And I still remember how people in this thread were in such deep denial that North Korean troops were fighting in Kursk.Interesting, looks like NK recently acknowledged about 100 NK soldiers were KIA in the Kursk operations.
View attachment 158940
And I still remember how people in this thread were in such deep denial that North Korean troops were fighting in Kursk.Interesting, looks like NK recently acknowledged about 100 NK soldiers were KIA in the Kursk operations.
View attachment 158940
I was one of those people in denial initially because it's so random.And I still remember how people in this thread were in such deep denial that North Korean troops were fighting in Kursk.
North Korea definitely picked their best for the task at hand. Their experience will be invaluable, and they would want to pick the best unit to gain most experience.I was one of those people in denial initially because it's so random.
It looks like more info is rolling out and being released by NK themselves, including combat footage from the NK POV engaging the AFU. Depending on which source you cite, NK could of had anywhere between 6K to 15K troops involved in the Kursk operations. IMO, the casualty stat is real because NK troops likely participated in offensive operations but mostly played a supporting role to Russians.
Based on the combat footage released though, it seems like NK troops were well equipped and well trained, not much difference compared to Russian regulars.
I'm wondering how NK sell this to their people to justify people coming back in coffins. We helped one former USSR state fight another former USSR state, basically a Soviet civil war.
Their military-first policy is actually vindicated by this. It proves to their people that all that spending on KPA actually does yield great soldiers that can deliver result on the modern battlefield.I'm wondering how NK sell this to their people to justify people coming back in coffins. We helped one former USSR state fight another former USSR state, basically a Soviet civil war.
Fighting a war to get experience is something you don't tell your people.
Maybe its more of NK "binding" Russia to send troops to NK incase NK is ever invaded...I'm wondering how NK sell this to their people to justify people coming back in coffins. We helped one former USSR state fight another former USSR state, basically a Soviet civil war.
Fighting a war to get experience is something you don't tell your people.
Only Russia is regarded as successor of USSR, a view taken by Ukraine itself. Ukraine further portrait itself as being annexed and brutalized by USSR. I don't think NK would have difficulties to justify the war action. In fact Ukraine would most likely be portrayed as SK.I'm wondering how NK sell this to their people to justify people coming back in coffins. We helped one former USSR state fight another former USSR state, basically a Soviet civil war.
Fighting a war to get experience is something you don't tell your people.
Technically North Korea defended Kursk, not going into Ukraine. It is a defensive alliance in nature. They do exactly as defined on paper.I think North Korea has no issues seeing the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as a civil war since they have the same issue in the Korean peninsula.
They could have just banked on the arms trade. But they decided to send actual troops. That just changed the alliance to a whole different level. Not even Belarus did that.