• fox2263@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    If Ukraine had 10000 troops from any NATO nation the outcome would be much different.

    Those NK troops got used as fodder

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      I really doubt 10,000 NATO troops would make any tangible difference besides escalation from Russia’s side. The troops from the DPRK were largely sent to honor the defense agreement and to get troop training in Kursk, which was successful for the DPRK.

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Th only way Russia can “escalate” is nukes or more strikes at civilian targets. They don’t have a secret reserve of highly trained and experienced troops they could magically send to win the war

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          44 minutes ago

          Russia has tools like Oreshnik and T-90s that they aren’t fielding. There’s a lot of ways the war can escalate without relying on nukes or civilian targets.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              22 minutes ago

              Because that’s not how economies of war work. Russia doesn’t need to waste their best equipment when they are doing well with their current equipment, they just need to gradually proceed as they are to minimize their own casualties. Avoiding mines, encircling strongholds before taking them, etc wouldn’t make any sense to field the best stuff that also costs the most to replace.