The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's joint declaration issued Wednesday in Washington signaled a change from the Western military alliance's traditional focus on Russia with its rare open rebuke of China, calling it a "decisive enabler" of Russia's war in Ukraine.

The rhetoric comes at a time when NATO declared its bid to bolster cooperation with its so-called "Indo-Pacific 4" partners -- namely South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand -- in their latest summit, inviting these four countries' heads of state to the summit for a third consecutive year and institutionalizing its cooperation with these countries to support Ukraine. NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners also collected their voices against military ties between Russia and North Korea.

But there are doubts whether NATO's like-minded Indo-Pacific partner countries neighboring China, like South Korea, could keep pace with NATO's pressure campaign against China given the geopolitical complexities that often left them mired in strategic dilemmas between the world's two superpowers of the United States and China.

Experts caution that South Korea could face increasing pressure from China, given its trade dependence on the Asian superpower, which accounts for roughly 20 percent of its total exports. This pressure is particularly concerning as Seoul seeks to mend relations with Beijing, strained since 2016. South Korea's decision to allow the deployment of the US anti-missile system, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, damaged bilateral ties, with China imposing economic coercion on Korean businesses. This made it also challenging for Seoul to manage Pyongyang with its previous strategy of boasting strengthened ties with Beijing.

"NATO’s priorities and the business community's priorities are not well aligned in Europe, North America or South Korea," said Sean McFate, professor of war and strategy at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.

"NATO strategists are not nuanced in regard to the financial implications of their decisions, and this friction between military versus economic interests will continue to cause problems."

McFate, who is also a professor at National Defense Univesity and Syracuse University, claimed that NATO strategists driving the military alliance of Europe and North America often stick to the Cold War-era ploys, which would have worked at a time when the world comprised economic blocks of the free trade one and the communist one.

"Now we all live in a giant free trade global economy," McFate said.

Seoul trumpeted its achievements in last week's NATO summit, as it vowed intelligence-sharing commitment with NATO and reaffirmed its guidelines with the US over their joint execution and planning of nuclear deterrence and nuclear operations on the Korean Peninsula. Also, through a series of bilateral summits with nine NATO member states, President Yoon Suk Yeol relished the opportunity to burnish Korea's reputation as a potential military equipment exporter to NATO member states.

Especially when it comes to the intelligence sharing between South Korea and NATO, National Security Adviser Chang Ho-jin said in an interview with YonhapNews TV Saturday, "The more North Korea exports its arms to Russia, the more (South Korea and NATO) will get to know more about North Korean weapons." Chang also said signing an airworthiness agreement between South Korea and NATO will "contribute to boosting Seoul's arms exports" to NATO member countries.

While Seoul managed to drum up NATO's support in countering North Korea's security threats, Yoon's national security aides have largely remained quiet about the NATO summit's potential repercussions on its relationship with China.

In the meantime, China has voiced concerns about NATO's scheme to expand its clout to the Indo-Pacific region.

Lin Jian, spokesperson of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, warned Thursday that NATO’s reach into the Asia-Pacific by strengthening military and security ties with China’s neighboring countries as enshrined in NATO's Washington Summit Declaration "harms China’s interests and disrupt peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific."

Lin on Friday also accused NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg of "playing up the 'China threat' narrative and inciting suspicion about China and anti-China sentiments in an apparent attempt to cooperate with certain parties to suppress and contain China."

Karl Friedhoff, fellow for Asia Studies at the US-based think tank Chicago Council on Global Affairs said that NATO's Indo-Pacific partners including South Korea should brace for China's actions that could potentially be influenced by its dissatisfaction with NATO's accusations of its involvement in Russia's war with Ukraine.

"There needs to be a more formal arrangement among these countries about how they will collectively respond to China’s economic coercion," Friedhoff said. "Without that agreement, China will have the opportunity to isolate those countries and weaken their internal cooperation."

Friedhoff added that, once South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand develop the formal arrangement to enhance their ties, through swap or purchase agreement, for example, they will "have a better chance to stick together as competition with China increases."

When asked why it is high time for NATO to address China, McFate said NATO's tilt toward Indo-Pacific 4 comes when there has been a growing divide in the alliance between the US and Europe.

"NATO’s tilt toward 'Indo-Pacific 4' is mostly rhetoric for alliance maintenance," he said.