Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

I. IntroductionAccording to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Middle Eastern countries spent $243.5 billion on defense in 2024 — a 15 percent increase from 2023. Saudi Arabia led the region with $80.3 billion in defense spending, ranking seventh in the world. It was followed by Israel with $46.5 billion, Turkey with $25 billion, the United Arab Emirates(UAE) with $24 billion, Qatar with $14.4 billion, Iran with $7.9 billion, Kuwait with $7.8 billion, Iraq with $6.2 billion and Oman with $6 billion.[1] Pro-US countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar increased their military spending in response to perceived threats from Iran. Experts say that they have focused not just on deterrence but also on enhancing real-world capabilities. “These Middle East countries witnessed the consequences of being unprepared during the Israel–Hamas war and the Israeli–Iranian conflict,” said Kang Eun-ho, head of Jeonbuk National University’s defense industry research center and former chief of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration in South Korea. “Given the Middle East’s geopolitical tension, South Korean defense firms face growing opportunities.”[2] A key area of focus for Middle Eastern countries is the modernization of ground-based weapons like missiles, multiple launch rocket systems and self-propelled howitzers. As aging inventories in Middle East countries face obsolescence, the need for replacements is growing. According to a March 2025 report by Kyobo Securities, 2,350 out of 6,088 tanks, howitzers and multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) units currently in use across Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iraq — or 39 percent — require replacement due to age or maintenance issues.[3] This presents a major opportunity for South Korean defense firms. South Korea has already exported K9 self-propelled howitzers to Turkey and Egypt, Chunmoo MLRS to the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and the Cheongung-II missile to multiple countries, including Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have recently shown strong interest in Hyundai Rotem’s K2 tanks, while the UAE is eyeing Hanwha Aerospace’s K9s. Air power modernization is also on the agenda of several Middle East countries. Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) is promoting its FA-50 light attack aircraft to Egypt, the KF-21 fighter to Saudi Arabia and the Surion helicopter to Iraq and the UAE.   The appeal of K-defense lies in its cost-effectiveness. A single Cheongung-II interceptor, for example, costs approximately 1.5 billion won ($1.1 million), which is roughly a third of the price of a US Patriot missile, which ranges from 4 billion to 6 billion won. “US ground weapon offerings are limited, and some high-end fighter jets may be overkill for the region,” said Kim Ki-won, a professor of military studies at Daekyeung University. “South Korean weapon systems carry less political baggage and offer options like technology transfers and local production — attractive incentives for buyers.”[4]   Under this circumstance of the Middle East, this paper aims to introduce South Korean major weapons to government officials and businessmen in Middle Eastern countries.   This is the second paper in a series on South Korean defense industry. Focus is on South Korean weapons that were exported to Middle East countries, as well as on the weapons that have the potential to be exported to the Middle East. The first paper dealt with South Korean weapons that were exported to European countries.   This paper first provides an overview of South Korean defense industry and then introduces major Korean weapons exported and to be exported to Middle East countries.   1.South Korean Defense Industry: World’s top 10 arms exporter   It was 72 years ago that the bloody 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice.   Today, South Korea, the once-war-ravaged nation, stands among global leading arms exporters, and its factories turn out advanced tanks, artillery systems and fighter jets destined for battlefields far beyond the Korean Peninsula.   As Figure 1 shows, South Korea’s arms industry has been riding a wave of global demand. South Korea’ arms exports increased from 2.5 billion dollars in 2019 to 23 billion dollars (estimate)in 2025. South Korean weapons are in high demand for their advanced technology and fast delivery.   As a result, in recent years, South Korea has often been listed among the world’s top 10 arms exporters, competing with the US, Russia and China. As Figure 2, South Korea ranked No. 10 in global arms exports, with a 2.2 % share of the world arms market in the 2020-2024 period, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The South Korean government is now setting its sights on breaking into the ranks of global top 4 arms exporters.   Figure 1: South Korea arms exports Figure 2: world’s biggest arms exporters   1.South Korean ‘Big 4’ defense companies   According to the Defense News Top 100 list for 2020, four of South Korea’s defense companies were ranked in the top 100 defense companies in the world. These four companies are Hanwha (32nd), Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI 55th), LIG Nex1 (68th), and Hyundai Rotem (95th).   These South Korea’s top four defense companies are expected to surpass 100 trillion won ($72 billion) in total order backlog in 2025, driven by strong export growth. More European and other countries adopt self-reliant defense strategies as US President Donald Trump warn that the US will no longer protect them for free and as he calls for increasing military spending. Moreover, the Ukraine war and the Gaza conflict continue. Thus, there are higher expectations that South Korea’s leading defense firms will secure more orders.   According to data compiled by the Chosun Ilbo, a top Korean newspaper, on May 6, 2025, the combined backlog of South Korea’s top four defense companies stands at around 94.5 trillion won. The figures for Hanwha Aerospace and KAI are based on the results of the first quarter in 2025, while those for LIG Nex1 and Hyundai Rotem reflect data from the end of 2024.[5]   All four companies secure more export deals, thereby enhancing both the scale and quality of their order books. Hanwha Aerospace, for example, holds 31.4 trillion won in ground defense orders, led by exports of K9 howitzers and Chunmoo multiple rocket systems. Exports account for 65% of that backlog. KAI’s backlog at the end of the first quarter in 2025 reached 24.3 trillion won, up 32% from 18.4 trillion won in 2020. The KAI aims to exceed 29 trillion won by year-end. Its export share has also risen from 50% in 2020 to 63% by the end of 2024.   LIG Nex1 holds a backlog of around 20 trillion won as of the end of 2024, while Hyundai Rotem’s stands at 18.8 trillion won. More than half of the orders for both companies come from overseas. Hyundai Rotem is also expected to finalize a second contract with Poland to export around 820 K2 tanks, valued at over 8 trillion won. If finalized, the deal would significantly boost its backlog this year.   According to updated data from the Chosun Ilbo, as Figure 3 shows, South Korea’s four major defense companies saw their combined order backlog surpass 100 trillion won ($72 billion) for the first time, driven by strong overseas demand. Data in second quarter of 2025 show that Hanwha Aerospace, LIG Nex1, Hyundai Rotem, and Korea Aerospace Industries held backlogs totaling 103.48 trillion won, more than double the 42.23 trillion won recorded at the end of 2021. Industry officials say that these companies now have enough work secured for the next four to five years.[6]   Figure 3: South Korea top 4 defense companies’ order backlog (source: the Chosun Ilbo, August 19, 2025)   This jump in exports of Korean-made conventional weapons has led to the Korean defense industry boom. Orders for Korean artillery weapons and armored vehicles from Eastern Europe and the Middle East have significantly increased since the outbreak of the Ukraine war.[7]   Sales of Hyundai Rotem Co., the supplier of the K-2 Black Panther tank, and Hanwha Aerospace Co., the supplier of the K-9 Thunder howitzer, have skyrocketed over the same period. Their parts suppliers have also seen their sales double over a year.   The South Korean defense industry’s current heyday is expected to continue for a while as global demand for Korean-made weapons and combat systems has surged amid growing geopolitical conflicts around the world.   According to defense industry sources, Hanwha Aerospace is expected to soon close a deal with Vietnam to export the K9 self-propelled howitzers, a contract expected to be worth 1 trillion won. Indeed, Hanwha Aerospace signed an agreement to export its K9 self-propelled howitzers worth US$250 million to Vietnam.  Hyundai Rotem is also reportedly nearing the final stage of inking a second agreement with Poland for K2 battle tanks that could be worth over 7 trillion won. LIG Nex1 has supposedly been in talks with Malaysia to export its surface-to-air missile system Cheongung. KAI is looking to export its KF-21 fighter jet to the Middle East.[8]   As the Korean defense companies continue to rack up orders and look to expand their list of clients worldwide, JP Morgan released a report on the four major defense firms -- Hanwha Aerospace, Hyundai Rotem, LIG Nex1 and KAI – in March 2025, increasing their stock price targets by an average of 28 percent while pointing out that there is “plenty of room to go” for their values to rise.[9]   The report surprised investors, industry officials and analysts as it set the target prices of the four defense companies higher than the domestic market consensus. J.P. Morgan adjusted the target stock prices of Hanwha Aerospace, Hyundai Rotem, LIG Nex1 and KAI to 950,000 won, 90,000 won, 370,000 won and 120,000 won, respectively.[10]   JP Morgan noted that it estimates an annual new order market of 19 trillion won -- 14 trillion won from Europe and 5 trillion won from the Middle East -- for Korean land weapons systems companies.   “Korean-made weapons remain one of the top choices for Eastern European countries facing national security issues,” said Lee Tae-hwan, an analyst at Daishin Securities. “Discussions about ordering conventional weapons will gain momentum. The K9 self-propelled howitzers and K2 tanks are excellent candidates with strong potential for scoring additional export deals in Eastern Europe.”[11]   Yu Ji-hoon, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, told The Korea Herald that “South Korea has rapidly matured into one of the world’s leading arms exporters, backed by a highly capable manufacturing base, a track record of delivering on time and at scale, and proven platforms.”[12].   II. Importers of South Korean weapons   Table 1. The 20 largest importers of major arms and their main suppliers, 2020–24   Source: SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, March. 2025   According to the SIPRI, as Table 1 shows, during the period of 2020–24, four of the world’s top 10 arms importers were in the Middle East: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait. More than half of Middle Eastern arms imports came from the US (52 per cent). The next largest arms suppliers to Middle Eastern nations were Italy (13 per cent), France (9.8 per cent) and Germany (7.6 per cent). Israel was the 15th largest arms importer in the world during the period of 2020–24, down from 14th in 2015–19. The US was the biggest supplier of major arms to Israel in 2020–24 (accounting for 66 per cent of Israeli arms imports), followed by Germany (33 per cent). Iran’s arms imports have been at a very low level relative to those of most other arms importers in the Middle East since 1993. Iran’s only supplier of major arms during the period of 2020–24 was Russia. Iran received a total of 6 light combat aircraft from Russia in 2023 and 2024 and has pending deliveries for 42 combat aircraft.[13]   Against the backdrop of tensions with its neighbors, Qatar was the 3rd largest arms importer in the world in 2020–24. Qatari arms imports during the period of 2020–24 were 127 per cent higher than in 2015–19. Qatar’s main arms supplier in 2020–24 was the US (accounting for 48 per cent of Qatari arms imports), followed by Italy (20 per cent), the UK (15 per cent) and France (14 per cent). In 2020–24 Qatar’s imports included 42 combat aircraft from the US, 31 from the UK and 16 from France; Qatar also imported 7 major warships from Italy. Arms imports by Saudi Arabia decreased by 41 per cent between 2015–19 and 2020–24. Saudi Arabia went from the world’s largest arms importer in 2015–19 to fourth largest importer in 2020–24. Saudi Arabia’s main arms supplier during the period of 2020–24 was the US (accounting for 74 per cent of Saudi Arabian arms imports), followed by Spain (10 per cent) and France (6.2 per cent). The decline in Saudi Arabia’s arms imports in 2020–24 can be partly attributed to the cyclical nature of arms procurement. Based on known pending deliveries, Saudi Arabia is expected to remain a major importer of arms in the coming years.[14]   According to data from the Korea International Trade Association and the Korean Herald, Middle Eastern countries occupied most of the top five spots among importers of Korean weapons in 2024 as regional tensions escalated due to the conflicts involving Israel, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen.   Saudi Arabia ranked second in the purchase of South Korean weapons with $530 million in 2024, while the United Arab Emirates and Turkey placed fourth and fifth with $145 million and $113 million, respectively. Last year’s biggest importer of South Korean defense systems was Poland, which purchased Korea-made weapons worth about $2.51 billion, more than four times what it bought in 2023. The US was the third-biggest importer of South Korean weapons at $219 million.[15]   As the Gaza conflict has threatened to spiral into a prolonged war, South Korea’s defense industry  sees a surge in international interest — particularly from the Middle East, where Arab governments have been accelerating large-scale military modernization programs.   Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates open the door to South Korean arms manufacturers, as regional demand has been rising for weapons systems that can be delivered fast and customized to local needs and priced more competitively than their US or European counterparts.   As Table 1 shows, Middle East countries have historically relied on US and Russian weapons. However, they are increasingly diversifying their weapons procurement by turning to suppliers in China, Europe and, more recently, South Korea.   South Korean arms appeal to many countries due to their strong performance, faster delivery timelines, competitive prices compared to products from the US and Europe, and the ability to customize systems to local needs. This South Korean approach has already translated into tangible results in the Middle East.   LIG Nex1’s medium-to-high altitude interceptor system, the Cheongung II, secured export contracts worth 12.1 trillion won ($8.7 billion) from the UAE in 2022, as well as from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2024. Several countries in the Middle East also reportedly consider purchases of the Cheongung II.   Interest in South Korean naval vessels, submarines and fighter jets has also risen in the Middle East.   Saudi Arabian Navy Chief of Staff Faisal al-Gharibi visited the 2025 International Maritime Defense Industry Exhibition in Busan on May 28, showing particular interest in Hanwha Ocean’s 3,600-ton Jangbogo-III Batch-II submarine. The delegation also visited HD Hyundai Heavy Industries’ booth, showing a strong interest in a 6,500-ton frigate on display.[16]   The UAE has expressed interest in the KF-21, South Korea’s next-generation fighter jet. The UAE Air Defense Commander Rashid Al Shamsi visited Korea Aerospace Industries’ (KAI) headquarters in April 2025 to inspect production facilities for the KF-21 and other aircraft. Azzan A. Ali Al Nuaimi, commander of the UAE’s Air Warfare and Missile Defense Center, even requested to sit in a KF-21 prototype himself.   The KAI also pushes additional exports of the Surion multipurpose helicopter, having already delivered two units to Iraq.[17]Chae Woo-seok, executive director of the Korea Defense Industry Association, said that demand for South Korean weapons is likely to grow due to the region’s urgent security needs. He told that “We expect higher demand for South Korean defense systems that can be delivered quickly in a region such as the middle East with high geopolitical risk.” Chae said that “demand will grow for weapons systems that strengthen air power and build aerial defense networks, particularly those that enhance war deterrence capabilities.”[18]   III. Major military weapons of South Korean Defense Industry   1.South Korea’s expanding arms export portfolio   In South Korea’s expanding arms export portfolio, the K2 tank, called “Black Panther” and built by Hyundai Rotem, has been a flagship item.   The K2 is South Korea’s most advanced main battle tank, designed for speed, precision and adaptability on the mountainous Korean Peninsula. In recent years, the K2 has drawn major international orders, most notably from Poland, as Polish and other nations’ militaries seek modern armor to replace aging Cold War units.   It is central to South Korea’s largest-ever defense export deals, including the one with Poland, signed in 2022, in which Poland ordered 180 K2 Black Panther tanks from Hyundai Rotem in a $3.37 billion agreement. Deliveries began within months, far faster than European or American suppliers could offer.[19]   In 2025, Poland signed with a $6.5 billion contract for 180 upgraded K2PL tanks, making South Korea one of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s most important new arms partners and cemented South Korea’s status as a major player in the global defense market.   Other key weapons in the South Korean export portfolio are the K239 Chunmoo Multiple Rocket Launcher System, K9 self-propelled howitzer, FA-50 fighter jets, KP-SAM chirons, M-Sam 2 (천궁 II), KF-21 fight jets, and KUH-1 (수리온 헬기).[20]   Prominent deals made with global clients include K239 Chunmoo MLRS systems purchased by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in 2017 and 2022, respectively.   South Korea also signed a $250 million agreement to supply Vietnam with 20 K9 self-propelled howitzers on August 14, 2025, marking the weapon’s first deployment to a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations bloc. The K9 howitzers are already in service in countries such as Turkey and Egypt.[21]   In December 2013, Iraq signed a contract for 24 T-50IQ aircraft, a FA-50 variant, plus additional equipment and pilot training over the next 20 years. The first batch of aircraft was delivered in March 2017.   On March 28, 2014, Department of Defense in the Philippines signed a contract for 12 FA-50 fighters worth P18.9 billion (US$421.12 million). Deliveries began in November 2015, all 12 aircraft were delivered by May 31, 2017.[22]   Indonesian Air Force acquired and operated KP-Sam Chirons since 2014 which was integrated with Oerlikon Skyshield 35 mm anti-aircraft gun system. Additionally, 2 Chirons were transferred according to a 2019 SIPRI small arms report. 54 KP-SAM chirons were delivered to Romania in June 2024.   M-Sam 2 (천궁 II) secured export contracts worth 12.1 trillion won ($8.7 billion) from the UAE in 2022 and Saudi Arabia & Iraq in 2024. Iraq purchased KUH-1 (수리온 헬기) in 2024.   As the Israel-Palestine conflict spirals into a prolonged war, South Korea’s defense industry is seeing a surge in international interest — particularly from the Middle East, where governments have been accelerating large-scale military modernization programs. Several countries in the Middle East also reportedly consider additional purchases of South Korean weapons. Interest in South Korean naval vessels, submarines and fighter jets has been also rising.[23]   Saudi Arabian Navy showed strong interest in Hanwha Ocean’s 3,600-ton Jangbogo-III Batch-II submarine. The UAE has expressed interest in the KF-21, South Korea’s next-generation fighter jet. The KAI has also pushed additional exports of the Surion multipurpose helicopter.   2. Major South Korean weapons that were exported to Middle East countries   This is the second paper in a series on South Korean defense industry. Focus is on South Korean weapons that were exported to Middle East countries.   According to data from the Korea International Trade Association and the Korea Herald, last year’s biggest importer of South Korean defense systems was Poland. The most-exported items were from Hanwha Aerospace, which shipped 212 units of its K9 self-propelled howitzers, and Hyundai Rotem, selling 134 units of the K2 battle tank.[24]   Middle Eastern countries occupied most of the top five spots among importers of South Korean weapons as regional tensions escalated due to the conflicts involving Israel, Iran, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen.   Saudi Arabia ranked second in the purchase of South Korean weapons with $530 million in 2024, while the United Arab Emirates and Turkey placed fourth and fifth with $145 million and $113 million, respectively. The United States was the third-biggest importer of Korean weapons at $219 million. As Table 2 shows, South Korea has exported the following weapons to several Middle East countries during the period of 2001-2024: K2 tanks, K 9 howitzer, Chunmoo multiple rocket systems, M-Sam 2, FA-50, and KUH-1 Surion.   Table 2: Major defense export contracts with Middle East countries, 2001-2024   Year Destination Name of company Name of weapon Contract money  (₩ Korean won or $ US dollars) 2001 Turkey Hanwha Aerospace K 9 howitzer $1 billion 2007 Turkey Hyundai Rotem K2 tanks $ 0.4 billion (Technology export) 2013 Iraq Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) FA-50 ₩2.0121 trillion won 2017 UAE Hanwha Aerospace K239 Chunmoo (천무) ₩700 billion won 2022   Saudi Arabia Hanwha Aerospace K239 Chunmoo ₩1 trillion won Egypt Hanwha Aerospace K 9 howitzer ₩2 trillion won UAE LIG Nex1 M-Sam 2 (천궁 II) ₩12.1 trillion won 2024   Saudi Arabia LIG Nex1 M-Sam 2(천궁 II) Iraq LIG Nex1 M-Sam 2 (천궁 II) Iraq KAI KUH-1 Surion (헬기) ₩1.358 billion won (source: Chosun Biz, 12 February, 2025 & several Korean newspapers)   3. Major South Korean weapons that have the potential to be exported to Middle Eastern countries   As the Gaza conflict spirals into a prolonged war, demand for defense products in the Middle East has rapidly increased. Moreover, Middle Eastern countries have been transforming their defense industry and accelerating large-scale military modernization programs. In particular, Saudi Arabia has been actively advancing the transformation of its defense industry under ‘Vision 2030,’ with the goal of localizing 50% of military spending by 2030. To this end, Saudi Arabia has made strategic investments to develop its domestic defense manufacturing capabilities, increase self-sufficiency, and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. One of the key events showcasing these advancements is the World Defense Show (WDS) 2026, scheduled to take place in Riyadh, where Saudi Arabia will highlight its growing defense capabilities and industry partnerships.[25]   Since the launch of Vision 2030 in 2016, Saudi Arabia has made significant progress in localizing its defense industry. The localization rate of military expenditures increased from 4% in 2018 to 19.35% by the end of 2023. In addition, the number of licensed and authorized facilities in the Saudi military industry sector increased from five in 2019 to 296 by the third quarter of 2024. This growth is the result of policies and regulations designed to oversee and stimulate the sector, enhancing the competitiveness of domestic products. These efforts aim to establish a robust industrial base and foster a national ecosystem capable of attracting investment and strategic collaborations with global entities.[26]   Several initiatives have been introduced to achieve these ambitious goals. The General Authority for Military Industries (GAMI) stands at the forefront of this movement, acting as the regulatory and enabling body for the Saudi defense industry. GAMI’s mandate includes overseeing technology transfer, streamlining military procurement, and supporting the growth of local defense production.[27]   The GAMI has signed over 53 industrial cooperation agreements, amounting to approximately 35 billion riyals ($9.32 billion), with local and international companies. Among these agreements, approximately 13 billion riyals ($3.46 billion) pertain to orders for local firms, supporting the development of national capabilities. Saudi Arabia seeks to strengthen ties with major global manufacturers and accelerate technology transfer to its domestic industry through these initiatives.   In parallel, Saudi Arabian Military Industries (SAMI), established in 2017, plays a central role in this transformation. As a wholly owned subsidiary of the Public Investment Fund (PIF), SAMI aims to rank among top 25 global defense firms by 2030. The SAMI focuses on the development of air, land, naval, and defense systems while forming strategic partnerships to facilitate technology transfer and enhance local capabilities.[28]   During this Saudi Arabia’s modernization of its defense industry, Saudi Arabia and South Korea have strengthen defense cooperation. In particular, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to South Korea in 2019 led to the signing of an MoU aimed at strengthening defense and industrial partnerships, focusing on military acquisitions, research, and technology.   Since then, defense ties between Saudi Arabia and South Korea have grown through several agreements. For example, in February 2024, defense ministers in Saudi Arabia and South Korea discussed closer collaboration, and they signed an MoU to establish a joint committee for weapons research and development.[29]   This MoU signing was followed by a $3.2 billion deal, with South Korea’s LIG Nex1 agreeing to supply Saudi Arabia with mid-range surface-to-air missile systems.   On the other hand, for several decades, the UAE has been the undisputed regional economic leader, attracting foreign investors. Recently, however, Saudi Arabia has doubled down on its efforts to compete with the UAE and present itself as the new regional economic & defense leader. This competition could reshape Saudi-UAE relations and have impacts on the entire region.   As the competition between Saudi Arabia and UAE has intensified, rifts between the two Arab nations have deepened, occasionally leading to strained relations and divergent geoeconomic and geopolitical agendas.   Without a doubt, the UAE is the regional leader not only in the economic sector, but also in the defense sector, offering advanced autonomous solutions, air defense systems including missiles, land systems, electronic warfare, and even space technologies. The UAE has surpassed Egypt, previously the Arab world’s largest industrial power.[30]   The UAE’s decision to develop its domestic capabilities in defense stems from the UAE’s recognition of the risks that rely totally on a partnership with the US, particularly after the Biden administration imposed export restrictions on Saudi Arabia. In addition, UAE leaders see building their own industrial base as a necessary hedge against the oil rentier model, whose longevity cannot be assured. Moreover, as Saudi Arabia made significant transformation in its defense sector under ‘vision 2030,’ the UAE also needed to embark on major restructuring of its defense sector and programs.[31]   The UAE approach has emphasized forming joint ventures with various foreign partners. This strategy has allowed the country to acquire foreign technologies, develop them further, and eventually implement and market them as its own. One notable example is the Falaj 3, a 60-meter offshore patrol vessel. In January 2025, Abu Dhabi Ship Building (ADSB), which is owned by EDGE (an Emirati advanced technology and defense conglomerate), launched the first ship of this class, with four planned in total. These vessels are the result of a partnership with Singapore-based ST Engineering that provided technologies from its Fearless-class ships.[32]   Decision-makers in the UAE have not limited their cooperation to the largest defense firms. While major companies were crucial in the initial technology transfer phase, EDGE is now actively seeking industrial agreements with smaller yet ambitious and innovative partners that can significantly expand the offerings of Emirati entities. For instance, in January 2025, EDGE signed a letter of intent with Hungary under which the UAE will supply Caracal sniper rifles to the Hungarian military – marking the first time EDGE has provided such systems to a NATO member state. Not coincidentally, UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan welcomed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to Abu Dhabi at the same time.[33]   As the UAE modernizes its defense industry and actively pursues joint ventures with foreign partners, other Middle Eastern countries are likely to adopt similar strategies.[34]   Under these circumstances, several countries in the Middle East, in particular Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as Qatar, shift their focus away from the traditional US- and European-centric arms supply chain and toward South Korean defense companies. South Korea has emerged as a new strategic partner, leveraging the technological prowess and independent defense platform it has accumulated over the past several years.   Saudi Arabia and the UAE opened the door to South Korean arms manufacturers, as regional demand has been rising for weapons systems that can be delivered fast and customized to local needs and priced more competitively than their US or European counterparts.[35]   The Middle East countries have historically relied on US and Russian arms. However, they have been increasingly diversifying their weapons procurement by turning to suppliers in Europe, China, and, more recently, South Korea.   South Korean weapons appeal to many Middle Eastern countries due to their strong performance, faster delivery timelines, competitive prices, and the ability to customize systems to local needs. This South Korean approach has already produced positive results in the Middle East.   LIG Nex1’s medium-to-high altitude interceptor system, the Cheongung II, secured export contracts from the UAE in 2022, as well as from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2024. Several countries in the Middle East also consider purchases of the Cheongung II.[36]   Moreover, many Middle Eastern countries have shown interests in South Korean fighter jets, naval vessels, and submarines.   The most noteworthy South Korean weapon is the KF-21 Boramae, a 4.5th-generation fighter jet. The KF-21 is expected to be fully domestically produced in the future, and its component replacement cycle and operational and maintenance costs are lower than those of US or European aircraft. This economic feasibility and maintenance efficiency are highly attractive to Middle Eastern countries seeking to rapidly bolster their military capabilities. The UAE has expressed interest in the KF-21. The UAE Air Defense Commander Rashid Al Shamsi and his delegation visited Korea Aerospace Industries’ (KAI) headquarters in April 2025 to inspect production facilities for the KF-21 and other aircraft.   Moreover, South Korea possesses a diverse portfolio that includes not only fighter jets but also ballistic missile interception systems (e.g., the Cheongung II), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), helicopters, self-propelled howitzers (K9s), maritime patrol aircraft, submarines, tanks, and armored vehicles, allowing it to flexibly respond to the complex security needs of Middle Eastern countries.[37]   The KAI has pushed additional exports of the Surion multipurpose helicopter, having already delivered two units to Iraq. “We’ve seen a sharp increase in visits and inquiries about our fighter jets and helicopters, especially from Middle Eastern countries,” a KAI representative said. “We will focus on country-specific strategies for countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia to secure final export deals.”[38]   Saudi Arabian Navy has showed strong interest in Hanwha Ocean’s 3,600-ton Jangbogo-III Batch-II submarine. Saudi Arabian Navy Chief of Staff Faisal al-Gharibi visited the 2025 International Maritime Defense Industry Exhibition in Busan on May 28, 2025, showing particular interest in Hanwha Ocean’s  Jangbogo-III Batch-II submarine. The Saudi delegation also visited HD Hyundai Heavy Industries’ booth, where they inquired about the export readiness of a 6,500-ton frigate on display. 4. Introduction of major South Korean weapons to become the game changer in the Middle East   This paper first introduces South Korean weapons that have the potential to be exported to the Middle East and then shows weapons that were already exported to the Middle Eastern and other countries.   1.M-Sam Block (천궁)   Type Medium-range, mobile surface-to-air missile/anti-ballistic missile system Place of origin South Korea Service history In service 2015–present Production history Designer Agency for Defense Development  Almaz-Antey (Block 1) Designed Block 1: 2001–2011[2]  Block 2: 2012–2017 Block 3: 2024–In development Manufacturer Hanwha Aerospace (launcher, radar)  LIG Nex1 (missile, system) Produced Block 1: 2015–2020 Block 2: 2021–present Specifications Mass Missile: 400 kilograms (880 lb) Length 4.61 meters (15 ft 1 in) Diameter 275 millimeters (10.8 in) Engine Solid-fuel rocket motor Operational range Block 1: 40 km (25 mi) Block 2: 50 km (31 mi) Flight ceiling Block 1: 15 km (49,000 ft) Block 2: 20 km (66,000 ft) Maximum speed Mach 4.5 – Mach 5 (1,530–1,700 m/s; 5,510–6,100 km/h) Guidance system Inertial guidance with midcourse updates through datalink, terminal active radar homing   Figure 4:  M-Sam (천궁) (source: Wikipedia)   The M-SAM (Medium-range Surface-to-Air Missile, 천궁), or often called KM-SAM, is a South Korean medium range surface-to-air missile (SAM) system that was developed by the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) with technical support from Almaz-Antey and Fakel, based on technology from the 9M96 missile used on S-350E and S-400 missile systems. The project was named Cheolmae-2 (Iron Hawk, 철매) during its development phase.[39] M-SAM serves as a key system in South Korea’s Air and Missile Defense (KAMD).   The KM-SAM is the middle-tier of South Korea’s three-tier aerial and missile defense system. Though it was developed in Russia by the Almaz Design Bureau in association with Samsung Thales, LIG Nex1, and Doosan DST, localization and industrialization were done in South Korea enough to consider it an indigenous Korean system. South Korea has independent export rights under international intellectual property law and does not use Russian-made parts. Therefore, export is possible regardless of international sanctions against Russia. The KM-SAM can intercept targets up to an altitude of 15 km (49,000 ft) at a range of 40 km (25 mi). It is to replace upgraded MIM-23 Hawk batteries in South Korea and be made available for export. Almaz-Antey continued with the program after prototypes were transferred and have created a distinctly Russian version called the Vityaz missile system.[40]   The South Korean Air Force revealed in mid-2015 that the KM-SAM would soon enter mass production and begin delivery to the Air Force that September, replacing the Hawk missile that had been in Korean service since 1964, which the US military retired in 2002. The system can intercept up to six targets simultaneously, and the missiles have anti-electronic warfare capabilities to keep functioning despite jamming. The system passed the military’s operational requirement verification test in July 2015, and began deployment in early 2016 near the maritime border with North Korea in the Yellow Sea.   On 28 April 2020, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) in South Korea announced that deliveries of the Cheongung KM-SAM Block-1 system to South Korean Air Force had been completed. In July 2021, South Korea retired its last MIM-23 Hawk system, phasing it out for the Cheongung Block-1.[41]   LIG Nex1 participated in International Defence Exhibition held in the UAE in 2021 and showed off the South Korean weapon system, including KM-SAM and AT-1K Raybolt.[42]   On 16 November 2021, the UAE’s Ministry of Defense tweeted that it plans to acquire the M-SAM as a “qualitative addition” to its existing air defense capabilities and that the deal could reach US$3.5 billion. An official at South Korea’s DAPA said that the announcement was "positive" but "we still need to see how negotiations on the details will proceed." On 16 January 2022, the DAPA announced that the UAE would purchase the system in a deal worth $3.5 billion. At that time, it was the largest arms export deal ever made by South Korea.[43]   In 2022, the US requested South Korea to send this missile system to Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However South Korea declined the request on the basis of its security situation.   In February 2024, the South Korean Defense Ministry announced that Saudi Arabia would purchase 10 KM-SAM Block II batteries, in a deal worth $3.2 billion.[44] In September 2024, the Iraqi Ministry of Defense signed a deal with LIG Nex1 worth $2.8 billion, in order to acquire an unspecified number of KM-SAM Block II batteries.[45]   Currently South Korean Air Force is the only operator of KM-SAM, operating KM-SAM Block I & Block II. Future operators may be Iraqi, Saudi, UAE Armed Forces (unspecified number of batteries). The Iraqi armed forces ordered Block II (unspecified number of batteries) in September 2024 for USD $2.8 billion. Royal Saudi Air Defense Forces also ordered Block II (10 batteries) in February 2024 for USD $3.2 billion. In addition, United Arab Emirates Army ordered Block II (12 batteries) in January 2023, and to be produced partially in the UAE, worth USD $3.5 billion.[46]   Figure 5: on May 13, 2025, the UAE officially unveiled M-SAM II (source: https://en.topwar.ru/264565-oaje-oficialno-predstavili-zakuplennuju-ranee-v-juzhnoj-koree-sistemu-perehvata-ballisticheskih-raket-m-sam-ii.html)   The South Korean government recently took two major steps toward strengthening its air defense shield against attack from North Korea’s ballistic-missile arsenal. First, on 28 July 2025, the South Korean government announced that it had deployed a first Medium Surface-to-Air Missile (M-SAM) Block II system after it had been upgraded from a Block I. Secondly, on 1 August 2025, the government revealed that it had awarded contracts for development of the M-SAM Block III (also known as the Cheongung-III) as its next-generation air defense system.[47]   Original Cheongung-I missiles, in a mobile, medium-range system focused on aircraft threats, were fielded in 2016. Since then, the South Korean government has pursued a phased improvement program rather than developing entirely new systems.   The South Korean Air Force formally deployed its first new-build M-SAM Block II batteries in 2023, with each battery containing 32 missiles that possess an anti-ballistic capability. The latest milestone covered the upgrade of Block I systems into the Block II.[48]   The Cheongung-II is a key element of the multi-layered South Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD) network. It addresses both fixed-wing aircraft and high-speed, maneuvering missile threats. The Cheongung-II has a hit-to-kill capability and improved low-altitude target detection, plus it allows multi-target engagements, thus increasing response to saturation or complex attacks.[49]   The Block II system uses a ground-based, multifunction, X-band, 3D, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar with a 100km range; it is capable of tracking up to 40 targets simultaneously. Detection or jamming of the radar is minimized by employing electronic beam steering and reducing sidelobe emissions.[50]   The interceptor missiles employ active radar guidance in their terminal phase. Each has a range of 40km at altitudes of up to 15km. An M-SAM Block II battery consists of a truck-mounted AESA radar, a command post vehicle and four eight-cell missile launchers.   The upgrade path to the future Cheongung-III, which should be completed by 2034, will realize similar cost savings as occurred with the Block II.   The primary contract award to LIG Nex1 involves development of the engagement control system, command-and-control unit, interceptor missile and full system integration. Hanwha, although not selected as a prime contractor, will provide missile launchers, propulsion system and multifunction radars.   The Block III program is valued at KRW3 trillion (US$2.2 billion), and it will extend the current system’s capabilities by intercepting envisioned future ballistic-missile threats. It will have five times the operational range and increase the engagement altitude to 30km. The solid-fuel missile will achieve speeds of Mach 4.5, and use inertial guidance and active radar homing to address both short- and medium-range targets.[51]   The density and multi-layered structure of the KAMD network reflect South Korea’s clear appreciation of the threat posed by North Korea and its anticipated attack tactics.   Continued development of indigenous defense systems also demonstrates the country’s commitment to increased self-reliance and to establishing itself as a top-tier exporter of defense equipment.   The new system, upon completion, will upgrade the multi-layered defense network alongside other defense systems, such as the Cheongung-II and L-SAM systems. “We will develop the M-SAM Block-III system that satisfies both performance and price to ensure it contributes to strengthening our competitiveness in exports,” said DAPA Vice Commissioner Kang Hwan-seok.[52]   The M-SAM system (Cheongung)with this high quality is comparable to US Patriot system and Israeli Iron Dome. This paper compares M-Sam 2, Patriot (PAC-3) and Iron Dome. As Table 3 shows, M-Sam 2, Patriot (PAC-3) and Iron Dome have their own strengths and weaknesses. M-Sam 2 is better than Patriot (PAC-3) and Iron Dome in terms of high interception capability, high mobility, and low cost of purchase & maintenance. For more information about the M-SAM system, please watch the following Youtube videos:   الدفاع الجوي M SAM II الذي تعاقد علية العراق   Saudi Arabia Ordered Multi-Function Radar for Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missile from South Korean   UAE STRENGTHENS AIR DEFENSE IN 2025 — M-SAM II NOW INTEGRATED WITH PAC-3 & THAAD SYSTEMS   Table 3: Comparison of M-Sam 2 (천궁 II), Patriot (PAC-3), and the Iron Dome   Name of system M-Sam 2 Patriot (PAC-3), The Iron Dome Country of Origin South Korea USA Israel Period of use 2017-current (with ABM capabilities) 2009-current 2011-current Intercept Terminal Terminal Terminal Role against SRBM SRBM, MRBM Short-range rockets, artillery shells, drones Range (Max) Up to 50 km Up to 160 km Up to 70 km Ceiling (Max) 20km 24km + 10km Speed Mach 4.5+ 6,170 km/h (3,830 mph) Mach 2.2 Cost Export cost for Saudi Arabia, 10 batteries for US$ $3.2 billion, 2024 Export cost: US$2.37–2.5 billion for battery; US$6–10 million (FY 2018) for a single missile $50 million per battery; $100,000–150,000 per interception Interception success rate 100% (claim). No real war records 95% (claim). Operational experience in Ukraine demonstrates the increasing problem: on June 28, 2025, seven Russian ballistic missiles were fired, with one intercepted. above 90% (claim) Strength High interception capability, High mobility, low cost of purchase & maintenance Long-range interception, wide defense range, effectiveness against a wide range of targets, including aircraft, cruise missiles, and tactical ballistic missiles. Extensive real combat experience Extensive real combat experience Weakness Limited range, No real combat experience High cost of purchase & maintenance, lack of full 360-degree radar coverage, difficulty with hypersonic threats and saturation attacks Limited range, difficulty with saturation attacks & long-range ballistic missiles with larger and more powerful warheads, not effective against very short-range rockets that are fired from close proximity. (source: Wikipedia & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_anti-ballistic_missile_systems, & https://gallery.modernengineeringmarvels.com/2025/10/09/russias-missile-maneuvers-expose-patriot-defense-weakness/, & https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/irondome-flaws-system/)   2. KUH-1 Surion General information Type Medium utility helicopter Role Transport National origin South Korea Manufacturer Korea Aerospace Industries Designer Agency for Defense Development (mission equipment package)  Korea Aerospace Industries (with technical assistance from Eurocopter) Status In service Primary users Republic of Korea Army National Police Agency (South Korea) Number built 218+ (including derivatives) History Introduction date 22 May 2013 First flight 10 March 2010 In service 2013–present Developed from Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma Figure 6: KUH-1 Surion (source: Wikipedia)   The KUH-1 Surion is a twin-engine, transport utility helicopter developed primarily by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), Agency for Defense Development (ADD) and Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI) jointly with Eurocopter. In 2006, the research and development phase of the Korea Helicopter Project - Korea Utility Helicopter (KHP-KUH), costing around ₩1.3 trillion (equivalent to ₩1.67 trillion or US$1.48 billion in 2017), was launched by the Agency for Defense Development.[53]   In June 2008, KAI announced that the first prototype KUH was to be rolled in the following month and that ground tests would begin later that year. The KAI stated that it aimed to conduct the type’s first flight in early 2010 and that the first production aircraft would be delivered in 2013.[54] In August 2009, the first prototype was introduced by President Lee Myung-bak at an unveiling ceremony in Sacheon, South Korea.   On 10 March 2010, KAI announced that a prototype had performed the maiden flight of the Surion. Two test pilots and an engineer performed a series of taxiing and hovering maneuvers, as well as a stationary hover at 30 ft (9.1m), during this initial flight.[55] In May 2010, following three months of flight testing, the prototype performed its first public flight demonstration.[56] In January 2011, Eurocopter and KAI established a joint venture, KAI-EC, for the purposes of marketing the Surion and handling export sales. At the time, it was envisioned that 250-300 units would be sold worldwide by 2021. In December 2012, deliveries of the first Surion model began. In February 2013, low temperature testing in Alaska, US, was completed, leading to development of the KUH-1 Surion being formally recognized as completed in March.[57] In 2012, full-scale production of the Surion began. KAI became the principal manufacturer of the type.   An initial force of around 245 Surions have been ordered by the South Korean Army to replace their aging fleets of UH-1H utility helicopters and 500MD light utility helicopters, which have been in service for decades. KAI will also construct civilian and law enforcement variants of the helicopter.[58]   KAI has offered the Surion to international markets for military and civilian purposes. In late 2013, it was reported that KAI had received requests for proposals regarding the Surion from two South American nations and another Asian nation; at the time, KAI stated that the company hoped to sell 60–120 Surions over the following 15–20 years.[59] International marketing efforts were expected to escalate in 2017, as prior to this point the overwhelming priority had been to fully develop the Surion to conform with existing domestic requirements and roles. KAI has deliberately focused on marketing the Surion to countries in which previous export success had been found for the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle and KAI KT-1 Woongbi trainer aircraft.[60]   KUH-1 export version prototype helicopter was unveiled at the Seoul ADEX in 2019. The new prototype helicopter was developed over four years to meet requirements of foreign customers. This helicopter for export was equipped with a GARMIN G5000H avionics suite, and this equipment strengthened airframe/structures for the installation of external fuel tanks and a weapons wing pylon. It can accommodate VIPs and passengers with enhanced interior and Bluetooth/wi-fi connectivity.   The Korea Utility Helicopter (KUH-1), the Surion, successfully achieved mass production by applying the concurrent engineering design concept, which involved simultaneous design and prototype development. Designed with the Korean Peninsula’s weather and mountainous terrain in mind, the Surion was developed to hover even at high altitudes, such as Mount Baekdu. This makes it a multi-purpose helicopter capable of conducting air operations throughout the Korean Peninsula and various support missions, including airlifting personnel and cargo to high altitudes.[61]   To counter enemy attacks in battlefield environments, critical flight safety components for the Surion, including the rotor system, cockpit, engine, and fuel tank, were designed with ballistic resistance. The rotor blades maintained their functionality even after a hit, ensuring the helicopter’s safe return. The windshield was designed to contain and prevent fragments from dispersing in the event of an external impact, ensuring pilot safety.   The fuel tank sealed itself in the event of a hit to prevent fuel leakage and explosion, and the engine was equipped with a Full-Factor Engine Control Unit (FADEC). The control system employed a dual-compensation design, allowing a backup system to operate in the event of a failure. The main gearbox can operate without lubrication for 30 minutes in an emergency. Furthermore, the integrated digital instrument panel (Glass Cockpit) enhanced pilot convenience. Equipped with a four-axis autopilot and digital power control, the aircraft can autonomously fly to a tactical target point after takeoff, enabling tactical missions even at night and in adverse weather conditions. It also features automatic hover capability.[62]   Current operators of KUH-1 Surions are South Korean Army, Marine Corps and Korea Coast Guard. South Korean government agencies such as National Police Agency, Korea Forest Service, Jeju Fire Department, and Korea Aerospace Industries also operate KUH-1 Surions. Potential customers of KUH-1 Surions are Vietnam and Iraq:   Vietnam: In mid-2023, Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Viettel Aerospace Institute (VTX) to “cooperate in developing and producing helicopters.” By that, KAI and VTX plan to collaborate on the development and production of helicopter’s rotary wings. The agreement is expected to boost KAI’s presence in the Southeast Asian helicopter market while eventually making Vietnam a very potential customer of the Surion.[63]   Iraq: In August 2024, Korean media reported that a high-ranking Iraqi Army official, Lieutenant General Samir Zaki Hussein Al-Maliki, commander of Iraq’s Army Aviation Command, embarked on a four-day visit to South Korea. The official’s visit to South Korea coincides with Iraq’s exploration of potential acquisitions to modernize its military assets. While Iraq previously secured a deal with KAI for the procurement of 24 FA-50 light attack aircraft in 2013, discussions regarding the Surion helicopter mark a new avenue for collaboration between the two nations. In December 2024, the KAI signed a US$93.7 million deal to export the Surion to Iraq. Under the deal, KAI will supply 2 KUH-1 helicopters to the Iraqi government by March 2029.[64] 3. KF-21   General information Type Block 1: Air superiority fighter  Block 2: Multirole combat aircraft, air superiority fighter  Block 3: Stealth strike fighter, multirole combat aircraft, air superiority fighter National origin South Korea Manufacturer Korea Aerospace Industries Designer Agency for Defense Development Primary user Republic of Korea Air Force, Republic of Indonesia Air Force Number built 6 prototypes History Introduction date 2026 (planned) First flight 19 July 2022   Figure 7: KF 21 (source: Wikipedia)   The KF-21 Boramae (KF-21 보라매) is a South Korean fighter aircraft development program with the initial goal of producing multirole fighters for South Korean Air Force. The airframe uses stealth technology but carries weapons externally, and features such as internal bays will be introduced later with KF-21EX program.[65] The KAI KF-X is South Korea’s second domestic fighter jet development program, following the FA-50.[66]   In April 2021, the first prototype was completed and unveiled during a rollout ceremony at the headquarters of KAI in Sacheon. It was named the Boramae. The first test flight was on 19 July 2022. The serial production started in July 2024. 40 aircraft were planned to be delivered by 2028, with South Korean Air Force expecting to deploy 120 of the aircraft by 2032.[67] It will also be available for export. South Korea will begin replacing its F-4D/E Phantom II and F-5E/F Tiger II jets with KF-21s. Later, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-15EX Eagle IIs will also be replaced.[68]   The KF-21’s specifications are as impressive as its development speed. This jet can reach a speed of Mach 1.8 (or 1,400 miles per hour), has a ceiling of 50,000 feet, and can carry 17,000 pounds of ordnance.[69]   The KF-21 also has an advanced suite of avionics and other electronics, like an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar; a cutting-edge system that uses thousands of tiny antennas to rapidly scan, track, and target multiple objects simultaneously. The two-seater variant is expected to be capable of teaming with South Korea’s Low Observable Unmanned Wingman System (LOWUS), a collaborative combat aircraft under development.[70]   Despite its impressive capabilities, the KF-21 is not a 5th-gen fighter, because it does not have the same stealth capabilities as its American, Chinese, and Russian counterparts.[71] While the jet does feature an angular design to reduce its radar cross section, it lacks radar-absorbent materials (RAM) across its entire body and does not have internal weapons bays, instead relying on ten external hardpoints. Thus, KAI and analysts often refer to the KF-21 as a “4.5 generation” fighter — in other words, an advanced 4th-gen fighter with some 5th-gen characteristics.   But that may not be the case for long. KAI announced that it intends to upgrade a version of the KF-21 to a full stealth fighter. Dubbed the KF-21EX, these upgrades will include internal weapons bays, more advanced RAM coatings, conformal antennas (flat sensors embedded in the airframe’s skin that replace protruding antennas), and possibly low-observable exhaust nozzles for engine exhaust and infrared signature reduction. Internal weapons bays are important for a 5th-generation fighter because external weapons produce sizable radar returns.   The KF-21EX may be available by the late 2030s or early 2040s. South Korea’s Air Force signed its first contract for 20 KF-21s in 2024, with deliveries expected between the end of 2026 and summer of 2027. A second order of 20 more is expected to come by the end of this year. The country hopes to acquire 120 of the jets by 2032.[72]   Based on the final basic design (C109) released in late 2018, the KF-21 is a medium-sized fighter jet. The KF-21is larger than smaller fighters like the F-16 or JAS 39 Gripen, but is smaller than larger fighters like the F/A-18E/F, F-15, and F-22, and is comparable in weight to the Dassault Rafale, MiG-35, Eurofighter Typhoon, and F/A-18C/D.[73]   The KF-21 is smaller and lighter than the F/A-18E/F, which uses the same F414-GE-400 engine, and has the advantage of lower wing loading than the F-35, which has a similar thrust rating. Thanks to this, the thrust-to-weight ratio is comparable to that of the Eurofighter Typhoon, and with the application of triple digital FBW, LEX (Leading Edge eXtension), and variable camber wings, it is expected to demonstrate high acceleration, turning ability, and high angle of attack maneuverability. The subjective evaluation of current test pilots is that its maneuverability is similar to or better than that of the F-16. The speed is Mach 1.8 or higher. To ensure survivability in future battlefields, the KF-21 has a low-observable shape design, including a reflection angle alignment design, a flush antenna, S-Duct, a flat fuselage, and a semi-recessed weapons bay. RAM is applied to the canopy, wings, and tail, and RAS is applied to the ducts and flaps inside the fuselage. Frequency-selective surface technology is applied to the radome to prevent radar waves from enemy fighters from reflecting back onto the antenna.[74]   As befitting a cutting-edge 4.5-generation fighter, the KF-21 incorporates sensor fusion technology. This technology integrates various sensors, including an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, along with information shared via the AESA radar, IRST, EOTGP, and datalink. This technology determines whether a target is the same target, calculates the target’s flight trajectory, and displays it to the pilot via the radar-activated display (LAD). The IRST and EOTGP are developed based on Leonardo's PIRATE IRST, used on the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Lockheed Martin’s Sniper Targeting Pod, used on fighters such as the F-15K. Contrary to popular belief, the EOTGP is also used in air-to-air missions, enabling more effective detection of enemy aircraft through IRST and sensor fusion, much like the Rafale's Front Sector Optronics (FSO).[75]   The Multi-Function Radar developed by Hanwha Systems is an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, and its performance is developed with the goal of being equal to or superior to that of the AN/APG-81. It can detect/track more than 20 targets simultaneously, and supports simultaneous air-to-air/air-to-ground/air-to-ship search modes, air-to-ground SAR mode, air-to-air tracking mode, and LPI mode. The radar signal processing computer was developed by Intellics, a South Korean company, and is equipped with OpenCL for high-speed calculations. It provides a total processing performance of 25 TFLOPS by installing eight of the latest high-performance FPGA Virtex 7, server-grade CPU Intel XEON D, and MXM type AMD Radeon E8950 MXM GPUs in parallel, which is a 47% improvement compared to the 17 TFLOPS of the Mercury product installed on the F-35. By applying this low-observable technology, it achieved a lower RCS than the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and at the time of exploration and development, it was predicted that the combat effectiveness would be 4.1 times that of the F-16, 1.2 times that of the F/A-18E/F, and 1.3 times that of the F-16C.[76]   Currently KF-21 is operated only in South Korea, but potential operators of KF-21 are as follows: Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Poland, Peru, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. Because this paper focuses on Middle East countries, it explains only Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.   Egypt is regarded as a potential purchaser of the FA-50, as well as the newly-developed KF-21 Boramae fighter jet.[77]   Saudi Arabia is seen as another potential purchaser of KF-21. On 30 January 2024, a South Korean Defense Ministry official stated that senior representatives from the Ministry and the Agency for Defense Development made an unannounced visit to Saudi Arabia from 23 to 26 January, 2024. During the visit, the South Korean delegation met with Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Defense Minister, Dr. Khalid bin Hussein Al-Biyari, and other officials to discuss the potential joint development of a 5th or 6th generation multi-role fighter based on the KAI KF-21 Boramae design.[78]   On July 29, 2025, Royal Saudi Air Force Commander Lieutenant General Turki bin Bandar bin Abdulaziz met with South Korean Air Force General Lee Young-soo. The two Generals discussed military cooperation and topics of mutual interest, including potential Saudi involvement in the KF-21 Boramae fighter jet project.   On August 14, 2025, officials from Saudi military company SAMI Aerospace held a meeting with the Chief of Staff of South Korean Air Force to talk about boosting their partnership in the aviation sector.[79]   To strengthen its position in developing and exporting next-generation combat aircraft, South Korea has proposed joint development of the KF-21 and its successor to several countries in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, with a particular focus on the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.   On 15 May 2024, senior air force officials from South Korea and the UAE signed a letter of intent for comprehensive cooperation on South Korea’s KF-21 Boramae program. The agreement was signed by South Korean Air Force General Lee Young-su and UAE Air Force and Air Defense Commander General Rashed Mohammed A.[80]   In April 2025, the United Arab Emirates Air Force and Air Defense, and the South Korean Air Force signed a letter of intent to further their cooperation on the program.   On July 7, 2025, a friendship flight took place at Sacheon Air Base in South Korea, involving high-ranking officials from both South Korean Air Force and the United Arab Emirates. South Korean Air Force General Lee Young-su piloted an FA-50 fighter jet, while UAE Assistant Undersecretary of the Ministry of Defense, Ibrahim Nasser Mohamed Al Alawi, flew in a prototype of the KF-21 Boramae fighter.[81]   4. KSS-III submarine    Class overview Builders ·Hanwha Ocean ·HD Hyundai Heavy Industries Operators  Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) Preceded by Son Won-il class (Type 214 submarine) Cost USD $900,000,000 per submarine Built 2014–present In service 2021–present Planned 9 Building 3 Completed 3 Active 3 General characteristics Type Attack submarine with ballistic missile launching capabilities Displacement ·Batch-I:- ·3,358 t (3,305 long tons) (Surfaced) ·3,750 t (3,690 long tons) (Submerged) ·Batch-II:- ·3,600 t (3,500 long tons) (Surfaced) ·4,000 t (3,900 long tons) (Submerged) Length ·Batch-I:- ·83.5 m (273 ft 11 in) ·Batch-II:- ·89.3 m (293 ft 0 in) Beam ·Batch-I/II:- ·9.6 m (31 ft 6 in) Draught ·Batch-I:- ·7.62 m (25 ft 0 in) Propulsion ·Batch-I:- ·Diesel-electric propulsion ·Air-independent propulsion (AIP) ·3 × MTU 16V396SE84L marine diesel engines ·4 × Bumhan Industries PH1 PEM fuel cells, each with 150 kW ·Batch-II:- ·Diesel-electric propulsion ·Air-independent propulsion ·Samsung SDI lithium-ion fuel cells Speed ·12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) (surfaced) ·20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) (submerged) Range 10,000 nmi (19,000 km; 12,000 mi) Endurance 20+ days (submerged) Complement 50 Sensors & processing systems ·Combat suite: ·Hanwha-developed "Combat Management System" (CMS) ·Sonar: ·LIG Nex1-developed sonar suite ·Thales-developed mine-avoidance sonar ·Electronic warfare: ·Indra-developed radar electronic support measurement (RESM) ·Other processing systems: ·Safran-developed "Series 30" optronic surveillance mast ·Babcock-developed "Weapons Handling and Launch System" (WHLS) ·ECA Group-developed steering consoles Armament ·Batch-I:- ·6 × 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes o        LIG Nex1 K761 Tiger Shark heavyweight torpedoes ·6 × K-VLS cells o        6 × Hyunmoo 4-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile ·Batch-II:- ·10 × K-VLS cells o        10 × Hyunmoo 4-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile o        Chonryong land attack cruise missile Notes First-ever AIP-equipped submarine capable of launching submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM).   Figure 8: KSS-III 잠수함 (source: Wikipedia)   The KSS-III (잠수함) is a series of diesel-electric attack and ballistic missile submarines that are currently being built for South Korean Navy, jointly by Hanwha Ocean and HD Hyundai Heavy Industries. The KSS-III is the final phase of the South Korean Attack Submarine program, a three-phased program to build 27 attack submarines for the South Korean Navy, between 1994–2029.[82]   The KSS-III initiative consists of the development of nine diesel-electric attack submarines, capable of firing submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), to be built in three batches, between 2014–2029.[83]   A total of three submarines of the first batch of the series have been launched, with the first submarine, ROKS Dosan Ahn Chang-ho, commissioned on 13 August 2019. The second ship, ROKS Ahn Mu, was commissioned on 20 April 2023.   On October 30th, 2024, a steel-cutting ceremony for the third and final vessel of the KSS-III Batch-II submarine took place at Hanwha Ocean’s Geoje shipyards. The KSS-III Batch-II submarine, designed and constructed with domestic technology, is the latest and most advanced diesel submarine for the South Korean Navy.[84]   The KSS-III Batch-II, with a displacement of 3,600 tons (surfaced), is 5.5 meters longer than the previous KSS-III Batch-I submarines and is equipped with 10 VLS cells for launching Hyunmoo-IV-4 SLBMs. Additionally, the Batch-II features enhanced combat and sonar systems for improved detection and targeting capabilities, along with a lithium battery system that enables extended underwater operations, making it a core asset in safeguarding national security.[85]   In addition to enhanced sensors and weapon systems, the KSS-III Batch-II is also expected to operate an Anti-Submarine Warfare Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (ASWUUV), currently being co-developed by Hanwha Systems and the Agency for Defense Development. The incorporation of a manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) system is anticipated to extend the operational range and enhance the combat capability of its carrier by remaining underwater for extended periods to detect enemy submarines in advance, thereby ensuring the survivability of manned combat vessels. Moreover, with variable operational depth control, the UUV will effectively monitor and gather intelligence on underwater threats. The ASWUUV is planned to be operational with the South Korean Navy by 2030.[86]   The KSS-III Batch-II has also extended its localization rate to over 80% by incorporating more than 70 types of domestically developed and built equipment. With more accessible maintenance, South Korean Navy is expected to achieve more stable submarine operations, while for the shipbuilding industry, this provides a more manageable construction process for future exports, anticipated to boost defense exports.[87]   Current Operators of the KSS-III submarines are South Korean Navy - Three in service, out of a total of nine planned. Potential operators are Royal Canadian Navy - up to twelve conventionally-powered submarines are planned to replace the Victoria class submarines, with long-range patrols being a key factor. The Hanwha has emerged as a frontrunner, formally responding to the request for information by its deadline of 18 November, 2024, offering to have the first in class launched by 2030 and the first four by 2035. Hyundai Heavy Industries made a partner offer to supply artillery, likely the K9 Thunder.[88] On 26 August 2025, the KSS-III was shortlisted as the only qualified options alongside the TKMS Type 212CD developed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems.[89]   5. K 2 Black Panther (K 2 tanks)   Service history In service 2014–present Production history Designer Agency for Defense Development  Doosan Mottrol  Hyundai Rotem  Poongsan Corporation  Samsung Thales  Samyang Comtech  WIA Designed 1995–2008 Manufacturer Hyundai Rotem Unit cost ₩7.8 billion (production batch  US$8.5 million (constant 2009 USD) Produced 2008–present No. built · Republic of Korea Army: Batch I: 100, Batch II: 106, Batch III: 54, Batch IV: 150 (ordered) · Polish Land Forces: Batch I: 180 (ordered), Batch II: 180 (ordered) · Total: 440 Specifications Mass Curb weight: 55 metric tons (54 long tons; 61 short tons) Combat weight: 56 metric tons (55 long tons; 62 short tons) Length Overall: 10.8 meters (35 ft 5 in)  Chassis: 7.5 meters (24 ft 7 in) Width 3.6 meters (11 ft 10 in) Height Highest: 2.4 meters (7 ft 10 in) Lowest: 2 meters (6 ft 7 in) Crew 3 (commander, gunner and driver) Armor MIL-12560H armor steel and silicon carbide non-oxide ceramic plate along with ERA and NERA modular add-on armor Main armament Hyundai WIA CN08 120 mm 55 caliber smoothbore gun (40 rounds) Secondary armament 1× 12.7×99mm (.50 BMG) K6 heavy machine gun (3,200 rounds) 1× 7.62×51mm NATO coaxial machine gun (12,000 rounds) Engine · Batch I: STX Engine/MTU Friedrichshafen MT883 Ka-501 4-short stroke, 12-cylinder water-cooled diesel, dry weight: 2,064 kg 1,500 hp (1,103 kW)· Batch II-IV: HD Hyundai Infracore DV27K 4-long stroke, 12-cylinder water-cooled diesel, dry weight: 2,550 kg 1,500 hp (1,110 kW)] Power/weight 27.3 hp/t (20.35 kW/t) Transmission · Batch I-II: RENK HSWL 295 TM (5 forward, 5 reverse gears), dry weight: 2,450 kg · Batch III-IV: SNT Dynamics EST15K (6 forward, 3 reverse gears, in development), dry weight: 2,500 kg Suspension Semi-active in-arm suspension unit (ISU) with dynamic track tension system (DTTS) Fuel capacity 1,296 liters (342 U.S. gal) Operational range 450 km (280 mi) Maximum speed Paved road: 70 km/h (43 mph) Cross country: 50 km/h (31 mph) Acceleration from 0–32 km/h (0–20 mph) in 7.47 seconds (MT883 Ka-501) or 8.77 seconds (DV27K)   Figure 9: K2 Black Panther (source: Wikipedia)   K2 Black Panther (K-2 흑표 tank) is a South Korean fourth-generation main tank,  manufactured by Hyundai Rotem.   The K2 Black Panther has an advanced fire-control system, in-arm suspension, laser rangefinder, a radar, and crosswind sensor for lock-on targeting. The K2’s thermographic camera tracks target up to 9.8 km, and its millimeter-band radar acts as a Missile Approach Warning System, enhancing situational awareness. And its soft-kill active protection system deploys smoke grenades to counter incoming projectiles. The K2’s autoloader reduces crew size from 4 to 3, thereby providing a faster rate of fire, better fuel efficiency, and lower maintenance costs compared to other western main tanks requiring human loaders. In addition, the K2 can operate in indirect fire mode, offering key advantages over Western designs.[90]   The K2’s production started in 2008 and its mass production began in 2013. The first K2 tanks were deployed to South Korean army in July 2014.[91]   The K2 Black Panthers were exported to Turkey and Poland. The potential operators of K2 Black Panthers are Armenia, Egypt, Morocco, Peru, Romania, and Slovakia.   a. Turkey   In June 2007, South Korea and Turkey negotiated a deal worth $540 million that included South Korea’s support for the development of Turkey’s Altay battle tank.   On July 29, 2008, Hyundai Rotem and Turkey’s Otokar (Turkish defense firm) signed a contract to provide design assistance and technology transfer for the Altay tank project. This collaboration included systems integration, critical design elements, and manufacturing expertise from South Korea, specifically tailored to develop Turkey’s domestic manufacturing capabilities.   South Korea’s contributions to the Altay’s development included the transfer of manufacturing technologies for critical components. Hyundai Rotem played a central role in the system design and integration process, and Hyundai WIA provided the 120 mm 55-caliber smoothbore gun technology. Poongsan Corporation supported the development of ballistic protection systems, while Samyang Comtech shared expertise in advanced armor materials. These collective efforts laid the foundation for Turkey’s capabilities in producing the Altay tank.[92]   This cooperation extended beyond technical support, encompassing assistance in establishing production lines for key subsystems. Hyundai Rotem guided Otokar in tank systems development, while MKEK (Turkish mechanical and chemical corporation) received tank gun production technologies. Roketsan (Turkish defense firm) was supported in the design and manufacturing of advanced armor packages. These collaborative efforts were instrumental in the development of prototypes PV1 and PV2, finalized in 2015, and the Altay project's official completion in 2016.[93]   On 10 March 2021, BMC, the Turkish contractor responsible for the production of Altay tanks, made a decision to import engines and transmissions from South Korea to address production delays. Seven months later, on 22 October 2021, South Korea’s DAPA approved the export of Hyundai Doosan Infracore (now HD Hyundai Infracore) DV27K engines and SNT Dynamics EST15K transmissions to Turkey. In August 2022, durability testing of the powerpack, combining the DV27K engine and EST15K transmission from South Korea, was successfully completed. Following this success, the first batch of Altay tanks will be produced using this Korean powerpack including engines from HD Hyundai Infracore and transmissions by SNT Dynamics. The tank is in production according to the Turkish media.[94] In 2025, mass production of the Altay tank officially started on 5 September, 2025.   b. Poland   In January 2020, Poland announced negotiations with Hyundai Rotem for license production of the K2 Black Panther for the Polish Army.   On 13 June 2022, the Polish Ministry of Defense announced that it had signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to buy at least 180 K2 tanks for the Polish military.   On 27 July 2022, the Polish Armaments Group (PGZ) and Hyundai Rotem signed a framework agreement to provide 180 K2s and 820 K2PLs. The contract included rapid arms supply and extensive technology transfer from South Korea. According to the contract, 180 K2s will be produced in South Korea and delivered to Poland starting in 2022, and 820 K2PLs will be produced in Poland under license beginning in 2026.[95]   On 26 August 2022, the first executive agreement worth $3.37 billion was signed to procure 180 K2s in Morąg in northern Poland. The contract included logistics packages, training programs, explosive reactive armor packages, 50,000 120 mm, 4.3 million 7.62 mm and 12.7 mm machine gun ammunition for the K2. Soldiers of the 16th Mechanized Division of the Polish Army were sent to South Korea in October 2022 to participate in the training program. The 180 K2 tanks will be delivered during the period of 2022-2025 and then be deployed to the 20th Mechanized Brigade, 15th Mechanized Brigade, and 9th Armored Cavalry Brigade in Poland.[96]   On 7 September 2022, PGZ and Hyundai Rotem signed a partnership agreement to develop and produce tanks, armored vehicles and ground unmanned systems. The contract included joint cooperation in building manufacturing facilities in Poland for the production and maintenance of 1000 K2 tanks and the production of K3 next-generation battle tanks. The facilities to be built in Poland will be used as a hub in Europe for the sale and maintenance of Hyundai Rotem’s armed vehicles and tanks.   On 5 December 2022, the first 10 K2 tanks arrived in Poland, just “six months” after the signing of the agreement. The tanks were delivered to the 20th Mechanized Brigade of the 16th Mechanized Division on 9 December 2022.   On 31 March 2023, the Polish Ministry of Defense signed a foundational agreement with Hyundai Rotem for a consortium to produce K2PL in Poznań.   6. The K9 Thunder (K 9 howitzer)   Service history In service K9: 1999–present K9A1: 2018–present Wars Bombardment of Yeonpyeong in South Korea Production history Designer ●     Agency for Defense Development (main developer) ●     Samsung Aerospace Industries (integration and production) ●     Kia Heavy Industry (main armament) ●     Dongmyeong Heavy Industries (turret and suspension) ●     Poongsan Corporation (ammunition) Designed 1989–1998 Manufacturer ●     Samsung Aerospace Industries (1998–2000) ●     Samsung Techwin (2000–2015) ●     Hanwha Techwin (2015–2017) ●     Hanwha Land Systems (2017–2019) ●     Hanwha Defense (2019–2022) ●     Hanwha Aerospace (2022–present) Unit cost 4 billion KRW (ROK Armed Forces, 2021) Produced K9: 1998–2018 K9A1: 2018–present No. built 1,900 (2025) Specifications Mass K9 & K9A1: 47 t (46 long tons; 52 short tons), combat K9A2: 48.5 t (47.7 long tons; 53.5 short tons), combat, with metal track Length Overall: 12 m (39 ft 4 in) Hull: 7.44 m (24 ft 5 in) Width 3.4 m (11 ft 2 in) Height 2.73 m (8 ft 11 in) Crew K9 & K9A1: 5 (commander, driver, gunner, assistant gunner, loader) K9A2: 3 (commander, driver, gunner) Maximum firing range 18 km (M107, HE) 30 km (M549A1, RAP/HE) 36 km (K310, BB/DP-ICM) 41 km (K307, BB/HE) 54 km (K315, LAP/HE) Sights Panoramic scope (manual mode) Safran MINEO DFSS (option) Armor POSCO MIL-12560H armor steel (South Korean produced variants only, after 2022) Bisalloy armour steel (foreign licensed variants, after 2022) Spall liner (option)  Plasan add-on armor (option) Main armament Hyundai WIA CN98 155 mm 52 caliber, 48 rounds Secondary armament SNT Dynamics K6 12.7x99 mm NATO HMG Engine STX Engine/MTU Friedrichshafen MT881Ka-500 8-cylinder water-cooled diesel engine 735 kW (1,000 hp) @ 2,700 rpm STX Engine SMV1000 8-cylinder water-cooled diesel engine 735 kW (1,000 hp) @ 2,700 rpm (available since 2024) Power/weight 21.3 hp/t (15.88 kW/t) Transmission SNT Dynamics/Allison Transmission X1100-5A3 4 forward, 2 reverse Suspension Mottrol/Horstman Hydropneumatic Suspension Unit (HSU)  Travel distance: ≤ 275 mm Dead weight: 40–45 kN Ground clearance 410 mm (16 in) longitudinal slope: 60 % lateral slope: 30 % vertical: 0.75 m trench: 2.8 m fording: 1.5 m Fuel capacity 850 L (225 U.S. gal) Operational range 360 km (220 mi) Maximum speed 67 km/h (42 mph) Figure 10: K9 Thunder (source: Wikipedia)   The K9 Thunder is a South Korean 155 mm self-propelled howitzer designed and developed by the Agency for Defense Development and South Korean corporations including Samsung Aerospace Industries, Dongmyeong Heavy Industries, Kia Heavy Industry, and Poongsan Corporation for South Korean Armed Forces. It is now manufactured by Hanwha Aerospace. K9 howitzers operate in groups with the K10 ammunition resupply vehicle variant.[97]   The entire K9 fleet operated by South Korean Armed Forces has undergone upgrades to K9A1, and a further upgrade variant K9A2 is now tested for production. As of 2022, the K9 series  had a 52% share of global self-propelled howitzer market.[98]   The K-9 Thunder is superior to the US self-propelled howitzer M109A6 Paladin or the British self-propelled howitzer AS90. The Chinese PLZ-05 has poor recoil and suspension functions as revealed in the released operating video. And the performance of the Russian 2S35 Kalitsa-SV has not been verified. Compared to the German PzH2000 (currently the world’s best self-propelled howitzer), the K-9 Thunder is a cost-effective alternative, offering a similar balance of performance, range, and mobility but at a lower price, making the K-9 a highly successful export system. The main differences between K-9 and PzH2000 lie in cost and performance. The PzH 2000 has been known for its superior automation and slightly higher firing rate, while the K9 Thunder boasts excellent mobility, a better cost-performance ratio, and seamless integration with its K10 ammunition resupply vehicle.[99]   For these reasons, as Table 4 shows, the K9 Thunders were exported to a number of countries such as Turkey, India, Norway, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Australia, Egypt, and Romania.   Table 4: Countries to which K9 howitzers have been exported and the number of units under contract, 2001-2024   Country Number of contract Year of exports Name of K 9 Turkey 280 2001 T-155 Firtina Poland   120 2014 Krab 212 2022 K9 152 2023 K9 India 100 2017 K9 Vajra-T Finland 96 2017 K9 Moukari Norway 28 2017 K9 VIDAR Estonia 36 2018 K9 Kou Australia 30 2021 AS9 Huntsman Egypt 2 trillion won   2022 K9A1EGY Romania 54 2024 K9 Tunet   (source: Hanwha Aerospace)   a. Turkey   In May 1999, the Ministry of Defense in South Korea ordered its military attaché in Turkey to arrange a presentation for K9 Thunder. Although Turkey showed interest in K9 Thunder, there was no business deals made as Turkey was planning to produce German Panzerhaubitze 2000 at that time. As Turkey’s plan to build PzH2000 eventually became halted by Germany, South Korea and Turkey signed MOU to strengthen their military and defense cooperation on 18 November, 1999.[100]   On 12 December, Turkey sent a team of military general and engineers to Korea to inspect K9 Thunder. Satisfied with the K9’s performance, Turkey cancelled its plan to find replacement from Israel, and decided to manufacture K9 Thunder. On 19 February 2000, a technology evaluation team from members of the Agency of Defense Development and Samsung was sent to Turkey and inspected various Turkish companies and facilities including Turkish 1010th Army Factory, MKEK, and Aselsan to optimize manufacturing process of K9 in Turkey. On 4 May 2000, the Ministry of Defense in South Korea and Turkish Land Forces Command signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to supply 350 K9 systems untill 2011.[101]   The prototype was finally assembled on 30 December 2000, and earned the nickname Firtina (Fırtına; Storm). Winter test was held in January and February 2001 at Sarıkamış, and Firtina was able to operate in snowy mountain terrain without issue.   A formal contract was signed by Samsung Techwin (formerly Samsung Aerospace Industries) and the Embassy of the Republic of Turkey in Seoul on 20 July 2001. South Korean government promised to transfer the technologies of the Agency for Defense Development to  Turky for free in exchange for Turkey’ purchase of 350 vehicles—280 for Turkish Land Forces and 70 for its future customer—by 2011, which the total is expected to be $1 billion. The first 24 T-155 Firtina consisted of Korean subsystems worth $65 million. The Turkish model was named T-155 Firtina.[102]   Hanwha Defense has generated more than $600 million from Turkey since then, much lower than expected. This is because Turkey produced fewer units than planned and because Turkey  increased its localization efforts gradually by indigenous research and from technology transfer.   b. India   On 25 March 2012, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to strengthen their economic and military ties. On 29 March 2012 at DEFEXPO, Samsung Techwin and Larsen & Toubro announced their partnership to produce the K9 Thunder in India. According to the agreement, Samsung Techwin will transfer key technologies, and the vehicle will be manufactured under license in India using 50 per cent of the domestic content such as FCS and communication system.[103]   Two units of K9 were sent to Thar Desert, Rajasthan for firing and mobility test, and competed against Russian 2S19. Operated by Indian military personnel, the K9 fired 587 Indian ammunitions including Nub round and drove a total distance of 1,000 km. Maintenance test was conducted at Pune, EMI (electromagnetic interference) test at Chennai, and technical environment test was held in Bengaluru until March 2014. K9 Thunder achieved all ROC set by Indian military while the Russian counterpart failed to do so. Hanwha Techwin (previously Samsung Techwin) later told in an interview that the Russian engine performance dropped when the air density is low and in high temperature, the placement of the engine also resulted in the center of the mass located at the rear, making the vehicle difficult to climb high angles. On the other hand, K9 benefitted from automatic control system of the engine, providing the optimum performance based on given condition automatically—this was one of the decisive reason why India selected K9 over 2S19.[104]   In September 2015, the Indian Ministry of Defense selected Hanwha Techwin and Larsen & Toubro as preferred bidder to supply 100 K9 Vajra-T to the Indian Army after K9 outperformed 2S19 Msta-S and passed two-year trial. On 6 July 2016, India agreed in purchasing 100 K9 Vajra-T for $750 million. On 29 March 2017, the Government of India approved budget of $646 million for purchasing 100 K9 Vajra-T. A formal contract of $310 million was signed between Hanwha Techwin and Larsen & Toubro in New Delhi on 21 April. According to the contract, Hanwha Techwin will supply first 10 K9 Vajra-T, and 90 K9 will be license produced in India by Larsen & Toubro.[105]   In May 2021, it was reported that India’s Defense Research and Development Organisation was working with Larsen & Toubro on a light tank using the K9 chassis with 105 mm or 120 mm gun system to counter China’s Type 15 tank.[106]   The Indian Army planned to order an additional 40 K-9 Vajra-T from Larsen & Toubro as of 2021 after completion of high altitude trials at Ladakh under cold climatic conditions. At that time, India was also looking to export the K9 Vajra-T variant to third countries in collaboration with South Korea and its industry partners.   As per a report in 2022, the Indian MoD could place a repeat order of 200 K9 Vajra-T worth ₹9,600 crore (equivalent to ₹100 billion or US$1.2 billion in 2023) after satisfactory performance of the guns at high altitude terrain.[107]   According to a report in May 2024, the clearance for next 100 units would be approved after the formation of a new government after Indian general election in 2024. The Cabinet Committee on Security cleared the purchase of 100 units on 12 December 2024.[108] The contract, worth ₹7,628.70 crore (US$900 million), was signed with Larsen & Toubro on 20 December 2024 in the South Block, New Delhi. The entire order is to be processed and delivered by the end of 2025. On 3 April 2025, Larsen &Toubro signed another contract with Hanwha Aerospace at $253 million to execute the order.[109]   c. Norway   In May 2015, Samsung Techwin joined the Norwegian artillery upgrade program to replace Norway’s M109Gs with 24 new systems, competing against the KMW Panzerhaubitze 2000, the Nexter CAESAR 6x6, and the RUAG M109 KAWEST. A single K9 was sent to Norway to join the competition. Operated by a sales team, the vehicle went through tests between November 2015 and January 2016. During the January winter test, the K9 was the only vehicle that managed to drive through meter-thick snow field and fire its weapon without any issue. Competing vehicles experienced engine troubles or broken parts.[110]   The K9’s engine was able to maintain heat overnight by simply covering the area with tarpaulin, a simple trick learned from operating experience, allowing the engine to ignite without failure the next day at an extremely cold temperature. The hydropneumatic suspension became a huge advantage for mobility, as its mechanism melted snow on mobility parts much quicker. The test result had also significant impact on Finland and Estonia to acquire K9, because the two nations were invited to observe performances for their artillery replacement.   In December 2017, a contract of $230 million was signed between Hanwha Land Systems and the Norwegian Ministry of Defense. According to the contract, Hanwha would supply 24 K9 Thunder and 6 K10 ARV by 2020. The K9 outperformed competitors in various weather and terrain conditions according to Norwegian military officials during trials.[111]   The Norwegian variant was named K9 VIDAR based on the K9A1 configuration. In November 2022, Norway decided to purchase 4 K9s and 8 K10s, increasing its total vehicles to 28 K9s and 14 K10s (2:1 ratio). The delivery was expected to be completed in 2 years.[112] In April 2025, it was announced that Norway plans to almost double its K9s by ordering an additional 24 K9s for about $534 million USD.[113]   d. Poland i) PK9 (AHS Krab with PK9 chassis)   In 1999, Poland joined NATO and launched a military program named Regina Project to replace its 152mm Soviet-era SPGs with the NATO standard 155 mm artillery system.   In December 2014, Samsung Techwin signed a cooperation agreement with Huta Stalowa Wola to supply modified K9 Thunder chassis for AHS Krab self-propelled howitzer. The deal is worth $310 million for 120 chassis, which includes related technology transfer and the power pack. From 2015 to 2022, 24 units were scheduled to be manufactured in South Korea, and 96 would be license produced in Poland. First chassis rolled out on 26 June 2015, and all 24 vehicles produced in South Korea were sent to Poland as of October 2016.[114]   Late in May 2022, the Polish government sent 18 AHS Krab howitzers to Ukraine to assist the Ukrainian military to defend against Russia during the Ukraine war. On 29 May, Polish minister of defense visited South Korea for high level talks about the purchase of various Korean weapons to increase AHS Krab production. On June 7, Poland and Ukraine signed a contract for the purchase of an additional 54 units plus support vehicles, in a deal worth US$700 million. The agreement was the largest defense contract that Polish defense industry had made.[115]   On 5 September 2022, Poland ordered 48 Krabs and other support vehicles for a value of PLN 3.8 billion zlotys (USD $797 million).   On 23 December 2024, the contract worth PLN 9 billion for 96 Krabs, command vehicles, command and staff vehicles, ammunition vehicles, and repair workshops was signed. The delivery for this batch was scheduled by the end of 2029.[116]   On 8 April 2025, Huta Stalowa Wola signed a ₩402.6 billion deal with Hanwha Aerospace to supply parts and power packs for 87 AHS Krabs between 2026 and 2028.   ii) K9PL   On 27 July 2022, Polish Armaments Group (PGZ) and Hanwha Defense signed a framework agreement to supply 672 K9PL. Hanwha Defense hoped to expand the deal by adding K10 ARV and K11 FDCV support vehicles. Poland was also expected to produce AHS Krab in parallel; however, due to the low production capability, the deliveries of the existing order will be completed by 2026. On 26 August 2022, an executive contract of $2.4 billion was signed to acquire 212 K9PL manufactured by Hanwha Defense as a Batch I order.  Under the contract, Hanwha is responsible for delivery of all 212 vehicles by 30 September 2026. Poland plans to build K9PL locally afterward via technology transfer for the Batch II. On 7 September, Hanwha Defense and WB Electronics signed a $139.5 million deal for installation of Polish communication systems on the Batch I order.[117]   The first 24 K9PL(GF) was rolled out on 19 October 2022. The delivery ceremony was held in Poland on 6 December. The first new K9PL began its construction in July 2023.[118]   On 1 December 2023, Poland and Hanwha Aerospace signed a $2.6 billion agreement for 6 Batch I K9PLs by 2025, 146 Batch II K9PLs between 2026 and 2027, and integrated logistics support for the howitzers and 155 mm ammunitions.[119]   On 4 April 2024, Hanwha Aerospace opened a European office in Warsaw and announced the integration of the K9 and Krab howitzer systems with cooperation from Huta Stalowa Wola to improve the operational and maintenance efficiency of the Polish military.   e. Finland   On 1 June 2016 at KDEC (Korea Defense Equipment & Component) industry fair, South Korea and Finland signed a MOU for defense cooperation including export of used K9. In July 2016, the Finnish Ministry of Defense announced that an undisclosed number of used K9s have been acquired from South Korea. In September 2016, K9 was field tested in Finland, and Seppo Toivonen, the commander of the Finnish Army, visited South Korea to inspect operating units during 2016 DX Korea. On 25 November 2016, two countries signed MOU to supply 48 used K9 for $200 million and match equal amount of free technology transfer related to vehicle maintenance.[120]   On 17 February 2017, the South Korean Ministry of Defense announced that Finland will acquire 48 used K9s over a period of seven years starting in 2018, with conscript training on the equipment begining in 2019. On 2 March 2017, final contract of value of €145 million ($160 million) was signed by two governments in Seoul, South Korea.[121]   On 21 October 2021, Finnish Ministry of Defense authorized exercising option to purchase 10 new vehicles including spare parts and supplies—5 in 2021 and another 5 in 2022—for €30 million, increasing the fleet size to 58 vehicles.[122]   On 18 November 2022 Finnish Minister of Defense Antti Kaikkonen authorized purchase of another 38 used vehicles for €134 million.   The official Finnish designation of the K9 howitzer is 155 PSH K9 FIN, colloquially called Moukari (meaning Sledgehammer).   On 4 March 2024, Millog, a Finnish company, signed a contract with the Finish Defense Force to upgrade 48 vehicles purchased in 2021 and 2022 at €8.1 million. The work is expected to be completed by 2030.[123]   f. Estonia   To reduce the cost for both nations, Finland invited Estonia to jointly procure the K9. In February 2017, Estonian military officials visited South Korea for price negotiations.   In June 2018, Rauno Sirk, the director of the Estonian military procurement agency, announced that Estonia would buy K9 Thunder howitzers. Hanwha Land Systems was to supply 12 used K9s for €46 million, which would cover maintenance, parts and training, as in the contract with Finland. In October 2019, the Estonian Ministry of Defense announced that it would exercise the option to purchase 6 additional K9s under the terms of this contract, at an estimated cost of €20 million.[124]   In August 2021, the Estonian Centre for Defense Investment (RKIK) signed a €4.6 million contract with Hanwha Defense and Go Craft to modernize 24 K9EST Kõu, hinting at purchasing 6 more for its inventory. The upgrade involves communication systems, a FCS, painting, fire suppression system, and electronics.[125]   In September 2022, it was reported that Estonia had purchased 24 vehicles in total. In October, the Estonian defense minister stated that Estonia would procure 12 additional K9s, bringing the total number up to 36 units. In November 2022, Go Craft opened Estonia's first private military workshop, and will start upgrading K9s. In January 2023, Estonia ordered 12 vehicles for €36 million, which will be delivered before 2026. The first Estonian edition by Go Craft was rolled out in February 2023.[126]   g. Australia   In August 2009, it was reported that the consortium of Samsung Techwin and Raytheon Australia had the upper hand for Australia’s Land 17 artillery replacement program by becoming a sole bidder, as KMW, the manufacturer of the competing Panzerhaubitze 2000, had not provided the detailed offering proposal that Australia requested.[127]   The K9 was sent to Australia and was evaluated by the Australian military starting in April 2010. The test included firing M982 Excalibur, a requirement which the K9 satisfied.   In June 2010, the K9 became the preferred bidder for the LAND 17 program, but the program was delayed. In May 2019, in the lead-up to the 2019 Federal Election, the Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, announced that 30 K9 howitzers and associated support equipment, including ten K10 ammunition resupply vehicles, would be acquired for the Australian Defense Forces. No time frame was given for the purchase.[128]   In September 2020, the Minister for Defense, Linda Reynolds, announced a request for tender to locally build 30 K9s under the Land 8116 Phase 1 Protected Mobility Fires requirement. The sole-source request for tender was released to the preferred supplier, Hanwha Defense Australia, to build and maintain 30 K9s and 15 K10s, as well as their supporting systems. These would be built at Hanwha Defense Australia's Geelong facility. Australian variant AS9 Huntsman was based on Norwegian K9 VIDAR.[129]   In December 2021, the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) of Australia and Hanwha Defense Australia signed a formal contract of producing 30 AS9s and 15 AS10 AARVs under license at Hanwha Defense Australia facility in Geelong. The estimated value of the deal is $788 million, and manufacturing was expected to start in Q4 2024.[130]   Production of AS9 and AS10 began in June 2023. In July, Australian army conducted tests on ammunition compatibility at the Agency for Defense Development test center in South Korea. In August, another Israeli company Epsilor was selected to supply NATO standard 6T Li-ion batteries for the howitzer.[131]   On 28 March 2024, Hanwha Aerospace announced the beginning of assembly of two AS9s and one AS10 in Changwon. The remaining 28 AS9s and 14 AS10s will be built at H-ACE in Australia.   On 23 August 2024, Hanwha Aerospace invited Korean and Australian government officials for an opening ceremony of H-ACE. The factory will start mass production of AS9 and AS10 in 2024 and deliver all vehicles to the Australian Army by 2027.[132]   In December 2024, Hanwha Aerospace delivered two AS9 and one AS10 to Hanwha Defense Australia, and the Australian military received them in January 2025.   h. Egypt   In 2010, the K9 was evaluated by the Egyptian military to replace its aging artillery fleet. The regional instability resulting from the Arab Spring revolution caused the Egyptian government to postpone the replacing project indefinitely.   In April 2017, it was reported that Hanwha Techwin was again in negotiations with Egypt to export the K9 Thunder. Hanwha Techwin sent a K9 howitzer to Egypt in July and K9 test-fired at a range located west of Cairo in August, competing with the French CAESAR, Russian 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV, and Chinese PLZ-45. During the test, the K9 hit a target ship approaching to the shore, successfully performing an anti-access/area denial simulation against enemy ships for the Egyptian Navy.[133]   In October 2021, South Korea and Egypt discussed the sale of the K9 Thunder. The estimated value of the deal was $2 billion, including training of technicians.[134] In February 2022, South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) announced that Hanwha Defense had signed a $1.6 billion K9 Thunder export contract at Egypt's Artillery House, attended by Egypt's Ministry of National Defense and key officials from both countries. According to the DAPA, the deal provided for the production of 200 K9A1EGY and 100 K10EGY in Egypt, including technology transfer. An unknown number of the earliest vehicles in the series were to be produced in South Korea and delivered to the Egyptian Army and the Egyptian Navy.[135]   The production of the first K9A1EGY was expected in Q4 2022. At a military parade on 25 October 2023, the Egyptian Army unveiled the K9A1EGY in service with the 4th Armored Division. On 1 July 2024, Egyptian media reported that the exact number of South Korean exports was 216 K9A1EGY, 39 K10, and 51 K11. Previously, Egypt received K9A1 and K10 vehicles with 1,000 horsepower Korean-made SMV1000 engines for testing purposes.[136]   On 5 October 2024, Arab Defense reported that the Ministry of Military Production in Egypt announced local manufacturing of the SMV1000 engine by the state-owned Helwan Casting Company, also known as Military Factory 9. In addition, Egypt worked with Hanwha Aerospace in transferring manufacturing technology and installing production lines. The Military 200 became the main manufacturer, and the Military 100 would produce the CN98 cannon and armored steel. Moreover, Egypt plans to become the regional center to export the K9 Thunder system to African and Arab countries, and the Minister of Military Production confirmed negotiations with a number of countries.[137]   i. Romania   On 26 September, 2022, Romanian media reported that the Romanian military was interested in purchasing K9 Thunder and K2 Black Panther. Romania also expressed interest in the K239 Chunmoo multiple rocket launcher and the K21 infantry fighting vehicle. In July 2023, it was reported that Romania planned to acquire 54 (3 systems of 18) K9 Thunders.[138]   On 19 June 2024, Romanian Defense Minister Angel Tîlvăr finally decided to buy 54 K9s worth ₩1.3 trillion ($920 million) during an official meeting with South Korean Defense Minister Shin Won-sik. The Romanian version is called K9 Tunet. The first 18 vehicles are expected to completely built at the Changwon factory in South Korea, while the rest will be assembled in Romania.   On 9 July 2024, Hanwha Aerospace signed the ₩1.3 trillion contract with the Romanian Ministry to supply 54 K9s and 36 K10s, including ammunition and support equipment packages. Hanwha will deliver the vehicle from 2027 in cooperation with a local defense company in Romania. Meanwhile, Hanwha will deliver 18 K9s and 12 K10s from South Korea.[139]   j. Vietnam   The negotiation for K9 Thunder began when Nguyễn Xuân Phúc, the president of Vietnam, visited South Korea for the 30th anniversary of diplomatic ties in 2022.   In March 2023, Vietnam’s highest military figure Phan Văn Giang and other officials showed interests in the K9 by visiting South Korean Army’s K9 operator unit and discussion with Hanwha Aerospace on the potential K9 procurement for the Vietnam military.[140]   In April 2024, it was reported that the Vietnam Ministry of National Defense has officially outlined the K9 procurement plan to its South Korean counterpart, with Korean officials  supporting the deal. 108 units was mentioned as the potential purchase number.   Vietnam confirmed the purchase on 11 August 2024 during Vietnam Prime Minister Tô Lâm's visit to South Korea.   7. The K239 Chunmoo (천무)   Service history In service 2015–present Production history Designer Agency for Defense Development (launcher)  Doosan DST (vehicle)  Hanwha (rocket)  Samyang Comtech (armor) Designed 2009–2013 Manufacturer ●     Hanwha Aerospace (2015–present) ●     Korea Defense Industry (2020–present) ●     Huta Stalowa Wola (2023–present) Unit cost ₩3.6 billion (US $2.94 million) per one launcher+K239L vehicle (2020) Produced 2014–present No. built 356/705 Variants Homar-K Specifications Mass 31 metric tons (31 long tons; 34 short tons) Length 9 meters (29 ft 6 in) Width 2.9 meters (9 ft 6 in) Height 3.3 meters (10 ft 10 in) Crew 3 (K239L launcher vehicle) 2 (K239T ammunition support vehicle) Caliber 131 mm (K33) 230 mm (KM26A2) 239 mm (CGR-080) 280 mm (CTM-MR/ASBM) 600 mm (CTM-290) Rate of fire 6 rds/in 30 sec (CGR-080) Effective firing range 36 km (K33) 45 km (KM26A2) 80 km (CGR-080) 160 km (CTM-MR/ASBM) 290 km (CTM-290) Armor Samyang Comtech Steel / Ceramic + Polymer Matrix Composites (STANAG 4569 Level 2) Main armament 20×2 K33 6×2 KM26A2 6×2 CGR-080 4×2 CTM-MR/ASBM 1×2 CTM-290 Engine HD Hyundai Infracore DV11K 6-cylinder water-cooled diesel engine  450 hp (340 kW) Power/weight 14.5 hp/t (10.81 kW/t) Transmission Allison Transmission 4500SP Fuel capacity 250 liters (66 U.S. gal) Operational range 450 km (280 mi) Maximum speed 80 km/h (50 mph) Guidance system GPS-aided INS Accuracy 9 m CEP (CTM-290) 15 m CEP (CGR-080)   Figure 11: K239 Chunmoo (source: Wikipedia)   The K239 Chunmoo(천무) is a rocket artillery system developed in 2013 to replace the aging K136 Kooryong(구룡) of the South Korean military. The K239 Chunmoo is a self-propelled multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) capable of firing several different guided or unguided artillery rockets. The Cheonmu has a maximum range of 80km, capable of striking North Korean coastal artillery positions near the Military Demarcation Line and even the Wonsan area. It can fire 12 rounds continuously per minute, striking 12 different targets.[141]   The Chunmoo is much better than US military’s HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) multiple rocket launcher in the ammunition capacity. The Chunmoo can fire up to 12 230mm guided missiles in single or burst bursts. Moreover, using 130mm pod-type ammunition (POD) of the same caliber as the Kooryong(구룡), the Chunmoo can fire 20 rounds per pod, for a total of 40 rounds simultaneously. It can also fire the US military’s 227mm MLRS ammunition. The wheeled Chunmoo launcher vehicle boasts excellent mobility, reaching a top speed of 80 km/h. It also has rapid response capabilities, capable of firing its first round within seven minutes of arriving at the firing point, and protection to ensure crew survivability. The Chunmoo boasts an excellent capability of carrying a wide variety of rocket types. The US Hymas, whose effectiveness was recently proven in the Ukraine war, can carry six rockets, while the ATACMS tactical ballistic missile can only carry a single rocket. However, the Chunmoo can fire 130mm rockets (36 rockets per pod), 227mm rockets (6 rockets per pod, two pods), and 230mm rockets (6 rockets per pod, two pods). Unguided 227mm rockets can travel up to 80km, while guided rockets can travel up to 160km, allowing them to strike all major North Korean military targets.[142]   The K239 Chunmoo(천무) were exported to United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Poland.   a. United Arab Emirates (UAE)   In 2017, Hanwha Defense announced at ADEX (Aerospace & Defense Exhibition) in Seoul that it had signed a nondisclosure contract worth 700 billion won to export K239 Chunmoo to a certain country in the Middle East. Later it was revealed that the United Arab Emirates signed a supply contract with Hanwha Defense, including 12 K239 Chunmoos, 12 K239T Ammunition Support Vehicles, GPS-guided rockets, and munitions. In February 2021, 12 K239 Chunmoo systems and 12 K239T Ammunition Support Vehicles were delivered to the United Arab Emirates.[143]   b. Saudi Arabia   At the World Defense Show in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on March 9, 2022, Hanwha signed a defense export contract worth 1 trillion won ($800 million) with the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defense, but details of the contract were not known. It was later confirmed on 31 March 2023 that an unknown number of Chunmoo was in service by the Royal Saudi Land Forces. As in the case of UAE, it is presumed that Saudi Arabia has signed a non-disclosure contract.[144]   c. Poland   On 27 August 2022, Polish defense minister, Mariusz Błaszczak, said that there were ongoing negotiations to acquire South Korea’s rocket artillery system. On 13 October 2022, Polish Armament Agency announced that the negotiations with South Korea to acquire nearly 300 K239 Chunmoo systems had been completed and the framework agreement was signed on October 17. Poland had originally intended to procure 500 American M142 HIMARS launchers, but such an order could not be fulfilled in a satisfactory timeline, so decision was made to split the HIMARS order into two stages, buying less of them and adding Chunmoo procurement. A supply contract for 288 Chunmoo MLRS mounted on Jelcz 8x8 chassis and equipped with Polish TOPAZ Integrated Combat Management System along with 23 thousand missiles with the range of 80 and 290 kilometers was signed in Poland on October 19, 2022.[145] On 20 August 2023, first Homar-K (Polish version of Chunmoo), which completed system integration and testing in South Korea, was deployed to the 18th Mechanized Division of the Polish Land Forces in Poland.[146]   8. FA- 50     General information Type T-50: Advanced trainer jet  TA-50: Lead-in fighter-trainer  FA-50: Light Strike-fighter  FA-50 Block 20: Multirole light fighter National origin South Korea Manufacturer Korea Aerospace Industries  Lockheed Martin Status In service Primary users Republic of Korea Air Force Iraqi Air Force  Royal Thai Air Force  Indonesian Air Force Number built 200 (all models) History Manufactured 2001–present Introduction date February 22, 2005 First flight August 20, 2002 Figure 12: FA-50 (source: Wikipedia)   The FA-50 is a light combat aircraft manufactured by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) for South Korean Air Force (ROKAF). It is a light combat version of the T-50 Golden Eagle supersonic advanced jet trainer and light attack aircraft.   FA-50 aircraft can carry a weapons load of up to 4.5t. The aircraft can be armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles, AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground tactical missiles (AGM), GBU-38/B Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), CBU-105 Sensor Fused Weapon (SFW), Mk-82 Low Drag General Purpose (LDGP) bombs and Cluster Bomb Units (CBUs).[147]   The aircraft is also mounted with an internal, three-barrel 20mm Gatling gun and LAU-3/A 19-tube 2.75″ rocket launcher for firing Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets (FFAR). The wide range of weapon systems aboard the FA-50 jet allows it to counter multiple threats in today’s complex battlefield scenario.[148]   The FA-50 platform will be integrated with Lockheed Martin’s Sniper advanced targeting pod (ATP), which is an electro-optical targeting system encased in a single, lightweight pod. It will expand the capabilities of FA-50 with two-color laser spot tracking (LST), high-definition, forward-looking infrared (FLIR), and the Global Scope™ sensor software suite for non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (NTISR) missions.[149]   The FA-50 can be externally fitted with Rafael’s Sky Shield or LIG Nex1’s ALQ-200K ECM pods, Sniper or LITENING targeting pods, and Condor 2 reconnaissance pods to further improve its electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities. Other armaments include SPICE multifunctional guidance kits, Textron CBU-97/105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon with WCMD tail kits, JDAM, JDAM-ER for more comprehensive air-to-ground operations, and AIM-120 missiles for BVR air-to-air operations. FA-50 has provisions for, but does not yet integrate, Python and Derby missiles, also produced by Rafael, and other anti-ship missiles, stand-off weapons, and sensors to be domestically developed by Korea. The South Korean military is reviewing whether to arm the FA-50 with a smaller version of the Taurus KEPD 350 missile to give it a stand-off engagement capability of 400 km (250 mi). European missile maker MBDA’s Meteor and ASRAAM medium and short-range air-to-air missiles are also reportedly available for integration on the FA-50.[150]     Currently FA-50 is operational in South Korea, Indonesia, Iraq, Philippines, Thailand, Poland, and Malaysia. a. South Korea In 2011, the first squadron with the TA-50, the T-50’s light attack variant, became operational with the South Korean Air Forces. In 2014, the FA-50 was officially deployed by the South Korean Air Forces with President Park Geun-hye officially leading a ceremony during which a flight demonstration was held showing its capabilities. 20 FA-50s was assigned its own Air Force wing. 60 FA-50s were ordered by South Korean Air Forces. On October 9, 2014, an FA-50 successfully test fired an AGM-65 Maverick at a stationary target, a retired ship.[151] b. Indonesia Indonesia had been considering the T-50, along with four other aircraft, to replace its BAE Systems Hawk Mk 53 trainer and OV-10 Bronco attack aircraft. In August 2010, Indonesia announced that T-50, Yak-130 and L-159 were the remaining candidates for its requirement for 16 advanced jet trainers. In May 2011, Indonesia signed a US$400 million contract for 16 South Korean T-50s, designated T-50i. They feature weapons pylons and gun modules, enabling light attack capabilities. Deliveries began in September 2013 and the last aircraft were delivered in January 2014.[152]   In July 2021, KAI confirmed that it has been awarded a US$240 million contract to supply another batch of six T-50s along with a support and logistics package. c. Iraq   Iraq first publicly expressed interest in the T-50 trainers during the Korea–Iraq summit in Seoul on February 24, 2009. In December 2013, Iraq signed a contract for 24 T-50IQ aircraft, a FA-50 variant, plus additional equipment and pilot training over the next 20 years. The first batch of aircraft was delivered in March 2017, while the second batch arrived in May 2018. However, none were flown until June 2022, following the negotiation of a maintenance, logistics and training contract with KAI in November 2021.[153]   d. Philippines   The Philippine Air Force (PAF) chose 12 TA-50s to fulfill its requirement for a light attack and lead-in fighter trainer aircraft. In January 2013, state media reported that the FA-50 variant, not the TA-50 as previously reported, was selected for procurement. On March 28, 2014, the  Department of National Defense in the Philippines signed a contract for 12 FA-50 fighters worth P18.9 billion (US$421.12 million).[154] Deliveries began in November 2015, all 12 aircraft were delivered by May 31, 2017. On January 26, 2017, two PAF FA-50PHs conducted a nighttime attack on terrorist hideouts in Butig, Lanao del Sur in Mindanao, the first combat sorties flown by these aircraft.[155]   e. Thailand   In September 2015, the Thai government chose Korean T-50TH for its air force over the Chinese Hongdu L-15 to replace its aging L-39 Albatros trainers. In July 2017, the Thai government approved the procurement of eight more aircrafts. Deliveries began in January 2018. The Royal Thai Air Force’s 2024 White Paper outlined a plan to acquire two more T-50TH aircraft in the fiscal year 2025. This acquisition will bring the total number of aircraft in squadron 401 to 16.[156]   f. Poland   On July 22, 2022, Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak announced in a press interview that Poland would purchase 48 FA-50 fighter jets. KAI officially signed a contract with the Polish government on July 28 for 12 FA-50GF (Gap Filler) Block 10 aircraft and 36 FA-50PL (Polish version) Block 20 aircraft.[157] Blaszczak stated that KAI’s ability to quickly deliver aircraft was a decisive factor in the selection. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 required the Polish Air Force to urgently replace its remaining MiG-29 fighters and Su-22 attack aircraft. However, the United States was unable to supply additional F-16s in such a short timeframe. The FA-50PL contract was awarded for an aircraft version still under development. The FA-50PL is an improved version of the basic FA-50 designed to meet Poland’s specific requirements. Many of these requirements, including the sniper targeting pod, GBU-12 bombs, KGGB guided bombs, and aerial refueling probes, had already been tested and integrated onto the FA-50 platform prior to the Polish order. Other integration plans for the FA-50PL, such as the Phantom Strike AESA radar and Link-16 datalink, were considered challenging, primarily in terms of timing, but not technically impossible.[158] The FA-50PL will be integrated with modern air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM. The FA-50 is a light fighter aircraft similar in size to the F-16. While the FA-50 has limited combat capabilities, it is not without the capabilities and can carry and use certain weapons.[159] The FA-50’s training role has been compared to the Italian M-346 AJT. While the M-346 can simulate a wider range of virtual weapons, it is more expensive to operate than the FA-50. Unlike the M-346, the FA-50 can also be used for training against live targets and has unique combat capabilities. g. Malaysia   On February 24, 2023, KAI announced the signing of a $920 million deal with the Malaysian Ministry of Defense for the purchase of 18 FA-50 Block 20 for the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s light combat aircraft (LCA) and fighter in-lead trainer (FLIT) tender, which is intended to replace the Aermacchi MB-339 and Hawk Mk 108/208 currently in service.[160] The FA-50 was in competition with the Indian HAL Tejas, Italian Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master, Turkish TAI Hürjet, Chinese Hongdu L-15, Russian Mikoyan MiG-35, and Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder. On May 23, 2023, Malaysia signed a $920 million final contract with KAI to purchase 18 FA-50 Block 20s. KAI officials said Malaysia is willing to order 18 more FA-50s later.[161] 9. The KP-SAM Chiron (신궁)   Service history In service 2005–present Production history Designer Agency for Defense Development  LIG Nex1 Designed 1995–2004 Manufacturer LIG Nex1 Unit cost €2.6 million (2023) Produced 2004–present Specifications Mass Total: 19.5 kg (43 lb) Missile: 15 kg (33 lb) Length 1.68 m (5.5 ft) Diameter 80 mm (3.1 in) Crew 2 (If based from a tripod), 1 (If held) Maximum firing range 7 km (4.3 mi) Warhead 720 Tungsten balls] Warhead weight 2.5 kg (5.5 lb) Engine Solid fuel rocket Flight ceiling 4 km (13,000 ft)] Maximum speed Mach 2.5 (851 m/s; 3,060 km/h) Guidance system Infrared homing Figure 13: KP-SAM Chiron (source: Wikipedia)     The KP-SAM Chiron (신궁) is a South Korean shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile manufactured by LIG Nex1. The KP-SAM Chiron was created to protect South Korean troops in the forward area, which started in 1995 under the direction of LIG Nex1.  The KP-SAM began production in 2004 with extended trials in early 2005.[162]   In late 2005, the KP-SAM entered service with the South Korean Army, after development for nearly 8 years.   The KP-SAM was marketed in 2012 for India’s modernization of their VSHORAD system, competing with the RBS 70, the Starstreak, the Mistral-2 and the SA-24.[163]   In 2014, Indonesia bought the KP-SAM for integration with the Skyshield 35 mm anti-aircraft system.[164]   While the KP-SAM missile system externally resembles a French Mistral system, the entire missile systems including the seeker, control section, warhead and motor were developed and manufactured in South Korea. The missile features integrated IFF systems, night and adverse weather capabilities, a two-color (IR/UV) infrared seeker to aid in negating infrared countermeasures (IRCM) and a proximity-fuse warhead. During development tests, the missile scored a 90% hit ratio.   According to Agency for Defense Development officials, the KP-SAM is superior to the American FIM-92 Stinger or the French Mistral in hit probability, price and portability. the KP-SAM had been involved in a missile test where its missile made impact on a low-flying target as high as 3.5 kilometers with a speed of 697.5 m/s (more than Mach 2.36) and a distance range of 7 km.[165]   The KP-SAM Chirons are operational in South Korea, Indonesia, Romania. Indonesian Air Force acquired and operated Chirons since 2014 which was integrated with Oerlikon Skyshield 35 mm anti-aircraft gun system. Additional 2 Chirons were transferred to Indonesia according to a 2019 SIPRI small arms report.[166] First systems of 54 KP-SAMs were delivered to Romania in June 2024. The KP-SAM Chirons have been operational in South Korean army since 2005.     IV. Conclusion   This paper provided an overview of South Korean defense industry and its major military weapons that have been exported to Middle Eastern countries. The paper also explained major military weapons that have the potential to be exported to Middle Eastern countries. The future for South Korean defense industry looks bright because of its advanced technology and fast delivery amid ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Middle East.References[1] “As tensions rise in the Middle East, Korea spies opportunity for K-defense exports.” Korea JoongAng Daily. 29 July 2025.[2] “As tensions rise in the Middle East, Korea spies opportunity for K-defense exports.”[3] “As tensions rise in the Middle East, Korea spies opportunity for K-defense exports.”[4] “As tensions rise in the Middle East, Korea spies opportunity for K-defense exports.”[5] “S. Korean defense giants set to surpass 100 trillion won in combined orders.”  Jung Han-kook, Kim Seo-young.  The Chosun Daily. May 6, 2025.[6] “S. Korea’s defense giants surpass 100 tn won in backlog defense giants set to surpass 100 trillion won in combined orders.”  Han Ye-na, Jung Han-kook, Kim Seo-young. The Chosun Daily. August 19, 2025. [7] “S. Korea’s defense giants surpass 100 tn won in backlog defense giants set to surpass 100 trillion won in combined orders.”  Han Ye-na, Jung Han-kook, Kim Seo-young.[8] “S. Korea’s defense giants surpass 100 tn won in backlog defense giants set to surpass 100 trillion won in combined orders.”  Han Ye-na, Jung Han-kook, Kim Seo-young.[9] “4 major defense firms set to report robust results in Q1.” The Korea Times. April 20 2025.[10] “4 major defense firms set to report robust results in Q1.”[11] Amid global tensions, Korea’s arms exports hit all time high. Kan Hyeong-woo. The Korea Herald. April 17, 2025.[12] Amid global tensions, Korea’s arms exports hit all time high.   [13] SIPRI Fact Sheet March 2025, p. 11[14] SIPRI Fact Sheet March 2025, p. 12[15] Amid global tensions, Korea’s arms exports hit all time high. Kan Hyeong-woo. April 17, 2025 [16] “As tensions rise in the Middle East, Korea spies opportunity for K-defense exports.”  [17] “As tensions rise in the Middle East, Korea spies opportunity for K-defense exports.”[18] “As tensions rise in the Middle East, Korea spies opportunity for K-defense exports.” [19] “Hanwha Aerospace inks US$250 mln K9 howitzer supply deal with Vietnam: sources.” Kim Seung-yeon. Yonhap News Agency. August 14, 2025.[20] “Hanwha Aerospace inks US$250 mln K9 howitzer supply deal with Vietnam: sources.”[21] “Hanwha Aerospace inks US$250 mln K9 howitzer supply deal with Vietnam: sources.”[22] “Hanwha Aerospace inks US$250 mln K9 howitzer supply deal with Vietnam: sources.” Kim Seung-yeon. Yonhap News Agency. August 14, 2025.[23] “Middle East may turn to Korean defense industry as conflict rages.” Korea JoongAng Daily. June 16, 2025.[24] Amid global tensions, Korea’s arms exports hit all time high. Kan Hyeong-woo. The Korea Herald. April 17, 2025.[25] For more information, see https://armyrecognition.com/news/defense-web-tv/vision-2030-and-saudi-arabias-military-industry-insights-from-world-defense-show[26] “Saudi Government announces 19.35% localization of military spending,” Akhbma News. 21 Nov 2024.[27] Nora Albekeiri, “From Importer to Innovator: Saudi Arabia’s 5 Major Shifts in the Defense Industry.” Aug 27, 2025. For more information, see https://tascoutsourcing.sa/en/insights/from-importer-to-innovator-saudi-arabia-s-5-major-shifts-in-the-defense-industry.[28] “Saudi Arabian Military Industries (SAMI): Fueling the Growth of Saudi Defense Industry,” Albert Vidal. https://gulfif.org/saudi-arabian-military-industries-sami-fueling-the-growth-of-saudi-defense-industry/[29] “Riyadh, Seoul strengthen defense ties with quality assurance deal.” Arab News. February 18, 2025.[30] “Sharpening the EDGE: How the UAE Plans to Out-Innovate its Rivals,” John Calabrese. https://gulfif.org/sharpening-the-edge-how-the-uae-plans-to-out-innovate-its-rivals/[31] “UAE Transitions from Arms Importer to Competitor with the West.” Robert Czulda. Stimson Center. February 26, 2025.[32] “UAE Transitions from Arms Importer to Competitor with the West.”  [33]“Strategic defence industry partnership with the United Arab Emirates.” 19 September 2025. https://www.4ig.hu/strategic-defence-industry-partnership-with-the-united-arab-emirates[34] “UAE Transitions from Arms Importer to Competitor with the West,” Robert Czulda. Stimson Center. February 26, 2025.[35] The “Middle East may turn to Korean defense industry as conflict rages,” Korea JoongAng Daily. 16 Jun. 2025.[36] “LIG Nex1 wins $2.78 bil. deal to export missile defense system Cheongung-II to Iraq.”  The Korea Times. Sep 20, 2024.[37] “South Korea to Upgrade Indigenous KF-21 Into Stealth Fighter,” Inder Singh Bisht. The Defense Post. 15 September 2025.[38] The “Middle East may turn to Korean defense industry as conflict rages,” Korea JoongAng Daily. 16 Jun. 2025.[39] Pike, John. "Cheolmae II / Cheongung (Iron Hawk) M-SAM Medium Surface to Air Missile". www.globalsecurity.org.[40] Cheongung – a New MR-SAM for the South Korean Multi-Tier Defense System - Defense-Update.com, 17 December 2011.[41] "South Korean air force retires last MIM-23 HAWK SAM systems". Jan’s Information Group. 16 July 2021.[42] Kim, Byung-wook (21 February 2021). "LIG Nex1 heads to IDEX 2021, knocks on Middle East market". The Korea Herald. [43] Lee, Michael (17 January 2022). "UAE to buy Korean air defense system for $3.5 billion". Korea JoongAng. Daily[44] Arthur, Gordon (7 February 2024). "Saudi Arabia signs $3.2B deal for South Korean air defense systems". Defense News.[45] Osborne, Tony (20 September 2024). "Iraq Acquiring KM-SAM II Systems". Aviation Week.[46] Kim, Brian (18 January 2022). "South Korea inks largest arms export deal with UAE for missile interceptor". Defense News.[47] “South Korea enhances air defense shield with M-SAM improvements.” Stephen W. Miller. August 2025 https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2025/08/south-korea-enhances-air-defence-shield-with-m-sam-improvements-foc/[48] “Cheongung air defense system upgraded to intercept ballistic missiles.” Yonhap News Agency. July 28, 2025.[49] “South Korea enhances air defense shield with M-SAM improvements.”[50] For more information, see https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2025/08/south-korea-enhances-air-defence-shield-with-m-sam-improvements-foc/[51] 천궁Ⅱ 막강전력 배치·천궁Ⅲ 개발 개시…한국 방공망 ‘게임 체인저’ 박정한, 글로벌이코노믹. 2025-08-09[52] “S. Korea kicks off development of advanced M-SAM defense system.” Kim Hyun-soo. Yonhap News Agency. September 19, 2025.[53] "KAI and Eurocopter reveal the Surion". Shepard. 2009-07-31.[54] Govindasamy, Siva. "PARIS AIR SHOW: Korea Aerospace to roll out utility helicopter prototype in July." Flight International, 14 June 2009.[55] Francis, Leithan. "PICTURES: Korea Utility Helicopter makes first flight." Flight International, 16 March 2010.[56] "Korea Utility Helicopter demonstrates capabilities." Korea Times, 22 May 2010.[57] "History." KAI, Retrieved: 23 June 2016.[58] "KAI and Eurocopter reveal the Surion". Shepard. 2009-07-31.[59] Waldron, Greg. "KAI eyes export market for Surion." Flightglobal.com, 30 October 2013.[60] KAI readies to boost Surion production in 2016 - Flightglobal.com, 23 October 2015[61] For more information, visit the website of KAI. https://www.koreaaero.com/EN/Business/KUH1.aspx [62] For more information, see https://www.koreaaero.com/EN/Business/KUH1.aspx[63] South Korean defense industry and energy companies have had great outcomes from President Yoon's state visit to Vietnam...Signing many agreements with Vietnamese corporations]. Aju News Vietnam (in Vietnamese). Retrieved 2023-06-27.[64] "KAI signs 130 billion won deal to export Surion helicopters to Iraq". Chosun. 23 December 2024. [65] Roblin, Sebastien (13 April 2021). "Korea's New KF-21 Jet Isn't A Stealth Fighter—But Could Evolve Into One". The National Interest.[66] "KF-X Fighter: Korea's Future Homegrown Jet". Defense Industry Daily. 17 November 2017.[67] "South Korea unveils prototype of homegrown KF-X fighter jet". Defense News. 9 April 2021.[68] "[20분 핵심 정리]FA-50이 밀고 KF-21이 당기는K-방산 수출액은? 밀당백25회 | 국방홍보원". KFN Plus. 14 July 2025.[69] “2 new stealth fighter jets will expand who's in the world's top air forces.” Benjamin Brimelow. May 3, 2025, Business Insider[70] “Hanwha Systems rolls out AESA radar for South Korea’s KF-21 jet.” August 7, 2025. Airforce Technology.[71] “2 new stealth fighter jets will expand who's in the world's top air forces.” Benjamin Brimelow. May 3, 2025, Business Insider[72] “Military signs contract with KAI and Hanwha to deliver 40 KF-21s by 2028.” Kim Ji-hwan. Chosun Biz. June 26, 2005.[73] For more information, see https://www.aerosociety.com/news/south-korea-bets-big-with-kf-21/[74] “South Korea’s F-35? KF-21 Boramae To Become 5th-Generation Stealth Fighter.” Stephen Silver. September 12, 2025. National Security Journal.[75] “Hanwha Systems delivers first AESA radar for KF-21 fighter jet in Korea,” Park Sung-woo. 2025.08.06. Chosun Biz.[76] For more information, see https://namu.wiki/w/KF-21%20%EB%B3%B4%EB%9D%BC%EB%A7%A4)[77] "Egypt emerges as new market for Korean arms exports". The Korea Times. 9 August 2022.[78] Park, Hyunmin (31 January 2024). "South Korea offers Saudi Arabia joint work on a new generation combat aircraftThis text comes from MILMAG Military Magazine."[79] [Yang Nakgyu’s Defence Club] Will South Korea Join Hands with Saudi Arabia to Develop a Sixth-Generation Fighter Jet? Yang Nakgyu. 29 July 2025. Asia Business Daily[80] Lee, Minji (16 April 2025). "S. Korea, UAE ink deal on cooperation on KF-21 jets."[81] "이영수 공군총장, UAE국방차관과 우정 비행 실시". Financial News (in Korean). 7 August 2025. [82] Gady, Franz-Stefan (18 June 2019). "South Korea's First-of-Class KSS-III Attack Sub Begins Sea Trials."[83] "KSS-III (Jangbogo–III-class) diesel-electric attack submarine". Thediplomat.com.[84] “Hanwha Ocean cuts steel of third KSS-III Batch-II Submarine.” Naval News. October 30, 2024.[85] “Hanwha Ocean cuts steel of third KSS-III Batch-II Submarine.” Naval News.[86] “Hanwha Ocean cuts steel of third KSS-III Batch-II Submarine.” Naval News. October 30, 2024.[87] “Hanwha Ocean cuts steel of third KSS-III Batch-II Submarine.” Naval News. October 30, 2024.[88] Freebairn, Tom (2025-05-21). "South Korea Pitches $18 Billion Submarine & Arms Deal to Canada Amid US Tensions". Defense Security Monitor. [89] Naval News Staff (2025-08-26). "Canada down selects two shipbuilders for future Canadian Patrol Submarine Project."  [90] For more information, see "Abrams i Czarna Pantera kontra rosyjskie T-14 i T-90M". Default (in Polish). 2023-01-23.[91] Kim Moon-kyung (27 September 2014). “K2 전차 실전배치 후 첫 공개 -- 백발백중.” YTN.[92] For more detailed information, see Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther[93] “Altay National Main Battle Tank of Turkey”. Globalsecurity.org. 5 February 2022.[94] Jung Seong-taek (6 February 2015). 파워팩 논란 K2전차 "전력화 이상무"... 1.2km 떨어진 표적지에 '쾅쾅'. The Dong-A Ilbo.[95] Kim Yeon-suk (27 July 2022). 폴란드 "한국에 K2 1천대·FA-50 3개편대·K-9 600문 주문"(종합2보).[96] Shin Jun-myeong (27 August 2022). 폴란드와 K2 전차·K9 자주포 7조6천억 규모 계약 체결. YTN.  [97] Kim Minseok (6 March 2022). 8년전 우크라 때리자 꽂혔다...세계최강 K9자주포 진화 이유 [김민석 배틀그라운드]. JoongAng Ilbo. [98] 한화그룹, 대우조선해양 인수로 국내 유일 육·해·공 전문 방산기업으로 '우뚝'. 뉴스투데이, Retrieved 28 September 2022.[99] For information, see https://english.defensearabia.com/dominating-the-battlefield-the-worlds-most-advanced-self-propelled-artillery-systems-2025/[100] 한-터키 국방장관 방산협력 협의. Yonhap News Agency. 18 November 1999. [101] 국산 K9자주포 첫 수출...터키에 1조3000억 규모. The Dong-A Ilbo. 20 July 2001.[102] "[K9 34회·끝] 터키형 자주포 화력시범 대성공". Kookbang Ilbo. Archived from the original on 8 December 2022.[103] "L&T, Samsung join hands for India's Howitzer artillery". The Economic Times. 29 March 2012.[104] "K9 자주포 & 해외수출 Q&A". Defense Today. 7 May 2020.[105] "K-9 자주포 100문 인도 수출 확정...3500억 규모". Newsis. 21 April 2017.[106] Philip, Snehesh Alex (14 June 2021). "India sets eyes on Russian Sprut light tanks to counter China, gets rare access to trials". The Print. [107] Unnithan, Sandeep (23 January 2022). "What's behind a massive order for Made-in-India howitzers". India Today.[108] "CCS clears Rs 20,000 crore Make in India projects for Su-30 fighter jets, 100 K-9 howitzers - The Economic Times". m.economictimes.com. Retrieved 12 December 2024.[109]  "Indian Army accelerates artillery modernisation with indigenous systems". India Today. 13 January 2025.[110] Com, Segye (20 February 2018). 손재일 한화지상방산 대표 "K-9, 해외마케팅 강화. Segye Ilbo.[111] 김귀근 (21 December 2017). 한화, K-9 자주포 24문 노르웨이에 수출 계약...2천452억원 규모(종합). Yonhap News Agency.[112] 박희준 (9 November 2022). 노르웨이, K9 4문·K10 8대 추가 수입...K9 수입량 총 28문. 더팩트 (in Korean).[113] Ruitenberg, Rudy (4 April 2025). "Norway to nearly double its K9 howitzer fleet for around $534 million". Defense News.[114] 한화테크윈, 폴란드에 K9 자주포 96대 수출(종합). Yonhap News Agency. 15 December 2016.[115] "Poland to sell 60 AHS Krab self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine". Ukrinform. 2 June 2022.[116] "한화에어로스페이스, 폴란드에 4000억원대 자주포 부품 공급". Hanwha Aerospace. 8 April 2025.[117] [단독] 한화디펜스, 폴란드 방산업체와 '1920억원 규모' 통신 시스템 공급계약 체결. www.theguru.co.kr (in Korean). 8 September 2022. [118] 한화 김동관 폴란드行...한국선 K9 자주포 조립 개시. Money Today (in Korean). 14 July 2023.[119] MBC경남 NEWS (31 October 2024). [K-방산] K9자주포, K2전차 동시 폴란드 수출 선적 현장 포착..전차 180대 자주포 1차 212문, 2차 152문도 이렇게 납품됩니다.[120] "K-9 자주포, 핀란드 수출 양해각서 체결". Daily NTN. 23 November 2016.[121] "K-9 자주포 핀란드 수출계약 체결, 48문 1.45억 유로 규모". Republic of Korea. 2 March 2017.[122] 박원석 (9 September 2024). 서울대 '2024 한-핀란드 이노베이션 포럼: 떠오르는 민/군 겸용 기술' 개최. Veritas Alpha (in Korean).[123] "Millog sai lisätilauksen Puolustusvoimilta K9-panssarihaupitsien käyttökuntoon saattamisesta". Millog (in Finnish). 4 March 2024. [124]  한화디펜스, 에스토니아에 K9 자주포 6대 추가 수출. Global Economics (in Korean). 25 October 2019.[125] 한화디펜스, 에스토니아 'K9 자주포' 현대화 사업 수주. www.theguru.co.kr (in Korean). 5 August 2021.[126] [단독] 한화에어로, 에스토니아와 'K9 자주포' 12문 추가 계약 ... 3600만 유로. Global Economics [Newdaily] (in Korean). 17 January 2023[127] "K-9 자주포 호주 수출 유력". Seoul Shinmun. 4 August 2009.[128] Bergmann, Kym (June 2019). "Australian Army to receive massive boost in firepower with 155mm SPH purchase". Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter. 45 (5): 12–16.[129] Kuper, Stephen (2 September 2020). "Government announces request for tender for Army Protected Mobile Fires". Defence Connect. [130] "S. Korea to export 30 units of K-9 howitzer to Australia under W930b deal". The Korea Herald. 13 December 2021.[131] 호주, K9 자주포에 이스라엘산 전력 시스템 장착. 한스경제 (in Korean). 22 August 2023. [132] 강지용 (23 August 2024). 한화에어로스페이스, 호주 방산 생산기지 완공…국내 첫 해외 생산. 파이낸셜포스트 (in Korean).[133] Helou, Agnes (1 February 2022). "Why did Egypt choose to buy South Korea's K9 howitzer?" Defense News. [134] 남수현 (12 October 2021). 박병석, 이집트 대통령 만나 세일즈 외교.  JoongAng Ilbo (in Korean). [135] 한화디펜스, 이집트와 K9 자주포 2조원 규모 수출 계약...'역대 최대 규모'. 파이낸셜투데이 (in Korean). 3 February 2022.[136]  MBC경남 NEWS (1 July 2024). 국산 파워팩 자주포 탑재 첫 수출.[137] "Egypt produces the advanced Korean K9 Thunder engine locally". Arab Defense. 5 October 2024.[138] “루마니아, 한국의 K9자주포와 K2흑표전차 구매 희망”. Global Economics (in Korean). 27 September 2022.[139] Seo Ji-eun; Lee Hay-june (10 July 2024). "Korea to export K9 howitzers to Romania in nearly $1 billion deal". Korea JoongAng Daily. [140] "Vietnam outlines intent to procure K9 howitzer". Janes.com. Janes Information Services. 24 April 2024.[141]  Park Soo-chan (30 May 2021). "사거리 최대 80km ... 축구장 3개 면적 '초토화' [한국의 무기 이야기]". Segye Ilbo.[142] For more information, see Park Soo-chan (22 October 2022) “하이마스보다 낫다” 전면전 공포에 각국, 천무 다연장로켓 '주목' [박수찬의 軍] | 세계일보 https://www.segye.com/newsView/20221021509773[143] "South-Korean Chunmoo K239 MLRS rockets/missile launcher to enter in service with UAE". Army Recognition. 8 April 2021[144] "Saudi military unveils Chun-Moo MRLs". Janes Information Services. 4 April 2023 [145] "K239 Chunmoo launchers will increase the deterrence potential of the Polish Army". Defence Industry News. 19 October 2022.[146] Gil So-yeon (20 August 2023). "'K-239 천무' 폴란드 상륙…예정보다 12일 지연". The guru. [147] South Korea plans to arm its FA-50 light combat fighters with new variant of the Taurus missiles, December 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine – Airrecognition.com,[148] FA-50 Expanded Weapons and Avionics Archived January 12, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.[149] For more information, see https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fa-50-light-combat-aircraft-south-korea/[150] "MBDA To Show New Munitions in Singapore". Archived from the original on February 7, 2018. [151] "The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea – Korea Deploys Home-Grown FA-50 Fighter Jets". Archived from the original on February 8, 2015[152] Waldron. "Indonesia receives first pair of T-50i advanced jet trainers." Archived December 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.[153]   Iddon, Paul (June 27, 2022). "Korean T-50 Jets Could Enhance Iraq's Air Campaign Against ISIS". Forbes.[154]  "KAI won a contract to export 12 FA-50s to the Phil" (Press release). Korea Aerospace Industries, LTD. (KAI). March 28, 2014.  [155]  "TV Patrol: DND, kinumpirma ang ugnayan ng ISIS at teroristang grupo sa Pilipinas". ABS-CBN News. January 26, 2017.   [156] "Delivery of T-50TH trainer jets to Thailand begins". Seoul. Yonhap News Agency. January 8, 2018. [157] KAI signs US$3 bln deal with Poland to export 48 FA-50s". Yonhap News Agency. July 28, 2022.[158] "Świadoma tego wszystkiego polska strona wciąż parła do stworzenia lepszej wersji FA-50 PL, wpisując na listę życzeń trudne do zrealizowania wymogi.".  The Furious Fafik. August 10, 2025.[159] "Korzystając z tego, że już utopiłem 9,90 zł w subskrypcję Onet Premium". The Furious Fafik. August 10, 2025.[160]  Waldron, Greg (February 24, 2023). "FA-50 wins Malaysia's light combat aircraft competition". Flight Global.[161] Akhil Kadidal (May 23, 2023). "LIMA 2023: KAI says Malaysia keen to order 18 additional FA-50s". Janes Information Services. [162] Shin In-ho (5 November 2018). "[신궁 1회] 승리의 믿음 K-PSAM 신궁". Defense Media Agency.[163] "VSHORAD – India's Next Big Air Defense Program". April 2012.[164] "Indonesia might buy more Chiron MANPADS systems from South Korea | November 2018 Global Defense Security army news industry | Defense Security global news industry army 2018 | Archive News year". 13 November 2018.[165] "Chiron". www.deagel.com. Retrieved 2015-04-08.[166] For more information, see www.smallarmssurvey.org. 

I. Introduction South Korea’s defense industry has rapidly emerged as a significant global arms exporter, driven by technological advancements, strategic government support, and increased geopolitical tensions such as the Ukraine war. South Korean arms exports have surged from $1.2 billion (2011–2015) to $38 billion (2021–2023), positioning South Korea as a key player in global arms market, challenging traditional arms exporters. This paper aims to introduce South Korean weapons to government officials and businessmen in European and Middle Eastern countries. This is the first paper in a series on South Korean defense industry. Focus is on South Korean weapons exported to Europe. The second paper will deal with South Korean weapons exported to Middle Eastern countries. This paper first provides an overview of South Korean defense industry and then introduces major Korean weapons exported to European countries. II. Overview of Korean Defense Industry It was 72 years ago that the bloody 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice. Today, South Korea, the once-war-ravaged nation, stands among global leading arms exporters, and its factories turn out advanced tanks, artillery systems and fighter jets destined for battlefields far beyond the Korean Peninsula. As Figure 1 shows, South Korea’s arms industry has been riding a wave of global demand. South Korea’ arms exports increased from 2.5 billion dollars in 2019 to 23 billion dollars (estimate)in 2025. South Korean weapons are in high demand for their advanced technology and fast delivery. As a result, in recent years, South Korea has often been listed among the world’s top 10 arms exporters, competing with the US, Russia and China. As Figure 2, South Korea ranked No. 10 in global arms exports, with a 2.2 % share of the world arms market in the 2020-2024 period, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The South Korean government is now setting its sights on breaking into the ranks of global top 4 arms exporters. Figure 1: South Korea arms export Figure 2: world’s biggest arms exporters 1. Major South Korean defense companies According to the Defense News Top 100 list for 2020, four of South Korea’s defense companies were ranked in the top 100 defense companies in the world. These four companies are Hanwha (32nd), Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI 55th), LIG Nex1 (68th), and Hyundai Rotem (95th). These South Korea’s top four defense companies are expected to surpass 100 trillion won ($72 billion) in total order backlog in 2025, driven by strong export growth. More European and other countries adopt self-reliant defense strategies as US President Donald Trump warn that the US will no longer protect them for free and as he calls for increasing military spending. Moreover, the Ukraine war and the Gaza conflict continue. Thus, there are higher expectations that South Korea’s leading defense firms will secure more orders. According to data compiled by the Chosun Ilbo, a top Korean newspaper, on May 6, 2025, the combined backlog of South Korea’s top four defense companies stands at around 94.5 trillion won. The figures for Hanwha Aerospace and KAI are based on the results of the first quarter in 2025, while those for LIG Nex1 and Hyundai Rotem reflect data from the end of 2024 (The Chosun Ilbo, May 6, 2025). All four companies secure more export deals, thereby enhancing both the scale and quality of their order books. Hanwha Aerospace, for example, holds 31.4 trillion won in ground defense orders, led by exports of K9 howitzers and Chunmoo multiple rocket systems. Exports account for 65% of that backlog. KAI’s backlog at the end of the first quarter in 2025 reached 24.3 trillion won, up 32% from 18.4 trillion won in 2020. The KAI aims to exceed 29 trillion won by year-end. Its export share has also risen from 50% in 2020 to 63% by the end of 2024. LIG Nex1 holds a backlog of around 20 trillion won as of the end of 2024, while Hyundai Rotem’s stands at 18.8 trillion won. More than half of the orders for both companies come from overseas. Hyundai Rotem is also expected to finalize a second contract with Poland to export around 820 K2 tanks, valued at over 8 trillion won. If finalized, the deal would significantly boost its backlog this year. According to updated data from the Chosun Ilbo, South Korea’s four major defense companies saw their combined order backlog surpass 100 trillion won ($72 billion) for the first time, driven by strong overseas demand. Data in second quarter of 2025 show that Hanwha Aerospace, LIG Nex1, Hyundai Rotem, and Korea Aerospace Industries held backlogs totaling 103.48 trillion won, more than double the 42.23 trillion won recorded at the end of 2021. Industry officials say these companies now have enough work secured for the next four to five years. (The Chosun Ilbo, August 19, 2025)  Figure 3: South Korea top 4 defense companies’ order backlog (source: the Chosun Ilbo, August 19, 2025)  This jump in exports of Korean-made conventional weapons has led to the Korean defense industry boom. Orders for Korean artillery weapons and armored vehicles from Eastern Europe and the Middle East have significantly increased since the outbreak of the Ukraine war. Sales of Hyundai Rotem Co., the supplier of the K-2 Black Panther tank, and Hanwha Aerospace Co., the supplier of the K-9 Thunder howitzer, have skyrocketed over the same period. Their parts suppliers have also seen their sales double over a year. The South Korean defense industry’s current heyday is expected to continue for a while as global demand for Korean-made weapons and combat systems has surged amid growing geopolitical conflicts around the world. According to defense industry sources, Hanwha Aerospace is expected to soon close a deal with Vietnam to export the K9 self-propelled howitzers, a contract expected to be worth 1 trillion won. Indeed, Hanwha Aerospace signed an agreement to export its K9 self-propelled howitzers worth US$250 million to Vietnam. Hyundai Rotem is also reportedly nearing the final stage of inking a second agreement with Poland for K2 battle tanks that could be worth over 7 trillion won. LIG Nex1 has supposedly been in talks with Malaysia to export its surface-to-air missile system Cheongung. KAI is looking to export its KF-21 fighter jet to the Middle East. As the Korean defense companies continue to rack up orders and look to expand their list of clients worldwide, JP Morgan released a report on the four major defense firms -- Hanwha Aerospace, Hyundai Rotem, LIG Nex1 and KAI – in March 2025, increasing their stock price targets by an average of 28 percent while pointing out that there is “plenty of room to go” for their values to rise (The Korea Herald, April 17, 2025). The report surprised investors, industry officials and analysts as it set the target prices of the four defense companies higher than the domestic market consensus. J.P. Morgan adjusted the target stock prices of Hanwha Aerospace, Hyundai Rotem, LIG Nex1 and KAI to 950,000 won, 90,000 won, 370,000 won and 120,000 won, respectively. JP Morgan noted that it estimates an annual new order market of 19 trillion won -- 14 trillion won from Europe and 5 trillion won from the Middle East -- for Korean land weapons systems companies. “Korean-made weapons remain one of the top choices for Eastern European countries facing national security issues,” said Lee Tae-hwan, an analyst at Daishin Securities. “Discussions about ordering conventional weapons will gain momentum. The K9 self-propelled howitzers and K2 tanks are excellent candidates with strong potential for scoring additional export deals in Eastern Europe.” (The Korea Herald, April 17, 2025). Yu Ji-hoon, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, told The Korea Herald that “South Korea has rapidly matured into one of the world’s leading arms exporters, backed by a highly capable manufacturing base, a track record of delivering on time and at scale, and proven platforms.” (The Korea Herald, April 17, 2025). 2. Importers of South Korean weapons According to data from the Korea International Trade Association and the Korea Herald, last year’s biggest importer of Korean defense systems was Poland, which purchased Korea-made weapons worth about $2.51 billion, more than four times what it bought in 2023. The most-exported items were from Hanwha Aerospace, which shipped 212 units of its K9 self-propelled howitzers, and Hyundai Rotem, selling 134 units of the K2 battle tank. (The Korea Herald, April 17, 2025). Middle Eastern countries occupied most of the top five spots among importers of Korean weapons as regional tensions escalated due to the conflicts involving Israel, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen. Saudi Arabia ranked second in the purchase of Korean weapons with $530 million in 2024, while the United Arab Emirates and Turkey placed fourth and fifth with $145 million and $113 million, respectively. The United States was the third-biggest importer of Korean weapons at $219 million. III. Major military weapons of South Korean Defense Industry 1. Overview In South Korea’s expanding arms export portfolio, the K2 tank, called “Black Panther” and built by Hyundai Rotem, has been a flagship item. The K2 is South Korea’s most advanced main battle tank, designed for speed, precision and adaptability on the mountainous Korean Peninsula. In recent years, the K2 has drawn major international orders, most notably from Poland, as Polish and other nations’ militaries seek modern armor to replace aging Cold War units. It is central to South Korea’s largest-ever defense export deals, including the one with Poland, signed in 2022, in which Poland ordered 180 K2 Black Panther tanks from Hyundai Rotem in a $3.37 billion agreement. Deliveries began within months, far faster than European or American suppliers could offer. (The Korea Herald, August 14, 2025) In 2025, Poland signed with a $6.5 billion contract for 180 upgraded K2PL tanks, to be produced in part in Poland. The two phases, part of a broader plan involving the manufacturing of up to 1,000 K2s, have made South Korea one of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s most important new arms partners and cemented South Korea’s status as a major player in the global defense market. Other key weapons in the South Korean export portfolio are the K239 Chunmoo Multiple Rocket Launcher System, K9 self-propelled howitzer, FA-50 fighter jets and KP-SAM chirons. (The Korea Herald, August 14, 2025) Prominent deals made with global clients include K239 Chunmoo MLRS systems purchased by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in 2017 and 2022, respectively. South Korea also signed a $250 million agreement to supply Vietnam with 20 K9 self-propelled howitzers on August 14, 2025, marking the weapon’s first deployment to a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations bloc. The K9 howitzers are already in service in countries such as Turkey and Egypt. (The Korea Herald, August 14, 2025) In December 2013, Iraq signed a contract for 24 T-50IQ aircraft, a FA-50 variant, plus additional equipment and pilot training over the next 20 years. The first batch of aircraft was delivered in March 2017. On March 28, 2014, Department of Defense in the Philippines signed a contract for 12 FA-50 fighters worth P18.9 billion (US$421.12 million). Deliveries began in November 2015, all 12 aircraft were delivered by May 31, 2017. (The Korea Herald, August 14, 2025) Indonesian Air Force acquired and operated KP-Sam Chirons since 2014 which was integrated with Oerlikon Skyshield 35 mm anti-aircraft gun system. Additional 2 Chirons transferred according to a 2019 SIPRI small arms report. 54 KP-SAM chirons were delivered to Romania in June 2024. 2. Major South Korean weapons exported to Europe This is the first paper in a series on South Korean defense industry. Focus is on South Korean weapons exported to Europe. As Table 1 shows, South Korea exported the following weapons to European countries such as Poland, Romania, and Turkey in the period of 2022-2024: K 2 tanks, K 9 howitzer, Chunmoo multiple rocket systems, FA-50, and the KP-SAM Chiron. Table 1: Major defense export contracts, 2022-2024 (source: Issues & Insights on Economy, Technology, and Security, no. 011 (25-06) 4 June, 2025, p. 2) 1. K 2 Black Panther (K 2 tanks) Figure 4: K2 Black Panther (source: Wikipedia) K2 Black Panther (K-2 흑표 tank) is a South Korean fourth-generation main tank, manufactured by Hyundai Rotem. The K2 Black Panther has an advanced fire-control system, in-arm suspension, laser rangefinder, a radar, and crosswind sensor for lock-on targeting. The K2’s thermographic camera tracks target up to 9.8 km, and its millimeter-band radar acts as a Missile Approach Warning System, enhancing situational awareness. And its soft-kill active protection system deploys smoke grenades to counter incoming projectiles. The K2’s autoloader reduces crew size from 4 to 3, thereby providing a faster rate of fire, better fuel efficiency, and lower maintenance costs compared to other western main tanks requiring human loaders. In addition, the K2 can operate in indirect fire mode, offering key advantages over Western designs.[1] The K2’s production started in 2008 and its mass production began in 2013. The first K2 tanks were deployed to South Korean army in July 2014.[2] The K2 Black Panthers were exported to Turkey and Poland. The potential operators of K2 Black Panthers are Armenia, Egypt, Morocco, Peru, Romania, and Slovakia. a. Turkey In June 2007, South Korea and Turkey negotiated a deal worth $540 million that included South Korea’s support for the development of Turkey’s Altay battle tank. On July 29, 2008, Hyundai Rotem and Turkey’s Otokar (Turkish defense firm) signed a contract to provide design assistance and technology transfer for the Altay tank project. This collaboration included systems integration, critical design elements, and manufacturing expertise from South Korea, specifically tailored to develop Turkey’s domestic manufacturing capabilities. South Korea’s contributions to the Altay’s development included the transfer of manufacturing technologies for critical components. Hyundai Rotem played a central role in the system design and integration process, and Hyundai WIA provided the 120 mm 55-caliber smoothbore gun technology. Poongsan Corporation supported the development of ballistic protection systems, while Samyang Comtech shared expertise in advanced armor materials. These collective efforts laid the foundation for Turkey’s capabilities in producing the Altay tank.[3] This cooperation extended beyond technical support, encompassing assistance in establishing production lines for key subsystems. Hyundai Rotem guided Otokar in tank systems development, while MKEK (Turkish mechanical and chemical corporation) received tank gun production technologies. Roketsan (Turkish defense firm) was supported in the design and manufacturing of advanced armor packages. These collaborative efforts were instrumental in the development of prototypes PV1 and PV2, finalized in 2015, and the Altay project's official completion in 2016.[4] On 10 March 2021, BMC, the Turkish contractor responsible for the production of Altay tanks, made a decision to import engines and transmissions from South Korea to address production delays. Seven months later, on 22 October 2021, South Korea’s DAPA approved the export of Hyundai Doosan Infracore (now HD Hyundai Infracore) DV27K engines and SNT Dynamics EST15K transmissions to Turkey. In August 2022, durability testing of the powerpack, combining the DV27K engine and EST15K transmission from South Korea, was successfully completed. Following this success, the first batch of Altay tanks will be produced using this Korean powerpack including engines from HD Hyundai Infracore and transmissions by SNT Dynamics. The tank is in production according to the Turkish media.[5] In 2025, mass production of the Altay tank officially started on 5 September, 2025. b. Poland In January 2020, Poland announced negotiations with Hyundai Rotem for license production of the K2 Black Panther for the Polish Army. On 13 June 2022, the Polish Ministry of Defense announced that it had signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to buy at least 180 K2 tanks for the Polish military. On 27 July 2022, the Polish Armaments Group (PGZ) and Hyundai Rotem signed a framework agreement to provide 180 K2s and 820 K2PLs. The contract included rapid arms supply and extensive technology transfer from South Korea. According to the contract, 180 K2s will be produced in South Korea and delivered to Poland starting in 2022, and 820 K2PLs will be produced in Poland under license beginning in 2026.[6] On 26 August 2022, the first executive agreement worth $3.37 billion was signed to procure 180 K2s in Morąg in northern Poland. The contract included logistics packages, training programs, explosive reactive armor packages, 50,000 120 mm, 4.3 million 7.62 mm and 12.7 mm machine gun ammunition for the K2. Soldiers of the 16th Mechanized Division of the Polish Army were sent to South Korea in October 2022 to participate in the training program. The 180 K2 tanks will be delivered during the period of 2022-2025 and then be deployed to the 20th Mechanized Brigade, 15th Mechanized Brigade, and 9th Armored Cavalry Brigade in Poland.[7] On 7 September 2022, PGZ and Hyundai Rotem signed a partnership agreement to develop and produce tanks, armored vehicles and ground unmanned systems. The contract included joint cooperation in building manufacturing facilities in Poland for the production and maintenance of 1000 K2 tanks and the production of K3 next-generation battle tanks. The facilities to be built in Poland will be used as a hub in Europe for the sale and maintenance of Hyundai Rotem’s armed vehicles and tanks. On 5 December 2022, the first 10 K2 tanks arrived in Poland, just “six months” after the signing of the agreement. The tanks were delivered to the 20th Mechanized Brigade of the 16th Mechanized Division on 9 December 2022. On 31 March 2023, the Polish Ministry of Defense signed a foundational agreement with Hyundai Rotem for a consortium to produce K2PL in Poznań. 2. The K9 Thunder (K 9 howitzer) Figure 5: K9 Thunder (source: Wikipedia) The K9 Thunder is a South Korean 155 mm self-propelled howitzer designed and developed by the Agency for Defense Development and South Korean corporations including Samsung Aerospace Industries, Dongmyeong Heavy Industries, Kia Heavy Industry, and Poongsan Corporation for South Korean Armed Forces. It is now manufactured by Hanwha Aerospace. K9 howitzers operate in groups with the K10 ammunition resupply vehicle variant.[8] The entire K9 fleet operated by South Korean Armed Forces has undergone upgrades to K9A1, and a further upgrade variant K9A2 is now tested for production. As of 2022, the K9 series had a 52% share of global self-propelled howitzer market.[9] The K-9 Thunder is superior to the US self-propelled howitzer M109A6 Paladin or the British self-propelled howitzer AS90. The Chinese PLZ-05 has poor recoil and suspension functions as revealed in the released operating video. And the performance of the Russian 2S35 Kalitsa-SV has not been verified. Compared to the German PzH2000 (currently the world’s best self-propelled howitzer), the K-9 Thunder is a cost-effective alternative, offering a similar balance of performance, range, and mobility but at a lower price, making the K-9 a highly successful export system. The main differences between K-9 and PzH2000 lie in cost and performance. The PzH 2000 has been known for its superior automation and slightly higher firing rate, while the K9 Thunder boasts excellent mobility, a better cost-performance ratio, and seamless integration with its K10 ammunition resupply vehicle.[10] For these reasons, as Table 2 shows, the K9 Thunders were exported to a number of countries such as Turkey, India, Norway, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Australia, Egypt, and Romania.  Table 2: Countries to which K9 howitzers have been exported and the number of units under contract, 2001-2024 a. Turkey In May 1999, the Ministry of Defense in South Korea ordered its military attaché in Turkey to arrange a presentation for K9 Thunder. Although Turkey showed interest in K9 Thunder, there was no business deals made as Turkey was planning to produce German Panzerhaubitze 2000 at that time. As Turkey’s plan to build PzH2000 eventually became halted by Germany, South Korea and Turkey signed MOU to strengthen their military and defense cooperation on 18 November 1999.[11] On 12 December, Turkey sent a team of military general and engineers to Korea to inspect K9 Thunder. Satisfied with the K9’s performance, Turkey cancelled its plan to find replacement from Israel and decided to manufacture K9 Thunder. On 19 February 2000, a technology evaluation team from members of the Agency of Defense Development and Samsung was sent to Turkey and inspected various Turkish companies and facilities including Turkish 1010th Army Factory, MKEK, and Aselsan to optimize manufacturing process of K9 in Turkey. On 4 May 2000, the Ministry of Defense in South Korea and Turkish Land Forces Command signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to supply 350 K9 systems untill 2011.[12] The prototype was finally assembled on 30 December 2000, and earned the nickname Firtina (Fırtına; Storm). Winter test was held in January and February 2001 at Sarıkamış, and Firtina was able to operate in snowy mountain terrain without issue. A formal contract was signed by Samsung Techwin (formerly Samsung Aerospace Industries) and the Embassy of the Republic of Turkey in Seoul on 20 July 2001. South Korean government promised to transfer the technologies of the Agency for Defense Development to Turkey for free in exchange for Turkey’ purchase of 350 vehicles—280 for Turkish Land Forces and 70 for its future customer—by 2011, which the total is expected to be $1 billion. The first 24 T-155 Firtina consisted of Korean subsystems worth $65 million. The Turkish model was named T-155 Firtina.[13] Hanwha Defense has generated more than $600 million from Turkey since then, much lower than expected. This is because Turkey produced fewer units than planned and because Turkey increased its localization efforts gradually by indigenous research and from technology transfer. b. India On 25 March 2012, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to strengthen their economic and military ties. On 29 March 2012 at DEFEXPO, Samsung Techwin and Larsen & Toubro announced their partnership to produce the K9 Thunder in India. According to the agreement, Samsung Techwin will transfer key technologies, and the vehicle will be manufactured under license in India using 50 per cent of the domestic content such as FCS and communication system.[14] Two units of K9 were sent to Thar Desert, Rajasthan for firing and mobility test, and competed against Russian 2S19. Operated by Indian military personnel, the K9 fired 587 Indian ammunitions including Nub round and drove a total distance of 1,000 km. Maintenance test was conducted at Pune, EMI (electromagnetic interference) test at Chennai, and technical environment test was held in Bengaluru until March 2014. K9 Thunder achieved all ROC set by Indian military while the Russian counterpart failed to do so. Hanwha Techwin (previously Samsung Techwin) later told in an interview that the Russian engine performance dropped when the air density is low and in high temperature, the placement of the engine also resulted in the center of the mass located at the rear, making the vehicle difficult to climb high angles. On the other hand, K9 benefitted from automatic control system of the engine, providing the optimum performance based on given condition automatically—this was one of the decisive reason why India selected K9 over 2S19.[15] In September 2015, the Indian Ministry of Defense selected Hanwha Techwin and Larsen & Toubro as preferred bidder to supply 100 K9 Vajra-T to the Indian Army after K9 outperformed 2S19 Msta-S and passed two-year trial. On 6 July 2016, India agreed in purchasing 100 K9 Vajra-T for $750 million. On 29 March 2017, the Government of India approved budget of $646 million for purchasing 100 K9 Vajra-T. A formal contract of $310 million was signed between Hanwha Techwin and Larsen & Toubro in New Delhi on 21 April. According to the contract, Hanwha Techwin will supply first 10 K9 Vajra-T, and 90 K9 will be license produced in India by Larsen & Toubro.[16] In May 2021, it was reported that India’s Defense Research and Development Organisation was working with Larsen & Toubro on a light tank using the K9 chassis with 105 mm or 120 mm gun system to counter China’s Type 15 tank.[17] The Indian Army planned to order an additional 40 K-9 Vajra-T from Larsen & Toubro as of 2021 after completion of high altitude trials at Ladakh under cold climatic conditions. At that time, India was also looking to export the K9 Vajra-T variant to third countries in collaboration with South Korea and its industry partners. As per a report in 2022, the Indian MoD could place a repeat order of 200 K9 Vajra-T worth ₹9,600 crore (equivalent to ₹100 billion or US$1.2 billion in 2023) after satisfactory performance of the guns at high altitude terrain.[18] According to a report in May 2024, the clearance for next 100 units would be approved after the formation of a new government after Indian general election in 2024. The Cabinet Committee on Security cleared the purchase of 100 units on 12 December 2024.[19] The contract, worth ₹7,628.70 crore (US$900 million), was signed with Larsen & Toubro on 20 December 2024 in the South Block, New Delhi. The entire order is to be processed and delivered by the end of 2025. On 3 April 2025, Larsen &Toubro signed another contract with Hanwha Aerospace at $253 million to execute the order.[20] c. Norway In May 2015, Samsung Techwin joined the Norwegian artillery upgrade program to replace Norway’s M109Gs with 24 new systems, competing against the KMW Panzerhaubitze 2000, the Nexter CAESAR 6x6, and the RUAG M109 KAWEST. A single K9 was sent to Norway to join the competition. Operated by a sales team, the vehicle went through tests between November 2015 and January 2016. During the January winter test, the K9 was the only vehicle that managed to drive through meter-thick snow field and fire its weapon without any issue. Competing vehicles experienced engine troubles or broken parts.[21] The K9’s engine was able to maintain heat overnight by simply covering the area with tarpaulin, a simple trick learned from operating experience, allowing the engine to ignite without failure the next day at an extremely cold temperature. The hydropneumatic suspension became a huge advantage for mobility, as its mechanism melted snow on mobility parts much quicker. The test result had also significant impact on Finland and Estonia to acquire K9, because the two nations were invited to observe performances for their artillery replacement. In December 2017, a contract of $230 million was signed between Hanwha Land Systems and the Norwegian Ministry of Defense. According to the contract, Hanwha would supply 24 K9 Thunder and 6 K10 ARV by 2020. The K9 outperformed competitors in various weather and terrain conditions according to Norwegian military officials during trials.[22] The Norwegian variant was named K9 VIDAR based on the K9A1 configuration. In November 2022, Norway decided to purchase 4 K9s and 8 K10s, increasing its total vehicles to 28 K9s and 14 K10s (2:1 ratio). The delivery was expected to be completed in 2 years.[23] In April 2025, it was announced that Norway plans to almost double its K9s by ordering an additional 24 K9s for about $534 million USD.[24] d. Poland i) PK9 (AHS Krab with PK9 chassis) In 1999, Poland joined NATO and launched a military program named Regina Project to replace its 152mm Soviet-era SPGs with the NATO standard 155 mm artillery system. In December 2014, Samsung Techwin signed a cooperation agreement with Huta Stalowa Wola to supply modified K9 Thunder chassis for AHS Krab self-propelled howitzer. The deal is worth $310 million for 120 chassis, which includes related technology transfer and the power pack. From 2015 to 2022, 24 units were scheduled to be manufactured in South Korea, and 96 would be license produced in Poland. First chassis rolled out on 26 June 2015, and all 24 vehicles produced in South Korea were sent to Poland as of October 2016.[25] Late in May 2022, the Polish government sent 18 AHS Krab howitzers to Ukraine to assist the Ukrainian military to defend against Russia during the Ukraine war. On 29 May, Polish minister of defense visited South Korea for high level talks about the purchase of various Korean weapons to increase AHS Krab production. On June 7, Poland and Ukraine signed a contract for the purchase of an additional 54 units plus support vehicles, in a deal worth US$700 million. The agreement was the largest defense contract that Polish defense industry had made.[26] On 5 September 2022, Poland ordered 48 Krabs and other support vehicles for a value of PLN 3.8 billion zlotys (USD $797 million). On 23 December 2024, the contract worth PLN 9 billion for 96 Krabs, command vehicles, command and staff vehicles, ammunition vehicles, and repair workshops was signed. The delivery for this batch was scheduled by the end of 2029.[27] On 8 April 2025, Huta Stalowa Wola signed a ₩402.6 billion deal with Hanwha Aerospace to supply parts and power packs for 87 AHS Krabs between 2026 and 2028. ii) K9PL On 27 July 2022, Polish Armaments Group (PGZ) and Hanwha Defense signed a framework agreement to supply 672 K9PL. Hanwha Defense hoped to expand the deal by adding K10 ARV and K11 FDCV support vehicles. Poland was also expected to produce AHS Krab in parallel; however, due to the low production capability, the deliveries of the existing order will be completed by 2026. On 26 August 2022, an executive contract of $2.4 billion was signed to acquire 212 K9PL manufactured by Hanwha Defense as a Batch I order. Under the contract, Hanwha is responsible for delivery of all 212 vehicles by 30 September 2026. Poland plans to build K9PL locally afterward via technology transfer for the Batch II. On 7 September, Hanwha Defense and WB Electronics signed a $139.5 million deal for installation of Polish communication systems on the Batch I order.[28] The first 24 K9PL(GF) was rolled out on 19 October 2022. The delivery ceremony was held in Poland on 6 December. The first new K9PL began its construction in July 2023.[29] On 1 December 2023, Poland and Hanwha Aerospace signed a $2.6 billion agreement for 6 Batch I K9PLs by 2025, 146 Batch II K9PLs between 2026 and 2027, and integrated logistics support for the howitzers and 155 mm ammunitions.[30] On 4 April 2024, Hanwha Aerospace opened a European office in Warsaw and announced the integration of the K9 and Krab howitzer systems with cooperation from Huta Stalowa Wola to improve the operational and maintenance efficiency of the Polish military. e. Finland On 1 June 2016 at KDEC (Korea Defense Equipment & Component) industry fair, South Korea and Finland signed a MOU for defense cooperation including export of used K9. In July 2016, the Finnish Ministry of Defense announced that an undisclosed number of used K9s have been acquired from South Korea. In September 2016, K9 was field tested in Finland, and Seppo Toivonen, the commander of the Finnish Army, visited South Korea to inspect operating units during 2016 DX Korea. On 25 November 2016, two countries signed MOU to supply 48 used K9 for $200 million and match equal amount of free technology transfer related to vehicle maintenance.[31] On 17 February 2017, the South Korean Ministry of Defense announced that Finland will acquire 48 used K9s over a period of seven years starting in 2018, with conscript training on the equipment begining in 2019. On 2 March 2017, final contract of value of €145 million ($160 million) was signed by two governments in Seoul, South Korea.[32] On 21 October 2021, Finnish Ministry of Defense authorized exercising option to purchase 10 new vehicles including spare parts and supplies—5 in 2021 and another 5 in 2022—for €30 million, increasing the fleet size to 58 vehicles.[33] On 18 November 2022 Finnish Minister of Defense Antti Kaikkonen authorized purchase of another 38 used vehicles for €134 million. The official Finnish designation of the K9 howitzer is 155 PSH K9 FIN, colloquially called Moukari (meaning Sledgehammer). On 4 March 2024, Millog, a Finnish company, signed a contract with the Finish Defense Force to upgrade 48 vehicles purchased in 2021 and 2022 at €8.1 million. The work is expected to be completed by 2030.[34] f. Estonia To reduce the cost for both nations, Finland invited Estonia to jointly procure the K9. In February 2017, Estonian military officials visited South Korea for price negotiations. In June 2018, Rauno Sirk, the director of the Estonian military procurement agency, announced that Estonia would buy K9 Thunder howitzers. Hanwha Land Systems was to supply 12 used K9s for €46 million, which would cover maintenance, parts and training, as in the contract with Finland. In October 2019, the Estonian Ministry of Defense announced that it would exercise the option to purchase 6 additional K9s under the terms of this contract, at an estimated cost of €20 million.[35] In August 2021, the Estonian Centre for Defense Investment (RKIK) signed a €4.6 million contract with Hanwha Defense and Go Craft to modernize 24 K9EST Kõu, hinting at purchasing 6 more for its inventory. The upgrade involves communication systems, a FCS, painting, fire suppression system, and electronics.[36] In September 2022, it was reported that Estonia had purchased 24 vehicles in total. In October, the Estonian defense minister stated that Estonia would procure 12 additional K9s, bringing the total number up to 36 units. In November 2022, Go Craft opened Estonia's first private military workshop, and will start upgrading K9s. In January 2023, Estonia ordered 12 vehicles for €36 million, which will be delivered before 2026. The first Estonian edition by Go Craft was rolled out in February 2023.[37] g. Australia In August 2009, it was reported that the consortium of Samsung Techwin and Raytheon Australia had the upper hand for Australia’s Land 17 artillery replacement program by becoming a sole bidder, as KMW, the manufacturer of the competing Panzerhaubitze 2000, had not provided the detailed offering proposal that Australia requested.[38] The K9 was sent to Australia and was evaluated by the Australian military starting in April 2010. The test included firing M982 Excalibur, a requirement which the K9 satisfied. In June 2010, the K9 became the preferred bidder for the LAND 17 program, but the program was delayed. In May 2019, in the lead-up to the 2019 Federal Election, the Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, announced that 30 K9 howitzers and associated support equipment, including ten K10 ammunition resupply vehicles, would be acquired for the Australian Defense Forces. No time frame was given for the purchase.[39] In September 2020, the Minister for Defense, Linda Reynolds, announced a request for tender to locally build 30 K9s under the Land 8116 Phase 1 Protected Mobility Fires requirement. The sole-source request for tender was released to the preferred supplier, Hanwha Defense Australia, to build and maintain 30 K9s and 15 K10s, as well as their supporting systems. These would be built at Hanwha Defense Australia's Geelong facility. Australian variant AS9 Huntsman was based on Norwegian K9 VIDAR.[40] In December 2021, the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) of Australia and Hanwha Defense Australia signed a formal contract of producing 30 AS9s and 15 AS10 AARVs under license at Hanwha Defense Australia facility in Geelong. The estimated value of the deal is $788 million, and manufacturing was expected to start in Q4 2024.[41] Production of AS9 and AS10 began in June 2023. In July, Australian army conducted tests on ammunition compatibility at the Agency for Defense Development test center in South Korea. In August, another Israeli company Epsilor was selected to supply NATO standard 6T Li-ion batteries for the howitzer.[42] On 28 March 2024, Hanwha Aerospace announced the beginning of assembly of two AS9s and one AS10 in Changwon. The remaining 28 AS9s and 14 AS10s will be built at H-ACE in Australia. On 23 August 2024, Hanwha Aerospace invited Korean and Australian government officials for an opening ceremony of H-ACE. The factory will start mass production of AS9 and AS10 in 2024 and deliver all vehicles to the Australian Army by 2027.[43] In December 2024, Hanwha Aerospace delivered two AS9 and one AS10 to Hanwha Defense Australia, and the Australian military received them in January 2025. h. Egypt In 2010, the K9 was evaluated by the Egyptian military to replace its aging artillery fleet. The regional instability resulting from the Arab Spring revolution caused the Egyptian government to postpone the replacing project indefinitely. In April 2017, it was reported that Hanwha Techwin was again in negotiations with Egypt to export the K9 Thunder. Hanwha Techwin sent a K9 howitzer to Egypt in July and K9 test-fired at a range located west of Cairo in August, competing with the French CAESAR, Russian 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV, and Chinese PLZ-45. During the test, the K9 hit a target ship approaching to the shore, successfully performing an anti-access/area denial simulation against enemy ships for the Egyptian Navy.[44] In October 2021, South Korea and Egypt discussed the sale of the K9 Thunder. The estimated value of the deal was $2 billion, including training of technicians.[45] In February 2022, South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) announced that Hanwha Defense had signed a $1.6 billion K9 Thunder export contract at Egypt's Artillery House, attended by Egypt's Ministry of National Defense and key officials from both countries. According to the DAPA, the deal provided for the production of 200 K9A1EGY and 100 K10EGY in Egypt, including technology transfer. An unknown number of the earliest vehicles in the series were to be produced in South Korea and delivered to the Egyptian Army and the Egyptian Navy.[46] The production of the first K9A1EGY was expected in Q4 2022. At a military parade on 25 October 2023, the Egyptian Army unveiled the K9A1EGY in service with the 4th Armored Division. On 1 July 2024, Egyptian media reported that the exact number of South Korean exports was 216 K9A1EGY, 39 K10, and 51 K11. Previously, Egypt received K9A1 and K10 vehicles with 1,000 horsepower Korean-made SMV1000 engines for testing purposes.[47] On 5 October 2024, Arab Defense reported that the Ministry of Military Production in Egypt announced local manufacturing of the SMV1000 engine by the state-owned Helwan Casting Company, also known as Military Factory 9. In addition, Egypt worked with Hanwha Aerospace in transferring manufacturing technology and installing production lines. The Military 200 became the main manufacturer, and the Military 100 would produce the CN98 cannon and armored steel. Moreover, Egypt plans to become the regional center to export the K9 Thunder system to African and Arab countries, and the Minister of Military Production confirmed negotiations with a number of countries.[48] i. Romania On 26 September, 2022, Romanian media reported that the Romanian military was interested in purchasing K9 Thunder and K2 Black Panther. Romania also expressed interest in the K239 Chunmoo multiple rocket launcher and the K21 infantry fighting vehicle. In July 2023, it was reported that Romania planned to acquire 54 (3 systems of 18) K9 Thunders.[49] On 19 June 2024, Romanian Defense Minister Angel Tîlvăr finally decided to buy 54 K9s worth ₩1.3 trillion ($920 million) during an official meeting with South Korean Defense Minister Shin Won-sik. The Romanian version is called K9 Tunet. The first 18 vehicles are expected to completely built at the Changwon factory in South Korea, while the rest will be assembled in Romania. On 9 July 2024, Hanwha Aerospace signed the ₩1.3 trillion contract with the Romanian Ministry to supply 54 K9s and 36 K10s, including ammunition and support equipment packages. Hanwha will deliver the vehicle from 2027 in cooperation with a local defense company in Romania. Meanwhile, Hanwha will deliver 18 K9s and 12 K10s from South Korea.[50] j. Vietnam The negotiation for K9 Thunder began when Nguyễn Xuân Phúc, the president of Vietnam, visited South Korea for the 30th anniversary of diplomatic ties in 2022. In March 2023, Vietnam’s highest military figure Phan Văn Giang and other officials showed interests in the K9 by visiting South Korean Army’s K9 operator unit and discussion with Hanwha Aerospace on the potential K9 procurement for the Vietnam military.[51] In April 2024, it was reported that the Vietnam Ministry of National Defense has officially outlined the K9 procurement plan to its South Korean counterpart, with Korean officials supporting the deal. 108 units was mentioned as the potential purchase number. Vietnam confirmed the purchase on 11 August 2024 during Vietnam Prime Minister Tô Lâm's visit to South Korea. 3. The K239 Chunmoo (천무) Figure 6: K239 Chunmoo (source: Wikipedia) The K239 Chunmoo(천무) is a rocket artillery system developed in 2013 to replace the aging K136 Kooryong(구룡) of the South Korean military. The K239 Chunmoo is a self-propelled multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) capable of firing several different guided or unguided artillery rockets. The Cheonmu has a maximum range of 80km, capable of striking North Korean coastal artillery positions near the Military Demarcation Line and even the Wonsan area. It can fire 12 rounds continuously per minute, striking 12 different targets.[52] The Chunmoo is much better than US military’s HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) multiple rocket launcher in the ammunition capacity. The Chunmoo can fire up to 12 230mm guided missiles in single or burst bursts. Moreover, using 130mm pod-type ammunition (POD) of the same caliber as the Kooryong(구룡), the Chunmoo can fire 20 rounds per pod, for a total of 40 rounds simultaneously. It can also fire the US military’s 227mm MLRS ammunition. The wheeled Chunmoo launcher vehicle boasts excellent mobility, reaching a top speed of 80 km/h. It also has rapid response capabilities, capable of firing its first round within seven minutes of arriving at the firing point, and protection to ensure crew survivability. The Chunmoo boasts an excellent capability of carrying a wide variety of rocket types. The US Hymas, whose effectiveness was recently proven in the Ukraine war, can carry six rockets, while the ATACMS tactical ballistic missile can only carry a single rocket. However, the Chunmoo can fire 130mm rockets (36 rockets per pod), 227mm rockets (6 rockets per pod, two pods), and 230mm rockets (6 rockets per pod, two pods). Unguided 227mm rockets can travel up to 80km, while guided rockets can travel up to 160km, allowing them to strike all major North Korean military targets.[53] The K239 Chunmoo(천무) were exported to United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Poland. a. United Arab Emirates (UAE) In 2017, Hanwha Defense announced at ADEX (Aerospace & Defense Exhibition) in Seoul that it had signed a nondisclosure contract worth 700 billion won to export K239 Chunmoo to a certain country in the Middle East. Later it was revealed that the United Arab Emirates signed a supply contract with Hanwha Defense, including 12 K239 Chunmoos, 12 K239T Ammunition Support Vehicles, GPS-guided rockets, and munitions. In February 2021, 12 K239 Chunmoo systems and 12 K239T Ammunition Support Vehicles were delivered to the United Arab Emirates.[54] b. Saudi Arabia At the World Defense Show in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on March 9, 2022, Hanwha signed a defense export contract worth 1 trillion won ($800 million) with the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defense, but details of the contract were not known. It was later confirmed on 31 March 2023 that an unknown number of Chunmoo was in service by the Royal Saudi Land Forces. As in the case of UAE, it is presumed that Saudi Arabia has signed a non-disclosure contract.[55] c. Poland On 27 August 2022, Polish defense minister, Mariusz Błaszczak, said that there were ongoing negotiations to acquire South Korea’s rocket artillery system. On 13 October 2022, Polish Armament Agency announced that the negotiations with South Korea to acquire nearly 300 K239 Chunmoo systems had been completed and the framework agreement was signed on October 17. Poland had originally intended to procure 500 American M142 HIMARS launchers, but such an order could not be fulfilled in a satisfactory timeline, so decision was made to split the HIMARS order into two stages, buying less of them and adding Chunmoo procurement. A supply contract for 288 Chunmoo MLRS mounted on Jelcz 8x8 chassis and equipped with Polish TOPAZ Integrated Combat Management System along with 23 thousand missiles with the range of 80 and 290 kilometers was signed in Poland on October 19, 2022.[56] On 20 August 2023, first Homar-K (Polish version of Chunmoo), which completed system integration and testing in South Korea, was deployed to the 18th Mechanized Division of the Polish Land Forces in Poland.[57] 4. FA- 50 Figure 7: FA-50 (source: Wikipedia) The FA-50 is a light combat aircraft manufactured by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) for South Korean Air Force (ROKAF). It is a light combat version of the T-50 Golden Eagle supersonic advanced jet trainer and light attack aircraft. FA-50 aircraft can carry a weapons load of up to 4.5t. The aircraft can be armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles, AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground tactical missiles (AGM), GBU-38/B Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), CBU-105 Sensor Fused Weapon (SFW), Mk-82 Low Drag General Purpose (LDGP) bombs and Cluster Bomb Units (CBUs).[58] The aircraft is also mounted with an internal, three-barrel 20mm Gatling gun and LAU-3/A 19-tube 2.75″ rocket launcher for firing Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets (FFAR). The wide range of weapon systems aboard the FA-50 jet allows it to counter multiple threats in today’s complex battlefield scenario.[59] The FA-50 platform will be integrated with Lockheed Martin’s Sniper advanced targeting pod (ATP), which is an electro-optical targeting system encased in a single, lightweight pod. It will expand the capabilities of FA-50 with two-color laser spot tracking (LST), high-definition, forward-looking infrared (FLIR), and the Global Scope™ sensor software suite for non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (NTISR) missions.[60] The FA-50 can be externally fitted with Rafael’s Sky Shield or LIG Nex1’s ALQ-200K ECM pods, Sniper or LITENING targeting pods, and Condor 2 reconnaissance pods to further improve its electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities. Other armaments include SPICE multifunctional guidance kits, Textron CBU-97/105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon with WCMD tail kits, JDAM, JDAM-ER for more comprehensive air-to-ground operations, and AIM-120 missiles for BVR air-to-air operations. FA-50 has provisions for, but does not yet integrate, Python and Derby missiles, also produced by Rafael, and other anti-ship missiles, stand-off weapons, and sensors to be domestically developed by Korea. The South Korean military is reviewing whether to arm the FA-50 with a smaller version of the Taurus KEPD 350 missile to give it a stand-off engagement capability of 400 km (250 mi). European missile maker MBDA’s Meteor and ASRAAM medium and short-range air-to-air missiles are also reportedly available for integration on the FA-50.[61] Currently FA-50 is operational in South Korea, Indonesia, Iraq, Philippines, Thailand, Poland, and Malaysia. a. South Korea In 2011, the first squadron with the TA-50, the T-50’s light attack variant, became operational with the South Korean Air Forces. In 2014, the FA-50 was officially deployed by the South Korean Air Forces with President Park Geun-hye officially leading a ceremony during which a flight demonstration was held showing its capabilities. 20 FA-50s was assigned its own Air Force wing. 60 FA-50s were ordered by South Korean Air Forces. On October 9, 2014, an FA-50 successfully test fired an AGM-65 Maverick at a stationary target, a retired ship.[62] b. Indonesia Indonesia had been considering the T-50, along with four other aircraft, to replace its BAE Systems Hawk Mk 53 trainer and OV-10 Bronco attack aircraft. In August 2010, Indonesia announced that T-50, Yak-130 and L-159 were the remaining candidates for its requirement for 16 advanced jet trainers. In May 2011, Indonesia signed a US$400 million contract for 16 South Korean T-50s, designated T-50i. They feature weapons pylons and gun modules, enabling light attack capabilities. Deliveries began in September 2013 and the last aircraft were delivered in January 2014.[63] In July 2021, KAI confirmed that it has been awarded a US$240 million contract to supply another batch of six T-50s along with a support and logistics package. c. Iraq Iraq first publicly expressed interest in the T-50 trainers during the Korea–Iraq summit in Seoul on February 24, 2009. In December 2013, Iraq signed a contract for 24 T-50IQ aircraft, a FA-50 variant, plus additional equipment and pilot training over the next 20 years. The first batch of aircraft was delivered in March 2017, while the second batch arrived in May 2018. However, none were flown until June 2022, following the negotiation of a maintenance, logistics and training contract with KAI in November 2021.[64] d. Philippines The Philippine Air Force (PAF) chose 12 TA-50s to fulfill its requirement for a light attack and lead-in fighter trainer aircraft. In January 2013, state media reported that the FA-50 variant, not the TA-50 as previously reported, was selected for procurement. On March 28, 2014, the Department of National Defense in the Philippines signed a contract for 12 FA-50 fighters worth P18.9 billion (US$421.12 million).[65] Deliveries began in November 2015, all 12 aircraft were delivered by May 31, 2017. On January 26, 2017, two PAF FA-50PHs conducted a nighttime attack on terrorist hideouts in Butig, Lanao del Sur in Mindanao, the first combat sorties flown by these aircraft.[66] e. Thailand In September 2015, the Thai government chose Korean T-50TH for its air force over the Chinese Hongdu L-15 to replace its aging L-39 Albatros trainers. In July 2017, the Thai government approved the procurement of eight more aircrafts. Deliveries began in January 2018. The Royal Thai Air Force’s 2024 White Paper outlined a plan to acquire two more T-50TH aircraft in the fiscal year 2025. This acquisition will bring the total number of aircraft in squadron 401 to 16.[67] f. Poland On July 22, 2022, Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak announced in a press interview that Poland would purchase 48 FA-50 fighter jets. KAI officially signed a contract with the Polish government on July 28 for 12 FA-50GF (Gap Filler) Block 10 aircraft and 36 FA-50PL (Polish version) Block 20 aircraft.[68] Blaszczak stated that KAI’s ability to quickly deliver aircraft was a decisive factor in the selection. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 required the Polish Air Force to urgently replace its remaining MiG-29 fighters and Su-22 attack aircraft. However, the United States was unable to supply additional F-16s in such a short timeframe. The FA-50PL contract was awarded for an aircraft version still under development. The FA-50PL is an improved version of the basic FA-50 designed to meet Poland’s specific requirements. Many of these requirements, including the sniper targeting pod, GBU-12 bombs, KGGB guided bombs, and aerial refueling probes, had already been tested and integrated onto the FA-50 platform prior to the Polish order. Other integration plans for the FA-50PL, such as the Phantom Strike AESA radar and Link-16 datalink, were considered challenging, primarily in terms of timing, but not technically impossible.[69] The FA-50PL will be integrated with modern air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM. The FA-50 is a light fighter aircraft similar in size to the F-16. While the FA-50 has limited combat capabilities, it is not without the capabilities and can carry and use certain weapons.[70] The FA-50’s training role has been compared to the Italian M-346 AJT. While the M-346 can simulate a wider range of virtual weapons, it is more expensive to operate than the FA-50. Unlike the M-346, the FA-50 can also be used for training against live targets and has unique combat capabilities. g. Malaysia On February 24, 2023, KAI announced the signing of a $920 million deal with the Malaysian Ministry of Defense for the purchase of 18 FA-50 Block 20 for the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s light combat aircraft (LCA) and fighter in-lead trainer (FLIT) tender, which is intended to replace the Aermacchi MB-339 and Hawk Mk 108/208 currently in service.[71] The FA-50 was in competition with the Indian HAL Tejas, Italian Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master, Turkish TAI Hürjet, Chinese Hongdu L-15, Russian Mikoyan MiG-35, and Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder. On May 23, 2023, Malaysia signed a $920 million final contract with KAI to purchase 18 FA-50 Block 20s. KAI officials said Malaysia is willing to order 18 more FA-50s later.[72] 5. The KP-SAM Chiron (신궁) Figure 8: KP-SAM Chiron (source: Wikipedia) The KP-SAM Chiron (신궁) is a South Korean shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile manufactured by LIG Nex1. The KP-SAM Chiron was created to protect South Korean troops in the forward area, which started in 1995 under the direction of LIG Nex1. The KP-SAM began production in 2004 with extended trials in early 2005.[73] In late 2005, the KP-SAM entered service with the South Korean Army, after development for nearly 8 years. The KP-SAM was marketed in 2012 for India’s modernization of their VSHORAD system, competing with the RBS 70, the Starstreak, the Mistral-2 and the SA-24.[74] In 2014, Indonesia bought the KP-SAM for integration with the Skyshield 35 mm anti-aircraft system.[75] While the KP-SAM missile system externally resembles a French Mistral system, the entire missile systems including the seeker, control section, warhead and motor were developed and manufactured in South Korea. The missile features integrated IFF systems, night and adverse weather capabilities, a two-color (IR/UV) infrared seeker to aid in negating infrared countermeasures (IRCM) and a proximity-fuse warhead. During development tests, the missile scored a 90% hit ratio. According to Agency for Defense Development officials, the KP-SAM is superior to the American FIM-92 Stinger or the French Mistral in hit probability, price and portability. the KP-SAM had been involved in a missile test where its missile made impact on a low-flying target as high as 3.5 kilometers with a speed of 697.5 m/s (more than Mach 2.36) and a distance range of 7 km.[76] The KP-SAM Chirons are operational in South Korea, Indonesia, Romania. Indonesian Air Force acquired and operated Chirons since 2014 which was integrated with Oerlikon Skyshield 35 mm anti-aircraft gun system. Additional 2 Chirons were transferred to Indonesia according to a 2019 SIPRI small arms report.[77] First systems of 54 KP-SAMs were delivered to Romania in June 2024. The KP-SAM Chirons have been operational in South Korean army since 2005. IV. Conclusion This paper provided an overview of South Korean defense industry and its major military weapons that have been exported to European countries. The future for South Korean defense industry looks bright because of its advanced technology and fast delivery amid ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Middle East. References [1] For more information, see "Abrams i Czarna Pantera kontra rosyjskie T-14 i T-90M". Default (in Polish). 2023-01-23. [2] Kim Moon-kyung (27 September 2014). “K2 전차 실전배치 후 첫 공개 -- 백발백중.” YTN. [3] For more detailed information, see Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther [4] “Altay National Main Battle Tank of Turkey”. Globalsecurity.org. 5 February 2022. [5] Jung Seong-taek (6 February 2015). 파워팩 논란 K2전차 "전력화 이상무"... 1.2km 떨어진 표적지에 '쾅쾅'. The Dong-A Ilbo. [6] Kim Yeon-suk (27 July 2022). 폴란드 "한국에 K2 1천대·FA-50 3개편대·K-9 600문 주문"(종합2보). [7] Shin Jun-myeong (27 August 2022). 폴란드와 K2 전차·K9 자주포 7조6천억 규모 계약 체결. YTN. [8] Kim Minseok (6 March 2022). 8년전 우크라 때리자 꽂혔다...세계최강 K9자주포 진화 이유 [김민석 배틀그라운드]. JoongAng Ilbo. [9] 한화그룹, 대우조선해양 인수로 국내 유일 육·해·공 전문 방산기업으로 '우뚝'. 뉴스투데이, Retrieved 28 September 2022. [10] For information, see https://english.defensearabia.com/dominating-the-battlefield-the-worlds-most-advanced-self-propelled-artillery-systems-2025/ [11] 한-터키 국방장관 방산협력 협의. Yonhap News Agency. 18 November 1999. [12] 국산 K9자주포 첫 수출...터키에 1조3000억 규모. The Dong-A Ilbo. 20 July 2001. [13] "[K9 34회·끝] 터키형 자주포 화력시범 대성공". Kookbang Ilbo. Archived from the original on 8 December 2022. [14] "L&T, Samsung join hands for India's Howitzer artillery". The Economic Times. 29 March 2012. [15] "K9 자주포 & 해외수출 Q&A". Defense Today. 7 May 2020. [16] "K-9 자주포 100문 인도 수출 확정...3500억 규모". Newsis. 21 April 2017. [17] Philip, Snehesh Alex (14 June 2021). "India sets eyes on Russian Sprut light tanks to counter China, gets rare access to trials". The Print. [18] Unnithan, Sandeep (23 January 2022). "What's behind a massive order for Made-in-India howitzers". India Today. [19] "CCS clears Rs 20,000 crore Make in India projects for Su-30 fighter jets, 100 K-9 howitzers - The Economic Times". m.economictimes.com. Retrieved 12 December 2024. [20] "Indian Army accelerates artillery modernisation with indigenous systems". India Today. 13 January 2025. [21] Com, Segye (20 February 2018). 손재일 한화지상방산 대표 "K-9, 해외마케팅 강화. Segye Ilbo. [22] 김귀근 (21 December 2017). 한화, K-9 자주포 24문 노르웨이에 수출 계약...2천452억원 규모(종합). Yonhap News Agency. [23] 박희준 (9 November 2022). 노르웨이, K9 4문·K10 8대 추가 수입...K9 수입량 총 28문. 더팩트 (in Korean). [24] Ruitenberg, Rudy (4 April 2025). "Norway to nearly double its K9 howitzer fleet for around $534 million". Defense News. [25] 한화테크윈, 폴란드에 K9 자주포 96대 수출(종합). Yonhap News Agency. 15 December 2016. [26] "Poland to sell 60 AHS Krab self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine". Ukrinform. 2 June 2022. [27] "한화에어로스페이스, 폴란드에 4000억원대 자주포 부품 공급". Hanwha Aerospace. 8 April 2025. [28] [단독] 한화디펜스, 폴란드 방산업체와 '1920억원 규모' 통신 시스템 공급계약 체결. www.theguru.co.kr (in Korean). 8 September 2022. [29] 한화 김동관 폴란드行...한국선 K9 자주포 조립 개시. Money Today (in Korean). 14 July 2023. [30] MBC경남 NEWS (31 October 2024). [K-방산] K9자주포, K2전차 동시 폴란드 수출 선적 현장 포착..전차 180대 자주포 1차 212문, 2차 152문도 이렇게 납품됩니다. [31] "K-9 자주포, 핀란드 수출 양해각서 체결". Daily NTN. 23 November 2016. [32] "K-9 자주포 핀란드 수출계약 체결, 48문 1.45억 유로 규모". Republic of Korea. 2 March 2017. [33] 박원석 (9 September 2024). 서울대 '2024 한-핀란드 이노베이션 포럼: 떠오르는 민/군 겸용 기술' 개최. Veritas Alpha (in Korean). [34] "Millog sai lisätilauksen Puolustusvoimilta K9-panssarihaupitsien käyttökuntoon saattamisesta". Millog (in Finnish). 4 March 2024. [35] 한화디펜스, 에스토니아에 K9 자주포 6대 추가 수출. Global Economics (in Korean). 25 October 2019. [36] 한화디펜스, 에스토니아 'K9 자주포' 현대화 사업 수주. www.theguru.co.kr (in Korean). 5 August 2021. [37] [단독] 한화에어로, 에스토니아와 'K9 자주포' 12문 추가 계약 ... 3600만 유로. Global Economics [Newdaily] (in Korean). 17 January 2023 [38] "K-9 자주포 호주 수출 유력". Seoul Shinmun. 4 August 2009. [39] Bergmann, Kym (June 2019). "Australian Army to receive massive boost in firepower with 155mm SPH purchase". Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter. 45 (5): 12–16. [40] Kuper, Stephen (2 September 2020). "Government announces request for tender for Army Protected Mobile Fires". Defence Connect. [41] "S. Korea to export 30 units of K-9 howitzer to Australia under W930b deal". The Korea Herald. 13 December 2021. [42] 호주, K9 자주포에 이스라엘산 전력 시스템 장착. 한스경제 (in Korean). 22 August 2023. [43] 강지용 (23 August 2024). 한화에어로스페이스, 호주 방산 생산기지 완공…국내 첫 해외 생산. 파이낸셜포스트 (in Korean). [44] Helou, Agnes (1 February 2022). "Why did Egypt choose to buy South Korea's K9 howitzer?" Defense News. [45] 남수현 (12 October 2021). 박병석, 이집트 대통령 만나 세일즈 외교. JoongAng Ilbo (in Korean). [46] 한화디펜스, 이집트와 K9 자주포 2조원 규모 수출 계약...'역대 최대 규모'. 파이낸셜투데이 (in Korean). 3 February 2022. [47] MBC경남 NEWS (1 July 2024). 국산 파워팩 자주포 탑재 첫 수출. [48] "Egypt produces the advanced Korean K9 Thunder engine locally". Arab Defense. 5 October 2024. [49] “루마니아, 한국의 K9자주포와 K2흑표전차 구매 희망”. Global Economics (in Korean). 27 September 2022. [50] Seo Ji-eun; Lee Hay-june (10 July 2024). "Korea to export K9 howitzers to Romania in nearly $1 billion deal". Korea JoongAng Daily. [51] "Vietnam outlines intent to procure K9 howitzer". Janes.com. Janes Information Services. 24 April 2024. [52] Park Soo-chan (30 May 2021). "사거리 최대 80km ... 축구장 3개 면적 '초토화' [한국의 무기 이야기]". Segye Ilbo. [53] For more information, see Park Soo-chan (22 October 2022) “하이마스보다 낫다” 전면전 공포에 각국, 천무 다연장로켓 '주목' [박수찬의 軍] | 세계일보 https://www.segye.com/newsView/20221021509773 [54] "South-Korean Chunmoo K239 MLRS rockets/missile launcher to enter in service with UAE". Army Recognition. 8 April 2021 [55] "Saudi military unveils Chun-Moo MRLs". Janes Information Services. 4 April 2023 [56] "K239 Chunmoo launchers will increase the deterrence potential of the Polish Army". Defence Industry News. 19 October 2022. [57] Gil So-yeon (20 August 2023). "'K-239 천무' 폴란드 상륙…예정보다 12일 지연". The guru. [58] South Korea plans to arm its FA-50 light combat fighters with new variant of the Taurus missiles, December 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine – Airrecognition.com, [59] FA-50 Expanded Weapons and Avionics Archived January 12, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. [60] For more information, see https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fa-50-light-combat-aircraft-south-korea/ [61] "MBDA To Show New Munitions in Singapore". Archived from the original on February 7, 2018. [62] "The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea – Korea Deploys Home-Grown FA-50 Fighter Jets". Archived from the original on February 8, 2015 [63] Waldron. "Indonesia receives first pair of T-50i advanced jet trainers." Archived December 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. [64] Iddon, Paul (June 27, 2022). "Korean T-50 Jets Could Enhance Iraq's Air Campaign Against ISIS". Forbes. [65] "KAI won a contract to export 12 FA-50s to the Phil" (Press release). Korea Aerospace Industries, LTD. (KAI). March 28, 2014. [66] "TV Patrol: DND, kinumpirma ang ugnayan ng ISIS at teroristang grupo sa Pilipinas". ABS-CBN News. January 26, 2017. [67] "Delivery of T-50TH trainer jets to Thailand begins". Seoul. Yonhap News Agency. January 8, 2018. [68] KAI signs US$3 bln deal with Poland to export 48 FA-50s". Yonhap News Agency. July 28, 2022. [69] "Świadoma tego wszystkiego polska strona wciąż parła do stworzenia lepszej wersji FA-50 PL, wpisując na listę życzeń trudne do zrealizowania wymogi.". The Furious Fafik. August 10, 2025. [70] "Korzystając z tego, że już utopiłem 9,90 zł w subskrypcję Onet Premium". The Furious Fafik. August 10, 2025. [71] Waldron, Greg (February 24, 2023). "FA-50 wins Malaysia's light combat aircraft competition". Flight Global. [72] Akhil Kadidal (May 23, 2023). "LIMA 2023: KAI says Malaysia keen to order 18 additional FA-50s". Janes Information Services. [73] Shin In-ho (5 November 2018). "[신궁 1회] 승리의 믿음 K-PSAM 신궁". Defense Media Agency. [74] "VSHORAD – India's Next Big Air Defense Program". April 2012. [75] "Indonesia might buy more Chiron MANPADS systems from South Korea | November 2018 Global Defense Security army news industry | Defense Security global news industry army 2018 | Archive News year". 13 November 2018. [76] "Chiron". www.deagel.com. Retrieved 2015-04-08. [77] For more information, see www.smallarmssurvey.org.

The attempted sale of CK Hutchison’s Panama Canal operations to the US-based company BlackRock and Terminal Investment Limited was more than a commercial transaction. When Beijing publicly opposed the deal, branding it a betrayal of national interests, it transformed into a case study in how global business is being reshaped by strategic rivalry. The controversy illustrates a deeper question: Can Hong Kong’s leading conglomerates still operate on commercial logic alone, or are they inevitably drawn into the geopolitical contest between the United States and China? For Hutchison, the Panama case shows that the room for neutrality is shrinking. Why does it matter? Beijing’s intervention signals to Hong Kong businesses and foreign investors alike that commercial neutrality is no longer assured. Loyalty, alignment, and political sacrifice are emerging as expectations alongside profit and efficiency. For global decision-makers, this raises two critical issues: Why did Hutchison seek to exit its Panama Canal holdings in the first place? Why did Beijing judge it necessary to intervene in a transaction that, on the surface, was driven by corporate strategy? Why Hutchison sold its Panama Canal operations? 1. Strategic Realignment Toward Core Businesses CK Hutchison has steadily repositioned itself around two “twin engines”, i.e. real estate in Asia and infrastructure in Europe. While ports in Latin America once fit into its global footprint, they were never central to this model. By selling its Panama Canal operations, Hutchison freed resources to consolidate strengths where it sees long-term stability and growth. This is part of a deliberate shift visible over the past decade: acquiring the German infrastructure firm ISTA in 2017 and securing UK regulatory approval in 2024 for the £11 billion merger of Vodafone UK and Hutchison’s subsidiary Three. These moves point to a concentration of capital in Europe’s regulated infrastructure and Asia’s high-demand property markets, underscoring a deliberate pivot toward strengthening European operations and ensuring cash flow visibility. This implies that Hutchison is reducing its exposure and a systematic exit to regions marked by political uncertainty and doubling down on reinvesting into higher-yielding and strategically aligned assets, particularly in European infrastructure platform while deepening its Asian real estate footprint. For governments and investors, this suggests that Hong Kong conglomerates are not retreating from globalization but are planning to recalibrate toward safer, higher-visibility assets. 2. Capitalizing on Market Timing and Asset Valuation The divestment also reflected classic Hutchison discipline: Buying early and exiting when valuations reach the peak. With global demand for strategic infrastructure rising, the Panama Canal assets commanded a premium. The resulting HK$19 billion in proceeds and a sharp rise in share price underlined investor confidence. Such timing underscores Hutchison’s longstanding strategy of opportunistic repositioning. This divestment was both value-accretive and strategically well-timed. By crystallizing gains now, the group strengthens its balance sheet and cash-reserve, maintaining its flexibility to reinvest or return capital to shareholders. For policymakers, this implies that global infrastructure assets are increasingly financialized. Strategic nodes like the Panama Canal are no longer just trade arteries but high-value commodities in global capital markets. Governments must therefore view divestments not only as corporate decisions but as moves that can shift control of strategic assets between geopolitical actors. 3. Geopolitical Considerations and Risk Mitigation The Panama Canal is a corridor of strategic significance and what US-President Donald Trump calls Chinese ownership on the potential dual-use nature of port terminals there inevitably drew scrutiny in Washington. U.S. allies have already tightened the screening of Chinese-linked infrastructure deals and the EU’s 2019 FDI framework explicitly flagged ports as areas requiring “special oversight”. Against this backdrop, Hutchison sought to avoid being cast as a “Chinese state-backed actor”, an extension of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. Hutchison has taken deliberate steps to present itself as a neutral and commercially driven multinational investor, rather than an extension of Chinese state policy. The company restructured in 2015 to a Cayman Islands base carefully positioning itself apart from state-linked Chinese enterprises, which creates an international legal identity rather than retaining a mainland Chinese or Hong Kong corporate domicile. By exiting Panama, Hutchison not only monetized assets but also reduced exposure to the intensifying Sino-U.S. rivalry in one of the world’s most contested trade chokepoints. For European and U.S. decision-makers, this implies that Hutchison’s move signals how Hong Kong firms navigate geopolitical pressure. It shows that even Chinese-origin conglomerates may prefer retreat to avoid being entangled in state rivalries. Hutchison pre-emptively mitigated the risk of being labelled a “Chinese state proxy” in a critical geopolitical theatre. This move not only alleviated Western concerns about Hutchison’s control of Panama’s ports but also demonstrated the group’s ability to act with commercial neutrality and flexibility, preserving its ability to operate, finance, and expand in Western markets without being constrained by the “Chinese capital” label. For Beijing, however, this retreat risks weakening China’s global port footprint. This highlights a potential divergence between the commercial logic of Hong Kong firms and China’s strategic ambitions. Why did Beijing intervened? 1. Loss of Chinese Strategic Assets and Diplomatic Advantage The Panama Canal is among the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints and control of its ports carries weight far beyond commerce. For China, investment in Latin American terminals has been part of a wider strategy to shape global shipping routes and enhance strategic reach. From Beijing’s perspective, CK Hutchison’s divestment was more than a business transaction. This was a strategic setback. The transfer of control to U.S.-linked interests was seen as a symbolic “recapture” of the terminals, which weakens China’s presence at a vital corridor. Within the Chinese leadership, the ports had been regarded as potential bargaining leverage in trade negotiations with Washington. But this loss reduced Beijing’s diplomatic toolkit at a time of rising frictions. The episode illustrates how Chinese policymakers increasingly view overseas ports as instruments of geopolitical positioning, not just commercial assets. Hutchison’s decision to sell underscored a broader reality: not all Chinese-affiliated enterprises act in alignment with state objectives. For Beijing, this implies that the Panama case highlighted the limits of relying on Hong Kong conglomerates to advance strategic interests abroad. For foreign governments and firms, it signalled both China’s heightened sensitivity to divestments in contested regions and the growing tension between corporate autonomy and state geopolitical expectations. 2. Absence of Beijing’s Prior Approval Sparked Political Backlash In the Panama Canal divestment, Beijing’s leadership reacted strongly against CK Hutchison’s “transaction first, then approval” approach. Beijing expressed dissatisfaction and even instructed state-owned enterprises to suspend new collaborations with the Li family, who serve as the controlling shareholders and principal decision-makers of Hutchison. Hutchison defended this sale as a “purely commercial and competitive process” by emphasizing Mediterranean Shipping Company as the principal buyer. Yet, in the context of intensifying Sino-U.S. rivalry, this stance was no longer acceptable. Regulatory pressure and political intervention from Beijing slowed negotiations, preventing the transaction from proceeding as planned. The broader precedent is clear: in strategically sensitive areas, Beijing now expects Hong Kong firms to align commercial decisions with state priorities. Neutrality is no longer an option. This marks a fundamental shift in the operating environment, binding the leading Hong Kong conglomerates more closely to state interests and constraining their room for independent strategic choices. For policymakers and investors, this implies that the Panama case shows how Beijing is extending political oversight into commercial domains once seen as autonomous. Hong Kong enterprises face increasing limits on their ability to separate business logic from state loyalty, particularly where Sino-U.S. rivalry is at stake. 3. Public Opinion as Strategic Pressure: Shaping a New Regional Order Beijing’s response to Hutchison’s Panama sale was not confined to official channels. Pro-Beijing media denounced the deal as disloyal and profit-driven, framing it as a matter of national honour. When the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, which is the Beijing central body responsible for overseeing Hong Kong and Macao affairs, amplified these narratives, they gained quasi-official status and exerted pressure on both Hutchison and other Hong Kong firms. This discourse resonated beyond China. The Panama Canal Authority warned that excessive concentration of terminal assets could undermine neutrality and competitiveness. This wording strikingly complies with Beijing’s “anti-hegemony” rhetoric. By shaping the terms of debate, Beijing positioned itself to argue for greater balance and competition in Panama’s port operations. Looking ahead, China advocates to leverage new concession tenders to advance its tactical objectives: strengthening the role of China Ocean Shipping Company, counterbalancing U.S. and European dominance and embedding Chinese capital in Latin America’s maritime infrastructure. More broadly, the case illustrates how Beijing integrates public opinion, regulatory narratives, and commercial strategy to shape a regional order more favourable to its interests. For policymakers, this implies that Panama demonstrates how Beijing transforms domestic media pressure into a tool of international influence. What begins as reputational discipline at home can translate into bargaining leverage abroad, particularly in contested regions where infrastructure and influence are intertwined. Points of Special Relevance: Beijing’s Strategic Signal Beijing’s intervention in the Panama Canal case should be read not as a single act but as a strategic signal. Its aims to prevent U.S. and European firms from consolidating control at a vital chokepoint and to avoid the appearance of “losing” strategic assets. At the same time, Beijing used this episode to remind Hong Kong conglomerates that in sensitive geopolitical contexts, commercial logic alone is no longer sufficient. The Panama case demonstrates how Beijing leverages commercial disputes as instruments of statecraft. The more plausible outcome is a conditional arrangement to encourage Panama to introduce mechanisms that limit Western influence in Latin America. China seeks structural adjustments that preserve its influence and reshape the regional order to its advantage. From Neutrality to National Loyalty As U.S. China tensions intensify, many multinational firms pursue de-risking strategies: not full decoupling as it is economically unviable, but carefully calibrated ambiguity that allows them to operate in both markets without explicit political commitments. This balancing act is becoming harder in Hong Kong. Since 1997, the influx of mainland state-linked enterprises has blurred the line between state and market. Benefiting from the “One Country, Two Systems” framework, these firms embedded political expectations into business norms. Ties to the National People’s Congress or the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference are increasingly relevant in Hong Kong. By 2019, Beijing moved further, promoting patriotism in the business sector such as the Greater Bay Area Business Support Scheme, which channels funding toward firms demonstrating “patriotic entrepreneurship” or contributions to “national rejuvenation”. The result is a growing convergence of economic and political expectations. Commercial autonomy is increasingly contingent on political alignment, eroding the distinction between business logic and ideological loyalty. For investors and firms, this raises strategic concerns: - Will political loyalty requirements constrain the free flow of capital? - Could companies risk state intervention or even nationalization if perceived as acting against China’s interests? These questions remain unresolved, but Hutchison’s Panama case shows how quickly a commercial decision can be redefined as a matter of national loyalty. The broader uncertainty surrounding Hong Kong’s business environment will shape the city’s role as a financial hub in the decade ahead. This is my view on things: An Outlook on Hong Kong Looking ahead, the space for Hong Kong conglomerates to maintain commercial neutrality is narrowing. The rise of a nationalist business paradigm means companies must increasingly balance political conformity with economic self-interest. Two scenarios are emerging: 1. “Hong Kong, then China”: firms retain some operational autonomy and global credibility by prioritizing commercial logic, while carefully managing political sensitivities. 2. “China, then Hong Kong”: political loyalty takes precedence, with business priorities subordinated to national strategic goals of the Chinese Communist Party. Which path prevails will determine Hong Kong’s role as a financial hub. The tension between economic liberalism and political loyalty is no longer abstract. It is becoming the defining fault line for Hong Kong’s business landscape in the decade ahead.

Introduction Contemporary geopolitical competition has moved away from traditional paradigms of direct military conflict, giving way to more sophisticated forms of strategic rivalry. In this new landscape — where the lines between peace and war are increasingly blurred — the control of critical infrastructure and trade routes has emerged as a fundamental element of national power. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — conceived by Beijing as the most ambitious geoeconomic project since the Marshall Plan — seeks to reshape the Eurasian trade architecture, positioning China as the central node of an integrated connectivity system. However, the events of 2025 reveal that this project does not operate in a strategic vacuum; rather, it faces a coordinated response from rival powers that have developed sophisticated strategies to limit, fragment, or condition its expansion. This article examines the indirect containment strategies directed against the BRI, focusing on one particular dimension: the deliberate activation and deactivation of conflicts as a tool of geoeconomic blockade. Through the analysis of two paradigmatic cases, it illustrates how rival powers can employ geoeconomic methods to block, fragment, or constrain large infrastructure projects by strategically manipulating regional conflicts. Two seemingly disconnected but strategically linked events will be examined — both of which have redefined the struggle for control over Eurasian trade routes. On one hand, the military escalation between India and Pakistan in the southern sector, specifically in the Rajasthan–Sindh–Southern Punjab Corridor; on the other, the peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which revived the Zangezur Corridor Project, now under U.S. control. Both events represent concrete manifestations of a new form of great power rivalry centered on the instrumental use of conflicts to systematically obstruct the BRI. Geoeconomics as a Theater of War Geoeconomics, understood as an analytical discipline, examines how geographic, economic, and political factors intertwine to determine the relative power of states within the international system. Within this framework, connectivity infrastructures transcend their technical or commercial nature to become strategic assets capable of altering the regional balance of power. At its core, the BRI represents China’s attempt to create a network of economic dependencies that enables it to project political influence across Eurasia. This network includes both land and maritime corridors connecting East Asia with Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, establishing China as the central node of an integrated commercial system. However, the interconnected nature of this system also generates specific vulnerabilities: the disruption of critical segments can produce cascading effects that compromise the functionality of the entire network. Containment strategies, therefore, do not need to dismantle the BRI entirely to be effective. It is enough to introduce points of friction, uncertainty, or external control in key segments to alter participants’ cost-benefit calculations and reduce the overall attractiveness of the Chinese system. This logic of “selective blockade” allows rival powers to exert disproportionate influence with limited resources. In this context, the strategic activation and deactivation of conflicts emerge as a particularly refined tool. Unlike direct blockades — which require a permanent military presence and entail significant political costs — the manipulation of conflicts enables the introduction of instability indirectly, leveraging preexisting tensions to generate disruptions along critical BRI corridors. Thus, the temporal simultaneity of the India–Pakistan crisis and the resolution of the Caucasus conflict does not constitute a geopolitical coincidence but rather the manifestation of a deliberate geoeconomic containment strategy that employs the selective activation and deactivation of conflicts to block the fundamental pillars of the BRI. Case 1: Activation of the Indo-Pakistani Conflict The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) stands as the flagship project of the BRI in South Asia. With an estimated investment exceeding $60 billion, the CPEC aims to connect China’s Xinjiang region with the Port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, providing China with an alternative trade route that bypasses strategic straits controlled by rival maritime powers. The fundamental vulnerability of the CPEC lies in its dependence on Pakistan’s territorial stability—particularly in the southern provinces, where both critical infrastructure and the energy resources that sustain the project are concentrated. This is precisely where the strategy of conflict activation reaches its fullest expression. Following the escalation recorded in May 2025, intelligence analysts suggest that the timing and intensity of the Indo-Pakistani crisis indicate a deliberate activation of preexisting tensions with specific geoeconomic objectives. The impact of a hypothetical Indian incursion into the Rajasthan–Sindh–Southern Punjab belt would not necessarily aim for the permanent occupation of Pakistani territory, but rather for a demonstration of capability to disrupt the territorial continuity of the corridor. This interdiction strategy through conflict activation operates across multiple dimensions simultaneously. On the physical level, temporary control over this belt would effectively sever the connection between southern Pakistan and the routes leading to China, forcing costly detours or temporary suspensions of operations. On the economic level, the mere threat of disruption would significantly increase security and insurance costs for Chinese investments, thereby reducing the projected profitability of the corridor. More importantly, on the psychological level, a successful demonstration of interdiction capability through controlled escalation would create lasting uncertainty about the security of Chinese investments in the region. This uncertainty would not be limited to the CPEC, but would extend to other BRI projects that depend on the stability of strategic partners. The implicit message is clear: China cannot guarantee the security of its trade corridors against the strategic activation of conflicts by rival powers. The temporal dimension of this strategy is particularly sophisticated. The activation of conflicts makes it possible to generate immediate disruptions in the functioning of the corridors, while their eventual deactivation — once the strategic objectives have been achieved — avoids the long-term costs of a prolonged confrontation. This modulation of conflict intensity transforms regional tensions into precise instruments of geoeconomic policy. Access to the hydrocarbon reserves in southeastern Sindh adds an additional layer to this activation strategy. By temporarily controlling these resources during periods of escalation, India would not only obtain direct economic benefits but would also deny Pakistan and China the revenues that could otherwise be used to finance and expand the CPEC. This logic of “resource denial through conflict” is particularly effective in infrastructure projects that rely on sustained revenue flows to justify their initial investments. Case 2: Deactivation of the Armenian–Azerbaijani Conflict The second case illustrates the complementary side of this strategy: the use of conflict deactivation as a mechanism to gain control over critical infrastructure. The Zangezur Corridor, renamed the “Trump Corridor for Peace and International Prosperity” (TRIPP), represents a paradigmatic example of how a major power can insert control points into connectivity networks through the instrumental resolution of conflicts. In August 2025, U.S. mediation in the Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict allowed Washington to obtain exclusive development rights over this corridor for 99 years, effectively transforming what could have been a component of the BRI into an asset under Western control. This maneuver is particularly ingenious because it uses conflict resolution — seemingly a global public good — as a tool for broader geoeconomic objectives. The conflict deactivation strategy operates under a logic that is different but complementary to activation. While activation seeks to generate immediate disruptions in existing corridors, deactivation enables lasting control over critical segments of the connectivity network through the establishment of new contractual and regulatory frameworks that emerge from the peace process. The TRIPP occupies a crucial strategic position within the Eurasian connectivity network. As part of the Trans-Caspian Corridor (the so-called “Middle Corridor”), it provides a direct land route between Central Asia and Europe that bypasses both Russia and Iran. For China, this corridor represented a vital alternative to reduce its dependence on routes controlled by rival powers. However, by securing contractual control over the TRIPP segment through the instrumental deactivation of the conflict, the United States effectively introduced a strategic bottleneck in the middle of this network. The effectiveness of this strategy lies in its ability to condition the use of the corridor without explicitly prohibiting it. Washington can employ a variety of regulatory, tariff, and security instruments to make the transit of Chinese goods more expensive or cumbersome, rendering the route less attractive to traders and investors. This form of “administrative friction” can be as effective as a physical blockade, but with far lower political costs and reduced risks of escalation. Moreover, control over the TRIPP allows the United States to modulate its policy toward the BRI according to its broader strategic needs. During periods of bilateral tension, it can tighten restrictions on the corridor as a form of pressure; during periods of détente, it can ease such measures as a gesture of goodwill. This flexibility transforms the corridor into a permanent bargaining instrument in Sino–American relations. Integrated Logic: Activation and Deactivation of Conflicts as a Containment System The true sophistication of the analyzed cases becomes evident when one understands that the activation and deactivation of conflicts are not isolated tactics, but rather components of an integrated system of geoeconomic containment. The effectiveness of each element is amplified when they operate in coordination, creating a dynamic that maximizes pressure on the BRI while minimizing costs for the implementers. The activation of conflicts generates immediate disruptions and heightens the perception of risk associated with Chinese projects. Simultaneously, the selective deactivation of other conflicts allows rival powers to establish alternative control frameworks that channel trade flows toward systems under their own influence. This combination produces a “push-and-pull” effect: pushing trade away from routes controlled by China through the creation of instability, while pulling it toward alternatives managed by rival powers through the creation of selective stability. The temporal dimension of this integrated strategy is crucial to its effectiveness. Cycles of activation and deactivation can be calibrated to maximize the impact on long-term investment decisions, generating sufficient uncertainty to discourage future commitments — without creating levels of instability that would undermine the broader interests of the implementing powers. Systemic Dynamics The strategies of conflict activation and deactivation go beyond their immediate tactical objectives to generate broader systemic effects on the BRI and on global geopolitical competition. These effects operate across multiple levels and time scales, creating dynamics that can fundamentally alter the strategic calculations of all actors involved. First, these strategies introduce an element of structural uncertainty deeper than that produced by conventional forms of interference. While direct blockades or sanctions are predictable in their application, the manipulation of conflicts introduces elements of volatility that are far more difficult to anticipate and mitigate. International connectivity depends on the predictability and reliability of trade routes, but when those routes become subject to the unpredictable dynamics of strategically activated conflicts, investor and trader confidence in the system as a whole is eroded. Second, the alternation between activation and deactivation creates a pattern of cyclical instability that complicates long-term planning. Investors must consider not only the current state of stability in a region but also the likelihood that latent conflicts may be activated in the future for geoeconomic purposes. This additional consideration translates into demands for higher returns to compensate for perceived risk, thereby increasing the cost of capital for future BRI projects. Third, the strategy of activation and deactivation can generate demonstration effects that shape third countries’ perceptions of the BRI’s viability. When these countries observe that middle powers can effectively disrupt segments of China’s system by manipulating local conflicts, they may feel empowered to adopt more assertive positions in their own negotiations with Beijing. This dynamic can gradually erode China’s position as a preferred partner for infrastructure projects. Finally, these strategies create dangerous precedents for the stability of the international system. If the activation and deactivation of conflicts become normalized as tools of geoeconomic competition, other actors may adopt similar tactics, fostering a more volatile and unpredictable global environment. China’s Counterstrategies The strategies of conflict activation and deactivation do not operate in a strategic vacuum; rather, they generate adaptive responses from China that can alter their long-term effectiveness. Beijing has developed a variety of counterstrategies specifically designed to reduce the vulnerability of the BRI to this kind of indirect interference. One of the most important responses has been the development of mediation and conflict-prevention capabilities. Recognizing that many of the conflicts which can be strategically activated have roots in genuine, unresolved disputes, China has significantly expanded its involvement in international mediation. This approach seeks to address the underlying causes of instability that could otherwise be exploited by rival powers. At the same time, Beijing has intensified efforts to build early warning systems that enable it to anticipate the imminent activation of conflicts in regions critical to the BRI. These systems combine traditional intelligence with big data analysis and predictive modeling to identify patterns suggesting the external manipulation of local tensions. China has also pursued a more systematic geographic diversification of routes and corridors, developing multiple pathways to the same destinations to reduce dependence on any single segment of the network. This strategy of “planned redundancy” increases system costs but also enhances resilience against selective blockades caused by activated conflicts. A third line of response has been the development of specialized financial and insurance instruments for projects in high-risk regions. These tools allow China to maintain the economic viability of BRI projects even in unstable environments, thereby reducing the impact of conflict activation strategies. Future Projections The analysis of conflict activation and deactivation strategies directed against the BRI reveals the growing sophistication of contemporary geopolitical competition. The examined cases demonstrate that rival powers have developed effective methods to condition, fragment, or disrupt large-scale infrastructure projects without resorting to direct military confrontation, instead employing the strategic manipulation of conflicts as a tool of containment. These strategies represent an evolution of traditional forms of containment operating within the geoeconomic domain, using the interdependence of connectivity systems and their vulnerability to regional instability as vectors of strategic influence. Their effectiveness lies not necessarily in their ability to dismantle the BRI entirely, but in their capacity to introduce cyclical frictions and structural uncertainties that diminish the overall attractiveness of the Chinese system. However, the adaptive nature of geopolitical competition suggests that these activation and deactivation strategies will generate countermeasures and counter-countermeasures that continuously reshape the balance of advantages. China’s capacity to develop alternatives and redundancies, combined with its growing mediation and conflict-prevention capabilities, may eventually limit the effectiveness of these containment tactics. In the long term, competition surrounding the BRI will likely evolve into even more sophisticated forms of geoeconomic rivalry, where the ability to create, control, and protect connectivity networks — as well as to manipulate or resolve the conflicts that affect them — will become a fundamental measure of national power. This dynamic will have far-reaching implications not only for the main actors involved but also for the international system, which will need to adapt to an era in which the strategic activation and deactivation of conflicts has emerged as a central tool in great-power competition. The growing sophistication of these strategies suggests that the future of geopolitical competition will be marked by an increasing instrumentalization of regional conflicts for global geoeconomic objectives, creating new challenges for international stability and requiring the development of normative and institutional frameworks adapted to this new reality. References Chatham House. (2025). India-Pakistan ceasefire remains shaky; relations unlikely to return to status quo. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/05/india-pakistan-ceasefire-remains-shaky-relations-unlikely-return-status-quo Consejo Previsional Mundial (WPC). (2025). Informe sobre la brecha de infraestructura en Asia y el impacto de la BRI. La división de los BRICS y la guerra que estamos ignorando entre India y Pakistán. (2025, 8 de mayo). Navarra Confidencial. https://www.navarraconfidencial.com/espana/la-division-de-los-brics-y-la-guerra-que-estamos-ignorando-entre-india-y-pakistan/ La iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta es un proyecto de cooperación internacional presentado por China en 2013, con enfoque en infraestructura, comercio y conectividad. (2025, 1 de septiembre). Lisanews. https://www.lisanews.org/internacional/iniciativa-franja-ruta-que-es-objetivos/ Le Grand Continent. (2025, 10 de agosto). Al firmar un acuerdo de paz entre Armenia y Azerbaiyán, EE.UU. desplaza a Rusia en el Cáucaso Meridional. https://legrandcontinent.eu/es/2025/08/10/al-firmar-un-acuerdo-de-paz-entre-armenia-y-azerbaiyan-ha-desplazado-trump-a-putin-del-caucaso-meridional/ Ministerio de Defensa de España. (2025). La visión estratégica de la República Popular China en la nueva era: Análisis del Libro Blanco sobre Seguridad Nacional. https://www.defensa.gob.es/ceseden/-/ieee/la_vision_estrategica_de_la_republica_popular_china_en_la_nueva_era_analisis_del_libro_blanco_sobre_seguridad_nacional_2025 Nedopil, C. (2025). Países de la Iniciativa del Cinturón y la Ruta (BRI). Green Finance & Development Center. https://greenfdc.org/countries-of-the-belt-and-road-initiative-bri/ Reuters. (2025, 7 de agosto). EE. UU. asegura un corredor de tránsito estratégico en el acuerdo de paz Armenia-Azerbaiyán. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-secures-strategic-transit-corridor-armenia-azerbaijan-peace-deal-2025-08-07/

Beijing’s Victory Day parade in Tiananmen Square was designed to dazzle: ranks of uniformed troops, formations of aircraft, and an arsenal of new systems meant to underscore China’s rapid military modernization. But the most consequential image was not a missile or a stealth jet. It was a tableau of three leaders—Xi Jinping at the center, flanked by Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un—watching the spectacle together. The scene, widely broadcast and photographed, turned a commemorative event into a geopolitical marker. It was less a snapshot than a signal: the public normalization of a deepening alignment among China, Russia, and North Korea, at a moment when Western democracies are struggling to sustain cohesion on core strategic questions. The parade itself offered the familiar mixture of hardware and narrative. Coverage highlighted the unveiling or public confirmation of advanced systems across domains: upgraded intercontinental missiles, new submarine-launched ballistic missiles, hypersonic and anti-ship capabilities, long-range bombers, early warning aircraft, and a broad stable of unmanned platforms, including undersea vehicles and “loyal wingman” drones. Chinese media presented these developments as evidence of a “world-class” People’s Liberation Army (PLA) moving beyond legacy constraints and into truly multi-domain operations, with information, space, and cyber now integrated alongside land, sea, and air. Independent reporting catalogued the breadth of systems and emphasized a narrative of credible deterrence and strategic depth rather than mere choreography. Yet the more instructive message was political. The presence of Putin and Kim, alongside other leaders, was not a mere ceremonial occurrence. Each leader arrived with clear incentives to be seen at Xi’s side, and each gained by lending visual weight to Beijing’s story. For Moscow, the image reinforced the claim that Russia is not isolated, that it retains powerful partners and is embedded in a wider non-Western coalition. For Pyongyang, the moment was even more significant: an opportunity to step out of diplomatic isolation and be recognized publicly as a member of a consequential strategic grouping. For Beijing, hosting both leaders signaled that China can convene and coordinate—projecting status, reassuring sympathetic governments, and unsettling adversaries by hinting at a tighter web of cooperation among U.S. rivals. The convergence behind the optics has been building for years, and could have happened only on Chinese soil. China and Russia have expanded their coordination across energy, defense, and diplomatic, even as they preserve maneuvering room on sensitive issues. North Korea’s accelerating exchanges with Russia, alongside growing political warmth with Beijing, provide a third leg to this emerging tripod. None of this amounts to a formal alliance with mutual defense obligations. But it does resemble a strategic alignment held together by shared interests: resisting a U.S.-led order, blunting sanctions pressure, reducing vulnerability to Western technology restrictions, and demonstrating that alternatives exist to dollar-centric finance and Western supply chains. The choreography on the rostrum did not create this alignment; it made it more legible and clear. Memory politics is a key component of that legibility. Beijing’s decision to anchor the parade in the commemoration of victory over Japan allows contemporary power projection to be cloaked in a unifying moral narrative. China increasingly leverages World War II memory in diplomacy—shaping a “memory war” that reframes the post-1945 order and what is seen from China as its rightful place within it. Russia’s long-standing use of the “Great Patriotic War” plays a parallel role, justifying current policies through selective historical continuity. North Korea’s revolutionary mythology fits easily into this narrative architecture. By standing together at an anniversary of anti-fascist victory, the three leaders signaled an ideational convergence that complements their material cooperation: a claim to moral legitimacy as guardians of an alternative international vision. The military dimension of the parade, while not the core of this argument, still matters. Displays of a maturing triad—land-based ICBMs, submarine-launched systems, and an air-launched nuclear component—aim to convey survivable second-strike capacity. The public presentation of hypersonic and anti-ship systems is meant to complicate adversary planning in the Western Pacific. The range of unmanned platforms suggests an intent to saturate domains with relatively low-cost, attritable assets, improving persistence and compressing the sensor-to-shooter loop. It is prudent to treat parades cautiously: not all showcased systems are fully operational or fielded at scale, and performance claims are difficult to validate. But as an indicator, the breadth and integration of platforms reflect a planning culture committed to joint operations and “intelligentized” warfare, where AI-enabled targeting and decision support are not theoretical ambitions but programmatic priorities What, then, does the image of Xi–Putin–Kim actually change? First, it clarifies expectations. Observers no longer need to infer the trajectory of this triangular relationship from scattered bilateral overtures. The three leaders have chosen to make their alignment visible. Visibility creates deterrent value, raising the perceived costs of coercing any one member, and it can also facilitate practical cooperation: intelligence sharing, diplomatic coordination at the UN and other fora, synchronized signaling during regional crises, and mutually reinforcing sanctions-evasion practices. Second, it complicates Western planning. Even if Beijing keeps caution around direct military assistance in Europe or the Korean Peninsula, diplomatic top-cover, economic buffering, and technology flows short of lethal aid can still alter the correlation of forces over time. Finally, it resonates across the Global South. Many governments seek strategic autonomy and resist being forced into binary choices. The parade’s optics supplied a ready-made narrative for those who argue that the international system is already multipolar and that non-Western coalitions can deliver security and development without Western tutelage. The contrast with Western coordination was strikingly evident. In the transatlantic community, support for Ukraine remains substantial; however, debates about resource levels, war aims, and timelines have intensified. In the Indo-Pacific, there is a growing alignment on deterring coercion in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea; however, national economic interests and differing risk tolerances result in uneven policies toward China. Across Europe and North America, electoral politics continue to inject volatility into foreign policy, complicating efforts to sustain long-term, bipartisan strategies. None of these frictions amounts to collapse, and there are genuine Western successes in coalition-building—from NATO enlargement to evolving minilateral formats in the Indo-Pacific. However, an analytically honest reading of the moment acknowledges that the authoritarian trio in Beijing has projected a unity of purpose that Western capitals currently struggle to match consistently. Three implications follow. The first is narrative competition. If Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang can turn a commemorative event into a global story about legitimacy and resilience, they will continue to use history as a strategic resource. The appropriate Western response is not to cede the narrative field but to invest in historically grounded, forward-looking messaging that explains the link between rules-based order and practical benefits—trade reliability, crisis management, and sovereignty protection—for diverse audiences. The second is coalition maintenance. Western policymakers will need to prioritize “coalition hygiene”: aligning export controls and investment screening where it matters most; building redundancy into critical supply chains; closing divergences in sanctions enforcement; and coordinating messaging so that tactical differences do not obscure strategic alignment. This requires political discipline more than new institutions. The third is theater integration. As the Beijing image suggested a cross-regional understanding among three adversarial capitals, allied planning must better account for cross-theater linkages—how actions in Europe affect deterrence in Asia, and vice versa—and ensure that resource allocations and industrial policies reflect genuinely global prioritization. It is important not to overstate. The emerging alignment among China, Russia, and North Korea is asymmetric and interest-based, not a tightly binding alliance. Beijing’s global economic integration imposes constraints that Moscow and Pyongyang do not share. Russia and North Korea each bring liabilities that China will manage carefully. Frictions—over technology, pricing, and regional equities—will persist. But the threshold crossed in Beijing is nonetheless meaningful. These governments judged that the benefits of public proximity now outweigh the costs. That judgment, once made, is difficult to reverse quickly; it tends to generate its own momentum through bureaucratic follow-through and sunk reputational costs. One image cannot rewrite the balance of power. It can, however, crystallize a trend and concentrate minds. The sight of Xi, Putin, and Kim standing together did exactly that. It captured an authoritarian convergence rooted in shared grievances and converging strategies, and it highlighted the challenge facing democracies that wish to preserve an open and stable order: maintaining the patience, unity, and policy discipline to act together. The test for the West is less whether it recognizes the signal—most capitals do—than whether it can convert recognition into sustained, collective action. If Beijing’s parade was a demonstration of choreography and intent, the appropriate answer is not a counter-parade, but the quieter work of alignment: aligning narratives with interests, interests with instruments, and instruments with partners. That work is not glamorous. It is, however, what turns a photo into policy.

Abstract Never before had a sitting U.S. president managed relations with the DPRK as Donald Trump did, nor had any leader from Pyongyang sat face-to-face with a sitting U.S. president during their term as Kim Jong Un did. With Trump’s potential return, could there be another cycle of rapprochement? This paper seeks to address this question. The failure of the previous negotiating cycle, the DPRK’s advances in deterrence, and shifts in peninsular, regional, and global circumstances suggest that both leaders might bring new attributes to their interactions, potentially yielding surprising outcomes Introduction Except for a few moments of rapprochement, since the founding of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), U.S. administrations have maneuvered with various forms and methods to destabilize its political and economic system. And since Pyongyang decided to develop nuclear weapons, Washington has labeled them illegal, demanding that they be abandoned, sponsoring United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions, and implementing strict unilateral penalties. Meanwhile, successive DPRK leaders have persevered in a military doctrine based on the development of nuclear deterrence to guarantee national defense and security. Nevertheless, an unprecedented moment that broke with that persistent circumstance took place during Donald Trump’s previous term, when the relationship shifted from “fire and fury” to successive summits with Kim Jong Un in 2018 and 2019, in Singapore, Hanoi, and Panmunjom. The exchange of insults — Trump calling Kim “little rocket man” and Kim referring to Trump as a “dotard” — mutated into their approaching one another as “pen pals.” This surprising shift in U.S. policy toward the DPRK temporarily, though without the expected results, loosened the “Korean Gordian knot.” No U.S. president has managed relations with the DPRK as Donald Trump did, and in history, no North Korean leader had ever stood face-to-face, on equal footing, with a sitting U.S. president as Kim Jong Un did. Former President Barack Obama delivered several appealing speeches, but he seemed weak to many countries in East Asia, including U.S. allies and partners. For eight years, he did nothing about North Korea, calling it “strategic patience.” This eroded deterrence and allowed Pyongyang to advance its weapons and nuclear programs (Kausikan, 2025). For his part, at the beginning of his term, Joe Biden announced a “new strategy” toward the DPRK that never materialized; he pleaded for dialogue with Kim Jong Un while simultaneously increasing war threats; he grouped China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea into an ideological category that resurrected the Bush-era notion of the “axis of evil.” Biden’s simplistic binary categorization was not a policy. It ignored the differences in how these four countries define their interests, the degree of integration into the global economy, and the scope of their ambitions. These differences should be the starting point for U.S. diplomacy toward North Korea (Kausikan, 2025). The purpose of this article is to examine the circumstances, obstacles, and expectations for a new cycle of negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang with Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency. Development This second term of President Donald Trump, more transactional and less predictable, seems to be raising expectations of reducing confrontational stress on the Korean Peninsula, and everything indicates that it brings with it a modification of Washington’s policy toward the DPRK. This is conditioned by the following radical changes in strategic circumstances compared to his previous term: DPRK’s nuclear and missile programs have undergone new and sophisticated advances. The DPRK has broken all ties and symbols of its relations with the Republic of Korea, which it classifies as its “principal and unchanging enemy.” Declaring that it has no intention of avoiding war, it has instructed the Korean People’s Army to accelerate preparations to “occupy, subdue, and completely reclaim” South Korea. There has been a tightening of ties between Pyongyang and Moscow. The two Kim Jong Un–Vladimir Putin summits, and Kim’s reference to Putin as his “closest comrade,” have shown the very high level of understanding and commitment between the parties. This is reflected in the DPRK’s unrestricted support for Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine and the signing of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, ratified by both legislatures, which includes a “mutual military assistance” clause. Meanwhile, Russia supports the DPRK diplomatically and economically, opposing multilateral and unilateral sanctions, and expanding its exports — essentially oil, raw materials, and food — as well as providing assistance in various fields. An emerging anti-U.S. and anti-Western axis has been taking shape among China, Russia, the DPRK, and Iran, which has become so significant that Washington and its allies describe it as a “new axis.” Within this interconnection, the DPRK holds important advantages in three strategic dimensions: economic, military, and diplomatic. The removal of President Yoon Suk Yeol over his irresponsible Martial Law is reinforcing the possibility of a new government led by the Democratic Party, with Lee Jae Myung as the clear favorite and, as of today, more likely to win. [1] This would open the door to a revival of North–South détente reminiscent of the Moon Jae In era. Trump’s foreign policy objectives are based on his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) vision — now reinforced — which prioritizes U.S. strategic and economic interests over traditional alliance commitments (e.g., South Korea and Japan). At least these six factors seem to be significantly influencing Donald Trump’s decision to return to diplomacy with Kim Jong Un. While the DPRK occupies a relatively lower position on Trump’s list of priorities (with China and the Russia–Ukraine conflict taking precedence), and dialogue does not appear imminent, he has made it clear that he would like to reconnect with Kim Jong Un, seems willing to reopen negotiations, and is evaluating and discussing possible avenues of interaction that could lay the groundwork for a potential summit. It is said that Washington has been holding discreet conversations with Pyongyang, consulting external experts, and considering options to potentially restart dialogue. Meanwhile, Kim Jong Un — clearly more assertive and militarily more powerful in Washington’s eyes — has not publicly shown any willingness to renew his earlier offers related to denuclearization. In his own words: “the DPRK’s nuclearization is non-negotiable,” and he continues to exert pressure by showcasing the country’s missile–nuclear power. This has been illustrated unequivocally and consistently when Kim Jong Un visited nuclear material production facilities and the Nuclear Weapons Institute (NWI) in September 2024 and January 2025. For the DPRK, survival is an existential matter, and Pyongyang considers its nuclear–missile programs absolutely indispensable to secure it; there is nothing we can see that would persuade or force it to renounce them, as that would imply regime change. Everything indicates that the U.S. president is aware that his counterpart has not yet overcome the discouragement caused by the failure of the previous negotiation process, and for that reason, he is sending increasingly precise messages about the possibility of renewed talks, while boasting of his personal relationship with Kim Jong Un. At the same time, however, Pyongyang continues to issue contradictory signals of distrust toward Washington, in response to the confrontational attitude and the increasingly close military and intelligence ties with the DPRK’s immediate neighbors. It is worth noting that, this past February, the U.S. sent a nuclear submarine and several B-1B bombers to South Korea; U.S. military forces carried out multiple war exercises, including live-fire drills along the Demilitarized Zone, as well as heavy bombing maneuvers and even space force operations. In March, a large-scale scheduled exercise took place—70 percent larger than the one held the previous year. Nevertheless, it appears that by the end of 2024 the DPRK leadership decided to create a certain margin of diplomatic maneuver in anticipation of the incoming Trump administration. The coverage given to Trump’s inauguration on January 22 marked a shift from Pyongyang’s initial decision to remain silent on the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections in November. Moreover, this information was published in media outlets aimed at both domestic and international audiences, suggesting that North Korea has begun preparing its people for a new approach to Trump, when appropriate. Despite the steady flow of official statements and media commentary criticizing the United States, anti-American rhetoric has become somewhat less intense. Notably, the use of the expression “U.S. imperialists” has significantly decreased since then. This is also true of Kim’s public statements, which are considered the most authoritative in North Korea. For example, Kim’s speech at the Ministry of Defence on February 8 was the harshest and most detailed on the United States since his speech at a national defence exhibition in November 2024. However, unlike in many of his previous speeches at defence-related venues or events, he did not use derogatory terms such as “U.S. imperialists.” In fact, the last reported use by Kim of the term “U.S. imperialists” was in his defence exhibition speech last November. While there has been a rise in criticism of the United States since early February, as demonstrated by a series of “KCNA commentaries,” the broader trend since December still holds. The media have refrained from mentioning Trump by name, even when criticizing U.S. statements or actions. When issuing criticism, they have only referred to “the new U.S. administration,” “the current administration,” or the “U.S. ruler.” KCNA’s commentary on February 12 regarding the Gaza Strip, for example, blamed the “current U.S. administration” for the plan to take control of Gaza, omitting Trump’s name. All these articles were published in outlets aimed at domestic audiences, likely because they addressed foreign policy issues not directly relevant to North Korea. In contrast, the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ criticism of Rubio’s statement about the “rogue state” was only published on external websites and not disseminated to the domestic audience. This allowed Pyongyang to register its rejection of the statement to external audiences while controlling the narrative about the Trump administration at home. Pyongyang also appears to be creating diplomatic space by attempting to influence Washington’s thinking while it awaits the new Trump administration’s policy toward North Korea. Its Ministry of Defence stated that the United States was “openly ignoring the DPRK’s security concerns” in reference to a U.S. nuclear-powered submarine that entered a South Korean port — an unusually direct accusation that the United States “ignores” its security concerns. If we consider the reverse side of this message (do not ignore North Korea’s security concerns), it is in fact a call from Pyongyang to the new administration to take its “security concerns” into account in its policy toward North Korea (Minyoung Lee, 2025). We can therefore see some Trumpist signals that could prove attractive to Pyongyang’s leadership: Repeated references by the U.S. president, describing the DPRK as a “nuclear power,” a concept recently reinforced when he qualified it as a “great nuclear power.” It is noteworthy that very recently U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio used the expression “nuclear-armed state” to refer to the DPRK, implicitly admitting Pyongyang’s possession of nuclear weapons. This comment suggests that the U.S. is unofficially considering the DPRK as a nuclear-armed nation, just as it does with India, Pakistan, and Israel. There are signs of a strategic shift aimed at overcoming deadlock and building trust by moving from denuclearization as the priority toward nuclear security. In other words, instead of demanding denuclearization, the focus would be on improving the safety of nuclear facilities — such as preventing accidents, leaks, or proliferation risks to third countries — through active bilateral technical cooperation that aligns reciprocal interests. The decisions that have shaken the peninsular geopolitical context and the Washington–Seoul alliance, when the U.S. classified South Korea as a “sensitive country,” as well as the so-called “strategic flexibility” that “modifies the mission of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).” It is true that many officials in the Trump administration continue to officially reiterate their commitment to the DPRK’s denuclearization. However, statements by the U.S. president and his Secretary of State suggest that they recognize North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, generating a dual reaction: on one hand, surprise at an abrupt shift in policy toward the DPRK’s nuclearization, and on the other, uncertainty about what would happen to the security concerns of its allies — South Korea and Japan — as well as those of the U.S. itself. It should be noted that Trump stated — no less than in front of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte — that he intended to re-establish relations with Kim Jong Un, that “he would do it,” that he has “…an excellent relationship with Kim Jong Un and we’ll see what happens.” And he declared: “But without a doubt, it is a nuclear power.” In that same setting, Trump also mentioned that India and Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons, effectively recognizing them as de facto nuclear-armed states, adding that Kim Jong Un “possesses numerous nuclear weapons” and that “others possess them as well.” Therefore, the statements by Trump and Rubio that tacitly recognize the DPRK as a “nuclear power” indicate a shift in Washington’s policy toward Pyongyang. It seems that interactions between the DPRK and the U.S. are moving toward a turning point: from denuclearization as the priority to nuclear security — a strategic change in U.S. policy aimed at overcoming deadlock and establishing trust, as a preliminary step toward a possible peace treaty. The repeated reference by U.S. President Donald Trump to the DPRK as a nuclear power could be an effort to draw Pyongyang back to the negotiating table, since North Korea seeks de facto recognition by the U.S. as a nuclear-armed state. Trump seems to be maintaining the perspective that the next negotiation should focus on reducing threats rather than denuclearization, despite his stated pursuit of “complete denuclearization.” Everything suggests that Trump is emphasizing the evident reality of Pyongyang’s progress in its nuclear program. It can also be considered that Trump’s remarks may imply that, as a result of the failure of his summit efforts to reach an agreement with Kim Jong Un to halt North Korea’s nuclear program, he may now be encouraging the consideration of an alternative strategy. However, Pyongyang is publicly and incessantly rejecting Trump’s attempts to restart dialogue; this stance has much to do with the recent history of U.S. negotiations and the president’s insufficient reciprocity to the concrete measures proposed by Kim Jong Un. In addition to the above, it is worth highlighting the latest developments that have shaken the peninsular geopolitical context and the Washington–Seoul alliance, which could, to some extent, influence a shift in Pyongyang’s perception and lead it to accept talks with Washington. We refer to the classification of South Korea as a “sensitive country” and the idea of “modifying the mission of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).” The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) designated South Korea as a “sensitive country,” a classification that significantly restricts collaboration in areas of advanced technology, including nuclear energy, artificial intelligence, quantum science, and advanced computing. This measure, which took effect on April 15, subjects South Korean researchers to stricter controls for collaborating or participating in research at DOE facilities or research centers and marks the first time South Korea has received such a designation from the U.S. government. In this regard, the “sensitive country” classification is based on unilateral criteria such as national security, nuclear non-proliferation, regional instability, threats to economic security, and alleged support for terrorism. This list, maintained by the DOE’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (OICI) along with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), already included countries such as India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan. Additionally, North Korea and Iran are designated as “state sponsors of terrorism,” while China and Russia are considered “countries of concern.” Such a designation suggests that the U.S. has growing concerns about the increasing voices among South Korean academics, politicians, and citizens who support the development of domestic nuclear weapons. Recent surveys reveal that popular support for nuclear armament has reached between 60% and 70%, apparently stemming from the belief that South Korea must take a bold defensive measure against North Korea’s growing nuclear threats. Although some who favor this idea believe that President Donald Trump’s skeptical view of alliances — focused on reducing the financial burden of protecting U.S. allies — might allow Seoul to develop nuclear weapons and thus reduce Washington’s responsibilities on the Korean Peninsula, the likelihood of this happening remains slim. However, the debate will not disappear in the short term due to growing skepticism about the so-called U.S. “extended deterrence,” which relies only on the deployment of strategic assets in the South of the peninsula. In the meantime, the DPRK is very likely to feel satisfied, as it sees its long-standing desire fulfilled: to witness cracks in the Washington–Seoul alliance. Another decision that would benefit the DPRK under the so-called “strategic flexibility” is the projection that the Trump administration may deploy U.S. troops stationed in South Korea in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, following the circulation of a purported Pentagon memorandum detailing its objective of deterring China from occupying Taiwan. As is well known, the primary mission of the 28,500 U.S. troops in South Korea is to deter threats from the DPRK. Should this decision materialize, their mission would then shift to countering China, considered a key component of the current administration’s foreign policy. This would create a security vacuum for Seoul and further strain its relations with Beijing. In such a circumstance, the Trump administration could pressure South Korea to handle conventional military actions from the DPRK independently, with the U.S. intervening only in the case of nuclear threats. Therefore, the best option for Seoul is to significantly strengthen its defensive capabilities, preparing for a scenario in which U.S. troops are not involved in a conventional war with the DPRK. The notion of “strategic flexibility” for the USFK reflects a shift in the main mission of U.S. forces abroad, moving from the defense of nations through their permanent presence to rapid deployment in other parts of the world where conflicts arise. As expected, unease is growing in Seoul in the face of Pyongyang’s increasing assertiveness, while the latter shows greater defiance. First, due to the possibility that Trump’s second administration may divert part of the USFK’s resources to a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, which would leave South Korea more vulnerable. Second, because South Korea is currently in open political turmoil over the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, and everything seems to indicate that the so-called South Korean democracy has failed to demonstrate itself as reliable in the eyes of Trump and his team. It is worth mentioning what Moon Chung In, emeritus professor at Yonsei University, stated in his most recent book, titled “Why American Diplomacy Fails”. The expert describes North Korea’s nuclear problem as an illustrative failure of U.S. diplomacy. His remarks are eloquent when he says: “In my conversations with members of the Trump administration during my trip to America, I had the impression that they firmly feel that Korea [South Korea] has been getting a free ride [on U.S. security] for far too long. South Korea’s excessive dependence on the United States could have serious consequences. The Korean government needs to develop autonomous strategic thinking. It needs to explore creative contingency plans for the worst-case scenario of a U.S. absence from the Korean peninsula.” We can see that Trump’s return is testing diplomatic limits and fueling a key question: Will Trump’s return to the White House open another cycle of engagement with Kim Jong Un, but with new attributes? The U.S. president always highlights his good personal relationship with the DPRK leader, something that, undoubtedly, could have a positive effect. But, as of today, Pyongyang seems to lack incentives to negotiate with Washington for four essential reasons: Military, it has achieved significant advances in its conventional weapons programs, strategic missiles, and nuclear arms, which provide it with a high deterrent capability. Economically, even under heavy sanctions, it is experiencing moments of economic expansion, it has made progress in import substitution, its local industry is reviving, and infrastructure construction is in full development. This makes negotiating the lifting of sanctions, in general and with Washington in particular, less urgent for Pyongyang. Its willingness to take political risks in exchange for economic benefits has clearly diminished. Geostrategically, its military alliance with Russia may generate new revenues, transfers of military technology, practical experience in modern warfare, and weaken the international sanctions regime. Geopolitically, the world is entering a period of dynamic geopolitical realignment that could eventually result in a multipolar order. The DPRK seems well positioned due to its ties with two key actors in the multipolarization process: Russia and China. At the same time, it observes the disruption of the traditional alliance structure with the United States and sees Washington distancing itself from its main allies, who are also DPRK’s adversaries in East Asia. Therefore, it appears willing to watch the evolution of events and their outcome. Donald Trump has stated that his administration has opened a line of communication with the DPRK and considered that, at some point, “something will probably happen,” emphasizing: “There is communication. I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un… I get along wonderfully with him… I think it is very important. It is a ‘great nuclear nation,’ and he is a ‘very smart guy.’ I got to know him very well… We will probably do something at some point.” It cannot be ruled out in this analysis that the DPRK is doubly leveraged. On one hand, with stable trade with China; on the other, with Russia’s reciprocity for its declared and materially sustained support for Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. Therefore, additional incentives directly linked to DPRK’s comprehensive security must emerge. If the U.S. were to formally recognize the DPRK as a “de facto nuclear power,” which would represent a radical change in U.S. strategy, the prospect of future negotiations focused on threat reduction rather than denuclearization would open up. Despite Trump’s flattering words and the expectations they raise, it is not clear whether the U.S. president would be able to secure internal consensus within his administration to make such a decision without major obstacles, and, at the same time, manage to mitigate the suspicion and animosity of Kim Jong Un and the leadership around him. Conclusions The viability of negotiations between the U.S. and the DPRK under Trump’s new government remains uncertain, but it is possible that Trump will pursue a new “diplomatic victory” — similar to his 2018 Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un — through an alternative strategy that bilaterally satisfies Pyongyang’s aspiration to be recognized as a de facto nuclear state. However, it is unlikely that the international community would accept the U.S. unilaterally recognizing the DPRK as a nuclear-armed state. According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a vote by the UN Security Council would be required, where the United Kingdom and France would surely veto it; and if it were brought to the General Assembly as a resolution, the number of opposing votes would probably be a majority. It is worth noting that the DPRK is doubly leveraged: it has stable trade with China and reciprocity from Russia for its material support, in addition to enjoying the diplomatic backing of both powers. Given its persistent distrust of Washington, it is to be expected that Pyongyang will maintain its close coordination with Beijing and Moscow and use it to strengthen its position vis-à-vis Washington. Thus, for the time being, it is not clear whether the U.S. president will be able to mitigate the suspicion and animosity of Kim Jong Un and the leadership surrounding him. Notes[1] Lee Jae Myung was elected as president of the Republic of Korea after the June 3rd, 2025 elections. References Aise Sotolongo, J. (2025). Return of Donald Trump: Continuity or change with the DPRK? World and New World Journal. https://worldnewworld.com/page/content.php?no=4082Chan-kyong, P. (2025, 12 de marzo). Kim Jong Un seeks negotiating leverage over Trump's new nuclear demands, analysts say. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3296722/kim-jong-un-seeks-negotiating-leverage-over-trump-new-nuclear-demands-analystsChung-in, M. (2025, 15 de febrero). It's time Korea prepares itself for a peninsula without the US, expert advises. The Korea Herald. https://m.koreaherald.com/article/10455463Depetris, D. R. (2025, 9 de abril). Kim Jong Un is watching Trump's Ukraine diplomacy with interest. 38 North. https://www.38north.org/2025/04/kim-jong-un-iswatching-trump-ukranie-diplomacy-with-interestEFE. (2025a, 10 de enero). Pionyang dice que sus armas nucleares no son moneda de cambio para negociar. Swissinfo. https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/pionyangdice-que-sus-armas-nucleares-no-son-moneda-decambio-para-negociar/88844909EFE. (2025b, 22 de marzo). Washington, Seúl y Tokio reafirman su compromiso para desnuclearizar a Corea del Norte. Swissinfo. https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/washington%2C-se%C3%BAl-y-tokio-reafirman-su-compromiso-para-desnuclearizar-a-corea-del-norte/88881832EM Redacción. (2025, 12 de marzo). Estados Unidos califica a Corea del Sur como un "país sensible", limitando la cooperación en tecnología avanzada. Escenario Mundial. https://www.escenariomundial.com/2025/03/12/estados-unidos-califica-a-corea-del-sur-como-un-pais-sensible-limitando-la-cooperacion-en-tecnologia-avanzada/KBS WORLD. (2025, 5 de febrero). Seúl y Washington acuerdan limitar el término "desnuclearización" a Corea del Norte y no a toda la península. http://world.kbs.co.kr/service/news_view.htm?lang=s&Seq_Code=92262Kipiahov, O. (2025, 9 de febrero). Rossiian vstrechaiut s ulybkami posol RF v KNDR rasskazal kak zhivet severnaia koreia. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. https://rg.ru/2025/02/09/rossiian-vstrechaiut-s-ulybkami-posol-rf-v-kndr-rasskazal-kak-zhivet-severnaia-koreia.htmlKYODO NEWS. (2025, 18 de marzo). China eyes teaming up with Japan, South Korea to denuclearize N. Korea. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2025/03/c5e26b7d5347-htmlLankov, A. (2025, 9 de febrero). Trump’s North Korea nuclear diplomacy: Between bad and worse. Asialink Diplomacy. https://asialink.unimelb.edu.au/diplomacy/article/trump-north-korea-diplomacy-between-bab-and-worse/McCartney, M. (2025, 17 de abril). Trump plans to disarm North Korea, but Kim wants more nuclear weapons. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/us-north-korea-kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-2022678Minyoung Lee, R. (2025, 25 de abril). North Korea leaving maneuvering room with the US while preparing for long-term confrontation. 38 North. https://www.38north.org/2025/04/noth-koreas-acknowledgement-of-war-participation/Reddy, S. (2025, 9 de febrero). Russian envoy to DPRK says Moscow welcomes talks between US and North Korea. NK News. https://www.nknews.org/2025/02/russian-envoy-to-dprk-says-moscow-welcomestalks-between-us-and-north-korea/Sneider, D. (2025, 3 de abril). Is North Korea the next target of Trump’s search for a deal? Keia. https://wwwkeia.org/2025/04/north-korea-the-netx-target-oftrmps-search-for-a-deal/Sputnik. (2025, 31 de marzo). Trump valora su relación con líder norcoreano Kim Jong Un y planea un eventual contacto. El País CR. https://www.elpais.cr/2025/03/31/trump-valora-su-relacion-con-lidernorcoreano-kim-jong-un-y-planea-un-eventual-contacto/YONHAP. (2025, 8 de marzo). Trump appears to use 'nuclear power' label to lure N. Korea to dialogue: US expert. The Korea Times. https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=394200

Introduction Geopolitical tensions are making global trade increasingly difficult. In order to reduce the associated risk of default, companies are shifting their trade relations to trading partners that are politically similar to them. In the course of the beginnings of geo-economic fragmentation, politically and economically like-minded countries are also gaining in importance for German and European decision-makers. Liaison countries1 in particular can form a counterforce to the trend towards polarization in foreign trade - especially between the USA and China: they are characterized by a pronounced economic and trade policy openness that overrides differences between geopolitical or ideological camps. Consequently, the question arises: How can relevant connecting countries for Germany and Europe be identified? What opportunities and risks do closer trade relations with these countries offer in order to strengthen foreign trade resilience in geopolitically uncertain times?  With a high degree of openness - defined as the sum of imports and exports in relation to gross domestic product - of over 80 percent2 , the German economy is strongly integrated into global trade. Accordingly, the disruptive effect of geo-economic fragmentation on the German economy would be above average. The defensive strategy to strengthen Germany's economic security by pushing for trade policy independence would only reinforce geo-economic fragmentation. Against the backdrop of comparatively high economic vulnerability, it is necessary to focus on those potential partner countries with which German and European foreign trade could be developed and expanded even under the condition of increasing fragmentation.  Geoeconomic Fragmentation  The term "geo-economic fragmentation" is used to describe the politically motivated reorganization of global goods and financial flows, in which strategic, economic and political interests primarily determine the choice of countries of origin and destination for trade flows.3 In the scenario of geo-economic fragmentation, the result would be the formation of a bloc within the global community of states, which would fundamentally change the regulatory structure of global economic networking. In this case, trade and investment would probably concentrate from a previously diverse range of economic partner countries - prior to the formation of the bloc - on those countries that now - since the formation of the bloc - belong to the same bloc.  The likelihood of this scenario occurring and leading to an increased fragmentation of the global economic order has increased again in the recent past. For example, Donald Trump's second term as US president is causing increasing geopolitical uncertainty worldwide.  Statements on the concrete form of a possible demarcation of potential blocs are subject to a great deal of uncertainty. However, the division of a large part of the global economy into a "US bloc" and a "China bloc" is a conceivable scenario for which German politics and business should prepare.  Data already shows that, at a global level, foreign trade openness has decreased in the recent past. Data from the World Trade Organization (WTO) illustrates the increasing hurdles in global trade in goods. While 3.1% of global imports were still affected by tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in 2016 - including under WTO rules - this figure rose to 11.8% in 2024 over the following years.4 This development goes hand in hand with a noticeable loss of importance and enforcement of the WTO since the 2010s, which previously played a central role as the guardian of the rules-based global economic order.  Studies by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have already found indications of an incipient geo-economic fragmentation along potential bloc borders. It shows that trade in goods and foreign direct investment between countries that would belong to the opposing camp in the event of a bloc formation declined on average in 2022 and 2023 - in contrast to foreign trade between countries that are geopolitically close.5  In this initial phase of geo-economic fragmentation, liaison countries are beginning to establish themselves as a counterforce, holding the fragmenting global community of states together with new trade and investment routes.  Identification of liaison countries Specifically, liaison countries have the following characteristics: a pronounced openness to foreign trade in the form of a high foreign trade quota and low tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, as well as pronounced economic relations with partner countries from different geopolitical camps. The geopolitical orientation of countries can be examined using data on voting behavior within the United Nations.6 This involves analyzing whether a country can be assigned to the US or Chinese camp - or whether there is no pronounced proximity and therefore political neutrality or "non-alignment" in the sense of ideological independence. The data-based identification of connecting countries is relatively new. Empirical analyses are also limited to connecting countries in the context of US-Chinese foreign trade - specifically US imports from China. In this case, the characteristics of a connecting country can be broken down into (1) "non-alignment" - i.e. a geopolitical distance to both a Western and an Eastern bloc - as well as (2) an increase in imports and foreign investment from China and (3) a simultaneous increase in exports to the United States. In a narrower sense, this is an evasive reaction to trade restrictions, i.e. circumventing trade. If the foreign trade indicators - specifically the trade and investment data relating to the US and China - of "non-aligned" countries for the period from 2017 to 2020 show corresponding characteristic-related changes compared to previous years, these can be identified as countries connecting the US and China.  The analysis of trade data shows that the value of direct exports from China to the USA fell during Donald Trump's first term in office. At the same time, both Chinese exports to some of the "non-aligned" countries and exports from these countries to the USA have increased significantly. These countries have presumably stepped in as a link on the export route from China to the US after the previously direct trade flow was interrupted by trade barriers and had to find a new route. Companies producing in China are therefore likely to have sought new, indirect ways to maintain access to the US sales market.  A certain statistical inaccuracy in the foreign trade data makes it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion in this context. It should be noted: No single commodity can be tracked across national borders in trade data collection. Whether the additional goods imported from China actually found their way to the United States can only be assumed approximately. However, if the trade flows are aggregated, a clearer picture emerges and the circumvention trade via selected connecting countries - including Vietnam and Mexico - becomes visible.  Data on foreign direct investment rounds off the analysis.7 "Non-aligned" countries in which an increase in Chinese investment can be seen between 2016 and 2020 in addition to trade flows can be identified as connecting countries. Here, too, available data suggests that the companies concerned either exported their goods to the United States via a stopover or even outsourced parts of their production destined for the US market to connecting countries. Five connecting countries between the US and China Based on the 2017-2020 study period, various connecting countries can be empirically identified that were used to indirectly maintain access to the US market. In terms of foreign trade volume, the economically most important connecting countries include Mexico, Vietnam, Poland, Morocco and Indonesia.8 All five countries are characterized by the fact that both their exports of goods to the US and their imports of goods from China increased significantly between 2017 and 2020. In addition, greenfield investments (foreign direct investment to set up a new production facility) have risen significantly compared to the period before 2017.  However, the five countries show different priorities in their development, which differentiate them in their role as connecting countries between the USA and China. In Vietnam, exports to the USA in particular have risen sharply. China has been the most important procurement market for Vietnamese companies for years. Poland, Mexico and Indonesia are characterized as connecting countries primarily by the significant increase in imports from China. Morocco, in turn, was able to attract more Chinese foreign investment in particular. Greenfield investments have almost tripled here since 2017. However, Poland - a rather surprising candidate for the role of liaison country, as it is intuitively assigned to the US-oriented bloc - is positioned fairly centrally between the US and China according to the analysis of voting behavior within the United Nations9. In addition, Poland qualifies primarily due to the sharp rise in greenfield investments from China, primarily in the expansion of domestic battery production.10  It cannot be concluded from the previous studies on the USA and China whether German companies are also circumventing trade barriers from the USA via the countries identified. As the trade policy conflicts between the US and China differ significantly from those between the EU and China, there has been a lack of comparable empirical data to analyze connecting countries in the EU context. Opportunities and challenges As the German economy is strongly oriented towards foreign trade and is closely networked with both the USA and China, German companies play a particularly exposed role in the area of tension between the USA and China. Increased economic exchange with potential connecting countries would offer German companies an opportunity to mitigate the expected shock of a geopolitical bloc. They could at least maintain international trade to a certain extent and thus secure some of the endangered sales and procurement markets. On the other hand, there are also costs associated with expanding foreign trade relations with potential connecting countries. The greater complexity also increases the risk in the value chains. Companies that position themselves wisely within this trade-off buy themselves valuable time in the event of a shock to reorganize themselves against the backdrop of changed foreign trade conditions.  From the perspective of foreign trade policy, it is also possible to examine the extent to which stronger foreign trade cooperation with (potential) connecting countries could have advantages. The trade-off between resilience and complexity must then be assessed at a macroeconomic level, beyond individual company interests. In order to make it easier for companies to connect to potential connecting countries and to create appropriate framework conditions, German and European policy can build on existing comprehensive strategies at national and European level. Both the China Strategy11 and the National Security Strategy12 focus foreign policy on connecting countries as part of a stronger economic and political risk diversification. There is also a similar framework at European level with the EU's Strategic Compass13 . Following on from this, the German government could create targeted incentives to open up new markets in liaison countries, which would diversify critical supply chains and reduce one-sided dependencies.  At the same time, connecting countries pose a challenge. These can be used to circumvent foreign trade measures such as sanctions if flows of goods can find alternative routes via connecting countries more easily than before.  In order to realize opportunities and overcome challenges, close cooperation between science, politics and companies is required. This first requires the identification of a selection of potential connecting countries through scientifically sound analysis. This creates the basis for the subsequent steps in which European and German policymakers work closely with companies to create attractive framework conditions for trade with potential connecting countries - for example through bilateral trade agreements.  Attractive foreign trade framework conditions can create the necessary incentive to actually expand trade relations with potential connecting countries. Companies need to weigh up individual cases and make forward-looking decisions: To what extent is there a risk of a loss of production triggered by geopolitical conflicts? And how much would the complexity of the value chain increase if more potential connecting countries were included? Ultimately, the actual choice of preferred sales and procurement markets lies with the individual companies. LicenseThis work is licensed under CC BY 4.0 References1. Verbindungsländer werden im Sinne von Connectors verstanden, vgl. Gita Gopinath/Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas/Andrea F Presbitero/Petia Topalova, Changing Global Linkages: A New Cold War?, Washington, D.C.: IMF, April 2024 (IMF Working Paper) <https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2024/04/05/Changing-Global-Linkages-A-New-ColdWar-547357/>. 2. Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), Außenwirtschaft. 2025, <https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Wirtschaft/Globalisierungsindikatoren/aussenwirtschaft.html#246 078/>.  3. Shekahar Aiyar/Franziska Ohnsorge, Geoeconomic Fragmentation and ‚Connector’ Countries, Online verfügbar unter:  <https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/121726/1/MPRA_paper_121726.pdf>.4. WTO, WTO Trade Monitoring Report, Genf, November 2024, <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/factsheet_dec24_e.pdf/>. 5. Gita Gopinath/Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas/Andrea F Presbitero/Petia Topalova, Changing Global Linkages: A New Cold War?, Washington, D.C.: IMF, April 2024 (IMF Working Paper) <https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2024/04/05/Changing-Global-Linkages-A-New-ColdWar-547357/>.  6. Michael A. Bailey/Anton Strezhnev/Erik Voeten, »Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data«, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61 (2017) 2, S. 430-456, <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002715595700/>.7. Gita Gopinath/Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas/Andrea F Presbitero/Petia Topalova, Changing Global Linkages: A New Cold War?, Washington, D.C.: IMF, April 2024 (IMF Working Paper) <https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2024/04/05/Changing-Global-Linkages-A-New-ColdWar-547357/>. War-547357. 8. Enda Curran/Shawn Donnan/Maeva Cousin, »These Five Countries are Key Economic ‚Connectors‘ in a Fragmenting World«, in Bloomberg (online), 1.11.2023, <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-1102/vietnam-poland-mexico-morocco-benefit-from-us-china-tensions/>.9. Michael A. Bailey/Anton Strezhnev/Erik Voeten, »Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data«, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61 (2017) 2, S. 430-456, <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002715595700/>.  10. Enda Curran/Shawn Donnan/Maeva Cousin, »These Five Countries are Key Economic ‚Connectors‘ in a Fragmenting World«, in Bloomberg (online), 1.11.2023, <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/202311-02/vietnam-poland-mexico-morocco-benefit-from-us-china-tensions/>.11. Auswärtiges Amt, China‐Strategie der Bundesregierung, Berlin, Juli 2023, <https://www.auswaertigesamt.de/resource/blob/2608578/810fdade376b1467f20bdb697b2acd58/china-strategie-data.pdf/>.  12. Auswärtiges Amt, Integrierte Sicherheit für Deutschland: Nationale Sicherheitsstrategie, Berlin, Juni 2023, <https://www.bmvg.de/resource/blob/5636374/38287252c5442b786ac5d0036ebb237b/nationalesicherheitsstrategie-data.pdf/>.  13. Rat der Europäischen Union, Ein Strategischer Kompass für Sicherheit und Verteidigung, Brüssel, März 2022, <https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7371-2022-INIT/de/pdf/>.

As AI accelerates, the US and China shape the global governance landscape through parallel ambitions and contrasting ideologies. Understanding their policy trajectories reveals key inflection points for potential engagement. The United States and China are the world’s leading powers in artificial intelligence (AI)—and each has global ambitions. As AI development accelerates, so too do calls to regulate it responsibly. Both countries have the capacity to shape the future of AI governance. But understanding where cooperation might be possible requires understanding how each country’s approach has evolved. While their methods and ideologies differ, and their leadership aspirations often appear at odds, two underexamined forces—infrastructure and philosophy—may create unexpected space for mutual engagement. In the US, AI governance has long been shaped by the mythology of the free market. Under President Barack Obama, that mythology was tempered by calls for pipeline diversity. President Donald Trump discarded these in favour of rhetoric about “American values,” an ill-defined phrase deployed more as a competitive cudgel against China than a coherent policy vision. President Joe Biden attempted to resurrect some of Obama’s normative commitments—launching the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, Executive Order 14110 on “safe, secure, and trustworthy AI,” and initiatives like the National AI Research Resource—but the foundations of his administration’s policies remained countering China’s influence through increased export controls and other measures. Trump’s second administration has once again changed focus away from equity and community-centredness, but the continued focus on competing with China and ensuring US “victory” in the “AI race” shows there’s more continuity than often assumed between different administrations’ AI approaches. China, for its part, has been more consistent in its governance strategy, even as it experiments at the margins. Its 2017 New Generation AI Development Plan cast AI as a pillar of national strength, and subsequent regulations on algorithms, deepfakes, generative AI, and facial recognition underscore a clear priority: balancing the “twin miracles” of economic development and social stability. Though early days of “fragmented authoritarianism” have given way to a more centralised approach with specific vertical laws, this logic remains embedded throughout the governance system. China is generally less explicit in its rhetoric than the US, with fewer exhortations about race dynamics and countering the US. In fact, it frequently invokes ideas of ethical pluralism and the language of international cooperation. This framing likely reflects a blend of genuine ideological positioning and diplomatic strategy, but it presents a challenge to US policymakers who continue to frame AI governance in moralising binaries. This is evident in two parallel AI Action Plans released in July 2025. The US released a guiding document—indicatively titled “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan”—with an epigraph from President Trump stating: “As our global competitors race to exploit these technologies, it is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance.” Though the Action Plan itself contains only three substantive references to China, it is built on the premise that global AI is an inherently competitive “race,” and China is clearly the US’s main competitor. A few days after the US AI Action Plan was released, China released its “Global AI Governance Action Plan.” It builds on the 2023 Global AI Governance Initiative, which seeks to portray China as a leader in the global pursuit of AI for the good of humanity and a “champion of the Global South.” The Global AI Governance Action Plan contains fewer specifics than the US AI Action Plan, but calls for “strengthening international cooperation on AI capacity building,” including supporting developing countries to design, implement, and govern AI. It also calls for building a global AI governance system through the UN and again shows the key balance of economic development and social stability: while it acknowledges the need to “jointly push for innovation breakthroughs,” it also advocates for strengthening “policy and regulatory coordination” and building an international AI safety governance framework. The US, on the other hand, is determined to cut “bureaucratic red tape and onerous regulation” while working primarily with its allies. However, recent events have called into question the feasibility of this approach. Notably, despite calls to increase export controls—and mobilise allies to do the same—the US announced shortly before the release of the AI Action Plan that it would again permit Nvidia to export H20 chips to China after previously restricting them. This was part of a trade deal in which China agreed to lighten restrictions on rare earth exports. Though seemingly counterintuitive, this deal reflects a fundamental reality of the modern AI ecosystem: the resources and supply chains enabling it are inextricably intertwined. China mines roughly 70 percent and processes 90 percent of rare earth minerals. US-based Nvidia has 92 percent of the GPU market. Both of these are critical for progress in AI. Both countries are attempting infrastructure decoupling, but the US may have to compromise on its fundamentalism to maintain access to the critical resources it needs. Meanwhile, its advanced chip dominance in turn provides leverage over China. Will this lead to broader cooperation? Geopolitical issues are likely too entrenched for each country to join hands and promote harmonious global AI governance. However, each country’s primary goal is the same: to benefit the “people.” China is claiming that its definition of “the people” is the global community—though this comes with the noted exclusion of domestic critics, including the Uighurs of Xinjiang, who are subject to AI-enabled surveillance and detention. The US’s definition of “the people” has changed from administration to administration, but currently seems to include the American people and potentially allied nations. It’s doubtful that the current administration will agree to substantive global AI governance discussions. But through its Action Plan, China has thrown down the gauntlet—engage with global AI governance or be an obstructionist. What the US will choose remains to be seen. Emmie Hine is a Research Associate at the Yale Digital Ethics Center and a PhD candidate in Law, Science, and Technology at the University of Bologna and KU Leuven. She researches the ethics and governance of emerging technologies, including AI. You can also find her byline in her weekly tech-focused newsletter, the Ethical Reckoner. Emmie holds degrees from Williams College and the University of Oxford, and previously worked as a software engineer. She’s on Bluesky here and X here. This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.

The BRICS meeting in Rio on July 6th and 7th gives a snapshot of the great power competition between China and the United States in different regions around the world, including Latin America. China has become the largest trading partner for many countries in Latin America, investing heavily in infrastructure and forging political alliances that further its strategic objectives. For its part, the Trump Administration of the United States issued the statement that those participating countries will face increased tariffs. The statement was the continuation of exercise and assertion of its authority for the past and present century. The positioning of various BRICS members and participating countries is particularly telling of what the great power competition means in the region and also globally. Brazil’s Lula hosted the meeting aiming to showcase its foreign policy leadership, not necessarily antagonizing the West. Russia is still going through the war in Ukraine, and Putin attended only online. India’s Modi was present as well as Ramaphosa from South Africa. No show of Xi Jinping was notable, although Premier Li Qiang was attending. Besides the BRICS core, other countries also showed promotion of their interests. Iran, for one, joined the group in 2024 and sent a ministerial level delegation to rebuke recent strikes on Iran. As the United States appears to be pulling back from its traditional leadership role in the world, China is seizing the opportunity to expand its influence and reshape global dynamics. Through a combination of state-driven development policies and active international engagement, Beijing has positioned itself as a major player in the Global South, extending its reach beyond Asia to regions such as Africa and Latin America. China’s increasing presence in the region has been mainly driven by the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and a surge in trade volumes, marking a major shift in the region’s economic landscape. Many experts point to China’s use of “infrastructure diplomacy”—financing ambitious, strategic infrastructure projects across the region—as a key factor in this rise. The numbers tell a compelling story. Trade data from the World Bank (Figure 1) shows that in the past ten years, China has overtaken the United States as the leading trading partner for much of the region, upending a dynamic that had held steady since the early 2000s. Beyond trade, China’s influence deepens through the 22 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that have joined the Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese loans have poured in, funding major energy, infrastructure, and development projects that have reshaped local economies. China’s push isn’t just economic—it’s political too. Beijing has taken steps to strengthen cultural ties, increase academic exchanges and boost tourism in Latin America, including waiving visa requirements for travelers from some countries. This multi-faceted approach highlights China’s pragmatic mix of economic self-interest and strategic diplomacy as it works to secure resources, expand markets, and bolster its global standing. On the other hand, the United States has long been a strategic ally and key trading partner for Latin America. Agencies like USAID have funneled millions of dollars into economic and military initiatives across the region. With the recent changes in the aid policy, immigration policy, and tariff policy, Washington’s recalibration of its foreign policy are transforming the geopolitical balance in Latin America and the Caribbean. As both powers deploy their strategies — from deepening economic ties to defending national interests — the decisions of Latin American states remain critical in shaping their alignments with global powers. The ultimate outcome is still up in the air, but one thing is clear: power in the region is actively being renegotiated. The diverging approaches from China and the US have set the stage for a broader reconfiguration of power in Latin America and the Caribbean. Yet, it’s essential to recognize that each country’s internal decisions and policies also play a critical role in shaping this shifting landscape. Colombia provides a case in point. Historically, it has maintained close diplomatic ties with the United States while keeping China at arm’s length. Unlike countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Peru, Colombia has received relatively little Chinese infrastructure investment. However, with the election of president Gustavo Petro—the first left-wing president in the country’s history—Colombia has taken decisive steps to strengthen its relationship with China, presenting new challenges for the United States to maintain its strategic foothold in the country. We observe – both on political and economic dimensions – that the changes in China’s strategy, coupled with Colombia’s domestic policies, have reduced the country’s dependence on the US while increasing its desire to integrate with China. Politically, Colombia and the United States have long enjoyed a strong diplomatic relationship, as reflected in their shared memberships in international organizations, high-level dialogues, and multiple bilateral agreements. However, diplomatic tensions have emerged in recent years. Disputes between the two leaders, the change of course of USAID, and a significant drop in new bilateral agreements over the past four years have contributed to a shift in this traditionally stable partnership. Against this backdrop, diplomatic ties between China and Colombia have strengthened. In 2023 alone, both countries signed 12 cooperation agreements in trade, technology, and economic development, upgraded their relationship to a strategic partnership, and Colombia’s entry into the Belt and Road Initiative during recent China – CELAC Forum in May. Colombia also joined the BRICS New Development Bank a few weeks after that Forum. Economically, the US has traditionally been Colombia’s largest trading partner, backed by a free trade agreement and significant investment. Yet, in recent years, the share of US trade has steadily declined, while China’s footprint has grown (see figure 1). Although there’s no formal trade agreement, ties have strengthened during the current administration, including the opening of a Buenaventura-Shanghai trade route in 2025. Additionally, China’s “infrastructural diplomacy” has significantly grown: over 100 Chinese companies now operate in Colombia, and major infrastructure projects like Bogotá’s Metro Line 1 and the Regiotram are underway, along with investments in mobility, technology, and health. Latin America, and Colombia in particular, finds itself at the center of a geopolitical tug-of-war with China’s calculated investments and the US’s shifting policies. While Beijing leverages trade, infrastructure, and cultural diplomacy to expand its influence, Washington’s recalibration of its foreign policy leaves room for new alliances and opportunities. Our analysis shows that power reconfiguration is not merely a product of external rivalry. It is driven by the choices each Latin American nation makes. As Colombia’s case demonstrates, the region’s destiny hinges not just on global superpowers, but on its own internal political decisions and developments. The coming years will test how Latin America navigates these shifting currents. Disclaimer This article was made possible in part by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York (G-PS-24-62004, Small State Statecraft and Realignment). The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors. Figure 1: China vs. US Import and Export TrendsDrawn by the authors using data from the World Bank.  

On March 4, the U.S. Department of Justice charged ten Chinese nationals with carrying out massive hacks against government agencies, media outlets, and dissidents in the United States and around the world. They allegedly acted on behalf of the Chinese company i-Soon, under contract from the Beijing government. Two officials from China’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) were also indicted, identified as the ones “directing the attacks.” According to documents held by the U.S. justice system, China’s domestic intelligence services (MPS) and foreign intelligence (Ministry of State Security, MSS) relied on a vast network of private companies and domestic contractors to hack and steal information, thereby masking the Chinese government’s direct involvement. In some cases, the MPS and MSS paid private hackers to target specific victims. In many others, the attacks were speculative: hackers identified vulnerable computers, breached them, and extracted information that was later sold — either directly or indirectly — to the Chinese government. The Growth of Chinese Cyberespionage and Its Main Areas of Operation This is not an isolated case. Over the past decade, the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) hacking program has expanded rapidly. In 2023, then-FBI Director Christopher Wray stated that it was larger than that of all other world powers combined. This increase in power and sophistication has led to success in three key areas: political interference, sabotage of critical infrastructure, and large-scale intellectual property theft. Beijing integrates computer networks, electronic warfare, economic, diplomatic, legal, military, intelligence, psychological, and military deception resources, along with security operations, to weaken states, make them economically dependent on China, and more receptive to a “new authoritarian world order with Chinese characteristics.” For this reason, unlike traditional interpretations, Chinese state-sponsored hacking should be understood within a broader context — where control over technology, strategic infrastructure, and global supply chains is part of “trans-military” and “non-military” warfare operations, as described by two People’s Liberation Army (PLA) colonels in the 1999 book “Unrestricted Warfare”. This approach is known as liminal warfare — an escalating conflict in which the spectrum of competition and confrontation with the West is so wide that the battlefield is, quite literally, everywhere. Cyberespionage as a Tool of Electronic Warfare In electronic warfare, hacking is used for sabotage during times of crisis or conflict. These actions are led by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party. In 2023, it was discovered that a hacker group linked to the PLA, known as “Volt Typhoon”, had infiltrated a wide range of critical infrastructure in the U.S. for years, including ports, factories, and water treatment plants — both on the mainland and in strategic locations like Guam. “Volt Typhoon is a military operation with political and potentially military strategic purposes,” explained Ciaran Martin, former director of the UK’s cybersecurity agency. Led by the PLA’s cyber unit, the operation involved installing readiness capabilities — “digital traps,” as some call them — within critical U.S. infrastructure. In addition to a sustained attack in 2023 on a power company in Massachusetts, which aimed to extract sensitive data about its operational technology (OT) infrastructure, “Volt Typhoon” gained notoriety for multiple attacks on telecommunications systems in the U.S. and other critical infrastructures globally. One of its subunits, “Voltzite”, targeted the Littleton Electric and Water Departments, prompting the FBI and cybersecurity firm Dragos to respond jointly and publish a detailed report on the attack and its mitigation. Intellectual Property Theft Through Cyberespionage The most damaging channel for intellectual property theft is cyberespionage. These intrusions allow Chinese companies — sometimes with direct support from the Communist Party or the state — to access information on operations, projects, and technology from foreign firms. China has used state-backed and coordinated cyberespionage campaigns to steal information from companies in strategic sectors such as oil, energy, steel, and aviation. These actions serve both to acquire science and technology and to gather intelligence useful for future attacks on military, government, or technical systems. In the United States, there have been numerous precedents: • In 2014, five PLA hackers were indicted for economic espionage.• In 2017, three hackers linked to the Chinese firm Boyusec were charged with stealing confidential business information.• In 2018, two Chinese nationals were indicted for intellectual property theft.• In 2020, two hackers connected to the MSS were charged with targeting COVID-19 research. Among these, the 2018 indictment stands out as part of a broader U.S. effort to raise awareness about Chinese cyberespionage. On that occasion, Chinese hackers carried out a campaign known as “Cloud Hopper”, which involved a supply chain attack on service providers like Hewlett Packard and IBM. The defendants worked for Huaying Haitai and collaborated with the Tianjin State Security Bureau of the MSS. In 2017, the U.S. Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property estimated that such crimes cost the U.S. economy up to $600 billion annually — a figure comparable to the Pentagon’s defense budget and greater than the combined profits of the 50 largest companies in the Fortune 500. Beyond the United States: The Global Impact of Chinese Cyberespionage In June 2024, Dutch military intelligence (MIVD) warned that Chinese cyberespionage was broader than previously believed, affecting Western governments and defense companies. A 2023 cyberattack on the Dutch Ministry of Defense reportedly affected at least 20,000 people within a few months. In 2018, the Czech Republic’s National Cyber and Information Security Agency (NUKIB) issued a warning about risks linked to China. Since then, the country has strengthened its capabilities and controls against Beijing and has worked on mechanisms to counter foreign information manipulation. According to U.S. prosecutors, dozens of European parliamentarians have been targeted by Chinese attacks. In March 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted hackers linked to the MSS for attacking “all EU members” of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), a coalition critical of Beijing. In 2021, the hackers sent over a thousand emails to around 400 accounts linked to IPAC, attempting to spy on their internet activity and devices. In addition, ASML, the Dutch leader in semiconductor lithography, suffers “thousands of security incidents per year,” including several successful infiltration attempts by Chinese actors. Research centers like Imec (Belgium) are also frequent targets. Belgium has expelled Chinese researchers suspected of espionage. The European Union has reinforced security and identified advanced semiconductors as one of four critical technologies requiring risk assessments and enhanced protection. Notably, APT41 is one of the most active and sophisticated Chinese cyberespionage groups, based in the PRC and linked to the MSS. According to Google’s Threat Intelligence Group, APT41 combines state espionage with ransomware attacks — malicious programs that encrypt files and demand financial ransom to restore them — making attribution more difficult. Unlike other PLA-aligned groups whose operations are region-specific, APT41 acts globally, attacking strategic sectors in the U.S., Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean. It also carries out financially motivated operations, particularly in the gaming industry. Mandiant, a global cybersecurity leader, highlights APT41’s technical capabilities: it frequently exploits zero-day and n-day vulnerabilities and uses techniques like phishing, social engineering, and SQL injections. Since 2020, APT41 has conducted large-scale campaigns against over 75 companies in more than 20 countries. It is responsible for compromising supply chains, such as in the “ShadowHammer” campaign targeting ASUS, which affected over 50,000 systems in 2018. APT41 is also linked to the use of “MESSAGETAP” malware in telecommunications networks. The Role of Chinese Universities in Cyberespionage Chinese universities also collaborate with the PLA and MSS in state-sponsored cyberespionage operations. Shanghai Jiao Tong University works directly with the Chinese military on such operations. Zhejiang University and the Harbin Institute of Technology are key centers for recruiting hackers. Xidian University offers students hands-on experience at provincial MSS offices and previously maintained ties with the Third Department of the PLA’s General Staff before its reorganization in 2015 into the Network Systems Department. One of its graduate programs is co-directed with the Guangdong Office of the Chinese Information Technology Security Evaluation Center (ITSEC), an MSS-run office that leads an active team of contractor hackers. Southeast University also maintains links with security services and co-manages the “Purple Mountain Lab” with the PLA’s Strategic Support Force. There, researchers collaborate on “critical strategic requirements,” operating systems, and interdisciplinary cybersecurity studies. The university also receives funding from the PLA and MSS to develop China’s cyber capabilities. The Cybersecurity undergraduate program at Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) is taught at a PLA information engineering base. Within this program, SJTU claims to work on “network and information systems testing and evaluation, security testing for connected smart networks, APT attack and defense testing, and key technologies for cyber ranges.” Universities associated with the MSS for talent recruitment include the University of Science and Technology of China, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Xi’an Jiao Tong University, Beijing Institute of Technology, Nanjing University, and the Harbin Institute of Technology. In addition, some cybersecurity firms — such as Beijing TopSec — collaborate with the PLA in hacking campaigns, operator training, and developing future hackers. This article was originally published by Agenda Digitale and later by Expediente Abierto, who granted us permission for its translation and republication.