Have you heard the latest news that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are planning to meet? The instant I heard this; one thing popped into my mind. Is history repeating itself?
Think about it. As World War Two escalated in Europe, the United States sat on the sidelines. Bear in mind that it wasn’t until Pearl Harbor in 1941 that we entered into the conflict. A full two years after the war started.
What happened? You guessed it. An alliance between our eastern and western enemies.
Hitler, Imperial Japan’s Ambassador to Germany, Saburō Kurusu (later a central figure in diplomatic talks between Japan and the United States prior to Pearl Harbor), and Count Galeazzo Ciano, Mussolini’s son-in-law, gathered in Berlin. On September 27, 1940, they signed the Tripartite Pact.
A 10-year deal between the three, the Pact called for each country to offer military, political, and economic assistance if a signatory was attacked by “a Power at present not involved in the European or in the Sino-Japanese Conflict.” One did not have to spend much time trying to figure out who they were talking about—a still neutral United States of America. In other words, this was, on paper, a defensive alliance designed to check American power. Yet no clear-thinking individual could trust any of these powerful regimes to maintain a “defensive” stance on anything.
There it is folks. History repeating itself.
So, what are Putin and Kim Jong Un planning? The following article points to an exchange of weapons for food. That is a real possibility. My greater concern, however, is that their alliance could trigger what we all fear. A two front war taking place in Europe and the Pacific at the same time. We have been there and done that. It was a nightmare and cost all sides dearly.
But first, let’s look at the arms for food deal.
How Worrying is a Russia-Kim Jong Un Alliance?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66714546
By Jean Mackenzie
BBC News, Seoul
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s reported plans to visit Russia this month have caused concern among the US and its allies.
He and President Vladimir Putin intend to discuss the possibility of North Korea providing Moscow with weapons to support its war in Ukraine, US officials say.
On the surface, an arms deal between North Korea and Russia makes perfect transactional sense.
Moscow desperately needs weapons, specifically ammunition and artillery shells, for the war in Ukraine, and Pyongyang has plenty of both.
On the other side, sanction-starved North Korea desperately needs money and food. More than three years of border closures, not to mention the breakdown of talks with the United States in 2019, have left the country more isolated than ever before.
But below the surface, it opens up the potential for Pyongyang and Moscow to start working more closely together. The US has been warning about a possible arms deal between the two countries for some time, but a leader-level meeting between Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin catapults this into the next realm.
While the priority for the US, certainly in the short-term, seems to be to stop North Korean weapons from getting to the frontline in Ukraine, the concern here in Seoul is over what North Korea would get in return for selling its arms to Russia.
With Russia in a desperate situation, Mr Kim will be able to extract a high price. Perhaps he could demand increased military support from Russia.
Yesterday, South Korea’s intelligence service briefed that Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu had suggested Russia, China and North Korea hold joint naval drills, similar to those carried out by the US, South Korea and Japan, which Kim Jong Un so detests.
Mr. Kim might also be able to call in Russian weapons in the future.
But by far the most worrying request Mr. Kim could make is for Mr. Putin to provide him with advanced weapons technology or knowledge, to help him make breakthroughs with his nuclear weapons program.
He is still struggling to master key strategic weapons, chiefly a spy satellite and a nuclear-armed submarine.
However, officials in Seoul believe cooperation on this level is unlikely, as it could end up being strategically dangerous for Russia.
Yang Uk, a research fellow at the Asian Institute for Policy Studies, noted that even if Russia doesn’t sell North Korea weapons in return, it could still fund its nuclear program. “If Russia pays in oil and food, it can revive the North Korea economy, which in turn could then also strengthen North Korea’s weapons system. It is an extra source of income for them that they didn’t have.”
Mr. Yang, an expert in military strategy and weapons systems, added: “For 15 years we’ve built up a network of sanctions against North Korea, to stop it from developing and trading weapons of mass destruction. Now Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, could cause this whole system to collapse.”
As sanctions have been ramped up, North Korea has become increasingly dependent on China to turn a blind eye to those violating sanctions and to provide it with food aid.
For the past year Beijing has refused to punish North Korea for its weapons tests at the UN Security Council, meaning it has been able to develop its nuclear arsenal without serious consequence.
North Korea provides Beijing with a useful buffer zone between itself and the US forces stationed in South Korea, meaning it pays to keep Pyongyang afloat.
But Pyongyang has always been uneasy about depending too much on China alone. With Russia on the hunt for allies, it gives Mr Kim the chance to diversify his support network.
And with Russia so desperate, the North Korean leader may feel he can wrangle even greater concessions from Moscow than he can Beijing.
Mr. Putin might agree to keep silent in the face of a North Korean nuclear test, whereas this could prove a step too far for Chinese President Xi Jinping.
“During the Cold War, North Korea was playing the Russians off the Chinese, very similar to how children play parents off each other,” said Dr Bernard Loo of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.
But there is still a question mark over whether the meeting will go ahead.
Mr. Kim doesn’t leave North Korea often or lightly. He is paranoid about his security and views trips abroad as fraught with danger. For his last international trips – to Hanoi to meet Donald Trump in February 2019, and to meet Mr Putin in Vladivostok in April 2019 – he rode on an armored train. The trip to Hanoi took two long days through China.
It is unclear how private the two leaders intended their meeting to be, but it is possible the US is hoping that by making it public, it can spook Mr. Kim and therefore thwart both the get-together and the potential arms deal.
Dr Loo doesn’t think Mr. Kim would have much wiggle room, however: “Given the reports about three-way military exercises, it would be difficult to cancel these kinds of events without everyone ending up with egg on their face.”
Part of the US strategy since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been to release intelligence to try to prevent deals from happening. North Korea and Russia have so far denied every suggestion they are looking to trade arms. Neither are likely to want this deal to be a public affair.
Now let’s move on to my greatest concern. What would happen if we saw a repeat of the East/West scenario we faced in WWII which left us fighting in both the European and Pacific theaters of war at the same time?
Suppose Russia, North Korea, and China signed a modern-day pact like the one Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan signed back in September 1940?
What follows is an interesting analysis of the challenges such an alliance would pose to the United States in the 21st century.
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/us-military-forces-cannot-fight-2-fronts
Policy Analyst, Defense Policy, Center for National Defense
China and Russia spend a significant portion of their economic output on their defense budgets, with the purpose of challenging American military superiority.
This is a concern, particularly when the U.S. needs to surge to a conflict without jeopardizing the posture of U.S. forces in another important region.
It will take time for the military to reach the level of strength required to deter and potentially fight on multiple fronts.
The current war in Ukraine and Russia’s threatening actions toward NATO countries coupled with a rising China in Asia highlights a strategic pickle for the United States—the need to be able to deter or potentially fight two major adversaries in two very different regions of the world at the same time with the military it has on hand.
While the U.S. is unlikely to face two significant competitors at the same time, the possibility is not zero. The current situation in Ukraine, with Russian President Vladimir Putin launching missiles landing close to Poland, and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ideological commitments to bring Taiwan into China, provides an excellent opportunity for an opportunist nation to attempt a hostile act while the rest of the world is distracted.
The U.S. is a global power with interests and responsibilities throughout the world. It must be capable of protecting Americans abroad, allies, and the freedom to use international sea, air, space, and cyberspace.
This is no easy task—and the U.S. military today is not positioned to take it on.
It is too small and too old to fight on numerous fronts. Force drawdowns since the end of the Cold War and 20 years of fighting in the Middle East have left the U.S. military a shell of its former self.
This should worry everyone—especially because China and Russia spend a significant portion of their economic output on their defense budgets, with the purpose of challenging American military superiority.
The Chinese government is rapidly expanding its military forces. Perhaps the most visible example of this is its ship-building program. At the end of 2020, the size of China’s navy was approximately 360. Compare that to a U.S. Navy fleet of 297 ships.
China’s military forces must be modernized by 2035, according to Xi. By 2049, he claims, they should be a “world-class” military power capable of “fighting and winning wars.”
China’s breakthroughs in its hard-power capabilities are likely to lead to a significant shift in the global balance of military power.
As for Russia, its military capabilities are on display on the world stage.
The U.S. military has an overall advantage over the Russian military, but Russia has select advantages over the U.S. when it comes to certain capabilities. For example, the U.S. Army has approximately 6,000 tanks while Russia has around 12,000. Russian tactical nuclear capabilities outnumber the U.S. by 10-to-1.
One cannot forget about the threat that Iran and North Korea also pose to U.S. national security, with their missile arsenals and nuclear programs. It is vital for the U.S. to be able to project strength globally to provide reassurance for its allies and deter its adversaries.
While the quality of the U.S. military force is currently unrivaled, its size is at a historic low, and this limits its ability to respond to the multiple threats the country faces globally. It simply does not have enough forces.
This is a concern, particularly when the U.S. needs to surge to a conflict without jeopardizing the posture of U.S. forces in another important region.
For example, if the United States were to engage Russia in a direct confrontation, it will be forced to deploy military equipment and personnel from all over the world to the Eastern European front. By doing so, the U.S. would be forced to draw forces from other regions of the world, such as the West Pacific, where our presence is critical in deterring China.
The Heritage Foundation’s annual assessment of U.S. military power, the 2022 Index of U.S. Military Strength, assesses that the U.S. military is only moderately capable of securing its vital national security interests, and would struggle greatly if called upon to deal with more than one competitor at a time.
Low levels of capacity are particularly concerning because numbers really matter in war.
The index estimates that a joint force capable of dealing with multiple fronts simultaneously would need to consist of:
- The Army having 50 brigade combat teams, compared to its current number of 31.
- The Navy having at least 400 ships, compared to the 297 vessels it currently has.
Since President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup to deter the Soviets in what would be the final years of the Cold War, the overall trend in numbers has clearly been consistently toward a smaller force. Besides force size, some of the military’s equipment is extremely outdated, and many of its platforms entered service more than 30 years ago.
The services, like the Army and Navy, are aging faster than they are modernizing. As a result, it will be easier for major competitors to reach technological parity with the U.S. military.
To recap, the U.S. requires a force capable of managing two conflicts because it would provide enough forces to: 1. deter an opportunistic adversary from starting a conflict while the U.S. is engaged and 2. provide the U.S. with a sufficient number of forces to handle battle losses without requiring America to denude the rest of the world to focus on one conflict.
The good news is that there appears to be bipartisan acknowledgment of the need to project power on two fronts.
“It’s difficult. It’s expensive. But it is also essential, and I believe that we’re entering a period where that is what will be demanded of the United States and this generation of Americans,” said Kurt Campbell, the White House Indo-Pacific policy coordinator, about the U.S. remaining engaged in the Indo-Pacific in the midst of the crisis in Ukraine.
But it remains to be seen whether Congress and the Biden administration address the need to field a military force sufficiently sized to address global threats and U.S. national interests. The defense budget must be sufficient to modernize and expand the force. It will take time for the military to reach the level of strength required to deter and potentially fight on multiple fronts.
The problem will not be fixed overnight. That’s why it’s important for Congress to act quickly to adequately resource the U.S. military.
I would also like to add, that it is equally important that Congress study our history. None of this is new folks.
The alliances being formed among our enemies today are very similar to what we have seen take place in the past.
Had our grandparents had the benefit of looking back on similar mistakes in the past, I would be willing to bet they would have taken action to stop the alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan before it ever happened.
Let’s not make the same mistake.