South Korea's military manpower shortfall has become a critical challenge. A 20% reduction in active-duty forces over six years reflects demographic decline's immediate impact. Newly commissioned army officers have fallen dramatically, illustrating a diminishing pipeline of recruits in the coming years.

These trends erode Seoul's deterrence capabilities and amplify its dependence on the United States for security guarantees. A militarily strained Korea, grappling with demographic contraction, is likely to seek stronger ties with whichever power appears most capable of offering broad security and economic support – a role China may increasingly fulfil, especially if US alliances appear less reliable.

The convergence of demographic stress, economic stagnation, and defense vulnerabilities is generating social and political strain within Korean society. Rising polarization, civil unrest, and resistance to government initiatives reflect a society in transition. Such domestic fragility limits Seoul's foreign-policy flexibility and heightens its susceptibility to alignment pressures.

Crucially, South Korea's internal vulnerabilities elevate the appeal of external patronage. As US reliability comes under question, China's economic heft, political stability, and regional centrality can appear increasingly attractive to segments of the Korean elite and public.

The perceived unraveling of the longstanding“dual-dependence equilibrium” – wherein South Korea relied on China for economic prosperity and on the United States for security guarantees – constitutes a pivotal structural juncture in Seoul's strategic environment. The intensification of US–China rivalry has markedly constrained South Korea's strategic latitude, narrowing the space for calibrated hedging.

The current Lee administration has shown a discernible inclination toward Washington but this orientation remains primarily political and tactical, lacking the characteristics of a structural tilt or durable strategic commitment.

South Korea's reliance on China is profound. China is a crucial export market, industrial supply-chain hub and technological competitor. As security risks grow and Washington's strategic clarity fluctuates, Seoul may seek stability through deeper accommodation with Beijing.

India – with its limited economic or strategic footprint in Korea – remains largely invisible in this calculus.

China is no longer merely an emerging power; it is a consolidated major power with expanding regional influence. Beijing's economic engagement, diplomatic outreach and technological penetration have drawn numerous Southeast Asian states into its strategic orbit.

South Korea, weakened domestically and constrained by regional pressures, is now among the states most vulnerable to drifting toward China's sphere of influence.

Japan's ideological shift toward nationalism and emerging militarism deepens longstanding historical grievances and further constrains Seoul's ability to align fully with the US-Japan strategic axis.

Growing mistrust between Tokyo and Seoul regarding Japan's renewed intentions toward China narrows South Korea's strategic options, making new accommodation with Beijing a more plausible pathway – particularly if the United States appears unreliable.

Despite the Trump administration's desire to forge a unified Korean-Japanese front against China over Taiwan, there are clear limits to how far South Korea can move in this direction, given its extensive economic interdependence with China, its complex and historically fraught relationship with Japan and the persistent nuclear threat posed by North Korea.

Despite frequent invocations of a“special strategic partnership,” India's engagement with South Korea remains largely transactional in nature. The core reason the two countries have been unable to conclude negotiations on a comprehensive economic partnership agreement, even after years of discussion, is that both sides continue to pursue a dollar-by-dollar, deal-by-deal approach, devoid of broader geopolitical vision.

Neither government has demonstrated a willingness to make concessions on issues of strategic significance. Consequently, the bilateral relationship today remains anchored primarily in memoranda of understanding, commercial agreements and limited defense-industrial cooperation, rather than in a cohesive, long-term strategic framework.

These mechanisms fall well short of the depth and institutionalization that define a genuinely substantive strategic partnership. Also, India has yet to establish itself as an indispensable element of South Korea's long-term strategic calculus; it remains situated at the periphery of Seoul's strategic thinking.

Moreover, deeply embedded stereotypes about India continue to persist within South Korean society. Negative perceptions associated with poverty, hygiene, superstition and trustworthiness still inform both public sentiment and institutional attitudes toward India and Indians in Korea.

Such entrenched biases constitute a substantive impediment to deeper bilateral engagement. India, for its part, has yet to articulate a coherent public-diplomacy strategy capable of countering these perceptions or fostering meaningful societal-level familiarity.

So long as India remains misunderstood or undervalued within South Korean society, the bilateral relationship is unlikely to progress beyond the current superficial level of engagement. India's incremental approach – centered on delegation visits, routine agreements and periodic seminars and forums – fails to respond adequately to South Korea's rapidly evolving geopolitical context.

Indeed, many of the agreements concluded today risk becoming obsolete as Seoul's strategic and economic priorities shift under the combined pressures of South Korea's deepening demographic and economic challenges, China's growing influence, and rising distrust about the United States' reliability.

Should South Korea drift beyond India's strategic orbit, New Delhi's existing defense-industrial cooperation with Seoul would be exposed to considerable vulnerability. Emerging platforms and joint technological ventures could progressively evolve in ways misaligned with India's core security interests, thereby diminishing the strategic utility of these engagements. It is therefore imperative that India approach its partnership with South Korea through a long-term, strategically grounded framework rather than a narrow, contract-centric orientation.

A strategic drift by South Korea would constitute a significant setback for India's long-term geopolitical calculus. Such a shift would erode the coherence of the US-led Indo-Pacific architecture and introduce greater instability into an already fluid regional order, while simultaneously expanding the geopolitical reach of a major competing power China across the arc stretching from Myanmar to the Korean Peninsula.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

For India, the consequences would be acute. It would forfeit a technologically sophisticated partner whose industrial and innovation capacities are critical for securing advanced technologies, strengthening defense ecosystems, and building resilient supply chains. India would also find itself increasingly isolated in Northeast Asia, particularly as many Southeast Asian countries continue edging closer to Beijing and Japan experiences a shift toward the extreme right and renewed militarism.

Such a strategic reorientation would also furnish Beijing with enhanced opportunities to leverage South Korea's advanced innovation ecosystem, thereby further accelerating its military and technological capacities. The cumulative effect of this shift would be a widening of the existing power asymmetry between China and India, with significant implications for India's long-term strategic autonomy.

The loss of South Korea as a meaningful strategic partner would constitute a generational setback – undermining India's Act East Policy, diluting the effectiveness of its Indo-Pacific strategy, and constraining its broader aspirations for regional influence.

In this fast-changing strategic environment, India must shift the India–Korea relationship from a largely deal-focused partnership to one characterized by long-term strategic depth. This entails positioning India as a platform for South Korea's economic resilience, promoting co-innovation in semiconductors, defense systems, green energy and AI, and supporting Korean firms as they navigate mounting competitive pressures.

By cultivating deeper industrial linkages, India can align its strategic interests with those of South Korea in ways that generate durable interdependence and shared prosperity.

Simultaneously, India must recalibrate its policies in accordance with the broader regional strategic environment. Timely action is imperative before South Korea's strategic drift becomes irreversible. Convergence with Seoul's Indo-Pacific vision, deeper engagement with regional cooperation frameworks, and more proactive participation in multilateral security mechanisms would enable India to embed itself within South Korea's strategic calculus – not as a peripheral actor, but as a central pillar of Indo-Pacific stability.

This strategic repositioning must be anchored in robust and sustained institutional engagement. India needs to deepen defense-policy coordination well beyond the realm of industrial offsets and cultivate a continuous presence within South Korea's key strategic and security fora. Concurrently, New Delhi must invest in a more sophisticated public-diplomacy architecture to counter entrenched negative perceptions, advance anti-discrimination safeguards for Indian workers enterprises and academics and students in South Korea, and broaden the scope of academic, technological, and cultural exchanges.

China has already acted with considerable decisiveness to occupy the strategic space increasingly vacated by the United States, employing high-level diplomatic engagements, currency-swap arrangements and an expanding array of cooperative platforms to draw South Korea more firmly into its orbit.

India's response must demonstrate a comparable degree of strategic boldness and conceptual clarity, grounded in a coherent long-term framework that secures South Korea as a durable and consequential strategic partner.

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedI
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Faceboo
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsAp
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddi
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Emai
• Click to print (Opens in new window) Prin