General Xavier Brunson, Commander of the United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, and the United States Armed Forces in Korea (USFK), recently wrote an essay, the key element of which was an inverted map of the region, oriented not to the North, but to the East, so that South Korea was visually hovering over Russia, the DPRK, and China, not the other way around. According to the general, by changing their standard orientation to the north and replacing it with an orientation to the east, a new strategic landscape is emerging that reveals previously hidden geographical relationships.

South Korea as a strategic center

According to the general, the Indo-Pacific region is traditionally viewed as a vast expanse with scattered islands and distant allies, where American troops must disperse their power over vast distances to reach areas of potential conflict. But if you turn the map, the island chain, which is the cornerstone of the Indo-Pacific strategy, takes on a new meaning. The forces already stationed on the Korean Peninsula are not considered remote facilities requiring reinforcement, but as troops already stationed within the very bubble the United States will have to penetrate in the event of a crisis or unforeseen circumstances.

This underlines the role of South Korea as a natural strategic centre and makes it not a vulnerable position on the front line of a possible conflict, but an advantageously located asset already located inside the defensive perimeter, capable of immediately reducing the costs of fighting numerous opponents.

For most of the last seven decades, the USFK has been seen as a forward outpost against a North Korean attack until reinforcements arrive from Japan, Guam, or the US mainland. Now, American troops are not awaiting reinforcements from far away, being able to respond immediately in the event of a crisis. At the same time, Brunson directly points to South Korea’s role in plans aimed at opposing not only China, but also Russia.

He recalled that the Camp Humphreys base in Pyeongtaek (ROK), where the headquarters of the American troops are located, is located 254 km from Pyongyang, 985 km from Beijing, and 1770 km from Vladivostok.

One more triangle

The general then draws attention to the emergence of a strategic triangle connecting Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. If one considers these three partners in the mutual defense treaty as the vertices of a triangle, rather than isolated bilateral relations, their collective potential becomes clear.

Korea, the general repeats, provides strategic depth and a central position in the regional architecture, as well as additional advantages in the form of lower costs in the fight against the armed forces of Russia and China. Japan provides advanced technological capabilities and controls the most important sea points on the Pacific Sea routes. The Philippines offers southern access points and control over vital shipping lanes connecting the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

This concept of a strategic triangle, according to the general, presents opportunities for more effective burden-sharing and coordinated capacity development between alliance partners. Instead of maintaining separate bilateral relations, the United States could benefit from developing trilateral cooperation that takes advantage of each partner’s geographical advantages and complementary capabilities. At the same time, the “east-up” concept does not imply a new alliance structure, but rather emphasizes the complementary roles of partners.

Brunson’s theories call for closer logistical synchronization and planning between the US armed forces and their allies, suggesting a greater emphasis on joint operations in all areas. As for the sizeable distance between the pillars of the triangle, it should be understood that the strategic positioning already achieved can turn distance from an obstacle into an advantage. When forces are properly positioned in a theatre of war, they can be costly to the enemy while maintaining defensive advantages.

Upside down map and “strategic flexibility”

In the South Korean media, the general’s idea was considered a discovery, saying that the shift turns decades of traditional military thinking upside down and evaluating it in the context of the so-called doctrine of “strategic flexibility” regarding the place of American troops in South Korea. If they were previously assigned only the task of fighting the DPRK, now it is assumed that during emergencies in the region (meaning the conflict over Taiwan or problems in the South China Sea) these forces can be moved to solve other combat missions.

Brunson’s article came following statements by the Chief of Naval Operations of the US Navy, Admiral Daryl Caudle. Speaking to Korean journalists during a trip to assess South Korean shipbuilding capabilities, the admiral said he “naturally expected” that the nuclear submarines that South Korea is going to receive from the United States will be used to contain China. “With great power comes great responsibility,” he said. “I think Korea will be obligated to deploy these submarines around the world and move from regional fleet status to global status.”

At a press conference following bilateral security talks, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth also pointed out that flexibility regarding regional emergencies is something the US would like to draw attention to. It is not about diverting attention from Korea; it is about recognizing that the deterrence the US supports here extends to other countries to maintain peace throughout the Indo-Pacific region.

According to South Korean media outlets, Brunson is increasing pressure on South Korea, forcing it not only to accept strategic flexibility but also to consider a more active role, which creates new security and diplomatic challenges. In comparison, his predecessor, Major General Paul LaCamera, stated that American forces in South Korea are focused on protecting the Republic of Korea under the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953.

Reactions to the map

North Korea denounced the map facing east as an “invasion map.” North Korean state media said in a statement that the map “clearly shows the US attempt to invade Asia.” The Washington Times wrote that for the second time in three days, a senior American military commander has promoted South Korea as the battering ram of a leading player in the US-led efforts in the region to contain China. This change in defense strategy could have shocking implications for Seoul.

Russian media also noted the idea of the Korean Peninsula being a “strategic hub against China and Russia” capable of limiting the actions of the Russian fleet in the Sea of Japan and Chinese forces in the Yellow Sea.

South Korean experts had different opinions. Yang Moo-jin, professor and former president of the University of North Korean Studies, said the map “shows that US widening the strategic utility of USFK. The east-up view puts the peninsula at the centre of an axis that runs through the United States, China, Russia, and North Korea, and it aligns with the emerging security triangle linking the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea”.

Retired Lieutenant General Chong In-bum, former commander of the Special Military Command, noted that strategic flexibility is not a new idea. It has been a part of the US strategy for many years. He also does not believe that prioritizing China means weakened deterrence from North Korea. “China and North Korea cannot be separated from each other. They operate in the same environment.”

Moreover, General Chong believes that as part of the new strategy, he will not become a “magnet for enemy bullets.” The concept reinforces the US arguments against reducing the number of troops. This helps explain South Korea’s strategic value to the American audience.

Kim Yeol Soo, director of national security at the Korean Institute for Military Affairs, said the concept is consistent with broader changes in US defense strategies. “This is not just a symbolic gesture. It reflects how the United States currently views the Indo-Pacific region.” He stressed that “if you look at the Russian Northern Fleet or the northern forces of China’s area of operation, the peninsula is a crucial point. Their sea and air movements are naturally limited by geography.”

Representatives of the South Korean Ministry of Defense showed caution. A senior military official said it would be inappropriate for Seoul to comment on specific statements by US officials, adding that the map should be interpreted “as the United States describes it, and nothing more.” Scenarios involving a direct confrontation between South Korea and China or Russia are “unrealistic,” and Seoul does not support interpretations implying a change of mission across the region.

To summarize. In light of the growing confrontation between the United States and China and Russia, such statements should be taken into account, and South Korea is a “magnet for enemy bullets.” In the event of a conflict, a point at which strategically taking a hit becomes more likely.

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Centre for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences

https://journal-neo.su/2025/12/25/has-the-map-been-flipped-or-is-south-korea-in-usas-military-plans/