The Multilayered Multipolarity of Energy: A New Surge in United States-Korea Relations?
In short, today’s global energy order is not just multipolar—it is multilayered multipolarity—but this might mean a new surge in United States-Korea relations.
It has been just over two months since Donald Trump began his second term as president, and yet for leaders and citizens in many countries, it already feels much longer. So much has changed in such a short span.
Among the many dramatic shifts, energy policy stands out. On January 20, the day of his inauguration, President Trump signed a series of major executive orders related to energy and climate policy—most notably, a declaration of a national energy emergency. This order aims to lower energy prices by loosening environmental regulations and promoting fossil fuel development. The direction was already foreshadowed in Trump’s Agenda Forty-Seven, a set of campaign promises laying out his second-term goals.
One of Trump’s core campaign pledges was to end the war in Ukraine. He has repeatedly claimed that the war would never have begun if he had been president, and that he could end it within twenty-four hours. On February 12, less than a month into his term, diplomacy appeared to accelerate with a phone call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. A ministerial meeting followed on February 18 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia discussed options to end the war—noticeably without Ukraine’s participation. These three nations happen to be the world’s top three oil producers.
Of course, ending the Ukraine war is easier said than done. Ukraine’s security demands are difficult for the Kremlin to accept, particularly as they require robust European cooperation. Despite a United States-proposed thirty-day pause on attacks targeting energy infrastructure, the Sudzha gas metering station in Russia’s Kursk Oblast was destroyed on March 21, with both Russia and Ukraine blaming each other.
While the war’s end remains elusive, what is clear is President Trump’s intent to reset relations with Russia and to bolster U.S. industrial competitiveness by expanding fossil fuel use. Saudi Arabia’s central role as a mediator also suggests Trump is aiming to leverage oil and gas diplomacy to revitalize the American economy with cheap energy—and to extend U.S. influence globally. This approach may also serve a broader strategic purpose: counterbalancing China.
Could this oil-based realignment between the United States and Russia extend beyond hydrocarbons? Nuclear energy, for instance, presents another frontier. Russia is already a dominant force in the global nuclear sector. It has strong exports to emerging markets and controls much of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium enrichment to spent fuel reprocessing. China, too, has built nuclear strength on its massive domestic demand and is now a leader in renewables and carbon-free transportation, such as electric vehicles.
In short, today’s global energy order is not just multipolar—it is multilayered multipolarity. Each energy source operates under a different set of geopolitical dynamics.
What does this mean for world politics?
First, competition over energy will intensify. China will likely seek to enhance energy security by reducing its reliance on foreign sources, while maintaining leadership in green technologies through renewables, nuclear energy, and the shift to carbon-free transportation. Meanwhile, the United States, leveraging its abundant natural resources, may pursue partnerships with other major oil producers like Russia and Saudi Arabia to stay ahead in future technologies, such as artificial intelligence and space development. In nuclear energy, demand is expected to grow in emerging markets, prompting fierce competition among the United States, Russia, and China. A key issue will be how quickly Western countries can scale up uranium enrichment capabilities, given Russia’s current dominance.
Second, complete decoupling is unlikely. Different geopolitical “games” play out across different energy sources. For example, enriched uranium for nuclear power is still heavily reliant on Russian supplies. Oil and gas are contested domains between the United States, Russia, and the Middle East. In renewables, China leads not only in manufacturing but also in securing supply chains for critical minerals. Thus, despite strategic competition, a total separation among major players is improbable. The energy geopolitical landscape will only become more complex.
What, then, should South Korea do—and how should it shape energy cooperation with its ally, the United States?
For a resource-poor, manufacturing-driven economy like South Korea, energy security is paramount. The key lies in diversifying sources of energy imports to mitigate supply risks. Renewable and nuclear energy must remain integral to South Korea’s energy mix—not only for energy security but also for industrial development in green technologies. Moreover, South Korea should diversify its imports of critical raw materials or increase domestic production and localization efforts in these supply chains.
South Korea and the United States are already deeply intertwined through military, industrial, and technological cooperation. Under President Trump’s renewed emphasis on fossil fuels, bilateral energy cooperation in that sector may accelerate. South Korea’s advanced technology and manufacturing expertise can contribute significantly to the U.S. energy industry. I hope the two allies continue to deepen their strategic complementarity and expand their partnership across the entire energy spectrum.
Eunjung Lim is a professor at the Division of International Studies at Kongju National University.
Image: Shutterstock/josefkubes