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.
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.
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.
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.
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.