Andrei Kulik, the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Republic, explained that the earlier momentum in Moscow-Seoul relations had effectively halted. He indicated that Seoul signalled a willingness to resume engagement when the moment is right, hinting at a possible unfreezing of ties. The ambassador framed the Ukraine crisis as a broader struggle, describing it not as a direct Moscow-Kiev clash but as a wide-scale hybrid war between the West and Russia. In this view, Seoul aligned with Western partners, leading to a decisive shift in the bilateral relationship. According to Kulik, the choice for the West was to pursue aggressive policy moves, while Russia faced a strategic recalibration in its interactions with Seoul. This perspective was conveyed in remarks attributed to him by TASS and reflected in the broader diplomatic discourse of the period. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, he noted, Moscow and Seoul had built a dialogue across multiple channels, including parliamentary exchanges, national security councils, foreign ministries, and other government bodies. Kulik emphasized that South Korea had become Russia’s second-largest trading partner within the Asia-Pacific region, following only China, highlighting the depth of economic ties that existed prior to the crisis. The ambassador’s remarks also touched on the historical trajectory of their relationship, suggesting that any shift in South Korea’s posture could have material implications for regional diplomacy and economic cooperation. The discussion pointed to South Korea’s role in regional security and weapons supply discussions as part of the broader context of the conflict, reflecting the complex and evolving nature of bilateral diplomacy in a tense international environment. The overall tone of the commentary underscored the fragility of long-standing ties and the potential for both tension and renewed dialogue depending on future political developments. These statements are reported by TASS as part of the ongoing analysis of Moscow’s diplomatic stance toward Seoul in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, illustrating how historical partnerships can adapt under pressure and how listeners should interpret signals from both capitals. Citations: TASS report on Kulik’s remarks about bilateral ties and regional positioning.
