Zelenskyy's UK and US Visits and the Realignment of European Security: Cracks in Western Unity and South Korea's Strategic Response

Executive Summary

President Zelenskyy's visits to the UK and US represent a survival diplomacy aimed at securing sustained Western support amid the protracted war of attrition in its fifth year. Key achievements highlighted include the signing of a drone defense technology cooperation agreement with the UK and discussions on Patriot missile production licenses with the US President. However, structural fissures in Western unity are simultaneously deepening, evidenced by the diluted effectiveness of the EU's 21st sanctions package against Russia, the weakening of the pro-Ukraine base within the US, and continuous Russian drone incursions into Romanian airspace. These factors limit the potential for a reversal of the war's trajectory. As the Trump administration appears to be shifting towards a dual-track approach combining military aid with a diplomatic exit strategy, the uncertainty surrounding US policy toward Ukraine is expected to have cascading effects on the overall European security landscape. South Korea must strategically leverage opportunities for expanded defense industry cooperation, promptly address complex supply chain risks arising from alignment with EU sanctions, and meticulously analyze the implications for Korean Peninsula security posed by Russia's gray-zone provocation patterns on NATO's eastern flank.

I. Issue Situation Analysis

Russia-Ukraine War: Zelenskyy's UK and US Visits and Shifting European Security Dynamics

Issue Situation Analysis

1. Background and Course of the Issue

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the war has now entered its fifth year, solidifying into a protracted war of attrition with no clear victor[4]. In the initial phase of the war, Ukraine focused on defensive strategies to halt Russia's front-line advances while securing military and economic support from Western nations. As the conflict prolonged, Ukraine began receiving advanced offensive and defensive weapons from the West, while Russia faced extensive international sanctions[4]. Notably, Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil facilities have surged elevenfold compared to the same period last year, damaging one-third of Russia's total refining capacity and intensifying structural shocks to the energy supply chain[4].

The EU has progressively strengthened sanctions against Russia since the outbreak of the war in 2022. However, negotiations for each sanctions package have been fraught with difficulties due to conflicting interests among member states. Particularly, Southern European countries heavily reliant on energy and those with deep economic ties to Russia have consistently expressed dissenting opinions regarding the scope and intensity of sanctions[2]. These structural conflicts were repeated during the negotiation process for the 21st sanctions package.

Meanwhile, a significant internal shift occurred within Ukraine with the replacement of top military leadership. Defense Minister Fedorov, who spearheaded drone technology innovation and garnered public support, was dismissed following a conflict with Commander-in-Chief Syrskyi. This is assessed as a manifestation of the clash between the reformist faction and the traditional military establishment[8]. The confluence of this internal political instability and Russia's largest-ever missile offensive against Kyiv created a 'dual crisis' scenario, lending a more desperate urgency to President Zelenskyy's diplomatic efforts[8].

2. Current Situation (Latest Developments)

Zelenskyy's Visit to the UK and Meeting with Prime Minister Burnham

On July 28, 2026, President Zelenskyy visited the naval base in Portsmouth, UK, and held a meeting with the newly appointed Prime Minister Andy Burnham. This meeting, symbolically significant as the first visit by a foreign leader since Prime Minister Burnham took office, focused on joint drone-related projects and the urgent supply of ballistic missile interceptors needed by Ukraine to defend against Russian attacks[16]. The British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, chosen as the venue, added symbolic weight. The two leaders jointly visited approximately 200 Ukrainian soldiers participating in combat and mine-clearing drills for Black Sea operations[9]. Prime Minister Burnham officially declared London's "unwavering support for Kyiv"[5], and according to Estonian media, a technology cooperation agreement on drone defense system licenses was also signed during the meeting[13].

Trump-Zelenskyy White House Meeting

Following his visit to the UK, President Zelenskyy traveled to Washington for a private meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office. The meeting, held without press access, lasted over an hour[1]. The main agenda items discussed were the transfer of Patriot missile interceptor production licenses to Ukraine and the resumption of peace negotiations with Russia[7][15]. President Trump had previously proposed granting Ukraine licenses for Patriot air defense missile production earlier this month and had also stated that Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory could contribute to ending the war[1]. After the meeting, President Zelenskyy stated, "It was a satisfactory meeting, and we discussed Patriots and diplomatic issues"[5]. This meeting took place ahead of the funeral of Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Ukraine's staunchest supporters, whose passing is seen as leaving a significant void within the pro-Ukraine bloc in Washington[14].

Adoption of the EU's 21st Sanctions Package Against Russia

The 21st sanctions package against Russia was adopted on July 23, 2026, after EU ambassadors from 27 member states reached an agreement. This package, the largest ever, includes approximately 90 Russian banks and over 215 individuals and entities. However, its effectiveness was partially diluted by the inclusion of an exemption for Russian LNG transshipments, a concession made due to Greece's veto[2]. When the EU included 14 Chinese companies in the sanctions list, China's Ministry of Commerce immediately retaliated with export controls on dual-use items for 14 European companies, marking a structural turning point where the Russia-Ukraine war is escalating into a trade and technology conflict between the EU and China[2]. Russia has signaled an immediate retaliatory response to the adoption of the sanctions.

Intensification of Gray-Zone Provocations on NATO's Eastern Flank

The repeated incursions of Russian drones into Romanian airspace over three consecutive days signify a severe escalation of gray-zone provocations targeting NATO's eastern flank[3]. This is interpreted not as mere accidental incidents but as strategic actions by Russia to test the response capabilities and resolve of NATO allies. Concerns about Belarus's potential direct involvement in the war are also rising across Europe.

3. Key Actors and Positions/Interests

Ukraine (President Zelenskyy)

President Zelenskyy's current visits to the UK and US occur amidst a dual crisis characterized by internal political instability following the military leadership change and a simultaneous escalation of large-scale Russian missile attacks, making the need for external support more critical than ever[8]. Ukraine's core interests lie in strengthening its air defense capabilities through the acquisition of Patriot air defense systems, maintaining asymmetric warfare capabilities through drone technology cooperation, and securing favorable terms in peace negotiations. In particular, obtaining licenses for Patriot missile production is linked to Ukraine's medium- to long-term strategic goal of building self-reliant defense industry capabilities, beyond mere arms procurement. Zelenskyy is employing a dual strategy, keeping the possibility of resuming negotiations with Russia open while using it as diplomatic leverage to secure sustained Western support.

United States (Trump Administration)

President Trump's policy toward Ukraine has shown a gradual shift from a cool initial stance towards a more cooperative direction[1]. The Trump administration seeks to support Ukraine's defense industry self-sufficiency by providing Patriot production licenses, while simultaneously minimizing the burden of direct US military involvement. Concurrently, there is an intention to achieve diplomatic success by ending the war through the resumption of peace negotiations with Russia. However, the death of Senator Lindsey Graham, a key pillar of the pro-Ukraine bloc in Washington, has increased uncertainty about the sustainability of the pro-Ukraine support stance within the US administration[14]. Furthermore, the US's withholding of aid for Ukraine's support is a source of concern for Kyiv[14].

United Kingdom (New Prime Minister Burnham)

Prime Minister Burnham, immediately upon taking office, welcomed Zelenskyy as the first foreign leader, clearly signaling the UK's continued support for Ukraine. The UK has reaffirmed its "unwavering support for Ukraine"[5] and aims to maintain its role as a key pillar of support in Europe through drone technology cooperation and air defense system assistance. The UK's interests stem from a complex set of motivations: maintaining a leading role in the European security order, strengthening security cooperation with European partners post-Brexit, and securing economic benefits through defense industry collaboration.

European Union and Member States

The EU maintains its pressure on Russia through the 21st sanctions package, but it repeatedly exposes structural limitations stemming from conflicting interests among member states. Greece's successful push for an exemption for Russian LNG transshipments serves as an example of Southern European countries prioritizing energy security over geopolitical solidarity, reaffirming their stance[2]. Furthermore, the EU's expansion of sanctions to include Chinese companies has opened a new front where the conflict surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war is spilling over into EU-China relations. China's immediate retaliatory export controls suggest that this conflict could evolve beyond mere diplomatic friction into a reconfiguration of supply chains[2].

Russia

Russia maintains a hardline stance, having signaled an immediate retaliatory response to the EU's 21st sanctions package. President Putin insists on the position that "we will win"[5], and the Kremlin has confirmed its refusal to negotiate[4]. The drone incursions into Romanian airspace are part of a gray-zone pressure strategy targeting NATO's eastern flank, intended to test the cohesion of allied nations and weaken their resolve to support Ukraine. Russia's long-term attrition strategy focuses on inducing support fatigue in the West and exacerbating internal divisions.

4. Summary of Key Issues

First, the feasibility and strategic implications of transferring Patriot production licenses.

The transfer of Patriot missile production licenses to Ukraine, proposed by the Trump administration, is an issue directly linked to building Ukraine's self-reliant defense industry capabilities, going beyond mere arms provision. If these licenses are indeed transferred, Ukraine could enhance its own air defense capabilities while reducing its dependence on Western support. However, complex variables such as the scope of technology transfer, the time required to establish production capabilities, and Russia's response pose constraints on the feasibility of this plan.

Second, the effectiveness of EU sanctions and divisions among member states.

Despite being the largest sanctions package ever, the 21st package's effectiveness was partially diluted by Greece's successful negotiation of an exemption for LNG transshipments[2]. This once again highlights the structural vulnerability of the EU's sanctions mechanism, where the unanimity principle limits the intensity of sanctions. Furthermore, the EU's expansion of sanctions against China and China's retaliatory export controls signify a new front where the Russia-Ukraine conflict is escalating into an EU-China trade and technology conflict, representing a significant structural shift[2].

Third, gray-zone provocations on NATO's eastern flank and collective defense posture.

The three consecutive days of Russian drone incursions into Romanian airspace constitute gray-zone provocations testing the threshold for invoking NATO's collective defense clause (Article 5). The manner in which NATO allies respond could set a crucial precedent for future Russian provocation levels[3]. Additionally, the possibility of Belarus's direct involvement in the war is emerging as a new risk factor for the geographical expansion of the conflict.

Fourth, the possibility and conditions for resuming peace negotiations.

Although the resumption of peace negotiations with Russia was discussed at the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting[7][15], given the Kremlin's refusal to negotiate and the entrenchment of a long war of attrition on the battlefield, the possibility of an early end to the war is assessed at only 15%[4]. Key issues remain in setting conditions for resuming negotiations, the question of Ukraine's territorial sovereignty, and establishing a security guarantee system. The role the US will play as a mediator is expected to be a crucial variable in determining the future dynamics of negotiations.

Fifth, the sustainability of US support for Ukraine.

With the death of Senator Lindsey Graham removing a key pillar of the pro-Ukraine bloc in Washington[14], the sustainability of US support for Ukraine has emerged as a significant uncertainty factor. The Trump administration's withholding of aid for Ukraine deepens Kyiv's concerns and is also linked to the issue of redefining the US role within the NATO-IP4 framework and multilateral security cooperation structures.

II. In-depth Issue Analysis

Russia-Ukraine War: Zelenskyy's UK and US Visits and Shifting European Security Dynamics

In-depth Issue Analysis

1. Analysis of Fundamental Causes of the Issue

The current diplomatic efforts by Zelenskyy to visit the UK and US, and the rapid shifts in European security dynamics, should not be understood as mere diplomatic events. Instead, they should be viewed as a complex phenomenon where structural contradictions accumulated over the five years of the Russia-Ukraine war are simultaneously erupting.

The most fundamental cause is the entrenchment of the war into a protracted war of attrition. Since Russia's full-scale invasion, the conflict has settled into a pattern of attrition without a decisive victory for either side, leaving Ukraine in a structurally vulnerable position where it cannot sustain the war without continuous military and economic support from the West[4]. With only a 15% chance of an early end to the war and a 60% probability of a prolonged war of attrition as the baseline scenario[4], Ukraine's diplomatic actions have taken on the character of a survival strategy, extending beyond mere support acquisition.

The second fundamental cause is the uncertainty surrounding US policy toward Ukraine. Since the inauguration of the second Trump administration, US policy toward Ukraine has exhibited considerable volatility. With the US having withheld aid to Kyiv, the death of Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Ukraine's staunchest supporters, has further weakened the pro-Ukraine base in Washington[14]. In this context, Zelenskyy's visit to the White House is interpreted as a desperate diplomatic attempt to redefine relations with the Trump administration and secure the continuity of military aid.

The third cause is the political and military instability within Ukraine. The dismissal of Defense Minister Fedorov, who championed the drone innovation agenda, and the consideration of replacing Commander-in-Chief Syrskyi, signify the surfacing of a clash between the reformist faction and the traditional military establishment. Concerns are rising about the impact of potential command instability on military effectiveness[8]. Such internal instability could raise doubts among Western supporters about Ukraine's strategic reliability, making Zelenskyy's active summit diplomacy unavoidable to dispel these concerns.

The fourth cause is Russia's intensification of gray-zone provocations on NATO's eastern flank. The three consecutive days of Russian drone incursions into Romanian airspace reflect Russia's strategic intent to exert psychological pressure and test deterrence capabilities simultaneously, while avoiding direct military conflict with NATO member states. This is assessed as a challenge to the effectiveness of NATO's collective defense clauses and part of a gray-zone tactic aimed at testing the cohesion of European allies.

2. Structural Context

Political Structure

The most profound structural issue in the European security landscape is the internal division within the EU. The partial dilution of sanctions effectiveness due to Greece's veto power during the negotiation of the 21st sanctions package, leading to the inclusion of an exemption for Russian LNG transshipments, demonstrates that the structural rift between Southern European countries, which are highly dependent on energy, and Northern/Eastern European countries advocating for strong sanctions, remains unresolved[2]. This recurring conflict structure with each sanctions package imposes inherent limitations on the EU's capacity to pressure Russia[2].

At the same time, the rise of far-right forces and political instability in various European countries are eroding the domestic political base for supporting Ukraine[12]. This is more serious because it is not a matter of short-term policy changes, but a long-term impact of structural changes within European democracy on foreign security policy.

In the case of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Burnham's immediate reception of Zelensky as his first foreign dignitary after taking office is a political signal that the UK intends to maintain its role as a key player in European security even after Brexit. The choice of the Portsmouth Naval Base and the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth as the venue for the talks was an intentional staging to maximize the symbolism of military solidarity, an act that declared to both domestic and international audiences that the Burnham government would inherit and strengthen the pro-Ukraine stance of the previous administration[9][16].

Economic Structure

The EU's 21st sanctions package against Russia is the largest ever, targeting over 90 Russian banks and more than 215 individuals and entities, but its effectiveness is limited by conflicting interests among member states[2]. In particular, when the EU included 14 Chinese companies in the sanctions list, China's Ministry of Commerce immediately retaliated with export controls on dual-use items against 14 European companies, creating a "structural turning point where the Russia-Ukraine war is expanding into an EU-China trade and technology conflict"[2]. This demonstrates that the Russia-Ukraine war is acting as a catalyst that accelerates the reorganization of global supply chains and technological bloc formation, beyond being a mere regional conflict.

In terms of energy structure, the increasing attacks on Russian oil facilities by Ukraine have damaged one-third of Russia's total refining capacity, intensifying structural shocks to the energy supply chain[4]. This has a dual effect of impacting Russia's ability to sustain the war while also increasing instability in the global energy market.

Security Structure

NATO's eastern flank security structure faces serious challenges due to Russia's gray zone provocations. The drone incursions into Romanian airspace raise fundamental questions about how NATO's Article 5 collective defense clause can be applied to gray zone provocations. While NATO's pledges of military aid totaling €70 billion each in 2026 and 2027[4] demonstrate the alliance's commitment to solidarity, the time lag before these pledges translate into actual deterrence could create strategic opportunities for Russia.

The discussion surrounding the production license for Patriot missiles symbolically illustrates changes in the security structure. President Trump's proposal this month to grant Ukraine a license to produce Patriot air defense missiles[1] reflects a strategic calculation to reduce the burden of direct US support while maintaining Ukraine's defense capabilities by supporting the development of Ukraine's indigenous defense industry. This can be interpreted as the Trump administration's transactional view of alliances being projected onto the method of supporting Ukraine.

3. Comparison with Historical Precedents and Similar Cases

The Dynamics of Attrition Warfare and External Support during the Cold War

The current structure of the Russia-Ukraine war shows structural similarities to the Afghan War during the Cold War (1979-1989). At that time, the United States employed a strategy of supplying advanced air defense weapons, such as Stinger missiles, to the Mujahideen fighting against the Soviet Union, thereby offsetting Soviet air superiority. The current discussion on Patriot missile production licenses is in a similar vein, representing a strategic choice to support Ukraine in developing its own defense capabilities to counter Russia's long-range strike capabilities. However, a crucial difference from that era is that Ukraine is a sovereign state with international legal standing, and the supporting countries have openly declared their support.

Internal Cracks in EU Sanctions: A Comparison with the Iraq War Era

The structure of internal cracks in EU sanctions can be compared to the historical precedent during the 2003 Iraq War, when EU member states were divided into "Old Europe" (France, Germany) and "New Europe" (Poland, Czech Republic, etc.) over the US-led military intervention. At that time, differences in geographical and historical experiences led to disparities in perceptions of security threats, which acted as a structural factor hindering the formation of the EU's common foreign and security policy. The current attempts by Southern European countries like Greece and Italy to dilute sanctions represent a repetition of the same structural pattern where economic interests, such as energy dependence, take precedence over security solidarity[2].

Historical Precedents of Gray Zone Provocations

The drone incursions into NATO airspace can be compared to Soviet reconnaissance aircraft incursions during the Cold War, but they pose a qualitatively different challenge due to the use of asymmetric means like drones. Just as the Soviet downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in 1983 dramatically escalated Cold War tensions, drone incursions into NATO airspace carry the potential for unpredictable escalation if they lead to miscalculation or accidents. However, Russia is deliberately maintaining "strategic ambiguity" by calibrating the level of provocation below the threshold of direct conflict with NATO, which aligns with the Soviet Union's "Active Measures" strategy of the 1970s.

Zelensky's Diplomatic Engagements: A Comparison with Churchill's Wartime Diplomacy

Zelensky's diplomatic tours of the UK and US are structurally similar to the wartime diplomacy of British Prime Minister Churchill during World War II, who intensively managed his relationship with President Roosevelt to elicit US participation and support. Just as Churchill institutionalized strategic alignment with the US through the Atlantic Charter (1941), Zelensky is employing a strategy to institutionally solidify US support through concrete cooperation projects such as the Patriot missile production license[7][15]. However, unlike Churchill, who dealt with a strong ally supporter in Roosevelt, Zelensky faces the fundamental difference of having to deal with President Trump, who prefers a transactional approach.

4. Key Variables in Issue Development

Variable 1: Sustainability of the Trump-Zelensky Relationship

Although the relationship between the two sides is described as having recovered to its "warmest in months" during the recent White House meeting[14], the structural sustainability of this improved relationship remains uncertain. The Trump administration's policy toward Ukraine has been sensitive to changes in domestic US political dynamics, particularly shifts in its congressional support base. The death of Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch supporter of Ukraine, signifies a weakening of the pro-Ukraine coalition in Washington[14], implying that if the Trump administration were to pivot to a more passive stance on Ukraine support, there would be fewer congressional forces to check it. The actual outcome and terms of the Patriot missile production license negotiations will be a practical indicator of future US-Ukraine relations[7][15].

Variable 2: EU Cohesion and Sanctions Effectiveness

The internal divisions within the EU, as revealed in the 21st sanctions package, will pose structural constraints on future attempts to strengthen sanctions. Greece's successful push for an exemption clause for LNG transshipment[2] demonstrated that member states with high energy dependence may prioritize economic interests over security solidarity, resulting in the exposure of EU cohesion vulnerabilities to Russia. In a situation where China retaliates against EU sanctions on Chinese companies with export controls, intensifying EU-China trade and technology conflicts[2], the key variable will be how the EU manages the dual challenge of maintaining a united front on sanctions while simultaneously managing economic relations with China.

Variable 3: Russia's Willingness to Return to Peace Negotiations

Although efforts to resume peace negotiations with Russia were discussed at the Trump-Zelensky meeting[7][15], Putin's refusal to negotiate appears to be confirmed within the Kremlin[4]. The key variables for a scenario of ending the war will be what conditions Russia sets for returning to the negotiating table and the extent to which the Trump administration can guarantee Ukraine's core interests in the process of mediating these conditions. As long as Putin maintains his stance of "we will win"[5], the practical possibility of resuming negotiations remains limited.

Variable 4: Eastern Flank Security Posture and Prevention of Escalation

The continued drone incursions into Romanian airspace and the possibility of direct Belarusian involvement in the war are key variables testing the security posture of NATO's eastern flank. The level of Russia's future provocations will be determined by the extent to which NATO establishes response principles for gray zone provocations. In particular, if direct Belarusian involvement becomes a reality, it could lead to a situation that expands the geographical scope of the war and practically tests NATO's collective defense obligations. The strengthening of NATO-IP4 linkages and the scope of South Korea's contribution could also emerge as variables in this context.

Variable 5: Internal Political Stability in Ukraine

If the internal political instability triggered by the replacement of military leadership leads to a disruption in the policy continuity of the drone innovation path, it could directly impact Ukraine's asymmetric warfare capabilities[8]. The assessment that "the risk of policy discontinuity in the drone innovation path and the uncertainty of Western support are expected to be key variables for Ukraine's military strength going forward"[8] suggests that the internal cohesion of the Zelensky government is as important a variable as securing external support. If large-scale protests in major cities like Kyiv[8] lead to political instability, it could also affect the credibility of Western supporters toward Ukraine.