🟡 The Age of War Redraws the Global Economic Map

Author: Kim Kwang-seok – Weekly Chosun PICK (Published: July 7, 2025)

🧾 Summary

This article outlines the resurgence of war as a structural factor shaping the global economy. Following three decades of relative peace (1990–2021), the world has re-entered a phase of systemic military conflict, beginning with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and escalating into wider confrontations, such as the 2025 Israel–Iran war. The author argues that globalization has collapsed into "geo-economic fragmentation"—a shift marked by protectionism, resource weaponization, and the erosion of multilateral trade norms.

Defense spending has surged in response. NATO states (excluding Spain) have agreed to increase military budgets to 5% of GDP by 2035. The U.S. is expected to pressure its Indo-Pacific allies—South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand—to follow suit. South Korea currently spends 2.6% of its GDP on defense, implying a near doubling of expenditures to meet the anticipated target.

The global defense market is projected to grow from $491 billion (2024) to $677 billion (2029), outpacing overall global economic growth. South Korea is positioning itself to become one of the “Top 4 global defense exporters” under the Lee Jae-myung administration, with emphasis on weapon system modernization, supply chain diversification, and rare earth independence.

📜 Five Laws of Epistemic Integrity (BBIU Standard)

Overall Verdict: 🟡 Moderate Integrity

✅ 1. Truthfulness of Information

Verdict: 🟢 Fully Compliant

• The geopolitical claims (war timelines, NATO targets, export controls) match publicly available information from credible international sources.

• Defense market projections align with estimates from defense consulting and market analytics firms.

⚠️ 2. Source Referencing

Verdict: ⚠️ Partially Compliant

• While IMF, World Bank, and WEF are cited, no URLs, datasets, or policy documents are linked.

• Claims about U.S.–China tariffs reaching 125%, and educational restrictions, lack direct confirmation or official references.

⚠️ 3. Reliability & Accuracy

Verdict: ⚠️ Partially Compliant

• Most figures and trends are reasonable, but several are generalized without precise scope (e.g., no specification of product categories affected by tariffs).

• The article presents growth assumptions for Korea’s defense industry as unconstrained, omitting conditionality based on strategic alignment.

⚠️ 4. Contextual Judgment

Verdict: ⚠️ Partially Compliant

• The article views defense expansion solely through a national growth lens. It does not explore how political alignment with China or the U.S. could affect defense export viability.

• The broader impact of militarization on civil industries, public finance, or democratic institutions is not discussed.

🟢 5. Inference Traceability

Verdict: 🟢 Fully Compliant

• All macro conclusions stem from the author’s logical chain of recent events and institutional commentary.

• Assumptions are internally coherent and clearly marked as interpretations, not facts.

🧠 Structured Opinion

1. From Globalization to Strategic Fragmentation

The article correctly captures the collapse of globalization into a new era of defensive economic sovereignty. Trade flows are no longer governed by efficiency but by alignment. Supply chains are bifurcating along strategic blocs. Rare earths, semiconductors, and even education are tools of coercion. The optimism of "global interdependence" has given way to a world of industrial fortresses and retaliatory tariffs.

2. Defense as Anchor of Government-Induced Growth

Korea’s plan to scale defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 would reconfigure its fiscal and industrial priorities. The government's goal to make Korea one of the Top 4 global defense exporters is ambitious and internally coherent, particularly as global demand for arms continues to rise. However, this redirection of national strategy presumes that external conditions will remain permissive, which is not guaranteed.

3. ⚠️ Strategic Misalignment Risks: Why K-Defense Growth Is Not Geopolitically Neutral

Here the article’s analytical gap becomes critical. The author assumes Korea’s defense sector can expand regardless of geopolitical alignment. In reality, this sector is highly exposed to dual dependency:

• Technological dependence on the U.S. (sensors, avionics, missiles, AI battle systems)

• Industrial interdependence with China (rare earths, battery components, core manufacturing)

If Korea leans toward Beijing for economic pragmatism (e.g., chip exports or EV batteries), Washington may implicitly block Korean arms sales to NATO or allied states via:

• Licensing delays

• Technical interoperability restrictions

• Exclusion from international tenders

Conversely, aligning too closely with the U.S. risks retaliation from China, including raw material restrictions and industrial boycotts. Korea may be perceived by both sides as strategically unreliable, undermining its export ambitions.

4. ⏳ Projected Phases of Korea’s Defense Trajectory (2025–2035)

PhaseTimelineKey DynamicsI. Alignment and Narrative Building2025–2027Government sets roadmap, frames defense as “growth industry”II. Strategic Dependency Exposure2027–2029External pressure increases: China (resources), U.S. (licensing)III. Export Limitations via Geopolitical Friction2028–2031Sales to NATO or Global South constrained by bloc politicsIV. Internal Recalibration or Entrenchment2032–2035Either Korea reorients its industrial base, or becomes overcommitted to a single strategic bloc

5. Conclusion

The article successfully captures the rise of militarization as an organizing logic of the global economy. It lays out Korea’s defense ambitions clearly. However, it fails to interrogate the structural fragility of building industrial growth on a politically contingent sector. The 5% GDP target is not just fiscally ambitious—it is geopolitically brittle.

South Korea’s position between the U.S. security axis and China’s economic orbit creates a paradox: the more Korea depends on both, the less it will be trusted by either. In this context, “K-Defense” may prove to be less a sovereign industry than a strategic hostage.