While international attention has shifted to the war between the United States and Israel against Iran that broke out in February this year, Russia and Ukraine are now in the fourth year of their war.
In the early days of the Russia-Ukraine war, the international community criticized Russia's invasion as a violation of international law, and the United States and Europe imposed sanctions on Russia and provided military support to Ukraine. At the time, the international community believed Russia would be rapidly isolated and that the war would likely end within a short period. But as the war has dragged on, the mood in the international community has shifted. In the United States, political fatigue over the Ukraine aid budget has grown, and skepticism is emerging in Europe as well, citing economic burdens and energy issues. The slogan of "solidarity with Ukraine" still holds, but the atmosphere of international politics is moving toward cold realism.
The longer a war breaks out and drags on, the more countries act based on their own interests. This is not a target of criticism but the harsh nature of international politics, where survival and the economy come before ideals.
Korea too finds itself in a position where it cannot approach the issue solely through historical relations, emotions, or bloc logic. Korea is a core country in the U.S. alliance system while also needing to maintain a certain level of diplomatic and economic relations with Russia. In particular, the recent closeness between North Korea and Russia has become a new burden for Korean diplomacy. Russia is expanding military cooperation with North Korea, and North Korea is seeking to gain economic and military benefits through this. If Russia strengthens military technology cooperation with North Korea, the security environment on the Korean Peninsula could become more complex than it is now. This is a practical reason why Korea cannot sever ties with Russia. At the same time, Korea cannot take a path different from the flow of the international community. This is because Korea's diplomacy and economic structure are deeply connected to the United States and the Western bloc.
In the end, what matters is a sense of balance. While maintaining the principles of international law and the free trade order, Korea must secure as much diplomatic space as possible in terms of national interest. An emotional approach or ideological excess would narrow Korea's options.
The same applies to the issue of supporting Ukraine. Korea has participated in humanitarian aid, reconstruction cooperation, and non-lethal support, while maintaining a cautious stance on military intervention. Evaluations of this at home and abroad are divided, but considering the security reality of the Korean Peninsula, it is not an irrational choice. Korea is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and faces the threat of North Korea.
The international community is now preparing for "after the war" rather than for the Russia-Ukraine war itself. Experts in international relations believe that the postwar reconstruction market, changes in supply chains, and diplomatic realignment within the new Cold War order have already begun. Therefore, Korea needs to approach this at the level of long-term national strategy, beyond simple moral slogans. The global economy and security are becoming strongly intertwined, and in such times, what Korean diplomacy needs is not the volume of its voice but the ability to accurately read reality.
