Yeah every Western analyst has been saying: You're stupid and propagandized to think that the meat grinder war can be won by the country with the most meat.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

That's because Russia took fuck all in 2023 when they were stuck at Avdiivka for months and months, way longer than expected by all sides. Once it fell, there were fewer natural choke points for Ukraine until Pokrovsk, and defense lines were not well prepared enough. So comparing taking a lot of fields to sending troops to capture a static point for a year is not really apples to apples imo.

Kursk is and always was a gambit. My view is that losses and disorganization on the frontline from Ukrainian's part on the Donetsk side, is independent from the results of the Kursk incursion, not because of it. As such, whether it was a overall good idea or not in hindsight, it appears that the primary objective of the incursion was met, as every troop, NK or Russian, stationed to recapture Kursk is one fewer re-inforcing the offensive in other areas.

[–] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 days ago

The primary objective of the Kursk gambit had to have been to fundamentally alter the course of the war -- either by drawing NATO countries more directly in, or by tanking Russian public opinion, or by credibly threatening Moscow. It failed; it's a bump in the road, not a course change.

And what evidence do you have that North Korean troops are in Ukraine? Keep in mind the U.S. has spy satellites that can read a license plate, so I'm looking for something solid, not merely a comment from a Ukranian official.

[–] Draghetta@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I’m not sure that’s right.

Nobody knows alternate timelines of course, but I wonder if NK troops would have been at all engaged were it not for Kursk - and NK engagement is very favourable for both sides of the agreement, and really bad news for the rest of us.

Also I don’t know how many of the Russian Kursk troops are conscripts, but those would not have been in Donetsk anyway.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

and NK engagement is very favourable for both sides of the agreement,

Then NK troops was always going to happen. It's not a penalty for Kursk invasion, but a security partnership that should have been predicted.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago

I wonder if NK troops would have been at all engaged were it not for Kursk

It's a valid thought. I'd think Russia would find whatever excuse was convenient, even if it weren't for an incursion, something like "Western allies are supporting Ukraine", or whatever. At the end of the day, NK needs food and Russia needs warm bodies so that calculus on the deal doesn't change.