DPRK- Cheese in the Trap

When one looks at the content and general tenor of broadcasts from mainstream and official US media, parroted in the right wing media of South Korea, and the media of Japan and certain NATO allies, it is apparent that there is a present threat of physical enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea especially in regard to alleged violations by at sea transfers. These are generally reported as exports of North Korean coal and imports of oil or petroleum products alleged to be in excess of UN sanctions limits from variously flagged vessels. There are obviously inherent risks of an incidental outbreak of armed conflict in such a situation, perhaps as potentially volatile as the overflights and 12 mile limit incursions by US aircraft and surface warships in the South China Sea.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 3.20 ) WMSL-750 USCGC Bertholf dispatched to Sasebo, Japan.


One wonders who will be the real target of the allegedly stronger sanctions enforcement effort, North Korea or China? The point may be moot. The US has apparently dispatched the US Coast Guard patrol vessel Bertholf from Alameda, California, to Sasebo, Japan, to participate in UN sanctions monitoring activities in the East Sea/Sea of Japan and perhaps in the East China Sea as well, according to Channel A News. In addition to this vessel there are a plethora of US airborne reconnaissance assets operating in the Korean region and the East China Sea. Occasionally one sees B-52 missions into the East China Sea, and South China Sea as well, and other air missions as far north as Russian maritime territories north of Japan. Check out Aircraft spots at twitter which reports regularly on these activities when they are detected.

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

Today Channel A Top Ten News reported that Global Hawk drones would be assisting in the current reconnaissance efforts in support of UN sanctions. Along with the USCGC Bertholf, the large maritime security cutter, the HMS Montrose has been deployed to the region for the same mission, and also the French frigate Vendemiaire. Allegedly, these ships will operate in the East China Sea. The French have also dispatched at least one Falcon 200 reconnaissance aircraft which reportedly will operate in West Sea/Yellow Sea as well. These military resources while no doubt valuable in the context of a general reconnaissance or presence mission, are limited compared to US, Japanese or South Korean military resources in the region. Perhaps the European allies may have other powerful forces in the region that are not being disclosed. The same holds true for the US Navy. The activities of the major naval combatants of the US and Japan haven't been reported on Channel A News Top Ten broadcasts recently. (see- my review of military exercises dated Feb. 17)

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten 3.20) HMS Montrose (F-236). England dispatches escort ship for surveillance of North Korean illegal at sea transfers.

The Bertholf appears to be a potent armed vessel for the interdiction missions for which it was designed. Certainly, there is no mistaking it's identity and function as US vessel. The French and British contribution is symbolic contributing to the notion of a combined allied force. While all of the reconnaissance activities and righteous condemnations of North Korean nuclear weapons development activities lends the imprimatur of "international law" to the potential sanctions interdiction efforts, one can't help but perceive the old imperialist image of "gun boat" diplomacy where the western powers and later Japan ganged up on China to humiliate them in every possible way by either brute force or the threat of brute force. Of course Japan did that to both Korea and China for the better part of fifty years, while the US and UK did it to China for a century. It isn't clear exactly that anyone involved in the chorus of approval for what occurred in Hanoi, is concerned one wit, about how this might appear to the Chinese or North or South Korea, now. One might get the idea that someone is itching for a war. Inexplicably, Channel A News, used some quotes from General Brooks, referable to the crisis situation in 2017, about US readiness to go to war with North Korea. This comment is taken completely out of context and contradicts his current perspective expressed on CBS, February 28th just after the talks failed. See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-kim-jong-un-summit-winner-no-one-vincent-brooks-says/

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 03.20) DPRK Ambassadors from China, Ji Jae Ryong, Russia, Kim Hyun Chung, and the UN, Kim Song, recalled to Pyongyang for consultations. Is Kim's decision imminent? The title of the second report is: bloody nose strategy- "Really preparing for war."


One would prefer to think that there isn't really such an intention for war but the bluff seems fairly convincing. Hubris and complacency rule. Rather it seems, that a regime change is on the US agenda for North Korea whether accompanied by bloody nose attacks or not. Kim is said by Channel A News analysts to be eager for a summit with President Xi of China particularly with respect to economic relief and diplomatic support. The North Korean situation, without substantial help from China, could descend into disorder and anarchy, simply from starvation, lack of fuel and currency reserves. Western sources don't seem to be too concerned about what China might do in such a situation. It's almost a sure thing that China would invade and occupy the North to the narrow most distance between the East Sea and West Sea coasts in North Korea to secure their national security interests, including the security of North Korean nuclear assets cut adrift from the accountability of an identifiable command structure. Certainly US forces won't be allowed the luxury, not permitted in 1950, to bomb, attack, or occupy at will regions proximate to the Chinese frontier. It is often said by the uninformed, so what if North Korea's regime collapses into anarchy or is decapitated as the result of this hybrid warfare strategy styled as "negotiations?"

An "Opposition Group" is Trying to Overthrow the Communist North Korean Regime

The break in of the DPRK Embassy building in Madrid took place on February 22, followed by the declaration of Free Chosun which took place on February 28. Now there is a report alleging a Free Chosun connection to the February 22 breakin.

See: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-dissidents/group-seeking-to-overthrow-kim-behind-north-korea-embassy-raid-in-spain-washington-post-idUKKCN1QW2ZN


자유조선 - Free Joseon
Published on Feb 28, 2019
https://bit.ly/2GPsSc5

자유 조선의 건립을 선언한다. 이 임시 정부는 인권과 인도주의를 존중하는 국가를 건설하기 위한 근간을 세우고 모든 여성과 남성, 아동의 존귀하고 분명한 존엄성을 존중한다. WE DECLARE ON THIS DAY the establishment of Free Joseon, a provisional government preparing the foundations for a future nation built upon respect for principles of human rights and humanitarianism, holding sacred a manifest dignity for every woman, man, and child.


These "opposition" activities are part of a regime change framework coloring the current US administration's policies and negotiations with North Korea. The timing of the "Free Chosun" group's activity is definitely related to undermining the nuclear negotiations with the North Korean regime. Here is a link to their web post with an English translation of their Feb. 28 declaration:

http://cheollimacivildefense.org/post/2019-2-28_%EC%9E%90%EC%9C%A0%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%A0%EC%9D%84%EC%9C%84%ED%95%9C%EC%84%A0%EC%96%B8%EB%AC%B8_63626/

It was following the international coverage of the death of Kim Jang Nam, Kim Jong Un's brother, closely after Feb 17, 2017, that the group appeared on youtube. The group went by Chollima Civil Defense back then, I don't recall them using the Free Chosun designation until a few weeks before the declaration when it was pre-announced in a youtube video. The logo in March 2017 said Chollima Civil Defense. This is what the Aljazeera youtube concerning Kim Han Sol shows. The group claimed to be protecting Kim Jang Nam's son, Kim Han Sol, who apparently is in hiding. Kim Han Sol is the northern version of the sacred blood line claim to legitimate political rule in North Korea, (bektusan pi chul.) Ostensibly, this was the reason his father was killed.

From the Free Chosun video showing the reading of the declaration, in Seoul, by a South Korean woman:

(Source- youtube, 2.28.2019)


The new Declaration by "Free Chosun" read 100 years after the 3.1.1919 demonstration in the same location where the demonstrations for independence from Japan began in Tapsol Park, Seoul, one hundred years earlier, but one day early- the day US North Korean negotiations failed.

About the original Samil (3.1) event- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1st_Movement

The declaration was read by an unidentified South Korean woman dressed in traditional hanbok with her face disguised. Unlike the reported 2 million people who participated in 1500 Samil demonstrations across Korea in 1919, no one showed for the Feb 28 event. One can make an educated guess on who the parties are who really want regime change in Pyongyang.

See Hubris of US Duplicity in Hanoi including the update for more info on the DPRK Embassy Breakin.

Moon Chung In Tries to Salvage Hope from the Hanoi Train Wreck

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 03.15) Gangster like US- North Korea done negotiating? US Foreign Affairs contribution: Moon Chung In, President's foreign affairs unification security special report. "A trivial dispute can bring about disastrous results." "The US must allow South Korea flexibility."

Moon Chung In as an unofficial adviser and spokesperson for the views of the Moon administration on relations with North Korean has to be optimistic about the failure of the Hanoi negotiations, because the fate of the Moon administration is intimately tied up with improving relations and economic ties with the North. Apparently, he is not ready to admit what a train wreck Trump, Bolton and Pompeo carried out. Choi Son Hui, Deputy Foreign Minister of North Korea said yesterday the talks were all but dead. Among the Deputy Foreign Minister Choi's statements presented on the March 15 Channel A News Top Ten broadcast in video out takes were: (1) "North Korea has no desire to capitulate to US demands;" (2) "The US squandered a golden opportunity;" (3) "We're not thinking of this kind of negotiations;" and (4) "We have decided negotiations to denuclearize with the US are over."

The only thing absent from the pronouncements were criticisms of President Trump. So it is suggested that what remains of the mythical "good relationship" between the two leaders, might allow the possibility of renewed negotiations. The optimists have to hang their hat somewhere because this is a devastating blow for the South Korean administration. Attempts by South Korean diplomats to ingratiate themselves with Stephen Biegun's working group and it's all or nothing approach, have the appearance of unsightly groveling while the US follows what is essentially the "Libyan" regime change model with North Korea. Because of the US all or nothing approach with no sanctions relief or waivers to the bitter end, South Korea has next to nothing to offer in an approach as intermediary, while economic conditions worsen in North Korea.

Maybe South Korean President Moon Jae In can pull a rabbit out of a hat? From Moon Chung In's opinion in Foreign Affairs, The Next Stage of the Korean Peace Process :

Speaking anonymously, a senior State Department official now claimed that “nobody in the administration advocates a step-by-step approach. In all cases, the expectation is a complete denuclearization of North Korea as a condition for . . . all the other steps being taken.” The Moon government’s ability to make a deal between the parties, and to advance parallel processes, will be critically hampered if the Trump administration now rejects a step-by-step process out of hand.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2019-03-14/next-stage-korean-peace-process


While the Blue House is not taking Choi's statements as the definitive indicator of no possibility of further negotiations, that possibility hangs by unlikely threads. The first according to Moon Chung In is that the US needs to demonstrate flexibility toward North Korea and toward South Korean joint economic overtures with North Korea such as Kumgansang and Kaseong. Otherwise South Korea has no leverage. The US has stated repeatedly that isn't going to happen. In fact sanctions are closing in on North Korea, foreign revenues are drying up and food is in scarce supply. Humanitarian efforts such as the public health anti TB efforts in North Korea are even being shut down. Discussion of more sanctions is counterproductive according to Moon, but everyday, we hear Bolton and a coterie of demagogues in the Congress either initiating or threatening more sanctions. This is little more than a regime change policy.

Secondly, Moon says the smallest disputes now can result in disaster. Yet the largest dispute has already happened with no reasonable prospect of compromise on the US side. That fundamental dispute concerns whether the all or nothing approach taken by the US side or the step by step, phased trust building approach, with simultaneous mutual concessions, favored by four of the six parties involved in negotiations in the past, is going to prevail. That dispute has not advanced one step since Singapore due to US dissembling and intransigence.

Hubris of US Duplicity at Hanoi

The US is projecting various falsehoods about the nature of the failure in Hanoi to reach an agreement of any kind on denuclearization measures. In the first instance, what has to be noted is the burglary and holding prisoner of DPRK diplomatic personnel in their embassy in Madrid on February 22 by personnel observed on CCTV cameras and identified as related to the CIA. Channel A News Top Ten analysts in their podcast on youtube today, said that at least two of the ten people who invaded the North Korean Embassy compound and bound, beat and interrogated the embassy personnel there, were confirmed to be employees of the CIA. Thereafter, they stole hand phones and computers from the North Korean embassy building before fleeing in stolen embassy vehicles.

This is tangible evidence of US bad faith. It is well known that Kim Hyuk Chol, the DPRK representative at the working level negotiating with Stephen Biegun, was the former Ambassador of North Korea stationed at the Madrid embassy until he was ejected by Spain because of North Korean nuclear tests. Ostensibly, the recent CIA burglary of the embassy building in Spain, in violation of international law, was intended to obtain evidence or dirt of some kind to defame, blackmail or sanction Kim Hyuk Chol. In any case, he has been reported to be out of public sight in North Korea after the sudden failure of the negotiations in Hanoi, and his current status is unknown. More likely, the invasion of the embassy compound was to foreshadow the figurative mugging Kim Jong Un was about to receive in Hanoi and discourage negotiations.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 03.14) Spain: North Korea Embassy attack incident; Afterward Kim Hyuk Chol not seen. (foreign affairs) communications office- "It was said that it seems like US (envoy) Biegun, lost trust in Kim Hyuk Chol." Biegun, "I requested Kim Hyuk Chul to agree to total denuclearization, but didn't hear a response."


It is ironic that in this situation, Stephen Biegun has the temerity to say, that he cannot trust Kim Hyuk Chol, who refused to respond to demands that North Korea give up all of it's nuclear weapons, resources and facilities, as if this was something that was in the cards or on the agenda for the Hanoi summit. To get Kim to the summit Biegun implied there was wiggle room or flexibility in the US approach to negotiations and that not everything need be achieved at once. Yet once at the summit, US demands included everything, in an all or nothing approach, that exceeded the parameters of the Singapore summit, with no offers of any sanctions relief of any kind for interim measures. For example, the US demanded that all weapons of mass destruction, (a pet phrase of the neo-con proponents of interminable middle east wars) including chemical and biological weapons, as part of the US demands that would require fulfillment in addition to the so called hek list or inventory of all nuclear weapons, enrichment facilities, missile sites, production facilities and so on. It was this all or nothing approach that previously caused the talks to falter last summer after the Singapore summit, when Pompeo made similar demands in Pyongyang and Kim Jong Un refused to meet with him or other US representatives for months.

This fundamental difference which is well understood by long term observers of the negotiations between the US "one bundle" or Libyan approach, and a simultaneously reciprocal step by step, phased trust building approach, favored by North Korea, has been the obstacle to negotiations all along. A retreat was required from the US all or nothing approach after Singapore which Stephen Biegun played out in working level talks, as evidenced by his presentation at Stanford before the Hanoi summit could even occur. Once, the North Koreans committed to meet at Hanoi, the US went back to the old playbook of all or nothing, give up everything in return for vague promises of future benefits and no sanctions relief of any kind in the interim. No one who knows anything about North Korea could have seriously thought this would work. It was a politically cowardly approach for a US administration that cannot stand up to domestic criticism of its North Korean initiatives by the intelligence establishment, the neo-cons, the press, the democratic opposition, and the military industrial complex of think tanks, and Congressional defense industry flunkies. One can be assured of one thing in US East Asian policy in a conflict situation- when there is a bipartisan consensus in the US on what US policy should be, it is invariably based upon grandiose delusions irrespective of realities on the ground. Such policies typically have the disastrous consequences we know so well- the so called loss of China, the "loss" of the first Korean conflict which resulted in war with China and an armistice rather than the expected military victory, the disaster in Vietnam, and finally this, the development of North Korea as a nuclear power.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 03.12) US, eyes wide open pressures Kim Jong Un. Moves by the North a decisive moment. US: "South Korea shooting for the moon." Strange atmosphere in US-Korean alliance? "Stated by a person related to the US House, with respect to relief from anti North Korean sanctions, 'the South Korean government is shooting for the Moon,' expressions as far as this heard."

A corollary of the all or nothing policy with no sanctions relief of any kind, is the US practice of dismissing President Moon Jae In of South Korea as someone who is out of step with US policy, a naive idealist, who doesn't understand the realities in North Korea. So it was reported in a South Korean Foreign Ministry information statement that US politicians had gone as far to say, in an ill considered play on words, that South Korea was "shooting for the Moon" in trying to get sanctions waivers for joint projects with North Korea such as the Kumgangsan tourist area or the Kaseong joint industrial area. This is an interesting framing of the current situation where the US, inspired by neo-cons, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo "shot for the moon" in their no notice, not on the agenda, all or nothing proposal, at Hanoi, which could be viewed as nothing other than a deliberate sabotage of negotiations, which is the trademark tactic of Mr. Bolton.

Bolton is now known in South Korea as the "Indian killing white cavalry general" who came to Hanoi to wreck the negotiations. The pitiful leadership and poor judgment of the Secretary of State and the President of the United States to facilitate this blunder can't be exaggerated. It's been said in the US media that there is an international consensus the right thing was done at Hanoi. This is grossly mistaken. Four of the original six parties in the six party talks don't agree. Japan is the only regional power that agrees. Their poor relationship with both Korean states doesn't inspire confidence.

Update:

Read the Yahoo rebuttal to the Madrid embassy breakin story. It wasn't very persuasive. In fact, until the exact identity of the assailants is disclosed and proves otherwise, I would be very skeptical that the attack wasn't related to a western intelligence agency. If the Asian attackers were in fact Koreans, northern defectors or South Koreans, the intelligence connection with the west is implied. The problem with the denial of CIA involvement is that Spanish investigators said they identified two of the assailants as CIA related and didn't find the denial persuasive. The argument about the US not needing the intelligence information from hardware such as computers and phones merely puts that factor in the plausible deniability category. Do something that looks sloppy, so we can say it is inconsistent with known operating practices. This kind of action is in the same category as "Free Chosun/the Chollima Civil Defense Group" declaring a provisional government of North Korea on February 28. The fake gun allegations remind one of the recent arrests of US armed actors in Haiti and the embarrassment that episode caused. Now there is a report alleging a Free Chosun connection to the February 22 breakin. See: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-dissidents/group-seeking-to-overthrow-kim-behind-north-korea-embassy-raid-in-spain-washington-post-idUKKCN1QW2ZN The idea that this group isn't related to US or allied intelligence is difficult to believe.

Missile base activity in North Korea

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 3.7)

The Tongchang Ri missile launch site, also referred to as the Sohae Satellite launch site, is the one where the recent construction has been reported, basically restoration of the facility to its prior condition. That is the northern most site in this Channel A News graphic.

Increased activity noted as movement of materials by trucks considered missile related by South Korean intelligence at a second site was reported in this Channel A News program. That site is the Sanumdong missile general research complex 112 km to the southeast of Tongchang Ri. This site is considered significant because it is a place where ICBMs, like the Hwasong 15, are assembled and produced.

The recent activities at both sites are regarded as provocative and unwise by South Korean analysts but also as presenting an indirect, implicit threat of futher development of ICBM capability after the disappointing outcome of the Hanoi summit.

Here's a Time article on the subject:

http://time.com/5546740/north-korea-icbm-uranium-sanumdong-vehicle-activity/

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 3.7)

North Korean print media, Chosun Sinbo, indicates that North Korea wishes to reengage in negotiations and expresses that by exhorting the US to taking the first steps with simultaneous actions in a trust building process that can lead to denuclearization. Title of the commentary was "Corresponding measures to the dismantling of the Yongbyun nuclear facility are the basis of trust." And the statement was "Trump, if you do not want to miss the opportunity for denuclearization and avoid damage to your standing, before North Korea seeks a new path, decide to engage in simultaneous action, as a first step, in the process that must go forward to prepare to make it a reality."

It's not clear if the relative dangers of this approach have been accurately weighed by the North Koreans. Some conservative analysts regard it as a bluff for lack of a more nuanced characterization. The danger is that what is clearly implied that a loss of face is involved, not for the US, but rather that Kim had already experienced a loss of face in Hanoi by the way the talks were carried out, and that most Korean analysts regard him as having been humiliated as much as he had tried to conceal that.

In the proposed course of action is the referenence to "another path" that Kim had mentioned in his new year's address. Analysts suggest this is linked to Trump's statement that Kim Jong Un had promised not to engage in missile flights or nuclear tests despite the lack of a written agreement or communique from the Hanoi summit, while indications on the ground suggest potentially that he might. The Chosun Sinbo statement also implies that they are reluctant to go ahead with such an threat. Channel A News analysts referred to the situation as a pscyhological war.

US- South Korean Differences after Hanoi

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 3.7) Jong Se Hyun- "Ill fated Bolton villain." "Bolton's participation in the summit dialogue signaled its collapse. He is (an unwanted) ill fated person. The thought of an Indian killing white cavalry general comes to mind."

Jong Se Hyun criticized John Bolton's critical "no deal" role at the summit talks in Hanoi. Jong, the former Unification Minister of South Korea, described Bolton as an ill fated person, and likened him to a white cavalry general who kills "Indians." There is a minor media tempest on the right about his remarks criticizing Bolton's performance at the summit. Channel A analysts criticized Jong's remarks as undiplomatic and going too far. Jong maintained that Bolton deliberately killed the talks if the analogy with a General Custer like description wasn't clear enough. This pretty much comports with Tae Yong Ho's analysis a few days ago, except that Tae, the North Korean diplomatic defector and darling of the right in South Korea, regarded the failure of the talks as a good outcome. So did a couple of the Top Ten analysts who are also conservative. One maintained that a successful "small deal" involving dismantlement of Yongbyun facilities in return for sanctions waivers for reopening of the South Korean resort in Kumgansan North Korea would be untenable or difficult for South Korea in some way had it been an agreed outcome at Hanoi. It's not clear what that difficulty would be.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 3.7) 5. Trump-Moon split- trouble? Lessen North Korean sanctions- ROK-US out of step? Bolton- I'm looking for ways to strengthen sanctions against North Korea. (March 5) Moon- Advance the speed of North South cooperative enterprises. (March 4.)



There was some discussion of President Moon Jae In's reaction and response at a ROK Security Council meeting called after the Hanoi Summit. Moon asked the administration leadership to find the best ways to promote plans for economic cooperation with North Korea in the context of the framework of UN economic sanctions. The discussion by the conservative analysts emphasized that Moon is out of step with the US policy, and the program quoted Bolton as looking for new ways to impose further sanctions on North Korea. Given that Moon wants to press ahead with South Korean policy objectives with North Korea, the analysts questioned whether Moon could function as an effective mediator between the US and North Korea any longer. They quoted from a Bloomberg source dated March 4, (which I've been unable to locate) that observed that US and South Korean policies with respect to North Korea were "going separate ways." This was contrary to the view expressed by Jong Se Hyun, that there can't be any other path but to have Moon continue to press on with his role as facilitator of continued progress in negotiations as he is the party that understands the postures and positions of both the US and North Korea. This perspective was shared also on JTBC News yesterday in an interview by Moon Jang In, an independent advisor on national security to the Blue House. Their idea is that Moon is the best suited individual to help close the gap between the parties.

(Source- Channel A News Top Ten, 3.7) Strange signal detected between the US and South Korea? February 23 (security advisers) meeting cancelled. Bolton- I have a "big deal" document to present to the North. Jong Eui Yong- Small deal, a big deal concept won't work.

Another part of the program noted that Bolton had planned to meet the National Security Advisor of South Korea, Jong Eui Yong, on February 23 before the Hanoi summit. The Korean National Security Advisor, apparently had an apprehension of Bolton's so called "big deal" written proposal with which he differed and the meeting was canceled. US press reports had merely reported that Bolton didn't go because he had more pressing matters in Venezuela to attend to. This fundamental difference in his views from those of the South Korean administration weren't disclosed in US reports at the time. It's very unlikely Bolton would have been welcome in Seoul under the circumstances.

Thae Yong Ho Says Secret Uranium Enrichment Facility Dealbreaker in Hanoi

(Source- TV Chosun 03.2) US North Korea dispute going forward- are there or are there not other nuclear facilities in North Korea?

According to Thae, Bolton embarrassed Kim Jong Un by raising the so called secret nuclear facility issue directly with Kim Jong Un at the summit. Kim's apparent confusion at how to respond to the question resulted in in the DPRK Foreign Minster, Ri Yong Ho, sitting next to Kim stopping the talks. That's where the talks ended according to Thae's analysis. There are statements from the press interview of Choi Son Hui, from the DPRK, and also Donald Trump that indicated there may be something to this.

Kim could have been surprised for a couple of other reasons. Maybe this issue wasn't on the agenda for instance in the "small deal," scenario and wasn't addressed by the working level representatives. Or the facility or facilities don't exist. Thae suggests Kim is lying.

Choi Son Hui the veteran nuclear negotiator, said it was her feeling that Kim didn't understand the US calculating method in making additional demands.

Thae made some remark on the extended interview on Channel A News that the CIA probably would have cheered during the gotcha John Bolton moment or words to the effect. He made essentially the same comment in the podcast above from TV Chosun from which the still shot is taken. Other analysts felt that this was likely a reference to the so called Kangson secret uranium enrichment site in the news last summer after the first summit. This is the link from the Diplomat.com:

https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/exclusive-revealing-kangson-north-koreas-first-covert-uranium-enrichment-site/

A lot of the public information about the suspected enrichment site in Chollima, North Korea, is based upon analysis provided by Jeffrey Lewis. Lewis almost always qualifies his analysis with appropriate caveats, as one should in intelligence work:

“What we feel comfortable saying is that we can’t say whether it is, or is not, an enrichment plant,” Lewis noted. But, “this is a suitable building that has a number of signatures consistent with that and no obvious inconsistencies,” he continued. Whatever the purpose of the site, Lewis continued, this facility at Kangson was “clearly a sensitive national defense site.”

Gareth Porter completely deconstructed the multiple secret enrichment plant stories in an article published in 38North.org* : How the Media Wove a Narrative of North Korean Nuclear Deception.

https://www.38north.org/2018/07/gporter072618/

With respect to the alleged nuclear enrichment facility at Kangson, Michael Madden authored a critical analysis, also at 38North.org, debunking the popular media stories:

However, while the intelligence community has been monitoring this site for more than a decade, its actual function is still in question. It does have some of the characteristics of a site for production of weapons grade material, but a variety of contextual factors, especially the location, suggest it has been built and is being used for some other purpose.

https://www.38north.org/2018/08/mmadden080318/

In a final irony, on March 1, Jeffrey Lewis published an opinion piece at NPR.com titled Trump Just Walked Away From The Best North Korea Deal He'll Ever Get.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/01/698909173/opinion-trump-just-walked-away-from-the-best-north-korea-deal-hell-ever-get?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Lewis doesn't seem as convinced as Bolton and the other neocons that this should have been a deal breaker. This brings to mind Stephen Biegun's comments about intelligence information and policy in his presentation at Stanford not too long ago before the summit in which he said:

But we also have to understand what intelligence information is. Intelligence information is data and information combined with analysis that’s given to policymakers, and if you take it out of context, you – if you divorce it from policy, then you have a very incomplete picture, and this is really where my frustration is with the story that played out last week....

...So my frustration isn’t with the accuracy of the information. It’s how it’s presented and how it’s interpreted. You cannot divorce the intelligence information from policy. The intelligence information is critical as an underpinning for the policy, but the policy is to address the threat and that’s what my frustration was last week.

So one has to question the strategy of using a summit on a critical issue of nuclear proliferation to test whether your intelligence theory about multiple alternative nuclear complexes is true or not. Thae suggests it is true from Kim's ambiguous response. It's much more likely that sandbagging the negotiating process was a policy objective of Bolton and Pompeo. Widening the agenda at the last minute to raise issues, such as a comprehensive inventory of nuclear weapons facilities, warheads, and "weapons of mass destruction" the old Bush administration cassus belli, that had not been discussed or agreed upon by Beigun's working group, was a sure method to derail negotiations, as, Bolton, the "bureaucratic insider," well knew. Trump, Bolton and Pompeo killed the small deal concept, threw Biegun under the bus, and went back to the Libyan model for negotiation.

*38 North is a website devoted to informed analysis of North Korea.

Update- On Channel A News Top Ten March 3, one of the analysts noted that the three mainstream broadcast appearances of Bolton after the summit are proof that the whole debacle at the summit was staged with the president's knowledge beforehand. Kim is literally hurting on the way home. The North Korean economy is devastated and he is empty handed. The super hard liners in the US got they wanted despite attempts to preserve face for the North Korean leader.

Oh and yes, an organization called the Protect Kim Han Chol, Chollima Civil Defense Group is now renamed Freedom Chosun. The organization declared a provisional government of Chosun (the name North Korea uses for itself). Kim Han Sol is the nephew of Kim Jong Un, and the son of Kim Jang Nam, who was killed in Malaysia, allegedly in a chemical attack masterminded by Kim Jong Un.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2019/02/26/2019022600892.html