How the US sees war with China--in maps
Posted: 18th November 2025
This is the official military press release on the USFK’s newly released “east-up (upside-down) map”.
Look at the map (below) and then notice the central positioning of Korea, and the discourse about “the hidden geometry of force”, “operations”, and “cost imposition/achieving effects/strategic advantages”.
Notice also the slip: China is playing defense (“Korea is inside the Chinese defensive perimeter”), the US is “imposing costs/effects” (i.e. attacking).
This is all about planning/visualization for aggressive war against China/Russia (it’s a unified war), without even the usual fig leaf boilerplate of “deterring war”, “maintaining stability”, or “rescuing Taiwan”. It’s about coordination for “cost imposition”, “effects” (i.e. attack).
(Remember, anytime you see the word, “operations”, it’s the military euphemism for WAR).
When the same region is viewed with east orientation toward the top, the strategic picture transforms dramatically. The first island chain, a cornerstone of Indo-Pacific strategy, takes on new meaning. Forces already positioned on the Korean Peninsula are revealed not as distant assets requiring reinforcement, but as troops already positioned inside the bubble perimeter that the U.S. would need to penetrate in the event of crisis or contingency.
This shift in perspective illuminates Korea’s role as a natural strategic pivot. Distance analysis reveals the Camp Humphreys’ proximity to potential threats: approximately 158 miles from Pyongyang, 612 miles from Beijing and approximately 500 miles from Vladivostok. Korea is positioned to address northern threats from Russia while simultaneously providing western reach against Chinese activities in the waters between Korea and China. More specifically, this perspective highlights the peninsula’s capacity to impose cost on Russia not allowing their fleet to come into the waters east of Korea, effectively making that a more defensible maritime area and limiting adversary naval movements. Similarly, in the waters off the west coast of Korea, the East-Up orientation clarifies how forces on the peninsula can impose costs, not only on the CCP’s Northern Theater Army, but also on the Northern Fleet, thus demonstrating the significant strategic potential that exists on the peninsula to influence adversary operations in both adjacent seas.
The strategic value becomes even clearer when viewed from what I call the “Beijing perspective,” imagining the strategic landscape as it appears to Chinese planners. From Beijing, American forces at installations like Osan Air Base appear not as distant threats requiring complex power projection, but as immediately proximate capabilities positioned to achieve effects in or around China. This proximity represents a significant strategic advantage that traditional north-up mapping tends to obscure.
Perhaps the most significant insight from east-up mapping is the emergence of a strategic triangle connecting Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. When these three mutual defense treaty partners are viewed as vertices of a triangle rather than isolated bilateral relationships, their collective potential becomes clear.
This triangular framework offers complementary capabilities across each vertex. Korea provides strategic depth and central positioning within the regional architecture, with the added advantage of cost-imposition capabilities against both Russian and Chinese forces. Japan contributes advanced technological capabilities and controls critical maritime chokepoints along the Pacific shipping lanes. The Philippines offers southern access points and control over vital sea lanes connecting the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Together, these three allies can create an integrated network enabling situational awareness and coordinated responses across all domains. The geometric clarity of this relationship, visible primarily through east-up mapping, suggests opportunities for enhanced trilateral cooperation that may not be immediately apparent from traditional perspectives.
Military planners frequently refer to the “tyranny of distance” as a constraint on Indo-Pacific operations. While distance remains a critical factor, east-up mapping reveals that current positioning may offer advantages that traditional perspectives obscure. The scale of the Pacific creates operational challenges, but it also creates opportunities for those already positioned within the theater.
The command perspective reinforces this point: rather than focusing solely on the challenges of power projection across the vast distances of the Pacific, planners should recognize that strategic positioning already achieved can transform distance from obstacle to advantage. When forces are properly positioned within the theater, they can impose costs on adversaries while maintaining defensive advantages.
Understanding these geographic relationships through multiple perspectives enables more accurate operational planning and resource allocation. Distance remains a constraint, but proper positioning can transform it from an insurmountable obstacle into a manageable challenge.
These insights carry practical implications for contemporary force planning. First, existing force positioning, particularly on the Korean Peninsula, may offer greater strategic advantages than currently recognized. Rather than viewing these deployments as vulnerable forward positions requiring reinforcement, planners might consider them as advantageously positioned assets already inside the defensive perimeter, capable of immediate cost-imposition against multiple adversaries.
Second, the strategic triangle framework suggests possibilities for enhanced burden-sharing and coordinated capability development among alliance partners. Rather than maintaining separate bilateral relationships, the United States might benefit from fostering trilateral cooperation that leverages each partner’s geographic advantages and complementary capabilities.
Operational planners should experiment with east-up mapping when conducting Indo-Pacific analysis, particularly when examining alliance coordination opportunities and assessing existing force positioning advantages. The geometric clarity of the Korea-Japan-Philippines triangle becomes most apparent through this alternative perspective, while the cost-imposition capabilities visible from Korean positioning provide concrete operational advantages.
Geography remains the foundation of strategy, but our understanding of geography depends heavily on how we choose to view it. The east-up mapping approach reveals strategic relationships and advantages in the Indo-Pacific that remain obscured by traditional north-up orientations. Most significantly, it illuminates the potential of the Korea-Japan-Philippines strategic triangle as a framework for enhanced alliance cooperation, while demonstrating the immediate cost-imposition capabilities that existing force positioning already provides.
Sometimes the most profound strategic revelations come from the simplest change in how we look at the world. The east-up map is one such change, transforming distant challenges into proximate advantages and revealing the hidden geometry of alliance cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.
Korean editorial perspectives on this new map, as Korea is the pivot/center of the map.
https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/defense/1229642.html