Will North Korea provide troops to help Russia with their battle against Ukraine? With least one contingent with over 100 troops, where they are physically within the borders of Ukraine's map before the February 2022 invasion.
1,000
1.00
@Luker that's the People's Republic of Kursk. It declared independence from Russia. Ukraine might have to hold a referendum on its territories but its people organically want to become part of Ukraine.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/10/a-russia-north-korea-alliance-in-the-works-dont-be.html
Oct 11, 2024
"the United States should be mounting major information operations against these three countries to highlight their differences and fuel distrust among them. Doing so would increase the likelihood of decoupling at least some of their partnerships. Some examples of potential information operations seem obvious.
With China, it is important to publicly declare that China seeks dominance in Northeast Asia and beyond. The United States should call attention to how North Korea's close cooperation with Russia defies Chinese dominance, making China unhappy."
@IB "In war, truth is the first casualty."
Here, one side (gov linked think tank) is overtly stating a strategy in this respect.
Considering that we are aiming to predict an outcome, it is useful to know the strategies of the players involved, particularly in regard to the "truth" as it is viewed in the context of "information operations".
@GeneralHa , this prediction market has a very specific question to answer: 'Will North Korea send troops to Ukraine to help Russia before 2025?' Discussions about media strategies, information operations, or geopolitical relationships between third parties are off-topic. The market needs verifiable facts about troop movements and deployments - yes or no - not speculation about various countries' motivations or media strategies on how to ruin alliances from one of hundred think tanks.
@IB considering confirmation of the question's answer is partly subject to media reports, how is the reality of "information warfare" not relevant?
Especially considering we've seen multiple media claims of events that were patently false and likely presented in line with "information operation" goals.
@GeneralHa How does one of hundreds think tanks' suggestion for a strategy to create distrust between China, Russia, and North Korea help to predict outcome of the question 'Will North Korea send troops to Ukraine to help Russia before 2025?' This info is not even about the topic.
@IB it helps because (A) it's a highly influential think tank, particularly to this conflict, as can be seen via their other publications such as "Extending Russia", and (B) it indicates that "information/influence operations", are ongoing, which in turn affect the the media, which subsequently affects the outcome/weighting of this market.
@GeneralHa Media is not the only source. Information that helps:
Direct evidence and indicators that would support or contradict North Korean troop movements
Current verified military and diplomatic activities between North Korea and Russia
Historical precedents of North Korean military involvement abroad
Logistical and practical considerations of such a deployment
A suggestion from one of dozens of authors from one of hundreds think tanks on foreign policy in the U.S. does not. Because what you are basically saying: "NK won't send troops to Ukraine because it's just a media psyops of the U.S because there is a report from a random dude from RAND on how to ruin alliances". An interesting statement. I have nothing more to add.
@IB Media sources form the majority of information sources cited in the commentary here thus far, hence the relevance of said discussion.
Can you provide a hypothetical example of your point 1., and how you would come to know of it? I. E. An example of "Direct Evidence", and who/what would be it's hypothetical source?
@GeneralHa Just a couple of examples:
Diplomatic cables or official communications.
https://www.mofa.go.kr/www/brd/m_4080/view.do?seq=375527&page=1&pitem=10Physical Verification. Captured or surrendered soldiers, military hardware with traceable North Korean serial numbers/markings, ID cards or documents found in conflict zones etc
Social media posts or Satellite imagery showing new supply lines or staging areas verified by OSINT
@IB thanks.
In my experience, it's of critical importance to consider the context for such sources.
Diplomatic Cables: Much of what is shared publicly is already curated and filtered by gov to fit specific narratives. Communications themselves form part of information operations, strategic posturing, etc., taking them at face value without understanding the broader agenda at play is for the target of such coms.
Physical Verification: Captured soldiers, hardware, etc. In many cases, by the time such evidence is made public, it’s been heavily mediated by the actor that benefits from said disclosure. Moreover, if we're relying on media or third parties to report such verification, we're once again entering the realm of potential "influence operations".
Social Media/OSINT: Obviously there are accounts of this type which are biased to various sides of this conflict. As has been seen in this conflict, OSINT is selectively distributed, satellite images framed in a way that support certain narratives. Nothing unusual, it is the nature of conflict.
The point is that all evidence must be analysed within the context of potential information warfare, which is part of conflict, and has been as long as conflict has existed. Given the prevalence of deliberate disinformation campaigns, it is crucial to consider how media, diplomatic channels, OSINT, etc,. are shaped by broader agendas.
In this particular market, where the media serves as a primary conduit of information, understanding how these operations work is essential to evaluating evidence.
We could probably keep having this discussion for quite some time, but it think it would be prudent to save our thumbs, and just analyse the evidence as it appears.
@GeneralHa I wondering what kind of experience do you have with diplomatic cables to make such statements :)
You claim that no evidence can be trusted because it could theoretically be manipulated. This makes it impossible to prove anything, which is a hallmark of poor argumentation. Moreover I see you're hyper-skeptical selectively, so I see no value in continuing this conversation.
@IB no, I claim evidence should be analysed for bias, but never mind, you are correct, I am convinced!
Really, I should apologize for suggesting that evidence might require a little more than face value acceptance.
Thanks to your wise guidance I've come to see that all evidence is always presented without any agenda whatsoever. I'll be sure to accept everything as literal, unfiltered truth. Its so obvious now, scepticism has no place in nuanced discussion. I will now live out my days in the land of unquestionable certainties and absolute truth! 🤣
Russia has 700,000 soldiers on rotation in the combat zone. Why would they attempt to integrate 10-12k non Russian speaking, north Koreans in to their operations?
On top of that, Western media admits Russia recruits up to 30k Russian soldiers per month, enough that "Russian forces are able to conduct routine operational level rotations in Ukraine," according to Business Insider, Jan 17, 2024:
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-recruiting-30000-troops-a-month-ukraine-frontline-losses-analysts-2024-1
BBC-US-backed Mediazona states that nowhere close to 30k Russian soldiers are dying per year, let alone monthly, so how is Russia justifying the time/effort and trade off of acquiring just 10-12k North Korean soldiers?
https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng
The video of Asian troops doing the rounds on social media is most likely from this joint drill, particularly as it seems they are not speaking Korean:
https://tass.com/defense/1844619
These combined with the repeated nonsensical reports over past few years, such as..
"fighting with shovels":
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64855760
"British-made tanks are about to sweep Putin’s conscripts aside":
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/09/british-made-tanks-about-to-sweep-putins-conscripts-aside/
"computer chips from dishwashers and refrigerators in tanks":
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-says-russia-using-chips-from-dishwashers-in-tanks-sanctions-2022-5
"Russia May Run Out of Missiles in Three Months":
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-may-run-out-missiles-three-months-intelligence-report-1777217
... amongst many others, turned out to be crude propaganda, in line with RANDS guidance, which has been quite "prescient" prior and throughout this conflict:
"Information operations and warfare, also known as influence operations, includes the collection of tactical information about an adversary as well as the dissemination of propaganda in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. RAND research has enabled military leaders and policymakers to develop strategies and policy frameworks to address the challenges of these military operations."
https://www.rand.org/topics/information-operations.html
In other words, the North Korean story, seems highly unlikely.
@GeneralHa North Korean soldiers would not be the first foreign fighters captured in Ukraine - Ukrainian forces have already confirmed captures of mercenaries from Nepal, Somalia, Egypt, India, Syria, and Cuba. You can find easily all confirmations.
https://apnews.com/article/nepal-fighters-russia-ukraine-war-e57a45645666d02651f6efed4e3f21ae
https://cubaminrex.cu/en/statement-ministry-foreign-affairs
and so on
@IB It's not the same issue.
There are multitudes of "volunteers" fighting on both sides, for example a recent interview with an Irish "volunteer":
https://youtu.be/eiqrfLiQypY?si=WUhSgzyD-hbjC2Wr
This is not comparable with a state officially or unofficially, sending upwards of 10k soldiers to fight in a conflict the said state is not a party to. Besides the operational complications I've already mentioned, this carries numerous political implications, which I highly doubt either Russia or North Korea would be willing to account for, particularly as there is no benefit adding +10k North Koreans to a force of upwards of 700,000 and growing at a rate of 30k a month. It has neither strategic, nor tactical value.
Conversly, such "information" warfare falls well in to the strategy overtly mentioned in the two RAND links posted earlier.
Weighing these facts, and coupled with numerous other canards we've seen from the press in the past 2+ years, suggest that the North Korean soldier story is also such a canard.
Of course, I keep my mind open to objective and documented evidence, but to date there is none.
South Korea has summoned the Russian ambassador, seeking the "immediate withdrawal" of North Korean troops which it says are being trained to fight in Ukraine.
About 1,500 North Korean soldiers, including those from the special forces, have already arrived in Russia, according to Seoul's spy agency.