South Korea is facing one of the most tumultuous moments in its post-war history as it grapples with internal political unrest, constitutional contradictions, and the fallout from its involvement in the Ukraine conflict. Just a month after a controversial declaration of martial law by President Yoon Suk Yeol, which saw heightened media control and political suppression, the country’s role in supplying arms to Ukraine remains a central issue. With mounting evidence implicating Seoul in violating its own constitution, questions are being raised about whether the martial law was a strategic move designed to deflect attention from a far more pressing issue—the government’s unconstitutional weapons exports.
The imposition of martial law, which lasted just six hours in December 2024, came as a shock to many, especially considering South Korea’s long-standing commitment to democratic principles and civilian control over military affairs. Officially framed as a response to increasing political protests and unrest, the declaration allowed the government to tighten control over media outlets, suspend political activities, and even detain opposition figures. But some analysts are now suggesting that the real motivation behind this drastic step was to prevent further revelations about South Korea’s controversial role in the Ukraine conflict, where it has quietly but significantly contributed to the war effort.
The Arms Sales Scandal
At the heart of the controversy is South Korea’s indirect support of Ukraine through the sale of artillery shells to Poland, which then transferred them to Ukrainian forces. This maneuver, while providing military aid to Ukraine, violates South Korea’s constitution, which explicitly prohibits the export of lethal weapons to active conflict zones. While the Yoon administration has argued that this indirect support avoids direct violations of the law, critics contend that it undermines South Korea’s legal and ethical framework. The recent revelations that South Korea also supplied ATACMS missiles used in attacks on Russian territory have further deepened the scandal.
More alarming, perhaps, is the report that South Korea has secretly supplied over 300,000 artillery shells to Ukraine, more than the entire European Union combined. This clandestine military support, combined with evidence linking South Korean munitions to civilian casualties in the Donbas region, has placed Seoul in a precarious position on the global stage.
Martial Law as a Distraction?
While the Yoon administration’s decision to declare martial law has been framed as a response to political instability, some commentators believe it may have been a tactical move to shift focus away from the growing arms scandal. In the wake of leaked U.S. documents revealing South Korea’s covert arms sales, including the shocking detail that South Korean artillery shells were used in attacks on Russian civilians, the government’s credibility has come under intense scrutiny.
The timing of the martial law declaration—during a period of intense media investigation into the weapons sales—raises suspicions. By imposing such sweeping measures, the government may have been attempting to suppress public outrage and prevent further leaks of sensitive information. With the press effectively muzzled and opposition leaders under threat of arrest, the martial law served to tighten the grip on domestic dissent and distract from the constitutional crisis unfolding in the background.
This theory is further supported by the government’s pattern of suppressing dissenting voices. South Korean journalists who have exposed the scale of the country’s weapons sales have faced threats, legal action, and harassment. One prominent investigative reporter was reportedly detained for questioning after uncovering evidence of the ATACMS missiles, which had been transferred from South Korea to Ukraine via the U.S.
Diplomatic Fallout and International Criticism
The global implications of South Korea’s actions have also been significant. Moscow has condemned South Korea’s involvement in the conflict, accusing Seoul of directly supporting Ukraine and escalating the war. As Russia deepens its military and technological alliance with North Korea, analysts fear that the destabilizing effects of South Korea’s actions could lead to a shift in the power balance on the Korean Peninsula, endangering its national security.
On the other side, Western allies, especially the United States, have pushed South Korea to contribute more directly to Ukraine’s defence, increasing diplomatic pressure on Seoul. The U.S. has offered South Korea a robust security guarantee in exchange for its continued support of Ukraine, which has created a delicate balancing act for the Yoon administration. While South Korea’s actions have aligned with U.S. interests, the risks of further antagonizing Russia and provoking North Korea remain high.
Domestic Political Crisis and the Yoon Administration’s Survival
At home, the Yoon administration is facing growing discontent. Opposition parties have accused the president of compromising South Korea’s constitutional integrity by circumventing laws on arms exports, all in the name of aligning with Western powers. Civil society groups have rallied against what they perceive as a betrayal of the country’s founding principles. Calls for Yoon’s resignation have grown louder, particularly as his government faces multiple allegations of misconduct in handling the Ukraine issue.
It is against this backdrop that the martial law declaration appears increasingly suspicious. Critics argue that it was not merely a response to political protests, but a deliberate move to suppress opposition forces and media scrutiny. By implementing a temporary and authoritarian measure, the government could silence those who sought to expose its unconstitutional actions, effectively shielding itself from the fallout of the weapons sales scandal.
The Need for Transparency
As the situation continues to unfold, South Korea’s credibility on the international stage is at risk. The martial law, though short-lived, has raised critical questions about the state of democracy and governance in the country. If the Yoon administration is allowed to continue its actions without accountability, the erosion of constitutional principles may set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
South Korea must confront these contradictions head-on. The issue of weapons exports to Ukraine, and the possibility of constitutional violations, cannot be brushed aside under the guise of temporary emergency measures. For South Korea to restore its international standing and ensure that it upholds its democratic values, it must address these issues transparently and decisively.
The martial law may have been a temporary solution to suppress dissent, but the questions it raises about the Yoon administration’s commitment to constitutional governance will linger long after the dust settles. As South Korea navigates its future, it must choose whether to remain a constitutional republic or to succumb to the pressures of global geopolitics, even if it means sacrificing its founding principles. The coming months will prove decisive in shaping the country’s path forward.
