Will the NATOizaton of the Ukrainian Army Give the West a Victory?

 30.01.2023 Author: Salman Rafi Sheikh

Column: Politics

Region: Ukraine in the world

While Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the way the West has supplied weapons to the Ukrainian army to fight the Russian forces has increasingly NATOized Ukraine’s forces. As I mentioned previously, Russia is fighting a conflict not with Ukraine but with NATO. This is evident not just in terms of the fact that the whole Western alliance against Russia happens to be part of NATO but also in terms of the very weapons that the Ukrainian forces are using. Importantly enough, this NATOization is not something that started to happen after Russia began its military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. As NATO itself mentions on its website, the alliance has been supporting Ukraine since the 2014 Crimea events. The support includes, NATO says, “equipment and financial support” as well as “training for tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops.” It also mentions that the alliance has enhanced its support ever since February 2022.

The claim tells many things, but the most important one is that the ongoing conflict was neither inevitable nor unprovoked. What led to the present state of affairs was precisely this ongoing NATOization of Ukraine since 2014, a policy that actually laid the groundwork for Washington to push for Ukraine’s formal membership of NATO in 2021-22. The conflict would not have taken place if the West had eschewed arming Ukraine and using this territory to expand NATO. It is this Western strategy, rather than the so-called Russian “unprovoked aggression”, that made the present conflict inevitable.

The West, in keeping with its policy, is continuing its policy, which is evident from the recent decision of the UK government to provide Ukraine with its Challenger 2 Tanks. Ben Wallace, the UK’s Defence Secretary, called this supply “the most significant package of combat to date to accelerate Ukrainian success.”

While there are not enough tanks, the US has already announced to send Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to support tank warfare. A clear escalation is taking place, but the big question is: will it work to achieve the objective that the suppliers have in mind?

The US/NATO fought a twenty-year-long war in Afghanistan against a much weaker enemy, let alone a non-nuclear country, in Afghanistan. It withdrew after two decades without achieving its key objective i.e., dismantling global terrorism. Afghanistan today has many terror groups – al-Qaeda, the IS-K, the ETIM, and the TTP – operating from within its borders. Clearly, the presence of these groups reflects a US military defeat in terms of achieving its objectives even after spending billions of dollars.

The US has so far spent only a fraction of that money in Ukraine where NATO is fighting a country that has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world. Keeping this in mind, the strategy not only seems unrealistic, but unworkable as well. Short of providing Ukraine with actual nuclear weapons and creating a nuclear deterrence vis-à-vis Russia – which is not even conceivable – there is no way NATO can arm the Ukrainian army and help Ukraine in ways to actually defeat Russia.

On the contrary, hawks in the West – especially, in the US and UK – continue to see it within the realm of possibility to achieve their objectives, which now include creating a situation favouring a coup in Russia against President Putin.

This NATOization is unlikely to work, not only because not everything can possibly be supplied to Ukraine – that is, unless the West wants a total, nuclear war – but also because Ukraine itself is fast running out of its capacity to fight a total war, let alone the present conflict.

Let’s see what the actual ground situation is. In and around Bakhmut, the Ukrainian forces lost 70 per cent of their fighting capacity in just one week in the second week of January. Does it make sense to continue to supply weapons to an army that is unlikely to win?

Many countries in the West think that it does not make sense. In a meeting held on American Ramstein Air Base in German on January 20 involving leaders from 50 countries, including NATO allies, the participants failed to reach a consensus on providing German Leopard Tanks to Ukraine. Although Germany has now decided to supply these tanks to Ukraine, the very fact that it took them so much time – and it involved lots of political pressure from Washington – to make this decision shows that the Western alliance is actually far from united. There are serious concerns that Germany itself shares.

As German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said after the January 20 meeting, Germany is not alone raising concerns. He said that “there are many allies who say we share the view that I have put forward here.” Of course, the UK is not amongst them, as it has already decided to supply Challenger 2 tanks. But the fact that the UK took a decision independent of the rest of Europe means that Europe, thanks to Brexit, itself is divided between the EU and the UK.

The root cause of this disagreement is simple to understand. Many Europeans, excluding the UK, have realised that mainland Europe, or the EU, is a victim of the US-UK politics of NATO expansion and that the continent has become a proxy land for the US to fight the war of its own survival as the global hegemon, supported by its strongest allies in London.

For the US, Russia’s success in Ukraine would be the end of NATO and the end of Washington’s influence in Europe. Many Europeans already want a European security system independent of the US and NATO. Were this to happen, Europe can most certainly rewrite its ties with Russia in ways that avoid confrontation. But if this happens, the global strategic landscape will change in ways in which Washington will no longer be the only centre. Hence, the US-UK sponsored intensification of the war as the last-ditch effort to save the system they have been dominating for many decades.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“

https://journal-neo.org/2023/01/30/will-the-natoizaton-of-the-ukrainian-army-give-the-west-a-victory/

Tags: Russia’s Special Military Operation, Ukraine, Weapon, НАТО

What is covered by the “pictures of the Russian train”?

 31.01.2023 Author: Konstantin Asmolov

Column: Politics

We recently wrote about the ways the United States’ allegations of North Korean munitions shipments to Russia had created a new standard of proof. However, it appears that the US side is not content with having hit rock bottom once again.

On January 20, 2023 National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby raised new allegations against the Wagner PMC and Russia, claiming that the US had presented its intelligence findings to the relevant expert group of the UN Security Council (Committee 1718, which is in charge of sanctions against the DPRK). Although this was the first time ever any “evidence” had been presented, it was unfortunately very peculiar type of proof.

The world was shown “rare, declassified photographs of Russian rail cars traveling between Russia and North Korea in November” and what Kirby described as the original delivery of North Korean weapons to the Russian PMC. According to the US statement, the photos were of a five-car train that ran between the Khasan (Russian Federation) and Tumangan stations on November 18 and 19, 2022, and those cars contained ammunition for Wagner.

“We obviously condemn North Korea’s actions and call on North Korea to immediately stop these shipments to Wagner,” Kirby said at the start of the daily White House press briefing. He then stated that “while we estimate that the amount of material delivered to Wagner has not changed the dynamics of the fight in Ukraine, we anticipate that it will continue to receive North Korean weapons systems” and therefore “will not preclude imposing additional sanctions if deemed appropriate at the UN”. As an aside, it was noted that North Korea continues to circumvent sanctions with the help of Russia and China.

On January 23, State Department spokesman Ned Price also stated that the United States and South Korea regularly discuss how to counter threats from North Korea, including “the supply of weapons and other military equipment from North Korea to Wagner units for use in Ukraine”.

Not coincidentally, not only Russian but also Western experts who deal with North Korea professionally have noted this reference with some surprise. Even those who dislike the North reacted in the style of “maybe the US has other evidence that has not been shown to us, but this is just a hint.”

Asked by RIA Novosti if it could be said with certainty that the pictures show weapons being transported from the DPRK to Russia, NK News director Chad O’Carroll said the photos do not show what is called hard evidence that would confirm US claims. The photos DO NOT show weapons or grenades being loaded and only include an image of Russian rail cars in North Korea – which, he adds, Russian media have also written about. That White House officials, according to O’Carroll, “show some level of specificity by releasing satellite images of a certain date showing rail cars and cargo” only means that Washington is very confident in its intelligence, but “anyone would be happy to see more detailed evidence”.

Another US expert noted that the pictures provided by Kirby show covered rail cars in which containers of ammunition would not fit, especially since they are loaded on platforms and not in boxcars. He also pointed out that “the versions voiced by Washington keep changing. In September, they claimed that North Korea was supplying Russia with millions of artillery shells and missiles. They claimed Pyongyang was trying to make it appear that the supplies were going to the Middle East and Africa, but in fact they were going to Russia. Now that version is forgotten – there is a new one. Meanwhile, one million shells is 50,000 tons, which is several large ships.”

The claim that the data were sent to the committee that investigated the sanctions is also not identical to the fact that the experts who examined them agreed with the American version.

In this context, the author will try to explain to the audience what more reasonable evidence of this kind would look like, using pictures of the train: Here is a picture of what looks like a military factory, and of containers of ammunition being loaded into wagons; here is a traceable route (because it is not particularly difficult to trace their path through the consignor system) by which a train from North Korea went directly into the front line area where it was unloaded, whereupon the shell shortage ended in that section of the front line. Such things can still be used as evidence, although indeed some questions remain.

The second thing that came to the author’s mind was a quote from a Russian cartoon, “This picture is useful: it covers a hole in the wall,” and he draws attention to two events that paralleled Kirby’s statement.

The first event is that on January 19, 2023, the day before Kirby’s statement, the Pentagon asked United States Forces Korea (USFK) to provide some of its equipment in support of Ukraine, stressing that its security operations on the Korean Peninsula would not be “affected in any way” by this move. USFK spokesman Col. Isaac Taylor said, “The Department of Defense continues to provide military assistance from its reserves in support of Ukraine. US forces in Korea have been asked to support this effort by providing some of their equipment… This does not affect our operations or our ability to fulfill our ironclad commitment to protect our ally, the Republic of Korea. There should be no doubt that we are ready to fight tonight as well”.

Taylor did not specify, however, what equipment or in what quantity would be delivered for use in Ukraine. The ROK Department of Defense also declined to comment on the issue.

The New York Times had previously reported that the US Department of Defense had drawn on US artillery stockpiles in South Korea and Israel because of Ukraine’s urgent need for munitions assistance.

USDOD deputy spokeswoman Sabrina Singh clarified this information, pointing out that the withdrawal of munitions and military equipment from US depots in South Korea and other countries in support of Ukraine had no impact on US defense capabilities and had little to do with reducing domestic stockpiles. It has also come to light that the US is in talks with Korean military contractors to replenish empty depots.

To the author, this information indicates two important things.

First, despite the loud declarations about the danger of the North Korean threat and the need to give money to counter it, it appears that the US does not in fact particularly believe that the North will attack the South in the relatively near future. Otherwise, they would not have moved an arsenal to Ukraine from a place where these munitions could be urgently needed.

Second, the fact that ammunition is being sent to Korea means that the arsenal of democracy is not bottomless and is slowly running out. Weapons and ammunition even need to be withdrawn from long-term storage. As we noted in one of our articles, it appears that their talk of Moscow’s “ammunition shortage” is masking their own ammunition scarcity, which is not so much affecting Russia as it is Ukraine and its allies.

Combined with a number of other news items, this suggests that the Europeans are growing weary of the conflict and increasingly reluctant to hand over new arms tranches to Kiev. This is a rather important sign, suggesting that in a certain situation Kiev will come to understand that for all the need to “defend democracy,” it has to do it alone.

The second event is a statement by Russian Foreign Intelligence that Ukrainian authorities are placing munitions from the West in nuclear power plants because they know that Moscow will not dare to bomb them. Foreign Intelligence Director Sergei Naryshkin said, “The Foreign Intelligence Service receives reliable information that Ukrainian forces are storing weapons and ammunition supplied by the West on the premises of nuclear power plants. This applies to the most expensive and scarce missiles for Haymar’s multiple rocket launchers and foreign air defense systems, as well as large-caliber artillery ammunition the AFU lacks most. Just in the last week of December 2022, several railroad cars with lethal cargo were delivered from abroad to the Rovno NPP via the Rafalovka station. Moreover, we would like to hope that no one in Kiev would come up with the idea of deliberately destroying such depots in order to extricate more weapons and ammunition from the US and its allies.

Naryshkin’s statement does not contain exhaustive evidence, but the reasoning is somewhat more detailed than Kirby’s and contains some specifics. Apparently, it is precise data on where and how Ukrainian ammunition stocks move.

Mykhailo Podolyak, advisor to the head of the Ukrainian Presidential Office, then stated on social networks that “Ukraine has never stored weapons on the territory of the nuclear power plant” and noted that Ukraine is “always open” to inspection bodies, especially the IAEA.

In this context, the author once again reminds us that it is not unusual in war to attribute to the enemy acts committed by one’s own side in order to divert attention from oneself. So if you want to make the next lofty claims of DPRK intrigue, look at the holes in the wall this picture covers.

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

https://journal-neo.org/2023/01/31/what-is-covered-by-the-pictures-of-the-russian-train/

Tags: DPRK

So RAND Says the US Lost the Ukraine War and Should Surrender. What Next?

ANDREW ANGLIN • JANUARY 29, 2023 

Author’s Note: RT did a second, larger write-up of the RAND paper, “Avoiding the Long War.” I read the original, but it takes so much effort to go through and pull the quotes that simply commenting on this piece is much easier.

Previously: RAND Think Tank Says Ukraine War No Longer Beneficial for Jewish “Double-Anal Agenda”

RAND coming out and saying that the US has already lost the war in the Ukraine and should just surrender is basically the biggest thing that has happened since the invasion.

Since US/NATO said flatly that there would never be any negotiations in March of 2022, we’ve kinda just been watching a machine process, where no one is really making any decisions. It was all just cruise control. The top war think-tank saying “okay let’s wrap this up and move on” creates a situation where something really could finally happen.

The fact is, “we need these resources for a war with the Chinese” is an argument that is actually going to resonate with a lot of people in Washington.

RT:

The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report stating that prolonging the proxy war is actively harming the US and its allies and warning Washington that it should avoid “a protracted conflict” in Ukraine.

The report has an unequivocal title, “Avoiding a long war: US policy and the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict,” which provides a strong indication as to its contents.

It starts by stating that the fighting represents “the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences” for Washington, which includes US “interests” being actively harmed. The report makes it very clear that while Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, and their cities have been “flattened” and “economy decimated,” these “interests” are “not synonymous” with Kiev’s.

The US ending its financial, humanitarian and particularly military support promptly would cause Ukraine to completely collapse, and RAND cites several reasons why doing so would be sensible, not least because a Ukrainian victory is regarded as both “improbable” and “unlikely,” due to Russian “resolve,” and its military mobilization having “rectified the manpower deficit that enabled Ukraine’s success in the Kharkiv counteroffensive.”

It’s so funny the way the top Pentagon thinkers just say this so matter-of-factly while the entire US media – which also represents the US government – is out there saying the precise opposite. They are still literally saying that Russia is losing (as they call for infinity weapons to be dumped into the Ukraine to stop the anal Jewish fake country from collapsing).

The US media is just not even mentioning this RAND report at all. It’s spooky actually, the way this stuff can just be omitted.

While the Daily Stormer and other reality-based publications are talking about the RAND report, the top Ukraine article in the New York Times is talking about more braindead gibberish about how Russia is collapsing.

I wonder if these journalists believe this tripe?

Believing their own lies would certainly make their jobs a lot easier.

In my experience, they are very dumb people. Like, shockingly dumb. Less capable of following a train of thought than an auto mechanic. But how could they not be aware of this RAND report?

If the US surrender ends up being a surprise to the journalists, they’ll take it in stride like they did when they found out that the vax is neither safe nor effective.

From the perspective of US “interests,” RAND warns that while the Kremlin has not threatened to use nuclear weapons, there are “several issues that make Russian use of nuclear weapons both a plausible contingency Washington needs to account for and a hugely important factor in determining the future trajectory of the conflict.”

The think tank believes the Biden administration “has ample reason to make the prevention of Russian use of nuclear weapons a paramount priority.” In particular, it should seek to avoid a “direct nuclear exchange” with Moscow, a “direct conflict with Russia”, or wider “NATO-Russia war.”

This is while Petraeus is out there joking about nuclear weapons, saying it’s not really a big deal if Russia drops a couple nukes.

The entire Biden Administration is saying that Putin is insane and on drugs and getting ready to die, but that he is much too reasonable to ever use a nuke.

On the latter point, RAND worries that US general Mark Milley’s demand that the conflict stay “inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine” is on the verge of being disrespected, as “the extent of NATO allies’ indirect involvement in the war is breathtaking in scope,” including “tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and other aid” and “tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support,” along with “billions of dollars monthly in direct budgetary support to Kiev.”

Such largesse could, RAND forecasts, prompt Moscow to “punish NATO members…with the objective of ending allied support for Ukraine; strike NATO preemptively if Russia perceives that NATO intervention in Ukraine is imminent; interdict the transfer of arms to Ukraine; retaliate against NATO for perceived support for internal unrest in Russia,” if the Kremlin concludes the country’s national security is “severely imperiled.”

I don’t agree with this part so much. Russia doesn’t want to escalate the war outside of the Ukraine. If they did, they would probably jump straight to nukes.

The US, on the other hand, has been casual about this. The Ukraine has attacked Poland, Belarus, Moldova, and Russia itself. The US has also attacked Germany by bombing those pipes, and they are actively trying to provoke some kind of thing in Kosovo.

If there were to be an official escalation in the Ukraine conflict, the US would do a false flag Russian attack on Poland (possibly something different like Finland, but most likely Poland).

These outcomes are “by no means inevitable,” but still represent an “elevated” risk, particularly in light of incidents such as a Ukrainian air defense missile striking Polish territory in November 2022 – a situation exacerbated by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky falsely claiming it was a deliberate Russian strike. While this event “did not spiral out of control, it did demonstrate that fighting can unintentionally spill over to the territory of neighboring US allies.”

See, they know. They just can’t use “false flag” type language, but everyone who is informed enough to be reading RAND papers in the first place understands what they’re talking about.

Another incident like that could mean “the US military would immediately be involved in a hot war with a country that has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.” This, as well as a conventional conflict between NATO and Russia, is a prospect Washington should avoid at all costs, RAND argues.

A clear implication is the US could lose such a conflict, one key reason being, as pointed out by RAND, “the intensity of the military assistance” being given to Ukraine by its Western backers is already approaching an “unsustainable” level, with US and European weapons stocks “running low.” This consequently means a longer war equals more Ukrainian territory reunified with Russia.

On the subject of territorial losses, RAND is unmoved by arguments Ukraine should attempt to recapture all that it has lost since 2014, as “greater territorial control is not directly correlated with greater economic prosperity” or “greater security.”

Haha.

That’s what I’ve said since 2014: capturing Crimea (or now the Donbass) wouldn’t improve the lives of the average hohol in any way, and it would not boost the status of the Ukraine as a country. This entire reasoning is fake, based totally on the US desire to hurt Russia. “Borders are sacred” is an ideological position, and not one that the US has ever cared for.

Land having been retaken by Kiev since September means “Russia has imposed far greater economic costs on the country as a whole.”

RAND also considers the worth of arguments that “greater Ukrainian territorial control” should be assured “to reinforce international norms, and to foster Ukraine’s future economic growth” to be “debatable,” as even in the “unlikely” event Kiev pushes “beyond the pre-February 2022 line of control and manages to retake areas that Russia has occupied since 2014,” the risks of escalation from Moscow, including “nuclear use or an attack on NATO” will “spike.”

This is all just basic common sense.

But it’s been shockingly absent from the discussion in Washington since this debacle began.

“The Kremlin would likely treat the potential loss of Crimea as a much more significant threat both to national security and regime stability,” the report warns.”

All these factors make “avoiding a long war…the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks,” so RAND recommends the US “take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely,” including “issuing assurances regarding the country’s neutrality,” something that Moscow had requested before the conflict began, to deaf ears, as well as “sanctions relief for Russia.”

Yes, they’re calling for Putin’s demands to be met, i.e., they are calling for a surrender.

Of course, it’s important to understand the context: these people are much more concerned about China than they are about Russia, because China is the real superpower threatening Western/Jewish dominance.

Russia, taking on the entirety of NATO, has managed to hold their ground. There is no chance that Russia is going to collapse any time soon. Some people in Washington apparently thought this would be an easy win, and it was not (mostly due to Russia’s ability to navigate the sanctions and actually increase the size of their economy, rather than due to their performance on the battlefield), so the logical thing now would be to cut their losses and focus on China.

People are Going to Look Stupid

The process has now begun. The call has been made and, as I’ve said since at least April, the US is simply burning resources without the potential of any benefit while Russia is making enough money from the economic boon of the US sanctions to keep doing what they’re doing for years.

The half-hearted commitment on the tanks shows that this has already begun to affect policy.

The people who promoted this war, or claimed that the Ukraine was going to win, or mocked Russia for not bringing down all of NATO in three days, are going to be very embarrassed. Maybe they won’t be, because it’s literally the same people who promoted the vax, and they apparently can’t really feel embarrassment.

For my part, I might go ahead and do a bit of gloating. Over the last few months, supposed right-wing people have come at me saying Russia is losing.

This huge spam campaign on Twitter is going to look very sad when the realization hits. As far as that goes: I think it will be very hard to do this kind of State Department spam on social media again. These people will try it when they start the war up with China, but people aren’t going to buy it a second time.

This should be a major boost for the morale of those opposing ZOG – even bigger than the Taliban victory.

(Republished from The Daily Stormer by permission of author or representative)    

  https://www.unz.com/aanglin/so-rand-says-the-us-lost-the-ukraine-war-and-should-surrender-what-next/

US nuclear sub docks shut down over ‘seismic’ concerns

 

Four drydocks in Washington state have been idled amid worries raised by an earthquake study

FILE PHOTO: The guided-missile submarine USS Ohio (SSGN 726) arrives at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard ©  US Navy / Jason Kaye

The US Navy has announced the shutdown of four drydocks in the Seattle area on concern over the safety risks posed if a major earthquake strikes the region. The service is already struggling to keep up with the maintenance needs for its nuclear-powered attack submarines. 

Three nuclear-certified drydocks at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington and one slot at the Trident Refit Facility in nearby Bangor, have suspended submarine docking for further evaluation and upgrades, the Navy said in a statement.

Officials didn’t specify what the recently completed seismic study showed; nor did they offer an estimate as to how long the affected drydocks will be out of commission.

The seismic assessment “identified potential issues associated with the remote possibility of a large-scale earthquake occurring simultaneously with a submarine maintenance availability,” the Navy said. “With this new information, the Navy is taking additional measures to further ensure the safety of the shipyard workforce, sailors, the local public, the environment and the submarines.”

The Pacific Northwest lies near the Cascadia subduction zone, a fault line that runs 700 miles along the coast, from Vancouver Island to northern California. Scientists have warned that the fault is capable of unleashing a “megathrust” earthquake registering a magnitude upward of 9.0 on the Richter scale, as it did in 1700, and that it has a 37% chance of causing a quake of at least 7.1 magnitude within the next 50 years.

READ MORE: First nuclear-propelled torpedoes for Russian mega-submarine are ready – media

The Navy knowingly built the Puget Sound shipyard in an active seismic zone, but some of its drydocks weren’t adequately girded for a major earthquake. For instance, one of the slots included in the suspension order was reportedly built on “unconsolidated earth and fill,” putting it at bigger risk of liquefaction during a big quake.

Although the Navy insisted that the drydock shutdowns won’t affect the nation’s “strategic deterrent capability,” the move comes at a time when 36% of US attack submarines are either undergoing maintenance work or awaiting service. Even before the suspension, the Navy had only 18 drydocks to tend to all of its submarines and aircraft carriers. Over the past decade, only 20-30% of submarine maintenance projects were completed on time, the Navy said last year.

The Puget Sound shipyard is more than 130 years old, and upgrades to just one of the suspended drydocks will cost an estimated $667 million.

https://www.rt.com/news/570726-us-nuclear-submarine-docks-seismic/

Pentagon chief makes nuclear pledge to Asian ally

 

Washington and Seoul will conduct “tabletop exercises focused on nuclear threats”

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin arrives at the Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, January 30, 2023 ©  AP /Lee Jin-man

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has reaffirmed Washington’s “ironclad” commitment to South Korea, promising to deploy the full range of US conventional and nuclear military capabilities if needed to deter what he described as increasingly “destabilizing” actions by North Korea.

In an editorial published by Yonhap news agency on Tuesday amid his third visit to Seoul as US defense chief, Austin claimed that only the presence of thousands of American troops and the “most advanced” military assets has ensured seven decades of peace on the peninsula – and said the sides are constantly exploring ways to boost their “deterrence activities.”

“That is why we are expanding the scope and scale of our combined exercises… It’s why we’re incorporating live-fire elements, which will increase our interoperability and readiness to ‘Fight Tonight’ if necessary,” Austin wrote.

“We are committed to doing even more, including increasingly complex scenario-based tabletop exercises focused on nuclear threats on the peninsula and visits to US strategic sites housing our most advanced capabilities to demonstrate the role these capabilities may play in crisis or conflict,” he added, providing no time frame for the drills.

The US maintains a force of around 28,500 soldiers in South Korea and holds regular drills with Seoul, which have been denounced by Pyongyang as “provocations” and “rehearsals” for a potential invasion. Last year, North Korea stepped up its missile tests and has enshrined the use of nuclear weapons into national law.

READ MORE: US ally walks back nuclear remarks

Austin claimed that Pyongyang’s military activities only further prove the need to “remain vigilant” and increase joint exercises not only with Seoul but also with Tokyo, and warned all regional “adversaries and competitors” that “if they challenge one of us, they are challenging the... alliance as a whole.”

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol said earlier this month that his country “may deploy tactical nuclear weapons or come to possess its own nuclear weapons” in a short time if “the [North Korean nuclear] problem becomes more serious.” 

Yoon later walked back the remark, saying that Seoul is still committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that he was “fully confident about the US’s extended deterrence,” a policy under which Washington provides South Korea with a “nuclear umbrella” to defend it against military threats.

https://www.rt.com/news/570729-pentagon-korea-tabletop-nuclear-drills/