Korean Peninsula -Etfa

The security situation between North and South Korea remains tense after North Korea sent five drones across South Korean territory on 26 December 2022. South Korea immediately reacted to the incursion and scrambled its fighter aircraft and attack helicopters to shoot down them down. The situation resulted in increased military presence and heightened surveillance along the border and highlights the ongoing tensions and mistrust between the two nations. Ironically, this was just one in a chain of events happening in the Korean Peninsula, among others.

More recently, South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol expressed his country’s interest in developing nuclear weapons or asking the United States to consider redeploying them in the region. Though he clarified that the country had no active nuclear weapons development programme, such a statement could complicate the regional security environment and spark an arms race in the Peninsula.

The situation remains a major source of global concern and ongoing diplomatic efforts are not producing any fruitful results to find a peaceful resolution. One reason for this could be that the situation is not as simple as it appears to be. There are intricate bilateral and multilateral relationships inside and outside the Korean Peninsula with key players being North Korea, South Korea, Japan, the US, and China. In order to understand the current situation and foresee the future, one must understand the bilateral and multilateral engagements at all levels between these states.

Source: Author’s own to develop an understanding of the relations between major states involved in the Korean Peninsula. Russia is intentionally kept out of the matrix

Regarding the US and South Korea, the US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin visited South Korea in late January to reassure its ally that any attack on ‘one of us’ would be considered an attack on the entire US alliance and the country would be provided NATO-style security against the North Korean threat. The proposition to increase joint military exercises and cooperation with Japan – another key player and US ally in the region – was also considered.

Japan’s role has become immensely important after the ongoing security situation in the Korean Peninsula. Earlier in December 2022, Japan announced its National Defense Strategy. The policy calls for Japan to play a proactive role in regional and global security, including providing military support to its allies and engaging in collective self-defence, investing in research and development, increasing defense production and the technological base of the country. This has been seen as a response to the growing threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles as well as China’s increasing military presence.

Tensions with North Korea and China have significantly improved relations between the US, Japan and South Korea. Late last year, the countries reaffirmed their trilateral partnership in security and other areas. Though there may be challenges with respect to Japan and South Korea given their historical differences, the agreement in important in light of US’ Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Similarly, there is a dimension to the North Korea-China relationship as well that needs to be considered while assessing the entire situation. Both countries were old allies. However, China voted against North Korea in 2006 following its nuclear tests. In 2019, China revived its relations with North Korea and Chinese President Xi Jinping paid a historic visit to the country and called their relationship ‘unshakable’. At the same time, China has also been unsuccessfully trying to woo South Korea to push Seoul away from Washington.

Last but not least, we have US-China relations with North Korea considered to be a potential area of cooperation between the two global powers regarding denuclearisation and promoting stability.

Given high-stakes for the two global powers – US and China – and their corresponding relations with regional players, the Korean Peninsula matrix remains ever more complex. With rising competition and mistrust between regional states, there is a need to promote security cooperation and diplomacy through negotiations and dialogue, otherwise, there is high risk of a major conflict in Northeast Asia due to increasing nuclear and missile developments by North Korea.

Etfa Khurshid Mirza is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was published in Modern Diplomacy. She can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »