By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, is calling for preemptive strikes on North Korean troops located in Russia. His request is based on his contention that North Korean soldiers are readying to join the war in support of Russia. Zelenskyy’s proposal contemplates the use of long-range weapons to preemptively target these troops. He believes the decision is dependent on the support of western partners. While the UK and France seem inclined towards approval, the US and Germany are hesitant due to concerns of provoking Russia.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s recent proposal for preemptive strikes on North Korean troops stationed in Russia is a bold and provocative assertion that deserves serious consideration. I find myself aligning with the sentiment that in a war, one must act decisively and without hesitation. The frustrations surrounding the constant need for permission to retaliate while Russia pushes its advantage is maddening. It often feels as though the rules of engagement are skewed against those defending their sovereignty, and it’s high time that changed.
The possibility of North Korean troops entering the theater complicates matters. If they are to assist Russia, they could free up Russian soldiers for frontline duty in Ukraine, exacerbating an already dire situation. This collaboration wouldn’t merely affect the immediate battlefield; it would potentially shift the balance of power in a conflict that’s already wrought with geopolitical complexities. Calling Zelenskyy’s proposed strikes preemptive feels like a misnomer; it’s an act of war in a war, not a prelude to one. There’s no shame in taking the fight to the enemy, especially when they’re advancing with the intent to dominate.
The concept of a preemptive strike against North Korean troops might not just be a tactical maneuver; it could serve as a psychological blow as well. Knowing that those soldiers are unlikely to stand and fight—given the information surrounding defections and discontent within North Korea—creates an opportunity. Soldiers who are merely pawns in a larger game are not as likely to sacrifice themselves for a cause they do not believe in. It makes perfect sense that they may desert at the first sign of danger, diminishing North Korea’s credibility and control.
Ukraine is fighting for its existence, and that justifies aggressive actions. I support the idea of using the current geopolitical climate to outmaneuver Russia and its allies strategically. The notion that Ukraine should play by a set of rules while Russia conducts outright atrocities is not just ludicrous; it’s self-defeating. Speaking of rules, how absurd is it that we’re addressing permission when both Russia and North Korea are involved and are prepared to act without accountability?
The idea of collateral damage raises significant questions, particularly about international perceptions. However, how can one effectively differentiate between troops when they’re engaged in conflict? Russia’s history of strategies, including misinformation and disguise, makes the delineation of enemy from ally nearly impossible on the battlefield. Is it not better to confront this ambiguity with boldness rather than timidity? The reality is that Russia has shown they will strike anywhere, indiscriminately—so why should Ukraine restrain itself?
One also has to consider the broader fallout from these actions. The relationship dynamics between countries are notoriously intricate, but this ongoing struggle gives rise to an opportunity to shift those dynamics in favor of Ukraine’s survival. If the proposed strikes could destabilize North Korea’s involvement, then that sets a stage for further decreases in Russian military efficacy. While the West appears hesitant in its unequivocal support for Ukraine, could this move provoke a reevaluation of that stance?
I certainly hope that this proposal does not face the rejection that typically erupts from cautious strategies. It’s maddening to think that measures designed to safeguard human lives could be stalled under the weight of bureaucratic deliberation. Perhaps it is time to disregard the old paradigms and forge a new path of action. “Forgiveness rather than permission” resonates deeply in this context. Ukraine must seize the initiative decisively and act when the stakes could not be any higher.
Effective action now could pave the way for a strategic advantage and perhaps even an end to hostilities that have already gone on far too long. In a world where aggressors feel emboldened, it’s crucial that defenders act with conviction, not just permission. Zelenskyy’s potential strikes could play a pivotal role in altering the conflict’s trajectory, and I wholeheartedly support taking that bold step forward.