Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Threatens Korean Government If They Provide Arms to Ukraine
Really what is Russia going to do if South Korea sells arms to Ukraine? Do more threatening bomber flights around the peninsula like they are already doing?:
Russia’s deputy foreign minister has said Moscow will have to resort to “retaliatory measures” in the event South Korea provides lethal weapons to Ukraine, a Russian media report showed Saturday.
Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko made the remarks in an interview with Russia’s Tass news agency, as he mentioned an initiative to supply Ukraine with U.S. weapons, known as the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL).
“We have consistently conveyed to the South Korean side through various channels Russia’s principled position on the inadmissibility of the participation of South Korea in the direct and indirect supplies of lethal weapons to the Kiev regime, including as part of the PURL initiative,” Rudenko was quoted as saying.
“Otherwise, the bilateral relations between Russia and South Korea may be seriously affected, and we will be forced to resort to retaliatory measures. I hope that we won’t be forced to resort to such steps,” he said.
You can read more at the link.
Russia can up cooperation and assistance to North Korea.
But Korea should not see this as a threat.
This is a beautiful opportunity to demonstrate Korea’s new policy and make everything clear.
Korea: “Don’t threaten us, Rasputin, or we will give this shìt to the Ukrainiots for free while looking you in the eye. Now that everything is clear about that, this is what we have for sale. This is what they want to pay for it. You don’t have to threaten us, just submit your bid. And you can even pay with some of that discounted Siberian energy from right up the coastline. See how easy that was?”
World: “Whaaa… wait… you can’t sell weapons to Russia.”
Korea: “You are right. It doesn’t have to be that way. This is what we have for sale and this is the Russian offer. Remember, boys, it is cheaper to buy them and park them in the garage than to fight against them, but it is all your choice. As your luck would have it, we sure are looking for some of those rare earths right now at the friendly price.”
Open, transparent sales to whoever is paying the most. No games. No intrigue. No politics.
Cash and carry.
Looks like we already have the starting point for a deal!
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/03/30/south-korea-revives-naphtha-imports-from-russia-amid-looming-shortage-a92375
@ChickenHead:
The core problem with your position is that it pretends foreign policy can be separated from politics and alliances.. when in reality, that’s impossible for a country like South Korea.
The current approach under Lee isn’t about playing both sides or auctioning weapons.. it’s about managing risk in a very dangerous neighborhood. With North Korea, CCP, and Russia all interconnected, reckless signaling can backfire quickly.
Also, the “sell to whoever pays most” idea ignores that South Korea’s security is fundamentally tied to its alliance with the United States. That alliance isn’t just symbolic.. it underpins deterrence against North Korea. Undermining it for short-term bargaining leverage would be strategically self-defeating.
What’s being framed as “strength” in your argument is actually closer to unpredictability. Real strength in foreign policy is credibility.. partners and adversaries both need to know where you stand. If South Korea suddenly signals it might arm Russia, it doesn’t look tough; it looks unreliable, which weakens its position across the board.
Your position also assumes escalation is controllable. It isn’t. Even rhetorical moves.. like openly threatening to arm one side of a war can trigger countermeasures. In this case, that could mean deeper military cooperation between Russia and North Korea, which is exactly what South Korea wants to avoid.
Defending the current government doesn’t require pretending geopolitics is a marketplace. A more realistic defense is that caution, alliance management, and strategic ambiguity are deliberate choices, not weakness. In a region this tense, restraint is often what prevents situations from spiraling.
Nothing in the world more predictable than No Money No Honey.
Options:
– Sell to Ukraine and get Russian retaliation
– Offer Russia the chance to stop blaming others and solve the problem with a higher bid. The result is up to them. The rules have been set by Korea. They are fair and consistent.
– Don’t sell to anyone becasue you didnt realize when selling weapons, you will always offend someone if you allow politics to play any part.
Which do you prefer?
How would you manage this?
America will be fine with this. Ukranian has gone from tragedy to farce.
Trump is no longer giving anything to Ukraine. He is selling it to Europe and they are giving it to Ukraine. Korea selling to the Russians is fully compatible with several layers of American interest.
@ChickenHead:
I don’t have an answer for you sadly. If I did, I’d be preaching.
However, one thing is clear.. “No money, no honey” works for business, not national security. We’re not selling phones here; it’s managing deterrence in a region with North Korea, CCP, and Russia all interacting. Treating arms sales like an auction ignores the fact that every “bid” triggers political and military consequences.
Selling to the highest bidder doesn’t make us look strong.. it makes us look unreliable. And for a country whose security depends on its alliance with the United States, that’s a serious risk, not leverage.
This isn’t a marketplace. It’s deterrence. And in deterrence, credibility matters more than price.
Then the only option is sell to nobody, as there will always be concequesnces if sales are a political rather than an economic decision.
So much for Korea’s dream of becoming a global defense player.
Maybe there will be a resurgence in demand for 300 baud modems?
I propose that consistently selling to the highest bidder is the MOST reliable action possible.
Everybody knows the rules. They may not like it but they respect it.
But the dealing can be far more complex than cash. And, hidden within this complexity, Korea can bury a political agenda if necessary.
Ukraine: We will give you 100
Russia: 110
America: come on, we are bros. Ukraine gets it for 100 and we will delay cost sharing demands for 2 years.
Russia: 110 and 5% off oil
Korea: 110, 5%, and no tech transfer to NK for 5 years.
Russia: but but but
Korea: Yeah, Ukraine is now offering a 99 year lease on 100,000 acres of farmland and the national post-war steel concession… so… better not dilly dally.
Either Korea gets what is needed economically or Korea takes the best overall package including the politics.
Everyone will respect the fairness and Korea will deliver quality goods at a reasonable price… but better than reasonable as side deals are better than cash and korea is also creating added value with the enemy not getting it.
This takes balls, commitment, consistency, and the ability to say no.
Tear that plan apart.
But, as we both know, there is no other plan.
Sell to Ukraine and empower NK, make petrochemical dealings with Russia hostile, etc.
Don’t sell to Ukraine and cry in the empty kimchee bowl because it turns out every customer has an enemy who will threaten and likely act.
Giving them the choice takes away much of their power to blame and retaliate.
This is the least bad choice, perhaps.
But it does set Korea up for a neutral and successful future.