So your idea is to heroically kill a blocking batallion by yourself by turning around. So now there are Ukrainians wanting to kill you in the rear, and Russians wanting to kill you in the front. Said Russians also have a firepower advantage over you in the form of artillery that they can throw at deserters too. They have air support, reserves and military police that can quash any deserters.

Unless half the army walks with you, you having a gun doesn’t mean shit.

And yet shit like Prigozin happens. The fall of the Soviet Union was also sudden.

That’s true, however it become clearer and clearer that some serious damage is happening to Russia and Putin. I don’t dare to make any predictions, but Putin is in a very uncomfortable position right now.

I generally agree but with a few caveats.

First, this is a uniquely bad headline. More reputable outlets would report it as something like “Russia denies using North Korean troops in war effort, Ukrainian Intelligence claims otherwise”. That at least allows the reader to understand who is making what claim and whether or not that claim is contested.

Second, most people are not anywhere as skeptical of media outlets as they should be. They may expect bias but rarely do people in western countries expect journalists to regurgitate and launder whatever wild claims state officials make. Unfortunately thats exactly what many new agencies do which is why I think it’s important to talk about when discussing articles like this one.

This is something new but I’m still pretty skeptical and I think rightly so. Photos and videos posted to telegram aren’t always what people claim they are. I also haven’t seen any new media willing to say whether or not these videos show what they purport to show. I’d add that it’s also entirely possible for North Korean troops to enter Russia as part of some joint training exercises. However, they may not be intended for deployment in Ukraine.

I’d also be interested to know why the US or NATO do not seem to want to validate any of these claims at this time.

I sometimes think of something to say after my original comment.

And is “comrade” supposed to be a dig of some kind? Because it isn’t.

Removed by mod

Nah, it was second behind the invasion of Iraq and the forever war in Afghanistan. The US’s unwillingness to react was in large part because it had been weakened by a decade of idiotic wars in the Middle East. Europe has no excuse though.

Yup. Going to hell in a hand basket.

I hate that you’re right.

It hasn’t done the opposite. It has slowed response from the US and other countries significantly. For some things the US still doesn’t want to give Ukraine permission. Sure, Poland was giving tanks almost immediately after the war started, showing the hole in logic. But a lot of other countries went for “non leathal aid” like body armor, helmets. They only sent more after a year or so. Truth is, if Russians got Kiev and got Ukraine to capitulate after like 6 months, they’d only gain on the landgrab, with no consequences other than sanctions (which we see how they don’t really have the impact they should have and are skirted constantly). Decade or two in the future? Relations would probably be strained still, but returning to normal.

Appeasement is sadly the way of the world. That’s why Hitler, Stalin and now Putin were so successful.

Russia has some odd game theory incentives because their nukes probably haven’t been well maintained. Now, the rest of the world has to assume they work. The consequences of being wrong about that are too great. However, if Russia actually launched a nuke and it fizzles, that’s a pretty good indication that their nukes don’t work in general. It’s therefore in Russia’s best interest to keep pretending that it will launch a nuke, but never do it because that would remove all doubt.

And then they’re fucked. With the nuclear taboo broken–fizzle or not–nobody will complain when NATO gets directly involved in conventional ways.