“If North Korean missiles hit power plants, Fukushima will seem like a joke.”

Znak.com expert talks about the threats and future of the “Korean hub”

02.04.2013 17:50

In recent days, news feeds have been rocked by reports of an escalation of the conflict between North Korea, on the one hand, and the United States, along with its satellites, on the other. What caused the new round of confrontation? Will a big war break out? And how will the situation affect Russia? For clarification, we turned to Georgy Toloraya, regional director for Asia and Africa, head of the regional projects department of the Russian World Foundation, executive director of the National Committee for BRICS Research.

- Georgy Davydovich, what caused North Korea’s threats, what is it trying to achieve?

- After a new leader, Kim Jong-un, came to power in North Korea, it became important for him to establish himself. Moreover, when he first received his post, the Western media and politicians treated him mockingly, so now he wants to prove that he is a serious and dangerous partner, decisive and will stop at nothing. In pursuit of this goal, he kills two birds with one stone, demonstrating strength not only to the West, but also to his immediate circle, showing that he will force North Korea to be taken into account and compromise on terms that are beneficial to it. On the other hand, Kim Jong-un needs to rally the population around him and calm down the unrest that is occurring in the country due to the difficult economic situation and corruption. And the country's position as a "besieged fortress" suits his purposes very well.

- Who are the Korean leader's threats actually addressed to? Who is Kim Jong-un's greater enemy: South Korea or the United States?

- North Korea's main foreign policy enemy is, of course, the United States. Kim Jong-un and the leadership of North Korea want to enter into direct dialogue with them in order to achieve favorable conditions of existence for themselves and have a more or less clear regime of relations between the two countries.

- Are these threats a bluff or does North Korea still have serious military potential?

- This issue has two aspects. Of course, North Korea will not go to a full-scale war, because it is simply not capable of it. It is clear that any attempt to hit American bases or Seoul will lead to all the firepower falling on North Korea, and then, most likely, the North Korean state will simply not exist. Therefore, it is clear that Kim Jong-un is not ready to fight seriously. Kim Jong-un is beating the West with its own weapons - through the media, through a PR campaign, without spending much money, but just making loud statements, pictures and videos showing attacks on America. This is, rather, intimidation of the enemy, tickling the nerves of the Western man in the street, who sooner or later will say to his government: “What is this! Please calm down already, comrade!” And Western governments will not be able to say: “You know, it’s all a bluff, don’t pay attention.” Because in the West, colossal military budgets are being allocated to North Korea, and missile defense is being developed against it. So the American government will be forced to somehow respond to attacks from Pyongyang. The situation for Western politicians is difficult. This is one aspect.

Another aspect is that North Korea’s military strength cannot be completely discounted. She is capable of causing damage to her opponents. And if it is not capable of waging a full-scale war, then it is quite capable of participating in local skirmishes on the borders. At the same time, it will also benefit from propaganda. After all, by doing so, she proves to the entire world that the situation in the region is tense due to the fault of her opponents, that she is at the forefront of the American attack and is forced to defend herself. The human losses that would arise during such skirmishes are also beneficial. The leadership of North Korea would say to its population: “Look, our soldiers died a heroic death in the fight against American imperialism!” I am anxiously awaiting reports from North Korea, hoping that it will not come to hostilities.

- Is North Korea really capable of causing significant damage in the Pacific region? What weapons does it have?

- She has a significant amount of long-range artillery, about 500 barrels. They are capable of causing serious damage to Seoul and the American bases located there. Medium-range missiles are capable of attacking nuclear power plants and can even reach Japan and Okinawa. In the case of such attacks, even one hit will be enough to cause extreme damage. Several hundred thousand dead in Iraq do not bother anyone, but several hundred thousand dead in South Korea and Japan will truly agitate the world community.

- Can the United States launch a preemptive strike under pressure from public opinion? How likely is such a scenario?

- I think this is extremely unlikely, since in this case the North Koreans will respond with all the firepower they have, they still have nothing to lose. One salvo from their gun is enough to cause enormous damage to all surrounding countries. For example, if North Korean missiles hit South Korean power plants, then Fukushima will seem like a joke, because then the entire Pacific region will be exposed to radioactive contamination. And that is why the Americans will not agree to the use of force scenario: it is simply madness, in the context of a global crisis, to start a big war that will cost the world several trillion dollars, and will also result in millions of dead South Koreans, Japanese and Americans. And all for what? In order to establish democracy on the Korean Peninsula? Why do they need her there? There's no oil there. For the West and the United States, clashes with North Korea are unacceptable, because they will immediately undermine the ratings of politicians. Therefore, it is beneficial for the West to look for some compromises beyond military solutions. Moreover, a fight with North Korea means direct confrontation with China. The US is not yet ready for such a confrontation.

- What role does Russia play in the situation?

- Russia’s task is to keep the conflicting parties from a dangerous scenario. We can play the role of an objective diplomatic advisor to reduce the escalation of the conflict. If, God forbid, a military conflict breaks out, we, of course, do not need to get involved in it, but rather take the position of an observer.

Georgy Toloraya

- A potential war will not threaten us with anything significant?

- There is no immediate threat. But perhaps there will be refugees. Although it is unlikely that there will be many of them, first of all they will head to China, and not to us. But in the event of attacks on a nuclear power plant, radioactive contamination of the Russian Far East is possible. And here we can’t do anything. Therefore, it is better for Russia to refrain from participating in a military conflict and not take any active action.

- What connects us with North Korea in general? What will we lose in geopolitical and geo-economic senses if military action breaks out there and the Kim regime collapses?

- Firstly, we have a moral responsibility for North Korea: after all, it was created with the direct participation of the Soviet Union. Secondly, the disappearance of the current regime in North Korea would mean a disruption of the geopolitical balance in this region of the world. Today, the Americans have already reached the border with our ally China, and a scenario of the collapse of North Korea would strengthen US dominance in the Pacific region. This is not good for us. One more point: the disappearance of the regime in North Korea would give rise to a revision of the results of World War II in the East. This would inspire revanchists, those who would like to weaken Russia's influence in the Far East. In addition, we have economic interests in North Korea, not only related to the construction of a gas pipeline and railway, but also due to the fact that North Korea is rich in rare minerals. This is interesting for us; we could start developing them.

But I want to emphasize that although it is beneficial for us to preserve North Korea, this does not mean that we unconditionally support it. We are for this regime to change for the better, but in an evolutionary way, through democratic transformations, and for this it is necessary that international problems, in principle, be resolved peacefully, and not through military conflicts and the overthrow of regimes. This is our principled position. We are trying to build a new world order, which is based not on the rule of the strong, but on the force of law. And the conflict over North Korea has thrown the world order far back.

- You are talking about the necessary evolutionary changes in North Korea. How much longer, then, can the Kim regime survive in its current form?

- For 25 years now I have been hearing that North Korea will collapse soon, but for some reason it is still not going to do this. I think that it will be able to exist for many more years, even decades. The existence of two Koreas is a factor in history, and unification will not happen soon. But whether North Korea will exist in the form in which we see it today depends on the regime itself. If North Korea manages to reach an agreement with the West, it will exist for a long time. If it fails, then the regime will have to undertake some reforms. In any case, you shouldn’t expect an end soon. And to desire this means to desire serious shocks and consequences. Both North Koreans and South Koreans.

- What about humanism? After all, North Korea is an island where time has stood still, where the order of the dictatorial regimes of the Cold War reigns. Do the North Koreans themselves need such an order?

- I spent many years in North Korea and am well acquainted with the leaders of this country. Yes, of course, what is happening there is an anachronism. And there are all the attributes of a totalitarian state. But in the current environment, wanting the North Koreans to see the regime they live in collapse means wanting the South Koreans to beat them and make them second-class citizens in their own country. I hope that North Korea itself will be able to transform itself and move towards democratization, but this requires security around the country. In the meantime, North Korea is satisfied with sanctions, it is convenient for the regime to maintain the situation of a “besieged fortress”: it is easier to govern. In order for something to change, it is necessary to create conditions for development, and then the process will follow the Vietnamese or Chinese path.

- Does South Korea benefit from the fall of its northern brother?

- Information from South Korea that its northern neighbor poses a serious threat to it is mainly intended for external consumption. This is not an Israel-Palestine situation. South Koreans understand perfectly well that North Korea is not going to fight and there is no real threat from it. But maintaining the myth of such a threat is very beneficial for them in order to receive protection and funds. The very “South Korean economic miracle” that we all know about happened because capital flowed into the country. Of course, let's not discount the hard work of South Koreans. But we must admit that if it were not for the confrontation with North Korea, there would not have been such investments in South Korea.

I lived in South Korea for many years and I can say that, despite all national motives, South Korea does not need unification with North Korea. This would throw the South Korean economy back, a lot of economic problems would arise, and there would be a need to help and adapt 22 million North Koreans to market working conditions. All this would create social tension in society. South Korea absolutely does not need this, although politicians there are unlikely to openly admit it. But if we talk about public opinion, then, judging by polls, even South Korean teenagers do not want any unification, they do not want to help some poor beggars in the north. They live in a globalized world. They have absolutely no use for this problematic country and its population. Therefore, in fact, neither side needs unification, although this idea remains the alpha and omega of South Korean rhetoric in foreign policy.

Print version Interviewed by Evgeniy Senshin

Share news:

Comments (6) :

Irresponsible

Good reasoning. Correct. Responsible. Hello Chamberlain, it's called. Reminds me of Munich in 1938, when they tried to calm Hitler down. Only the Americans apparently learned lessons from this historical dialogue with the scoundrel, but the respected interviewee did not. Everything here is just like in life. We are all faced with COWARDLY scoundrels and insolent people who threaten, scream and jump on normal people, counting precisely on the fact that normal and decent people will give up on them and will not mess with them. Each of us has seen this in our lives. How to deal with such people??? Yes, simple. Don't let them down. Still, they understand perfectly well that cowardly scoundrels don’t have the courage to get into a fight. These are just words. And if they, these scoundrels, are put in their place and continue to spread rot, there is an option to change something. And agreeing with them and negotiating is all in favor of the poor. z.y. I have only one question for the hero of the interview - does he not understand this, or is he trying to sell us “bullshit”????

good cat

what a good nickname you picked, huh?! That’s why he will easily evaluate Munich, and will offer America and Putin tactics without relying on any information: “It’s simple. Don’t let them go. Still, they understand perfectly well that cowardly scoundrels don’t have the guts to get into a fight. These are just words. And if you put them, these scoundrels, in their place and continue to spread rot, there is an option to change something” that’s exactly how they act with something you don’t understand, with Bolotnaya Square for example...

To the cat from the Insanity

Moving away from the topic of conversation is a sign of the opponent’s lack of professionalism. Excuse me))) But if you wish.... The situation with Bolotnaya Square is different. Here it is the authorities who act as cowardly and vile characters.

Kim

What does Hitler have to do with it? The West itself raised Hitler, supported him, and was extremely dissatisfied that he dared to fool him and start his own game. In addition, Hitler had weapons and power, as well as the support of other countries. Let him at least shit himself, but he has no power, only clubs and slingshots. And there is no support. Only China, for which the UK is simply a trump card in its hands for conversations with its geopolitical opponents. And then Hitler corresponded to his era. The 30-40s are the heyday of dictatorships all over the world, but here, as the interview expert said, it’s an anachronism. Well, bad dictators, yes, but why put them all under the same brush? This is simply a distortion of reality. I just feel sorry for people. They stupidly live out their lives under the heel of the same kind. Especially in light of the fact that we also relatively recently emerged from such a state. And we still go out, we can’t come to our senses, but someone pulls us back there.

Irresponsible

Yes... really... It is the policy of conciliation that leads to an increase in tension. Or are we now seeing something different??? It was precisely this policy of recent decades that led to the emergence of the DPRK in the form in which we have it now. By the way, the comparison with Hitler, nurtured by Western countries in the 30s, is quite appropriate here. I am not currently proposing geopolitical methods for solving the situation. I simply don’t know them, and it’s funny for me to say them. I'm talking about tactical techniques. And the tactics are simple - such characters understand only strength and fist. And in this particular situation, retreating in front of them means giving them carte blanche for subsequent similar actions. Such characters must sense in their own gut that if they take one more step, they will get it in full. Such people understand only this language of power. The life of their own people driven into the reservation perfectly confirms this.

Darth Regos

If this cretin fucks around the South Caucasus and blows up nuclear power plants, the whole region will be in trouble. Including us in the Far East. Simply taking it and “putting it in its place” will not work. Unless, perhaps, close any trade and humanitarian relations with the UK, so that the completely starved population will rise up and tear Kim Jong-un’s ass. But this is an extremely unreliable, time-consuming and dangerous option. In addition, do not forget that our state-owned companies have invested a lot of money in the railway and gas pipeline. Just take it, close the projects and donate money to the commies - they won’t do that.

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Comment:

Partner news: