[News UP] U.S. allows long-range weapons against Ukraine...Russia "World War III" warning?

■ Host: anchor Yoon Jae-hee
■ Starring: Bong Young-sik, visiting professor at Yonsei University

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN News UP] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Let's continue to point out with the relevant content experts. I will be with Professor Bong Young-sik of Yonsei University. Please come in. The U.S. request to lift restrictions on the use of missiles has been repeatedly demanded by Ukraine, but the U.S. has opposed it. Is there a reason why you allowed this this time?

[Bongyeongsik]
Republican presidential candidate Trump will take office on January 20 after winning the presidential election by a landslide on November 5. However, even before taking office, the Russian side had not confirmed it, but during the phone call with President Putin, he said, "Don't raise tensions anymore," and during the election campaign, if I am elected, I will end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. Even before taking office, he boasted that he could bring peace.

The war in Ukraine is rather intensifying as the world is widely expected to eventually cease in some form after Trump's election. Viewers can remember our experiences. The fiercest time of the Korean War was after the Armistice Agreement began. Because the Korean War will end someday, we need to secure an inch of land first until the moment everything stops at the end. So the war intensified and the victims continued.

In that situation, Russia and Ukraine are now in conflict, and from Ukraine's point of view, about a fifth of its territory has already been occupied by Russia, and Donnesk has actually declared its independence as a sovereign state and has been approved by Russia. Will it be able to get it back when there is a power outage? From Ukraine's point of view, the war in Ukraine has already begun since Russia unilaterally annexed Crimea in 2014.

So, as President-elect Trump thinks now, all blackouts will be made in the current situation, the Demilitarized Zone will be established using the Korean model, and NATO European countries will maintain blackouts there. Instead, Ukraine promises not to join NATO for at least 20 years. If this happens, there is a possibility that Russia will accept it, but from Ukraine's point of view, this is just to admit defeat. Then, shouldn't Ukraine have some leverage when it signs an armistice with Russia in the future? The only leverage is in the Kursk region, which is Russian territory.

If we continue to keep the tide in our favor, we will be able to make a deal to exchange the Russian territory occupied by Russia with the Russian territory now occupied by Ukraine. If Trump stops providing financial military support to Ukraine after he is elected, eventually Ukrainian troops will be forced to withdraw from the Kursk region, and if that happens, the war will stop unilaterally in Russia's favor. Ukraine can't even join NATO, so there's nothing to trust in the security statements. With this in mind, the Biden administration has had precipitation that allows the United States to provide all the support it can give, even the long-range use of the Ae-Tax missile, until the end of its term.

[Anchor]
When I looked at the US State Department briefing today, it was an ambiguous position that did not admit or deny this. The president's office said earlier this morning that the United States notified our government in advance. How should I look at this part?

[Bongyeongsik]
I'll have to take it at face value. Even from the U.S. standpoint, in principle, it is said that it has given Ukraine permission to use ATKIMS and surface-to-surface long-range missiles inside Russia's mainland, but there are no reports that it has been used yet or that it has started an attack. President Zelensky also responded to this by saying, "The missile itself will answer." So, you have to keep an eye on the situation, but accordingly, the Korean government also said that the war in Ukraine is no longer a war for others due to North Korea's dispatch of troops to Russia, right?

Whether it's our war or someone else's war, there is a controversy in domestic politics right now, but it's true that it's a very important war for us. Therefore, there should be some kind of response to North Korea's dispatch, and the variable is that the Biden administration will continue to provide military and financial aid to Ukraine before the inauguration of the Trump administration.

[Anchor]
Russia, of course, is strongly opposed. I even mentioned the word World War III and the use of nuclear weapons. Don't you expect a strong backlash?

[Bongyeongsik]
From Russia's point of view, we can't just stay put. So the Russian government protested against the U.S. action and asked why the U.S. was adding fuel to the fire. From the perspective of the U.S. State Department, it is not important to add fuel to the fire.
Who lit the fire, shouldn't the person who lit the fire take the ultimate responsibility? And it is said that we have raised tensions, but if so, the North Korean military's dispatch of the war to Ukraine is an act of raising tensions and expanding the war.

In other words, Russia has started the war in Ukraine and is ultimately responsible, and is attempting to escalate into a third-party world war, but to demand that NATO members, including the United States, just sit on their hands is just Russia's one-sided and baseless argument. So from September, President Putin himself came forward and warned him. We have nuclear doctrine and we have calibrated nuclear doctrine to suit the situation. Therefore, it sent a warning message that Russia should not underestimate the possibility and political will to use nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the government of Ukraine needs leverage to use some kind of negotiation under the assumption that the armistice agreement between Russia and Ukraine will begin until January 2025, when the Biden administration launches a new government. The measure, which provides a basis for the U.S. to secure it as long as the actual situation allows, appears to have authorized the use of the Ae-Tax missile in mainland Russia.


[Anchor]
In our view, a UN Security Council meeting was held early this morning, where the United States and Russia clashed head-on. The U.S. criticized Russia for sending North Korean troops to Russia, and Russia even used the expression, "It's a suicide," regarding the U.S. permission to use long-range weapons. How are you watching it?

[Bongyeongsik]
They're criticizing each other's position. Military experts also said why the Biden administration has not given permission to attack mainland Russia so far because even if it gives permission, it will not have much effect on the Ukrainian military's dominance on the battlefield. Because even though this is a long-range surface-to-surface missile flying 300 kilometers, you can imagine a fighter jet flying at Mach 3, supersonic speeds. It's a fighter, but you can think of it as a cruise missile that can be controlled without a pilot.

Then, even though it's a very powerful weapon, it's on the map here, but if the Russians don't stay put and move the command center further out of the range of 300 kilometers, the strategic benefits that they can give will disappear in an instant. In the end, even if the United States gives the authority to attack Russian mainland targets with Attax, the effect will be very limited, so it is rather a loss to intensify the war by giving Attax the right to strike Russian mainland.

That judgment has so far been the position of the Biden administration. However, from now on, Russia and Ukraine have to stop the war anyway after the Trump administration was launched. As this becomes a fait accompli, then we can't just tell Ukraine to stop the war on its own without giving any level of negotiation. And that's what got the power of the Biden administration. If you look at it, in the case of Trump Jr., the Biden administration is ruining things on social media.

It is said that my father is raising the risk of World War III before he takes office, but paradoxically speaking, the higher the risk of expanding into World War III, the more power Trump aims for an early blackout between Russia and Ukraine. If NATO members in Europe have so far opposed or hesitated about the ceasefire, it is more beneficial for Russia and Ukraine to raise military tensions or stop direct clashes in any form than for the outbreak of World War III. Paradoxically speaking, the Biden administration's active support for Ukraine is ostensibly criticized by President-elect Trump, but he won't be so opposed to it because it helps with the early blackout he claims.

[Anchor]
Even within the UN, there have been complaints that the United States is not properly mediating. There are also opinions that supporting Ukraine like this is playing a role in prolonging the war. What do you think about this?

[Bongyeongsik]
Two positions coexist. When did the war begin? It's 22 years. It started three years ago on February 24th, and fatigue has accumulated for three years. Until when will Russia provide unconditional support to Ukraine, not only from Russia, but also from NATO European member states and from within the United States? In the end, the war has to end. But the blackout is not the end of the war, is it? From the standpoint of Ukraine, there is no answer from NATO as to how we will be confirmed or guaranteed our security even if there is a blackout.

I don't know if Ukraine becomes a NATO member. Ukraine's NATO members are the only ones under discussion, and only France is the one who said, "We are going to go with Ukraine until the end," at the G7 summit last time, but other European countries did not agree with this. So NATO European countries are not moving in one direction. Therefore, it is a very difficult position from Ukraine's point of view. If you imagine, the Syngman Rhee administration was vehemently opposed to stopping the Korean War when it started meeting the Armistice Agreement.

Because some argued that the desire for unification should be realized, but the bigger thing is that when North Korea invaded again at the end of the Korean War, stopping the war without sufficient defense bases to defend South Korea does not secure a security situation. Therefore, the Syngman Rhee administration agreed to a ceasefire and ceasefire in the Korean War because the United States gave Korea the card of signing the Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty. That is the case with Ukraine's NATO membership, but since the opposition to it is now public opinion, Trump put forward an arbitration proposal on the condition that he would not join Ukraine's NATO for 20 years. This is to appease Russia, but for Ukraine, peace does not come after the war. Rather, it is very dangerous because the war ends in the absence of any defense mechanism without knowing when Russia's offensive will start again, but the Ukrainian government's inability to accept the blackout is a challenge, although there is a risk of losing support from the United States.

[Anchor]
I think the heads of the leaders of each country will be complicated. Let's also look at the content related to North Korea. Yesterday, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un held a battalion commander's meeting for the first time in 10 years and made a statement, and I wonder what a battalion commander's meeting is like.

[Bongyeongsik]
The fact that the general was gathered and the battalion commander's meeting seems to have the purpose of providing mental education that goes deep inside the military. Paradoxically speaking, the supreme leader gathers a battalion commander and meets for the first time in 10 years. In addition, mental education can be a proof that military discipline is shaking to some extent and public sentiment is not that easy. The dispatch of troops to Russia will be spreading inside North Korea, and maintaining trust in the regime is more important than anything else for Kim Jong-un, so it seems that it was done at the level of a battalion commander in charge of ordinary soldiers. What is emphasized here is that all efforts should be made to strengthen nuclear force and prepare for war, and the route of strengthening nuclear force is an irreversible policy.

We can't imagine changing and we can't imagine that irreversible policy is already long, and in January 21, the 8th Party Congress declared the development of five new weapons. But it's been a long time.Ma, including North Korea's nuclear-powered submarines, is not yet very likely to be completed within the deadline. There must be a nervousness of the Kim Jong-un regime, so we must complete the North Korean version of the mid-term defense plan that we aimed for at the 8th Party Congress within the deadline, which is interpreted as encouraging remarks. The current situation is dangerous for American war merchants to lead to World War III, so even if public sentiment is shaken now and there are complaints about the regime due to various economic difficulties, it is noticeable to emphasize this once again.

[Anchor]
The emphasis on strengthening the nuclear force is actually Kim Jong-un's message that came out for the first time since Trump's election. At the same time, he also used the expression "the head of a destructive group of peace and stability" about the United States, but can we predict that we cannot expect such a bromance between Kim Jong-un and Trump in the future?

[Bongyeongsik]
I still have to wait. This is the first message to the U.S. since General Secretary Kim Jong-un's election as Trump. But what I criticized here is whether the U.S. as the leader of a destructive group of peace and stability and an American guy were aimed at Trump, the president-elect, or criticizing the Biden administration, who is still a sitting president. In other words, it seems to be a matter to be judged while looking at the data for a little more time, whether it is an investigation that is aimed at dividing American politics and examining their intentions, or expressing fundamental distrust and hostility toward the United States.

[Anchor]
I see. I'll stop listening to it. I was with Professor Bong Young-sik of Yonsei University. Thank you for talking with me today.