KR North Korean troops will become 'cannon fodder' if they aid Russia in Ukraine, Pentagon says - 영광스러운 지도자를 위해 죽으라.

Dear Leaders.JPG
Sinéad Baker Article
Jun 26, 2024, 6:24 AM CDT
North Korean troops that are sent to Ukraine to aid in Russia's war would become "cannon fodder," the Pentagon said.

Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said on Tuesday that "I think that if I were North Korean military personnel management, I would be questioning my choices on sending my forces to be cannon fodder in an illegal war against Ukraine."

Ryder was responding to a question about North Korea potentially dispatching army engineering units to Ukraine's eastern Donetsk region, which is occupied by Russia.
According to South Korea's TV Chosun, citing a South Korean government official and referenced by Reuters, North Korea is planning to send construction and engineering forces to occupied Ukraine as soon as next month for rebuilding work.

Earlier this month, Russia and North Korea signed a pact agreeing to give each other military assistance if the other is attacked.

Countries including the US and Japan condemned the move, with South Korea saying it was considering sending weapons to Ukraine as a result. South Korea's president described the pact as a threat to his nation's security.

Ryder described North Korea potentially sending military forces to Russia as "certainly something to keep an eye on," and hinted at the high number of Russian casualties throughout the war.

The UK Ministry of Defence said at the end of May that the total number of killed or wounded Russian soldiers since February 2022 was around 500,000.

It also said that the average daily number of Russian personnel casualties in May was over 1,200.

Russia is known for treating its own troops as highly disposable.

This includes through using "meat wave" tactics, where it sends waves of poorly trained and unsupported soldiers toward Ukrainian positions to try to overwhelm them.

A Russian soldier who plans offensives said this month that he has to send men forward knowing they will likely die, but doesn't tell them how low their chances of survival are.

"I can't tell the men, otherwise they wouldn't fight with the hope of winning," he said.
 
Last edited:
Vietnam was jungle warfare against rice farmers with AK-47s and the US managed to lose that war due to political pressures at home. The Russo-Ukraine war is more like Kursk, WWI, or as others stated, the Iran-Iraq war where the two sides are proper military organizations that have to carefully advance on open plains and jury-rigging upgrades on equipment as needed.
Also the war is largely in service of the egos of their respective leaders and not really at all about fundamental disagreements or geopolitical concerns.
Iran-Iraq is a great analogue to point to.
 
Before the chinks stepped in, the UN forces had pushed the norks almost to the chinese border.
...does this make NK seem weak to you?

How many countries was it fighting lol

Also, South Korea started the war when they, with American backing, put Quislings back in charge than killed 15,000 civilians for protesting.

The SK government is the Korean version of Vichy France.
 
There are rules for warfare, and what justifies an armed conflict. Russia invading their neighbor to conquer them is an illegal war started by an unjust action. Ukraine is fighting for the most just reason possible: someone came to their country to take it over.
If ukraine didn't want to get invaded, they shouldn't have bombed the Donetsk People's Republic under Russia protection
Military alliances are casus belli 101
 
...does this make NK seem weak to you?

How many countries was it fighting lol

Also, South Korea started the war when they, with American backing, put Quislings back in charge than killed 15,000 civilians for protesting.

The SK government is the Korean version of Vichy France.
The war started because Stalin finally gave in to Kim il-Sung pestering him. Both Rhee and Sung had been fighting along the border well before June 1950 as both wanted to start a war they both thought would end with the other guy losing and the peninsula being reunified. What you characterize as protesting was an armed communist rebellion with financial and material support from the north that both sides wanted to have happen. Sung because he believed it weakened Rhee's military forces and Rhee because it gave him an excuse to purge commies wholesale. *Some* Koreans in the south opposed the election that Rhee won because they wanted the election to be for the entire peninsula, which Sung rejected. Rhee was fine with it only happening in the south because he was sure to win then

The amazingly retarded shit you poltards believe
 
Last edited:
Right but after WW2 Germany and Japan were both occupied by allied forces so was that not also conquest?
No, because Japan and Germany were never annexed or conquered. In order for a war to be a war of conquest, there has to be an aim to conquer. The Allies set up an occupation government and then, once they were sure they wouldn't have round 3 twenty years later like last time, they turned governance over to a duly elected local civilian government. The same thing happened in Japan. Japan is even more obviously not a victim of conquest, because they still retained the Diet and Emperor.
How much of the middle east has the west occupied and installed puppet governments in?
None, unless you count Iraq, which is a political shit show and basically a non country. As soon as the civilian government took over from the occupation government, it started to go back to sectarian fuckery.

As far as I can tell, every single active military campaign commits war crimes
Yes. There is a distinct difference, however, between isolated units committing war crimes of their own volition and an army committing war crimes as a matter of practice. Jimbo Cleetus shooting a surrendered dune coon is a war crime, he should be prosecuted for it. The Niggerlandian army using HIV positive troops as shock troopers with direct orders to rape every woman in the village to make sure the village will never recover is war crimes as a matter of practice. (The HIV thing actually happens, btw. Absolute subhuman filth.)

You are correct, by the way, when you say it is essentially only the losers that are prosecuted. This is a noted issue and historians look at it unfavourably. A good example is Bomber Harris point blank admitting that if the Allies had lost, Bomber Command would've all been shot for war crimes. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while they did save countless American (and Japanese) lives, were undoubtedly ear crimes. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were undoubtedly war crimes. There was an interesting case at the end of WWII where some German saboteurs that donned Allied uniforms in order to sneak behind Allied lines in preparation for the Battle of the Bulge we're going to be shot, because doing that is specifically a war crime. They were saved, however, by a last minute intervention of a group of 6th Airborne commandos (which would go on to be reorganized as the SAS). The commandos told the prosecutors that the same practice was used by British saboteurs during the war, and executing Germans for it would set a bad precedent. The charges were subsequently dropped and the men released.

it's effective
Depends on the specific case. A lot of war crimes are not effective. For instance, in the early stages of Vietnam, the South Koreans had a ton of troops deployed to Vietnam. The issue, of course, is that Koreans and Vietnamese absolutely hate each other, and the South Koreans committed so many atrocities that it actually created more insurgents and problems than what thr extra manpower solved. The South Koreans are almost totally responsible for the collapse of the Strategic Hamlet Program, which would've won the war, as it was a direct rip of what the British did during the Malaysian Emergency, in which the British successfully were able to eliminate the communists and establish a successful and lasting civilian government.
 
If ukraine didn't want to get invaded, they shouldn't have bombed the Donetsk People's Republic under Russia protection
Military alliances are casus belli 101
The shelling of the rebel regions has been going on since 2014, the Ukrainian people voted for someone who swore they'd stop it, but the little fuck redoubled the carnage.
That spooked Russia, and led to this horrible war and countless thousands of former brothers dead.
It was less Russian kindness and more wanting to keep the low intensity insurgency going to keep Ukraine ineligible for NATO (and thus becoming a potential forward staging ground for an invasion of Russia)
Vietnam is not the least bit analogous to the current war. Israel's war on Hamas is more like Vietnam.
It's similar in the sense that one major power gave both troops and aid to their favoured side in a civil war, and the other only gave materiel (and "instructors").
Using malnourished North Korean conscripts as we approach year three of the two day special military operation is the clearest sign yet that Russia is winning.
Is it any different from bribing isolated ethnic minority villagers who want to improve their lot in life to fight? Relatively few 'lawful' ethnic-Russian Russians have fought in this conflict, and requesting North Korean help continues this trend.
 
If ukraine didn't want to get invaded, they shouldn't have bombed the Donetsk People's Republic under Russia protection
Military alliances are casus belli 101
The DPR and LPR are not recognized states. This is a retarded argument and you know it. If Mexico sent troops into the border states and said "you should've been nicer to the legally operating cartel agents of the Democratic Drug Runner's Republic of Aztlan!!!!" everyone would (rightfully) decry it as bullshit and demand we go kick the Mexicans out and bomb Mexico city into dust. Both Donetsk and Luhansk voted majority in favor of independence in the 1991 referendum. They literally voted to leave the Soviet Union and join the newly formed country of Ukraine.
 
The DPR and LPR are not recognized states. This is a retarded argument and you know it. If Mexico sent troops into the border states and said "you should've been nicer to the legally operating cartel agents of the Democratic Drug Runner's Republic of Aztlan!!!!" everyone would (rightfully) decry it as bullshit and demand we go kick the Mexicans out and bomb Mexico city into dust. Both Donetsk and Luhansk voted majority in favor of independence in the 1991 referendum. They literally voted to leave the Soviet Union and join the newly formed country of Ukraine.
Not recognized by the US*
Now that you mention voting, did they vote for the maidan coup? I guess voting only matters when I like the tesults
 
No there have not. Elections are canceled in the Ukraine and Z man is staying in power past his term. Plus the borders are all closed and the Ukrainian people have no freedom of movement. They can't even vote with their feet.
Isn’t there a law that says you can’t have an election or transition of power during wartime or negotiations? I’m sure Zelenskyy could just hold an entirely symbolic and rigged election just like Russia and America if it makes you feel better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar
Isn’t there a law that says you can’t have an election during wartime or negotiations?
The USA had elections in the middle of a hot civil war. If you can just turn elections on and off then you don't have a democracy.

I’m sure Zelenskyy could just hold an entirely symbolic and rigged election just like Russia and America if it makes you feel better.
I completely forgot Ukraine existed until the start of this war. Hell it didn't even exist for the 1st part of my life. So if it stops existing again I wont feel a thing.

I just find it annoying when people pearl clutch over "rules", "law" and "democracy" when they clearly don't care about such things. Like an atheist bringing up the "Christian thing to do" in an argument.
 
Back