Seoul must wisely chart its own steady course as Pyongyang, Beijing, Moscow move in step

Sixty-six years is a long time to wait for a photo opportunity. Yet on Wednesday in Beijing, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un stood shoulder to shoulder on Tiananmen Square, reviewing troops and missiles as if history had rewound to 1959.

The tableau was designed to impress: three leaders, long cast negatively in Western capitals, reclaiming center stage to signal solidarity against the US-led order.

For Xi, the occasion marked both China’s wartime triumph and signaled its present ambitions. By parading hypersonic missiles and stealth fighters, Beijing underscored that its reach now extends beyond the Taiwan Strait.

For Putin, it was a chance to thank Pyongyang for dispatching troops to Ukraine and to bind Moscow more tightly to Asian partners as Western sanctions continue to bite.

For Kim, the spectacle was his debut on a multilateral stage, a chance to shed the image of an isolated ruler and to showcase his daughter as heir apparent. If the scene looked like the opening act of a new Cold War, that was the intended message.

Behind the choreography lies calculation. Moscow, bogged down in Ukraine, needs manpower and munitions. Pyongyang, by sending soldiers and arms, has pocketed both political recognition and material rewards. Beijing, though wary of entanglements, gains leverage over both neighbors while presenting itself as their indispensable patron.

The three leaders’ interests diverge — China, a global power with economic ambitions; Russia, a besieged petrostate; North Korea, a survivalist regime — yet for now, convenience suffices to unsettle the region.

The symbolism is troubling for Seoul. The Beijing parade came barely a week after President Lee Jae Myung joined US President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba in reaffirming trilateral security cooperation. Two blocs are crystallizing: the US, South Korea and Japan on one side, China, Russia and North Korea on the other.

Analysts differ on whether the emerging blocs form a durable axis or merely an opportunistic alignment. Either way, the optics of Kim flanked by Xi and Putin reinforce perceptions that the Korean Peninsula sits at the fault line of an accelerating rivalry.

The peril is unmistakable. North Korea, emboldened by Russian and Chinese backing, is less likely to engage in denuclearization talks. Kim may now push instead for nuclear arms control negotiations, seeking recognition as a permanent nuclear state. Russia, grateful for Pyongyang’s support, could offer military technologies in return. China, to counter US pressure, may soften its earlier reservations about the North’s nuclear program. Together, these dynamics further erode the already slim prospects of curbing Pyongyang’s arsenal.

How should Seoul respond? The reflex answer — tighten the alliance with Washington and Tokyo — is correct but insufficient. Deterrence must be paired with flexibility. Strengthening missile defense, naval capacity and intelligence-sharing is vital, but so is maintaining channels of communication with Beijing, whose economic weight still influences South Korea’s fortunes. Dialogue with Pyongyang, however unpromising, also serves as a pressure valve. Refusing talks while reinforcing defenses is a strategy for stalemate, not stability.

The coming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Gyeongju will test South Korea’s ability to navigate these crosscurrents, as it prepares to host leaders — possibly including Trump and Xi. Rather than acting as a mere stage manager, it must set an agenda on security and economic resilience while exploring whether confrontation can be nudged toward dialogue.

The rare sight of Kim, Xi and Putin in Beijing was meant to signal inevitability, as if geopolitics flowed only in their direction. They do not. South Korea’s task is to assert its own course, navigating these turbulent waters with steady pragmatism and unwavering persistence.


khnews@heraldcorp.com