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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Why won’t they field their best stuff and win the war quickly?
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.