South Korea could send arms to Ukraine to help them fight North Koreans on front lines

South Korea is threatening to send armaments and material to Ukraine after its historic enemy North Korea sent troops to Russia to support its war effort, Business Insider reported Friday. The North Koreans have reportedly entered combat with Russian forces against Ukraine.

South Korea’s increasing willingness to assist Ukraine came after an emergency National Security Council meeting last week where South Korea condemned the North’s decision to send troops to Russia. Its leadership also suggested South Korea could send weapons to Ukraine to counteract the North’s belligerence. On Tuesday, South Korea went further and said it could also send military personnel to Ukraine to keep an eye on North Korea’s movements.

Russia’s foreign ministry said there would be “security consequences” for South Korea if it decided to participate in the war, but there also might be military consequences for Russia if South Korea contributes armaments.

“South Korean weapons could potentially make a significant difference on both Ukraine’s defensive capabilities and offensive capabilities,” Jeremy Chan, a China and northeast Asia analyst at the Eurasia Group, told Business Insider.

South Korea has had collective US arms and weapons systems since the formation of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South when a ceasefire was proclaimed in the Korean War in 1953. The South Korean arsenal encompasses anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems that could be used by Ukraine to fend off Russian attacks, Chan said. He also noted that the South has “world-class” K9 Howitzer guns, K2 tanks, and multiple-rocket-launcher systems.

Seoul has indirectly supplied 155mm artillery shells to Ukraine by first sending the arms to NATO countries like the US and Poland, who then sent their own shells to Ukraine.

Ellen Kim, a Center for Strategic and International Studies expert on Korea, told Business Insider that South Korea could also assist Ukraine with intelligence reports on North Korea’s access to weapons and how it is trained to fight wars.

“South Korea could assist in a psychological warfare campaign against North Korean soldiers who may not want to fight in the war,” said Kim.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Wednesday that he believes North Korea had deployed its troops to Russia previous to any announcement, even as he warned them against taking part in combat operations.

If South Korea decides to assist Ukraine with arms, it would have to violate its own ban on providing military aid to countries that are at war or have the law changed in its parliament. Chan told Business Insider that such a political objective would be extremely difficult given the dynamics in the national assembly.

“North Korea’s actions would have to present a clearer and more immediate threat to South Korea’s national security before we would expect the national assembly to authorize export of weapons to Ukraine,” he said.

South Korea has no desire to sabotage its diplomatic relationship with Russia beyond repair since Moscow is leading a BRICS-led shakeup of the world order. Such an occurrence could isolate the South in the region and augment the power of the North.

This Story originally came from humanevents.com

Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter

Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.

Current subscribers:

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
November 22, 2024
2 views

Utility Companies Are Not On Our Side

Authored by Linnea Leuken & H. Sterlin Burnett via RealClearPolitics,

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.

Dominion Energy is a good example, as they are one of the most aggressive movers on climate-focused policy. Dominion CEO Robert Blue speaks excitedly about government-forced transitions to a wind- and solar-dominated grid in interviews. During one interview with a renewable energy podcast, he said:

“[S]ometimes the government needs to focus on outcomes. We’re trying to address a climate crisis, and we are going to need to move quickly to do that.” In the same interview, he expressed enthusiasm about federal policy that would achieve a government-directed transition.

And why wouldn’t he? Dominion, like most utilities, is granted government tax credits and guarantees on returns for investing in large, expensive projects like offshore wind, the most expensive source of electric power. The bigger the project, the bigger the profit with guaranteed returns.

Also, onshore wind companies have received special “take limits” from the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill protected bald eagles and golden eagles, while prosecuting oil companies if birds are injured or killed on their sites.

Net zero policies are not the environmental panacea that climate change activists proclaim. Industrial-scale wind and solar use substantially more land than conventional energy resources, disrupting ecosystems and destroying wildlife habitats in the process.

And despite recent technological advances, wind and solar are still not dispatchable resources, meaning they cannot provide consistent power at all times needed. Refuting claims made by environmentalists and utilities that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electric power, costs have risen steeply as the use of wind and solar has increased. Customers of Duke Energy in Kentucky, for example, are paying 78% higher rates in the wake of coal-fired plant closings.

Politicians and utilities are pushing for even more electrification for appliances and vehicles despite the fact that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials have repeatedly warned in recent years that adding more demand for electric power while replacing reliable power sources with intermittent renewables is destabilizing the power system.

It appears that the utilities prioritize short-term profits over grid reliability or keeping costs reasonable – and the government officials who are supposed to keep them in check are only encouraging them. It doesn’t need to be this way. The U.S. grid was not always this way. Only in recent years, with the obsessive pursuit of net zero, have rolling black and brownouts become so common.

Today, utility companies are sending lobbyists to conservative policymakers in order to convince them that the utilities have our best interests in mind. Their track record tells another story. Meanwhile, Americans have less reliable electricity at higher costs.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org, X: @LinneaLueken) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/22/2024 – 06:30