And they know cannon fodder when they see it, they used everyone in Ukraine as that!
They know the US mercenaries and 45 year old conscripts they've been loosening the rules to allow are rocket food in their first major engagement with an opponent that isn't farmers in flip flops.
The really shocking thing about this claim is that it means North Korea isn't really afraid of defectors anymore. I guess since a huge chunk of defectors end up returning to North Korea anyway?
end up returning to North Korea anyway?
Not if they go to South Korea; they literally won't be allowed to leave. DPRK defectors/hostages aren't given a passport off the bat; only when the puppet regime is convinced of their loyalty are they allowed to exit South Korea apparently.
I think this was the documentary that mentioned it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3V4Hnl7J9H4
Or maybe they have an agreement to receive intel from Russia on the whereabouts of any problematic defectors/assistance dealing with them. I imagine the threat to loved ones back home is a huge deterrent for most would be defectors, though some are obviously desperate enough to overcome that and defect anyway.
Do you not understand how North Korean defection usually works?
North Korea doesn't care, because they know that a vast quantity go back and can be used as propaganda.
Intention doesn't always carry over well via text, but going from "shocking" and "I guess..." to "Do you not understand...?" comes across as a bit condescending/aggressive. Perhaps you thought I was being hostile? Or, perhaps I'm misreading the intent.
At any rate, keeping in mind the things that don't carry across over text, I wasn't disagreeing with you and was merely speculating in a parallel fashion about those that don't return and/or are deemed unacceptable defection by the leadership in Pyongyang. I haven't picked over my initial comment but it's possible that I put a period somewhere a question mark was supposed to go or something. Regardless, I apologize if I came across as trying to argue against what you were saying, it was not my intention. I don't tend to process things in a strictly linear progression and that translates to words that come out sometimes a bit disordered seeming or perhaps seemingly lacking in explicit context where it might be needed to ensure clarity in what I'm saying.
To answer the question rather than treat it as rhetorical: It’s quite possible that I don't know how North Korean defection usually works because I'm not North Korean nor a policy analyst/SME specializing in North Korea. I read the article and your comment and found myself speculating, given the situation and deepening ties with Russia (who are objectively experts at tracking down dissidents abroad) about what policy and procedures might be in place now the event of would-be permanent defectors that end up becoming anti-Pyongyang mouthpieces or are high rank enough to leak meaningful intel to an adversary (I doubt they are sending any such people to Ukraine). But, I'm not an expert, I'm just a person speculating and commenting because I enjoy doing so and seeing what others have to say (including you). Thanks for sharing the article, have a good one.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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.
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.
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.
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.
The original article contains 341 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 49%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Oh look projection again.
Or it is direct and specific threat from US military?
I suspect Kim is more focused on the political implications than the lives of the people involved.
Not everyone pretends to care about their troop's lives like some do.
He also needs to build a corps of combat veterans to boost his conventional army's credibility.
News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc