Kim Jong-un’s Absence from the Victory Day Parade: A sign of Disregard and Distrust toward Putin

On May 9, the Victory Day parade, Russia’s symbolic national celebration, took place in Moscow’s Red Square. On this day, Russia reflects on its historical achievements while showcasing its enduring military strength. 

The day held particular significance for Putin this year. Amid growing international isolation following the war in Ukraine, he sought to demonstrate Russia’s “anti-Western coalition” by inviting the leaders of allied and friendly nations.

Notably, Putin cordially invited Kim Jong-un to highlight the strong ties between the two countries, as their expanding military and economic cooperation has revitalized their relationship. 

North Korea’s supply of shells and missiles to Russia, coupled with Russia’s provision of satellite technologies, crude oil, food supply, and its support on the international stage, has drawn significant global attention. 

However, it was none other than the supreme leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, who struck down Putin’s hope, rejecting the invitation.

Instead, Kim visited the Russian embassy in Pyongyang to mark the anniversary. On the surface, it appeared to be a display of “amicable bilateral ties”, but it wasn’t so beneath that facade.

In his congratulatory speech, Kim Jong-un seemed to praise Russia’s victory, but the remarks were largely centered around his own achievements. Even the North Korean media focused more on their leader than on Putin, saying “Russia and North Korea are enjoying a new golden age of their friendship ushered in by Kim’s remarkable leadership.” In the end, Kim managed to make the event more about himself than Russia.

This is typical of North Korean diplomacy. They speak of “blood alliance”, “friendship” and “brother nations”, but all they think about is preserving the regime and reinforcing the cult of its leader. The decision not to attend the event fits squarely within this pattern. 

North Korea claimed Kim’s absence was due to “security concerns”, but it reflects its lack of trust in the diplomatic protocol and security arrangements of its ally.

Russia has a proven track record of successfully ensuring the safety of world leaders at numerous international events. Delegations from 27 countries attended this year’s Victory Day parade, with 15 of them holding bilateral talks with Putin through the 10th. 

Even amid the Chechenya war and the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, protocols and security measures to protect high-profile figures were meticulously planned under Putin’s leadership. Yet, Kim’s refusal to visit Moscow―citing “security concerns”―reveals the underlying truth of their relationship: while exchanges based on mutual interests persist, mutual trust is absent.

In fact, such an audacious diplomatic behavior is nothing new for Kim Jong-un. A notable example is China’s 70th Victory Day parade in 2015. At the time, China invited the leaders of its key allies and friendly nations, including Russia, Central Asia and Southeast Asia, to the Tiananmen Square in Beijing. 

Kim was also on the guest list, but he made a specific request: “to be positioned next to Xi Jinping during the ceremony”. In essence, he demanded a treatment for a supreme leader. Xi, however, rejected the request, instead placing the UN Secretary General and the leaders of countries considered to share a “blood alliance” with China in the positions closest to him. Displeased by this decision, Kim informed China that he would not attend the event.

North Korea claimed his absence was due to a domestic schedule. In reality, it was because he did not want to risk losing face. This incident―seen as one of the key moments that contributed to the rift between Pyongyang and Beijing―perfectly illustrates how capricious and self-centered the Kim Jong-un regime’s diplomacy is. Unless he is the most respected figure at the table, Kim refuses to engage in any diplomatic event. This is precisely why he also declined Putin’s invitation to the Victory Day parade.

This highlights the fundamental flaw in Pyongyang’s diplomatic strategy. Traditional diplomacy between nations is built on mutual trust, consultation, national interests, and balance. In contrast, Kim’s diplomacy is entirely driven by personal reputation and regime survival. His pride and regime stability take precedence over bilateral relations. Despite frequently using phrases like “blood alliance”, “anti-Western front”, and “autonomous bloc”, the reality behind such rhetoric is volatile.

Kim Jong-un’s absence from the Victory Day event starkly exposes how self-serving and unreliable his diplomatic conduct is. It also underscores the emptiness of his talk of “alliances” or “friendly cooperation”. Even if Russia extends military and economic support, Kim will readily disregard such gestures if they do not directly serve his personal image or regime security.

Moscow should take this incident as an opportunity to reassess its relationship with Pyongyang. In the short term, transactional exchanges―such as military goods, oil and technological support―may continue. However, the foundation for long-term trust appears out of reach. Kim Jong-un’s erratic and self-serving diplomatic behavior is likely to pose a serious risk to the future of their bilateral relations.

At the same time, the international community must take a clear-eyed view of the structural flaws in North Korea’s diplomacy. Any negotiations or cooperation with North Korea are ultimately contingent on Kim’s personal pride. Even nuclear negotiations, economic aid or humanitarian support can be abruptly reversed, depending on his mood or internal political calculus. Kim’s absence from the recent event has just exposed the deep nature of how North Korea conducts foreign relations.

In other words, it was not merely a matter of skipping a single event. It was a public snub of Putin’s hospitality, a display of duplicity in Kim’s dealings with Russia, and a stark reminder of the systemic issues embedded in North Korea’s diplomatic approach. It is now imperative for every country and the broader international community to take a hard look at the inherent risk and volatility that North Korea represents, and to begin formulating an effective strategy to manage this challenge.