← Back · ← Home · ← Back to list
NATO Ankara Summit: Strategic Implications for Asian Security of the Shift in European Defense Burden and Cracks in Alliance Cohesion
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The NATO Ankara Summit (July 7-8, 2025) served as a turning point where the transactional alliance approach of a potential second Trump administration began to manifest as concrete institutional pressure. The summit convened amidst strong US demands for European allies to meet the 5% of GDP defense spending target and to independently shoulder the burden of supporting Ukraine. The core issue of the summit, a commitment of €70 billion in military aid to Ukraine, has been delayed due to disagreements from Slovakia and Italy, revealing that internal NATO cohesion cracks are exacerbating the alliance's strategic vulnerabilities as much as external threats. This structural realignment of the European security order has direct implications for Asian security. The US transactional approach to alliances is likely to be applied equally to Asian allies such as South Korea and Japan. If the burden-sharing in Europe is successfully absorbed, US strategic resources may be refocused on the Indo-Pacific, strengthening the deterrence posture against China. Conversely, failure could undermine US alliance credibility across the board, leading to a dual impact. Therefore, Asian security actors must urgently pursue a dual strategy: not only increasing defense spending passively in response to US strategic volatility but also actively strengthening autonomous defense capabilities and building multi-layered security networks, such as trilateral cooperation among South Korea, the US, and Japan, to gradually reduce dependence on the US while simultaneously deepening alliance relationships.
Phase 1: Issue Analysis
NATO Ankara Summit: European Defense Burden Shift and Support for Ukraine
Issue Analysis
1. Background and Progress of the Issue
The NATO Ankara Summit was convened amidst a structural deepening of the conflict over defense burden-sharing between the US and European allies following the potential emergence of a second Trump administration. President Trump has consistently criticized European allies for free-riding on US security guarantees and expressed strong dissatisfaction that European allies did not provide sufficient support during the war with Iran [12]. These US pressures have moved beyond mere rhetorical warnings, potentially leading to a reduction in US troop presence in Europe and a re-evaluation of defense commitments, thereby beginning to cause substantial cracks in the overall European security order.
Against this backdrop, major European powers have been seeking response strategies to strengthen the European pillar within NATO. Notably, the E5 group, comprising the five major European military powers—Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and Poland—held a preliminary coordination meeting in Berlin ahead of the Ankara Summit to establish a common position [10][13]. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz chaired this meeting, emphasizing the cohesion of European allies and proposing the formalization of strong financial support commitments to Ukraine at the NATO level [11].
2. Current Situation (Latest Developments)
The 36th NATO Summit, held in Ankara, Turkey, on July 7-8, is a large-scale diplomatic event attended by heads of state from dozens of countries. Ankara authorities have completed extensive security and traffic control measures along the official route from Esenboğa Airport to the Presidential Palace [8]. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has announced that new defense-related contracts worth tens of billions of dollars will be announced at the summit, and the alliance's commitment to supporting Ukraine will be reaffirmed [3][4].
Regarding support for Ukraine, a military aid commitment of €70 billion is under discussion for this year, but consensus is being delayed due to opposition from Italy and Slovakia. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico publicly declared that his delegation had not received a mandate to approve participation in additional military loans to Ukraine [20]. Meanwhile, French President Macron, following the Berlin E5 meeting, expressed optimism about mending transatlantic alliance rifts, stating, "Europe and the United States are entering a phase of reconvergence on core security issues" [6]. Additionally, Turkish President Erdoğan is likely to hold bilateral talks with President Trump on the sidelines of the summit, raising expectations for Turkey's role as a strategic mediator [19].
3. Key Actors and Their Positions/Interests
United States (Trump Administration)is maintaining a strong pressure stance at the summit, demanding that European allies report on their progress toward the 5% of GDP defense spending target. The US is focused on shifting the financial burden of Ukraine support to Europe and has publicly questioned alliance loyalty, citing the passive stance of European allies during the Iran war [12]. Nevertheless, the reaffirmation of Article 5, the collective defense clause, in the joint declaration is expected, and the prevailing view is that the US will not completely withdraw from the alliance [2].
Germanyis being officially called upon to assume a leadership role within NATO's European pillar at this summit. Chancellor Merz led the E5 meeting, proactively proposing European allies' financial support commitments to Ukraine and sending a strong message to Russia that "European support is unwavering" [11][16]. Germany's actions are interpreted as a preemptive response to US demands for burden-sharing and a strategic positioning to enhance European autonomy within NATO.
Franceas a traditional proponent of European strategic autonomy, President Macron seeks to leverage this summit as an opportunity to redefine European-US relations [6]. France is employing a dual strategy of enhancing European negotiating power through E5 cohesion while managing relations with the US within the NATO framework [7].
Italy and Slovakiaare acting as obstacles to consensus by opposing additional military aid commitments to Ukraine. Italian Prime Minister Meloni, while attending the E5 meeting, agreed with the principle of "a stronger Europe within a stronger NATO" [9], but maintained a reserved stance on specific financial commitments. Slovak Prime Minister Fico has more explicitly expressed opposition to military loans to Ukraine [20].
Turkeyas the host country of the summit, is strengthening its role as a strategic mediator within NATO. President Erdoğan plans to discuss bilateral issues with President Trump and simultaneously improve relations with the EU [5][19]. Turkey is promoting its mediation capabilities externally by adopting "Key to Peace" and "Key to Security" as summit slogans [8].
UkrainePresident Zelensky is expected to attend the summit in person to appeal for continued Western support [3]. With Russia facing difficulties on the battlefield, securing financial and military aid commitments from NATO allies is Ukraine's top priority [17].
4. Summary of Key Issues
The key issues at this summit can be summarized into three main points. First is the issue ofdefense burden readjustment. With the US strongly demanding the 5% of GDP defense spending target, the extent to which European allies can practically fill the US defense gap will be a key indicator of alliance credibility. According to NATO sources, European member states have already filled most of the defense gap left by the US withdrawal, but the financial capacity and political will of each country will be variables in the process of institutionalizing this.
Second is theagreement on Ukraine aid commitments. The €70 billion military aid package is facing difficulties in reaching unanimous agreement due to opposition from Italy and Slovakia [20], revealing a crack in NATO's policy towards Ukraine. Whether an agreement is reached and its scale will be an important signal of Western resolve towards Russia.
Third is the issue ofinstitutionalization of European autonomy within NATO. The trend of Germany emerging as a European leader and the strengthening of the E5 framework herald a change in NATO's traditional US-led structure [10][14]. Whether this structural change will strengthen the cohesion of the transatlantic alliance or paradoxically lead to further US withdrawal remains a key variable determining NATO's future strategic direction.
Phase 2: In-depth Issue Analysis
NATO Ankara Summit: European Defense Burden Shift and Support for Ukraine
In-depth Issue Analysis
1. Analysis of the Root Causes of the Issue
The root cause of the tension surrounding the NATO Ankara Summit lies not merely in the figures of defense burden-sharing, but in the clash of perceptions that the US-led structure of supplying public security goods, solidified over thirty years since the end of the Cold War, is no longer sustainable. Since the founding of NATO, the US has invested overwhelming military power and financial resources as the primary security provider for the alliance. However, the second Trump administration has clearly signaled its intent to fundamentally reshape this structure. President Trump's strong dissatisfaction with the insufficient support provided by European allies during the war with Iran [12] suggests that the accumulated dissatisfaction within the US regarding European security free-riding has crossed a critical threshold, transforming into concrete diplomatic pressure.
The fundamental vulnerability on the European side lies in the structural inertia of continuously reducing defense spending under the logic of a 'peace dividend' since the end of the Cold War. Most European NATO member states have long failed to meet even the target of 2% of GDP for defense spending, creating a vicious cycle that deepened their reliance on the US security umbrella. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 dramatically exposed this structural vulnerability, prompting Europe to recognize the necessity of strengthening its own defense capabilities. However, a significant time lag is inevitable between the shift in perception and the actual increase in military power, and this gap is currently acting as a key factor amplifying the tension.
Internal divisions, as seen in the issue of Ukraine support, must also be understood at the level of root causes. Slovak Prime Minister Fico's public refusal to participate in additional military loans to Ukraine [20] goes beyond a mere financial disagreement, revealing a fundamental difference in threat perception towards Russia and the political legitimacy of supporting Ukraine within NATO. Italian Prime Minister Meloni, while supporting increased European contributions to NATO [9], also maintains a reserved stance on reaching consensus regarding the scale of Ukraine support, confirming the existence of a divergence of interests beneath the outward appearance of alliance cohesion.
2. Structural Context
Political Structure This crisis is occurring at the intersection of populist shifts within Western democracies and skepticism towards the multilateral order. The 'America First' approach of the Trump administration redefines alliances not as a collective security system based on shared values but as transactional relationships based on cost-benefit calculations, posing a challenge to NATO's institutional identity itself. Within Europe, leaders with pro-Russian leanings, such as Fico (Slovakia) and Orbán (Hungary), are eroding alliance cohesion from within, forcing NATO to confront a dual challenge of responding to external threats while simultaneously countering internal centrifugal forces.
Economic Structure The realistic constraint is that the fiscal conditions of major European countries are insufficient to support a sharp increase in defense spending. Germany has amended its constitutional debt brake (Schuldenbremse) to create fiscal room for increased defense spending, but this was a decision that entailed significant political costs. The US demand for 5% of GDP far exceeds the levels currently achieved by most European countries, suggesting its primary function is as a negotiating leverage rather than a realistic short-term goal. The tens of billions of dollars in new defense contracts announced by NATO Secretary General Rutte [3][4] represent a visible response from Europe to this pressure and a strategic choice to pursue substantial military buildup by expanding defense industry production capacity.
Security Structure The tension between Europe's attempt to achieve strategic autonomy and the maintenance of the transatlantic alliance forms the core structural contradiction. The Berlin preliminary coordination meeting of the E5 group [10][13][14] reflects an effort to strengthen the European pillar, enabling independent strategic decision-making without relying on US leadership. It is particularly noteworthy that Germany is being called upon to emerge as a new European leader within NATO, which demands a fundamental shift in Germany's strategic culture, historically characterized by military restraint as part of its national identity. Chancellor Merz's declaration to Russia, "Ukraine is still strong, and European support is unwavering" [11][16], symbolically represents the direction of this change.
3. Historical Precedents and Comparison with Similar Cases
The current conflict over NATO defense cost-sharing is an extension of the historically recurring debate within alliances over burden sharing, but it qualitatively differs from past precedents in its intensity and structural implications. In the 1960s, during the Nixon administration, the U.S. engaged in intense negotiations with West Germany over the cost-sharing of U.S. troops stationed in Europe, which resulted in 'offset agreements.' However, while the conflict at that time was a matter of cost adjustment within the framework of a shared perception of the communist Soviet Union as a common threat that maintained the fundamental cohesion of the alliance, the current situation is fundamentally different in that skepticism within the U.S. regarding the very raison d'être of the alliance is being expressed at an institutional level.
France's withdrawal from NATO's integrated military command structure in 1966 provides a historical precedent for the centrifugal forces within an alliance that can arise from the pursuit of European strategic autonomy. At the time, France sought to secure strategic autonomy by rejecting dependence on the U.S. nuclear umbrella and developing its own nuclear deterrent (force de frappe). While the current situation in Europe differs from de Gaulle's independent path, the structural logic whereby a decline in confidence in U.S. security commitments drives the strengthening of European independent defense capabilities is similar. Macron's assessment that "Europe and the United States are entering a phase of recomvergence"[6] can be interpreted as part of diplomatic efforts to maintain the framework of the alliance while managing these centrifugal forces.
The 2% of GDP defense spending target adopted at the 2014 Wales NATO Summit was introduced as a collective response to Russia's annexation of Crimea, but its implementation has been sluggish. Subsequently, following Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, European countries accelerated their defense spending increases, and the number of NATO member states currently meeting the 2% target is at an all-time high. However, the 5% target demanded by the Trump administration far exceeds this historical trend and is at a level never before proposed in any alliance negotiation. It is more plausible in historical context to interpret this not as a demand for substantial defense capability enhancement, but as part of a strategy of maximum pressure on Europe.
The rifts within the alliance regarding support for Ukraine have structural similarities to the internal conflicts over NATO's intervention during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s. At that time, major European powers such as Germany, France, and the UK held differing views on the scope and method of intervention, and it was confirmed that collective action would be difficult without the U.S.'s leading role. The current situation, where the agreement for €70 billion in support is being delayed due to opposition from Slovakia and Italy[20], once again demonstrates how difficult it is for Europe to resolve collective action issues independently when the U.S. steps back from a leading role.
4. Key Variables in Issue Development
The first key variable determining the future development of the issue is the outcome of the bilateral meeting between Trump and Erdoğan. With President Erdoğan hinting at the possibility of a one-on-one meeting with President Trump, Turkey occupies a unique strategic position as a NATO member that also maintains an independent relationship with Russia. If Ankara assumes the role of mediator between the U.S. and Europe as the host of the summit, it could directly influence the framework of defense cost-sharing negotiations and the content of the agreement on support for Ukraine.
The second key variable is Germany's willingness and capacity for strategic leadership. Chancellor Merz's hosting of the E5 meeting, leading the cohesion of European allies, and proposing strong financial support for Ukraine[11] demonstrate Germany's intention to emerge as a new center of gravity for European defense. However, unless Germany's leadership is backed by substantial military capabilities and political resolve, the joint declaration of the E5 meeting[14] will be difficult to imbue with meaning beyond a mere joint statement.
The third key variable is the possibility of a change in the positions of Slovakia and Italy. If Prime Minister Fico's public opposition[20] is not mitigated in some form during the summit, the €70 billion Ukraine support pledge may result in a coalition pledge from some member states rather than a consensus of the entire alliance. This could damage NATO's image of collective cohesion and provide Russia with diplomatic space to exploit the rifts within the alliance.
The fourth key variable is the actual pace of expansion in defense industry production capacity. It will take considerable time for the multi-billion dollar defense contracts announced by Secretary General Rütter to translate into actual production capacity expansion[3][4]. The greater the gap between declarative pledges and actual capabilities, the more limited efforts to fill Europe's defense vacuum will be in the short term, potentially leading to a vicious cycle that triggers further pressure from the U.S. The mention of Turkey's Bayraktar drone as a model for next-generation defense[12] suggests that innovation and production expansion in the European defense industry are emerging as strategic challenges for the entire alliance.
Phase 3: Scenario Analysis
NATO Ankara Summit: Transition of European Defense Burden and Support for Ukraine
Scenario Analysis
1. Optimistic Scenario (Probability of Realization: Approx. 20%)
Development
The optimistic scenario assumes a situation where the Ankara Summit serves as an occasion to successfully institutionalize the structural reorganization of the Atlantic alliance. In this scenario, European allies complete the agreement on the €70 billion Ukraine military support pledge by securing the final consent of Italy and Slovakia, and the U.S. acknowledges the tangible results of European defense spending increases and accepts a new balance in the division of roles within the alliance[3][4]. The phase of 'reconvergence between Europe and the U.S.' mentioned by President Macron moves beyond mere diplomatic rhetoric to actual policy coordination[6], and Germany clearly fulfills its role as a leading European nation, with the cohesion of the E5 group functioning as the central force for the entire alliance[10][11]. Concurrently, the multi-billion dollar new defense contracts announced by Secretary General Rütter are actually concluded, and the expansion of European defense industry production capacity visibly begins[4]. The Erdoğan-Trump bilateral meeting takes place, allowing Turkey to play a constructive mediating role within the alliance, and the common long-term threat perception of Russia is clearly codified in the summit declaration[19].
Impact on Asian Security
If this scenario materializes, the impact on the Asian security environment will be complex but generally stability-oriented. The strengthening of NATO cohesion and the tangible enhancement of European defense capabilities will increase Russia's strategic burden, limiting its capacity to divert strategic resources to the Asian front. This could have an indirect effect of deterring the deepening of North Korea-Russia military cooperation, positively impacting the security environment on the Korean Peninsula. Furthermore, if the U.S. succeeds in transferring a significant portion of the European defense burden to Europe, conditions will be created for the strategic resources and attention of the U.S. to be refocused on the Indo-Pacific region. This could lead to a strengthening of U.S. deterrence against China, and is likely to be perceived as an improvement in the security environment by U.S. allies such as South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. However, the paradoxical effect of increased U.S. engagement in the Indo-Pacific provoking Chinese backlash and temporarily heightening regional tensions cannot be ruled out.
Impact on the Global Economy and Industry
In the optimistic scenario, the defense industry is the most direct and immediate beneficiary. The conclusion of multi-billion dollar new defense contracts[3][4] will lead to a surge in orders for European defense companies, accelerating the expansion of production capacity and sales growth for major European defense firms such as Germany's Rheinmetall, the UK's BAE Systems, and the defense divisions of France's Thales and Airbus. Simultaneously, as NATO officially recognizes Turkey's Bayraktar drone as a model for next-generation defense[12], Turkish defense companies' international market expansion will also gain momentum. Investment opportunities in construction, infrastructure, and energy linked to Ukraine's reconstruction needs will expand, and increased fiscal spending due to higher defense budgets in Europe could have a short-term economic stimulus effect. On the other hand, fiscal pressure to increase defense spending could lead to pressure to reduce social welfare spending in various European countries, with the side effect of worsening domestic consumption conditions.
2. Baseline Scenario (Probability of Realization: Approx. 55%)
Development
The baseline scenario posits a situation where the Ankara Summit reaches a superficial agreement, but structural tensions persist, resulting in a state of 'managed disagreement.' In this scenario, the €70 billion Ukraine support pledge is included in the declaration after its scale is reduced or a conditional compromise is found to accommodate the opposition from Italy and Slovakia[20], but the actual implementation mechanism remains ambiguous. The U.S. maintains a hardline stance demanding the implementation of the 5% of GDP defense spending target, but European allies avoid direct confrontation by proposing a roadmap for gradual increases that are realistically achievable. Germany nominally accepts its role as a leading European nation, but its ability to exercise substantial leadership is limited due to domestic fiscal constraints and difficulties in reaching political consensus. The cohesion expressed at the E5 group's preparatory meeting in Berlin[14] leads to a joint declaration in Ankara, but the divergence of individual national interests continues beneath the surface. Some of the defense contracts announced by Secretary General Rütter are concluded, but they are finalized at a level that falls short of initial expectations[3].
Impact on Asian Security
The baseline scenario has the most complex and multi-layered implications for the Asian security environment. As the U.S. achieves only partial success in transferring the European defense burden, its strategic resources remain dispersed between Europe and the Indo-Pacific, exacerbating a state of 'strategic overstretch' where U.S. deterrence is not fully effective in either region. China is likely to interpret this situation as a signal of weakening U.S. alliance management capabilities, creating an incentive to more actively pursue attempts to alter the status quo in areas such as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. North Korea is also likely to continue enhancing its nuclear and missile capabilities and deepening military cooperation with Russia, taking advantage of the U.S.'s divided strategic attention. South Korea and Japan will face increasing pressure to strengthen their own defense capabilities amidst ongoing uncertainty about the reliability of U.S. extended deterrence commitments, which will act as a catalyst for accelerating discussions on defense spending increases and independent military capability development in both countries.
Impact on the Global Economy and Industry
In the baseline scenario, the impact on the global economy and industry is characterized by a prolonged period of uncertainty. The defense industry continues to benefit, but the momentum for stock price increases appears intermittent due to the limited scale and pace of contract execution compared to the optimistic scenario. As pressure for increased European defense spending persists, concerns about fiscal soundness could lead to a weakening of the Euro and upward pressure on European government bond yields, contributing to volatility in global financial markets. The prolonged conflict in Ukraine sustains instability in energy markets, increasing the energy cost burden for Europe, which in turn weakens the competitiveness of European manufacturing. In terms of global supply chains, increased demand for key defense-related materials and components continues to put upward pressure on prices for semiconductors, rare earths, and special metals, and these cost increases are passed on to civilian industries utilizing these materials.
3. Pessimistic Scenario (Probability of Realization: Approx. 25%)
Development
The pessimistic scenario assumes a situation where the Ankara Summit fails to mend the rifts within the alliance, and the strategic decoupling between the U.S. and Europe becomes visible. In this scenario, the opposition from Italy and Slovakia remains intractable, preventing the €70 billion Ukraine support pledge from being included in the summit declaration or relegating it to a nominal commitment[20], sending a strong signal to Russia about the cracks in Western cohesion. If President Trump publicly expresses dissatisfaction with Europe's response to the 5% of GDP defense spending target and hints at a review of U.S. troop presence in Europe or a weakening of NATO commitments, the alliance's credibility will be severely undermined[12]. The cohesion expressed by the E5 group in Berlin[14] collapses in Ankara in the face of individual national interests, causing the attempt to build a European-led defense cooperation framework to lose momentum. Germany effectively rejects its role as a leading European nation or fails to demonstrate its capacity to fulfill it, exacerbating the leadership vacuum in European security governance. In this scenario, Russia will exploit the division in the West as a strategic opportunity to intensify military pressure on Ukraine, increasing the likelihood of a prolonged conflict and escalation.
Impact on Asian Security
The pessimistic scenario has the most severe and widespread negative implications for the Asian security environment. The weakening of NATO cohesion and the erosion of confidence in U.S. alliance commitments will lead Asian allies to fundamentally question the sustainability of the U.S.-led security order. Witnessing the wavering of U.S. extended deterrence commitments even in Europe, South Korea and Japan will have a strong incentive to accelerate their policy shift towards strengthening strategic autonomy, including discussions on acquiring their own nuclear deterrents. This could create a chain reaction that fundamentally shakes the nuclear non-proliferation regime in Northeast Asia. China is likely to maximally exploit the weakening of U.S. strategic credibility to increase military pressure on Taiwan and more overtly pursue attempts to alter the status quo in the South China Sea. North Korea could further deepen its military cooperation with Russia and accelerate technology transfers for the advancement of its nuclear and missile capabilities, rapidly escalating the security threat to the Korean Peninsula. In particular, the deepening of Russia-North Korea military cooperation could provide North Korea with a pathway to acquire conventional tactics and weapon systems verified on the Ukrainian battlefield, qualitatively increasing the level of direct military threat to South Korea.
Impact on the Global Economy and Industry
In the pessimistic scenario, the impact on the global economy and industry will be pervasive and severe. Escalation or prolonged stalemate of the Ukraine conflict will cause extreme instability in energy markets, potentially reigniting a European energy crisis and global inflationary pressures through a surge in global energy prices. The European economy faces an increased risk of entering a state of complex recession, with the combined effects of increased fiscal burden from soaring defense spending, rising energy costs, and declining consumption. In global financial markets, a preference for safe-haven assets will intensify, leading to a strengthening of the dollar, a weakening of the Euro, and capital outflows from emerging markets, resulting in currency depreciation and increased external debt burdens for Asian emerging economies. While the defense industry will benefit in the short term, concerns about a general economic downturn will dampen private investment, weakening the drivers of technological innovation and productivity growth. In terms of global trade, geopolitical bloc formation will accelerate, leading to soaring costs for supply chain restructuring, and particularly, increased instability in trade routes connecting Europe and Asia will be accompanied by rising logistics costs and declining trade volumes.
4. Comprehensive Analysis of Scenario-Based Impacts on the Global Economy and Industry
When comparing the three scenarios, it is notable that the defense industry is the only sector that receives benefits regardless of the scenario's direction. The growth momentum of the defense industry is maintained through the stable execution of planned defense contracts in the optimistic scenario, through the persistent pressure for increases amidst uncertainty in the baseline scenario, and through the urgent need for enhancement due to a rapidly deteriorating threat environment in the pessimistic scenario[3][4][12]. Not only European defense companies but also Asian defense companies such as Hanwha Aerospace, Hyundai Rotem, and LIG Nex1 in South Korea will benefit from a structural environment that creates expanded export opportunities targeting Europe's defense capability enhancement needs.
The energy sector shows the most stark differentiation across the scenarios. In the optimistic scenario, as the Ukraine conflict stabilizes and energy market uncertainty diminishes, European investment in energy transition accelerates. Conversely, in the pessimistic scenario, prolonged conflict reignites energy supply instability, leading to a surge in fossil fuel prices and a simultaneous surge in energy security investments. In the baseline scenario, structural instability in energy markets persists, accompanied by multifaceted efforts to enhance energy security, including increased LNG imports, accelerated renewable energy investment, and development of energy storage technologies.
Semiconductor and advanced technology sectors in all three scenarios will face supply chain restructuring pressures due to deepening geopolitical bloc formation. In particular, with the surge in demand for dual-use technologies such as defense electronic systems, military semiconductors, and AI-based weapon systems, a strategic shift is expected where civilian semiconductor companies increasingly leverage defense demand as a new growth engine. This presents opportunities for South Korean semiconductor companies like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix to enter the market for defense-related specialized semiconductors, while also entailing the risk of restricted market access due to strengthened export controls.
In conclusion, under any of the three scenarios, the structural shift in Europe's defense burden triggered by the NATO Ankara Summit is likely to become an irreversible trend, and the speed and manner of this shift will serve as key variables determining the magnitude and direction of the impact on the global economy and the Asian security environment.
Phase 4: Response Analysis
NATO Ankara Summit: Transition of European Defense Burden and Support for Ukraine
Response Analysis: Implications for Asian Security
1. Response Measures for the Optimistic Scenario (Probability of Realization: Approx. 20%)
Analysis of Response Options and Their Strengths and Weaknesses
In the optimistic scenario, where NATO cohesion is strengthened, Europe substantially shares the defense burden, and U.S. strategic resources are refocused on the Indo-Pacific, the first response option for Asian security actors is to actively institutionalize the U.S.'s re-engagement in the Indo-Pacific. South Korea and Japan can seek to deepen existing multilateral security frameworks such as the Quad and AUKUS, and proactively expand bilateral defense cooperation agendas with the U.S. to encourage the U.S. to channel its freed-up capacity from the European burden into strengthening deterrence in the Indo-Pacific[3][4]. The advantage of this option is that it allows for the strengthening of alliance deterrence by riding the wave of U.S. strategic attention shifting to the Indo-Pacific, and it can secure tangible security benefits, particularly in terms of deterrence against China. However, the paradoxical effect of increased U.S. engagement provoking Chinese backlash and temporarily heightening regional tensions serves as a significant disadvantage.
The second response option is to strengthen the institutional linkage of NATO-Asia partnerships. If NATO strengthens its cohesion by tangibly enhancing European defense capabilities and codifying a common threat perception of Russia[2], South Korea and Japan can expand cooperation channels with NATO and utilize this as an opportunity to build a joint response system to Russia-North Korea military cooperation. The advantage of this option is that it can strengthen the Atlantic-Pacific security linkage based on the common interest of deterring North Korea-Russia military cooperation. However, the disadvantage remains that differences among member states regarding NATO's geographical scope of engagement still exist, and China may interpret NATO's engagement in Asia as a containment strategy against itself, leading to intensified backlash.
The third option is to diversify supply chains through expanded European defense industry cooperation. The conclusion of multi-billion dollar new defense contracts announced by Secretary General Rütter[4] and the expansion of European defense production capacity offer new opportunities for South Korean defense companies to enter the European market. South Korea is already expanding its presence in the European market through large-scale defense cooperation with Poland, and can pursue a strategy of accelerating this trend and expanding its role within the European defense industry ecosystem. The advantage of this option is that it can achieve both economic benefits and security cooperation, but increased competition with European defense companies and the complexity of technology transfer negotiations could emerge as major obstacles during implementation.
Feasibility and Risk Assessment
Given that the probability of the optimistic scenario itself being realized is only about 20%, all the response options above are premised on conditional feasibility. The option of institutionalizing the US's re-engagement in the Indo-Pacific carries significant execution risks, as it is more likely to unfold in a direction where the US demands additional cost-sharing from Asian allies rather than voluntarily expanding its engagement, as long as the transactional alliance perspective of the Trump administration persists. The option of strengthening NATO-Asia partnerships has a medium level of feasibility, as it requires managing both external risks from Chinese backlash and internal risks from disagreements within NATO regarding regional expansion simultaneously. The option of expanding European defense industrial cooperation possesses the most realistic feasibility among the three, with relatively greater room for economic incentives to offset political barriers.
Priority Response Measures
In the optimistic scenario, a phased approach that sets the expansion of European defense industrial cooperation as a short-term task, the strengthening of NATO-Asia partnerships as a medium-term goal, and the institutionalization of US re-engagement in the Indo-Pacific as a long-term strategy is the most feasible. It is realistic to first foster economic cooperation to lay the groundwork for political and security cooperation.
2. Baseline Scenario Response Measures (Probability of Realization: Approx. 55%)
Analysis of Response Options and Their Pros and Cons
The baseline scenario assumes a situation where NATO reaches a partial agreement but internal rifts persist, the US gradually transfers defense burdens to Europe, and strategic uncertainty becomes structural. In this scenario, the core challenge facing Asian security actors is to protect their national security interests in an ambiguous middle ground where the US's alliance management style remains transactional but does not lead to complete withdrawal.
The first response option is the phased strengthening of independent defense capabilities. The trend of Europe gradually moving towards the goal of defense spending at 5% of GDP [12] is likely to serve as a precedent for the US to demand a similar level of increased defense burden-sharing from its Asian allies. South Korea and Japan could adopt a strategy of concretizing their roadmaps for strengthening independent defense capabilities in anticipation of this pressure and using them as evidence of alliance contributions in negotiations with the US. The advantage of this option is that it secures autonomous response capabilities to US pressure while leading to a substantial enhancement of deterrence. However, the surge in defense spending could lead to domestic fiscal pressure and political resistance, which are major disadvantages, and in Japan's case, constitutional constraints and historical sensitivities pose additional obstacles.
The second response option is the autonomous strengthening of regional multilateral security cooperation networks. In a situation where US alliance management remains transactional, Asian allies can seek to deepen inter-state security cooperation to diversify their reliance on the US. Institutionalizing South Korea-Japan security cooperation, strengthening trilateral cooperation among South Korea, Australia, and Japan, and expanding security dialogues with ASEAN countries can be considered as specific implementation measures. The advantage of this option is that it builds a buffer mechanism against US policy volatility and enhances regional security autonomy. On the other hand, historical conflicts between South Korea and Japan could continuously hinder the institutionalization of cooperation, and there is also a risk that China might interpret this as a strategy to encircle it, thereby escalating regional tensions.
The third response option is the establishment of an independent information and diplomatic response system to Russia-North Korea military cooperation. While NATO maintains cohesion by reaffirming Russia as a long-term threat [2], the cooperation structure where North Korea provides military support to Russia in exchange for military technology transfer poses a direct threat to Korean Peninsula security. South Korea must strengthen information-sharing channels with NATO and European allies and simultaneously engage in diplomatic efforts to continuously publicize the realities of North Korea-Russia cooperation to the international community. The advantage of this option is that it can build international solidarity at a relatively low cost and increase the political cost of North Korea-Russia cooperation. However, both Russia and North Korea have strengthened their resistance to international pressure, making it difficult to achieve substantial changes in their behavior, which is a limitation.
Feasibility and Risk Assessment
The baseline scenario has the highest probability of realization, making the feasibility assessment of response measures most crucial. The option of strengthening independent defense capabilities has high feasibility for South Korea, which already possesses a substantial defense industry base, but fiscal conditions and the achievement of political consensus are key variables. For Japan, the direction of increased defense spending has already been decided policy-wise, indicating high feasibility, but domestic political debates surrounding the speed and scale will continue. The option of strengthening regional multilateral security cooperation is most significantly affected by the volatility of South Korea-Japan relations, and continuous diplomatic efforts to manage this are a prerequisite. The option of responding to Russia-North Korea cooperation is the most feasible in the short term, but its long-term effects are limited, making it appropriate to position it as a complementary measure alongside other options.
Priority Response Measures
In the baseline scenario, the most effective priority response measures involve a parallel approach that establishes the strengthening of independent defense capabilities as the core axis, addresses Russia-North Korea cooperation as a short-term implementation task, and pursues the strengthening of regional multilateral security cooperation as a medium-term goal. Particularly in an environment where the US's transactional alliance perspective persists, strengthening independent capabilities serves as the basis for negotiation power and should be treated as the highest priority task.
3. Pessimistic Scenario Response Measures (Probability of Realization: Approx. 25%)
Analysis of Response Options and Their Pros and Cons
The pessimistic scenario assumes a situation where NATO's internal divisions remain unresolved, the US substantially reduces its European defense commitments, and Russia strategically exploits this vacuum. In this case, the Asian security environment will face complex challenges. Russia's recovery of strategic confidence will further deepen military cooperation between North Korea and Russia, and the weakening of US alliance credibility could stimulate China's strategic opportunistic behavior. Simultaneously, there is a high probability that the US will increase pressure on its Asian allies to bear a greater share of the burden as it reduces its burdens in Europe.
The first response option is strengthening independent deterrence to secure strategic autonomy. In a situation where US alliance credibility is structurally weakened, South Korea and Japan could pursue more aggressive defense build-ups to secure independent deterrence. In South Korea's case, discussions on independent nuclear deterrence could emerge in the public sphere, and Japan could move towards accelerating the strengthening of its counterstrike capability. The advantage of this option is that it aims for a fundamental solution that reduces external dependence and guarantees national security through one's own capabilities. However, discussions on independent nuclear deterrence carry a high risk of exacerbating the security dilemma by simultaneously causing conflicts with the NPT regime, strong US opposition, and backlash from China and Russia. Japan's strengthening of its counterstrike capability could also lead to a vicious cycle of stimulating arms buildups by China and North Korea, requiring a cautious approach.
The second response option is securing diplomatic flexibility through strategic hedging. In an environment where US alliance credibility is weakened, South Korea and Japan can strengthen their hedging strategy by maintaining diplomatic channels with China and Russia and utilizing strategic ambiguity. This has the effect of avoiding excessive dependence on a single great power and diversifying diplomatic options. The advantage of this option is that it allows for flexibility in a rapidly changing international environment and avoids unnecessary conflicts. However, the US could interpret this as a signal of alliance departure, further weakening the alliance relationship, and there is also a risk that China could exploit this ambiguity as an opportunity to its advantage.
The third response option is reducing strategic vulnerabilities by diversifying economic and energy security. In a pessimistic scenario where geopolitical instability intensifies, the vulnerability of economic interdependence structures could directly translate into security threats. South Korea and Japan can respond by increasing their economic resilience to external shocks through supply chain diversification, diversification of energy import sources, and strengthening strategies for securing critical minerals. The advantage of this option is that it can simultaneously reduce complex vulnerabilities by linking security and economy, and it is relatively easier to achieve domestic political consensus. The disadvantage is that it entails significant costs in the short term and has the structural limitation that supply chain restructuring takes years to decades.
Feasibility and Risk Assessment
The response measures in the pessimistic scenario commonly involve high implementation costs and complex risk structures. The option of strengthening independent deterrence carries the greatest political and diplomatic repercussions, and particularly, discussions on independent nuclear deterrence have very low practical feasibility. In contrast, strengthening conventional deterrence aligns with ongoing policy directions and has high feasibility. The option of strategic hedging is feasible in the short term but requires complex diplomatic balancing with the US; if this balance collapses, it carries the risk of leading to strategic isolation. The option of diversifying economic and energy security possesses the most stable feasibility among the three and can be established as a fundamental strategy to be pursued regardless of the scenario's realization.
Priority Response Measures
In the pessimistic scenario, the most realistic priority response measures involve pursuing the diversification of economic and energy security as an immediate implementation task, strengthening conventional deterrence as a core medium-term task, and carefully managing strategic hedging as a diplomatic strategy in parallel. The discussion on independent nuclear deterrence should ideally maintain its character as a bargaining leverage rather than a practical policy option, even under extreme political pressure.
4. Comprehensive Strategic Direction
From a comprehensive perspective encompassing the three scenarios, the most fundamental strategic direction for Asian security actors is to build a scenario-robust response system. This means a strategy centered on resilience, capable of protecting core interests regardless of which scenario materializes, rather than an optimized strategy premised on the realization of a specific scenario.
From this perspective, the response measures that are commonly effective across all three scenarios are the phased strengthening of independent defense capabilities, the deepening of regional multilateral security cooperation networks, and the diversification of economic and energy security. These three pillars operate in a complementary manner and maintain their validity as basic strategies for responding to the structural uncertainty of the Asian security environment, regardless of how the NATO Ankara Summit results unfold. In particular, the trend of accelerating defense spending and expanding defense production capacity in Europe [3][4] should be noted as a key area of implementation for the economy-security linkage strategy, as it offers opportunities for European market entry for Korean defense companies while opening a window to strengthen strategic positioning in the process of global defense industry supply chain restructuring.
5. Final Recommended Response Measures
NATO Ankara Summit: Transition of European Defense Burden and Support for Ukraine
Final Recommended Response Measures: Implications for Asian Security
1. Comprehensive Judgment and Recommended Response Measures
The core implication of the NATO Ankara Summit for Asian security is the fundamental restructuring of the US-led global security supply structure, and the shockwaves of this restructuring will not be confined to Europe but will ripple throughout the Indo-Pacific. The US's policy of pressuring European allies to meet the 5% of GDP defense spending target and pursuing a structural transfer of defense burdens suggests that the same logic is likely to be applied to Asian allies. The strong dissatisfaction expressed by the Trump administration regarding the lack of support from European allies during the conflict with Iran [12] is an expression of its intent to redefine alliances not as value-based collective security systems but as transactional cost-benefit relationships, and this transactional alliance perspective is already materializing in relations with Asian allies such as South Korea, Japan, and Australia.
Based on this comprehensive judgment, the core response direction recommended for Asian security actors is a dual strategy that simultaneously pursues 'structural strengthening of autonomous defense capabilities' and 'active establishment of a multi-layered security network.' Just as the E5 group in Europe established a common position to strengthen the European pillar within NATO through preliminary consultations in Berlin [10][14], Asian allies must pursue a dual path of gradually reducing reliance on the US while maintaining and deepening alliance relations with the US. This requires an active approach that redesigns defense investments not merely as a passive response to US pressure but in a way that contributes to national strategic interests and the strengthening of the regional security architecture. The discord within the alliance exposed by Slovakia and Italy's expressed disagreements on the agreement to support Ukraine [20] should serve as a cautionary tale, warning that internal disagreements can also translate into strategic vulnerabilities in Asia.
The core pillars of the recommended response measures consist of three components. First, securing a buffer against US strategic volatility by strengthening autonomous defense capabilities. Second, building a regional security structure that does not rely on unilateral US decisions by deepening multilateral security consultations, including trilateral cooperation among South Korea, the US, and Japan. Third, converting the movement to expand Europe's defense industry within NATO [4] into an opportunity for Asian defense industry cooperation to strengthen technological and industrial linkages. These three pillars operate complementarily, and integrated implementation is essential as none can achieve sufficient strategic effect independently.
2. Short-Term/Medium-Term/Long-Term Implementation Plan
Short-Term Implementation Plan (0-6 months): Adaptation and Positioning
In the short term, the most urgent task is to meticulously analyze the results of the Ankara Summit to accurately grasp the US's intentions and pace of alliance restructuring. The announcement of new defense contracts worth tens of billions of dollars foreshadowed by NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg [3] and the final agreement on the 70 billion euro support package for Ukraine [1] will be key indicators for gauging how effectively the US can achieve a transfer of burdens to Europe. The potential for these results to serve as a precedent for similar pressure on Asian allies must be assessed in advance, and response logic and negotiation positions must be established.
Furthermore, by tracking key bilateral contacts during the summit, including the Erdogan-Trump bilateral meeting [19], patterns of concessions and pressures exchanged in transactional negotiations between the Trump administration and individual allies must be identified. These patterns are directly useful for identifying strategic leverage that Asian allies can utilize in defense burden-sharing negotiations with the US. Just as Germany is being asked to emerge as a leading European power within NATO, South Korea and Japan must strengthen prior coordination regarding their respective roles, in preparation for the possibility that the US may pressure specific countries to take on leading roles in regional security.
In terms of the defense industry, the types of items and technological fields in the new defense contracts to be announced by NATO must be analyzed to promptly identify opportunities for supply chain integration in which Asian defense companies can participate. In particular, NATO's attention to Turkey's Bayraktar drones as a model for next-generation defense [12] suggests that demand for technological cooperation in the drone and unmanned systems sector will spread throughout NATO, potentially opening short-term opportunities for Korean defense companies with competitiveness in this field to enter the European market.
Medium-Term Implementation Plan (6 months - 2 years): Building Structural Capabilities
In the medium term, the focus should be on the structural strengthening of autonomous defense capabilities. The NATO source's assessment that Europe has filled most of the defense vacuum created by the US withdrawal [3] shows that US pressure is indeed effectively promoting increased defense capabilities in Europe. Asian allies must actively internalize this lesson and shift their mindset from viewing US pressure as a mere diplomatic burden to a strategic opportunity for strengthening their own defense capabilities. Specifically, priority should be given to enhancing the qualitative efficiency of defense investments over simply achieving numerical targets for increased defense spending, i.e., securing advanced technology-based asymmetric deterrence capabilities.
Deepening multilateral security consultations is also a core medium-term task. Just as the E5 group established a common position to strengthen the European pillar within NATO at the Berlin meeting [13][14], efforts are needed in Asia to institutionalize a broader regional security consultation structure that includes not only trilateral cooperation among South Korea, the US, and Japan but also Australia, India, and the Philippines. Strengthening linkages between NATO and Asian partner countries in this process is also important; the framework where NATO is already engaging South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand as Indo-Pacific Partners (IP4) should be utilized to deepen practical cooperation in areas such as information sharing, technological cooperation, and joint exercises.
The course of the war in Ukraine and the continuation of NATO support will directly influence North Korea's strategic calculations. In a situation where North Korea is deepening military cooperation with Russia by providing artillery shells and troops, if NATO's support for Ukraine is maintained at 70 billion euros [1], Russia's ability to sustain the war will be limited, which will weaken the strategic value of North Korea-Russia cooperation. Conversely, if the support agreement is delayed or its scale is reduced due to opposition from Italy and Slovakia [20], Russia's ability to sustain the war will be maintained, North Korea's cooperation leverage will be strengthened, and the security environment on the Korean Peninsula will deteriorate. Therefore, South Korea must recognize NATO's support trends for Ukraine as an issue directly linked to the security of the Korean Peninsula and maintain a position of indirectly supporting the continuation of support through diplomatic channels.
Long-Term Implementation Plan (2+ years): Strategic Autonomy and Rebalancing of Alliances
In the long term, the key task is to deepen strategic autonomy to adapt proactively to the transition from a US-led unipolar security order to a multipolar and multi-layered security structure. Just as Europe is pursuing a structural transition towards reducing its dependence on the US by strengthening the European pillar within NATO [10][11], Asian allies must institutionalize a dual path in the long term, building their own regional security governance while maintaining alliances with the US. This is not a premise of US alliance withdrawal but a realistic approach to securing structural buffers against US strategic volatility.
Long-term self-reliance in the defense industry and securing technological sovereignty are also essential. The direction pursued by NATO to expand the production capacity of the European defense industry through new defense contracts worth tens of billions of dollars [4] reaffirms that the defense industry is not merely an economic sector but the material basis for strategic autonomy. South Korea has already demonstrated the strategic value of its defense industry through the global export expansion of K-defense, and it needs a long-term strategy to further deepen this by enhancing technological levels and securing a key position within the supply chain through joint development and production cooperation with NATO member states.
Finally, it is necessary to continuously assess whether Macron's mention of 'reconvergence between Europe and the US' [6] is a temporary phenomenon or a signal of structural realignment, and to track the impact of the realignment of the transatlantic alliance on the Indo-Pacific security structure over the long term. In particular, in preparation for the possibility that China may exploit NATO's internal conflicts and US strategic dispersion as opportunities for its own strategy, China's patterns of external behavior must be closely monitored, and deterrence signals must be continuously issued in response.
3. Monitoring Indicators and Trigger Points
To systematically track the impact of the NATO Ankara Summit results on Asian security, it is essential to pre-establish clear monitoring indicators and trigger points.
The first key monitoring indicator is the final agreement on the 70 billion euro military aid package for Ukraine and its scale [1][3]. If the agreement is finalized, overcoming the objections of Italy and Slovakia, it can be interpreted as a signal that NATO's cohesion is being maintained. Conversely, if the agreement fails or its scale is significantly reduced, it should be regarded as a warning signal that centrifugal forces within the alliance are strengthening. This indicator is directly linked to changes in the strategic value of North Korea-Russia cooperation and should therefore be the top priority tracking item in assessing Korean Peninsula security.
The second indicator is the speed of actual defense spending increases by European NATO member states. With the US demanding compliance with the 5% of GDP target, whether major European countries make actual budget adjustments towards this goal serves as a criterion for judging the effectiveness of US pressure. If Europe succeeds in substantial increases, the US is likely to apply the same pressure tactics even more strongly to its Asian allies.
The third indicator is Germany's role as a European leader. It must be tracked whether the fact that Chancellor Merz presided over the E5 meeting and led the cohesion of European allies [10][11] remains a one-off event or if Germany moves towards institutionalizing practical European security leadership. Germany's strengthened leadership signifies the deepening of European defense autonomy, which serves as an indirect indicator for gauging the speed at which the US will reallocate strategic resources from Europe to the Indo-Pacific.
The fourth indicator is the trend of North Korea's military cooperation with Russia. As the impact of NATO's support for Ukraine on Russia's ability to sustain the war becomes more visible, the scale and nature of military support provided by North Korea to Russia may change. In particular, whether North Korea receives technological reciprocation from Russia, such as nuclear or missile technology transfer, is a key trigger point with direct implications for Korean Peninsula security.
Regarding trigger points, the situation requiring the most immediate response is when the US officially demands the 5% of GDP defense spending target from its Asian allies. If this point arrives, the response logic must shift to a comprehensive renegotiation framework regarding the strategic role division of the alliance, rather than a mere numerical negotiation. Furthermore, if severe cracks appear in NATO's cohesion, leading to a situation where the US substantially reduces its European defense commitments, this could lead to a crisis of confidence in the US's commitment to the Indo-Pacific; therefore, an emergency response plan should be prepared in advance for this scenario.
4. Summary and Conclusion
The NATO Ankara Summit was not merely a regional issue concerning burden-sharing in European defense, but a snapshot of a historical inflection point where the US-led global security order is transitioning to a transactional, multipolar structure. The European efforts to strengthen the cohesion of the E5 group and autonomously build a European pillar within NATO in response to US pressure[10][11][14] offer important strategic lessons as a precedent for similar challenges faced by Asian allies.
The key implications of this summit for Asian security actors can be summarized in three points. First, the transactional nature of US alliances is a structural shift, not a temporary phenomenon, meaning the enhancement of autonomous defense capabilities can no longer be postponed. Second, NATO's support trends for Ukraine and North Korea-Russia military cooperation are directly linked, necessitating a correction of the view that European security is separate from Korean Peninsula security. Third, as evidenced by Slovakia's and Italy's attempts to withdraw[20], cracks in alliance cohesion provide strategic opportunities for adversaries, thus requiring proactive strengthening of policy coordination among Asian allies, including South Korea, the US, and Japan.
In conclusion, the structural reorganization of NATO following the Ankara Summit will have complex and non-linear effects on the Asian security environment. The best strategy to respond is not passive observation, but active adaptation that simultaneously pursues the enhancement of autonomous capabilities and the construction of multi-layered networks. Just as Europe is transforming US pressure into an opportunity to strengthen its defense autonomy[6][10], Asian allies should seize this transformative wave not as a crisis, but as an opportunity for strategic redesign.
References
[1] [Maliweb] L’OTAN en quête de 70 milliards d’euros pour Kiev car Washington ne veut plus payer
[3] [Al-Monitor] NATO's Rutte says billions in new defense contracts will be announced at summit
[4] [Daily Sabah] NATO to unveil billions in defense deals at Ankara summit: Rutte
[5] [Kathimerini] EU sends dual message to Ankara
[6] [Daily Sabah] Macron sees renewed Europe-US alignment ahead of Ankara NATO summit
[7] [Al-Monitor] European leaders pledge unity after recent tensions ahead of NATO summit
[8] [Daily Sabah] Ankara puts final touches for NATO summit, rejects false claims
[9] [ANSA] Meloni: 'Rafforziamo la componente europea della Nato. L'Italia farà la sua parte'
[10] [DW (Deutsche Welle)] Germany's Merz rallies European NATO allies ahead of summit
[11] [Diario Libre] Alemania dice a Rusia que el apoyo europeo a Ucrania "no flaquea"
[12] [Daily Sabah] NATO cites Bayraktar drones as model for next-generation defense
[13] [Jutarnji List] Čelnici najmoćnijih pet zemalja Europe nalaze se prije samita NATO-a u Turskoj
[14] [Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ)] Vor dem Nato-Gipfel betont Europa in Berlin seine Einigkeit
[15] [Daily Sabah] European leaders to converge in Berlin over Ukraine, NATO summit
[16] [Vijesti] Merc: Evropska podrška Ukrajini ostaje nepokolebljiva
[19] [Daily Sabah] Erdoğan signals one-on-one talks with Trump at NATO summit
[20] [TASS] Slovakia will not support funding for conflict in Ukraine at NATO summit — Fico
*This text is an AI translation of an original written in Korean. Some translations or nuances may be inaccurate.