Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

NoChance182 t1_j6hluyn wrote

Tbf, it’s not really their problem. It’s happening in a completely different continent and they’re not part of NATO, they don’t have any obligation towards Ukraine at all

14

fortevnalt t1_j6hqk1k wrote

Even if they do, they can send more aid in other means like food, medicine. SK is having their own bad neighbor I don’t see why they must send weapons to Ukraine.

3

insertwittynamethere t1_j6hr3jh wrote

It's true they do, but to that point they should know how much they will depend on the help of others, and currently receive it, to defend against that mighty militaristic hermit kingdom to the North that routinely calls for destruction.

6

HelpfulYoghurt t1_j6hrmu7 wrote

But somehow it is obligation of Europe and NA to help everyone around the world.

−1

DrummerTricky t1_j6hul89 wrote

Europe and NA have a lot to answer for around the rest of the world

2

HelpfulYoghurt t1_j6hv2ew wrote

Yes, yes i know. Few specific countries had colonies many generations ago, so all Europe and NA is now responsible for everything bad that is happening.

−1

indigo0427 t1_j6i5mct wrote

Why the hell would South Korea help ukraine conflict right now when their best friend north korea try to threaten them with nuke 24/7. This is so random lol.

5

PM_ME_ABSOLUTE_UNITZ t1_j6iaz41 wrote

NK has been making its threats for decades. That is a copout excuse.

3

indigo0427 t1_j6ibsep wrote

What do you mean excuse lol. Ask all other asian country to step it up. Its unfair to call korea out when they are not even part of EU. Just because NK been doing this for decades, we suddenly just drop everything and start sending everything to Ukraine ?

2

PM_ME_ABSOLUTE_UNITZ t1_j6ic0mg wrote

They have been asked. Also, a lot of the stuff korea has been making isnt even for itself. Its for export.

−2

Sakurasou7 t1_j6jh3fh wrote

What comes around goes around. Korean military hardware gets battle proven, meaning that weaknesses can be adressed. Also Korea gains easy entry to EU markets. Third in an event of a hot war with NK, NATO could support SK with spare ammunition, especially if they start using Korean gear.

There are pros and cons that the government must weigh.

1

gopoohgo t1_j6k1viv wrote

>Also Korea gains easy entry to EU markets.

They already are selling their K9 self propelled artillery to multiple EU members.

Given the M1A2SEPV3 multiyear backlog and Germany's fickle attitude with the Leopards, the K2s are really the only game in town

2

Sakurasou7 t1_j6k2zvr wrote

Momentum will be key. Korea has the chance to become a dominant player. They can do this by becoming more visible to European nations. Even with Germany's attitude, their gear is technologically advanced and is a dominant player rn. Potential must be realized, military gear purchases are more than just simple purchases. It aligns the partnering nation with the seller in more ways than one. Poland has decided to go along with Korea, but will others do the same? Showing commitment in the region is the way to further Korea's interests. Much like how the US conducts its business.

1

Key_Resident_1968 t1_j6ihuwj wrote

Just as a different perspective: It should be in SK interest to provide some (not everything as some have just assumed) military aid to Ukr.

  1. NATO and especially the US is a major ally to SK and some fraternity with it‘s allies is good, if you expect them to help you unconditionally later on.

  2. SK has one of the largest 155mm stockpiles in the world together with production facilities. They have the ability to lessen the ammo thightness without compromising it‘s own safety to much.

  3. NK is a dud. They would need Chinese and Russian support in case of a war and both parties have enough own problems right now. Also NK wouldn’t send ammo to Russia, if they planned on aggressive moves right now.

3.1 Weakening Russia is weakening NK indirectly.

  1. The SK arms industry is right now in a position to become a even bigger global power house. Some showcasing in a real conflict might draw the interest of countries who are no US allies and don‘t want to depend on China or Russia.

Still there are good reasons for SK not to send more aid, but there are some possible upsides for them.

4

Sakurasou7 t1_j6jkkgd wrote

One more possible point. Relationship with Russia can be repaired later. Money speaks in Russia, just look at Turkey.

2

autotldr t1_j6hqr6b wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)

> NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg urged South Korea on Monday to increase military support to Ukraine, citing other countries that have changed their policy of not providing weapons to countries in conflict after Russia's invasion.

> South Korea has signed major deals providing hundreds of tanks, aircraft and other weapons to NATO member Poland since the war began, but South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol has said that his country's law against providing arms to countries in conflicts makes providing weapons to Ukraine difficult.

> Last year South Korea opened its first diplomatic mission to NATO, vowing to deepen cooperation on non-proliferation, cyber defence, counter-terrorism, disaster response and other security areas.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: NATO^#1 South^#2 Korea^#3 Stoltenberg^#4 countries^#5

1