Ah, yes, the situation in Ukraine—it’s like a soap opera, isn’t it? Full of drama, plot twists, and unfortunately, a lot of heavy themes like war and suffering. So let’s dive into it like a contestant on a game show—hopefully with a bit more grace than I normally display while hoofing it out of the way of actual missiles!
First off, we have the rather somber milestone of the 1,000th day of war in Ukraine. Thousands of candles lit in Kiev—not exactly the party atmosphere you’d expect for a thousand-day anniversary! It’s more “happy birthday” than “let’s all gather round for cake,” wouldn’t you agree? But hey, when the world’s playing a real-life game of Risk, who knows how to celebrate?
Now, onto the good old U.S. Embassy getting its knickers in a twist and shutting down because of “specific information about a potential significant air strike.” It seems when it comes to international conflict, the only thing that’s certain is your neighbor’s Netflix password is safer than any embassy life! Evacuating staff? That’s not how I like to roll during a party; typically, I recommend getting more snacks, not bailing out completely!
Then we have Ukraine flexing its military muscles with the American long-range missile, the ATACMS. It’s like giving a toddler a shiny new toy and expecting them to play nice. Now they’re striking into Russian territory—“look what I can do!”—and the Russian Ministry of Defense is as riled up as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
And here comes Putin, entering stage left to defend his kingdom with a revision of the nuclear doctrine. It’s like watching someone change the rules in Monopoly because they’re losing. “If non-nuclear states attack us under the support of nuclear states, we can use nuclear weapons!” It’s a jumping-the-shark moment of epic proportions; because when in doubt, threaten to escalate things, right?
Then there’s the thought of anti-personnel landmines making a comeback under President Biden. Talk about a revelation! It’s reminiscent of the final season of a beloved show that just didn’t know when to quit. “Hey, remember those landmines we said were off the table? Surprise!” Talk about pulling a plot twist that no one asked for.
Of course, the reactions from the Kremlin are classic. They’re whipping out threats like they’re candies at a children’s party—“This means World War III!” Yes, because that’s exactly what we need—a full-blown international catfight. Everyone loves a good spectacle, don’t they?
And one prescient professor chimes in with a reality check: “The short-term likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons has not increased.” That’s comforting… sort of. Meanwhile, heightened tensions are apparently playing right into Putin’s narrative of fear, which is just what every dictator ordered: a good old-fashioned “West versus us” showdown.
So, here we stand on the 1,000th day of uncertainty, confusion, and a dash of chaos. It’s like watching a tragic Shakespearean play with a Shakespearean-sized cast—everyone has their own agenda, and the potential for disaster looms like a bad pun waiting to happen!
As I wrap this up, let’s remember to keep our fingers crossed—after all, in the world of global politics, anything can happen. You could even say it’s a bit like a game of chess, except everyone’s more than a little bit twitchy, and the board is a tad explosive! Keep those candles lit, and here’s hoping for better days ahead!
Candles are lit in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, on the 19th, commemorating the somber milestone of the 1,000th day of the ongoing war in Ukraine. Reuters Yonhap News
(☞Subscribe to the Hankyoreh newsletter H:730. Type ‘h:730’ in the search bar.)
The day following Ukraine’s unprecedented attack on Russian territory using a U.S.-supplied long-range missile, the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was forced to shut its doors, citing an elevated risk of air raids, reflecting the heightened tensions in the region. Amid this turmoil, rumors surfaced that U.S. President Joe Biden, fresh off the heels of a contentious two-month tenure, was reconsidering his previous stance to supply anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine, prompting a chilling warning from a close confidant of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who ominously declared, “This means World War III.”
On the 20th (local time), the U.S. Embassy in Kiev posted a critical announcement regarding the situation, stating, “We have received specific information about a potential significant air strike,” leading to an immediate evacuation of embassy personnel in light of potential threats.
On the 19th, marking the grim milestone of the 1,000th day of the conflict, Ukraine launched a striking retaliatory measure by attacking Russian soil for the first time with the American long-range missile ATACMS, capable of reaching targets 300 kilometers away. The Russian Ministry of Defense promptly reported that six ATACMS missiles had struck the western Bryansk region, an area known to house North Korean troops and bordering Kursk Oblast, which is partially under Ukrainian control. This significant escalation came just two days after the U.S. authorized Ukraine to use the missile for strikes into Russian territory.
On the same day, President Putin took decisive action by endorsing changes to the ‘Basics of National Policy in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence’ (Nuclear Doctrine), which asserts that even nations not equipped with nuclear weapons could be subjected to nuclear retaliation if they attack Russia in collusion with a nuclear-armed state. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov characterized this policy shift as a direct response to the acceptance of ATACMS usage by Ukraine.
On this day, the Washington Post reported a significant development, revealing that President Biden had granted approval for the provision of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine, according to statements from two U.S. officials. This represents a stark shift from Biden’s earlier commitments.
In 2022, during his second year in office, President Biden had publicly stated, “We plan to ban the use of anti-personnel land mines (which can cause damage to civilians) in areas other than the Korean Peninsula.” The recent decision to supply these mines to Ukraine appears to be a last-ditch effort to shore up support for Ukraine ahead of the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, who is known for his skepticism regarding ongoing assistance to Ukraine.
Although Trump has never disclosed a specific plan to end the war, American media sources report that he has floated the idea of freezing the current front lines and establishing a demilitarized zone along the 800-mile (approximately 1,280 km) front. Should this proposal materialize, it could result in substantial territorial losses for Ukraine, which has been experiencing setbacks against Russian offensives this year. The British BBC on the 20th referred to analyses from the American Institute of War Studies (ISW), indicating that Russia has now occupied 2,700 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory this year alone—six times the area taken last year.
Russia, emboldened by the Biden administration’s latest decisions, has issued strong condemnations. On the 19th, former President Dmitry Medvedev, a prominent ally of President Putin, ominously remarked, “This means World War III,” highlighting the escalating rhetoric.
The Biden administration has critiqued Russia’s new nuclear doctrine but has opted for a measured response. During a briefing on the 19th, U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller expressed a lack of surprise regarding the Kremlin’s comments about the revised nuclear doctrine, asserting that there was no justification to alter the United States’ nuclear weapons readiness posture.
Harvard University professor Matthew Byrne, a recognized expert in security matters including nuclear weapons, conveyed to the New York Times that while the short-term likelihood of Russia employing nuclear arms has not increased, the overall risk of a nuclear confrontation has seen a slight uptick. He elaborated, noting that “the United States’ willingness to support (Ukraine’s) strike deep into Russian territory is reinforcing Putin’s hatred and fear of the West,” illuminating the intricate geopolitical dynamics at play.
Reporters Ki-won Cho, Jeong-yeon Lee, and Mina Kim [email protected]
What are the potential consequences of Ukraine’s use of ATACMS missiles on the conflict with Russia?
**Interview with Dr. Sarah Miller, International Relations Expert**
**Host:** Welcome, Dr. Miller! Thank you for joining us today. It seems we have quite a dramatic situation unfolding in Ukraine as we mark the 1,000th day of war. What are your initial thoughts on this significant milestone?
**Dr. Miller:** Thank you for having me! Indeed, the commemoration of 1,000 days of conflict is sobering. It highlights not just the ongoing suffering of the Ukrainian people but also the persistent geopolitical tensions. Lighting candles in Kiev, rather than celebrating, is a testament to the resilience and heartbreak experienced in Ukraine.
**Host:** Recently, we’ve seen heightened tensions with Ukraine’s use of the ATACMS missiles against Russian territory. How do you interpret this move?
**Dr. Miller:** It’s a critical escalation. The United States providing Ukraine with such advanced weaponry puts Ukraine on a more offensive footing, but it also risks upsetting the delicate balance of military engagement. It’s akin to introducing a powerful new piece in a chess game—one that can provoke a strong response from Russia.
**Host:** Speaking of responses, President Putin has revised Russia’s nuclear doctrine, suggesting a readiness to use nuclear weapons if attacked by non-nuclear states in collaboration with nuclear powers. What does this mean for international stability?
**Dr. Miller:** This revision indicates a significant shift in rhetoric and posture from Russia. It’s a clear signal of Putin’s intent to maintain a narrative of fear and defense, reinforcing the idea that he sees any attack—real or perceived—as justifiable grounds for escalation. This could lead to a chilling effect on diplomatic negotiations and an increase in global tensions.
**Host:** There’s also the controversial decision by President Biden to approve the sale of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine. How do you view this change, especially given his previous commitments?
**Dr. Miller:** This is indeed a major policy shift. Landmines are notoriously controversial due to their long-term humanitarian impact. Biden’s decision suggests that he is willing to reconsider strategic means in order to bolster Ukraine’s defense capabilities, particularly with the impending change in U.S. leadership and uncertainty under Trump. This takes us back to a realm of military tactics that many believed had seen a decline. It raises questions about the ethical implications and potential consequences for civilians.
**Host:** With the U.S. Embassy shutting down due to potential air strikes, what does this signify for diplomatic efforts in the region?
**Dr. Miller:** The closure of the U.S. Embassy is alarming. It underscores the immediate threats faced not just by Ukraine but by international officials operating within the region. It communicates an urgent need for caution and reinforces the inherent risks of remaining engaged in such a volatile environment. The diplomatic landscape is now shifting towards a more precarious footing, as embassies are often seen as a vital link in international dialog.
**Host:** With all this chaos and uncertainty, what would you say is the most important thing to watch for in the coming days?
**Dr. Miller:** Keeping an eye on U.S. domestic political changes will be crucial, especially with the incoming Trump presidency. His perspective on foreign policy toward Ukraine and NATO will have significant implications for the ongoing conflict. Additionally, monitoring Russia’s military response to Ukraine’s current actions will be critical—will they escalate or will they step back? The stakes are incredibly high.
**Host:** Thank you, Dr. Miller, for your insights as we navigate this complex situation. We hope for a peaceful resolution in the near future.
**Dr. Miller:** Thank you for having me. Let’s hope for stability and a focus on ending the humanitarian crisis at the forefront of international efforts.
