Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Lukashenko's visit to Pyongyang: agreement with North Korea lacks details, poses risks to Ukraine's security

The first official visit of Lukashenko to North Korea concluded with the signing of a "friendship treaty," but the text of the agreement has not been released. We examine why this matters for Ukrainian security and what questions Kyiv and its partners should be asking.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 26, 2026 · 2 min read

Lukashenko's visit to Pyongyang: agreement with North Korea lacks details, poses risks to Ukraine's security
Олександр Лукашенко та Кім Чен Ин на площі Кім Ір Сена в Пхеньяні, Північна Корея, 25 березня 2026 року (Фото: EPA/KCNA)

Agreement signed — but without details

According to the official website of the President of Belarus and Reuters citing North Korea's KCNA, on March 26 Alexander Lukashenko was on an official visit to Pyongyang, where he signed a agreement on friendship and cooperation between Belarus and the DPRK. At the same time, none of the official portals published the text of the agreement, and details about the areas in which cooperation will develop are absent.

"Relations between Minsk and Pyongyang never ceased after the collapse of the USSR, and the countries' economies complement each other"

— Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus

Ritual and symbolism of the visit

KCNA described the ceremony in detail: Lukashenko was greeted with a 21-gun salute, schoolchildren waved flags, there was a parade of the honor guard, and the Belarusian leader visited the mausoleum of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. These elements underline the political weight of the visit — it was not merely an administrative formality, but an act of symbolic legitimation of the two regimes for each other.

Context: money, military ties and sanctions

Earlier Yonhap reported that North Korea may have received up to $14.4 billion from Russia in connection with the deployment of its units and the supply of weapons. Also, at the February military parade in Pyongyang, units reportedly marched that are linked to operations on Ukrainian territory. Separately, LIGA.net noted that the US eased some sanctions on Belarusian potash after the release of political prisoners — an example of how diplomatic moves can turn into economic preferences.

What this means for Ukraine

First, the mere fact of an agreement between regimes that have close contacts with Moscow raises the risks of political and technical-logistical coordination that could be used to circumvent sanctions or make deliveries that would strengthen aggression against Ukraine.

Second, the absence of a public text of the agreement is a signal: partners should check supply chains, economic links and any signs of military-technical cooperation.

Third, Belarus's symbolic support for the DPRK provides a basis for further diplomatic work: Kyiv and Western partners need to turn statements into concrete control mechanisms and sanctions to avoid unforeseen consequences.

Conclusion

For now the visit looks like a demonstration of mutual support and symbolic legitimation, but the risks of practical cooperation remain real. The question is not only about the papers signed, but whether they will turn into concrete economic or military ties — and how Western partners will respond. Can Ukraine, together with its allies, seize the initiative and minimize potential threats?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026