Opinions #51/24

One World, Two Koreas

Alberto Bradanini
20/12/2024
16 minutes

Kim's “Communist” soldiers are sent to help Moscow. The Democratic president in Seoul imposes martial law. A narrative of a world that has remained divided for seventy years, seen through distorting lenses

On October 29, 2024, the Pentagon, through General Pat Ryder (1), reported that about 10,000 North Korean soldiers were operating in Kursk Oblast, Russia: “We have seen press reports of alleged North Korean operations and are looking into them. Even if there is no confirmation, we can nevertheless confirm, as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin noted last week, that if they start operating against Ukraine, those troops will be legitimate targets…” implicitly even by NATO-US paid and armed mercenaries fighting in disguise on the Ukrainian front.

According to the Pentagon, North Korean troops have been in western Russia for some time, receiving Russian training, uniforms, and equipment, waiting to enter the battle and replace depleted Russian forces.

The Atlantic Empire’s virtual reality creators resort to the technique of getting someone to say what someone else would say, relying on well-informed sources that wish to remain anonymous: a sure way to uncover the truth! None of this is surprising, even if it remains a source of deep sadness to see how many have sold their souls for money, honors, and careers instead of fighting consumerism, tele-mental addiction, and intellectual degradation. No one can rule out – let it be clear – that this revelation is in accordance with the truth. However, no evidence has been presented that North Koreans are actually in Russia, much less that they are operating in Donbass or Kursk.

Those who read, usually absent-mindedly, are led to believe that even if the evidence is missing, it will soon appear, and in any case – as Joseph Goebbels, one of history’s most ferocious creators of lies, theorized – the population has a natural tendency to believe something that is revealed publicly and is therefore true. If there is never any confirmation of that assumption, it doesn’t matter much. The goal has nevertheless been achieved: to alarm public opinion with a real threat so that it can prepare for the painful but necessary measures that will be taken to contain this existential danger.

In the case of Ukraine, the targets are (or perhaps were, in light of the rapid development of events…):

(a) Ukraine’s green light to use long-range missiles (ATACMS, 190-mile range), missiles against which the Russians have protected themselves by strengthening their defenses, using more remote airfields, and showing that they can respond, if necessary, with an uninterceptable hypersonic Oreshnik missile;

(b) justify the future, as yet hypothetical, deployment of NATO-US mercenaries/soldiers who will no longer be camouflaged;

(d) toning down European anguish over a Russian invasion should Ukraine fall, and more.

Regarding the expensive ATACMS available in limited numbers in the USA itself, Sabrina Singh (2) (Pentagon Press Office) states that “in any case, the Ukrainians have demonstrated that they are good at handling drones, to the point where the Russians are being victimized at a rate of about 1,200 per day” (figures also without evidence).

The meaning of all this is very clear: if Russia uses foreign troops in the conflict, NATO also has the right to send its own units near Ukraine, in addition – it should be clarified – to those already de facto operating under the Ukrainian banner. A very risky path that will lead to a direct confrontation between NATO, the USA, and Russia.

It cannot be said that fate was favorable to the tormented Ukrainian people – let’s think about it – in light of the high strategic skills of Biden, Sullivan, and Blinken and their European butlers Rutte, von der Leyen, Macron, Scholz, Starmer, Meloni, etc., the latter not even paying attention to the dramatic decline to which they thus doom the economy and political status of Europe. The moral consciousness of these high-ranking leaders considers it an unimportant detail that the spilled blood is Ukrainian blood, while the unspeakable president of this country (in an interview of December 2) pleases his admirers with unrealistic fantasies of victory (3).

The claim that North Korean soldiers are active in Donbass/Kursk reflects the same truth that Russia has depleted its military, financial, and human resources after losing 600,000 or many more soldiers, that sanctions are overwhelming it, that the Russian people are rebelling, and so while for honest analysts (among many Americans, J. Sachs, L. Johnson, J. Mearsheimer, D. Macgregor, C. Hedges, and many others) this perception should be reversed: it is Ukrainian soldiers who are dying (seven/eight killed or wounded for every Russian soldier) because of the disparity in human and material resources available on the two fronts. Here we are dealing with a psychosociology of denial that seeks to hide reality by chasing imaginary ghosts to entertain sleeping people.

Turning to the lexicon of Pentagon chief L. Austin, General Ryder once again baselessly emphasizes that it is the high number of Russian casualties that justifies Pyongyang’s use of soldiers, adding: “…I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of the North Koreans on the battlefield.” It should be noted that in reality, North Korean soldiers have been present in Russia for decades, and periodically at that, but in Eastern Siberia, where they participate in joint exercises stipulated by agreements dating back to the Korean War in the 1950s.

If, in Austin’s opinion, North Korean troops engage soon, the Ukrainian General Staff (General Anatoliy Bargilevich) actually states (4) that the North Korean military has already engaged in combat disguised as natives of the Far East.

Rather than attribute North Korea’s unofficial qualification as a belligerent with Russia in the absence of evidence of its armed forces’ presence, the United States should instead attribute that qualification to itself, since the war in Ukraine would have ended long ago without the gigantic financial investment and military support it has provided to Ukraine.

In the same spirit, the Ukrainian government and the Pentagon insist that the counteroffensive being prepared by the Russians (50,000 units) to recapture the Kursk region would be impossible without the North Koreans, since only the latter will allow Moscow not to move troops from Donbass and to act on both fronts simultaneously.

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol (a repentant coup organizer), in turn, offered to send arms and soldiers to Ukraine to fight against the Russians and North Koreans (of whom, however, there is no trace). In this context, it is hard to believe that a country where some 30,000 US soldiers have been stationed for 70 years could act in such a manner without a green light from the CIA. Yoon, it must be said, has received, at Korea’s expense, skepticism from the population and opposition from all sides, none of which wants to drag the country into a remote and unprioritized conflict.

Douglas Macgregor (5) reports on this occasion that for the Seoul government (6), “the deployment of North Koreans on two fronts was completed on November 13, and North Korean soldiers are already operating in Kursk,” thus echoing the words of Vladimir Zelensky (7), according to whom Russia will resort not only to North Koreans but even to Yemeni mercenaries to save its army in disarray, who in return will receive money and Russian citizenship (Financial Times), another truth maker (8).

Others believe Donald Trump’s next arrival in the White House will pave the way for compromise. A prospect that is actually far from certain, given the fickle nature of the president-elect and the characteristics of the staff he has already chosen for this purpose, including hawks S. Gorka and M. Waltz (Office of Homeland Security), which do not bode well. Added to this is the ubiquity of the deep/permanent state, which has always been at the helm of American foreign/military policy: and Trump’s first presidency (2017-2021) was no exception.

In any case, the horizon of peace is conceivable only if Russia finds the future administration’s proposals satisfactory, given that today the trust the USA enjoys in Moscow is sharply approaching zero.

It is useful to note that on December 4, the Russia – North Korea Strategic Global Partnership Treaty came into force, the key points of which are:

(a) mutual obligation to provide military assistance in the event of aggression by third countries;

(b) establish mechanisms to strengthen joint defense capabilities, prevent conflicts, and maintain peace and security;

(c) jointly combat terrorism, extremism, transnational crime, human trafficking, hostage-taking, illegal immigration, illegal financing, and money-laundering;

(d) obligation to refrain from agreements with third parties that jeopardize the sovereignty or security of the two parties;

(e) joint measures to mitigate damage if one of the two parties is subject to sanctions by a third country.

These are the usual provisions of a real military alliance, the implementation of which, if the situation worsens, could lead to a bind between Moscow and Pyongyang, as well as imply the use of soldiers in the field, although at the moment such a development remains unlikely.

In conclusion, if we add to the Ukrainian tragedy the conflicts in West Asia, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, as well as other turbulence that the derailed Western locomotive is orchestrating in Romania, Moldavia, Georgia, and South Korea, behind which the dark shadow of American intelligence is visible, only the mercy of fate allows people of goodwill to hope for a truce from wars and instability.