I boiled it down to simplest terms.
To that end, your very point that Nork troups are getting experience has some issues as well. I don't dismiss it in broad terms but what they the Nork soldiers face aren't exactly a foreign enemy at it's peak nor a peak foreign enemy. To my knowledge there are zero US SoCom ground troops engaged in this combat. Granted, open knowledge vs reality can be a big variance in SoCom. So, as for a look at Western tactics, yeah true in a broad stroke but not relative to a true full engagement with Western tech, troops and power. Not even close. Further, they primary military tactical leadership is Russia not Un or North Korea.
However, all of that misses the entire point of my post. I actually mentioned that I thought the use of the Russian tech was more for propaganda that tactical aspects.
So let me restate the broader query.
I am interested in a CBA and ROI of Russian and Nork troops vs the air attacks. The Russian threw a lot of tech at Ukraine and didn't get a lot of tactical advantage based on what I've seen. That's a lot of financial investment for a country with financial issues vs boots that, while not unlimited, can engage at a lower cost and achieve potentially better tactical gains.
Its a military strategy question based on known issues and strategies. I dont want to completely derail the thread and it wasn't my intention. Rather it was a curiosity that admittedly jumps into a rabbit hole of deeper discussion on Russian tactics and Ukrainian/Western response.
I fully believe that Putin is not quitting/signing a truce and will continue the attack on Ukraine until he is pulled from office by death or coupe which could come in many forms.
I'm curios about the deeper dive from a military/tactical/financial perspective. That was my broader point. Again, perhaps its a separate thread from the broader discussion.