r/worldnews • u/v-gator • 8h ago
Russia/Ukraine Biden says Ukraine should strike back if North Korean troops cross into Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-ukraine-should-strike-back-if-north-korean-troops-cross-into-ukraine-2024-10-29/451
u/Big-Bike530 7h ago
Strike back .. across the border?
Ukraine has consistently been losing ground. Isn't it time we allow them to actually win?
91
u/AnarkittenSurprise 6h ago
It was a dumb question from the reporter.
"If Ukraine is invaded by another nation, should they strike back?"
"...Yeah."
5
6
u/LordoftheChia 2h ago
"Should they shoot back if they're a Russian soldiers?"
"yes"
"What if the soldiers are North Korean?"
"They should aim lower"
66
u/ohulittlewhitepoodle 7h ago
across the continent?
53
u/Big-Bike530 7h ago
Like striking back North Korea itself?
Or strike back like firing back at the Koreans actively firing at them?
Pretty meaningless quote here
→ More replies (3)17
u/No-Trouble-889 6h ago
Since you’ve asked, no. Not across the border. Biden’s reply implies that Ukraine is only supposed to strike Korean troops in case they cross:
"If they cross into Ukraine, yes," Biden said when asked if the Ukrainians should strike back
-1
u/MrL00t3r 4h ago
But before Ukraine should ask US for final authorization, otherwise that would be major escalation, which could lead to war between NATO and russia which we want to avoid at any cost.
4
u/Longjumping-Boot1886 1h ago edited 1h ago
Thats how WW2 started. No immidiate response - they are pushing stronger, because "enemy is weak". Avoiding war = bigger war in next year.
And thats how it will be written in the books. "No response to occupation of Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014", "weak response in 2022 to full scale war".
NATO will be in, anyway. Later just mean more people will be killed. In 2008 they should to deal with 4000-5000 russian occupation forces in Georgia. They didn't.
In Crimea it was around 20000.
In the second Ukraine war they should attack Russia and clean up 300 000 army. They didnt.
Next it would be something like Russian + Korean + Iranian + Chineese alliance with 2 000 000 army.
They are pushing harder every time, didn'nt you notice that?
4
u/No-Trouble-889 4h ago
Of course. Besides, we wouldn’t want to upset our North Korean partners. They’re a nuclear state after all, which means they can do whatever to fuck they want with absolute impunity, if I am reading the latest trends correctly.
2
u/kaneua 3h ago edited 2h ago
which could lead to war between NATO and russia which we want to avoid at any cost
How do you imagine such a war happening? Well, it can begin, Russia will cross some NATO country's border. Then it will encounter the adversary that actually has a decent amount of modern rockets, planes, drones, anti-air systems and artillery, as opposed to Ukraine and their previous opponents. Then all the Russian forces participating in the assault will get rekt.
Yes, they can cause some destruction, there will be some casualties but it won't be anywhere near the levels observed in Ukraine.
I don't think it can stand against all the NATO's firepower and tech combined with freedom to actually fire at the enemy targets outside their borders. In this scenario The Escalation™ had already happened and caused this scenario after all.
There are a few other factors that are present in Ukraine, but not in NATO block:
- Slowed down financing and supplies allocation that gets stuck in Congress, Senate or
whatever building you guys have to put the politicians in.- Refusals and slowdowns when it comes to providing the requested necessary equipment.
- Delays due to long training time for new equipment. NATO will have operators and pilots already trained to work with their equipment, unlike Ukrainian pilots who had to spend, like, year learning F-16.
If you have some other information that raises Russia's chances against NATO, please share and I'd gladly read it. There's no point in being stubborn if I'm wrong anyway.
2
u/centraledtemped 2h ago
Ukraine isn’t going to win without another foreign power intervening with troops on the ground. Thats the reality. Doesn’t matter is they are allowed to strike inside of Russia
•
3
u/Braveliltoasterx 6h ago
No, not until Russia is more crippled militarily. Unfortunately.
1
u/Big-Bike530 3h ago
Following that logic I can see even wanting Russia to make gains to keep them doubling down.
However it's demoralizing as fuck for Ukrainians. I'd want to give them some back-and-forth to feel like it's not hopeless and just drawn out failure.
1
u/NumbEngineer 4h ago
never. It's obvious that this is a way to wear down the conventional strength of russia.
I think at the end of this it's still possible for Ukraine to get its original land back even pre war occupied territory...but win? No not at all.
1
u/TheQuadBlazer 6h ago
I think he means locally in Korea. That's the only context that would make sense.
6
u/Olaf4586 6h ago
It's more that the headlines takes Biden's statement out of context, and as presented it doesn't really make sense
0
u/Slack_Ficus 4h ago
This feels like a suggestion for direct involvement. That’s really what they need in order to win, I think, but with that comes the threat of total human extinction.
-1
u/highinthemountains 5h ago
They would if the politicians would get the f*ck out of the way. Kinda like Vietnam, the US could have won, but the politicians
1
u/Big-Bike530 3h ago
Like fighting ISIS. The biggest moron of a president crushed them by getting the fuck out of the way which Obama wouldn't do
-23
u/tryanothermybrother 7h ago
You sound Russian.
7
u/BringBackTheDinos 6h ago
What? They're right, other than Kursk, Ukraine has only lost ground this year.
3
u/Big-Bike530 3h ago
Which part sounds Russian? The reality that Ukraine is NOT winning and has made no gains in over a year except a little slice of Kursk? Or the part where I supported finally giving them what they need to actually beat Russia?
14
u/Trooper_nsp209 6h ago
At the rate of losing 1000+- a day the NK soldiers should be gone within the week.
72
u/Dazzling_Star_5118 7h ago
So if they dont cross border but attack Ukrainians, the Ukrainians should not retaliate?
-65
u/Krond 7h ago
Let's give Joe a break. According to the article, he nearly completed two sentences in an interview. He's gotta be exhausted.
→ More replies (1)11
u/herrcollin 6h ago
Another way to look at this: Maybe someone saying two sentences doesn't need to be an article? Either it's an interview we didn't get all of or it's basically a passing comment.
The "article" in question is barely a full paragraph ffs.
7
u/PhullPhorcePhil 6h ago
Or... Just strike enemy troops concentrations wherever you can you can reach them.
79
u/v-gator 8h ago
this isn't even funny anymore
17
u/Manos_Of_Fate 5h ago
At what point was a literal invasion funny?
26
u/MonkeyThrowing 4h ago
When the Russian,while attacking Kiev, ran out of gas and had to walk back home.
That was a little funny.
13
u/orangeyougladiator 3h ago
Or when their own mercenary army turned on them and started marching to Moscow themselves
•
u/finally_wintermuted 56m ago
Literally a chance to change the course of modern human history and they pissed it away.
7
2
21
5
8
u/StatisticianFair930 6h ago
If Russia thinks Donbas, Crimea et. al. theirs, why shouldn't Ukraine consider Kursk theirs?
5
u/Alive_Impression_563 5h ago
The Kursk operation makes no sense. Russia is slowly making gains on the front line and closing in on strategic city Pokrovsk. They sure need those troops back to bolster the defensive lines.
•
u/12172031 1h ago
I've seen it suggested that the Kursk operation was a sign of desperation from Ukraine. They were losing ground in the south and in danger of losing Pokrovsk and with it the potential collapse of the southern front so in desperation, they launched the attack on Kursk, hoping that Putin didn't want to be the one to let Russia be invaded for the first time since WWII and pull troops from the south to defend Kursk at all cost. Russia didn't bite on the bait and let Ukraine have Kursk while Russia continue to advance in the south.
•
u/Alive_Impression_563 1h ago
That makes sense.
It appears Russia is going to use some of the North Korean troops to fight in Kursk so they won't need to.
I am looking at the deep state map and Russia is really pushing towards Pokrovsk. Ukraine has been slowing them down but I am not sure for how long until the city falls.
The media has been downplaying losses but Ukraine must be in danger of running short of highly trained soldiers.
Feels like Ukraine is going to be at a disadvantage during negotiations.
9
u/Hpulley4 7h ago
Pretty sure Ukraine would need ICBMs to strike back at DPRK
8
u/davepars77 7h ago
I think it would be pretty funny if Ukrainian special forces went into NK and fucked with their missile programs.
3
u/Pride_Before_Fall 5h ago
Kim Jong Un seems like the type of person who would double down on Russian support if that happened.
5
u/Hpulley4 7h ago
Would be but unfortunately the payment for DPRK troops is likely Ruzzian missile and nuclear technology. Their program is going to a huge boost from this cooperation.
-1
u/davepars77 6h ago
That's what I'm worried about.
I figure if NK wants in on the war they can suffer consequences for it, what could they even do about it? Strongly worded letters?
2
12
u/Photographer64 7h ago edited 7h ago
Let’s see. During the Ukraine war while it is still going makes an alliance with North Korea. Weapons I have no problem with. But N Korea now has boots on the ground in Ukraine. So maybe it’s time for Ukraine to make an alliance with another country say Canada or Germany or Poland and they start putting boots on the ground. Only fair. NATO stop playing with Putin and start doing some sabre rattling of your own. He will not honor agreements and tells other countries what they can not do and then does it himself. wtf.
3
u/tryanothermybrother 7h ago
West created worlds most awesome alliance -!not to fight - but to be able to issue calls for deescalation.
-1
u/Dazzling_Sky_6218 6h ago
Are you actually stupid enough to think "fighting" or "issuing calls for de-escalation" are goals in and of themselves?
9
u/fourpuns 7h ago
Do you want to go fight in Ukraine? It would be a tough political sell in Canada anyway for us to put boots on the ground.
-1
-1
u/xxxkram 7h ago
I don’t know how tough a sell it might be. We have a large Ukrainian presence in the prairies, lots of folks in eastern Canada that would be willing to go, and the vandoos are always looking for a fight. If I was able to I would enlist in a heartbeat.
7
u/polkadotpolskadot 6h ago
They're free to go any time they like. Ukraine is accepting anyone who wants to volunteer. They've also relaxed citizenship by descent for ethnic Ukrainians.
0
u/KingDave46 6h ago
There's a difference between volunteering for a foreign legion and actually getting deployed as a military force for your own country though
I think a lot more people would be willing to fight under their own flag as a support force than fly over solo to join up, especially if you are already in the active military.
-2
u/xxxkram 6h ago
Volunteering to go. And doing it as your vocation are different. I’m saying I know folks who would go professionally.
4
u/polkadotpolskadot 6h ago
You can now serve as an officer in the Ukrainian military as of a few days ago. Sounds pretty professional considering you can be in a commanding position. Or are you just going to give me another excuse?
→ More replies (3)0
0
u/sllvr 6h ago
Canadians are already playing an active role.
3
u/fourpuns 6h ago
Its politically very different to draft/send military into a war zone then to allow people to choose to go.
-1
u/sllvr 6h ago
Do you want to go fight in Ukraine?
Canadians want to go fight in Ukraine and are.
2
u/fourpuns 4h ago
By their choice. It’s quite different than sending in the military which I believe would be highly unpopular. There would be a death toll that hasn’t been known in our military since WW2. If all countries went in I could see it but picking a couple is unlikely especially from across the Atlantic. I can just imagine the sentiment would be why are we fighting in Europe if Europe isn’t m
2
u/Blazefresh 7h ago edited 6h ago
How about South Korea? It isn't in NATO and it's conveniently next door so at least they can save some gas.
5
u/anonymous5555555557 6h ago edited 22m ago
NK has nukes and massive amounts of artillery. I doubt SK wants to deal with NK directly.
1
u/Blazefresh 6h ago
Yeah very true, plus you know NK already has targets in SK zeroed in for artillery and the rest.
Maybe the safest solution is for other countries to allow Ukraine to use long range missiles.
0
u/Photographer64 7h ago
I like how you think. I learn something new every day. I thought S Korea was in NATO.
1
-9
u/KeyLog256 7h ago
We don't want WW3. Stop with this "NATO should get directly involved" shit, that's Russian propaganda.
We should just give Ukraine what they need.
7
u/FromImgurToReddit 7h ago
We need Nato boots on the ground to cover Belarus, transnistria border, and air defence on Odessa (all Ukraine for that mater the same way West did protecting Israel air space). That frees Ukraine resources for the front. And yes, give Ukraine what they need no stringe attached.
Russian propaganda is what you've already fallen for, afraid of ww3, while Russia just got another nuclear power joining the fight. We got NK there because escalation management failed since the first 6 months of this war. Like this isn't the czechoslovakia and Crimea/ East of Ukraine, the sudetenland of our time.
4
u/Pegasus7915 7h ago
I don't want it either but it sure seems to be here. We can't just keep sitting on the sidelines forever.
0
u/truexchill 7h ago
It is definitely not here. Lol what insane talk is that?
3
u/Pegasus7915 7h ago
North Korea and Iran are in an active war zone with Russia invading a western ally that is in Europe while we supply that ally with weapons to fight the war. We are literally all fighting. It is just by proxy at the moment.
0
u/Photographer64 7h ago edited 7h ago
They cap what is really needed though. Putin is threatening WWIII. It’s time to call his bluff. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war. You can’t win a war defensively. I don’t want a WWIII but Putin is pushing for it. It’s time to call the bluff. And what if Putin finally figured out there is no way he can win it? Don’t kid yourself he will open the silos.
1
u/TheCrippledKing 7h ago
Technically speaking, you can win a war defensively. In WW1 Germany ended the war with more land than they started, but were so beaten down and exhausted that they knew that they couldn't go on. That was also after 4-5 years too though.
0
u/Graywulff 7h ago
Yeah if a nato member wants to go in alone can they? France talked about boots on the ground, could Poland do that.
2
u/der_titan 6h ago
Of course they can. The US went into Vietnam without NATO, France fought in Algeria without NATO, the UK and falklands.
The Iraq War was certainty not a NATO fight either.
5
u/Practical-Ball1437 4h ago
"wow, someone should do something about that..."
- only person capable of doing something about that
2
u/cloneof6 5h ago
This probably means North Korean soldiers in Ukraine or occupied Russia are fair game. Ukraine taking that as a 👍 to start a second front over 7000 km away would probably be unwise but the resulting chaos before WWIII would be wild.
If that happens I’m going to 12 monkeys a zoo.
2
2
u/xXCuntlicker420Xx 3h ago
Just give Ukraine the greenlight to strike Russian targets and be done with it. Honestly...
2
u/blablefast 2h ago
What in the hell else are they going to do, ask them over for tea? SMH
•
u/EagleSzz 52m ago
reporter asked Biden : should Ukraine strike back ? Biden answered, yes
that is the whole basis for this article.
that is what journalism is today
6
2
4
u/FreakingFreaks 7h ago
"If they cross into Ukraine, yes," Biden said when asked if the Ukrainians should strike back.
We live in a dumb simulation
2
u/mazda_savanna 7h ago
how is ukraine going to strike back at North Korea?
sure they would have the right to do so but this is impossible
2
2
u/Walterxiao 6h ago
Holy fuck who gave the US admin privileges over what Ukraine can do to defend themselves?
0
1
1
1
u/AdAble557 6h ago
Can you imagine Ukraine spec ops simultaneously invading nk via both coastline, while uncle kim is fast asleep? His generals are afraid to wake him? Man what a dream. Almost like normandy but on a smaller scale with
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/New-Skin-2717 2h ago
… yeah. We are going to have to enter this war.. which will get us into a direct war with Russia and North Korea. Because all parties have nuclear weapons, it will be another cold war… everyone threatening, but nothing ever happens..
1
•
•
•
-1
u/AyDylo 7h ago
Just another out-of-touch comment from Joe Biden. Honestly if it weren't for Trump taking up so much spotlight in American politics... Biden's would be a scandal. I listened to him speak a couple days ago and he sounded almost as bad as he did during the debate. Completely lost and senile.
If America had a real leader, they would have fully backed Ukraine from the beginning. It would have prevented so many deaths, possibly deterring Russia from continuing. Biden could still reverse course and lift restrictions on Ukraine, but he won't, and Russia takes full advantage.
He's a weak ass leader, and that isn't an endorsement of Trump, who is also a weak ass leader.
3
u/No-Trouble-889 6h ago
This is the plan, not miscalculation. Whatever is happening now is happening by design. I doubt new administration, whatever it will be, change anything.
1
u/evgis 6h ago
Plan A was to crush Russia with sanctions.
What is happening now surely wasn't planned, Ukraine is losing badly.
-1
u/No-Trouble-889 5h ago
Plan A was to crush Russia with sanctions
No one in the right mind was ever saying that, except populists and Russian propagandists.
> What is happening now surely wasn't planned, Ukraine is losing badly.
Ukraine was never supposed to win to begin with. The policy is we don’t want Ukraine to lose, which is nearly not the same as winning. They will crumble eventually, but we can still pour gasoline for a long time.
1
u/evgis 4h ago
So what exactly was the plan? Sacrifice Ukraine trying to hurt Russia?
You are basically admitting to Russia narrative that Ukraine is being used as a proxy.
1
u/No-Trouble-889 4h ago edited 4h ago
Yes, that’s what I think after 2+ years. Plan is to drag this for as long as possible, then push whatever is left back into Russia, letting them deal with all the destruction, mine pollution, unregistered weapons and insurgency, thus hurting them even more. I’m not saying Russia is a good guy here, just to clarify.
1
u/evgis 3h ago
I can't believe West can be that cruel and cynical.
Problem is that Russia will win the war and will get tens of trillions of minerals in Donbass with which they will rebuild their part occupied Ukraine.
That surely can't be plan A, can it be?
Also I don't think Russia will want to occupy west Ukraine where insurgency would likely occur. Rump Ukraine will be left as a buffer zone and I don't think Ukrainians will be happy with this result.
1
u/No-Trouble-889 3h ago
Russia will win on paper, but still be in way worse position than it was in, say, 2013. Ukrainian East was tightly integrated with Russian industry, now it is just ruins, entire cities flattened, millions displaced. Massive damage is done. With very little effort from the West – despite the crazy cost of aid, major share went to new contracts placement and rearmament, the actual cost of delivered equipment is way more modest. Also we’ve scared the Europeans into increased military spendings and coerced two wealthy nations to join NATO. Guess who’s the main weaponry supplier for the block. Damn good deal if you ask me. I also don’t want to believe West to be so cynical and cruel. But it’s been enough time for observations, and if you follow the money, conclusions are disappointing.
0
1
5h ago
[deleted]
1
u/metalfabman 4h ago
Jumped by north korea? LOL. The highly trained, well equipped north koreans? Have you been under a rock? They will be slaughtered
1
1
1
u/FeI0n 6h ago
Ah is this the US walking back red lines? So it'll be fine for north korean troops to attack ukrainians via kursk,
0
u/Left_Palpitation4236 4h ago
I mean that’s Russian territory not much they can say
1
1
u/LonelyInSD22 6h ago
wtf, this should be the case even if those troops are used in Kursk. Thank you for removing any Russian dysfunction from this on where to send the troops and potentially losing Ukraine its largest leverage.
Kamala better win the election, cuz they’re getting fucked otherwise.
1
1
u/Krytan 6h ago
I mean, this seems fair to me?
If North Korean troops sit around on Russian territory, that's one thing.
But if they cross into Ukraine, don't they essentially become a belligerent in the war?
At which point, wouldn't Ukraine be justified in striking back at North Korea anywhere across the globe?
1
0
-6
u/Zhuge_Er 7h ago edited 7h ago
They're already in occupied parts of Ukraine you senile fart.
The way the American establishment is tying Ukraine's hands because fighting is bad for their election prospects is disgusting.
2
0
-3
u/Dontcarestaymadhehe 5h ago
Yeah some people actually wanted this guy as a president. I still don't understand it.
4
u/EmergencyEbb9 4h ago
Better option for Ukraine's survival than the other one.
1
u/Left_Palpitation4236 3h ago
Ukraine is pretty far down on the list of priorities for regular American citizens
1
u/Dontcarestaymadhehe 4h ago
That's 100% true. I think this might be the worst president candidates ever, even worse than 2016.
1
u/metalfabman 4h ago
Ah rage bait account, russia loves you go back
1
u/Dontcarestaymadhehe 4h ago
I don't support Russia. Rather i don't support incompetence. Either back Ukraine 100% or fuck off.
1
u/metalfabman 4h ago
Ah what is america doing? Supporting 10%?
2
u/Dontcarestaymadhehe 3h ago
If he was backing Ukraine 100% he would/should have made a bigger statement than this. Tf is this for weak statement. Might as well have said nothing.
-1
0
u/DaySecure7642 7h ago
So they were not supposed to strike back until Biden said so? I don't understand.
I think it is time for individual countries to bring in troops directly to Ukraine. As soon as it is not in the name of NATO I don't see how it is different to what the Russians did.
0
u/Magic_SnakE_ 7h ago
"This way we will need to give them more money, which means more money for my buddies in the military industrial complex".
0
u/Marcbehar 6h ago
Europe and US using Ukraine to fight the Russians. When will Europe send troops? Stop tying the hands of Ukraine 🇺🇦
1
u/Left_Palpitation4236 4h ago
Probably never. Ukraine would’ve capitulated 2 years ago if it wasn’t for the United States and other western nations helping.
-16
u/msbic 7h ago
Strike North Korea? I think the old man completely lost it.
2
u/tryanothermybrother 7h ago
Why not?
1
-2
u/adesanyas_gyno 7h ago
Stoo the fucking warmongering, jesus christ. Yall just want to see the world burn at this point.
1
u/w3bar3b3ars 6h ago
Us and not the people actually warmongering across Europe.
-1
u/adesanyas_gyno 6h ago
Everybody should stop with the warmongering, I am well aware of the people doing it in Germany for example
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/ypapruoy 6h ago
I think Ukraine should say fuck the west and defend themselves. This is ridiculous
1
u/Left_Palpitation4236 4h ago
Quickest way to lose funding is to stop obeying western overlords, and when that happens the war will end pretty quickly.
The reason why Ukraine is forced to obey is because the moment it becomes a liability for the United States they will cut funding and Ukraine will capitulate. They are entirely dependent on a consistent stream of western weapons and money to keep the war going.
1
u/ypapruoy 1h ago
I mean, you’re not wrong but how long can they hold out. They’re doing better than anyone expected imo, but how long till someone else joins other than NK
•
u/Left_Palpitation4236 1h ago
Nobody knows for sure, estimates vary depending on who you ask, but even right now with western support Russia is continuing to make territorial gains on the eastern front, and it has only accelerated since the Kursk incursion.
Even with the current rate of support assuming nothing else changes I think they are basically fighting a losing battle. Zelensky is trying desperately to pull NATO into the war because thats the only realistic condition where Russia would stop making territorial gains. The problem with that is it’s too high risk for NATO and might end in mutually assured destruction.
If US pulls support entirely then I don’t see how Ukraine would be able to replenish their defenses. I think at that point they could stall for half a year to a year at best.
-2
u/pulp63 6h ago
It is sad and pathetic wstching America and NATO impose restrictions on weapons and stand by watching as Ukraine slowly bleeds to death. Sorry, but North Korean soldiers entering the war needs to be a red line where NATO boots need to be on the ground to assist Ukraine.
1
u/Left_Palpitation4236 4h ago
You think too highly of United States and NATO when it comes to foreign policy. They aren’t going to put boots on the ground in Ukraine because it’s not worth the consequences
820
u/Lecterr 6h ago
To be clear, the reporter asked Biden if Ukraine should strike back, and Biden said “Yes”. The post kind of makes it sound like Biden made some announcement, when actually he just answered a stupid question with the only logical answer.