3 ms·
I feel like this thing is sort of overblown. It’s frankly pathetic that Russia needs North Korean weapons. North Korea has “a lot” of stuff. But the sense of s
by jncfhnb 3y ago
I feel like this thing is sort of overblown. It’s frankly pathetic that Russia needs North Korean weapons.
North Korea has “a lot” of stuff. But the sense of scale needs dramatic scaling to the conflict in Ukraine. Like… I don’t really believe that North Korea is going to give upwards of 20% of their supply. And I think most of their supply is half a century old. And I think they will be a shitty unreliable partner. It doesn’t really account for the limiting factor being Russia’s crappy westward train line dependency as the thing that keeps most of the important front line alive.
Edit: like… what does it say about Russia’s level of attrition that its Soviet Union era stockpile is so badly depleted that it needs North Korean weapons. I don’t see how anyone can say north Korea’s supply will be able to meaningfully support the Russian war machine while having no real industry of its own on the basis of what it has in cold storage for a significant amount of time. That’s just stupid. Forget any questions about who’s more truthful in reported attrition numbers in Ukraine. How can Russia possibly be in this position where it feels it’s necessary to get North Korea as an arms dealer and expect that to be sustainable? This implies to me that equipment is being lost at such a ridiculous rate that any attempts to supply it from a fixed cache will be futile. This is a sign of incredible weakness, not something to be concerned about.
- para_parolu 3y agoI don’t know what is the current situation but I think underestimating enemy is pretty common mistake. Besides, maybe NK we become transport proxy for China to supply weapons.
- jncfhnb 3y agoI don’t think China has Soviet weapons to supply them with. It would be obvious if actual Chinese arms were found in Ukraine. Maybe that’s wrong?
- icegreentea2 3y agoI'd agree that it's somewhat pathetic that Russia needs NK production, but I think we have every reason to believe that NK could actually give very large % of supply and production, and for NK to actually work reasonably well as partner. NK has consistently shown that it understands that it is its long-range nuclear capabilities that best guarantees the continuation of the government. Trading stockpiles of old shells for know-how (or maybe even material) to boost their missile capabilities seems like a reasonable trade. I'm sure the Russians aren't dummies either and will structure agreements to get the best behavior possible out of NK. NK conventional artillery remains a significant threat to SK population and economic centers, but the 'crown jewel' (bombarding Seoul directly) is only reachable with their largest weapons systems (170mm shells and 240mm rockets) - while what Russia will probably be looking for is 122/152mm shells. Even if NK traded away all of their 122/152mm shells, they would still retain significant deterrence in conventional arms (not even considering potential nuclear arsenal).
- Zigurd 3y agoI would give Russia's military planners just a smidge more credit than to run their supplies down to where they really really need North Korea's howitzers and ammo. Russia's military has other potential hotspots to mind, like a coup in Belarus, or Moldova getting Transnistria back. But, in a few months, it is likely to come down to the same thing: Russia will start losing, if not on the front line in Ukraine, then in other peripheral areas like Africa, Middle East, and European clients.
- jncfhnb 3y agoWorth noting we already see Russia pulling back from Armenia and Syria.
- baybal2 3y ago[dead]
- gumby 3y ago> It’s frankly pathetic that Russia needs North Korean weapons. Norks is most likely China's beard. China is officially not in the conflict, but is likely channeling its sales through norks and letting them take a cut.