• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

[RD] War in Ukraine: Other topics

Russia genuinely thought this would be a quick and decisive victory like the invasion of Crimea. The cost of the war for Russia, both in terms of lives lost, military vehiciles/equipment lost, and economic hardships and population loss (both from soldier deaths and people leaving Russia) has far outweighed any benefit to winning the war now, even if they eventually do. Putin is in a catch 22. Surrender and everything will have been for nothing, keep fighting and pour yourself more into sunk cost fallacy.
 
Russia cannot sustain its war against Ukraine without NK troops and African based mercenaries. It requires munitions from China and Iran. Whatever Russian army there was in Feb 2022 is now gone and replaced with a shell that can only stand pat against a shattered Ukrainian army. If nukes are off the table, then a Nato war against Russia would likely end with Russia's defeat.

China? Never fight a land war in Asia. Could China sustain a war where it invaded the US? Could Russia? When separated by oceans, the home turf has many advantages.

Apart from the claims of the Kiev junta, on what factual basis do you believe that there is any north korean soldier in Ukraine? Whta evidence have they presented? Last thing the miscast comedian there claimed was that Ukraine had no dead bodies of these mythical north koreans because "they burned their own faces before dying". Recycled Korea War propaganda?

If you accept that coincidences in international politics are suspicious in the absense of straight explanations, have you wondered why the sudden talk of "north korean soldiers are attacking us" by the ukranian government? What else happened almost simultaneously in South Korea? Could perhaps a dicatator of SK "volunterer" soldeirs and material to Ukraine because "the enemy is there"? Someone may have tried. Some damn things are too coincidental.

Anyway, the problem of the US is that it can't press any allies into volunteering their people for failed wars. Treasury, that is possible. But money can't be shot. Ammo and weapons, do those allies have a military industry. Korea does; few others do. People, as in mass conscription and large armies? No way. That applies even more strongly to US soldiers and teh prospect of US casulaties. I'm sure the israely govermment would love to draw the US into its wars in a big way. They can't do it.
 
Last edited:
Apart from the claims of the Kiev junta, on what factual basis do you believe that there is any north korean soldier in Ukraine? Whta evidence have they presented? Last thing the miscast comedian there claimed was that Ukraine had no dead bodies of these mythical north koreans because "they burned their own faces before dying". Recycled Korea War propaganda?

If you accept that coincidences in international politics are suspicious in the absense of straight explanations, have you wondered why the sudden talk of "north korean soldiers are attacking us" by the ukranian government? What else happened almost simultaneously in South Korea? Could perhaps a dicatator of SK "volunterer" soldeirs and material to Ukraine because "the enemy is there"? Someone may have tried. Some damn things are too coincidental.
Are you splitting hairs about the exact location of NK troops when they are in Kursk and not have not been spotted across the Ukrainian border? :lol: The whole point is that Russia cannot fight the war on its own and has been depending upon NK, China, Iran and mercenaries just to keep from losing. And less we forget, they have emptied their prisons for cannon fodder.

Are you denying that NK sent 10,000 or so troops to Russia to fight Putin's war?

N. Korean troops were confirmed in Russia in the third week of October. What are the coincidental events in SK in October?
 
This war is costing Russia in much deeper ways than military losses and expenses alone (as important as they are). Lots of Russians have left the country entirely without plans to return, and Russia is experiencing population decline even before the war started and has for a long time. And many of these people leaving are skilled professionals that Russia badly needs. People working in finance, accounting it, healthcare etc. even if the war ends right now with Russia holding onto all the lands they got from Ukraine it will
Have been worth nowhere near the price the acquire the lands. Say what you want, but this war was a big miscalculation on putins part. He assured the Russian people a quick victory even calling it a “special military operation” instead of a war but how did that turn out?
 
Russia genuinely thought this would be a quick and decisive victory like the invasion of Crimea. The cost of the war for Russia, both in terms of lives lost, military vehiciles/equipment lost, and economic hardships and population loss (both from soldier deaths and people leaving Russia) has far outweighed any benefit to winning the war now, even if they eventually do.

Russia has lost material in numbers pretty much equal to the entirety of China's People's Liberation Army ground forces.
 
Meanwhile in the UK (which has a rising population), despite all the public talk
about the west building up its military strength to deal with Russian expansion
and POTUS disinterest; the strength of the UK military has actually declined:


Strength of UK Forces Service Personnel
at 1 July 2024, a decrease of 4,660 (3 per cent) since 1 July 2023.
Full-Time Trained Strength (RN/RM & RAF) and Full-Time Trade Trained Strength (Army)
at 1 July 2024, a decrease of 3,980 (3 per cent) since 1 July 2023.





Strength of UK Forces Service Personnel
at 1 April 2024, a decrease of 5,590 (3 per cent) since 1 April 2023.
Full-Time Trained Strength (RN/RM & RAF) and Full-Time Trade Trained Strength (Army)
at 1 April 2024, a decrease of 3,800 (3 per cent) since 1 April 2023.
 
The whole point is that Russia cannot fight the war on its own and has been depending upon NK, China, Iran and mercenaries just to keep from losing.
It's interesting that people keep talking about Russia "cannot fight the war on its own", while US/NATO admit that they sent so much military aid to Ukraine, that they are risking to deplete their own stockpiles to dangerously low point if they send more.
China didn't send any military aid to Russia. What mighty NATO is unsuccessfully struggling to outproduce is just Russia with limited aid from NK.

As for mercenaries and inmates, Ukraine used plenty of them too and exhausted these options already. They are at the stage of press-gang mobilization by catching men on the streets.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting that people keep talking about Russia "cannot fight the war on its own", while US/NATO admit that they sent so much military aid to Ukraine, that they are risking to deplete their own stockpiles to dangerously low point if they send more.
China didn't send any military aid to Russia. What mighty NATO is unsuccessfully struggling to outproduce is just Russia with limited aid from NK.

As for mercenaries and inmates, Ukraine used plenty of them too and exhausted these options already. They are at the stage of press-gang mobilization by catching men on the streets.
Ukraine has never been billed as a military super power with a powerful army. They were invaded and and have struggled for 3 years to stay alive. Ukraine only survived so far because of outside help, internal desperate measures and enormous national effort. OTOH inno has been saying that Russia is still a super power that cannot be beaten. Nukes are all that they have now. Russia has shown the world that they are not any kind of military superpower beyond having nukes.

Western stockpiles can be rebuilt. A Russian invasion is unlikely in the next 12-24 months. Chinese oil purchases are paying for Putin's war.
 
Are you splitting hairs about the exact location of NK troops when they are in Kursk and not have not been spotted across the Ukrainian border? :lol: The whole point is that Russia cannot fight the war on its own and has been depending upon NK, China, Iran and mercenaries just to keep from losing. And less we forget, they have emptied their prisons for cannon fodder.

Are you denying that NK sent 10,000 or so troops to Russia to fight Putin's war?

N. Korean troops were confirmed in Russia in the third week of October. What are the coincidental events in SK in October?

Confirmed? Confirmed by whom?

Perhaps by the same 51 experts who said the Hunter Biden laptop was "russian disinformation"? And the obedient media that echo whatever "officais stated"? I do not recall any official russian or north korean statement about korean troops in the vicinity of Ukraine.

Western stockpiles can be rebuilt. A Russian invasion is unlikely in the next 12-24 months. Chinese oil purchases are paying for Putin's war.

Guess who is the second largest supplier of liquified gnatural gas to "Europe". And one of the largest of oil. Regardless of that Russia is no longer a petro-state. Taxes on hydrocarbons make up less than 1/5 of the russian state's budget now. And its economy is now larger than Japan's according to the World Bank. Trump is delusional if he thinks that Russia depends on oil and gas exports to continue its present policies. And delusional if he things he can force "Europe" to cease buying those hydrocarbons.
1. Russia has its own military industry and does not need US dollars or indeed any other foreign currency to pay for imports of material. It's imprevious to any further sanctions. The 20 thousand or so santions on different products by the european commission only managed to impoverish "europe" and strengthen the russian economy. The US keeps importing nuclear fuel, hydrocarbons, titanium, and ehaveter else it needs from Russia. And wiill continue to unless the russians themselves sanction the US (no point in doing that now though).
2. The economies of several european countries would simply collapse without russian hydrocarbons, which is why they keep buying vast quantities. The transatlantic oligarchy does like looting opportunities but outright collapse ould be more likely to harm them than to produce big profits. Killing the hen means no more eggs. The "national security estabelishment" and the big oligarchs are now split, they had only united on the belief that Russia would be collapsed, regime changed and looted. With that off the table there is no longer any strategy ongoing on the side of NATO, and there will be no agreement on one. The politians who commited puiblicly to this war are just goung on inertia.

I have said it before: the main problem of those caught in the roach motel that is the European Suicide Pact ("union") is that they ended up believing their own propaganda. Their main asset in this specific disaster they got themselves and their countries into is, curiously, Putin, who clearly is still operating on a strategy of having Europe as a whole turn away from Washington. Others in Russia may not be so patient. We'll see.
 
Last edited:
Your opinions are just that: unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Entertainment as I see it. You ask for confirmation and yet you never provide any yourself.
 
The World Bank numbers are public. Russian budget numbers are public. Import statistics for energy in Europe are public.

As for north korean soldiers in the ukranian conflict, how does one prove a negative? It is up to those claiming they are there to produce the evidence that they are there.
 
NK troops fight in Kursk region since end of December. Not sure how many soldiers on Frontline and about casualties, coz Ukraine constantly send reinforcement, and even tried new offencive (that failed), so the clashes here very intensive. And not much videos came from here.
 
From the point of view of US interests (which are mine as an American) the casualties Ukraine is taking are not the point, but the casualties Russia is taking. The soviet union gave money, resources, equipment ammunition, etc to our enemies in the Vietnam War, and in the war, the Vietnamese generally speaking suffered far more casualties than the Americans, but that doesn't mean what the Soviets gave was useless. The point was to increase American causalities, not to decrease Vietnamese casualties. America armed local Afghans similarly when the Soviets were in Afghanistan, and in that war, the Afghans generally suffered many more casualties than the Soviets, but that doesn't mean the aid we gave was for nothing. It was simply to weaken the soviet union, and it worked. The point, for Americans, should be to weaken Russia as much as possible, short of nuclear war. We aren't forcing Zelesnky to keep fighting, he just wants to. This is really nothing more than both the Ukranians and Americans having a common enemy. As I said before in this thread if Russia "wins" meaning accomplish their original military objectives, if the price of victory far outweighs the benefits of it, that means America got what it wanted out of the war. It could be argued that we already reached that point a long time ago. Not to mention Finland and Sweden joining NATO almost certainly doesn't happen without this war. If Putin is given access to a time machine I can almost guarantee you he decides not to attack Ukraine knowing what he's up against. Russia continues the war due to the political implications of giving up, not that it is in Russia's best interest otherwise, in and of itself. Russia was already experiencing population decline before the war and now it's gotten even worse both due to soldiers dying and people leaving Russia to avoid the war including but not limited to smart, skilled professionals meaning a brain drain against Russia. Much (probably most) of Russia's military equipment has been destroyed, leaving Russia practically defenseless in terms of a conventional war. It at least means they won't be much of a threat. Meaning, for example, if China gets aggressive toward Taiwan, or other conflicts around the world America and NATO in general will be able to dedicate most of their forces to other conflicts if Russia's military is depleted to the point they can no longer conduct significant offensive military operations. Assad has been taken out of the picture, one of Russia's allies. Iran spent lots of money arming Hezbollah, and they got their asses spanked. Plus Iran is going through major domestic revolts as well. Geo-politics is generally a zero-sum game. If our enemies are weaker, that means we are in a position to be stronger.
 
As for north korean soldiers in the ukranian conflict, how does one prove a negative? It is up to those claiming they are there to produce the evidence that they are there.

A NK prisoner being questioned.
 
From the point of view of US interests (which are mine as an American) the casualties Ukraine is taking are not the point, but the casualties Russia is taking. The soviet union gave money, resources, equipment ammunition, etc to our enemies in the Vietnam War, and in the war, the Vietnamese generally speaking suffered far more casualties than the Americans, but that doesn't mean what the Soviets gave was useless. The point was to increase American causalities, not to decrease Vietnamese casualties. America armed local Afghans similarly when the Soviets were in Afghanistan, and in that war, the Afghans generally suffered many more casualties than the Soviets, but that doesn't mean the aid we gave was for nothing. It was simply to weaken the soviet union, and it worked. The point, for Americans, should be to weaken Russia as much as possible, short of nuclear war. We aren't forcing Zelesnky to keep fighting, he just wants to. This is really nothing more than both the Ukranians and Americans having a common enemy. As I said before in this thread if Russia "wins" meaning accomplish their original military objectives, if the price of victory far outweighs the benefits of it, that means America got what it wanted out of the war. It could be argued that we already reached that point a long time ago. Not to mention Finland and Sweden joining NATO almost certainly doesn't happen without this war. If Putin is given access to a time machine I can almost guarantee you he decides not to attack Ukraine knowing what he's up against. Russia continues the war due to the political implications of giving up, not that it is in Russia's best interest otherwise, in and of itself. Russia was already experiencing population decline before the war and now it's gotten even worse both due to soldiers dying and people leaving Russia to avoid the war including but not limited to smart, skilled professionals meaning a brain drain against Russia. Much (probably most) of Russia's military equipment has been destroyed, leaving Russia practically defenseless in terms of a conventional war. It at least means they won't be much of a threat. Meaning, for example, if China gets aggressive toward Taiwan, or other conflicts around the world America and NATO in general will be able to dedicate most of their forces to other conflicts if Russia's military is depleted to the point they can no longer conduct significant offensive military operations. Assad has been taken out of the picture, one of Russia's allies. Iran spent lots of money arming Hezbollah, and they got their asses spanked. Plus Iran is going through major domestic revolts as well. Geo-politics is generally a zero-sum game. If our enemies are weaker, that means we are in a position to be stronger.

This could be summarised as the USA fighting Russia to the last dead Ukrainian soldier.

It remains to be seen how long the Ukrainians will go along with being such cannon fodder.


A NK prisoner being questioned.

I have no doubt that North Korean soldiers are involved, but it is unclear to me that they are currently involved outside the Kursk region.

I suspect that Ukrainian reports that they are ineffective may be correct because they are new to this type of war, but they will learn.

A question for me is whether Ukraine will be able to entice South Korea to engage ?

If they can, Ukraine then becomes a proxy battlefield between the two Koreas.

All rather grim, I fear.
 
Confirmed? Confirmed by whom?
everyone, including Russians.

This could be summarised as the USA fighting Russia to the last dead Ukrainian soldier.

It remains to be seen how long the Ukrainians will go along with being such cannon fodder.
not since they push for peace and forced Ukraine to accept negotiations before taking back their territories.

I have no doubt that North Korean soldiers are involved, but it is unclear to me that they are currently involved outside the Kursk region.

only Kursk.

I suspect that Ukrainian reports that they are ineffective may be correct because they are new to this type of war, but they will learn.
I've seen Ukrainians reports saying they are not to be underestimated, and are learning.

disciplined, good soldiers, able to destroy more drones than expected by firing at them, not retreating, not surrendering (using grenades to kill themselves instead)

but also used as cannon fodder, and so taking heavy losses.
 
This could be summarised as the USA fighting Russia to the last dead Ukrainian soldier.
This is an ignorant, arrogant, offensive, and frankly infuriating take that keeps being regurgitated by trolls and folks who have no idea what Russia is, or how it treats territories and people it has conquered.

Be better than this, please.

Were the war to end with Russian conquest of Ukraine, the killing of Ukrainians would not stop. It would take off. And they know it.
 
I've seen Ukrainians reports saying they are not to be underestimated, and are learning.

disciplined, good soldiers, able to destroy more drones than expected by firing at them, not retreating, not surrendering (using grenades to kill themselves instead)

but also used as cannon fodder, and so taking heavy losses.
The thing is if a group of soldiers is not spotted by drones, then hiding from them may make sense for them all.

But if they are spotted, then hiding may protect those individuals who can hide quickest at the expense of those who are slowest to hide.

In such circumstances, and particularly, if caught on open ground, then shooting at the drones might well be the optimum response.
 
This could be summarised as the USA fighting Russia to the last dead Ukrainian soldier.

It remains to be seen how long the Ukrainians will go along with being such cannon fodder.
No, because the Zelesnky can make peace with Russia whenever he wants. America is arming Ukraine, not forcing them to fight. But the Ukrainians are defending their homeland whereas the Russians are invading. The Ukrainians, therefore, have far more to live and more to fight for. As well as the advantage of being more familiar with the terrain as it is their homeland, and closer to supply lines. Ukraine doesn't need a decisive military victory, but just enough for Russia to realize this isn't worth it anymore and leave. The Viekong didn't get decisive military victories against America for the most part, but they didn't need to for America to give up and go home. Ditto for the Taliban.
 
Top Bottom