Seoul: President Lee Jae Myung has once again emphasized the importance of a self-reliant military, weeks after sparking debate by referring to the U.S. forces stationed in South Korea as “foreign troops” that are not indispensable to the nation’s defense. “We have every reason to be proud of and confident in our military capabilities. Based on that confidence, we must pursue a stronger military to achieve peace and prosperity for this country. This is the direction our nation must follow,” Lee said during a speech marking Armed Forces Day on Wednesday.
According to Yonhap News Agency, in his address, Lee used the term “self-reliance” three times and, for the first time since taking office on June 4, directly called for the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) from the United States to South Korea. It remains unclear whether his remarks signal a shift in policy on wartime command or if he intends to use OPCON as leverage to pressure Washington into breaking the deadlock in stalled tariff negotiations.
During a July 15 confirmation hearing, then Defense Minister nominee Ahn Gyu-back stated that the Lee administration aimed to complete the OPCON transfer before the end of Lee’s term. However, the presidential office quickly downplayed his remarks, describing them as Ahn’s personal opinion. This time, the presidential office stated that Lee holds a firm belief in the need for the OPCON transfer but did not specify a timeline for when it should take place.
Lee’s Armed Forces Day speech has reignited debate over the gap between the country’s theoretical military strength and its actual wartime effectiveness. He expressed confidence in South Korea’s defense capabilities, noting that the country’s defense budget is 1.4 times that of North Korea’s entire gross domestic product and that South Korea is ranked as the world’s fifth-largest military power. “Given this, we should not be in doubt about our military strength,” Lee said.
While factually accurate, Lee’s statements overlook a critical point: Military spending and theoretical rankings do not necessarily translate to success on the battlefield. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine illustrates this disconnect clearly. Russia, ranked as the world’s second-largest military power after the United States, was expected to swiftly defeat Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly believed Russian forces would take control of Kyiv within 10 days of the invasion’s start in February 2022. However, Ukraine – ranked only 20th in global military strength – has continued to resist fiercely, defying expectations.
Russia’s assumed quick victory has instead become a prolonged and costly conflict. Despite its overwhelming resources, Moscow has faced setbacks and even turned to North Korea for assistance as the war drags on. This example underscores a key reality: Military capability on paper does not always reflect battlefield outcomes. Lee’s confidence, while grounded in impressive statistics, may underestimate the complexity of real-world conflict.
As Lee stated, South Korea is ranked as the world’s fifth-largest military power. In contrast, North Korea ranks 34th – far behind in terms of overall military capability. On paper, the two Koreas are not comparable. However, as demonstrated by the war between Russia and Ukraine, superior rankings and military spending do not guarantee an easy victory in an actual conflict.
One overlooked factor is combat experience. North Korean troops are reportedly gaining battlefield experience through their involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict – a factor not reflected in military capability rankings, yet crucial in actual warfare. Combat experience can be a decisive advantage, and its absence in numerical assessments highlights the limitations of such rankings.
Military rankings indicate relative capability, but they do not determine outcomes. While South Korea spends significantly more than the impoverished North on defense and weapons procurement, including from foreign suppliers, this disparity does not ensure success in a potential conflict. Despite its status as a global military power, South Korea still needs allies – especially the United States – to train with and fight alongside when necessary. No matter how capable South Korea becomes, collaboration with partners is essential to maintaining readiness, enhancing combat skills and ensuring national security.
With North Korea as a persistent threat, alienating key allies by labeling U.S. forces as “foreign troops” could be counterproductive. Building a self-reliant military does not mean turning away from allies; rather, it means working together to navigate the region’s increasingly volatile security landscape. Framing alliances as obstacles to independence undermines the very strength South Korea seeks to build. Calling U.S. troops “foreign” undermines the allies we need.