Timeline for Why are DPRK troops in Ukraine such a big deal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3 at 16:40 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @sfxedit: that's only because Russia reverted to Soviet era tactics after their initial failure to overwhelm Ukraine. But soviet era tactics against modern technology produced a bewildering kind of trench warfare, so that what's happening in Ukraine is more like WWI than WWII. Sad, really… | |
| Dec 3 at 14:59 | comment | added | sfxedit | @TedWrigley I wish people thought more about the way warfare has changed ... Ironically, the Russia-Ukraine war has also revealed how warfare hasn't changed. The modern military idea was modern warfare would be short, limited mini-conflicts (like the Kargil war between India and Pakistan), and modern weaponry would mean less reliance on manpower and quicker results. There is however, nothing "mini" or "limited" about this, it is grinding warfare and the death of more than half a million personnels (on both sides) now have military planners rethinking the idea of smaller armies. | |
| Nov 21 at 17:48 | comment | added | David S | @user13964273 I don't think anybody characterizes NK solders as "highly motivated". The 10k troops are not highly trained, highly equipped, nor have any actual combat experience. On top of that they are fighting in unfamiliar territory with unfamiliar allies. That is not a recipe for doing any steam rolling. | |
| Nov 21 at 12:41 | comment | added | user13964273 | The front line around Kursk is about 100 km long, and the main problem for both sides is that their forces are very dispersed. Deployment of 10,000 highly motivated soldiers, even with basic training, would almost certainly result in the opponent being steam-rolled. Nothing like this is happening in reality and that makes me sure that the deployment is a blatant lie. | |
| Nov 20 at 18:49 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @ItalianPhilosopher: Everything is relative. The blitzkrieg was intended to rapidly secure territory and disrupt organized opposition before it took shape. It was an effective innovation, but still part of the age-old strategy of securing positional advantage. Notice that when Russia tried the same tactic at the beginning of the Ukraine war it failed, because Russia didn't go in with the attitude of rapidly securing territory; it went in with the attitude of demoralizing opposition. | |
| Nov 20 at 18:43 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @Wagthemainstreammediadog: You're welcome to report it if you think it's condescending. I just see it as factual; people don't think enough about this. And it you don't see how the West would take a symbolic victory like this seriously, then you haven't understood the tenor of this answer. Either way, you'r not offering any tangible suggestions for imnprovement, so I don't know what to say to this. | |
| Nov 20 at 17:47 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | As a Frenchman, I would not characterize May 10th - 23rd 1940 in WW2 as slow and grinding affair, no. And if anything this war looks more like WW1. | |
| Nov 20 at 17:43 | comment | added | Wag the mainstream media dog | I wish people thought more about the way warfare has changed over the last 80 years or so. - isn't that a bit condescending, and hence against the CoC? Anyhow, the Q. is not about why Putin needs DPRK troops, but why the west takes them so seriously, perhaps even to risk open NATO-Russia confrontation? When American soldiers start dying to Ukraine or a dummy warhead falls in a European capital, things might seem less like overwhelming power delivered from a safe distance. | |
| Nov 20 at 17:01 | history | answered | Ted Wrigley | CC BY-SA 4.0 |