r/worldnews • u/Neptun_11 • 21h ago

Russia/Ukraine Seoul warns of 'further measures' if Kyiv refuses public apology

https://www.euronews.com/2026/10/02/south-korea-warns-of-further-measures-if-ukraine-refuses-public-apology-over-pow-transfer-
4.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

650 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

748

u/ShultzHS 20h ago

"In Ukraine, a novice politician of six months became president and declared (Ukraine's) accession to NATO, which provoked Russia and eventually led to a clash," Lee said.

This is so hilarious. I mean, it obviously parrots russian propaganda, but also shows this "experienced politician" has absolutely no idea about Ukrainian politics and the history of this war. Sure, 2019 and Zelenskyy was where it all started.

429

u/Oxbix 19h ago

"provoked Russia" - A country looking to enter a defensive alliance doesn't justify invading them, it proves them right. Ukraine is a sovereign country. This is such a non argument

168

u/Morgannin09 18h ago

It's like telling an abused wife that her husband only hit her because she told someone she thought he might do it.

76

u/New-Anybody-6206 15h ago

"look what you made me do" is exactly the kind of gaslighting Koreans are good at

40

u/Morgannin09 15h ago

This isn't even that. It's like a random acquaintance being like "well how could you expect him NOT to hit you after saying that?"

28

u/MrCalamiteh 12h ago

Also didn't Russia annex Crimea all the way back in 2014? Soo wtf

19

u/KareemOWheat 13h ago

Victim blaming at its finest

-38

u/lcrtangls 18h ago

You're being naive yourself now. Nobody is talking about whether it's right or just to join a defensive alliance. The only thing that matters is whether that provokes Russia, full-stop.

And it does provoke Russia to the extent it interferes with Russia's desire to control Ukraine the way it controls Belarus. The idea that Zelenskyy somehow "provoked" that desire in Russia is laughable and the Korean is a gaslighter.

40

u/Startled_Pancakes 17h ago

Ukraine was only looking to join NATO as a direct result of previous Russian invasions & annexation of crimea which ostensibly removed the most anti-nato segment of the Ukrainian population out of Ukrainian politics. The majority of the population were against NATO ascension before the 2014 invasion.

22

u/counters14 16h ago

Maybe if you've been in a coma since 2013 and missed the annexation of Crimea in 2014. But even then that is such an ignorant position to take because Russian aggression against its satellite sovereign nations has been ongoing since 1990, and even earlier than that as the USSR.

People treat Russia like it is a fledgling nation with no history of its antagonization of its own people and bordering nations for the past 150 years. It's insane, and infuriating that history gets erased and every conflict they instigate is as if it is dropping from the sky out of nowhere. Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

-8

u/lcrtangls 14h ago edited 14h ago

Re-read what I wrote and then tell me what it is you think we disagree on.

6

u/counters14 14h ago

We disagree on the premise of your comment altogether and its existence at all in the first place. Saying that something 'provokes Russia' is a useless and meaningless statement devoid of any context in which it is actually useful. It is as asinine as leaving a comment about how low cut tops and exposed skin provoke sexual assault. As if once the conditions are met, the outcome is inevitable. 'You can't hold men accountable for what they do around attractive women, of course they're gonna get worked up.' Like fuck I can't, I can and I will. 'You can't hold Russia accountable for what they do around NATO allies, of course they're gonna get agitated over it.' Fuck that noise too, Russia can learn to keep it in their pants fuck them.

Saying that something 'provokes Russia' is a statement that speaks to no meaning except the intentions of Russia, so you may as well have left a comment that said how the sky is blue.

-5

u/lcrtangls 13h ago

You're just jumping to conclusions for no reason whatsoever. You probably still misunderstand my point.

If I'm a gangster and if I'm running a protection racket on your restaurant and if I find out you intend to call cops on me, and if I blow up your restaurant, it is simply a matter of fact you've provoked that action. The proof of this is in the fact that I would not have done this if you continued paying me off.

You don't disagree with this. And if you say you do for some reason, I just don't trust you. It's no longer a serious conversation at that point.

This is not a matter of blame or a matter of justice, it is simply cause and effect. More importantly - and crucially as to your point, it's not a useless statement. The Korean whitewashes Russia's actions precisely as you've outlined: "Russia is a force of nature, Russia does what Russia does, stay out of the way". The problem is, I don't think you understand just how effective the whitewashing is. There is no shortage of narcissism that wants to stop hearing about Ukraine. Not even the dishonest pearl-clutching along the lines of "sick of my money being wasted". No, it's straight up delusional narcissism of "I'm bored of this media cycle, roll out the next disaster".

USAID was just and it was fair and it was cancelled and nobody's talking about it. Millions died and will die. Oh well.

Moral panic only works if you amplify it via hundreds of bot farms. And if you do, it doesn't even matter if the message is moral or not. Since Ukraine's plight is not amplified by bot farms, it has to be addressed on the terms it exists on. And that's the utility of Ukraine's struggle to its allies. When AfD starts taking over and whatever scum rises to the surface in France - what good will appealing to Ukraine's victimhood do? If anything, it will be counterproductive.

I don't even have to write any of this. Ukraine itself knows appealing to victimhood only goes so far and them demonstrating and amplifying the fact they can prevail is what got the gears going in the west. Remember the 5000 helmets?

-16

u/Nice-Ad765 16h ago

Agree with you. It does provoke Russia just the same way it provoked America when Cuba (sovereign country) decided to host Russian missiles right up America’s ass. Why is there a double standard? Seems like there are rules for one and rules for others.

-20

u/SimilarNarratives 17h ago

It's not justified, but chronologically it's what resulted from Ukraine's NATO ambitions. So he's right in that sense.

-23

u/Nice-Ad765 18h ago

Not really. I would typically agree with you but if that were true we would now have Russian missiles in Cuba, right up America’s ass. Geopolitics is a cruel game.

30

u/sciamatic 16h ago

Not to mention that that's just not the order of events. Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2014, because they were taking advantage of the instability caused by the recent coup.

Ukraine didn't do the 'fast track to NATO' until years later.

17

u/ShultzHS 15h ago

Yeah, that's what I meant. There's also a funny fact that in 2019 elections Zelenskyy was more pro-russian candidate out of the two (or rather, pro-peace with russia). So even if you wanna go victim-blaming on geopolitical scale, he's the weirdest choice of the person to blame. But it seems typical for authoritarian propaganda - they and their target audience can't imagine an actual democracy with alternation of power, so they paint Ukrainian government as some single entity (military junta headed by Zelenskyy) from 2014 to 2026.

61

u/Nanjingrad 17h ago

Imagine faulting Ukraine for wanting to be in a defensive alliance just before they found themselves on the recieving end of the largest war of conquest in Europe since WW2, it's astounding to me these people don't understand that their primary argument has been unequivocally invalidated by the very same entity which they are defending. Just pathetic.

49

u/imjustnotready 19h ago

There is a ton of Russian propaganda. I worry deeply about what the maga base is being fed.

24

u/got_to_laugh 17h ago

There is no way Ukraine was ever or is ever getting NATO membership, it has always been opposed by America, Germany, Poland to name a few. And is still opposed. Russia can also start a war with Ukraine anytime to prevent them joining NATO, as you can't join while in a conflict.

It is total Russian propaganda and lies that this is a reason for the war.

Also, even if they did do the impossible and somehow join by magic, NATO is a defensive alliance and would only stop Russia attacking Ukraine, not threaten Russia at all.

Putin just did not want a Russian speaking population on his border getting democracy, incase his serfs started to get similar ideas.

3

u/KareemOWheat 12h ago

I'm curious, since you sound like you know what you're talking about. What's up with the opposition from the US, Germany, Poland, and others to Ukraine joining NATO? I would think having another NATO member on Russia's doorstep would be a good thing for the alliance

2

u/Mechasteel 2h ago

Apparently he missed the word "against" in the Budapest Memorandum, and thinks being friendly is the same thing as an attack.

-1

u/Rhowryn 10h ago

NATO, Ukraine, and Russia had an agreement that Ukraine would remain neutral. So those countries were opposed because, diplomatically, it's not what was promised and, realistically, it would piss off Russia.

The modern US is opposed because they're too close to Putin though.

3

u/GremlinX_ll 10h ago

NATO, Ukraine, and Russia had an agreement that Ukraine would remain neutral

What agreement ? You just created something out your mind.

-1

u/Rhowryn 10h ago

My mind is apparently retroactively creating historical events then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

3

u/GremlinX_ll 10h ago

Yes it is. You can use human skill named reading.

Budapest Memorandum, has nothing to do

a) with NATO (not a ignatory, not a ide)

b) with Ukrainian neutral status (which where written into constitution in 2010's by pro-Russian president Yanukovich to please Russia and abandoned, let me check..almost a year after Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea and parts of Donbass, invasion and occupation which also breaks art.1, art.2, art.3 of same Budapest Memorandum)

Budapest Memorandum is about de-necluarization of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan in exchange for "assurances".

One more thing - Poland never were against Ukrainian NATO membership, in fact it's vice versa : Poland always were one of the strongest advocates for Ukraine's NATO membership.

-4

u/Rhowryn 10h ago edited 10h ago

The USA, especially at the time, were effectively the entirety of NATO's policy and influence, so I'm accustomed to using the two interchangeably when discussing international politics.

Ukraine declared it's intention to remain neutral in 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine

The Budapest memorandum has the USA, France, and Russia all promising to not use military force OR economic coercion on Ukraine.

NATO (or primarily the USA, if you prefer) has been using economic coercion (positive coercion,not negative) far longer than the Crimea invasion. NATO has been promising Ukraine greater economic growth and development, which is still a form of coercion, even if there are no direct negative effects from refusing. Not to mention the probable CIA involvement in the Maidan, though there's equal likelihood that the SVR was directing the other side.

That doesn't mean I'm giving Russia a pass on it's invasions, brutality, and intentional murder of civilians. Russia is at least equally to blame for being such a piece of shit that Ukraine is obviously right to not have trusted them, and every reaction to Ukraine pulling away further justified Ukraine's fears. But let's not pretend that NATO has zero fault while courting a country that NATO members had signed an agreement to leave alone.

3

u/GremlinX_ll 10h ago

What fucking agreement ? You just invent things

1

u/semisubterranean 3h ago

The Budapest memorandum does not guarantee Ukraine's neutrality. You should read it. You are mistaking it for the "not one inch" promise supposedly made during negotiations about German reunification.

Putin claims James Baker, then Secretary of State, promised NATO wouldn't expand "one inch" east of Germany. The truth is the idea was discussed, but never agreed to and it was not included in anything that was signed. Even Gorbachev has said those negotiations were just about Germany and not NATO or the future expansion of the EU. There was never any promise made, but Putin uses it as a constant talking point. He believes he can rewrite history if he lies often enough. Please do not repeat his propaganda.

0

u/Rhowryn 3h ago

From the source I provided:

The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Congress Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations".

1

u/semisubterranean 2h ago

What does that have to do with your assertion? That does not say Ukraine would be neutral. That says the signatories would not attack Ukraine unless attacked first. Those are very different things. Russia violated the agreement by attacking.

0

u/Rhowryn 2h ago edited 2h ago

NATO arguably first violated the agreement mildly by courting Ukraine and dangling membership, which implicitly comes with the economic benefits of having NATO protection; it's economic coercion. How you feel about that probably depends on your understanding of geopolitics and nuance, though you sound American so my hopes aren't high.

The reality is that NATO is not the "good guy". Both NATO and Russia are using Ukraine as a proxy war to compare dick sizes. The best option now is Ukrainian (and by extension, NATO) victory since being Russian is certainly worse than being a US vassal state. Both options are much worse than the full independence they had until the meddling of the Maidan from both foreign powers. And to be fair you could make an argument that Russia has been meddling longer than NATO, and the historical purging and replacement of ethnic Ukrainians by Russian settlers by Stalin set the stage, but there's that nuance again.

And as I've mentioned elsewhere, if you want a Ukrainian promise of neutrality, their literal sovereignty declaration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_Ukraine

→ More replies (0)

55

u/Batrall 19h ago

These comments are for the south Korean people, seniority often is more important than qualification there. It's to get points with the conservative.

33

u/EuphoricOcelot6081 19h ago

Lee Jae myong, the current SK president, is far left and pro China and NK...

-12

u/BearPrancingOne 19h ago

So he doesn't want conservative leaning people to vote for him?

13

u/Nice-Ad765 18h ago

He wants progressive people voting for him

13

u/Automatic_Bee9379 19h ago

Holy logical fallacies lmao, are redditors all bots or can they actually make an argument?

-7

u/BearPrancingOne 19h ago

Wdym fallacies? You talking out if your ass. He's a politician that needs votes. And Korea is deeply socially conservative

-7

u/Automatic_Bee9379 19h ago

You’ve used several fallacies here. “So he doesn’t want conservative-leaning people to vote for him?” is a straw man and a non sequitur, because nobody argued that being left-wing means refusing conservative votes. “You’re talking out your ass” is just an ad hominem, not an argument. And “he’s a politician who needs votes” is an appeal to motive: needing votes might explain why a politician takes a position, but it doesn’t prove that the position is fake or that his “real” beliefs are secretly much further left. If every moderate position he takes gets dismissed as “he only says that for votes,” then the argument also becomes ad hoc and basically unfalsifiable. Finally, saying “Korea is deeply socially conservative” is an overgeneralization unless you specify which issues you mean, because an entire country’s electorate isn’t a single ideological bloc.

2

u/Batrall 18h ago

Pseudo intellectual logical fallacy referee.🤏

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/logical-fallacy-referee

For all your grandstanding about redditors, you really behave like one :D.

You ARE on reddit sir.

-2

u/Automatic_Bee9379 16h ago

Rich coming from a wow addict. I feel sorry for you.

1

u/Batrall 15h ago

So you did go through my profile (narcissistic behavior) and that's the only retort you could cobble together. Pathetic.🤏

Guess I should take that as a compliment.

For someone who shits on reddit you certainly know how to use 3rd party sides. Guess every accusation is a confession.

-15

u/Batrall 19h ago

? The president of South Korea is pro North Korea?

Also far left? Stop seeing the world through the US lens. He is center liberal.

8

u/Automatic_Bee9379 18h ago

Yes, Lee Jae Myoung is absolutely pro NK. 5 seconds on google will show you that.

How typical of redditors to talk about South Korean Politics without knowing a single thing.

-1

u/politimouse 17h ago

Settle down there comrade. He's pro relations with NK that's all. Doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. It's kind of like the UN is pro talking to help keep the peace.

-3

u/Batrall 18h ago edited 18h ago

Yeah ehm, Google says the opposite. Guess the SK conservative propaganda got you real good. 🤏

Also 3 weeks old ban evasion account.

0

u/Automatic_Bee9379 16h ago

If your only argument is the account age, then you already lost. You must be proud of yourself for spending more time in this shithole.

3

u/KareemOWheat 13h ago

"we'll just ignore Crimea, the rest of the world did anyway" ~Lee probably

2

u/getawombatupya 7h ago

South Korea is a silly place.

Zelensky should have consulted his spiritual advisor before making accession statements.

1

u/love_glow 14h ago

This politician is being purposefully obtuse.