"Bomber diplomacy" and Other Air Operations

(Shin In Kyun Defense Daily 1.28) Gradually increasing Russian bomber force display. Sin In Kyun graphic shows the recent Russian out of area bomber flights in the news lately.

A Bear bomber, an old Tu-95, approached Alaska on Sep. 12. Blackjack, Tu-160, bombers approached UK airspace twice during a period from September to October, 2018, in response to large NATO exercises in Europe. A section of Blackjack strategic bombers visited Venezuela on Dec 10. Su 24 Fencers flew near Japan on Jan 16, and the last is the Blackjack pair approaching Canada on the 26th of Jan. The title for Shin's program was Russia attack aircraft diplomacy- Putin pulls together disorderly countries. They would be China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Iran, in Shin's view.

In a relatively recent program, Channel A News Top Ten, reported the movement of a squadron of Backfire, Tu-22M, bombers to a base in the Vladivostock area. These aircraft were said to be upgraded with the capability to carry new long range air to surface missiles which would increase the threat they pose, especially to naval forces.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 1.28)

This Channel A Top Ten News graphic shows the airbases marked in orange which participated in the winter military exercises of the North Korean armed forces. The yellow area is the estimated area for tactical ballistic missile bases. Just south of that region is the Hwangju air base where Mig 23s are deployed. Furthest south and closest to the DMZ is a helicopter base in Heju. Further east and closest to the maritime peace zone negotiated between the DPRK and South Korea on the West Sea coast, are two Mig 19 bases, Gwa Il (north), and Tetan (south). The Blue marker designates the Sakganmol missile base in the news not too long ago.

The Mig 23s carried out unusual nighttime operations in December, considered risky and expensive for the North. The Top Ten analysts speculated concerning why the North would operate aircraft at night which is "unprecedented" for them. They also remarked on the precious fuel situation in the north due to sanctions.

The Mig bases are considered a threat to the Northwest islands inside the maritime peace zone. The aircraft are antiquated daylight combat aircraft. The South Korean Joint Chiefs said the military operations of the aircraft in the winter exercises did not violate the military agreements between the two Korean states (establishing no fly zones near the MDL/DMZ). The Top Ten program suggested that the movements in the North were perhaps a response to South Korean military exercises, and possibly the South Korean F-35 acquistion program.

(Source- Aircraftspots on twitter 1.28)

https://twitter.com/aircraftspots?lang=en


A B52 flight was reported by aircraft spots on twitter January 28. Shin In Kyun hasn't reported this yet. Aircraft spots had another movement within the past several days at Yokota, Japan, on January 26, a C-32 aircraft that Shin reported on January 29's Defense Daily program. Shin also reported a pattern of heavy lift aircraft traffic at Yokota, which he suggested indicated training readiness for civilian evacuations. He said the traffic was associated with preparations for the second summit, "Plan A," which if unsuccessful, ostensibly, could eventuate in implementation of Plan B. One wonders where he gets the Yokota information.

(Source- Shin In Kyun Defense Daily 01.29) Chart depicts recent Yokota air base activity of interest, during the period January 22-28 (left column), type aircraft (second column from left) and flight origin (third column), flight origin for heavy lift aircraft, C5, and C17s, are US bases, collected and published by Shin In Kyun.

The CV 22 training was evidence of decapitation mission preparation according to Shin. At the end he tries to characterize Plan B, as the military option lending greater weight to the invitation to negotiate in advance of a planned US-DPRK summit meeting.

(Source- Shin In Kyun Defense Daily 01.29)


The left depicts the C-32 which allegedly moves a special command aircraft for use in emergency or contingency situations to evacuate civilians according to Shin In Kyun; the middle represents the CV-22 Osprey night flying exercises, and the picture on the right reflects preparations of Japanese Self Defense Forces to do what exactly? The graphic says prepare practical use of Japanese assets. So on the one hand in red, no less, Trump's finger indicates negotiations and the other hand, in blue, indicates decapitation, a term President Moon of South Korea, has ordered his Defense Ministry to no longer use.

Update: Shin In Kyun appeared on the Channel A News Top Ten program on January 30 and covered the number 8 story on the C-32 arrival at Yokota. Osprey activities there were also reported. There was no mention of the B-52 report from aircraftspots on twitter. Nor were the activities of any large military airlift aircraft at Yokota reported. The latest issue of The Diplomat confirms the aircraftspots report:

The two bombers departed from Guam for their mission over East China Sea on January 28 and were refueled mid-air by a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/us-air-force-flies-2-b-52h-bombers-over-east-china-sea/

Shin uploaded a Daily Defense podcast to youtube dated Jan. 30, with his analysis of the B-52 flight.

Japanese Maritime Patrol Incidents- Part II

(Source - JTBC News 01.23.19)

JTBC news reporting, January 23, stated that the Japanese patrol aircraft in the incidents on January 22, and 23 were P-3s rather than P-1s. This report describes the last incident on the 23rd as occurring 131 km south of Socotra rocks. The incident the day before was 96 km south of Cheju Island, and a third incident was southeast of Eulsan in the East Sea. The initial incident on December 20 is shown in the Sea of Japan/ East Sea in the region of Dokto or Liancourt Rocks.

(Source - JTBC News 01.23.19) Graphics display the relative movements of Japanese maritime patrol aircraft and the South Korean naval vessels being approached on December 20 and January 23, respectively.

(Source - JTBC News 01.23.19) This graphic adds a depiction of the closest approaches to the South Korean vessels with altitude, both in meters.

This JTBC report reported the military related sources they contacted in connection with the story said this is definitely an intelligence collection effort by the Japanese. There is no need to close to such a short range from the surveillance target. Sufficient identifying information could be obtained from much further away. One maritime patrol pilot said the Japanese video from the P-1 in the December 20 incident showed its low altitude flight approach interfering in the rescue effort by the South Korean naval ship working to save a North Korean fishing crew from a disabled vessel.

In the subsequent January incidents of irregular and hazardous approaches, it appears the Japanese may have been trying to collect the radar frequencies that they couldn't produce at the talks they walked out on January 21 concerning the dispute over the December 20 encounter. The South Korean side said the Japanese hadn't provided the technical electronic evidence to support their contentions about the December 20 incident. This suggests that if the objective of the Japanese is not simply a political one of demonstrating dissatisfaction with their relationship with South Korea, they were trying to get the South Korean naval vessels to light up the fire control radars. Hankyoreh reported that the Japanese didn't even bring a radar expert with them to the talks that ended in stalemate on the 21st:

Tokyo appears to have determined it lacks the evidence to refute Seoul’s position.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/879415.html

Coincidentally, the Japanese have borrowed the expression "Korexit" in the attempt by the former colonial ruler of Korea to gain more control over the policies of the "left leaning" democracy of South Korea. Previously, the expression was used to criticize the Park administration's uninspiring economic record, now it is a criticism of South Korea's foreign policy:

Beijing could gain and Washington lose if feuding persists between U.S. allies Japan and South Korea, a foreign policy adviser to Japan’s premier said on Thursday after the latest row involving a Japanese patrol plane and South Korean warship.

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1PI0HD

One JTBC reporter who covered the Korean Ministry of Defense statement on the encounters at sea with Japanese aircraft, was asked what is the next step in taking appropriate measures in event of further menacing flight maneuvers by Japanese maritime patrol aircraft. He replied that if an aircraft engaging in provocative maneuvers is unresponsive to communications from the South Korean navy, that after an appropriate warning from the surface vessel to the Japanese aircraft, warning shots could be fired.

South Korea Protests Repeated Naval Encounters with Japanese P-1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 01.23.19) Patrol aircraft menacing flight near South Korean naval vessel. Japanese patrol aircraft emerges by Yieodo (Socotra Rock) 176 km southsouthwest of Cheju Island.

Today, January 23rd, at 2:03 pm local a Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force aircraft approached a ROK Navy vessel, DDH 977 at very low altitude, estimated to be from 60 to 70 meters AGL, and passed at a distance of 540 meters according to a general officer speaking for the South Korean Ministry of National Defense. The encounter between the naval forces was reported to have taken place near Socotra Rock, a submerged rock shoal, south of Cheju Island. This is the fourth such incident reported according to the Channel A News Top Ten program. The first such incident occurred near the Korean island of Dokdo in the Sea of Japan/ East Sea on December 20, 2018.

In the December 20 incident the Japanese complained that the Korean naval vessel had "locked up" the Japanese P-1 in that encounter with a fire control radar. The Koreans claim no electronic data has been provided by the Japanese government proving there was a fire control solution on the aircraft, but rather the search function was being used to locate a North Korean vessel in distress. Similar low flying aircraft encounters were said to have occurred on January 18, and January 22, 2019 in this Channel A News coverage. According to South China Morning Post, there have been three of these low altitude flights by Japan in the last week.

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/diplomacy/article/2183360/south-korea-warns-retaliation-against-japans-provocative-flights

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 01.23.19) ROK Ministry of National Defense, JCS, Joint Operations Commander, General Seo Ook. "We have no doubt that a clearly provocative act was carried out by Japan toward a friendly nation's naval vessel and strongly condemn that action."

General Seo speaking for the Defense Ministry said, "Even though we have requested Japan to take preventative measures" to keep this from happening again, a low menacing approach was taken toward a friendly naval vessel in a clearly provocative manner. Further, "If this happens again, our military will respond strongly according to our military code for responsive measures."

Channel A News Top Ten analysts referred to the Japanese maneuvers as a "game of chicken." They speculated that it appeared as a result of North Korean and Chinese security challenges, the strengthening military position of Japan with allied powers such as the US, UK, France, and Australia, makes Japan secure in its position and leaves South Korea relatively isolated. Japan's maritime and territorial issues pending with China and Russia, US rivals, left Korea to deal with Japanese actions and claims on their own. The Channel A analysts wondered if these incidents were an indication of Japanese intent to continue with its provocative and hazardous maritime patrol maneuvers.

Will the US Really Withdraw Troops from South Korea?

(Source- Shin In Kyun Defense Daily 01.08.19) Title Crisis in the US-ROK alliance. Getting Ready to toss out South Korea?


Following up on the previous post about the stalemated negotiations between South Korea and the US about defense cost sharing, the far right in South Korea is now raising the prospect of the US withdrawing the only armored brigade USFK has from Korea in July at the time of its scheduled rotation. The armored brigade, according to former South Korean General Shin Won Shik, is the core of ground combat force in the US Forces Korea.

Moreover, if the President makes a decision, 6,000 of the 28,000 US troops currently in Korea can be reduced immediately. Most US forces in Korea consist of combat support units such as command and administration, aircraft and artillery, and the combat unit is only one armored brigade of the 2nd division. If the next unit of the armored brigade scheduled to be replaced in July of this year does not arrive during its scheduled rotation, the absence of the one ground combat unit, the so-called "trip wire" of the US battle command, becomes an unheard of situation in the USFK.

http://www.chogabje.com/board/column/view.asp?C_IDX=81281&C_CC=BC (original source TongA Ilbo, 01.07)

This and other characterizations by Shin are somewhat hyperbolic.

While General Shin and others propagating his views seem to find fault fault with Moon Jae In's administration for failing to reach a new agreement with the US on defense cost sharing, they seem to suggest that South Korea has no alternative other than a catastrophic failure of the alliance, if they don't pay up. General Shin seems to recognize Trump's misplaced America first orientation and his treatment of military affairs as a business, referencing the departures of Generals Mattis and Kelly. Nevertheless, as a practical matter he seems to place all the responsibility on this state of affairs on President Moon. (Looking over the links prompted by a search for his opinions in google, he faults President Moon for just about everything.) General Shin says President Moon has poured "fuel on the fire" by acting as a mediator for North Korea, getting ahead of the US, and making military agreements with North Korea concerning the disposition and use of conventional forces, which make South Korea "more vulnerable."

General Shin reminds readers of the failure of the US to come to the aid of South Vietnam after it signed an agreement to withdraw its forces in 1973. Shin suggested that it's even less likely that the US would come to the aid of South Korea after it withdraws forces from South Korea. This apocalyptic vision appears to be a bit much. However, the risk of harming the alliance is possible, if responsible leaders don't come forward and make the case for the South Korea, fiscally, in the US-South Korean alliance as did David Maxwell, in his recent opinion in The Hill.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/423756-a-looming-threat-to-the-us-south-korea-alliance

General Shin, doesn't reference the fiscal numbers cited by David Maxwell, that clearly show that for short sighted and ill founded political purposes, Trump is exploiting the situation of an ally who is paying more for its defense proportionally than any other other ally the US has.

Shin In Kyun, the South Korean military analyst (no apparent relation to General Shin, he says they are friendly), dismisses the huge costs of the USFK move to Camp Humphreys, and says that this is something that the South Korean government negotiated and is unrelated to an appropriate consideration of shared costs. Shin In Kyun simply avoids the GDP percentage argument raised by David Maxwell, because it doesn't fit his bias in favor of the US and Japan. He also states that South Korea faces a higher threat level than Japan, which is questionable, and that South Korea makes no contribution to the US side of the alliance, as if the US gains no strategic benefit whatsoever from its only military position on the mainland in northeast Asia.

Shin in his National Defense podcasts on this subject completely disregards the purchases of US military hardware made by South Korea over the years while emphasizing those of Japan. Japan's GDP is more than three times greater than South Korea's yet they only spend somewhat more than twice what South Korea spends on US troop basing costs at roughly the same percentage, 50 percent for Japan, 46 percent for Korea. Japan has nearly twice as many US troops present 54,000 to 28,500 quartered in Korea. Japan only spends one percent of its GDP on defense, while South Korea spends 2.7 percent. The percentage of government budget devoted to defense spending in South Korea is much higher than that in Japan. These differences in resource allocation can be explained by the respective historical experiences of each country in the wars of the twentieth century. Trump's attempt to shift all costs of the US troops on the peninsula entirely to South Korea is extremely unfair and strategically unsound. The positions of the General Shin and analyst Shin on the defense cost sharing negotiations between the US and South Korea are unsupported by the facts and reflect an effort to weaken and discredit the Moon administration at any cost.

South Korean Defense Spending 2.7 Percent of GDP Highest of US Allies

An article in The Hill written by David Maxwell, published January 4, shows how much the South Koreans contribute to their own defense and how much they have contributed in cash and in kind to the US-ROK alliance in recent years in contrast to the false characterizations by President Trump during his campaign and administration:

The alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States may be about to go off the rails. Two critical events occurred in December 2018 that do not bode well for the future of this crucial alliance. First, talks between the ROK and U.S. governments collapsed without reaching a new Special Measures Agreement (SMA) to fund U.S. troops on the Peninsula before the current deal expired on December 31...


...Trump seems not to recognize that the ROK makes significant contributions to its own defense. In 2017, 2.7 percent of its GDP went to defense — a higher percentage than any member of NATO except the U.S. Furthermore, the ROK’s 2018 defense budget increased by 9.9 pecent, or $40 billion, the largest in history. It has an active force of 625,000 troops with 28,000 Americans stationed in South Korea. Under the current SMA, the ROK covers half of the roughly $1.6 billion basing cost for American troops, but according to reports, Trump wants Seoul to pay 100 percent.

Yet South Korea already covers more than just annual basing costs. The recently expanded Camp Humphreys is now the largest U.S. military base outside of the continental U.S. It cost some $10.7 billion and the ROK provided 90 percent of the funds. The ROK government also agreed to a renegotiated Korea-U.S Free Trade Agreement, in response to pressure from Trump. Finally, from 2012 through 2016 the ROK purchased $19.8 billion in U.S. military equipment through Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/423756-a-looming-threat-to-the-us-south-korea-alliance

One can't help but get the impression that South Korea is being bullied by the US administration in light of the facts. Perhaps it will cause damage to the alliance as suggested by the author. Is the US pressing South Korea unfairly because of its unique security situation and it's disadvantaged position as a small power in a bilateral relationship with the much more powerful US? It is obvious that more powerful European allies don't succumb to this treatment.

One point the author failed to note was that US negotiators are trying to make South Korea pay operational costs for out of area exercises for strategic platforms like long range strategic bombers, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines. These assets are not even welcomed in the area as part of joint exercises by the current South Korean government.

A further discredit to the US is the appalling environmental damage and pollution left by US Forces Korea when leaving older legacy bases such as Yongsan and Camp Long. This is a problem that the US has consistently and irresponsibly evaded.

About Kim's Sofa New Year's Message

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 01.01.2019)

The official recording of the new year's speech appears to have started at 0003 01012019 local. Yet the thirty minute speech was over at 0053. They left a clock on the mantle so the passage of time was noted. Either Kim took breaks or some other parts were edited out. The edited recording of the speech was broadcast at 0900.

The room's decor makes a few points. The tradition of the communist dynasty's leadership is the backdrop. Kim's affect is to resemble his grandfather, whose regime was not changed by the Korean war with the US and allied United Nations Forces. Secondly, he not only emulates his father's pose, but continues his work, with respect to the nuclear legacy and bargaining with it for a better life for North Korea. The books reflect a repository of knowledge and experience. The west is prone to scoff at North Koreans, who nonetheless have succeeded in building an extensive nuclear weapons and ballistic missile infrastructure. The sofa is empty, symbolizing lack of dialogue.

Tae Yeong Ho, the well known North Korean defector, who served as diplomat for North Korea was interviewed extensively by Channel A News Top Ten on New Year's Day about Kim's speech. Tae says the west has a basic misunderstanding of the joint statement Trump signed in Singapore. This is why North Korea can't stop complaining about the US. North Korea is already a nuclear power. They do not feel that they are bargaining from weakness. Therefore, the North expects reciprocity as one would expect in "disarmament agreement" negotiations. Tae Yeong Ho notes Kim has never discussed unilateral denuclearization but always speaks in terms of complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

The US is not engaged in a reciprocal action for action negotiating process which is what North Korea is seeking. The UN sanctions are a punishment action and assign a continuing stigma to North Korea, that smothers any inclination by the US to actually negotiate rather than simply presenting broad unilateral demands. This is why the US "has all the time in the world," code Tae says for a position where compromise isn't necessary.

It can also be observed that the US is not engaged in the actions of a new friendlier relationship, when new sanctions are imposed by Congress, by the Treasury Department, and moved forward in the UN in a coordinated and constant campaign against North Korea directed by the US government that continues after June 12. The US has moved the focus of its anti North Korean military exercises to Japan in lieu of joint exercises with South Korea suspended for the time being. The US repeatedly threatens to renew the joint exercises with South Korea. Additionally, the US is in an unprecedented manner choosing to rearm Japan with modern offensive weapons. The US has not done very much to create an atmosphere of peace and prosperity on the Korean peninsula and appears to regard only one commitment, that of North Korea to completely denuclearize in return for vague unfulfilled promises. This isn't in the Singapore Joint Statement that Kim Jong Un signed. So Kim asserts the US isn't fulfilling its commitments in the Singapore Summit statement either.

Tae Yeong Ho says it would be a mistake to treat the negotiations with North Korea as mutual disarmament negotiations as Kim would like. On the other hand, making broad categorical demands such as for the nuclear facilities list without reciprocal trust building measures is a non starter which evinces the US misapprehension of the North Korean understanding of the Singapore joint statement. A different view to be asserted is that the US knew very well the meaning of the Singapore agreement as understood by Kim. This was demonstrated in a public statement made by Pompeo on June 10, right before the Singapore summit. The US agreed to a reciprocal understanding in order to get Kim to the table in Singapore. This is why the cancellation of US joint exercises with South Korea was announced immediately after the summit. Reciprocity and flexibility are required to proceed with denuclearization of North Korea incrementally. Tae criticized Pompeo for actions during the Oct 7 meeting which included demanding the nuclear facilities list and concealing the fact, that the North flatly refused and withdrew from talks. Instead Pompeo said considerable progress had made in the nuclear negotiating process in Pyongyang. This appears to have been a mid term election ploy mischaracterizing the nature of the Singapore declaration and the North's intentions in the face of a firestorm of domestic criticism of the US administration after the summit.

The anti-North Korean "public relations" and advocacy efforts are constant from the US defense industry financed think tanks, government supported NGOs, Congress, media, VOA, and other sources. Christopher Hill and others who publicly represent the anti-North Korean public relations campaign, have failed in the negotiating process in the past. Hill peremptorily dismisses the notion that the nuclear facilities list would serve as a "target list" for US bombs and missiles. Hill's conclusory opinion is absurd. Of course it could be used as a target list.

It's almost as if the US is institutionally incapable of going forward with the negotiations the Trump administration initiated. The same politicians, media, and so called "experts," representing defense industry interests are still dictating the agenda. Yet, Tae Yeong Ho believes that we will not return to the dire circumstances of nuclear brinkmanship demonstrated by the US and North Korea in 2017. He believes that Kim will take the negotiations to the edge of the cliff and that somehow there will be a reprieve and a return to the negotiating table. Yet, he went so far in one of Channel A News exclusive interview segments as to advise Donald Trump in English not to be taken in by Kim's "nuclear disarmament" approach to a second summit.

Countries will start to force return of NK overseas workers in 2019 as a result of UN sanctions. This will further reduce North Koreas foreign exchange account to a level that is not palatable to the leadership. There is an element of desperation to Kim Jong Un's New Years message, while he presents his position and his readiness to sit down with Donald Trump at any time. His calm demeanor in the reception salon giving the "sofa speech" is a pose. His articulated position is no more nuclear weapons production, no more nuclear weapons tests, no use of nuclear weapons, and no more propagation of nuclear weapons. So where is the US reciprocal response? Kim said, further hostile imposition of sanctions can result in the country without other recourse to "reluctantly" follow a different path to protect the nation's sovereignty and interests and peace and security on the peninsula. This is viewed as a threat in the western media. Kim also requested that the joint military exercises with "foreign forces" bringing strategic military assets into the region stop. So it's a return to regime change politics by the US, and self reliance ideology by the North.

Kim's message to the South as the mediator between the US and the North was very soft and hopeful. Perhaps Kim will meet with President Moon Jae In again in 2019 but probably not in Seoul. Tae suggested Panmunjeom as a likely venue. Tae predicted in another podcast that Kim could hold out until the second half of 2019 probably with Chinese support, without making concessions demanded by the US on denuclearization. Tae opined that some relief from sanctions in the form of reopening Kumgansang resort and Kaeseong Industrial Zone is a major objective of Kim Jong Un as reflected in the speech. The current sanctions regime blocks this kind of economic cooperation between North and South Korea. Perhaps, the US special envoy to North Korea should consider any South Korean proposal for waiver of UN sanctions with respect to these two economic projects as a trust building measure to encourage negotiations and induce further denuclearization concessions by the North Koreans. Tae's prediction that North Korea will yield within the year to the present coercive "no compromise" approach seems overly optimistic.