나토와 러시아 사이, 한국 외교의 새로운 시험대 [세상읽기]

In the era of U.S.-China strategic competition, the biggest challenge for South Korean diplomacy has become finding the right strategic coordinates between the U.S. and China, following the Russia-Ukraine war. The question now is, in terms of Europe and Russia, which balance to choose. Since South Korea has steadily expanded cooperation with NATO, with the country's president regularly attending NATO summits and Korean arms deeply involved in Europe's defense, a major step was taken at the NATO summit in Ankara in July when President Jae-myung proposed the "South-NATO arms partnership 2.0," and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte affirmed that European and Indo-Pacific security cannot be separated anymore.

However, South-North relations have not yet recovered from their strained state. With South Korean companies withdrawing from the Russian market due to sanctions and North Korea's involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war deepening regional tensions, the possibility of Russia supplying advanced military technology to North Korea is high, and the "South-U.S.-Japan vs. North-China-Russia" rivalry model may become more entrenched.

This raises doubts about whether South Korea's practical diplomacy differs from its predecessor's one-sided pro-U.S. approach. While the cooperation between South Korea and NATO appears similar on the surface, their strategic contexts are clearly different. In the past, the cooperation focused on the U.S.-led "freedom versus authority" rivalry, aiming to draw in European participation to address public opposition and leverage the European Union during the Biden administration's efforts.

In contrast, today's South-NATO cooperation stems from shared concerns about both Donald Trump's era of uncertainty and existential security threats, with both sides aiming to maintain U.S. security commitments while enhancing strategic autonomy. This mutual understanding forms the basis of South Korea's current approach to NATO.

When considering the direction of South-NATO cooperation, three perspectives should be taken into account: the "separation theory," which suggests treating European and Indo-Pacific security as separate issues, potentially reducing unnecessary entanglements but risking missing cooperation opportunities; the "integration theory," which proposes treating both regions as a single strategic space to strengthen the free alliance against the North-China-Russia alliance, but risking further polarization and questioning the reality of military support in real crises; and the "cooperation theory," which advocates for partial cooperation in supply chains, advanced technology, and arms sales while maintaining unilateral actions in critical areas.

The future of South-NATO cooperation should aim for this "cooperation" model, focusing on its inner substance rather than surface-level exposure. South Korea's cooperation with NATO may burden its relations with Russia, so diplomatic efforts are needed to counterbalance this. South Korea, under the Jae-myung administration, aims to prioritize cooperation with the U.S., European Union, and Japan in diplomacy while maintaining stable relations with China and Russia.

However, efforts to improve relations with Russia are still insufficient. Russia is a significant market for South Korea, but its influence in Korean issues, energy security, and the future Arctic route cannot be ignored. Japan, while balancing its relationship with the U.S. and Europe in response to South Korean sanctions, maintains a selective approach in areas of mutual benefit, such as the Kirei ENL project.

South Korea should also continue to have selective engagement while managing conflicting interests. The opportunities brought by the era of geopolitical conflicts for cooperation with the West in technologies such as semiconductors, shipbuilding, and arms sales come with the responsibility of managing relations with opposing blocs like Russia and China to ensure stability.