# To Seoul, which finally understands its security runs through Kyiv > As the NATO summit in Ankara, set for July 7 and 8, 2026, draws near, South Korea is intensifying its diplomatic and - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Open letter - Published: 2026-07-07 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-seoul-qui-comprend-enfin-que-sa-securite-passe-par-kyiv ## Introduction: a letter to an ally waking up ### Madam, Sir, leaders of South Korea As the **NATO** summit in **Ankara**, set for **July 7 and 8, 2026**, draws near, **South Korea** is intensifying its **diplomatic and military consultations** with its Asian and Western partners. This open letter is addressed to you, the leaders in **Seoul**, to welcome this strategic shift while underscoring the urgency of turning it into a lasting, **concrete commitment**. According to information reported by **WION** and other diplomatic sources, the South Korean government is now seeking to carry more weight on international security matters tied to **North Korea** and **China**, an evolution that deserves to be recognized and encouraged by all Western partners. ### Why this letter, why now I write this letter at a pivotal moment: the axis between **Pyongyang** and **Moscow** has grown considerably stronger since the war in **Ukraine** began, with **arms transfers** and, according to several Western reports, the dispatch of North Korean troops to support the Russian war effort. *Seoul finally understands that its security can no longer be thought of in isolation from Europe: the war in Ukraine and the Pyongyang-Moscow axis have merged the world's security theaters into one. It is a belated clarity, but a welcome one.* ## The now-inseparable link between Ukraine and the Korean peninsula ### North Korean soldiers on European soil The reported presence of **North Korean** troops alongside Russian forces against **Ukraine** marks a major **strategic precedent** for **Seoul**: never before had **Pyongyang** directly committed soldiers to a conflict so far removed from the Korean peninsula. This North Korean involvement in Europe demonstrates, in concrete terms, that the Asian and European security theaters are now interconnected, a reality South Korean leaders finally seem to be fully absorbing into their national strategic doctrine. ### A troubling transfer of military know-how Beyond the deployment of troops, Western experts worry about the potential transfer of modern **military know-how** between **Russia** and **North Korea**, particularly in ballistic missile technology, an exchange that could dangerously accelerate **Pyongyang's** offensive capabilities. *Every North Korean soldier sent to fight in Ukraine comes home, potentially, with modern combat experience and Russian technology in tow. That is a poisoned gift the West cannot afford to ignore.* ## Why South Korea has everything to gain by getting more involved ### Collective security more necessary than ever By strengthening its diplomatic and military ties with Western partners and the rest of **Asia**, **South Korea** is not merely making a gesture of solidarity toward **Ukraine**; it is investing directly in its own **future security** against a **North Korea** increasingly battle-hardened by its combat experience in Europe. This logic of **collective security**, which now binds **NATO** together with Indo-Pacific partners such as **Japan**, **Australia** and **South Korea**, represents a major **strategic evolution** that **Seoul** has every interest in deepening further. ### 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 a distant bystander to the war in Ukraine; through its weapons exports, it has quietly become a real actor in Western support. That role deserves to be claimed more openly.* ## The historical reluctance still lingering in Seoul ### A traditional diplomatic caution toward Moscow Despite this positive evolution, **South Korea** long hesitated to commit more firmly against **Russia**, seeking to preserve certain **diplomatic and economic channels** with **Moscow**, a caution rooted in complex regional geopolitical considerations. This historical hesitation, documented by several **Foreign Policy** analyses, is partly explained by South Korea's fear of pushing **Moscow** even further into **Pyongyang's** arms, a strategic calculation that nonetheless loses relevance as that axis strengthens regardless. ### A shift in posture that is finally accelerating Recent developments, notably the confirmation of **North Korean troops** actively fighting in **Ukraine**, appear to have convinced part of the South Korean government that this excessive caution is no longer sustainable given the scale of the **converging threat**. *I welcome this shift in posture, belated as it is. A late awakening beats an eternal caution that ends up costing an entire region's collective security dearly.* ## What Seoul can learn from Ukrainian resilience ### A lesson in resistance against an overpowering authoritarian neighbor **Ukraine**, confronted with an authoritarian neighbor wielding vastly superior military resources, offers a striking example of **national resilience** from which **South Korea** could draw valuable lessons for its own permanent standoff with **North Korea**. Ukraine's ability to rapidly mobilize its **defense industry**, innovate technologically under duress, and maintain **national cohesion** despite years of war constitutes a serious case study for South Korean military strategists. ### Striking geopolitical parallels Like **Ukraine** facing **Russia**, **South Korea** lives under the constant threat of a hostile, nuclear-armed neighbor, a situation that invites a natural solidarity between the two nations confronting 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 shoulder to shoulder.* ## China, the unavoidable factor in every South Korean calculation ### An economic neighbor and a strategic threat at once **China** remains, for **Seoul**, both a major trading partner and, simultaneously, a source of growing strategic concern, notably because of its indirect support for **North Korea** and its **regional ambitions** in the South China Sea and beyond. This duality considerably complicates South Korea's **diplomatic room to maneuver**, which must constantly weigh its immediate economic interests with **Beijing** against its long-term security imperatives against the **China-Russia-North Korea** axis. ### A Western convergence Seoul must fully join Facing this convergence of threats, **South Korea** has every interest in more firmly joining the **Western front** against **China**, regarded by Western capitals as one of the principal structural threats to the **international order**, alongside **Russia**, **Iran** and **North Korea** itself. *Seoul cannot keep playing the tightrope walker between Beijing and the West indefinitely. The moment is approaching when clear strategic choices will have to be made, and the sooner that clarity arrives, the better for regional security.* ## Japan's role in this new security architecture ### A complex but indispensable historical partner The historically tense relations between **Seoul** and **Tokyo** further complicate the construction of a fully integrated regional security architecture, despite the obvious convergence of their strategic interests in the face of the shared threats posed by **China** and **North Korea**. Recent trilateral rapprochement efforts between the **United States**, **Japan** and **South Korea** represent a significant, if fragile, step toward closer **security cooperation** in the Indo-Pacific region. ### Coordination still falling short of the challenge's scale Despite this progress, military and diplomatic coordination between **Seoul** and **Tokyo** remains short of what the gravity of the regional situation would demand, a finding 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 insufficient security coordination in the face of such pressing shared threats.* ## What the West concretely expects from Seoul ### Greater material support for Ukraine Western partners hope **South Korea** will take a further step in direct material support for **Ukraine**, beyond the indirect exports already made to European countries, an evolution that would considerably strengthen the credibility of its stated commitment. This increased support could take the form of direct deliveries of **ammunition or defense equipment**, an option **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 adopt a more assertive diplomatic voice in international forums, more firmly condemning Russian aggression and North Korean involvement in a conflict that directly threatens global **collective security**. *It is time for Seoul to stop weighing every diplomatic statement on the scale of excessive caution. The gravity of the current situation demands a clear voice, not timid diplomatic phrasing.* ## The internal obstacles Seoul will have to overcome ### A public opinion divided over international engagement South Korean **public opinion** remains divided over the extent of international engagement the country should undertake, with some segments of the population favoring an exclusive focus on the peninsula's immediate **security challenges** rather than distant theaters like **Ukraine**. This internal division complicates the task facing **Seoul's** government, which must constantly justify to its population the concrete benefits of greater **international engagement** in conflicts perceived as geographically remote from citizens' daily concerns. ### Economic considerations that also weigh in the balance Significant economic ties between **South Korea** and certain trading partners indirectly connected to **Russia** or **China** add a further layer of complexity to any decision toward firmer engagement on the international geopolitical stage. *I understand these internal constraints, but history never remembers kindly the nations that let immediate economic interests dictate their silence in the face of manifest aggression.* ## The precedent Seoul could set for all of Asia ### A model for other hesitant Asian democracies If **South Korea** takes the step of firmer commitment to **Ukraine** and the **Western front**, it could set a **significant precedent** for other still-hesitant Asian democracies, including certain **Southeast Asian** countries, to adopt a clearer stance against authoritarian aggression. This regional trailblazer role would considerably strengthen **Seoul's** diplomatic standing within the international community, while consolidating a more robust Indo-Pacific security architecture against combined Chinese and North Korean ambitions. ### A historic responsibility to fully embrace This moment represents, for **South Korea**, a historic opportunity to demonstrate its status as a responsible **middle power**, capable of shouldering international commitments worthy of its now globally recognized **economic and technological power**. *Seoul has the economic and technological means to be a major player in global security. All that is missing now is the clear political will to fully embrace this historic role within its reach.* ## The risks of prolonged inaction for Seoul itself ### Heightened vulnerability against a strengthened authoritarian axis If **South Korea** continues to delay a firmer commitment, it risks finding itself isolated against an increasingly coordinated and experienced **China-Russia-North Korea** axis, a scenario that would considerably weaken its future negotiating position. This prolonged inaction could also erode the trust of its Western partners, who might legitimately begin to question **Seoul's** reliability as a strategic ally in the event of a major crisis directly involving the Korean peninsula. ### The cost of wait-and-see in a rapidly polarizing world In an international context growing more polarized between democracies and authoritarian regimes, prolonged hesitation is no longer a neutral option: it amounts, in effect, to a relative weakening of South Korea's strategic position against adversaries who, for their part, show no hesitation whatsoever in coordinating their efforts. *Wait-and-see is never a neutral position in geopolitics. Every day of delay in South Korean engagement directly benefits the very authoritarian axis Seoul claims to fear most.* ## What the Baltic precedent teaches South Korea ### Nordic democracies that chose clarity over caution The Baltic states, Poland and Finland have shown since 2022 that a clear stance against Russian aggression, far from inviting the feared reprisals, actually strengthens a democracy's **deterrent credibility** against authoritarian neighbors determined to test its limits. **South Korea** could draw a direct lesson from this European experience: strategic ambiguity, far from offering protection, often ends up encouraging an adversary to probe more aggressively for the weaknesses of a partner deemed hesitant. ### A direct parallel with South Korea's vulnerability to 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 increasingly armed with the technology and combat experience gained in **Ukraine**, which makes this strategic comparison particularly relevant. Ignoring this parallel would mean, for **Seoul**, underestimating how quickly a Moscow-Pyongyang military partnership can transform the balance of power on the Korean peninsula itself. *The Nordic democracies have proven that a firm position deters better than permanent caution. Seoul should take note before the lesson is imposed on it the hard way.* ## The economic weight Seoul could put on the scale ### A defense industry among the world's most capable **South Korea** has a **defense industry** capable of rapidly producing tanks, artillery and ammunition at scale, an industrial capacity several European countries still struggle to match despite their rearmament efforts since 2022. This industrial power constitutes a considerable strategic lever that **Seoul** could mobilize more directly for the benefit of **Ukraine** and Western **collective security**, beyond the indirect deliveries already made through third countries. ### Economic choices that also carry a political price Committing more openly carries a real **commercial risk** for **Seoul**, particularly in its economic relations with **China**, South Korea's leading trading partner, which partly explains the historical caution observed so far in official statements. But this short-term economic calculation must not eclipse 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 an entire nation's long-term security against a consolidating authoritarian axis.* ## What Ukraine's recent history can inspire in Seoul ### Resilience as the answer to a foretold aggression **Ukraine** has shown since 2022 that a determined nation can resist far beyond even the most pessimistic initial forecasts, a lesson in resilience directly applicable to any democracy living under the constant threat of a militarily more powerful authoritarian neighbor. For **Seoul**, this Ukrainian resilience concretely illustrates that preparation and strategic clarity are worth more than the fragile hope that an aggression will simply never occur. ### A 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 should a sudden escalation with **North Korea** occur. This strategic reciprocity, often overlooked in immediate diplomatic calculations, deserves to be laid out clearly before South Korean **public opinion** as a substantive argument, not merely 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 it might one day depend on itself.* ## Conclusion: a letter of hope more than reproach ### A sincere encouragement to continue this evolution This letter is not meant as an indictment of **Seoul**, but a sincere encouragement to pursue and deepen the **strategic evolution** begun in recent months. **South Korea** has shown that it understands the interconnection of the world's security theaters, a clarity that deserves to be welcomed and reinforced. ### A call to turn awareness into lasting action The **NATO summit** in **Ankara** offers **Seoul** a valuable opportunity to turn this emerging awareness into concrete, lasting commitments, alongside **Ukraine** and all the Western democracies confronting the same converging authoritarian threats. *This letter ends on a simple conviction: Seoul has already begun to change, and that evolution deserves to be encouraged rather than reduced to the silence of easy reproach.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - NATO — Overview: 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, July 2026 - WION — coverage of South Korean defense diplomacy, 2026 - Foreign Policy — analyses of South Korea's strategic posture, 2026 ### Secondary sources - Anadolu Agency — Zelenskyy says Ukraine expects NATO Ankara summit will not become hollow exercise, 2026 - Time Magazine — What to expect at the NATO summit, July 6, 2026 - The Guardian International — coverage of Indo-Pacific alliances, 2026 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/a-seoul-qui-comprend-enfin-que-sa-securite-passe-par-kyiv