukraine received some 1,000 Black Hornets back in December 2023, according to published reports,

The US and its allies are not alone. After years of research, China is also beginning to deploy its own “spy birds.” However, rather than a pigeon or pheasant, the Chinese prototype is modeled on a small Eurasian tree sparrow, which is smaller and even harder to detect. Last December, at a commemoration of the birth of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Chinese military officials unveiled its new “ornithopter” to the amazement of the assembled dignitaries. A PLA soldier released the experimental drone by hand and it proceeded to circle the skies, then dive and swoop, showcasing its bird-like aerodynamics. Beijing plans to introduce the drone – dubbed the “Little Falcon” – into actual reconnaissance missions some time next year, though, for reasons of national security, it won’t disclose where.

In the annals of military warfare, exploiting live birds for surveillance isn’t exactly new. Carrier pigeonshave been used for decades for battlefield communications, and in World War II some were strapped with cameras to try to capture still images of enemy forces and installations. But today’s bird-like drones are far more agile and can be flown and directed remotely; they can also be equipped with more sophisticated AI-powered avionics and surveillance equipment to relay real-time tactical information. In theory, they could also be equipped with explosive devices, much as some of the larger undisguised drones are, for suicide attacks. Communication is one purpose; battlefield surveillance is another, and using birds or disguised birds as bomb platforms or missiles is quite another. The more their role is escalated into deactivate combat, the higher the potential stakes, ethically, for their unrestricted use, especially when harm to innocents becomes a risk, as it invariably does in today’s civilian-intensive wars.

Ethical concerns

Looking at the taxidermy project, one must ask:  Is it ethical to conduct this kind of thinly-veiled military-purpose research in the guise of “conservation” research? In combat, the use of military weapons camouflaged as civilian ones – even when targeting enemy soldiers – is considered by some legal experts to be a violation of the “rules of war.”  In practice, warring parties, citing battlefield expediency, do frequently violate these same rules – but ad hoc violations are not the same as planned systemic ones. It stands to reason, then, that designing civilian consumer aircraft with military purposes already in mind might also raise ethical issues, especially for a civilian research university. This is one set of questions that surely demands an answer, or at least greater clarity, before the taxidermy project is pursued to completion.

Hassnaalian’s conservation claims also seem dubious on their face. The professor acknowledges that bird observation research with noisy mechanical drones often causes them stress and often fails to fulfill its research purposes. How, then, will taxidermy drones that deliberately intrude upon bird airspace avoid this same outcome? Hassanalian, if he has an answer, has yet to offer one. Current FAA guidelines call for a safe distance to be maintained between drones and birds. In this case, just the opposite is intended on the assumption that birds will welcome a bird-like drone presence. What happens if they do not?  One observersuggests that birds might initially steer clear of a taxidermy drone but could over time, accommodate themselves to it. Perhaps, but how much bird resistance – and outright injury – during months of field testing would be deemed a sign that the drone practice was indeed harmful – and therefore, counter-productive?

Currently, Hassanalian’s project remains in an early “proof of concept” experimental phase. Most of the testing is confined to a caged laboratory environment; some early bird prototypes have been launched in a small confined field outdoors. So far, since no human or wildlife, including live birds, are yet involved, the project has met Socorro University’s ethical review standards. Will additional ethical review and regulatory bodies be called in to review the project as it continues to develop? There are a large number of stakeholders in industry, government and the conservation community that could and should weigh in on the matter.

It could be that Hassanalian’s project will prove to have substantial merit. No doubt taxidermy drones, like insect drones, could also be applied to constructive commercial endeavors, like farm management or infrastructure inspections, but there are plenty of undisguised mechanical drones already being used to conduct those operations – and quite efficiently. Why, then, develop smaller “biomimetic” drones? Because they offer the additional advantage of clandestinity, which makes them ideally suited for battlefield reconnaissance use. In theory, they might also be deployed for civilian spy operations, by corporations and by law enforcement, a role that has already caused enormous public controversy, resulting, in the latter case, in heavy (but incomplete) restrictions on drone police use outside of criminal pursuit, SWAT and search-and rescue missions. But the next-generation insect and bird drones would be far less detectable, and it’s not clear, without greater oversight, whether their use would be similarly constrained. Military spying is one thing, spying on citizens, of course, is quite another. This is a serious concern.

Unquestionably, as Hassanalian’s project continues to advance, he should be asked to expand the orbit of public and scientific oversight to respond to basic safety, feasibility and “dual use” concerns and to ensure its conformity with current FAA regulatory guidelines as well as ethical standards for wildlife conservation research. It could be that these standards need further refinement or clarification to accommodate ongoing advances in drone technology and the expanding scope of drone applications. Assuming a baseline scientific and ethic review is deemed favorable, the taxidermy drone project might be given further go-ahead for real-world testing and then evaluated again periodically to determine if full-scale commercialization is truly warranted.

In the end, the taxidermy drone project may well surmount these regulatory hurdles. Objections may be answered and the project modified accordingly.  For example, new conservation goals might be added to fill out the range of contemplated applications. Not all risks can be anticipated at the outset of new scientific research, and the presence of risk should not necessarily be an impediment to scientific progress.

Nevertheless, with so many unknowns still apparent, a clearer cost-benefit analysis and balance sheet might be constructed at the outset, and then adjusted and refined as the project advances. Simply put, who, if anyone, stands to benefit from the development of taxidermy drones? What are the potential risks of pursuing the research further to successful commercialization? Is the pursuit of the benefits worth the prospective costs? And who, in the end, decides these issues? At some point, these important questions need to be addressed.

The post Taxidermy Drones: Tool of Conservation or Weapon of War? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Stewart Lawrence.

Last week, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un oversaw the test flight of a Saetbyol-4-class UAV at Panghyon Airbase. The North first revealed the Saetbyol-4 during a military parade in July 2023, drawing comparisons from analysts to a sophisticated U.S. drone, the RQ-4B Global Hawk.

The Global Hawk is a high-altitude, long-endurance UAV used for surveillance and reconnaissance and capable of monitoring vast areas with advanced sensors for as long as 30 hours without refueling.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, said the North Korean drones were not as advanced as the Global Hawk as they merely mimic the airframes of the U.S. aerial vehicles.

“Despite widespread claims that North Korea has been building copies of U.S. drones such as the RQ-4B Global Hawk, the North Korean drones are not clones,” CSIS said Tuesday via its analysis platform Beyond Parallel.

The North Korean drones are “presently determined as not carrying advanced equipment similar to that found in U.S. UAVs,” the thinktank said.

CSIS reported that the airframe of the Saetbyol-4 appears slightly shorter, measuring approximately 12 meters (39 feet) in length, compared to the RQ-4B Global Hawk’s 14.5 meters.

Saetbyol-9

In addition to the Saetbyol-4, North Korea’s state media released footage of another drone in 2023, later identified as the Saetbyol-9, which appeared to be a replica of the U.S. MQ-9A Reaper – a remotely piloted attack drone.

However, CSIS believes that this characterization is also inaccurate.

The Saetbyol-9 appears slightly shorter, measuring approximately 9 meters in length, compared to the Reaper’s 11 meters, it said.

The North Korean drone is unlikely to carry the advanced targeting and communications equipment found in the MQ-9A Predator.

Mimicking of the U.S. UAVs was likely undertaken to expedite development by utilizing proven airframe designs, according to CSIS.

“From a propaganda perspective, the North Korean designations may imply a level of capability that North Korea wants the world to believe that they have achieved,” it said.

(KCNA/Reuters)

Last week, North Korea unveiled what appears to be its first airborne radar system and suicide attack drones equipped with artificial intelligence, adding to indications that Russia has provided technical assistance in exchange for the North sending troops to fight Ukraine.

The North’s state media also highlighted the trial of a reconnaissance drone and released photos of a suicide drone test, inspected by Kim, showing what it said were AI-powered drones successfully hitting ground targets, including a tank.

During the inspection, Kim “made an important evaluation of the military effectiveness and strategic value of the strategic reconnaissance drone with improved performance and the suicide attack drones with the introduction of new artificial intelligence,” the Korea Central News Agency said.

Pyongyang and Moscow reportedly reached an agreement in February under which Russia will provide technical assistance to North Korea for the development and mass production of various types of drones.

The agreement was in return for North Korea’s deployment of soldiers to aid Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Military analysts also believe North Korea has supplied conventional weapons to Russia for its war in Ukraine in return for military and economic assistance.

North Korea has reportedly deployed as many as 12,000 troops and supplied ballistic missiles to support Russia’s efforts in Ukraine, marking its first significant military involvement abroad since the 1950s. Neither Russia nor North Korea has confirmed the claims made by the U.S. and South Korea.

Edited by Mike Firn and Stephen Wright.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

The North’s state-run Korean Central News Agency, or KCNA, published photos of the early-warning airplane on Thursday and said leader Kim Jong Un boarded the aircraft and instructed military officials.

Airborne radar systems are generally used to detect incoming aircraft, ships, vehicles and missiles so defending forces can attack them. Suicide drones are able to occupy airspace for a long period before detonating a warhead.

Reports emerged in September that North Korea was “making progress” in modifying a Russian aircraft to become its first airborne radar system.

British thinktank International Institute for Strategic Studies has said work on converting one of the three Ilyushin IL-76 Candid aircraft that Russia supplied to North Korea in the early 1990s was being carried out at Pyongyang Sunan International Airport.

In early March, satellite images showed that the North was close to completing the modification of the aircraft.

KCNA also highlighted the trial of a reconnaissance drone and released photos of a suicide drone test, inspected by Kim, showing what it said were AI-powered drones successfully hitting ground targets, including a tank.

During the inspection, Kim “made an important evaluation of the military effectiveness and strategic value of the strategic reconnaissance drone with improved performance and the suicide attack drones with the introduction of new artificial intelligence,” KCNA said.

(KCNA via Reuters)

“Proved at the test was the innovative performance of a new-type strategic reconnaissance drone with the detective ability capable of tracking and monitoring different strategic targets and enemy troops’ activities on the ground and the sea,” the report said.

Kim stressed that the unmanned equipment and AI fields should be “top-prioritized,” according to KCNA.

Pyongyang and Moscow reportedly reached an agreement in February under which Russia will provide technical assistance to North Korea for the development and mass production of various types of drones.

The agreement was in return for North Korea’s deployment of soldiers to aid Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Military analysts also believe North Korea has supplied conventional weapons to Russia for its war in Ukraine in return for military and economic assistance.

RELATED STORIES

North Korea likely to produce drones with Russian support this year: report

North Korean civil defense units ordered to start drone training – without drones

North Korea ‘modifying’ Russian jet as early warning aircraft: think tank

Separately, Kim also observed the flight of an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft that resembles the U.S. Global Hawk, or RQ-4, according to the KCNA.

In July 2023, North Korea unveiled a strategic unmanned reconnaissance aircraft similar to the Global Hawk at a weapons exhibition.

During the military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice, locally known as Victory Day, in the same month, the North’s state-run broadcaster aired a flight scene of this aircraft, referred to as “Saetbyul-4.”

But the unmanned reconnaissance aircraft observed by Kim this time had narrower and longer wings compared to Saetbyul-4.

KCNA said Kim also expressed satisfaction with “new electronic jamming and attack weapon systems” under production. Kim said modernization of North Korea’s army is being “qualitatively attained,” according to KCNA.

Edited by Mike Firn and Stephen Wright.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

Chinese- and Russian-made drones using night vision cameras are giving Myanmar’s military junta an advantage in its war against rebel groups, according to sources on the ground, touching off what one observer termed a “drone arms race” between the two sides.

The new weaponry is upping the ante in Myanmar, where drones were once solely a tool of the armed opposition seeking a cheap way to level the playing field against a far better-equipped military, which seized control of the country in a 2021 coup d’etat.

Since early February, pro-junta channels on the social media platform Telegram have posted video footage of what appears to be military drone bomb attacks on rebel forces in Kachin state’s Bhamo township using either infrared or thermal night vision cameras and causing casualties.

On Feb. 20, British military intelligence publisher Janes International Defense Review cited the footage in a statement which claimed that Myanmar’s military “has begun enhancing its expanding unmanned aerial vehicle capabilities, adapting forward-looking infrared systems for tactical attack drones.”

Officials from two anti-junta groups — the Kachin Independence Army, or KIA, and a civilian defense unit based in Bhamo — confirmed to RFA Burmese that the military has deployed such drones in combat to devastating effect.

“The junta is using night vision drones in Bhamo battles,” said KIA spokesperson Colonel Naw Bu. “Our officials in the fighting reported that the drones are very advanced, with night vision cameras.”

Naw Bu said he was unaware of night vision drones being used by the military in other parts of the country.

Infrared imaging uses radiation emitted or reflected by objects to create images, while thermal imaging measures heat emitted by objects to create images based on temperature differences. Both provide users with a way to track objects at night.

It was not immediately clear which technology the drones were fitted with. Thermal cameras are a type of infrared camera, but not all infrared cameras produce thermal images.

Drones from China, Russia

Fighting between the junta and the KIA has been intensifying in Bhamo since early January, according to sources in the region.

A member of an anti-junta civilian defense group in Bhamo told RFA that junta forces had been using night vision drones for “about a month” and called their destructive power “considerable.”

“We have [equipment] that can disrupt radio frequencies, and when we hear a drone flying overhead, we have time to defend against it,” said the fighter, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to security concerns. “Nonetheless, on some occasions, we continue to face [drone] attacks with highly explosive bombs, despite our preparations.”

The rebel fighter did not disclose details of casualties caused by these drones, and RFA was unable to independently verify confirm the number of people killed or injured in the attacks.

(Myanmar Military)

Some ethnic armed and civil defense groups have claimed that the junta is using drones made in Russia and China — two countries that have backed the military regime since the coup — with a higher reliance on those from China.

Captain Zin Yaw, a former military officer and a member of the Civil Disobedience Movement of public servants who quit their jobs to protest the coup, told RFA that the junta is likely to continue pursuing advanced drones.

“We see that they are actively seeking advanced technology to engage in modern warfare,” he said. “The junta chief [Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing] recently visited Russia, and they may have gained a technological advantage from the trip.”

‘Drone arms race’ underway

Attempts by RFA to contact junta spokesperson Maj. Gen. Zaw Min Tun for comment on the military’s use of high-tech drones went unanswered by the time of publishing.

But Thein Tun Oo, the executive director of the Thayninga Institute for Strategic Studies, composed of former military officers, told RFA that he expects the junta will gain a significant advantage with the advanced technology.

“Armed resistance forces should reassess their strategies because their available resources are no match for those of the nation’s military,” he said. “Over time, their resources will dwindle, while the [junta] continues to expand its capabilities.”

Jonah Blank, a senior political scientist at global policy think tank the RAND Corporation, said the military and rebel forces “are now in a drone arms race,” after rebels deployed drones to challenge the junta’s air superiority and the military responded with more advanced drone technology “to try to regain its edge.”

“But these technological advances tend to become cheaper and more easily available very quickly — the rebels will soon have them too," said Blank, who is also a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore.

He characterized drones as “inherently democratizing technology,” noting that even the most advanced U.S. and Chinese drones “are far less expensive than these powers' manned aircraft.”

“This trend inherently favors an irregular army,” he said.

According to data compiled by RFA, junta air and artillery strikes killed at least 1,769 civilians and injured some 3,720 across the country in 2024.

Translated by Aung Naing. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Burmese.

One person was apparently arrested, Hun Sen said, but others may still be at large.

Who knows whether it is true or not?

Some people suspect it’s a conceit by Hun Sen, the former prime minister who handed power to his eldest son in 2023, to justify his incoming law that will brandish political opponents as “terrorists”, in an attempt to deter foreigners from aiding the exiled opposition movement.

(Tang Chhin Sothy/AFP)

Speaking about the alleged plot on his life, Hun Sen connected the two: “This is an act of terrorism, and I’d like to urge foreigners to be cautious, refraining from supporting terrorist activities.”

Such skepticism led one commentator, in an interview with Radio Free Asia, to claim that “ordinary citizens do not have the ability” to hit his heavily guarded Takhmao home.

In fact, they do.

Cheap drones for Myanmar opposition

Myanmar’s four-year-old civil war has shown just how much drones have revolutionized not just warfare but the balance of power between the state and the individual.

A long-range modified and armed drone costs Myanmar’s rebels around US$1,500.

By comparison, the International Crisis Group reckons second-hand AK-47s or M-16s cost US$3,000 each.

Myanmar’s military recently took delivery of six Su-30SMEs fighter jets from Russia, for which it paid $400 million -- excluding the weaponry.

As one commentator put it last year: “In an asymmetric conflict, the drone is helping to equalize the battlescape.”

(AFP)

Junta forces are catching up, for sure. AFP reported a few weeks ago that “the military is adopting the equipment of the anti-coup fighters, using drones to drop mortars or guide artillery strikes and bombing runs by its Chinese and Russian-built air force.”

However, the revolutionary importance of drones isn’t that a superior force will never adopt the same technology. It’s that drones -- now an irreplaceable weapon in modern warfare -- cannot be monopolized by a state.

Not for almost two centuries has there been such a technological leap in the balance of power. Not for at least the past 100 years has a dominant weapon been as cheap and available to the masses.

‘History of weapons’

In October 1945, George Orwell published a short essay that’s best known for popularizing the term “Cold War”.

“You And The Atom Bomb” also offered a take on the weapons that’s rarely reflected on these days.

Had the nuclear bomb been as cheap and easy as a bicycle to produce, Orwell reasoned, it might have “plunged us back into barbarism.”

But because the bomb is a rare and costly thing to make, it might “complete the process [of] robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt.”

Mutually Assured Destruction would keep the peace between the nuclear states, but it meant that existing dictatorship could become permanent, Orwell feared.

How would a band of rag-tag rebels fair against a despot or imperialist prepared to quell any rebellion with a nuclear explosion?

Would the dictator who happily drops biological weapons on their own people not as easily reach for tactical nuclear bombs if they could?

(KCNA via Reuters)

Would the North Korean regime not prefer to go down in a nuclear blaze if the masses were ever to rise up?

Orwell noted that “the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons.”

Students of history are taught that gunpowder made possible a proper rebellion against feudal power; that the musket, cheap and easy to use, replaced the cannon and made possible the American and French revolutions.

Its successor, the breech-loading rifle, was slightly more complex, yet “even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another,” Orwell noted.

State arsenals only

The early 20th century, however, saw the invention of weapons only available to the state and only the most industrialized states—the tank, the aircraft, the submarine and, foremost, the nuclear bomb.

Vietnamese communists, by some accounts, were peasant volunteers who battled with nothing but smuggled guns, punji traps and a clear sense of what they were fighting for, but they were able to defeat the industrialized armies of France and the United States.

In reality, the communists were well supplied with non-rudimentary weaponry by Beijing and Moscow.

(John Feder/News Ltd. via AFP)

More representative of rag-tag guerrilla success were the East Timorese rebels, who had no patrons and only the most basic weapons to battle against Indonesian imperialism and its vastly superior forces.

Their stunning achievement was simply keeping their struggle alive for so long.

But the East Timorese were never going to secure independence in the jungles and hills; their victory depended on staying in the fight until international opinion turned in their favor.

Had it not, Timor-Leste would still be a province of Indonesia, as West Papuans know all too well.

RELATED STORIES

Hun Sen says drone assassination plot was recently foiled by authorities

Myanmar military adds advanced Chinese drones to arsenal

Myanmar junta chief missing from public view after drone attack

Perhaps drone warfare won’t bring victory to Myanmar’s revolutionaries.

Fighting alone doesn’t win wars. Alliances, superior industrial production, international opinion and quite a bit of luck — all are as important.

Yet without drone warfare, the junta would arguably have won this battle a lot sooner.

It probably hasn’t been lost on the Thai military that another coup might not be accepted as meekly as in earlier military takeovers by a populace which has closely observed events in neighboring Myanmar.

(Samrang Pring/Reuters)

Intentional or not, Hun Sen’s revelation that someone apparently tried to kill him using drones has imbued him and his impregnable regime with a rare sense of vulnerability.

His family rules over a 100,000-strong military that he has instructed to “destroy... revolutions that attempt to topple” his regime, plus a loyal National Police and an elite private bodyguard unit.

One son is head of military intelligence. Another son, Prime Minister Hun Manet, was previously the army chief.

But, as despots are now realizing, all that now means a lot less in the age of the drone.

David Hutt is a research fellow at the Central European Institute of Asian Studies (CEIAS) and the Southeast Asia Columnist at the Diplomat. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of RFA.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by commentator David Hutt.

The two countries have reached an agreement under which Russia will provide technical assistance to North Korea for the development and mass production of various types of drones, Japan’s public broadcaster NHK reported, citing multiple unidentified sources.

The agreement was in return for North Korea’s deployment of soldiers to aid Russia in its war against Ukraine, the broadcaster added.

As many as 12,000 North Korean soldiers are in Russia to fight Ukrainian forces who occupied parts of Russia’s Kursk region in August, according to Ukraine and the United States, although neither North Korea nor Russia has acknowledged their presence.

In November, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said he wanted his country to begin mass production of “suicide” drones.

Kim “underscored the need to build a serial production system as early as possible and go into full-scale mass production,” state media reported at that time.

‘Testbed for military capabilities’

Russia may be providing drone and missile technology to North Korea in exchange for North Korean troops fighting in Kursk, said the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War, or ISW, think tank, adding that the North was using the war in Ukraine as a testing ground for its own military capabilities.

Citing a Reuters report that North Korean ballistic missiles fired by Russian forces since December 2024 demonstrated significantly improved accuracy, the ISW said such an enhancement was gained through the North Korea-Russia alliance.

The ISW’s assessment was echoed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy who said on Saturday that Russia was deliberately transferring “modern technology” to North Korea, including drone technology.

But Japan’s NHK cited its sources as saying that Russia was reluctant to provide support for North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons.

The sources said Russia was worried that factors such as a North Korean nuclear test would complicate Russia’s relations with the United States as well as neighboring countries, including China.

North Korea has been suspected of sending weapons to Russia to support its invasion of Ukraine. South Korea said in October that the North had sent about 7,000 containers of weapons to Russia over the previous two months, bringing the total number of containers to 20,000.

‘Return to the front line’

Zelenskyy said North Korean forces had returned to the front line in Kursk, after reports they were withdrawn last month due to heavy casualties.

In a video address on Friday, Zelenskyy said the Russian army had “brought back in North Korean soldiers” who were carrying out “new assaults” in the region partially occupied by Ukraine.

“Hundreds of Russian and North Korean military” personnel had been “destroyed,” according to him.

RELATED STORIES

North Korea to punish people for spreading ‘rumors’ of soldiers dying in Russia

North Korean casualty rate in Kursk may be as high as 50%: US expert

North Korea ready to send 25,000 more troops to Russia: Zelenskyy

Citing Ukrainian intelligence, the Ukrainian leader added that Russian forces are establishing new military units, expanding facilities in the military industrial base, planning to increase troop numbers by more than 100,000 soldiers and strengthening military ties with North Korea.

“We now know – as our intelligence reports – that the Russians are creating new divisions and developing new military production facilities. It is clear that their cooperation with North Korea will be expanding,” he said.

(Ukraine’s 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade)

Separately, Ukraine’s 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade “Magura” reported that Russian and North Korean forces “changed” their tactics, now relying primarily on infantry assaults rather than the previous use of armored vehicles.

“Many infantry groups launched attacks from multiple directions at once. The assault began at midnight and lasted over 16 hours,” it said.

“They fought across fields and open areas. The enemy attackers were also brought in on ATVs [all-terrain vehicles] and unloaded into narrow landings where the enemy hid under the trees,” the brigade said.

Edited by Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

Ukraine says North Korean soldiers fighting alongside Russian forces in Kursk are proving to be easy targets for Ukrainian drones since they are unfamiliar with the difficulties of drone warfare and are struggling to adapt.

InformNapalm, an investigative group reporting on Russia’s war against Ukraine, said in its Telegram channel that it had video as evidence of North Koreans breaking into homes and evicting Russian residents to shelter from drones in the village of Machnowka.

The 53-second clip shows a man in a military uniform ordering elderly inhabitants of a home to stand outside while he takes refuge indoors. InformNapalm said that the soldier captured in the video was North Korean, citing intelligence data.

Radio Free Asia was not able to independently verify the video.

Separately, Ukraine’s 8th Special Operations Forces Regiment released photos of what it said show belongings of a dead North Korean soldier, including a drone detector.

Visual evidence indicates the device is a Bulat series drone detector produced by the Russian firm 3mx company.

(Ukraine’s 8th Special Operations Forces Regiment)

According to Russian military bloggers, units of the Russian army have been using Bulat series drone detectors since last year. RFA was not able to independently verify the images.

North Koreans fighting in Kursk are proving to be easy targets for Ukrainian drones since they employ a primitive tactic of baiting drones, a strategy previously documented in their military manuals, said the unmanned aerial vehicle systems battalion of Ukraine’s 36th Separate Marine Brigade, known as Wolf.

“There are many North Korean soldiers in our direction who are sweet targets for our drones because they don’t yet understand what drones are. This works to our advantage. They show no regard for their manpower, which is why they use such tactics,” said the brigade on Sunday.

South Korea’s spy agency said in December that North Korean soldiers were being “consumed” in attacks in Kursk because they lacked experience of drone warfare, adding that Russian forces complained that the North Koreans were a “burden” because of their “ignorance.”

RELATED STORIES

Notebook found on North Korean soldier outlines tactics for countering drones

Russians see North Koreans as a ‘burden’ over ignorance of drones: South says

Ukraine drones kill 50 North Koreans in battle in Kursk region

Up to 12,000 North Korean soldiers are in Russia to support its war efforts against Ukraine in Kursk, Ukraine and the U.S. say, but neither Moscow nor Pyongyang have acknowledged their deployment.

Ukraine reported 3,800 casualties among the North Koreans while South Korea estimated at least 1,100 North Koreans have been killed or wounded.

North Korean soldiers are being trained by Russians in the use of modern drones and weapons, but the morale of North Korean soldiers in Russia remains low due to isolation and separation from family, Ukrainian officials say.

The rate of their losses and communication problems because of the language barrier further affect operational effectiveness. Many soldiers have been deprived of personal devices to prevent information leaks, according to Ukraine.

White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said in December some North Korean soldiers were taking their own lives rather than surrender to Ukrainian forces in fighting in Russia’s Kursk region,

The North Korean military mounted a massive but “hopeless” attack on Ukrainian forces in Kursk on the orders of the Russian and North Korean military leadership, Kirby added.

Edited by Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

The notebook was found on a dead soldier named Jong Kyong Hong in Russia’s Kursk region, according to the Telegram post. Radio Free Asia was unable to independently verify the information.

About 50 North Korean soldiers were killed in Ukrainian drone attacks in Kursk last week, according to South Korea’s spy agency.

“North Korean troops are being ‘consumed’ for front-line assaults in an unfamiliar battlefield environment of open fields, and they lack the ability to respond to drone attacks,” said South Korea’s National Intelligence Service, as cited by lawmaker Lee Seong-kweun, who was briefed by the agency on Dec. 19.

The Ukrainian Special Forces posted a photograph of the notebook in its Telegram post. A diagram shows one person standing in front of the drone as the other two team members are positioned behind it, preparing to shoot.

“When a drone is spotted, form a team of three,” writing in the notebook said.

One person’s role is to lure in the drone from a forward position while maintaining a distance of about 7 meters (23 feet), the notes said. The other two should be ready to shoot the drone from a distance of 10 to 12 meters (32 to 40 feet), it said.

“When the person luring the drone stands still, the drone will also stop, making it possible for the two to aim and shoot it down,” the writing said.

‘Human bait’

The Ukrainian Special Forces deemed the method as “living human bait.” The special forces said that it was unclear whether the tactic was unique to the North Korean military or if it was something that the Russian military had taught to them.

Russian forces have complained that North Korean soldiers were a “burden” because of their “ignorance” of drone warfare, the South Korean spy agency said in its briefing last week.

Initial evidence from Ukraine has shown that North Korean soldiers are ill-prepared and lack the skills for modern warfare, said Federico Borsari, a resident fellow at the Washington-based Center for European Policy Analysis.

“They lacked counter-drone equipment, and with little cover they were easy targets for Ukrainian FPV operators,” he said, using the initials for “first-person view” –- a kind of drone that wirelessly transmits video feed.

“Many were killed while trying to hide among tall, dry grass crops and leafless tree lines,” he said. “Snow –- and Ukraine’s thermal sensors -– made them easily identifiable as most of those soldiers didn’t wear white camouflage.”

RELATED STORIES

Ukraine reveals handwritten letter of a fallen North Korean soldier in Kursk

More than 3,000 North Koreans killed, wounded in Russia’s Kursk: Zelenskyy

Russians see North Koreans as a ‘burden’ over ignorance of drones: South says

American, South Korean and Ukrainian authorities have said there are up to 12,000 North Korean soldiers in Russia, deployed there primarily to help Russia push Ukrainian forces out of positions they captured in Kursk in August.

Earlier this week, Ukraine reported that more than 3,000 North Korean soldiers had been killed or wounded in Kursk. South Korea has estimated that the number of casualties among North Korean troops is at least 1,100.

The Defence Intelligence of Ukraine, or DIU, noted on Dec. 17 that North Korean forces appeared to have taken additional measures to mitigate the threat of drone strikes.

“After serious losses, North Korean units began setting up additional observation posts to detect drones,” the DIU wrote in a post to its official Telegram channel.

On Thursday, DIU said on its website that North Korea has added at least five more observation posts to improve its drone reconnaissance.

It also said that Russian drone units have started providing tank and artillery support for North Korean troops during assaults. Recent footage had suggested that the North Koreans were sometimes receiving no assistance from Russian forces during combat.

Translated by Jay Park and Leejin Chung. Edited by Matt Reed and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Sangmin Lee and Jaewoo Park for RFA Korean.

The police are currently installing an additional 2,000 surveillance cameras in public places including the controversial smart lampposts targeted by protesters in 2019, Senior Superintendent of Police for Operations Leung Ming-leung told a meeting of the Independent Police Complaints Council on Dec. 17.

By 2027, an additional 7,000 cameras will be installed to monitor “crime black-spots,” with a pilot scheme already rolled out in Mong Kok, which saw mass pro-democracy protests and gatherings in 2014 and 2019, as well as the “Fishball Revolution” of 2016.

The move comes amid an ongoing crackdown on public protest, peaceful activism and freedom of speech in Hong Kong in the wake of the 2019 protest movement.

Thousands have been arrested on public order charges and hundreds under two national security laws, which ban criticism of the authorities or references to the protests.

(Wei Sze/RFA)

“At places where there is a higher footfall, we would install the CCTV with a view to preserving public order and public safety,” Leung said.

Police will also install “public address systems” to boost communication with the public, he added.

Facial recognition

As early as 2019, protesters were damaging and toppling controversial “smart lampposts” that had been newly installed in the city, saying their specification included facial recognition functions, although officials said at the time they hadn’t been activated.

Police Commissioner Raymond Siu said in February that use of facial recognition technology to track people caught by the cameras was likely in future.

RELATED STORIES

Hong Kong officials learn neighborhood surveillance from China

Hong Kong police ask for billions to fund digital network linked to bodycams

Hong Kong adds hundreds of surveillance cameras in public places

Leung told the Council that footage captured by CCTV has helped solve 97 cases so far this year, including assaults and murders, but it is currently not intended for use in traffic violations like running a red light.

He said the authorities used surveillance cameras to estimate the size of crowds in the Lan Kwai Fong bar district at Halloween, “to help with manpower deployment.”

Automated drone patrols

Secretary for Security Chris Tang told lawmakers police are currently looking at bringing in automated drone patrols along default routes across Hong Kong, with images analyzed by AI for policing purposes.

“This can lead to greater operational effectiveness and higher work quality,” Tang said, adding that the program would comply with current safety and privacy laws.

Hong Kong’s police force is already equipped with a range of different drones and monitoring instruments, and are already increasingly being used by police, customs and immigration for investigation purposes, Tang told the Legislative Council on Dec. 11.

Police also use drones to conduct high-rise patrols at crime black spots, he said.

“For instance, mounted thermography and infrared detection systems are used to detect the presence of suspicious persons lingering or hiding at remotely located places or at difficult terrains,” Tang told lawmakers.

(Wei Sze/RFA)

Meanwhile, the Transport Advisory Committee has said it plans to amend the law to mandate in-vehicle and dashboard cameras and GPS systems in all taxis.

“The camera system proposal ... will better safeguard the interests of taxi drivers and passengers in cases of disputes and enhance driving safety for taxis,” Committee Chairman Stephen Cheung said in a statement on Dec. 17.

“These two measures will be conducive to enhancing the overall quality and image of taxi services,” he said.

‘It’s overkill’

Not everyone thought the additional cameras would make them safer, however.

“I don’t think it will,” a passerby who gave only the surname Lai for fear of reprisals told Radio Free Asia on Thursday. “On the contrary, if the streets are being monitored, there will be no privacy.”

“I really think it’s overkill.”

A taxi driver who gave only the surname Wong for fear of reprisals said: “I don’t really agree with it, because of the privacy issues.”

“Who gets to see it? It could be misused, or used as a political tool by the government,” he said. “I’m very worried about that.”

A passerby who gave only the surname Chan told RFA in an earlier interview that he had doubts about the true purpose of the surveillance cameras because there isn’t much street crime in Hong Kong.

“There really aren’t that many thieves,” he said. “But it’ll mean that if we have something we want to speak out about in future, or to oppose, we won’t be able to.”

Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Roseanne Gerin.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Wei Sze, Luk Nam Choi and Edward Li for RFA Cantonese.

The U.S. and Ukraine estimate there are between 10,000 and 12,000 North Korean troops in Russia, with their focus on Kursk, parts of which Ukrainian forces occupied in August, where they are actively engaged in fighting and are taking casualties.

“North Korean troops are being ‘consumed’ for front-line assaults in an unfamiliar battlefield environment of open fields, and they lack the ability to respond to drone attacks,” said South Korea’s the National Intelligence Service, or NIS, as cited by South Korean lawmaker Lee Seong-kweun who was briefed by the agency on Thursday.

Russian troops were complaining about the North Koreans’ ignorance of drones, calling them a “burden,” the agency added, without elaborating.

“Some 11,000 North Korean troops, believed to be deployed in the Kursk region, began to engage in actual combat from December. At least 100 people have been killed, and the number of injured is expected to reach 1,000,” said the NIS.

(8th Separate Special Operations Regiment’s official Facebook page)

South Korea’s confirmation of North Korean casualties came after Ukraine released a video saying that it showed about 50 North Korean soldiers were killed in attacks by Ukrainian drones in Kursk this week.

Sgt. Mykhailo Makaruk, a member of the Ukrainian unit who confirmed to RFA Korean that he had fought against North Koreans in the battle shown on the video, said nearly 200 North Korean soldiers came to the Ukrainian position, and shortly after, the drones began to attack.

“They came and they came and the drones are bombing them,” he said. “I don’t understand how they can come to this war. They look like, you know, real zombies.”

Separately, on Tuesday, Defence Intelligence of Ukraine, or DIU, said North Korean forces were taking additional measures to mitigate the threat of drone strikes.

“After serious losses, North Korean units began setting up additional observation posts to detect drones,” the DIU wrote in a post to its official Telegram channel.

(8th Separate Special Operations Regiment’s official Facebook page)

Andrii Kovalenko, the head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council, posted on his Telegram account that North Korean soldiers were no match for the drones, also called unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs.

“The dead DPRK soldiers did not have a visual understanding of the danger from UAVs before the drone strikes, which may indicate that the Russians poorly informed the Koreans about the use of drones at the front,” Kovalenko said, using North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Kovalenko added that the Russian soldiers were seen trying to quickly recover the bodies of North Korean soldiers killed on the front lines, which was different from the way they treated Russian dead.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russian forces were burning the faces of dead North Korean soldiers to conceal their identities and keep secret their deployment to help Russia, citing a video as evidence.

Earlier, he said that Russia had begun using North Koreans in significant numbers for the first time to assault Ukrainian positions and his forces released images and videos of what it said were the bodies of North Koreans soldiers, among some 200 killed and wounded in Kursk.

(Volodymyr Zelenskiyy’s official Telegram channel)

‘Normal cooperation’

North Korea once again declined to deny or confirm that it had sent troops to Russia to help it with its war against Ukraine but its foreign ministry called its cooperation with Russia “normal.”

Responding to a joint statement from the European Union, South Korea and the U.S. criticizing North Korea’s deployment to Russia, the North’s ministry of foreign affairs said it “distorted and slandered” the essence of a normal partnership between two nations.

“[The joint statement] is a grave threat to international peace and security that goes beyond political provocation that violently infringes on the sovereignty of sovereign states,” said the ministry on Thursday, calling its partnership with Russia a “legitimate” way to counter external threats, including the U.S.

RELATED STORIES

Ukraine drones kill 50 North Koreans in battle in Kursk region

Russians ‘burning faces’ of dead North Koreans to keep them secret: Zelenskyy

Ukraine military releases images of North Korean casualties in Kursk

Neither Russian President Vladimir Putin nor North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has confirmed that North Korean soldiers are aiding Russia in its war against Ukraine, which began with Putin’s invasion in February 2022. However, emerging reports suggest that such collaboration is developing rapidly, with mounting evidence pointing to North Korea’s increasing involvement.

Ukraine’s Security Service said on Tuesday it had intercepted a phone call between a nurse at a hospital near Moscow and her husband, a soldier on the front lines.

According to the nurse, more than 200 wounded North Korean servicemen were brought to the hospital near Moscow over two days.

(Magyar’s Birds)

In the recording, the nurse asked, “Are they elite, these Koreans?” and mentioned that certain wards were being cleared for them. Radio Free Asia has not been able to independently verify the recording.

The deployment of the North Koreans comes after more than two years of deepening ties with Russia. North Korea has sent large volumes of arms and ammunition to Russia, including missiles and artillery shells, to support its war.

This week, the U.S., European Union, and South Korea imposed sanctions on individuals and entities accused of facilitating North Korea’s military assistance to Russia.

Edited by RFA Staff.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

Around 50 North Korean soldiers were killed in a battle against Ukrainian army drones in the Kursk region this week, video of the battle shared on social media revealed.

It’s the latest evidence that North Korean forces are participating in Russia’s war with Ukraine, a fact that Moscow and Pyongyang are trying to hide, including by allegedly burning the faces off of North Koreans who are killed in action.

The video, shared by Ukraine’s 8th Special Operations Regiment on Facebook, showed a drone attack in the battle fought on Monday.

In the video, what are believed to be North Korean soldiers are seen running away or hiding behind trees when they encounter Ukrainian first-person-view drones, also known as FPV drones.

Sgt. Mykhailo Makaruk, a member of the Ukrainian unit confirmed to RFA Korean that he had fought against North Koreans in the battle captured on video.

“I think nearly 200 (North Korean soldiers) came to our position,” Makaruk said, explaining that shortly after, the drones began an aerial attack.

He likened the North Koreans to zombies, a staple of horror films.

“They came and they came and the drones are bombing them,” he said. “I don’t understand how they can come to this war. They look like, you know, real zombies.”

RELATED STORIES

Russians ‘burning faces’ of dead North Koreans to keep them secret: Zelenskyy

Ukraine military releases images of North Korean casualties in Kursk

South Korean soldier ‘fighting for Ukraine’ urges North Koreans to surrender

Makaruk did not disclose the exact location where the battle was fought because his unit is still deployed in a combat situation.

RFA has not verified the authenticity of the video.

Makaruk said that the North Korean soldiers involved in the battle moved alongside Russian troops, and that mid-level North Korean officers were among them.

He said the North Korean soldiers were equipped with Russian military supplies and used outdated tactics typical of the Soviet military in the 1950s.

They were totally unprepared to fight against drones, and they appear to think they can avoid detection while on the ground or under cover of night, Makaruk said.

(Reuters)

These FPV drones are said to be able to reach speeds of up to 150 kilometers (93 miles) per hour, meaning that if they encounter each other within 100 meters, it will take less than a second for them to collide.

Andrii Kovalenko, the head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council, posted on on his Telegram account that North Korean soldiers were no match for the drones, also called unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs.

“The dead DPRK soldiers did not have a visual understanding of the danger from UAVs before the drone strikes, which may indicate that the Russians poorly informed the Koreans about the use of drones at the front,” Kovalenko said.

He also said that the Russian soldiers were seen trying to quickly recover the bodies of North Korean soldiers who died on the front lines, which was different from the way they recovered Russian casualties.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Monday in an address that preliminary data suggests that the Russians were trying to hide the deaths of North Korean soldiers.

“Unfortunately, we are forced to defend against them as well, even though there is not a single reason for North Koreans to die in this war,” Zelensky said. “The only reason is Putin’s madness, which has consumed Russia and fuels this war.”

Translated by Claire S. Lee and Leejin J. Chung. Edited by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Park Jaewoo for RFA Korean.

For the first time, North Korea is adding drone training to its annual civil defense military drills, but the lack of available drones means that the training will amount to reading about drones, not actually flying them, military sources in the country told Radio Free Asia.

The move shows the increased role that drones will have North Korea’s arsenal. Last month, supreme leader Kim Jong Un visited a test site for unmanned attack aircraft and said he wanted the country to begin mass producing “suicide” drones that explode when flown into targets.

The training in their use is now being extended to the thousands of ordinary citizens in North Korea’s civil defense forces, paramilitary units that defend cities and towns. Most members of civil defense forces are reservists who have previously served in the military, which is mandatory for all able-bodied men and women.

But the actual number of drones for such drills appears to be in short supply.

“There are no actual drones, so only theoretical training is being conducted,” a member of the civil defense force in the northern province of Ryanggang told RFA Korean on condition of anonymity for personal safety.

“However, from what I know, training drones will be supplied to each North Korean People’s Army brigade, city, county, and civil defense force within the next year,” he said.

He said the training amounted to explanations about the practical applications of drones on the battlefield, and instructions on how to use them.

RFA Korean interviewed two drone experts who said there was a strong possibility that North Korean troops sent to Russia could begin using drones supplied by Russia in the war with Ukraine.

Drone training for all soldiers

The winter training period for civil defense units calls up reserves in shifts from December to March for 15 days -- which many secretly regard as a nuisance.

A member of the military in the same province said that Kim Jong Un secretly ordered “all soldiers who fire guns” -- meaning those who can be deployed in combat roles -- to learn to use drones.

“People’s Army units have already been training to use military drones since ... last year, but now ... drone training will also be provided to civil defense force members ... starting in December,” he said on condition of anonymity to speak freely.

RELATED STORIES

Kim Jong Un wants North Korea to mass produce suicide drones

North Korean troops and drones: A game-changer in the Ukraine-Russia War?

North Korea says analysis ‘proved’ South Korea to blame for drones

“No matter how politically and ideologically armed an army is, it cannot win a modern war if it does not possess excellent military technology.”

North Korea is also looking for ways to improve its capacity to produce drones domestically, he said.

“This year, new drone technology courses were opened at Kim Jong Un National Defense University, Pyongyang University of Automation, and Kim Chaek Air Force University,” he said. “Drone pilot training is being conducted at Kim Il Sung Military University and Kang Kon Military Academy.”

All of those schools ramped up drone development research this year, he said. But development and production are not the same.

In North Korea, “there are so many cases of successful development but failed production, so it is difficult to determine when and to what extent military drones will actually be distributed.”

Translated by Leejin J. Chung. Edited by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Moon Sung Whui for RFA Korean.

State media reported that the country’s supreme leader Kim Jong Un visited a test site for the unmanned attack aircraft.

“The suicide attack drones, designed to be used within different striking ranges on the ground and the sea, are to perform a precision attack mission against any enemy targets,” the Korea Central News Agency report said. In tests, the drones “precisely hit” targets, it said.

Kim “underscored the need to build a serial production system as early as possible and go into full-scale mass production,” the report said.

Though the report made no mention of the possibility of North Korea manufacturing drones to be sold to Russia, several analysts said that North Korea might look to do just that.

The war is the motivation behind North Korean drone development, Bruce Bennett, a researcher at the U.S.-based RAND Corporation told RFA Korean.

“Putin wants cheap weapons, and Kim Jong Un can produce them,” said Bennett. “I suspect that Russia transferred drone technology to support North Korea’s production.”

He also noted that any North Korean ability to mass-produce drones could be a potential threat to South Korea.

The successful test of suicide drones as reported by North Korean state media is a concern in light of the deepening ties between Moscow and Pyongyang, Bruce Klingner of the Washington-based Heritage Foundation said.

Klingner said that North Korea has already provided Russia with artillery shells, ballistic missiles, and over 10,000 troops.

He also said that the recent ratification of a comprehensive bilateral security treaty between Russia and North Korea suggests that Moscow might soon increase transfer of military technology to Pyongyang.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department expressed concern over the deepening relationship, calling it and its associated weapons transfers “a trend that should be of great concern to anyone who is interested in maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, preserving the global nonproliferation regime, and supporting the Ukrainian people.”

Edited by Eugene Whong and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Soyoung Kim for RFA Korean.