Strategic culture provides a valuable lens for analysing how states interpret their security environment and formulate foreign and defence policies. By exploring the historical, ideological, and socio-political dimensions that influence state behaviour, this concept highlights the interplay between material and non-material factors in shaping a nation’s strategic decisions.

North Korea serves as a compelling case study in strategic culture, given its unique geopolitical context and the historical experiences that underpin its foreign policy and security strategy. However, the strategic culture of any country can be explored by students using this simple methodology.

This article provides a briefing on North Korea’s strategic culture, detailing how it is profoundly shaped by its historical experiences of colonialism, war, and geopolitical isolation, fostering a worldview centred on existential threats and the primacy of regime survival.The accompanying learning activity invites students to engage with these themes creatively by drawing their interpretation of North Korea’s strategic culture, encouraging a deeper understanding of North Korea’s worldview and strategic imperatives.

North Korean citizens march following a 2015 military parade in Kim Il Sung Square, Pyongyang.

Strategic culture

Strategic culture refers to the set of shared beliefs, assumptions, practices, and historical experiences that shape how a state perceives its security environment (Wendt 1999), formulates its strategic objectives, and makes decisions about the use of force or diplomacy (Gray 1981). It is not static but evolves over time in response to both internal dynamics and external pressures (Lantis 2002), encompassing the ideologies of political elites, societal values, and institutional norms (Booth and Trood 1999).

Strategic culture encompasses several key elements (Johnston 1995), each reflecting influences on a state’s strategic outlook and approach to security:

Historical experience: The collective memory of a nation’s past wars, triumphs, and losses, shaping its strategic preferences and behaviours.
Geography: The state’s physical location, landscape, and proximity to other powers, which inherently influence its strategic calculations.
Political system and institutions: The role of governance, ideological frameworks, and institutional arrangements in defining strategic priorities and decision-making.
Cultural and social norms: The deeply ingrained beliefs, traditions, and values within a society that inform its understanding of security and the use of force.
Leadership and decision-making elites: The worldviews and ideologies of key political and military figures, which heavily influence strategic choices.
Economic resources and capabilities: The state’s economic capacity and industrial strength, underpinning its ability to sustain prolonged strategic undertakings.
Military doctrine and practices: The established principles and operational norms of the armed forces, guiding the use of power and conduct of military operations.
International system and alliances: The role of global power dynamics, alliances, and rivalries in shaping a state’s strategic orientation.

These elements together form a distinctive and enduring framework through which states interpret threats, set priorities, and craft strategies.

Pyongyang kicks off mass games at May Day Stadium (2013)

North Korea’s strategic culture

North Korea’s strategic culture is profoundly shaped by its historical experiences of colonialism, war, and geopolitical isolation, fostering a worldview centred on existential threats and the primacy of regime survival (Kim 2013; Scobell 2005). This culture manifests through deeply ingrained ideas, traditions, and behaviours unique to North Korea’s geography and historical trajectory, including its reliance on hard power as the ultimate security guarantee.

As hardcore realists, North Korean leaders view their strategic environment as hostile. Their perception of permanent imminent threat is shaped by Korea’s colonisation by Japan, the partition of Korea by the US and USSR, the Korean War, Cold War competition and inter-Korean rivalry, and the demise of the Communist bloc (Park 2000). Whether against Japan or the United States, official rhetoric on foreign policy is strongly couched in the language of anti-imperialism (Kim 2013; Hong 2011).

They operate on the principle of self-help, with nuclear weapons at the core of their security strategy (Smith 2018). Distrusting paper agreements and external guarantees, and chastened by international economic sanctions, their foreign policy has evolved to be isolationist and confrontational (Caisova 2018). They have firmly rejected the prospect of denuclearisation, prioritising military deterrence to ensure both state survival and the longevity of the Kim regime.

This reliance on deterrence is bolstered by strategic ambiguity—a deliberate tactic of vague signalling, often perceived as erratic or contradictory, that aims to confuse adversaries and maximise the deterrence value of North Korea’s capabilities. Aggressive rhetoric, such as threats to “turn Seoul into a lake of fire,” while unlikely to reflect genuine first-strike intentions, enhances North Korea’s strategic leverage by capitalising on the credibility of its military capacity.

Beyond military deterrence, North Korea’s strategic culture includes practices such as coercive bargaining and leveraging its precarious position to extract concessions (Cha 2002). This involves engineering crises, such as restarting nuclear facilities or testing missiles, and then de-escalating in exchange for aid, sanctions relief, or other benefits.

Pyongyang has historically played regional and global powers against each other, from exploiting the Sino-Soviet split under Kim Il Sung to isolating China during Kim Jong Un’s summit diplomacy with South Korea and the United States (Habib 2019). Such manoeuvres underscore North Korea’s ability to exploit divisions among its adversaries and allies alike, gaining bargaining leverage in negotiations (Grzelczyk 2018).

The regime’s potential collapse further amplifies its strategic position, as regional actors—particularly China and South Korea—fear the destabilising consequences of a governance vacuum (Feng and Beauchamp-Mustafaga 2013). North Korea’s leadership understands that this weakness offers them a perverse sort of leverage over neighbouring countries that fear the instability of a failed state in the DPRK.

This unique confluence of historical grievances, ideological resolve, and tactical flexibility defines North Korea’s strategic culture, shaping its enduring ability to challenge far more powerful adversaries.

Learning activity: Illustrating North Korea’s strategic culture

This learning activity is designed for undergraduate International Relations students and is drawn from my subject Contemporary Politics of Northeast Asia, which I taught at La Trobe University from 2012-2023.

The task itself is reasonably simple: Ask students to draw a picture that represents how they think the North Korean leadership sees its strategic environment in Northeast Asia.

Rationale

By requiring students to translate complex geopolitical dynamics into visual representations, the activity utilises visual literacy and creative cognition, fostering deeper comprehension of North Korea’s worldview and strategic imperatives.

The aim of this method is to provide participants with a tactile means of communicating connections, as well as a means of articulating potentially problematic relationships in a non-confrontational manner. The visual medium can also help the researcher identify patterns across the data set that might not otherwise be obvious from written or spoken responses.

This activity aligns with the interdisciplinary nature of International Relations, where psychological and socio-cultural factors underpin strategic decision-making.

Theoretical underpinnings

This drawing-based activity is an adaptation from a more expansive research methodology developed by my colleague Dr Sarah Houseman, who developed a suite of non-traditional methodologies to explore ecological and horizontal organisational models in her research project Emerging Ecologies of Organisation: Renewing Governance in the Anthropocene. Sarah guided me through a similar drawing-based approach that became the inspiration for this activity.

The theoretical justification for this learning activity draws on constructivist approaches in International Relations and educational theory. Constructivism in IR contends that the identities and interests of states are shaped by shared ideas and intersubjective understandings rather than solely by material factors (Wendt 1999).

Research in pedagogy, including experiential learning cycle theorised by Kolb (1984), emphasises that creative tasks encourage active experimentation and reflective observation, allowing students to internalise abstract concepts through personal interpretation and peer feedback.

The sharing and reflective components facilitate social learning, drawing on theory of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978), where peer interactions scaffold knowledge construction. Feedback exchanges in the LMS forum create a collaborative environment for students to refine their analytical skills by engaging with diverse perspectives. This process mirrors the dialogical nature of IR scholarship, where contested interpretations are negotiated through discourse.

By engaging with these themes, students not only explore how historical narratives shape North Korea’s perception of threats but also critically examine their own assumptions. I’ve successfully used this style of drawing-based activity to engage audiences in my undergraduate classes Contemporary Politics of Northeast Asia and International Politics of Climate Change, during my sessions teaching the Permaculture Design Course at CERES Community Environment Park, and in communicating my research in grassroots environmental movements.

An example of a strategic culture drawing. These illustrations need to tell a conceptual story, but they don’t need to be worthy of the Louvre.

Activity instructions

This learning activity incorporates preparation, action, sharing and reflection stages. It can be completed in face-to-face classes and online, in either synchronous or asynchronous delivery modes.

Preparation: Content research and briefing notes

On their own, each student should watch the content video on North Korean foreign policy and strategic culture (see above) and read the required readings.

While doing so, they should also compile detailed briefing notes on the concept of strategic culture, its core elements, and how these core elements manifest in the North Korea case study.

Links to further source material should also be provided by the instructor on the class discussion forum / learning management system.

Action: Illustrating strategic culture

Students source a pen or pencil, piece of paper, and a quiet space to draw. This can be done in class or online remotely.

Draw a picture that represents how you think the North Korean leadership sees its strategic environment in Northeast Asia.

You can represent your pictorial representation of North Korean strategic culture in any creative way you feel is appropriate. Don’t over-think it or take any longer than 15 minutes to complete your drawing.

The importance of this activity is going through the process of creative interpretation of the topic, not to produce an acclaimed artwork.

In-class version

In groups of 3-4 students, each member of the group shares their drawing with their group mates, briefly explaining their illustration.

Other members of the group offering constructive commentary and asking clarifying questions about the peer drawings, doing so in a spirit of conceptual mastery, collegiality and respect.

Online version

Each student takes a photo of their drawing and posts it in the subject online discussion forum, with a 2-3 sentence reasoned explanation of the illustration.

Each student comments on 2 other peer drawings, offering constructive commentary and asking clarifying questions about the peer drawings, doing so in a spirit of conceptual mastery, collegiality and respect.

Conclusion

North Korea’s strategic culture reflects a confluence of historical grievances, ideological commitments, and pragmatic calculations. Its perception of existential threats, rooted in its experiences of colonialism and war, drives a realist approach centred on self-help and nuclear deterrence. The regime’s use of strategic ambiguity, coercive bargaining, and regional power dynamics further exemplifies how smaller states can navigate asymmetric strategic environments.

By engaging students in a drawing-based learning activity, this analysis not only contextualises North Korea’s behaviour but also provides a dynamic pedagogical method for interpreting complex international relations concepts. This approach underscores the importance of integrating creative and reflective tools into the study of global security and strategic behaviour.

References

Booth, K., & Trood, R. (Eds.). (1999). Strategic Cultures in the Asia-Pacific Region. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Caisova, L. (2018). North Korea’s Foreign Policy: The DPRK’s Part on the International Scene and Its Audiences (1st ed.). Routledge.

Cha, V. (2002). North Korea’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: Badges, Shields, or Swords? Political Science Quarterly, 117(2), 209-230.

Feng, Z., & Beauchamp-Mustafaga, N. (2013). NORTH KOREA’S SECURITY IMPLICATIONS FOR CHINA. In R. Huisken, O. Cable, D. Ball, A. Milner, R. Sukma, & Y. Wanandi (Eds.), CSCAP REGIONAL SECURITY OUTLOOK 2014 (pp. 28–31). Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific.

Gray, C. S. (1981). National Styles in Strategy: The American Example. International Security, 6(2), 21-47.

Grzelczyk, V. (2018). North Korea’s New Diplomacy: Challenging Political Isolation in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan.

Habib, B. (2019). Trump and Kim are talking (again). But the leaders have yet to find real common ground. The Conversation.

Hong, Y.P. (2011). North Korea’s Strategic Culture and Threat Perception: Implications for Regional Security Cooperation. Korea Observer, 42(1), 95-115.

Johnston, A. I. (1995). Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History. Princeton University Press.

Kim, K.O. (2013). ‘The Formation and Development of North Korea’s Understanding of the United States’. In Han J.W. and Jung T.H. (eds). Understanding North Korea: Indigenous Perspectives. Lexington Books, pp. 169-189.

Kim, Y. (2013). North Korea’s Threat Perception and Provocation under Kim Jong- Un: The Security Dilemma and the Obsession with Political Survival. North Korean Review, 9, 6-19.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall.

Lantis, J. S. (2002). Strategic Culture and National Security Policy. International Studies Review, 4(3), 87-113.

Park, H. S. (2000). North Korean Perceptions of Self and Others: Implications for Policy Choices. Pacific Affairs, 73(4), 503–516.

Scobell, A. (2005). North Korea’s strategic intentions. Strategic Studies Institute.

Smith, S. (2018). North Korea’s Strategic Culture and Its Evolving Nuclear Strategy. In: Johnson, J., Kartchner, K., Maines, M. (eds) Crossing Nuclear Thresholds. Initiatives in Strategic Studies: Issues and Policies. Palgrave Macmillan.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.

Edge Dwellers Café

Wayfinding in a world in disequilibrium with Benjamin Habib, PhD.

The IR Classroom: Drawing strategic culture