Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Kirill Novikov
[REGNUM] 75 years ago, on June 25, 1950, the administration of US President Harry Truman brought the "Korean question" to the UN Security Council for discussion. At the same time, more than 8,000 kilometers from Washington, units of the Korean People's Army crossed the demarcation line that the US and USSR had drawn along the 38th parallel.
The Korean War began, which lasted three years and is formally still ongoing.
The conflict, which cost the lives of 9 million Koreans (80% of them civilians), is often called a civil war. In form, it was, at least until the direct intervention of the "UN troops", that is, the US and its allies, and until the arrival of the million-strong corps of "Chinese People's Volunteers".
Moreover, the war developed according to the plot of the American Civil War: North versus South.
But in fact, less than five years after the end of World War II, the planet was closer than ever to the start of World War III.
The recent allies, the Soviet Union and the United States, were on the brink of direct conflict.
Thanks to the help of the USSR and the intervention of China, the war was "slowed down" and stopped. But the conflict could not have matured without the participation of another great power - the United States.
This is worth remembering now, when the will of the Americans determines whether a war in another corner of Asia will flare up to a global level or stop.
Translation: Our side can start all the trouble it wants, but it only become a war when America chooses to fight back.
BURIED DISCHARGE
In January 1951, when the war on the peninsula was at its height, Pablo Picasso unveiled his painting Massacre in Korea in Paris. This expressionist painting is not as well known as Guernica, but it is executed in the same manner and serves as a “continuation” of the famous 1937 painting.
The scene of the Americans shooting peaceful Korean women and children is depicted in the same way as the aftermath of the bombing of the Spanish city of Guernica by the Luftwaffe Condor Legion. The artist equated the soldiers of the "UN peacekeeping corps" with the Nazis - and Picasso was not the only one who thought so.
I’m fairly ignorant about art history. Until just now I didn’t realize exactly how much of a posturing ass Mr. Picasso was.
But how did it happen that the recent liberators of Western Europe turned out to be punishers?
In the final stages of World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (who died in April 1945) was determined to achieve a lasting peace with the USSR. The American leader believed that involving “Red Russia” in the establishment of a new post-war order would reduce the likelihood of confrontation with Western countries. Addressing Congress in March 1945, the already seriously ill president noted that after victory, the world order could not be based on the dominance of “one man, one party, or one nation”; all countries needed to move away from the policy of confrontation and unite for joint creation.
In essence, Roosevelt formulated the principles of “international détente” – this rhetoric would be used by both Republicans and Democrats – from John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon to Barack Obama and Donald Trump. But in 1944-45, it was not just about rhetoric. At this stage, Washington organized the Lend-Lease program for its Soviet ally. At the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt “removed” the Polish question by agreeing to recognize the Curzon Line as the border between the Soviet Union and Poland. In return, the USSR took part in the UN and even signed the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, which abolished the gold standard and recognized the dollar as the international currency of account.
Roosevelt's line still looks optimal: while conceding on points that were insignificant for American national interests, he sought to reach an agreement with Joseph Stalin on the USSR's participation in international settlement institutions. In our time, this policy of building bridges is consistently pursued by Moscow (demonstrating a readiness for dialogue with Washington) and is very inconsistently pursued by the Trump administration.
Oh dear. That poor writer sprained his wrist patting himself on the back…
But back then, in the late 1940s, "détente" was buried by Roosevelt's death.
Truman had already called on Congress in March 1947 to allocate funds to fight communist Russia. The formal pretext was the creation of a buffer zone in Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union.
CLAWS OF THE "HAWKS"
There was a strong isolationist sentiment among the ruling Republicans then, as now, but, as now, the tone is set by the "hawks" with a fixation on a power foreign policy.
Senator Arthur Vandenberg pushed through both houses of Congress, convincing them to approve the Truman Doctrine and vote on spending to counter the Red threat. And soon an opportunity arose to load the American military-industrial complex with military orders - although it "flared up" not in Central Europe (the first Berlin crisis of 1948-49 was the lightning bolt of which), but in the Far East.
In the autumn of 1945, the victorious powers, the USSR and the USA, divided Korea, liberated from Japanese colonial rule, into two occupation zones. This regime was supposed to last for 5 years, after which it was supposed to recreate a single state (as happened with Austria). But the plans were thwarted by the onset of the Cold War.
On September 7, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur issued Proclamation No. 1, which declared the introduction of a military dictatorship. Disobedience to the administration was punishable by death, and English was declared the official language of the occupation zone.
According to contemporaries, the pace and progress of reconstruction in the Soviet zone (and the way these successes were presented by propaganda) inspired greater optimism at the time, which provoked the growth of leftist sentiments in the South, including in the middle class. Understanding that reliance on big business and landlords alone was not enough to build a pro-Western democracy, Truman relied on a “strong hand.” Dr. Syngman Rhee, brought from exile on MacArthur’s personal plane and elected president of the Republic of Korea in 1948, became the first in a series of Seoul-based pro-American dictators.
The following year, 1949, when Mao Zedong emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War, the Truman administration faced a barrage of criticism from the right, with hawks accusing the White House of weakness. In order not to lose the Korean Peninsula after mainland China, the United States stepped up support for its partners in Seoul.
INEVITABLE COLLISION
In June 1949 alone, the Americans transferred to their ally 50,000 carbines with ammunition, 2,000 rocket launchers, 40,000 vehicles, light guns and mortars, 70,000 shells for a total of $5.6 million. That's almost $76 million in today's dollars.
And this helped to increase the total number of personnel in the security forces of the South to 104 thousand people.
In January 1950, the United States signed an agreement with Seoul, according to which its army received 140 thousand rifles (40 thousand Japanese), 2 thousand anti-tank bazookas, a large number of artillery pieces, tanks and aircraft, and 4,900 vehicles.
The "Korean Military Advisory Group," made up of American officers, conducted training courses for South Korean soldiers and provided them with technical and material support.
In total, the US spent $190 million, or $2.5 billion in today's money, adjusted for inflation, on arming the South Koreans in 1949. And in March 1950, Congress appropriated another $100 million (or $1.33 billion in today's dollars) to "provide military and other assistance to the Republic of Korea."
After the start of the war and until 1953, the Americans invested 1.17 billion dollars at the time, or 15 billion today, in rearmament and other assistance to their South Korean wards.
To compare the scale, according to the Pentagon, from 2014 to 2022 the US allocated 2.7 billion in military aid to Ukraine. After the start of the Second World War, the pumping increased several times, by another 66.5 billion dollars, according to official data from the State Department.
The logic of the Cold War dictated the need for a mirror response from the USSR and North Korea.
Given that the USSR started it, mirror is not quite the right word.
Since 1949, the leader of the DPRK, Kim Il Sung, had been asking Stalin to support the Korean People's Army's (KPA) march to the South, insisting that once the war began, the South Koreans themselves would overthrow the puppet pro-American regime. Politically, Moscow held back its allies, but at the same time, Soviet military aid to the North Koreans was in full swing. A clash became inevitable.
INTERVENTION OF "PEACEKEEPERS"
Early in the morning of June 25, a 175,000-strong KPA force, supported by 172 combat aircraft and 150 T-34 tanks, crossed the border. South Korean historiography generally believes that the North attacked first. Pyongyang, however, points out that the start of the war was preceded by numerous (up to several thousand in recent months) armed provocations from the South.
Be that as it may, on June 26 the United States entered the war.
Truman, without seeking congressional approval, appealed to the UN, which gave the go-ahead for the so-called police action in Korea. The USSR boycotted the Security Council sessions, demanding that communist China be included instead of Taiwan. Thus, in September 1950, the only armed intervention of its kind by the "UN peacekeepers" began - the USA and its allies, including those in the newly formed NATO (Britain and Turkey played a real role), launched a frontal attack on Kim Il Sung's troops.
At that time, Democrat Truman, like Democrat Joe Biden now, was harshly criticized by some Republicans for interfering in a war on the other side of the world. In particular, by former President Herbert Hoover and influential Ohio Senator Robert Taft, son of President William Taft. The same Taft Jr., by the way, harshly criticized US participation in NATO, like today's isolationist Trumpists.
But the decisive “yes” to the war was said by the American military-industrial complex.
If, on the occasion of the end of World War II, Truman cut the defense budget to $13.5 billion, then in December 1950 the same president gave the Pentagon $50 billion. Translated into today's money, this is $667 billion - more than the military department had in the mid-2010s, but less than now (at the moment, the Pentagon has $886 billion).
During the Korean War, "civilian" business in America was going through hard times - the White House raised corporate and income taxes, and credit conditions were tightened. But defense contracts brought huge profits to companies such as Lockheed, Northrop, and Boeing, and they were able to increase the defense budget to 15% of GDP in 1952.
DANGEROUS LEGACY
During 1950, the US became increasingly involved in the war, to a degree not comparable to its current involvement in the Ukrainian or Middle Eastern conflicts. It seemed that the “UN troops” were winning – Pyongyang had been taken, the North’s army was pressed to the Chinese border.
After the arrival of the "Chinese volunteers" and the turning point in the war, Commander MacArthur advocated maximum escalation - bombing China, an invasion of the Kuomintang from Taiwan and, if necessary, atomic bombings. At that time, the PRC did not yet have a nuclear arsenal (as Iran does now), and by 1951 our country already had 15 RDS-1 bombs at its disposal.
Truman had the good sense to back down after the conflict had been brought to the brink of World War III. MacArthur's proposals were shelved, and in April 1951 he was removed from command altogether.
The US intervention in a conflict in another part of the world began under a Democratic president, and the US was withdrawn from the war and the conflict itself was ended by a Republican president.
Dwight Eisenhower did what Donald Trump would probably like to achieve: in 1953, the Korean War ended in a military draw on terms acceptable to the United States. The US-dependent South Korean regime was preserved, the front line slowed down at the same 38th parallel, turning into one of the most closed and guarded borders in the world.
The Cold War did not develop into a nuclear Armageddon, which can also be considered a happy ending.
But it was after the Korean conflict that US policy began to mutate in a dangerous direction.
America finally consolidated its role as the only superpower of the “free world” and “guarantor of democracy.” Since the mid-1950s, the role of the military-industrial complex (and this term itself appeared at that time) as one of the locomotives of the American economy has sharply increased, and the connections between the Pentagon, the defense industry, and lobbyists of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and General Electric in Congress that still exist today were formed. Since that moment, military spending has rarely fallen below 10-12% of GDP.
The Korean War was the first in a series of local wars that the United States fought in the Eastern Hemisphere. Vietnam, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were only logical continuations.
Now, when America is struggling to get rid of “aid” to Kiev and is balancing on the brink of yet another “export of democracy,” this time to Iran,
…no need for that. The Iranians know how to do democracy as they’ve been going through the motions for several generations, should they exert themselves to either drive out the Mullahcracy in bloody revolution or more slowly evolve in a less totalitarian direction…
it is more obvious than ever that the United States will be able to return to the Monroe Doctrine, limit itself to the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, or focus on domestic affairs, if it succeeds, only with great difficulty.
#2
Speaking of South Korea A reality check against ‘We do too much for Israel’ For those who have a basketball-sized burr up their butt over President Trump’s recent action against Iran and who thus accuse him of being a “puppet of Israel,” here’s something that should make such malcontents three times more angry: our relationship with South Korea.
#4
After WWII, Eisenhower and others said that the failure was that Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini were not stopped when they were early in their ascent(s).
Eisenhower said unapologetically that boys from the heartland had to become soldiers only when intelligence agencies fail.
Sooo, the CIA was very active 1952-1960, when Ike was president ... and no wars.
The US turned away from this "Nip it in the bud" approach after President Eisenhower left office ... and long story short, here we are.
(If Eisenhower were president, one doubts nyc mayoral race yesterday would occur jmo)
Operation Midnight Hammer was one of the most precise and complex missions in recent military history. In this video, Captain Steeeve walks us through how operations like this are planned, coordinated, and executed. No politics—just a deep dive into the logistics, teamwork, and decision-making that made this mission possible.
From mission prep to boots on the ground, Steeeve draws on his own experience to explain how the military pulls off high-stakes operations under pressure.
[IsraelNationalNews] Turkey has been a dominant and strategic partner to Hamas and its leadership, Egypt was the conduit through which arms flowed into Gaza. Beware of consequences.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, published, back in 2011, his book entitled "Palestine." In explicit detail, the leader of Iran laid out his vision of how to destroy the "Zionist entity" phase by phase:
Make life in Israel miserable and unbearable with daily terror from the Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria, from Hamas in Gaza, and from Hezbollah in Lebanon creating a never ending instability - militarily, politically, economically, and culturally - thereby threatening the national cohesion of the State of Israel.
The final goal in his book ends with the dispersion of the Jews to their previous countries, those from which they fled or immigrated. It was no surprise that when lethal Iranian ballistic missiles were launched on Israel twelve days ago, Palestinian Arabs everywhere celebrated and danced in the streets and on their rooftops, handed out sweets to passersby, and cheered on the destruction and havoc caused by these bus size ballistic missiles carrying 1.5 ton warheads.
Yet despite this apocalyptic Islamist fantasy, and as the temporary ceasefire brokered by President Trump between Iran and Israel went into effect, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is holed up in some descript bunker in the north of Iran with his immediate family, cut off from the world, exhausted and consumed with his hatred of the Jews and the State of Israel, wondering about the moment Israel decides to finish him off.
The current Iranian regime’s stated goal from its inception has been the total annihilation of the State of Israel. This is not a slogan, but a cornerstone of Iranian religious, political, and military doctrine. Iran and its current leadership are indeed an "existential threat" to the State of Israel, but had their nuclear arsenal and capabilities destroyed by Israel literally at the last moment.
The Iranian plan was to surround the State of Israel and coordinate an attack with its terror proxies; Hamas terror organization in Gaza, Palestinian Arab terrorists in Judea and Samaria, Hezbollah terror organization in Lebanon, the Houthis terror organization from Yemen, the Syrian Army, beginning with the barbaric and savage attack on Israel on October 7th, with thousands sadistically murdered, wounded, and taken hostage.
Yet, from that dark day, from the depths of unfathomable suffering when Israel was caught unprepared for the murderous onslaught, we have arisen and can proudly raise our heads. We succeeded in destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities that endangered the continuing existence of the State of Israel, destroying the Hamas terror organization, destroying the Hezbollah terror organization, destroying the Syrian Army.
To my uneducated eye, the Assad Syrian army appeared to have pretty much evaporated over the past decade-plus, while Hayat Tahrir al Sham hard boys appear no better than their ISIS competition — fine for conquering terrified civilians and corrupt Arab “professional” armies, but no match for modern Western combined arms. What say you, dear Reader?
The political and military leadership of all these enemies has been eliminated one by one and at times in clusters.
In the aftermath of the ten day war between Israel and Iran, Israel’s decision makers must calibrate their thinking about how to deter future adversaries who despite being perceived as deterred, were able to coordinate an offensive initiative, rooted in the element of surprise, and inflict death and destruction on a local level, severely weakening Israel’s strategic capabilities and dominance in the Middle East. Israel launched Operation Rising Lion to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival, but no less to send a very specific lesson to future adversaries such as the nations of Egypt and Turkey. Both of these nations have quietly abetted and provided political and strategic support to the very same terror proxies trained and funded by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Egypt and Israel signed an historic peace agreement in March 1979 to end hostilities and normalize relations. It marked the first treaty of its kind between an Arab country and Israel. The peace agreement between Egypt and Israel was viewed at the time as having reshaped the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict for the better.
Egypt’s claim to de-escalate and bring an end to the conflict between Israel and her neighbors would be much more credible had they neutralized and prevented the construction of hundreds of underground tunnels between the Gaza Strip and the adjacent Sinai Peninsula, the eastern border of Egypt for the past two decades, These tunnels, some large enough to allow motor vehicles to pass through, enabled Hamas to import arsenals of weapons and unlimited materials that came through the tunnels that went from Egypt to enable the construction of an underground military capacity that threatened the State of Israel.
And reportedly President al Sisi’s nephew took a cut for every every shipment, or close enough. Had President Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011), or perhaps his sons, done the same?
Although Egypt is a poor country, with a low GNP per capita rating, with tens of millions of Egyptians forced to live in cemeteries or boxes as a substitute for a home, Egypt has built up the strongest army among the Arab nations of the Middle East with over: 5,000 tanks, hundreds of advanced fighter warplanes and helicopters, over 100 naval vessels and submarines, and an estimated one million soldiers in uniform.
That’s a lot of cannon fodder, if only they could be trusted to stand their ground. They didn’t in 1973…
A study by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies reported that Egypt's air force has undergone the most significant modernization of any military in the Arab world. "From the point of view of weapon systems," the author concluded, "the military-technological gap between the Egyptian and Israeli Air Forces is gradually narrowing." In addition, the "Egyptian Air Force’s increasing confidence is reflected in its acquisition of aircraft for deep-penetration strikes into enemy territory."
Egypt now has some of the most sophisticated U.S.-made weapons, including Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter planes, and Apache attack helicopters. Western intelligence agencies are aware of and have leaked that Israel - the country Egypt signed a peace treaty with - is the "enemy" in all of Egypt's war games. The thing about Arabs is that they think they're smartest - fooling all their enemies (i.e., the rest of humanity). Actually, it's easier for Israel to deal with an enemy armed with American weapons - which all came with backdoors in their extensive electronics.
Tricky, complex American technology meets inshallah maintenance — how well do they do when held together by duct tape?
Turkey is one of the few countries in the world that most Americans do not visit, probably in response to the 1978 movie "Midnight Express", portraying Turkey for what it is, a backward, sadistic, and corrupt nation.
Despite its 85 million citizens, Turkey has failed to position itself as an influential regional power. The current Islamist government’s new policy, which is premised on Neo-Ottomanization (a return to the Ottoman Empire’s glory days,) registered a series of stinging diplomatic failures in recent years. Yet Prime Minister Erodgan and his party have reinforced their political status within Turkey through the daily scapegoating of Israel in the "best" of Islamic tradition.
Only recently Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador,
…again…
suspended defense contracts with Jerusalem,
…again…
announced legal action against senior Israeli figures in European courts, threatened to bring the dispute before the international court and "take measures for freedom of maritime movement in the Mediterranean" including positioning her Navy so as to interfere with the free movement of Israeli shipping and mining expeditions in the Mediterranean Sea.
Turkey has also been a dominant and strategic partner to Hamas and its leadership, enabling terror leaders to operate, coordinate, fund, and train terrorists in Turkey.
…again.
The epilogue to the current period ends with the total humiliation of Iran; militarily, technologically, and politically, while exposing Iran as nothing more than a "paper tiger", and nothing close to the regional superpowerhood the Iranians have falsely claimed. The lesson should not be lost on the nations of Egypt and Turkey. Both nations have large populations of poor and uneducated citizens, allowing them to become just another Islamic nation that can be overthrown at any time.
Posted by: Grom the Affective ||
06/26/2025 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[89 views]
Top|| File under: Sublime Porte
#1
Tricky, complex American technology meets inshallah maintenance
That's not what I meant TW. Briefly: I was once told that the most important unit in IDF is the one charged with finding and neutralizing backdoors in American equipment. The staff sold to Egypt/Jordan/Oil Ticks has the same backdoors.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.