[Choi Junyoung's World+] The Prolonged War in Ukraine and Korea's Dilemma

Over Three Years of War in Ukraine
AI Drone Counterattacks with US and European Support
Successes Achieved, but No Shift in Momentum
South Korea Faces NATO Summit
Balanced, Multidimensional Diplomacy Needed

The war in Ukraine, which began in February 2022, continues to this day. On the front lines, where both sides are locked in a standoff, hundreds of casualties occur daily. Ongoing Russian missile and drone strikes are causing significant damage to civilians in Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv. As the war has dragged on for more than three years, international attention has waned.

As with all wars, after the initial period of rapid change, the Ukraine war has settled into a protracted and tedious battle of attrition as the front lines have stabilized. Despite suffering heavy losses, Russia, with its overwhelming national power, is slowly but steadily pushing Ukraine back. Determining that mere defense was not enough, Ukraine attempted to turn the tide in 2024 by launching a surprise occupation of the Kursk region, which is Russian territory. However, faced with a Russian counteroffensive that even mobilized North Korean troops, Ukraine was eventually forced to withdraw and relinquish all occupied areas.

The atmosphere changed immediately after President Donald Trump took office in January 2025. During the election campaign, Trump had boasted that he would end the war within 24 hours if elected, and there was curiosity about whether he would deliver on this promise. The United States and Russia held direct talks in Saudi Arabia, excluding Ukraine from the negotiations, and President Zelensky was publicly humiliated at the White House. It seemed that President Trump was making major concessions to Russia and that the war would soon come to an end.

However, the situation shifted as Russia continued to make excessive demands that the United States could not accept, and Ukraine signed a mineral agreement with the United States. Through this mineral agreement, the United States secured its own interests and began providing Ukraine with a variety of weapons, including F-16 fighter jets, thereby enabling Ukraine to continue the war. With support from European countries such as Germany added to this, Ukraine was able to secure enough aid to sustain its fight against Russia.

On the 7th, amid Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine, cadets are singing the Ukrainian national anthem at the Kruty Heroes Lviv Lyceum graduation ceremony held in Lviv. Photo by AFP and Yonhap News

Having escaped humiliating pressure to negotiate, Ukraine’s greatest concern became the Russian military’s use of bombers to launch large numbers of missiles from long distances. The Ukrainian military, using a well-organized air defense network, intercepted many of these missiles, but the damage from those that penetrated the defenses and struck urban infrastructure continued to grow. The fundamental solution would be to shoot down the bombers before they could launch their missiles, but this was not easy for Ukraine, as Russian bombers were firing missiles from beyond the range of Ukraine’s air defense missiles. Ukraine attempted to surprise the Russians by deploying Patriot surface-to-air missiles, which had been stationed in the rear, to the front lines in order to shoot down bombers, but this attempt failed and resulted in heavy losses from Russian attacks.

On June 2, when it seemed there was no effective solution, Ukraine announced that it had inflicted significant damage by simultaneously attacking multiple bomber bases deep inside Russia using drones. Even air bases thousands of kilometers from the front lines became targets. According to Ukraine, 117 drones were used to destroy or damage a total of 41 Russian aircraft, including bombers and early warning planes. Questions about how such long-range attacks were possible with drones that have limited range were answered by footage released by Ukraine.

Ukraine had prepared for this attack for over a year. They modified shipping containers, placing drones on top and covering them with lids for camouflage. Trucks carrying these disguised containers traveled thousands of kilometers through neighboring countries and parked near the targeted bases. When a prearranged signal was given, the lids opened and the drones took off, searching for and attacking their targets, while the Ukrainian military monitored the operation in real time via video.

What was notable was that the individual drones were not manually piloted for each attack. Instead, artificial intelligence was used to pre-train the drones on their targets, enabling them to autonomously search for targets and select optimal attack routes. This was a victory of technological advancement and meticulously planned operations that caught the enemy off guard. While the actual damage was likely less than Ukraine’s claim of 41 aircraft, most observers agree that by destroying a significant number of Russian missile attack platforms, Ukraine achieved a major success by greatly reducing the frequency and scale of Russian attacks.

However, despite this major success, Ukraine’s concern is that it has not changed the overall course of the war. While the attack was a blow to Russian pride, the damage was manageable, and there is no evidence that it increased doubts about President Putin’s grip on power or his conduct of the war. As the war drags on, Ukraine’s capacity to continue fighting is inevitably being depleted. The greatest difficulty is the inability to secure sufficient troops. With reluctance to conscript the younger generation for the sake of the future, the average age of Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines has reached the 40s. From Ukraine’s perspective, it is also difficult to accept stopping the war at this stage. In order to answer the question of what all the sacrifices were for, measures such as joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are needed, but European countries are instead trying to placate Ukraine by expanding various forms of support.

·

In this context, the upcoming NATO summit to be held in the Netherlands on the 24th and 25th presents a dilemma for us. Since the government is considering improving relations with Russia, many factors must be weighed. If we do not attend, it could be seen as a departure from the free world; if we do attend, it could be interpreted as choosing conflict with Russia. Even if we attend, considering the now-cool relations with the United States and European countries, there may be little practical benefit for us. The important thing is to move beyond binary thinking about whom to support or oppose. As we are not a direct party to the conflict, the best approach is to pursue multidimensional options to help stakeholders understand our position and to manage the situation. It is a difficult time, but we must strive to find our own path.

Choi Junyoung, Senior Expert at Yulchon LLC, Global Law and Policy