It might be worth considering that a South Korean politician maybe isn't the best source of accurate knowledge on the topic of dead or injured North Korean soldiers in Russia.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
It doesn't sound like it would make all that much difference the way their special forces are trained and equipped tbh. Their job is to go and cause havoc in whatever way they can, improvising weapons along the way if they need to, they're probably just not all that familiar with modern warfare like drones, radio jamming etc. I would have thought.
Why wouldn't it make a difference?
Contrary to Ukrainian and Western Propaganda Russian/North Korean Soldiers are still people and ultimately behave and require the same things any other people have. Having such a high percentage of casualties means that they "cannot go and cause havoc"
Russian central bank surprises markets by holding key rate at 21%
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/20/rus...markets-by-holding-key-rate-at-21percent.html
Well as long as they're willing to keep walking forward and scavenging for supplies then it's hardly the same as if a tank loses its driver or some other specialised role.
It's way more complicated than this.
Militaries have force structures that have tooth-to-tail ratios comprising around the 1:5 - 1:9 range. What this means is that for every combat soldier, there needs to be between 5 to 9 soldiers supporting him/her.
Chefs, doctors, mechanics, haulers, truck drivers, comms guys, ATC, radioman, logistics officers, planners, base operations managers, procurement officers, artillerymen, spotters, Forward observers, general staffers etc etc.
NATO forces tend to be very bottom heavy, in the sense that there are way more support troops than there are combat troops. GWOT the ratio was something like 1:7.8. Russia's is something around the other end, with somewhere around a 1:5 Tooth to tail ratio.
Now, combat casualties disproportionately affect combat troops. Sure, an FPV might get 10km behind lines and manage to slap the barracks killing three chefs, or a cruise missile strike hits a command post and kills/wounds some staffers and the radiomen. But all in all, casualties are predominantly in the fighting troops.
We know this is the case as well for North Korean soldiers because it's been widely reported the majority of them are doing support work deeper behind the lines.
Assume they have a T3R of 1:5, which is the Russian ratio and they take 10% casualties.
Assume a standard battalion of 1000 men, with a 1:5 T3R, you basically have 167 men on combat duty with 833 on supporting roles.
If the battalion takes 10% casualties, with an 80:20 split between combat troops and supporting troops, we're looking at the original 167 combat troops now down to 87 combat troops. The degradation here on capability is essentially halved.
Then there is a trickle effect. For every casualty taken during combat, it takes out 2 more combat troops to support the casualty (atleast US and UK Army Manual standards), it takes more combat troops mid fight to deal with casualties. When you have a full battalion complement, the scaling affect of this is lessened, but when you're already at half strength, this is amplified.
10% casualties is very close to rendering any organization combat-ineffective.
Do we know wether North Korea brought their own "tail" to Russia or are they just "teeth"? If it's the latter, 10% of that would equal more like 2% of total loss rate and therefore would not render the bigger Russian formations ineffective that incorporate the NK soldiers.
Unless you're part of a giant organization that trains very regularly with each other and has synchronized structures, behaviours and doctrines, (NATO), it's very very difficult to just interchange a tail between yours and a foreign one. You could possibly plug a few regiments here and there across a broader front, but you can't have an entirely organic NK combat force with an entirely Russian supply chain - it will have so many teething issues.
Also, lots of news reports came out that the vast majority of NK soldiers were on support roles.
Thanks for clarifying, missed those reports.
Just because there are lots of support troops, doesn't mean they're all actually supporting the front line ones, they're probably expected to try and learn from their Russian counterparts to some degree. By the sounds of the way the North Korean soldiers are expected to scavenge their own food and improvise weapons and supplies, they may not actually need as much supporting as your NATO mates.
@harms did Putin say something about Jews on Thursday? Would you say it was an out-of-the-ordinary remark by him?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/putin...ws-are-tearing-apart-russian-orthodox-church/
I believe this is from that moment when he talked about Zelenskyy (decided to google his preferred transliteration) and his team (I doubt that a lot of his team are actually jewish but I'm not going to factcheck Putin's delirium) battling against the Ukrainian part of the Russian Orthodox Church (there's a separate Ukrainian Orthodox Church and then there's Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine and the latter, despite being way more influential before 2022, is not favoured much by the current government, surprise-surprise). And it's often important for him to highlight that Zelenskyy isn't a "real Ukrainian" (who are all Russians even if they are misguided/brainwashed Russians) so he acts in the interests of different outside forces... in this case, I imagine, the infamous antireligious jewish cabal? You really don't know what kind of stuff he actually believes in at this point. Not that I've watched to any of that lunatic's rumbling myself, I saw some transcripts of the key stuff here and there.
From what I know, he's not actively antisemitic, usually at least, but he's a product of a certain generation where antisemitism was very much normalized (and actively encouraged) on a governmental level in USSR so some of those phrases or views are going to come through from time to time. I often think of my grandmother (who is a bit older than Putin but it's still roughly the same environment that shaped them) who would sometimes throw in some random remark about the jews (negative, as you can probably imagine)... even though 3 out of 5 of her grandkids got Israeli passports after the beginning of this war and she really has no issues with jews in general.
Anyway, it's antisemitic but that wasn't Putin's point.
Ok, thanks.
Russian ship under US sanctions sinks after engine room blast
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c627n83ezlwo
With the ability of russia to scape sanctions (and NK and Iran and anyone) it seems that the sentence is just a pat on their own shoulders and trying to convince people that the sanctions are accomplishing much more than what they really do
Russian ex-national player Aleksey Bugaev dies at the front
Aleksey Bugaev played for Russia in the 2004 UEFA European Championship. He has now died in the offensive war against Ukraine. He had been recruited after being convicted of drug trafficking.
https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/alek...-krieg-a-661b97cc-b073-43b3-9caf-5342f135eb76
Aleksey Bugaev played for Russia in the 2004 UEFA European Championship. He has now died in the offensive war against Ukraine. He had been recruited after being convicted of drug trafficking.
https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/alek...-krieg-a-661b97cc-b073-43b3-9caf-5342f135eb76
Ukraine says it shot down a helicopter with a missile fired from a naval drone.
Apparently Z-channels report that Ukraine has launched another (counter-?) offensive in Kurskaya oblast'. Ukrainians confirm:
Ukraine is still holding on a lot better in Kursk than I thought they would, and yea they are even taking back some of the ground lost in the recent assaults involving NK troops. But they are using their best units and equipment in Kursk and sacrificing territory within Ukraine instead. We'll have to see once peace talks start how beneficial holding territory in Kursk will be as leverage.
And this recent article highlights some of the issues they are having with mobilization and command structure:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...integrating-before-it-reached-the-front-line/
Essentially trying to form new brigades of recently mobilized soldiers, many forcibly so, giving them training and sending to the frontlines underequipped and without proper command. Predictably with heavy losses and desertions.
Yup, it looks like a complete shitshow and they've launched a probe. 3 years into the war and the leadership seems unwilling or incapable of fixing structural issues.
https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-investigating-french-trained-brigade/
It is ofcourse difficult for them to overhaul their military structure during a war like this, to move from the Soviet era methods that most of their current military commanders work under, similar to Russia, even if they've done a lot to modernize they are still lacking a lot in cohesion and proper communication. I don't see this changing without outside assistance from NATO and after the war ends. They are also under pressure from the US to form new brigades and mobilize more and younger men in order to receive more equipment, leading to shitshow like this. It is sad and the blame is ultimately on the Ukrainian military command but they are in difficult position having lost so many men already and not having enough outside support.
This is a detailed and critical look into many of the issues with their command structure:
https://frontelligence.substack.com/p/command-and-consequences-ukraines
Yes. Nothing to laugh about. Every war ends with peace talks in some way. And Ukraine wants to be sure to be in a good position for that. At some point it will happen, but so far Russia essentially demands an unconditional surrender which isn't acceptable for Ukraine.Peace talks
Russia obviously hopes to keep going until Ukraine can't really fight anymore while Ukraine needs negotiation material.
Oh, I didn't realise he was talking about the talks when this war ends after the Russian army has been defeated. I take it back.
No I am talking about the peace talks that are expected to take place once Trump takes office, and freeze the conflict as it stands.
And to add on that, to your point on Russian defeat, the current trajectory of the war is not indicating that this is a likely outcome, in fact the opposite. Currently it is more a question of how much Ukraine will lose of men and territory until they are forced into a peace deal. It is better that this happens sooner than later, if they are not going to get any more significant support. I say this being very much pro-Ukraine and wanting them to win back all their territory including Crimea. But Biden failed to give them the support needed to defeat Russia at critical moments and now they are stuck in a losing attritional war against Russia which they cannot win under the current circumstances. And as was discussed in some of the previous posts, Ukraines military structure is also unsuited for a long-term war of this scale. My feeling is that Zelensky, and Ukraines allies, have pretty much accepted that as well and are preparing for Trump to come in an halt the conflict. Ofcourse nothing can be said with any confidence until Trump comes in and puts his plans in action but everything points to a ceasefire deal sometime this year.
Last edited:
This is the thing I'm really struggling to understand at the moment. There is a shortage of manpower all along the defensive lines and instead of sending the recently mobilized troops to fill the gaps in the existing brigades where they could also learn from experienced soldiers and officers they create completly new brigades that have no fighting experience and hardly any training.
Yes, that would probably have been a much better use of new soldiers. And in some ways this was also done, as per @VorZakone 's linked article:
So in the early stages this new brigade was already cut up and experienced soldiers who could have been valuable here were sent elsewhere.
This could also have been more beneficial earlier in the war when morale was higher and less desertion rate.
Overall though it reflects poorly on Ukrainian command. But also, these new brigades receive training and equipment in France, which includes some of the better donated Western equipment, which they may not have received if those soldiers would have gone straight into existing units. That is just my speculation though, but it is a fact that one of the things holding Ukraine back from a large mobilization is lack of equipment.
Interesting use of AI to clone Zelenskyy's voice for western audiences
Last edited:
I'm sorry if you believe things Donald Trump says, but no one serious expects a freeze to this war any time soon, whether he cuts off support or not.
I don't personally put any merit in the tiny fractions of territory Ukraine has lost this year, which I think is the main reason my opinion differs to most others. I find it wild how so many people (like 90%+ who comment on this war) seem to think Russia has taken something significant this year. They have not. They trippled their efforts (and losses) on the front lines, for whatever reason, and have achieved nothing apart from catastrophic losses.
The dumbest thing Ukraine could do right now would be to discourage Russia too much in Donetsk, while they are happy to smash themselves to bits there. The last thing they would want is to put Russia on a defensive posture, I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu has a quote about this. Why send such forces into Kursk when they are 'struggling' so much in Pokrovsk? Why the feck do people think, honestly. Its not for imaginary negotiations, its just a killing game.
Personnel, equipment and the logistics/economy that supports it all, it is evident right now that Russia is losing in all aspects. Though the risk of what Trump/Musk does to help them is high, we'll wait and see, he certainly doesn't have the power to halt the war though. Putin would have to come begging and I don't think he's quite ready.
Ukraine is in a better position now than any day previous in terms of supporting themselves long term. This is something Biden has helped with that may prove far more important than anything else he could have done, lets hope its enough.
Last edited:
I agree that people take the things Trump says at face value too much. As it seems, lots of Americans voted for him despite his positions and think he won't see through what he proclaimed. But if he really freezes the support for Ukraine, the pressure and criticism will only increase the more concessions Ukraine has to make. There will be public criticism, resistance from his geopolitical advicers and various important government officials, etc. etc. I don't think it is impossible that he'll make a 180 and give it a narrative spin that gets the MAGA crowds on board again.
Well I don't take everything that Trump says at face value, but there is usually always some real intention behind what he says, whether it is realistic or not. For example I don't think he wants to actually buy Greenland, but he has strategic interest there and maybe in natural resources that are becoming more and more accessible. Similarly with Ukraine, he's not going to end the war in 24 hours after election or inauguration as he claimed with a single phone call, but he wants to stop investing US resources into the war and into Europes defences in general. He also wants the credit for being the one to bring peace and stopping the war for his own personal merit. And he is not adverse to making a bad or one-sided deal in that regard, as the negotiations with the Taliban without involving the Afghan government and then ignoring violations to that ceasefire agreement. He got the US out and he can boast about ending the war.
I also look at what Keith Kellogg says, last year he wrote on ending the war through negotiations, and now he will leading the envoy to do exactly that:
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-russia-ukraine
I believe this will be their goals going into peace talks. Halt the conflict, maybe give Russia some sanctions relief, then fully lift sanctions once peace deal is signed. You say that Trump doesn't have the power to do that, but he has the power to withdraw US support for Ukraine and lift sanctions on Russia. That is enough to force Ukraine into a deal. Zelensky and EU allies also seem to accept this. Most of Zelenskys comments these days center around trying to get strong security guarantees if a peace deal is to be made. France is also talking about deploying peacekeeping forces, presumably along a new border/DMZ after a ceasefire
https://www.politico.eu/article/fra...d-tusk-to-discuss-ukraine-peacekeeping-force/
General support for Ukraine is also dropping and growing acceptance of a ceasefire with territorial concessions:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/26/support-for-ukraine-russia-war-yougov-poll-survey
The territory that is currently being lost is perhaps not all that significant, but Ukraine is still losing cities, logistic routes, mines/natural resources, morale, and most importantly, personnel. And it is getting harder and harder for them to mobilize, train, and equip new troops. Its hard to say what will happen if peace talks won't succeed. But if Trump does withdraw or reduce support, then we are likely to see a Ukrainian defence collapse within the year. Even with current level of support an attritional defeat of Russia isn't likely, simply because the loss ratio isn't nearly favorable enough for Ukraine. At best we'll reach a natural stalemate and ceasefire if both forces are exhausted after some unknown period of time and more losses for Ukraine.
I don't think that is an unreasonable assessment but it depends on Ukraine's belief about Russia's ability to continue at its current tempo. There are many indicators that they are as close to exhaustion as Ukraine are. Trumps election gives Russia hope of a reduction in Ukraine's defensive capability but that won't be instant and might be less dramatic than people think given Europe's continued support and the growth in Ukraine's independent defence capacity.
We know how much money Russia had saved to support this attack on Ukraine in foreign currencies. That is gone now. We know the vast amount of stored vehicles from the Soviet era weapons and they are 80% gone in three years.
If Trump looks at these numbers and thinks they have paid 80% of the cost of beating Russia outright already. Then is it out of the question he decides to screw Vlad over like he screws everyone over when it suits him?
Trump the hero who won the war in Ukraine is a better legacy than, Trump he brought the war to an end by giving away the victory which will be the narrative which takes hold directly after the unpopular peace treaty is signed.
It might be you are right and it goes the way you think but I am not sure it will.
I think it is a big, big gamble to continue the war without US support and hoping that Russia is at the verge of collapse. We saw that Ukraine lost Avdiivka, a defensive stronghold, during the period where US support was held back. EU support is also dwindling, they've given pretty much all they can in military equipment, and the focus now is on supporting Ukraines independent production which is definitely growing as you say. Long term, I think that will be very beneficial for them in terms of defenses and economy. But it is too little to influence the current war in a significant capacity.
Russia has also been able to increase their production of artillery shells, tanks, and drones despite sanctions. Outproducing Ukraine and its partner in artillery shells for example. And it was reported by someone else earlier in this thread that North Korea is also increasing their military production to help Russia. So I think people are really underestimating how much Russia has left, and they will use every resource available before stopping this war.
It can definitely be said that Trump will be saving Russia from an impending collapse if he opts for forcing a peace deal, instead of cranking up the support and pressure on Russia to bring Ukraine to a victory which will be a greater achievement. But that option will be riskier, costlier, and the long term effects of what could be the fall of Putin/the Russian economy are too much of an unknown, vs. the option of getting a peace deal and slowly going back to business with Russia. Another quote from Keith Kellogg from his article linked above:
Not that I believe Trump particularly cares about the people dying, he just wants this to stop being a drain on US resources and focus more on China. But he (and Kellogg) seem fine with accepting a deal that screws over Ukraine. He'll spin the optics as he wants, and Ukraines troubles will fade from public interest.
Maybe I am too pessimistic, for a while I shared the same opinion as @Simbo that surely, Russias losses would not be sustainable. Right now though don't see any realistic way in which Russia can lose the war in such a manner that will give Ukraine their territory back.
But everything depends on what Trump - and his advisors - decide to do, all we can do is wait. In a few weeks we will probably know more where the war is headed.