OPEN LETTER: In Seoul, who finally understands that its security depends on Kyiv?

Collective security is more necessary than ever

By strengthening its diplomatic and military ties with Western partners and the rest of Asia, South Korea is not only making a gesture of solidarity toward Ukraine; it is also directly investing in its own future security in the face of a North Korea that is becoming increasingly battle-hardened by its combat experience in Europe.

This approach to collective security—which now unites NATO with Indo-Pacific partners such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea—represents a major strategic shift that Seoul has every reason to further deepen.

An Industrial Role Already Well Underway

South Korea has already proven its worth as a supplier of military equipment to several European countries, notably through its export contracts for howitzers and tanks to Poland, illustrating the growing integration of its defense industry into the Western ecosystem.

Seoul is no longer merely a distant spectator of the war in Ukraine; through its arms exports, it has become a discreet but real player in Western support. This role deserves to be embraced more openly.

Traditional Diplomatic Caution Toward Moscow

Despite this positive development, South Korea has long been reluctant to take a firmer stance against Russia, seeking to preserve certain diplomatic and economic channels with Moscow—a caution rooted in complex regional geopolitical considerations.

This historical hesitation, documented in several analyses by Foreign Policy, can be partly explained by South Korea’s fear of pushing Moscow even further into Pyongyang’s arms—a strategic calculation that is, however, losing its relevance as this alliance grows stronger anyway.

A Shift in Stance That Is Finally Gaining Momentum

Recent developments, notably the confirmation that North Korean troops are actively fighting in Ukraine, appear to have convinced part of the South Korean government that this excessive caution is no longer tenable in the face of the scale of the converging threat.

I welcome this shift in stance, even if it is belated. Better late than never—better to come to this realization now than to remain perpetually cautious, which ultimately comes at a high cost to the collective security of an entire region.

A Lesson in Resilience in the Face of an Overpowering Authoritarian Neighbor

Ukraine, facing an authoritarian neighbor with vastly superior military resources, offers a striking example of national resilience from which South Korea could draw valuable lessons as it grapples with its own ongoing confrontation with North Korea.

Ukraine’s ability to rapidly mobilize its defense industry, innovate technologically under pressure, and maintain national cohesion despite years of war serves as a serious case study for South Korean military strategists.

Striking Geopolitical Similarities

Like Ukraine in the face of Russia, South Korea lives under the constant threat of a hostile, nuclear-armed neighbor—a situation that calls for natural solidarity between the two nations facing structurally similar security challenges.

There is an obvious strategic kinship between Kyiv and Seoul that both capitals should fully embrace. Democracies threatened by authoritarian neighbors have every reason to stand together.

An Economic Neighbor and a Strategic Threat at the Same Time

For Seoul, China remains a major trading partner and, at the same time, a source of growing strategic concern, particularly due to its indirect support for North Korea and its regional ambitions in the South China Sea and beyond.

This duality significantly complicates South Korea’s diplomatic maneuvering room, as it must constantly balance its immediate economic interests with Beijing against its long-term security imperatives in the face of the China-Russia-North Korea axis.

A Western Convergence That Seoul Must Fully Embrace

Faced with this convergence of threats, South Korea has every interest in aligning more firmly with the Western front against China, which Western capitals view as one of the main structural threats to the international order, alongside Russia, Iran, and North Korea itself.

Seoul can no longer walk a tightrope indefinitely between Beijing and the West. The time is approaching when clear strategic choices will have to be made, and the sooner that clarity comes, the better it will be for regional security.

A Complex but Indispensable Long-Standing Partner

The historically strained relations between Seoul and Tokyo further complicate the development of a fully integrated regional security architecture, despite the clear convergence of their strategic interests in the face of common threats posed by China and North Korea.

Recent efforts toward trilateral rapprochement between the United States, Japan, and South Korea represent a significant—albeit fragile—step toward closer security cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region.

Coordination Still Insufficient Given the Scale of the Challenges

Despite this progress, military and diplomatic coordination between Seoul and Tokyo remains below what the gravity of the regional situation would require—a finding that several Foreign Policy analysts attribute to persistent historical tensions between the two nations.

The painful history between South Korea and Japan is real and legitimate, but it can no longer serve as an excuse for inadequate security coordination in the face of such pressing common threats.

Increased Military Support for Ukraine

Western partners hope that South Korea will take a new step in providing direct material support to Ukraine, going beyond the indirect exports already made to European countries—a move that would significantly bolster the credibility of its stated commitment.

This increased support could take the form of direct deliveries of ammunition or defense equipment—an option that Seoul has so far avoided out of diplomatic caution toward Moscow, but one that is becoming increasingly difficult to justify given recent developments.

A More Assertive Voice in International Forums

Beyond material support, the West also expects Seoul to take a more assertive diplomatic stance in international forums, condemning more firmly Russian aggression and North Korean involvement in this conflict, which directly threatens global collective security.

It is time for Seoul to stop weighing every diplomatic statement on the scales of excessive caution. The gravity of the current situation demands a clear voice, not timid diplomatic language.

Public Opinion Divided on International Engagement

South Korean public opinion remains divided on the extent of the country’s international engagement, with some segments of the population favoring an exclusive focus on the immediate security challenges on the Korean Peninsula rather than on distant theaters such as Ukraine.

This internal division complicates the task of the Seoul government, which must constantly justify to its people the concrete benefits of increased international engagement in conflicts perceived as geographically distant from citizens’ daily concerns.

Economic considerations also weigh in the balance

The significant economic ties between South Korea and certain trading partners indirectly linked to Russia or China add an additional layer of complexity to any decision to take a firmer stance on the international geopolitical stage.

I understand these internal constraints, but history never looks kindly upon nations that have allowed their immediate economic interests to dictate their silence in the face of blatant aggression.

A Model for Other Hesitant Asian Democracies

If South Korea takes the step toward a firmer commitment to Ukraine and the Western front, it could set a significant precedent for other Asian democracies—such as certain countries in Southeast Asia—that are still hesitant to take a clearer stance against authoritarian aggression.

This role as a regional trailblazer would considerably strengthen Seoul’s diplomatic position within the international community, while also bolstering a more robust Indo-Pacific security architecture in the face of combined Chinese and North Korean ambitions.

A Historic Responsibility to Fully Embrace

This moment represents a historic opportunity for South Korea to demonstrate its status as a responsible middle power, capable of assuming international commitments commensurate with its economic and technological strength, which is now recognized worldwide.

Seoul has the economic and technological means to be a major player in global security. All that is missing is the clear political will to fully embrace this historic role that lies before it.

Greater Vulnerability in the Face of a Strengthened Authoritarian Axis

If South Korea continues to delay taking a firmer stance, it risks finding itself isolated in the face of an increasingly coordinated and experienced China-Russia-North Korea axis—a scenario that would significantly weaken its future negotiating position.

This prolonged inaction could also undermine the confidence of its Western partners, who might legitimately question Seoul’s reliability as a strategic ally in the event of a major crisis directly involving the Korean Peninsula.

The Cost of a Wait-and-See Approach in a Rapidly Polarizing World

In an international context that is increasingly polarized between democracies and authoritarian regimes, prolonged inaction is no longer a neutral option: it amounts, de facto, to a relative weakening of South Korea’s strategic position vis-à-vis adversaries who, for their part, show no hesitation in coordinating their efforts.

A wait-and-see approach is never a neutral position in geopolitics. Every day of delay in South Korea’s engagement directly benefits the authoritarian axis that Seoul claims to fear the most.

Nordic democracies that have chosen clarity over caution

Since 2022, the Baltic states, Poland, and Finland have demonstrated that a clear stance toward Russian aggression—far from inviting the feared retaliation—actually strengthens a democracy’s deterrent credibility in the face of authoritarian neighbors determined to test its limits.

South Korea could draw a direct lesson from this European experience: strategic ambiguity, far from providing protection, often ends up encouraging the adversary to probe more aggressively for weaknesses in a partner perceived as hesitant.

A direct parallel with South Korea’s vulnerability vis-à-vis Pyongyang

Just as the Baltic states live under the direct threat of an unpredictable Russian neighbor, South Korea shares a border with a North Korean regime that is increasingly armed with the technology and combat experience gained in Ukraine, making this strategic comparison particularly relevant.

For Seoul, ignoring this parallel would amount to underestimating the speed at which a Moscow-Pyongyang military partnership could shift the balance of power on the Korean Peninsula itself.

The Nordic democracies have proven that a firm stance is a better deterrent than constant caution. Seoul should take inspiration from this before the lesson is painfully forced upon it.

One of the world’s most successful defense industries

South Korea has a defense industry capable of rapidly producing tanks, artillery, and ammunition on a large scale—an industrial capacity that several European countries are still struggling to match despite their rearmament efforts since 2022.

This industrial strength represents a considerable strategic asset that Seoul could mobilize more directly for the benefit of Ukraine and Western collective security, beyond the indirect deliveries already made via third countries.

Economic choices that also come at a political cost

Committing more openly carries a real commercial risk for Seoul, particularly in its economic relations with China—South Korea’s main trading partner—which partly explains the historical caution observed thus far in official statements.

But this short-term economic calculation must not overshadow the long-term security risk posed by an increasingly integrated authoritarian axis between Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang.

I understand the commercial caution toward Beijing, but no export contract is worth the long-term security of an entire nation in the face of an authoritarian axis that is rapidly consolidating.

Resilience as a Response to an Expected Aggression

Since 2022, Ukraine has demonstrated that a determined nation can hold out far beyond even the most pessimistic initial predictions—a lesson in resilience directly applicable to any democracy living under the constant threat of a militarily more powerful authoritarian neighbor.

For Seoul, Ukraine’s resilience serves as a concrete illustration that preparedness and strategic clarity are better than the fragile hope that an invasion will never occur.

Solidarity that could one day work in Seoul’s favor

By standing with Ukraine today, South Korea is also indirectly building the kind of international solidarity it might itself need in the event of a sudden escalation with North Korea.

This strategic reciprocity, often overlooked in immediate diplomatic calculations, deserves to be clearly presented to the South Korean public as a substantive argument, not merely as a symbolic gesture toward a distant country.

Solidarity with Kyiv is not a distant act of charity for Seoul; it is a direct investment in the solidarity on which it might one day depend itself.

Sincere encouragement to continue this progress

This letter is not intended as an indictment of Seoul, but rather as a sincere encouragement to continue and deepen the strategic evolution that has begun in recent months. South Korea has demonstrated that it understands the interconnectedness of global security theaters—a clarity that deserves to be commended and reinforced.

A call to turn this awareness into lasting action

The NATO summit in Ankara offers a valuable opportunity for Seoul to transform this emerging awareness into concrete and lasting commitments, alongside Ukraine and all Western democracies facing the same converging authoritarian threats.

This letter concludes with a simple conviction: Seoul has already begun to change, and this evolution deserves to be encouraged rather than silenced by facile criticism.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist