Category: Asia-Pacific

Leaked ‘Five Eyes’ Intel Report: China Lied About the Coronavirus

China lied to the world about the human-to-human transmission of the virus, disappeared whistleblowers, and spread disinformation to deflect blame for the virus, a “Five Eyes” report found. The “Five…

China lied to the world about the human-to-human transmission of the virus, disappeared whistleblowers, and spread disinformation to deflect blame for the virus, a “Five Eyes” report found. The “Five Eyes” is an anglophone intelligence sharing organization between the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The report is the latest intelligence to cast light on Beijing’s cover-up and mismanagement of the pandemic. 

CENSORSHIP AND DISINFORMATION

China began censoring virus-related news on search engines and social media in late-December 2019, the report finds. This is consistent with a recent Citizen Lab study suggesting that the Chinese government deleted sentences containing the terms “New SARS,” “SARS variation,” “Wuhan Seafood market,” “shortness of breath,” and “Wuhan Unknown Pneumonia” among other 45 keywords that spiked on the Chinese internet in November. 



The report finds that China successfully pressured the European Union to water down its report on Beijing’s coronavirus disinformation. This claim is also consistent with recent reports that the EU amended its report on coronavirus disinformation to be less critical of Beijing after Chinese diplomats threatened to react. Three sources told Politico that the EU removed sentences referring to China’s orchestrated disinformation campaign to deflect blame for the pandemic. The European External Action Service had however denied the accusations.

The dossier is also critical of the World Health Organization (WHO), stating that it uncritically echoed the Chinese line about the lack of human-to-human transmission although “officials in Taiwan raised concerns as early as December 31, as did experts in Hong Kong on January 4.” This echoes the recent international criticism of the WHO for ignoring Taiwan and effusively praising China. The perceived Chinese influence within the WHO is also one of the reasons claimed by President Trump for his decision to cut funding for the organization. 

CORONAVIRUS ORIGIN: WUHAN

The origin of the virus is still under review but the widespread belief remains that the novel coronavirus originated in the form of an animal-human transmission from one of Wuhan’s wet markets. 

The United States increasingly believes that the virus is the result of an accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A senior U.S. intelligence source speaking to the press said around 70-75% of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies believe it came from a laboratory, but without a “smoking gun” they cannot reach consensus. 



AUSTRALIA AND CHINA IN WAR OF WORDS

It is no surprise that the report leaked in Australia, a country that had been recently threatened by China with a trade war. Beijing threatened to ban Australian products and boycott tourism after the Government in Cabera called for an international inquiry into the origin of the coronavirus. 


Cover photo; the P4 laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China’s Hubei province, April 17, 2020.HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on Leaked ‘Five Eyes’ Intel Report: China Lied About the Coronavirus

Kim Jong-Un: Chilling in Wonsan or Secretly Dead?

More and more reports about North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un’s deteriorating health are surfacing. U.S intelligence and recently South Korean and Japanese press have suggested that Kim Jong-Un (KJU) is…

More and more reports about North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un’s deteriorating health are surfacing. U.S intelligence and recently South Korean and Japanese press have suggested that Kim Jong-Un (KJU) is in critical condition after a failed emergency heart surgery in mid-April. China, North Korea’s main ally, has reportedly sent a medical team led by a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party’s International Liaison Department to check on KJU’s health. 

Standing at 5-foot-7 and weighing roughly 300 pounds, KJU is considered “severely obese.” He was last seen on April 11, when he presided over a party meeting and has reportedly visited a military airbase north of Pyongyang the next day. 

Bearing in mind that KJU disappeared from public life before, the rumors of his death should be taken with a grain of salt. In 2014 he was not seen for nearly six weeks, reportedly due to cyst removal surgery, before reappearing with a cane. 

What makes things different this time is that KJU missed the country’s most important holiday on April 15, the birthday of North Korea’s founder, Kim Il-Sen. 



ALIVE AND WELL IN WONSAN?

The South Korean Presidential Palace has been quick to dismiss the reports, claiming that KJU is “alive and well” and that he has been residing at his seacoast villa in Wonsan since April 13. 

Satellite imagery pulled by 38thNorth confirms that KJU’s train is indeed at the Leadership Railway Station in Wonsan, but it only arrived between April 15 and 21. 

The South Korean statements and the geospatial intelligence are consistent with other reports that the North Korean dictator has been out of the country’s capital Pyongyang for the past weeks. However, they do not clarify KJU’s health status or his whereabouts.   

 

NO CLEAR SUCCESSION PLAN

In the event of KJU’s death, the North Koreans would likely delay the official announcement until an heir to the throne is chosen. 

The lack of a clear successor is the main critical uncertainty that would result from KJU’s death.  This question is particularly worrisome, as the succession will determine who is in control of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, the arsenal of ballistic missiles, and other WMD programs. That person would also inherit one of the most repressive totalitarian regimes and a starving population caught in the middle of a pandemic. 

Photo of Kim Yo-Jong’s via Reuters

It is unknown whether KJU named a successor in the event of his demise, but the options considered in intelligence circles are the following:

  • His sister, Kim Yo-Jong. 
  • A general or a military junta with or without the support of the Korean Workers Party. 
  • A regency between Kim Yo-Jong and senior military heads backed by the Korean Workers Party. 

Any succession would be temporary until one of KJU’s two children will be old enough to take power. The continuation of the Kim dynasty (or Paektu bloodline) is critical for the survival of the regime in Pyongyang. 

MILITARY READINESS AT HISTORICAL HIGH

The United States, South Korean, and Japan fear that the death of KJU could cause the collapse of the regime and result in a vacuum of power with multiple factions fighting for power. North of the 38th parallel, the North Korean military, and the Korean Workers Party fear that any vacuum, even if temporary, would embolden their enemies to pray on the leaderless and mourning nation. 



The signs of anxiety on Pyongyang’s part are clear. The North Korean military readiness remains at a historical high, with the air force and artillery units showing an unusual increase in operations.

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on Kim Jong-Un: Chilling in Wonsan or Secretly Dead?

China’s Second Aircraft Carrier Enters Service

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has officially commissioned its first indigenously-built aircraft carrier, the “Shandong” (CV-17). The ceremony took place in Sanya (southern Hainan island), where open-source satellite imagery…

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has officially commissioned its first indigenously-built aircraft carrier, the “Shandong” (CV-17). The ceremony took place in Sanya (southern Hainan island), where open-source satellite imagery showed the Shandong docked since late-November. The ceremony was attended by Chinese President Xi Jiping and senior military officials. With its commissioning, the Shandong will significantly expand the PLAN’s sea interdiction capabilities in the South China Sea and throughout Asia-Pacific. 

The Shandong, which was previously designated as Type 001A and Type 002, becomes the second aircraft carrier operated by the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN). Since 2012, the PLAN operates the “Liaoning” (Type 001), a half-built Soviet aircraft-carrying cruiser completed by Chinese engineers in the late-1990s. Largely seen as a copy of the Soviet-designed Liaoning, China’s newest carrier is slightly bigger than its predecessor, which extends the Shandong’s air wing by four fighter jets/ eight helicopters. Both carriers us ski-jump ramps (CATOBAR) and are powered by conventional steam turbines with diesel generators. 



With the Shandong commissioned, China joins the U.S. and the U.K. as the third country to own a dual-carrier battle group. However, this is just the beginning for the PLAN. China plans to build four to five more aircraft carriers in the next decade. China’s third aircraft carrier (Type 003), which is expected to be nuclear-powered and have electromagnetic catapults, akin to the newest generation of American flattops, is already under construction in Shanghai.

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on China’s Second Aircraft Carrier Enters Service

North Korea Continues ICBM Refinement, Recent Test Suggests

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or “North Korea”) conducted a major test at the Sohae Satellite Launching Pad (SSLP), on December 7, 2019. Pyongyang has not revealed the…

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or “North Korea”) conducted a major test at the Sohae Satellite Launching Pad (SSLP), on December 7, 2019. Pyongyang has not revealed the nature of the test and only referred to it as “having an important impact on changing the strategic position of the DPRK.” The mysterious test took place ahead of the December 31st deadline set by DPRK President Kim Jong-Un, for a new denuclearization proposal from Washington.



MISSILE ENGINE TEST

Satellite imagery released by Planet Labs show nefarious activity at the SSLP, including vehicles and a big container. Before-and-after analysis shows the terrain near the launching pad severely scorched, on December 8, 2019. It is virtually certain the the exhaust of a big engine “burned” the ground. 


The engine tested likely belonged to either a space launch vehicle (SLV) or an intermediate/ intercontinental ballistic missile (IR/ICBM). North Korean President Kim Jong Un promised to stop ICBM tests if his American counterpart will reduce and ultimately cancel the annual US-South Korean exercises. The last ICBM test occurred in November 29, 2017, when the two-stage, liquid-fuel Hwasong-15/ KN-22 was successfully launched. Since then, the DPRK has only test-fired short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM) and multiple-rocket launchers – none of them being able to reach the continental U.S.

Hwasong-15/ KN-22 test-fired on November 29, 2017



The resumption of missile engine tests in Sohae would also break a “gentlemen’s agreement” reached between Trump and Kim Jong-Un during the Singapore summit. The DPRK dismantled the critical test site in mid-2018 as promised, however the SSLP was re-activated in March 2019. 

PYONGYANG IS ON STAND-BY

This latest test in Sohae suggests that the DPRK is furthering its ICBM strike technology covertly or within the limits of the denuclearization talks. Alternatively, Pyongyang could also be preparing to break loose of the agreement and conduct its first ICBM live-test in over two years. By restarting missile tests in Sohae, Pyongyang hopes to pressure President Trump into giving up further concessions, as the denuclearization talks are seemingly “dying”. If negotiations fail, the DPRK will be able to immediately resume its ICBM program by improving the operational functions of the Hwasong-15/ KN-22 (e.g. accuracy, terminal maneuvering, re-entry vehicle) or by exploring other ICBM-types.

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on North Korea Continues ICBM Refinement, Recent Test Suggests

China’s Newest Aircraft Carrier Docks in Hainan Following Taiwan Strait Pass

The People’s Liberation Army-Navy’ (PLAN) “Type-002” aircraft carrier (formerly known as “Type-001A”) has docked at Yu-lin Naval Base (southernmost tip of Hainan island) after it passed through the disputed Taiwan Strait,…

The People’s Liberation Army-Navy’ (PLAN) “Type-002” aircraft carrier (formerly known as “Type-001A”) has docked at Yu-lin Naval Base (southernmost tip of Hainan island) after it passed through the disputed Taiwan Strait, satellite imagery released by Maxar Technologies show. Seven J-15 carrier multirole fighters (NATO reporting name “Flanker X-2”), three Changhe Z-18 anti-submarine helicopters and one Harbin Z-9 “Haitun” utility helicopter are seen taxied on the deck. The deployment from its “birthplace” in Dalian Shipyard to the South China Sea marks a major milestone in the Type 002’s sea trails. The Type 002 was trailed by U.S. Navy and Japanese surface groups throughout its entire transit of the Taiwan strait. 

TYPE 001 & 002: INDIGENOUS PRODUCTION/ RESTRICTIVE DESIGN

The Type 002 is China’s first domestically-produced aircraft carrier despite being heavily inspired by the “Liaoning” (Type 001), the only flattop currently in service with the PLAN. The “Liaoning” started as a Soviet aircraft-carrier cruiser but was scrapped halfway through development. Following the dissolution of the USSR, the half-built vessel (named “Varyag”) fell under Ukraine’s administration which put it up for sale. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) bought the “Varyag” in 1998 and completed it in the Dalian shipyard. Ever since “Liaoning” was commissioned in 2012, the PRC was drafting plans to build more and better aircraft carriers.  

Both the Type-002 and the Liaoning feature a upward-curved ramp to launch fixed-wing aircraft off the bow (i.e. ski-jump). The lack of a catapult launch system limits the the PLAN’s J-15 fighters to a 4,000 pound payload (e.g. fuel, ordnance). In comparison, a U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F SuperHornet can take-off with 12,000 pounds from the USS Truman thanks to the carrier’s steam catapults. This translates into extended range and larger weapons loadout for the aircraft. The Type-001/Type-002’s ski-jumps also limits the amount and type of aircraft it can launch and recover. 

TYPE-003 

Aware of the Type-001/Type-002’s obsolete design, the PLAN will reportedly introduce electromagnetic launch and recovery systems (EMALS) into the Type-003, a technology pioneered by the U.S. Navy’s new class of supercarriers (Ford-class). China’s third (and second indigenously produced) aircraft carrier is currently under construction at Jiangnan shipyard outside Shanghai, satellite imagery shows. The Type-003 is expected to commence with sea trails in 2020 and will be able to accomodate a larger and more diverse carrier air wing. 

Given the high-intensity rate of Chinese naval production, the PLAN is on course to close the capability gap on the U.S. Navy. Command of the South China Sea is paramount to China’s transition from a regional force to a world power. Beijing expects to field four or five combat-ready aircraft carriers by 2030. 


FOR THE RECORD: The Chinese Shipbuilding Industry has started re-designating the Type-001A as Type-002 in mid-2019. According to this logic, the aircraft carrier currently in works near Shanghai becomes the Type-003.

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on China’s Newest Aircraft Carrier Docks in Hainan Following Taiwan Strait Pass

Taiwan Resumes F-16 Overhaul, Continues Procurement Program Despite Transition to Asymmetric Warfare Doctrine

The Republic of China (ROC or Taiwan) will proceed to overhaul its 142 F-16 A/B multi-role fighter jets. The modernization program “Phoenix Rising” was repeatedly delayed due to a shortage…

The Republic of China (ROC or Taiwan) will proceed to overhaul its 142 F-16 A/B multi-role fighter jets. The modernization program “Phoenix Rising” was repeatedly delayed due to a shortage in manpower at Taiwan’s Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC). Defense Minister Yen Teh-fa said that the problem was solved, after the AIDC hired 200 additional employees for the F-16 purpose-built facility in Taichung. Around 142 F-16 A/Bs of the Republic of China Air Force (RoCAF) will be upgraded to the latest F-16 Block 70/72 or “Viper” (V) configuration. Announced in 2016, the $5.3 billion “Phoenix Rising” overhaul program is expected to be completed by 2022.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPROVES F-16V SALE TO ROC

In addition, the Republic of China Air Force (RoCAF) will also receive 66 brand-new F-16 V fighter jets as part of a historical arms sale, which was authorized by the Trump administration in August 2019. Afraid to damage relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which views the ROC as a rogue province, the Bush and Obama administrations had previously refused the sale of modern F-16 jets to Taiwan. 

The Block 70/72 or Viper variant combines capability upgrades that render the F-16 relevant in today’s competitive age, while maintaining the jet’s cost-efficiency. The features include Norhrop Grumman’s AN/APG-53 scalable agile beam radar, an active electronically scanned radar, a Raytheon-built mission computer, the “Link16” datalink, an advanced cockpit display, an enhanced electronic warfare suite, and the integration of newer weapons systems. Following the upgrades and acquisition, the RoCAF’s F-16s will be able to fire the AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW), the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), and the AIM-9X Sidewinder infrared-guided air-to-air missile (AAM). The ROC expects to jets to be delivered between 2023 and 2026.

F-16 outfitted with a DB-110 ISR pod (rendering via Collins Aerospace)

According to local media, Taiwanese legislator Lu Yu-ling told parliament that the RoCAF is looking to acquire the UTC Aerospace Systems MS-110 multispectral airborne reconnaissance pod, which is a derivative of the company’s DB-110 dual-band long-range oblique photography pod. The MS-110 will provide the RoCAF with the capability to collect advanced imagery intelligence (IMINT) from a standoff range of 80 nautical miles, thus offering early-warning on potential enemy build-ups across the Taiwanese strait. 

Daytime visible image scan at 11 nautical miles from a Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft (Unclassified Crown Copyright). At a heigh of 6 nautical miles, the MS-110 pod can photograph and scan an area of 200 nautical miles across the horizon.

 

INTEGRATING THE “VIPER” INTO TAIWAN’S “OVERALL DEFENSE CONCEPT” 

While “Phoenix Rising” and the large F-16V procurment will enhance Taiwan’s deterrence posture, it will not change the balance of power in the region. Despite significant foreign purchases and idigenous developments, Taiwan’s military capabilities do not measure up to the People’s Liberation Army-Air Force’s (PLAAF) inventory of over 1,500 aircraft and China’s growing navy. To address this issue, Taiwan has adopted a new military doctrine based on asymmetric warfare. 

The “Overall Defense Concept” (ODC) calls for the wholesale mining of the Taiwan strait and the ROC shores as well as for targeting advancing enemy forces with a barrage of anti-ship/coastal defense missiles and swarms of small and fast-moving boats. By imposing great costs on an amphibious assault through affordable means, Taiwan would be preserving its conventional capabilities for joint operations, once the United States Navy comes to its rescue. If they survive the PLA’s and PLAAF’s anticipated missile barrage on Taiwanese airfields, the RoCAF’s F-16s would play air defense and anti-surface roles in a projected conflict. 

The ODC is part of the “resolute defense, multi-layered deterrence” strategy introduced by the Tsai administration. Beijing pursues an increasingly hardline policy against Taiwan, since the Tsai administration is unwilling to abide to the “One China” policy. The PRC is actively seeking to restrict Taiwan’s participation in the international community and engages in political warfare, aimed at undermining democracy in Taipei.

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on Taiwan Resumes F-16 Overhaul, Continues Procurement Program Despite Transition to Asymmetric Warfare Doctrine

Is Boeing’s AI-Powered Drone the Loyal Wingman of Tomorrow? The Aussies Think So.

Details on the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) “Loyal Wingman” project remain classified and sparse. During the project reveal in Melbourne (Australia) on February 27, 2019, drone-producer Boeing has nevertheless…

Details on the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) “Loyal Wingman” project remain classified and sparse. During the project reveal in Melbourne (Australia) on February 27, 2019, drone-producer Boeing has nevertheless disclosed some juicy bits of information. The “Loyal Wingman” drone, officially designated as “Airpower Teaming System” (AST), will spearhead electronic warfare (EW) and intelligence gathering sorties in contested or denied environments, which are deemed too dangerous for manned assets. 

With a performance range of 3,700 km (2,200 miles), the unmanned aerial vehicle’s (UAV) airframe will receive a low-observability coating that will significantly boost its survivability in sensor-rich and hostile airspaces. Besides stealth, the “Loyal Wingman” will provide another fifth generation avionic element, namely enhanced networking capability. Towards this objective, the drone is designed to network sensor data, air control, and targeting information with allied airframes such as Australia’s E-7 (airborne early warning and control aircraft), EA-18G Growler (electronic attack aircraft), F/A/-18E/F SuperHornet (fighter jet), and P-8 Poseidon (naval aviation maritime security patrol aircraft). In the future, the UAV will be able to network with other drones and the RAAF’s expanding fleet of F-35A Joint Strike Fighters. These features will allow the “Loyal Wingman” to become a force multiplier, while keeping Australia’s fighter pilots and small airfleet out of harm’s way. 

The technology behind the “Loyal Wingman’s” visionary features is Artificial Intelligence (AI). The RAAF’s “Project Jericho” employs AI technology in four key areas: combat cloud, advanced sensing, human-machine augmentation, and autonomous processing. On the battlefield of tomorrow, the RAAF expects that information will be too overwhelming for humans to process in a timely manner. Special purpose AI capabilities, including deep learning algorithms with cutting-edge processing speed, can mitigate this problem and optimize the individual-machine performance. In other words, the “Loyal Wingman” could drastically reduce the time in which a nearby pilot, ground station analyst, or political decision-maker receives key intelligence (and not only unprocessed information). This would provide unprecedented decision-making advantages and improved situational awareness.

AI augmentation could, however, go even further. Experts believe that the “Loyal Wingman” could use its deep learning processors and computing power to study the flight patterns, radar cross sections and combat maneuvers of adversarial aircraft and devise options to outmaneuver them. The UAV could also provide telemetry for intercepting enemy ordnance, using mathematical scheduling and estimation models, and link with other drones for swarming attacks. AI could therefore truly push the technology aboard the “Loyal Wingman” to the edge of fifth generation aerial combat. 

The “Loyal Wingman” is expected to embark on its maiden flight in 2020. The United States Air Force is pursuing a similar UAV project called “Skyborg,” which is expected to make its debut in 2023.


by HARM 

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on Is Boeing’s AI-Powered Drone the Loyal Wingman of Tomorrow? The Aussies Think So.

USS Chancellorsville Avoids Collision with Russian ‘Admiral Vinogradov’

On June 7, 2019 at 11:45 am, the Russian Navy Udaloy-class destroyer Admiral Vinogradov (DD572) made an unsafe maneuver against the Ticonderoga-class guided missile destroyer USS Chancellorsville (CG-62). The latter…

On June 7, 2019 at 11:45 am, the Russian Navy Udaloy-class destroyer Admiral Vinogradov (DD572) made an unsafe maneuver against the Ticonderoga-class guided missile destroyer USS Chancellorsville (CG-62). The latter was recovering its Seahawk helicopter on a steady course, when the Russian destroyer closed in at 50 to 100 feet. The USS Chancellorsville was forced to execute all engines back full and maneuver to avoid collision. The two vessels came so close that U.S. sailors were able to photograph their Russian counterparts sunbathing on the front deck. Moscow blamed the U.S. for the incident and claimed that it took place in the East China Sea.

Target (TGT) designates the incident location – 23°49’19.00 N 126°39’37.00E – aprox. 36 km north of the P-8 aircraft (ACFT).

However, imagery released by a U.S. P-8 Poseidon maritime security and anti-submarine aircraft shows that the Russian destroyer was pushing towards the Chancellorsville, while the U.S. vessel was dropping speed. Furthermore, GPS coordinates from the P-8’s infrared search and track camera show both the aircraft (ACFT) and the two vessels (TRT) maneuvering in the Philippine Sea, as confirmed by the U.S. Seventh Fleet.

Photo taken by the P-8 Poseidon aircraft via U.S. Navy

The combined presence of the USS Chancellorsville and P-8 Poseidon as well as the deployment of a Seahawk during the incident indicate that the assets were on anti-submarine duty in support of the Pacific Fleet’s Carrier Strike Group Five. Given this situation, it is highly likely that the Russians approached the USS Chancellorsville to conduct a close inspection of weapons system loadout. The American destroyer is equipped with the latest Aegis air defense suite (i.e. Baseline Nine, SM-6 etc.), engagement and sensor fusion technology (i.e. Cooperative Engagement Capability/NEC, Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air/ NIFC-CA) that enables beyond visual range engagement at classified ranges. The USS Chancellorsville also carries the Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile (TALM) and the latest block-version of the Harpoon anti-ship missile.

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on USS Chancellorsville Avoids Collision with Russian ‘Admiral Vinogradov’

NATO in Asia-Pacific: Temporary Deterrence or Forward Thinking?

Urgent Briefing – The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has conducted a diplomatic tour to visit the two regional allies in Asia-Pacific, namely Japan and the Republic…

Urgent Briefing – The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has conducted a diplomatic tour to visit the two regional allies in Asia-Pacific, namely Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK, ‘South Korea’). This raised a legitimate debate regarding NATO’s prospects in a region so far away from the Euro-Atlantic realm.

 

Visits to South Korea and Japan

Jens Stoltenberg arrived on October 30, 2017 in Tokyo for a three-day visit. Appointed in 2015 as Secretary General, this was his first tour in Asia-Pacific, throughout which he reinforced the Alliance’s partnership with Japan and South Korea. Having talked with the Japanese Defense Minister, the two agreed on the potential to expand cooperation in the areas of maritime security and cyber defense, additionally to the substantial efforts already undergone. On November 1st, he traveled to South Korea for a two-day trip to meet with the Foreign Minister, and to address the North Korean threat. He made bold comments about this issue, condemning Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic programs; Stoltenberg referred to them as a threat to ‘international and regional security’, calling on Kim Jong-Un to abandon this pursuit.

 

NATO’s Asia-Pacific policy

Sine the conclusion of the Cold War, the Alliance created a wide range of partnership options through which it pursued fostering good relations with states across the globe. The largest such framework is Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), a 50-nation multilateral forum that encompass diverse actors, from Russia, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Ukraine, to Austria or Armenia. The Mediterranean Dialogue is eligible for states situated in Northern Africa or the Levant, as the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) welcomes several Gulf states as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Additional to these frameworks, there are individual options that are loosely referred to as ‘Partners across the Globe’, and provides interested peers with tailored diplomatic protocols that facilitates a closer engagement to NATO. Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) are one of those states. And following Washington’s model, they are NATO’s key partners in shaping an Asia-Pacific policy. Evidently, the United States has a leading role in applying and conceptualizing such a policy, but the other 28 states also have a decisive input. It is widely known that NATO has a history of conducting operations and crafting strategies in rapport with issues and regions outside the Euro-Atlantic space in the post-Cold War era. Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean, Bab-el-Mandeb strait), ISAF (Afghanistan) or Iraq Training Mission have cemented the Alliance’s outlook towards the external space amid the 21st century security environment and emerging threats. The 2010 Lisbon Summit formally marked this transition by adding Crisis Management and Cooperative Security to NATO’s core values, in addition to the original task of Collective Defense. The 2010 New Strategic Concept is relevant in application to all issues and challenges, while keeping the focus on cooperative efforts with regional peers.

There has been no official military presence in the waters of Asia-Pacific before, nor substantial diplomatic effort in the region under a NATO framework. This marks Stoltenberg’s tour as a milestone in the Alliance’s ‘coming-of-age’ towards the region. The visits to Japan and South Korea can be regarded as a natural sign of solidarity towards NATO’s biggest financial contributor and strongest member, the United States. And that extensively, the effort was an additional deterrence tool in applying pressure towards the North Koreans.

 

North Korea: a global problem

In a speech held at the National Press Club in Tokyo, October 31st, Jens Stoltenberg outlined the ‘new geography of danger’ emphasizing the global dimension of the North Korea threat and the necessity for a united, potentially stronger front, against Kim Jong-Un regime. Mr. Stoltenberg called on Pyongyang to “abandon its nuclear program once and for all”; to “suspend the development of ballistic missiles”; and to “refrain from further testing”. He also reiterated that “NATO strongly supports a peaceful, negotiated solution to the crisis on the Korean Peninsula.” He also added that “achieve this, pressure is key”, before acknowledging that Japan is NATO’s “natural partner”. (read the entire speech here, as delivered)

Asked whether an North Korean attack on the island of Guam, a US territory, would trigger Article 5, he refused to respond. However, he did mention that NATO’s European Defense system is ready to counter any possible ballistic missile launched from the Korean peninsula.

 

Key Judgements

NATO is right to have concerns regarding the North Korean problem. The passive and impotent efforts throughout the past three decades have allowed the totalitarian regime from Pyongyang to develop nuclear weapons, and now, even sophisticated means of transporting them towards enemy targets. The strike range of those ballistic missile do not only extend towards California, Alaska or some Pacific islands, but also over Europe. NATO’s concerns are legitimate and worthy of being shared at the strategic level by all 29 members. While the diplomatic tour in Japan and South Korea can well be accounted as a pressure force towards North Korea, and as a solidarity gesture towards the United States, there is the potential for more than just an episodic touch. Given the rise of China in the international stage and the risks it poses for global trade and regional stability, notably given the standoff in the South China Sea, it’s fair to assume that NATO is considering widening its projection. Benefiting from predictable and strategic partnerships with capable actors in the region, namely Australia, New Zeeland, Japan and South Korea, and its utmost important member in the driving seat, the United States, NATO holds the incentives for a long-term game in respect with the Asia-Pacific theater.


Briefing is a short-to-medium assessment that presents a sharp overview of a recently occurring event with the objective of providing timely information with additional comments, rather than a comprehensive in-depth analysis. Such a paper does not regularly exceed 1,100 words. 

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on NATO in Asia-Pacific: Temporary Deterrence or Forward Thinking?

Enhanced Pressure on North Korea: Clock is Ticking

Situation Report – Tensions between North Korea and the United States have reached a new boiling point in the past days. Uncertainty and hostilities have been spiked by the newest…

Situation Report – Tensions between North Korea and the United States have reached a new boiling point in the past days. Uncertainty and hostilities have been spiked by the newest statements and by an analysis composed by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon’s intelligence service that indicate that Pyongyang is now capable to fully miniaturize the nuclear weapon in order to be mounted as a missile’s warhead. A similar conclusion has been reached by the Japanese as well. Furthermore, U.S. officials believe that North Korea now holds a stockpile of 60 nukes, more than previously estimated, while other independent experts believe the number is lower, but between 30-60.  Additional reports state that the CIA and the other intelligence agencies of the U.S. agree with the DIA’s assessment.

Over these infinitely tense environment, Pyongyang also issued a plan to fire an ICBM containing a war head into Guam, a U.S. island in the Pacific ocean and near the Sea of Philippines, of which trajectory will violate Japanese airspace. It is now clear that the ‘clock’ has reached an unprecedented moment, when North Korea not only has nuclear weapons but also holds that capacity necessary to deliver them against military targets, hence the rising deterrent factor that it applies.

It’s unclear what kind of missiles is the DIA report referring too, but if it can fit on the following missiles: Hwasong-14 (KN-20) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), Hwasong-12 (KN-17) intermediate-range ballistic missile, or Pukkuksong series (KN-11 or KN-15), then North Korea has indeed the operational readiness and technological know-how to strike South Korea, Japan and parts of the United States. The Hwasong-14 (KN-20)  ICBM for example, has been tested twice this year in July, following a new wave of high tensions that are better described for that context in this past analysis, including the Chinese pivot, hypothetical regime change and the military option.

In March 2017, Secretary of States Rex Tillerson announced the ‘end of strategic patience’, a North Korea policy followed by past Presidents attempting to cope with the North Korean issue, and instead adopted an ‘Enhance Pressure’ approach. The past strategy was founded on the belief that if enough pressure and isolation is applied, North Korea will eventually come to the negotiations table, in a way that worked, in theory for now, with Iran. The decades-long strategic patience instead resulted in a gradual increase of military capabilities, nuclear developments and missile tests that have paramounted in a functional cache of ICBMs and a significant stockpile of nukes. The perpetual bellicose attitude of Kim Jong-Un and his efforts driven to secure his throne also stirred anxiety at Beijing who were prospecting the idea of a regime change while not interrupting the dynasty, hence the assassination of Kim-Jong Nam by North Korean intelligence in Malaysia.

 

Enhanced Pressure

The new enhanced pressure approach is currently unclear and blurred, being still in application and sheltered under the fog of public vs. backchannel diplomacy. For now, it seems that the unprecedented increase in hostile declarations against Pyongyang has not deterred it from trying to pursue nuclear weapons and ballistics missile technology. It did however, secure China’s public disapproval of the Kim Jong-Un regime, even though that could be circumstantial given their separate bilateral dynamic and how that evolved since Jong-Un took power. Strategic Patience has become obsolete and even an anachronism.

The strategic environment has changed, shifting from a nuclear-aspiring North Korea to a nuclear armed and ICBM-ready one, capable of deterring its enemies. The U.S. is needed and willing to strike first in order to avoid letting itself vulnerable to the whims of a rogue nuclear state. And while diplomacy is still the first option, ‘Enhanced Pressure’ might be the last chapter in negotiations before bringing the military options upfront. 

This new dimension of American power projection towards the Korean Peninsula was needed, which as many other geopolitical disputes, are inter-winded with several other factors and inputs. Notably China, Russia or the Asia-Pacific order. ‘Enhanced pressure’ also implies, publicly made by Rex Tillerson, that all options are on the table, followed by President Trump’s ‘fire and furry’ comments and complemented by Secretary of Defense James Mattis declarations about the military options being prepared. The situations seems tense and critical, however, when speaking of the North Korea issue, hostile declarations or increased media coverage could easily fuel false and periodical alarmism which amounts to nothing. This is an occurring tendency for years, that could very well prove to be case now as well. However, given the new, earlier-argued context, there are reasons to believe this situation is different.

Even from the earlier boiling point in March 2017:

  • China has moved thousands of troops on the border city of Dandong,
  • Russia has also closed its airspace in March, in southern Prymorskyie Oblast and around Vladivostok by moving S-300s in the area. Now, the Kremlin put their air defense infrastructure on high alert,
  • while the U.S. increased its naval presence in the water around South Korea and Japan, while also equipping its regional allies with THAAD and Patriot (PAC-3) missile defense systems. THAAD guards Seoul from the border while reports suggest that the Japanese owned PAC-3’s have been detached in Hiroshima, Shimane and Kochi, shielding Tokyo from a feared course change.

The two traditional U.S. allies are firmly against a preemptive campaign that has been rumored for the past months, since it would be impossible to stop all the small arms fire, rogue missile or rockets fired in Japan or South Korea. As James Mattis presented, such an options would imply a massive shelling of Seoul and the border area, that would cost thousands of allied lives. A war with North Korea is unwanted given the consequences and after effects it will produce, but it may become a reality, if theoretical, that is the next step after ‘Enhanced Pressure’ fails – if it does. Accordingly, a military campaign against North Korea’s nuclear program, which would be the best and more limited scenario, is more difficult than most think. Pyongyong’s key facilities are spread to all over the country and are protected by significant coastal early-warning systems (be they outdated and rudimentary) that could buy enough time for North Korea to do enough harm to its neighbors.

Therefore, an escalating path to to war has several potential weaknesses for American strategy: allied disapproval. Notably, South Korea could be so desperate in avoiding a war that it could accept to rollback U.S. presence in the peninsula, appeasing their northern neighbors and their interests. While appeasement is a proven strategy for failure and would actually fuel expansionist prospects, it may be an mirage-option for Seoul. Therefor Washington needs to play this card very close to the chest, striking a balance between deterring North Korea and not alarming the South.

L.E: Just one day after writing this assessment, President Moon Jae-In of South Korea issued a statement saying: ‘There will be no war repeated on the Korean Peninsula […] Military action against North Korea should be decided by ourselves and not by anyone else‘, further confirming our hypothesis that Seoul could block or temper US pressure on North Korea, if it considers that the situation reaches a critical boiling point.

Open in ‘view image’ for a larger picture.

Camouflaged Negotiations: Threats, Statements and Remarks

Transylvania Intelligence recommends that the recent bellicose rhetoric between the U.S. and North Korea is actually a prelude to negotiations and not to war. If in March, Rex Tillerson stated that there will be no negotiations for the nuclear weapons, now he expressed openness for dialogue with Pyongyang if its halts missile tests. North Korea responded by saying that nukes are off the negotiations table, the United States needs to leave the Korean peninsula. Both actors publicly presented their interests: U.S. wants to de-nuclearize the peninsula, North Korea wants the American presence there gone or reduced to a sterile level. Convergence is very little if none at all, the situation is too black and white to find a middle ground. And that is exactly why they are now leveraging each other. General Kim Rak Gyom, chief of the Strategic Forces of North Korea presented on live television the fly path of Hwasong-2 rockets that sees the bogeys crossing through Japanese airspace and landing in the waters of Guam, a Pacific territory that hosts a strategic U.S. base. It is obvious that no country would publish its ‘going-to-war’ moment before it does, especially when only 50% of ICBM tests have been successful. This is actually Pyongyang’s way of deterring the United States, showing that it now has leverage through striking capability, informing their counterparts that the stakes have changed and that they are not the only ones holding a joker card. While the overall sentiment is that Pyongyong is bluffing with its Guam threat.

L.E: The next day after writing this assessment, state news agency KNSA reported that Kim Jong-Un reviewed plans to fire a ICBM towards Guam but has now decided to post-pone the decision, awaiting Washington’s move. This also confirms our judgement that the Guam threat was a useful bluff for providing additional leverage in the negotiations.

As of now, the United States does not have enough assets in the Korean Peninsula to fight an all out war with North Korea, it does have, however, strategic bombers in place capable of conducting preemptive sorties, recon and sabotage ops. While there are still enough ways to build-up forces in South Korea and Japan capable of going unnoticed by the press or observers, there would still be several weeks needed for a march towards a conventional conflict that would involve the overthrow of a government, securing nukes, dog fights, naval warfare (including aircraft escorts, counter-submarine ops), neutralizing enemy forces and occupying the country through massive numbers of U.S. Army assets and personnel.

Anxious and nervous of the verbal war drums of the dispute, China and Russia have presented Tuesday a plan for de-escalating the tensions. They suggest that Pyongyang declare a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests while the United States and South Korea refrain from large-scale military exercises. This way, North Korea does not continue to enhance its nuclear and ICBM features while the United States would not conduct a build-up of forces in the South Korea under the disguise of military drills. There are enough reasons to doubt the reason and prospects of this proposal. For one, there is no guaranteeing body or force that could oversee a halt in North Korea’s nuclear program, nor is it feasible anymore, the nukes are produced, some ICBMs work, this is not an Iraqi or Iran situation where this late-stage can be prevented – what’s done it’s done. Chinese and Russian interests, although weakened and compromised by Kim Jung Un’s way of leading the country, still uplift the containment of Washington in Asia-Pacific as their utmost strategic aim.

Even though many argue that a fragile management of nuclear North Korea should be the option of choice, being the lesser evil of the other scarier methods, Transylvania Intelligence considers that the volatile, unprecedented nature of an ICBM-ready and nuke-rich North Korea is too unpredictable and hostile to sleep safely at night for decision makers at Washington. While I do not consider that the Kim regime is irrational or ‘crazy’, there is a precedent and history of rogue states going out of their way in face of enhanced pressure and anxiety in order to secure their survival.

However, America’s first options continues to be the diplomatic one, motioned by Rex Tillerson and Nikkey Halley that work around the clock behind the international stage’s curtain to negotiate a deal. A key would be bypassing Chinese mediation between the two and actually be able to establish a direct line of communication, something that Beijing might be opposed to, dully because that would cut China’s importance in the diplomatic dialogue and ignore it’s power-broker role in the region. And while diplomacy is in motion, Joint Chief of Staff General Joseph Dunford recently met with South Korean President in order to discuss military coordination and strategic issues in regards to this threat. It’s safe to assume, that contingency plans are planned and negotiated as never before, hence the after statement of ‘military action is our last resort’.

 

Contingency plans

If everything fails, then it’s better to attack now than later. Time is not on Washington’s side. Every missile test, every ICBM production or uranium enrichment means more nukes, better capabilities and an overall tougher North Korean defense posture.  And while China continues to re-assert itself as being the bridge between Pyongyang and the intentional community, the bilateral interaction with the U.S. is complex and ambivalent, crafted by other inputs as their competitive nature in international affairs, Asia-Pacific geopolitics, and some rare episodic convergences. Regardless of perception, the North Korea regime acts from a rational motivation: ready-to-launch nukes secure the continuity of the regime and therefor, deter outside attacks. Washington may now be opened for clear negotiations but this position is fragile. An over aggressive misstep from Pyongyang, as enforcing their Guam threat,  would put the Trump administration in a very though spot, prompting it to reinforce its red line. However, we should also bear in mind that preemptive action could actually be synonym to preventive war, there is not guarantee that targeted strikes on nuke sites would reduce a hypothetical conflict to just a limited campaign.

This is not a time for missteps and anxious moves. Another War in Korea would be the battle of a generation of Americans and a first when two nuclear powers engage in direct combat; the lack of historical precedent is enough to make anyone feel nervous, even if, pragmatically thinking, the option would be preferable now then later. The level of urgency has obviously spiked, and time should be judged as a resource for all strategic thinkers observing these events unfold.

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:
No Comments on Enhanced Pressure on North Korea: Clock is Ticking

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search