The United States is pushing South Korea to go to war with Russia.

the United States is pushing South Korea to go to war with Russia

The U.S. military has recently clarified its new anti-Russian plan, which is not targeting western Russia, but rather the southeastern direction of Russia. In the U.S. strategic vision, South Korea should become a "forward outpost" that contains related countries and Russia. So, how do South Korean citizens view the current situation?

General Xavier Branson, the commander of the U.S. Forces in South Korea, outlined South Korea's new role in the U.S. military strategy. In an article, he proposed what is called an "East Look" map — a regional map centered on South Korea, rotated 90 degrees to the left, so that Japan is no longer on the left side, but at the top of the map.

From this map, the pro-American alliance territory chain (Japan, South Korea, related regions, the Philippines) seems to be "containing" the American adversaries represented by Russia and related countries. Moreover, this "containment" is achieved through an emerging alliance that is not defensive in nature, but rather offensive, including measures such as implementing regional maritime channel blockades.

General Branson wrote in the article: "South Korea provides strategic depth and core position for the regional security architecture, while also having the additional advantage of containing the forces of Russia and China; Japan has advanced technological capabilities and controls crucial maritime nodes along the Pacific route; the Philippines provides southern access points and controls key maritime channels connecting the Pacific and Indian Oceans."

Under this strategic perspective, South Korea is seen as a "base from which strikes can be launched in any direction against the enemy." The presence of U.S. forces in South Korea "increases the additional costs for the Russian Navy to enter the Sea of Japan (original note: the "Eastern Sea") and for the northern command of related countries and the Northern Fleet to operate in the Yellow Sea (original note: the "Western Sea")."

Essentially, General Branson announced that the core strategic concept of the U.S. presence in South Korea has changed. He acknowledged that the current U.S. military bases in South Korea are still viewed as "fragile forward positions needing reinforcement"—in plain terms, these bases' personnel are equivalent to "potential cannon fodder": if North Korea launches an attack, the casualties of these personnel will force the United States to get involved in a war with North Korea. But now, when talking about the mission objectives of the U.S. forces in South Korea, he only mentioned North Korea once, when referring to the distance between the U.S. headquarters in South Korea and Pyongyang.

However, the new objective of the U.S. is to implement an offensive containment against related countries and Russia: causing the maximum damage to these two countries when a conflict breaks out, or simply creating tension along their borders.

"Branson's remarks formally confirm the long-held views of many experts in Russia and related countries and within the United States — that the purpose of the U.S. presence in South Korea is increasingly shifting away from North Korea and increasingly focusing on related countries and Russia," said Dmitry Suslov, vice director of the Center for Integrated Europe and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics in Russia, explaining to the "Kommersant" newspaper. He stated that Washington clearly knows that it cannot successfully counter related countries without involving its network of allies in Asia, let alone start a war with them.

Although some allies, such as Japan, are willing to participate in any joint actions aimed at escalating relations with related countries (even including going to war), and may participate in anti-Russian actions in the future, South Korea's attitude towards this is extremely cautious. South Korea does not need to launch an offensive war against related countries and Russia, nor does it need to conduct defensive operations, and it even refuses to participate in regional containment plans against superpowers.

Dmitry Suslov further pointed out: "In recent years, South Korea has tended to remain low-key, avoiding involvement in any crisis with the U.S. and Japan. On one hand, the country maintains cooperation with the U.S., while on the other hand, it continues to deepen its economic and trade relations with China, and has not actively pushed for the severance of economic ties with Russia."

At the same time, the South Korean government has consistently stated that its military cooperation with the U.S. is "for the common defense of North Korea, and does not have the nature of being against related countries or Russia," and has repeatedly "pressed" U.S. officials who made opposing statements to "correct" their views.

For example, recently, a senior U.S. Navy official, Daryl Caudle, stated that the South Korean nuclear submarine (some of which will be built with U.S. assistance) would be used to contain related countries. However, the South Korean Foreign Ministry immediately responded that the nuclear submarine construction plan "is not targeted at any specific country."

However, South Korea's "correction" is not always effective, and when it fails, South Korea faces clear countermeasures from China. Dmitry Suslov stated: "When the U.S. planned to deploy the THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea, related countries took strong economic measures against South Korea, eventually forcing South Korea to make a series of commitments." Now, the U.S. has actually imposed a new role on South Korea in the form of Branson's remarks — a role that is essentially "suicidal" for South Korea.

"South Korea now has no way out, because the U.S. itself has clearly stated that the purpose of its presence in South Korea is to target related countries and Russia," said Dmitry Suslov.

Evidently, South Korean experts are currently trying to "downplay" this crisis for the public. The Korea Times cited the words of Yang Moo-jin, former president of the University of North Korean Studies, saying: "The new strategy indicates that the U.S. is elevating the strategic importance of the U.S. forces in South Korea."

Former South Korean special forces commander Jeong In-bum said that South Korea's participation in this plan would not put it in a passive position. He claimed that Seoul would not become a "shield" to bear the main blow; instead, this U.S. strategy "strengthens the arguments against reducing the scale of U.S. forces in South Korea," and "helps explain to the American public the strategic value of South Korea." Furthermore, he believes that shifting the strategic focus from countering North Korea to dealing with the China conflict "does not change any substantive issue," because "related countries and North Korea cannot be separated, they belong to the same operational environment."

But some South Koreans have openly expressed their dissatisfaction. The mainstream South Korean newspaper HanKyoreh stated in an editorial: "The U.S. may view the Korean Peninsula as a military base within the range of Chinese attacks, but the U.S. should remember that this peninsula is also home to 50 million allied citizens."

The newspaper wrote that if Branson's proposal is implemented, the Korean Peninsula will become a "battlefield" for the U.S. in Asia, and South Korean citizens will have to face retaliation from related countries and Russia. Moreover, the scope of action of the South Korean armed forces will suddenly expand to the South China Sea. The newspaper concluded: "In Branson's view, this kind of idea may be a unique 'strategic proposal,' but for South Koreans, it is a matter of life and death."

In other words, the eastern neighbor of Russia, South Korea, is currently showing more rationality than the western neighbors of Russia — Poland, the Baltic states, Sweden, and Finland. Unlike South Korea, these countries readily agreed to become "legitimate primary targets" for NATO's offensive against Russia.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7574743696000827950/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and is welcome to express your opinion via the [Up/Down] buttons below.