Putin's North Korean Soldiers

[quintessentone]

I think this article makes sense, in that, the inexperienced 10,000 North Korean soldiers may (some, but that is debatable) end up defecting to Ukraine or become cannon fodder.

Article:

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-w...91962.html

Former Ukrainian officials have suggested they could suffer casualty levels of up to 90 percent.

"I would say that could be an accurate assessment. They are not well-trained, and it is a very unfamiliar environment for them," Lee said. "They have never been on foreign soil, and the Ukrainian military will use missiles and drones" against them.

Can this get any more tragic?

[sahgwa]

I read on telegram this morning from a Ukrainian channel that 2 North Korean soldiers were found dead of alcohol poisoning from bootleg liquor .What it really was was they were drinking the sanitiser, or ethanol from the med kits. Gross.  It was some leaked thing from the Russians. 
The Norks aren't used to being let out of their prison country and having access to porn and booze let alone ethanol?

[quintessentone]

I read on telegram this morning from a Ukrainian channel that 2 North Korean soldiers were found dead of alcohol poisoning from bootleg liquor .What it really was was they were drinking the sanitiser, or ethanol from the med kits. Gross.  It was some leaked thing from the Russians. 
The Norks aren't used to being let out of their prison country and having access to porn and booze let alone ethanol?

That is correct, I saw the same thing on YouTube Military news. Their behaviour seems to be out of control from being under Kim's thumb all their life. It was also mentioned that if they tried to run away that their families at home would pay the price (like keeping their families as hostages). It was also mentioned that it is expected, because the NK soldiers have never had any experience with actually fighting in a war, that 90% of them would be killed or horribly injured.

[quintessentone]

To me, it just does not make any sense why Putin would use NK soldiers who have no battlefield experience even if he and Kim agreed to each helping the other fight wars. Putin got the soiled end of the stick in that deal. Could Putin by eyeing Kim's missiles and rockets?



Can Trump make the big deal between them? Will Putin accept only a fraction of Ukraine territory than he wanted? Will Zelensky get foreign security and an invitation to NATO? That is yet to be realized.

If Zelensky rejects the deal will NATO step in to provide Ukraine with more resources if Trump stops supplying Ukraine? Will Putin and Kim join forces which may force NATO to do the same?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/d...eace-talks

This war will just get more desperate on both sides as time goes on and I do hope the peace talks result in an end to this war.

[Maxmars]

I have found that all European reporting on the Russia/Ukraine conflict/war tends to somehow field a different perspective in regards to NATO.

From the US perspective, it is noteworthy that despite NATO's conduct and posturing, it will be the U.S. that actually musters the resolve to make the killing stop.

I think that NATO is an anachronism which is desperately trying to 'be relevant' in a Post cold war world.  But their "impetus" to "expand" is an irritant to the international community... with it's perpetual "make war to achieve peace" trope.  It seems clear that they are now users of the "economic hitman" strategies of old. 
NATO objectives override the natural development of international order... all to achieve dominance for NATO's own 'goals.'

I think the US spends way too much money on the "anti-communist" fad in politics. 
NATO is the epitome of that fad... and can't seem to change their own behaviors... I can only speculate as the "reasons" for that... but I am suspicious about global arms trade... and the movement of weapons systems that cost a fortune to replace.

Putin's objectives may be to satisfy the game plans of oligarchs... but then the same might also apply to NATO.

Russia, during its' Soviet era was a huge contiguous chunk of land... but the Soviets broke themselves trying to play a military game in a world of economics. 
It was never going to work long-term without war.  

The West should be learning that the obverse is also true... and it's not Russia v. The West that's the common denominator there... the common denominator is war.

War is only good to serve war and warring. 
NATO is existentially about war, not peace.

It is NATO that must stop serving war... risking war, effecting war... as a threat and tool of their idea of "progress."
I think we needn't dump more money into that NATO bin.
Times change.

[UltraBudgie]

I have found that all European reporting on the Russia/Ukraine conflict/war tends to somehow field a different perspective in regards to NATO.

[...]

War is only good to serve war and warring. 
NATO is existentially about war, not peace.

I've found that things make much more sense when NATO is viewed as a "peace treaty" -- sign here, conform your foreign policy and military industrial standards to our potential needs, and the "invisible empire" will not foment insurrection and violent coups within your nation.

If necessary, the entire manufacturing capacity of a NATO nation can be pivoted quickly to support a common war effort, and the political and social control structures are in place to allow that to happen reliably. That's the purpose of the treaty.

[Ray1990]

I have found that all European reporting on the Russia/Ukraine conflict/war tends to somehow field a different perspective in regards to NATO.

From the US perspective, it is noteworthy that despite NATO's conduct and posturing, it will be the U.S. that actually musters the resolve to make the killing stop.

I think that NATO is an anachronism which is desperately trying to 'be relevant' in a Post cold war world.  But their "impetus" to "expand" is an irritant to the international community... with it's perpetual "make war to achieve peace" trope.  It seems clear that they are now users of the "economic hitman" strategies of old. 
NATO objectives override the natural development of international order... all to achieve dominance for NATO's own 'goals.'

I think the US spends way too much money on the "anti-communist" fad in politics. 
NATO is the epitome of that fad... and can't seem to change their own behaviors... I can only speculate as the "reasons" for that... but I am suspicious about global arms trade... and the movement of weapons systems that cost a fortune to replace.

Putin's objectives may be to satisfy the game plans of oligarchs... but then the same might also apply to NATO.

Russia, during its' Soviet era was a huge contiguous chunk of land... but the Soviets broke themselves trying to play a military game in a world of economics. 
It was never going to work long-term without war.  

The West should be learning that the obverse is also true... and it's not Russia v. The West that's the common denominator there... the common denominator is war.

War is only good to serve war and warring. 
NATO is existentially about war, not peace.

It is NATO that must stop serving war... risking war, effecting war... as a threat and tool of their idea of "progress."
I think we needn't dump more money into that NATO bin.
Times change.

If NATO was obsessed with expansion then why does it have more partners than members? Quite a few of those partners could join NATO tomorrow (not literally) since they are already fully complaint with the values NATO abide by... That said, Turkey takes the piss and probably shouldn't be a member. Japan and South Korea are fully complaint as an example. So were the Swedes and Finnish, they didn't need MAP (Membership Action Plan) as they were already forward thinking nations from that "western" perspective.

They have a free market, they have a robust and lawfully protected democracy, they fundamentally respect human rights, have reasonable and fair law enforcement, militaries that are operated by and controlled by the civilian population... I could go on but you should get the picture.

It's not the West Vs Russia or even China and Cuba for that matter, if anything it's NATO Vs other forms of order and ideals of which anyone with respect for ideals such as liberty and freedom would find preferable compared to the alternatives of which are often detestable to a free thinking mind. Yes, we seemingly have to choose.

Or maybe I'm just another invalid cheerleader rooting for the hand that feeds me so to speak, democracy is the worst from of governance except from all the others, right?

That said, I agree. The US pulls too much weight and it's unfair on them. They also make the majority of money too though. Your currency defends the free market and it's often your technology defending the air, sea and land. 1/5 of your F4's went to allies and partners of NATO, the F35 was basically a NATO development spearheaded by the US, development is a beast upon itself which is what NATO is all about. The alternative when it comes to military corporation is trying to fit together multiple systems and developed warfare into a cohesive entity which would get overly complex. The pathway chosen is probably the best in the short-term and long. Especially if you consider the constant moaning about taxes on weapons.

Yet China has a bloated Navy, world trade is often at risk and there's an active war in Europe, N Korea tests nukes and defies pressure concerning the development of missiles designed and intended to carry nuclear warheads. So yes, NATO members need to pull their socks up and pull proverbial thumbs out of their nether regions and put them to work. NATO is supposed to be a cooperative entity.

Self reliance is good. Do you see the US being self-reliant in a world where the US dollar is abandoned? I don't. I also don't see a world with much stability if the US lost half of it's forces or more like it's NATO allies over the years. Nations are often the epitome of masculine expression, they will compete. Without rules? Expect a mess. Didn't Russia prove that a proper defence should be of the utmost importance?

So is honesty and disclosure... Our potential enemies don't follow many rules, hence Russia's demands feigned as diplomacy just before their special military operation (war) then they feigned a multi-pronged invasion as military exercises.

I'd happily pull the flaws out regarding NATO as there's plenty of failures, we're free to talk about them in 'Western' nations though which is a distinct quality of NATO members and partners. Those nations at least live under the guise of international law, they at least pretend to uphold economic fairness too.

From an individualistic POV the social mobility of a person is often drastically increased when their nation is compatible with NATO, I'm not exactly a fan of capitalism either but just like democracy I'd say what other reasonable alternative exists?

In short, NATO is a lot more than am entity built for war, I'd also say it's a preferable entity that offers more security for the nation and individual compared to the alternatives.

[Maxmars]

If NATO was obsessed with expansion then why does it have more partners than members? Quite a few of those partners could join NATO tomorrow (not literally) since they are already fully complaint with the values NATO abide by... That said, Turkey takes the piss and probably shouldn't be a member. Japan and South Korea are fully complaint as an example. So were the Swedes and Finnish, they didn't need MAP (Membership Action Plan) as they were already forward thinking nations from that "western" perspective.

...

The NATO membership and structure was specifically established and engineered to deal with a singular political and ideological antagonist.  That antagonist is effectively gone.

What NATO is operating against now is not the same at all. 

Russia is a nation run by oligarchs and 'channeled' money... not "soviet" political will... their ideology is one of profit, not sovereign pride. 

As a result NATO changed it's modus operandi, intending to chip away at the former Soviet sub-entities and use capital gains as motivation... NATO was willing to exploit greed and corruption in former satellite states to achieve their ends... and here we are.  Hundreds of thousands dead or injured, infrastructures decimated or destroyed.  "Profit" has become too important to NATO... they have become as their very enemy now.  "Peace" is not their aim... "victory" is.

The US spent too much propping up NATO, who make their policy as informed by "other" institutions of an "international" nature... and as usual... those other clubs see U.S. tax-payer funding as an "entitlement" based upon their notional "good works" of the past.

NATO is not a nation... so the word 'expansion' is a metaphorical compromise to represent their fervor, zealotry, and pride to 'spread' through the world as "the" club to belong to.

I never resisted the idea of the promotion of economic and civil freedoms... but I do feel that profiteering from the effort is demonstrably counter-productive... in commerce their are only 'winners and losers' and this is what the former communist puppets railed against about 'capitalism,'  where one wins... their is always a 'loser.'  In the human world, an exploiter always stand over the exploited.

We will eventually work it out... and we keep trying to do just that,...

but meanwhile NATO is engaging in the games of the "economic hitman" based upon the motive of "winning, and getting rich in the interim."  It is a broken strategy that may have worked to some degree in the late 20th Century... but it cannot and should not become an entrenched manner of international conduct any longer.  It costs too much... it's too damaging... it ends too many lives. 

Russia is no saint here either.  It would appear that half of their operations are about 'posture' and 'roaring.' 
A perfect counter to NATO's pretense of "harmony and peace" being their goal.

Insofar as the economic games of the day... none of it is anything less than a banking illusion... no nation is 'self-sufficient' (or can ever be) as long as the "one" bank has a global monopoly on currency and monetary policy...  but NATO is entrenched in the banking world... and Russia's oligarchs are as well...

"In short, NATO is a lot more than am entity built for war, I'd also say it's a preferable entity that offers more security for the nation and individual compared to the alternatives."

I do apologize for that simplistic utterance, I admit that what NATO is "now" is a far cry from what it was ever said to be when the Soviets were knee-deep in their side-show of 'international politics.'  Even if it was directly constructed in specific response to 'Soviet/Communist military pressure.'

I stop short of saying that NATO (among other organizations) is just one of a number of political/marketing arms for the military industrial complex, and the weapons black market... only because it will never be proved to be true...  but I think that we need to be clear...

NATO isn't now what NATO says it is.

[quintessentone]

NATO provided Russia with assistance when they needed it. Memory fading?

I have been sampling my homemade Christmas cheer, so I'll keep it short.

I won't be able to properly comment until after January 20th or before depending on if Trump sends his quirky messages as what we  are to expect. In regards to the Ukraine/Russia land grab.

Anyway, what I really wanted to say is that I am proud to be a part of this forum with exceptional people such as y'all.

Thought I should express my true feelings.

[Ray1990]

The NATO membership and structure was specifically established and engineered to deal with a singular political and ideological antagonist.  That antagonist is effectively gone.

What NATO is operating against now is not the same at all. 

Russia is a nation run by oligarchs and 'channeled' money... not "soviet" political will... their ideology is one of profit, not sovereign pride. 

As a result NATO changed it's modus operandi, intending to chip away at the former Soviet sub-entities and use capital gains as motivation... NATO was willing to exploit greed and corruption in former satellite states to achieve their ends... and here we are.  Hundreds of thousands dead or injured, infrastructures decimated or destroyed.  "Profit" has become too important to NATO... they have become as their very enemy now.  "Peace" is not their aim... "victory" is.

The US spent too much propping up NATO, who make their policy as informed by "other" institutions of an "international" nature... and as usual... those other clubs see U.S. tax-payer funding as an "entitlement" based upon their notional "good works" of the past.

NATO is not a nation... so the word 'expansion' is a metaphorical compromise to represent their fervor, zealotry, and pride to 'spread' through the world as "the" club to belong to.

I never resisted the idea of the promotion of economic and civil freedoms... but I do feel that profiteering from the effort is demonstrably counter-productive... in commerce their are only 'winners and losers' and this is what the former communist puppets railed against about 'capitalism,'  where one wins... their is always a 'loser.'  In the human world, an exploiter always stand over the exploited.

We will eventually work it out... and we keep trying to do just that,...

but meanwhile NATO is engaging in the games of the "economic hitman" based upon the motive of "winning, and getting rich in the interim."  It is a broken strategy that may have worked to some degree in the late 20th Century... but it cannot and should not become an entrenched manner of international conduct any longer.  It costs too much... it's too damaging... it ends too many lives. 

Russia is no saint here either.  It would appear that half of their operations are about 'posture' and 'roaring.' 
A perfect counter to NATO's pretense of "harmony and peace" being their goal.

Insofar as the economic games of the day... none of it is anything less than a banking illusion... no nation is 'self-sufficient' (or can ever be) as long as the "one" bank has a global monopoly on currency and monetary policy...  but NATO is entrenched in the banking world... and Russia's oligarchs are as well...

"In short, NATO is a lot more than am entity built for war, I'd also say it's a preferable entity that offers more security for the nation and individual compared to the alternatives."

I do apologize for that simplistic utterance, I admit that what NATO is "now" is a far cry from what it was ever said to be when the Soviets were knee-deep in their side-show of 'international politics.'  Even if it was directly constructed in specific response to 'Soviet/Communist military pressure.'

I stop short of saying that NATO (among other organizations) is just one of a number of political/marketing arms for the military industrial complex, and the weapons black market... only because it will never be proved to be true...  but I think that we need to be clear...

NATO isn't now what NATO says it is.

The NATO membership and structure was specifically established and engineered to deal with a singular political and ideological antagonist. That antagonist is effectively gone.

That is true although the nature of threats has evolved over time. In some theatres the scope has changed completely, plus there's plenty of new theatres being constantly built too. What individual nation in the west can compete with the likes of China in cyber warfare? America? Even your nation is vulnerable and this world is ever-changing.

As a result NATO changed it's modus operandi, intending to chip away at the former Soviet sub-entities and use capital gains as motivation... NATO was willing to exploit greed and corruption in former satellite states to achieve their ends... and here we are. Hundreds of thousands dead or injured, infrastructures decimated or destroyed. "Profit" has become too important to NATO... they have become as their very enemy now. "Peace" is not their aim... "victory" is.

NATO isn't an economic entity within itself so we're drifting into the idea of cabals and secrets of which can only amount to conjecture. Personally I don't see that level of control from any power, it's chaos behind the scenes even in nations where the majority fall in line.

NATO is not a nation... so the word 'expansion' is a metaphorical compromise to represent their fervor, zealotry, and pride to 'spread' through the world as "the" club to belong to.

Neither is WHO, the UN, WEF, WTO or any other institution that focuses on international issues. Yet, they're the clubs to belong to because they offer a lot more than they cost. Is there an element of compliance? Definitely, would you expect anything else within rules based order? I wouldn't. NATO has frame works that sovereign nations can choose to follow and given the choice between the actual meaning behind 1st, 2nd and 3rd world nations I reckon the majority of nations would choose to be number 1 if given half the chance.

Honestly? I'm not a fan of entities that are too big for their boots but I've been accused of being a realist too so I tend to prefer these international groups and norms simply because the alternative is a lot worse. They have compasses that almost point north whereas there's so many countries pumping out compasses that point West... Maybe I'm biased.


I never resisted the idea of the promotion of economic and civil freedoms... but I do feel that profiteering from the effort is demonstrably counter-productive... in commerce their are only 'winners and losers' and this is what the former communist puppets railed against about 'capitalism,' where one wins... their is always a 'loser.' In the human world, an exploiter always stand over the exploited.

I'm genuinely not a fan of capitalism but as I've aged I've come to realise there'll never be man-made system that'll negate our impulses. The human condition is probably best left for another thread although I would say we're only competing with ourselves these days and we're pretty damn good at it. We'll lose eventually with that attitude.

but meanwhile NATO is engaging in the games of the "economic hitman" based upon the motive of "winning, and getting rich in the interim." It is a broken strategy that may have worked to some degree in the late 20th Century... but it cannot and should not become an entrenched manner of international conduct any longer. It costs too much... it's too damaging... it ends too many lives.


It's not NATO though, it's nations within NATO which are actually using every institution they can to get one over their adversaries. It's human nature. Civilised modern nations is a myth and there'll always be exploitation, that said at least the West keeps up the semblance of civility whilst private hands are unfortunately weighed down with more and more wealth. Which is why I mentioned Russia's ultimatum before it went to war. Those "drafts of negotiation" were akin to a stinking lifting fart shot in our general direction. It only addressed the US and NATO which was a huge reflection on the kind of backwards 19th century thinking Putin has become so fond of. A militaristic outlook where only the strong matters where territory and resources are the only currency worth a damn. Backwards and cannibalistic if you ask me.

What do you expect the West to do when a nation like Russia pisses on accords it signed whilst showing blatant disregard for various rules of engagement and human rights?

I do wish to see change, these days I don't think we're ready for change since so many are invested, I also wouldn't have much hope on any system that replaces the ones we already have in place. My main reason?

We're hardly living up to the world we inherited, tomorrow will be as dull as the minds we find leading us today. It's like desecrating 20th century war graves whilst uttering "you never mattered you pointless #!" Which is absolutely deplorable... We're deplorable.

Why Ukraine and not the other countless conflicts around the world? White privilege innit?