You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 5.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 119K

    Comments