logo
Report unlocks mystery of why Chinese bombers flew near Alaska in 2024

Report unlocks mystery of why Chinese bombers flew near Alaska in 2024

Yahooa day ago
Deploying military forces is the strongest of political signals, and the most potent of these deployments is to move nuclear weapons or launch platforms near a potential adversary.
So when nuclear-capable Chinese bombers joined their Russian counterparts in joint patrols near Alaska in 2024, as well as similar flights deep into the Pacific, Western observers assumed there was a political message. Russia had been conducting such provocative flights dating back to the Cold War, but this is something new for China. Was Beijing signaling its displeasure with America over Taiwan, or warning NATO not to get involved in Asia? Was invoking the specter of Chinese bombers over America a reminder that the vast Pacific was no barrier to the long arm of Chinese power?
However, China may have had other motives for these flights, according to a U.S. expert. Beijing may have been demonstrating that nuclear bombers were now a fully functional part of its strategic triad, alongside ICBMs and ballistic missile submarines.
'It is clear that their true significance lies in China's years-long effort to complete its nuclear triad,' Derek Solen, a researcher at the U.S. Air Force's China Aerospace Studies Institute, wrote in a report for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force's Air and Space Studies Institute.
Another possibility is that the flights were intended as a warning to the U.S. not to engage in 'nuclear sharing,' in which America would station nuclear weapons in non-nuclear allies, especially Japan and South Korea. 'China probably fears that the limited exchange between NATO and America's Asian allies will eventually lead to the integration of America's European and Asian alliance networks, resulting in the formation of a global, nuclear-armed anti-China alliance,' Solen wrote.
Deciphering Beijing's intentions behind the bomber missions isn't easy. There have been just nine Sino-Russian flights since the first mission in 2019, when two Chinese H-6K and two Russian Tu-95MS bombers flew over the Sea of Japan and East China Sea. Though the actual number of flights is somewhat larger — China counts multiple flights on the same day as a single flight — this leaves a small dataset to analyze.
The joint flights were mostly confined to the Sea of Japan and East China Sea until July 24, 2024, when two H-6Ks and two Tu-95s flew near Alaska. Though they didn't penetrate U.S. airspace, they did enter the air defense identification zone, triggering interception by U.S. and Canadian fighters.
'This represented the first time that PLAAF [People's Liberation Army Air Force] aircraft participating in a combined patrol sortied from a foreign country as well as the first time that PLAAF aircraft approached U.S. territory,' Solen noted.
A few days later came more joint flights over the Sea of Japan, East China Sea and Western Pacific, which included more advanced H-6N bombers from the 106th Brigade in Henan province, which is primarily tasked with delivering nuclear weapons. The H-6N has a range of 3,700 miles and can launch KD-21 air-launched cruise missiles with an estimated range of up to 1,300 miles. Particularly ominous was a Nov. 30, 2024, flight in which H-6Ns came within cruise missile range of Guam in what Solen believes may have been 'the first serious training to conduct a nuclear strike against Guam from the air.'
Solen told Defense News that he initially believed that the flights were a political signal.
'I thought that Beijing was signaling two things simultaneously,' he said. 'It was signaling that its relationship with Russia was tight and, by using the H-6, sending an indirect message to Washington that it possesses the means and the will to counter what it perceived as Washington's moves with respect to nuclear sharing.'
But Solen was troubled by some inconsistencies. For example, the Chinese government was incensed by a July 2024 NATO summit that criticized China for supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as well as suggestions that NATO might expand its focus to Asia. Yet if the November 2024 flights near Guam were intended as a signal, then why wait until four months after the summit?
The joint flights also coincided with the deployment of the long-range and nuclear-capable H-6N.
'In 2019 the PLAAF officially adopted the H-6N, and in the same year renovations to the 106th Brigade's base were likely finished,' Solen wrote. 'It is interesting that the Sino-Russian combined patrols began that same year.'
Of course, the Alaska flights may have both a military and political purpose. However, Solen thinks that purely military training flights would have been confined to the East China Sea or the Sea of Japan.
Perhaps the West may never know China's true motivations. Nonetheless, the question remains: Will China again send bombers near — or into — American airspace? China continues to be an indispensable supplier of Russia's campaign in Ukraine, and the Chinese and Russian navies have just announced joint patrols in the Pacific. A Chinese government spokesman last year urged 'relevant countries to abolish the nuclear sharing arrangement, withdraw the large number of nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, and refrain from replicating such arrangements in any form in the Asia-Pacific region.'
For now, China isn't provoking the Trump administration, especially in the midst of a fight over tariffs.
'The fact that China and Russia still haven't done any combined flights this year is probably a political decision,' Solen said. 'At a time when they are trying to work things out with the new administration, they probably decided that it's best to avoid action that may agitate Washington or distract from the agenda in the negotiations.'
Regular flights near U.S. territory are unlikely 'because the training juice won't be worth the squeeze,' Solen added. On the other hand, China has an incentive to practice long-range bomber flights, even just for non-nuclear missions like striking ships and bases.
'I suppose that once they've either resolved things with Washington or just given up on negotiations, we'll see the combined flights resume and eventually see regular flights without the Russians,' Solen said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit

Washington Post

time2 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday could be a decisive moment for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S. leader's anomalous relationship with his Russian counterpart. Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country.

Trump's Pay-For-Play Chips Deal Generates Alarm and Optimism
Trump's Pay-For-Play Chips Deal Generates Alarm and Optimism

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's Pay-For-Play Chips Deal Generates Alarm and Optimism

(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump's controversial plan to take a cut of revenue from chip sales to China is leading to concerns that the US government will find new ways to start charging companies for a range of business activities with other countries. Experts and people familiar with the matter said the surprise deal, in which Nvidia Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. agreed to pay 15% of their revenues from Chinese AI chip sales to the US, potentially provides a path to enter the Chinese market despite severe export controls, tariffs and other trade barriers. The US-Canadian Road Safety Gap Is Getting Wider Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets The question that companies must now confront is whether the risk is worth taking. People familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations, said companies are struggling to figure out what the president's order means for their future, especially given the unpredictable nature of Trump's decision-making. 'This is truly bizarre and unusual, and the troubling thing — beyond the individual instances of AMD and Nvidia — is the possibility that this will be expanded,' said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'Everything is now 'national security,' according to the new definition, which means it's all subject to export licenses and then they give you a license based on your contribution.' There are concerns that US trade agencies could begin charging fees to companies every time there's a meeting to discuss tariffs, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, which issues export licenses, wasn't consulted about the revenue deal, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private conversations. Trump administration officials defend the idea as a smart way to generate revenue for the US government and suggest it will extend well beyond the chips sector. 'I think we could see it in other industries over time,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Wednesday. 'I think right now this is unique, but now that we have the model and the beta tests, why not expand it?' Bessent defended the deal and rejected any national-security concerns around the decision to sell Nvidia's H20 chip to China — something that had been earlier barred for fear of giving China a boost in the artificial-intelligence race. 'There are no national security concerns here,' Bessent said. 'We would not sell any of the advanced chips. So, the H20, I don't know whether you'd say they're four, five, six levels down the chips stack.' Either way, the deal highlights how Trump has pushed to open a wave of new revenue streams including by taking ownership shares of companies or extracting higher fees to live or work in the US. The US is weighing sales of a so-called 'gold card' residency permit, it won a 'golden share' to have direct say over corporate actions by United States Steel Corp., and it's secured investment pledges and potential revenue-sharing in country-level tariff talks. That's aside from the barrage of product tariffs that have at times left massive dislocations in globally traded markets. The matter further surprised China hawks in Congress, who have been unimpressed by the administration's reassurances. Rep. John Moolenaar, the Michigan Republican who chairs the US House Select Committee on China, questioned the legal basis for the move and suggested it does an end-run around controls put in place to limit the sale of sensitive technology to US adversaries. 'Export controls are a front-line defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities,' he said. It also raises questions about where the administration will steer the revenue. Trump has mused about issuing tariff rebate checks — though he has yet to seriously pursue the idea — while at other times he's said it would go toward narrowing the large budget deficit. The administration had debated launching a sovereign wealth fund before shelving those plans for now. It's too soon to say whether the administration will seek to revive the fund and steer revenue there, one official familiar with deliberations said. 'Trump's aides argue that these measures will strengthen America's AI leadership by maximizing its global influence and market share,' Hal Brands, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a former Pentagon official, wrote in Bloomberg Opinion. 'Yet it is also possible that they will simply eat into America's innovation advantage.' --With assistance from Mackenzie Hawkins and Derek Wallbank. (Updates with details of consultation process in fifth paragraph.) Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist The Electric Pickup Truck Boom Turned Into a Big Bust ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio

Here's what Putin really wants from Trump – and it's not peace in Ukraine
Here's what Putin really wants from Trump – and it's not peace in Ukraine

CNN

time32 minutes ago

  • CNN

Here's what Putin really wants from Trump – and it's not peace in Ukraine

Alaska is unlikely to have been on many peoples' bingo cards as the venue for a key summit between the leaders of the United States and Russia. Yet America's biggest, remotest state is where Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are now set to meet for one of the most potentially consequential encounters of their presidencies. That's certainly the view from Moscow, where pro-Kremlin propagandists are already flushed with anticipation at the benefits this much-anticipated face-to-face meeting will deliver. Or, more specifically, will deliver for Putin. Firstly, the fact a summit with the US president is being held at all is a massive win for the Kremlin. 'No one is talking about Russia's international isolation anymore, or about our strategic defeat,' wrote Alexander Kots, a prominent pro-Kremlin military blogger on his popular social media channel. He added that the Alaska meeting had 'every chance to become historic.' He may be right. A presidential summit allows Putin to be seen back at the top table of international diplomacy, while thumbing his nose at critics and nations who want him shunned if not arrested on charges of war crimes in Ukraine. And a summit in the US state of Alaska, of all places, is red meat to resurgent Russian nationalists who still bluster about the territory being rightfully theirs. Just across the Bering Strait from the Chukotka region in the Russian Far East, Alaska was once a remote possession of the Russian Empire before being sold to the United States in 1867 for what was, even then, a paltry sum of $7.2 million, about 2 cents an acre. The idea that Moscow got a raw deal still lingers and a visit to 'our Alaska,' as one prominent Russian state TV host dubbed it, bolsters Putin's nationalist credentials. Video clips of Trump misspeaking at a White House news conference ahead of the summit, saying he was going to 'Russia' to meet Putin, have also been trending on Russian social media with captions saying the US president had finally 'admitted it is ours.' For the rest of the world, though, the sole focus of this presidential summit is the war in Ukraine and whether Russia is prepared to make any concessions to end it. The White House has said Trump expects to focus squarely on ending the war in Ukraine, leaving other issues Moscow has said could be up for discussion for another time. On Wednesday, Trump promised 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end his war, following a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders. But so far there's been little sign of real compromise from the Kremlin, which regards itself as having the upper hand on the grinding Ukrainian battlefield. As recently as last month, on a phone call with Trump, Putin reportedly reiterated that Russia would 'continue to pursue its goals to address the root causes' of the conflict in Ukraine – these 'root causes' having previously included long-held Russian grievances that include Ukraine's existence as a sovereign state, and NATO's eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War. More likely, Putin is up to something else. Details have emerged of a Russian peace offer reportedly made to US presidential envoy, Steve Witkoff, before the Alaska summit was hastily arranged. In essence, the proposals involve Kyiv surrendering territory in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, in exchange for a ceasefire, an idea the Ukrainian leadership has firmly ruled out. 'I am not going to surrender my country because I have no right to do so,' said Zelensky ahead of the summit, which he was not invited to. 'If we leave Donbas today, our fortifications, our terrain, the heights we control, we will clearly open a bridgehead for the preparation of a Russian offensive.' But Trump, who is expected to discuss the idea with Putin in Alaska, appears to like the sound of a land-for-peace deal, even one so unpalatable to Ukraine and its European partners. That clear difference of opinion represents an opportunity for Putin to portray the Ukrainians and the Europeans – not Russia – as the real obstacle to peace, potentially undermining Trump's already shaky support for the Ukrainian war effort. Trump has lost patience with Zelensky before, the Kremlin will have noted, and may do so again. If he were to cut off the remaining US military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv, Ukraine would struggle to continue its fight even with bolstered European support. Ahead of the summit, the White House appeared to downplay expectations of a peace deal, characterizing the high-stakes meeting as a 'listening exercise.' That may suit Putin just fine. It was, after all, the Kremlin who solicited the summit, according to the White House – possibly as a way of heading off a threat of US tariffs and secondary sanctions that Trump said would kick in last week. Keeping Trump talking may be an effective way of pushing back that deadline indefinitely. More broadly, Putin sees a unique opportunity with Trump to fundamentally reset relations with Washington, and separate Russian ties with the US from the fate of Ukraine, a scenario that would also divide the Western allies. For months, Kremlin officials have been talking up possibilities for economic, technological and space cooperation with the US, as well as lucrative deals on infrastructure and energy in the Arctic and elsewhere. The fact the Kremlin's top economic envoy, Kirill Dmitriev – a key interlocutor with the Trump administration – is part of the Russian delegation to Alaska suggests that more talk of US-Russian deal-making will be on the agenda. And, if Putin gets his way in this summit, the 'Ukraine question' may find itself relegated to just one of many talking points between the powerful leaders of two great powers – and not even the most pressing one.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store