Why Lee Jae-myung Did Not Attend the NATO Summit

Konstantin Asmolov

How the Summit Went

Staying within the bounds of what can be commented on, here are several noteworthy points:

– The main issue discussed was defense spending. The United States proposed that allies raise their military budgets to 5% of GDP.

– Ukraine was pushed into the background, and the final communiqué did not contain any wording condemning Russia’s actions.

– The program was shortened from three working sessions to one. Reportedly, one reason for this was to prevent Trump from getting bored. The NATO–Ukraine Council session was canceled.

President Lee Jae-myung of South Korea, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not attend. South Korea was represented by the president’s national security adviser, Wi Sung-lac, who nonetheless made an impression.

On June 26, Wi Sung-lac held a brief sideline meeting with the U.S. president at the NATO Summit in the Netherlands. According to reports, the U.S. leader expressed keen interest in cooperation with South Korea in shipbuilding.

Wi also stated that there had been some progress regarding a bilateral summit between the two countries’ leaders. No concrete date had been set, but both sides shared an understanding and agreement that such a summit should be held in the near future. Talks are ongoing on various issues, including security, alliance strengthening, and trade and economic cooperation, with the aim of reaching specific agreements.

The day before, on June 25, Wi held talks with U.S. Secretary of State Mark Rubio. The primary topic was the urgent need to arrange a one-on-one meeting between the two presidents. Both sides agreed to maintain close communication on the matter. Additionally, Wi and Rubio discussed the broader development and consolidation of the Washington–Seoul alliance.

Wi also met separately with U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Allison Hooker (responsible for Korean Peninsula issues in the Trump administration); Japan’s Foreign Minister T. Iwai (discussing bilateral and trilateral cooperation with the U.S.); Czech National Security Adviser T. Pojar (nuclear plant contracts and expanded cooperation in advanced industries, infrastructure, energy, and defense); and the Dutch prime minister’s foreign and defense policy adviser (AI, semiconductors, cybersecurity).

Another important meeting involved Wi Sung-lac and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. They agreed to establish a new consultative body for defense industry cooperation (at the director-level). Both sides also agreed on South Korean participation in NATO-led multilateral projects aimed at strengthening the bloc’s military capabilities, including joint development and acquisition of next-generation weapons systems, such as through the High Visibility Project.

Wi also delivered a letter from President Lee Jae-myung to Secretary General Rutte, expressing Seoul’s firm commitment to deepening the partnership between South Korea and NATO.

Finally, Wi Sung-lac also took part in a special event — a meeting between NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners (IP4), namely South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.

 …And Why the President Wasn’t There

According to spokesperson Kang Yu-jung, “Despite numerous urgent state matters following the president’s inauguration, the government actively considered President Lee’s participation in the NATO summit,” but “after thoroughly reviewing various domestic issues and the unstable situation in the Middle East, the president decided not to attend.”

Initially, Seoul leaned toward declining the invitation — mainly due to lack of preparation time and domestic challenges. However, this stance began to shift, particularly after the missed opportunity for a meeting with the U.S. president on the sidelines of the G7 Summit, which was thwarted by his early departure. This time, there was a strong desire to “catch Trump and talk.”

A visit by Lee Jae-myung could have symbolized Seoul’s return to the global stage after the crisis triggered by the declaration of martial law in South Korea, and could have boosted exports and defense industry interests in the European market. On the other hand, attending the NATO summit might have provoked China and Russia, and undermined trust in Lee’s declared policy of “balanced and pragmatic diplomacy.”

It seems Lee simply decided not to take the risk: a second failed meeting with Trump would have damaged his reputation, and a 15-minute chat would not have sufficed given the number of issues on the agenda. Reportedly, this was also why the Japanese prime minister declined to attend, according to the Fuji news outlet.

Moreover, June 25, 2025, marked the 75th anniversary of the start of the Korean War — a date on which the head of state might be expected to remain at home.

Reactions in South Korea and Abroad

Chinese media declared that “the summit temporarily became a summit without purpose,” provoking both laughter and tears: whereas three years ago, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol had been NATO’s “voices in Asia,” the new leaders had now declined to become NATO’s cannon fodder, adhering instead to economic sovereignty and political independence.

South Korea’s conservative opposition criticized Lee’s decision, arguing that skipping the NATO summit would only please China, North Korea, and Russia. They also claimed that non-participation could create the impression that South Korea is avoiding responsibility in global affairs (Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Middle East) and seeking to focus solely on the Korean Peninsula. Additionally, they noted that the summit might have presented an opportunity to export South Korean defense products and nuclear reactors to Europe — and perhaps even contribute to Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction. All of this would have aligned with Lee’s pragmatic diplomacy, which prioritizes national interests.

Finally, the opposition added that if not the president, then at least the foreign minister could have attended, as Japan did.

In response, the ruling Democratic Party called the conservative criticism “a shameless political attack,” asserting that “Lee Jae-myung’s foreign policy is rooted in a strong alliance with the United States while guided by pragmatism and national interest.”

More neutral media pointed out that the Middle East situation was not just a pretext. South Korea imports 72% of its oil from the region. It would be difficult for Seoul to oppose the Middle East outright.

At the same time, some Democratic Party lawmakers criticized the U.S. attack on Iran using language strikingly similar to that of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. If Lee shares this view, U.S.–South Korea relations could become strained and complicated. In this context, it was also recalled that soon after Lee Jae-myung’s inauguration, the White House expressed concern about growing Chinese influence in the region — something South Korean conservatives attributed to Lee’s victory, as they had long accused him of being pro-China.

Next Stop: Beijing?

Against this backdrop, an intriguing question arises: will the South Korean president accept the next diplomatic invitation and attend the Victory Day parade in Beijing, to be held in early September in commemoration of the end of World War II? The event will host many participants, including at least Russian President Vladimir Putin and, quite possibly, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. At the very least, such a visit would help clarify what really motivated Lee Jae-myung in the NATO case — whether it was a desire not to provoke Russia and China, or simply the impossibility of organizing a high-level South Korea–U.S. summit at NATO.

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD (History), Leading Researcher at the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of China and Contemporary Asia, Russian Academy of Sciences

https://journal-neo.su/2025/07/12/why-lee-jae-myung-did-not-attend-the-nato-summit/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

NATO IS A MAD FASCIST ORGANISATION....