Beyond K-POP: How the "K-" Trend Is Redefining Global Power Games

 When people think of the “K-” trend, most immediately associate it with K-POP. For years, the term “Hallyu,” or the Korean Wave, has been understood mainly as a cultural phenomenon. But that’s no longer the full story. The use of “K-” has expanded beyond entertainment to areas of national industry and policy—enter terms like K-Nuclear (K원전) and K-Defense (K방산), now widely used in reference to South Korea’s strategic exports.

European countries seem to be experiencing a mixture of unease and urgency in response to this shift. At the same time, they are watching closely to see which fields South Korea’s new administration will prioritize next. For example, while Korea has already won a major nuclear contract in the Czech Republic, the new Korean government appears to be placing even greater emphasis on initiatives like RE100—a commitment to 100% renewable energy.

Despite this broader vision, K-Nuclear marked a milestone on June 4 with a 25 trillion won ($18 billion) nuclear power plant contract. However, France’s state-owned nuclear company EDF has not backed down, filing a lawsuit over what it calls an “unfair bidding process.” The European Union (EU) seems to be siding with France, questioning whether South Korea's government subsidies violate fair trade principles. EU law prohibits direct state intervention in market competition among member countries and external partners alike.

The K-Defense sector is also facing headwinds. South Korea has already begun exporting tanks, self-propelled artillery, and even fighter jets. Starting with Poland, several NATO member states such as Romania, Slovakia, and Norway have expressed strong interest in Korean weapons, particularly as they seek to reinforce defense capabilities in the wake of growing geopolitical uncertainty. This has clearly made European arms manufacturers nervous.

South Korea’s defense technology may have been initially developed from American strategic systems, but much like K-POP infused traditional Korean elements and local training methods to create something globally distinct, the K-Defense industry has evolved into its own unique brand—technologically advanced and culturally resonant.

Yet, unlike culture, defense exports are deeply political. That’s the catch. If Korea mishandles its regional diplomacy or aligns too rigidly with one side, it could jeopardize its defense export markets. NATO may currently treat Russia and China as strategic threats, but Europe’s economic reality is far more complicated: it imports gas from Russia and consumer goods from China. Geography and commerce are not so easily divided into friend-or-foe binaries.

South Korea has no reason not to leverage this duality. Many domestic political voices—particularly those who claim to represent conservative values—simplify the equation: "NATO backs the U.S., we back the U.S., so we must be anti-Russia and anti-China." But such thinking ignores the interwoven global economic structure.

Military tension serves, in many ways, as a tool to renegotiate economic interests. If Korea abandons this nuanced position and throws in entirely with one bloc, it risks economic marginalization. We've already seen what happens when political entanglements bring about economic instability. Korea must remember those hard lessons.