A diplomatic dispute has erupted between Ukraine and South Korea following President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s remarks at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23. During his address, Zelenskyy disclosed that Ukraine had transferred two North Korean prisoners of war to the Republic of Korea, noting that both individuals had expressed a desire to resettle in South Korea. The soldiers had been captured by Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region in January 2025.
The revelation triggered an immediate and stern response from Seoul. South Korea’s Foreign Ministry summoned Ukrainian Ambassador Andrii Vieshkin, demanding an explanation and an official apology for what it characterized as Kyiv’s “unilateral disclosure.” Seoul argued that the transfer was subject to a prior agreement to maintain confidentiality.
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung emphasized that the handling of North Korean POWs is a matter of significant sensitivity with broad implications for diplomacy and national security on the Korean Peninsula. According to the South Korean presidential spokesperson, Kim Sung-wan, Ukraine had requested secrecy to avoid domestic political backlash in Kyiv, which might have faced criticism for not exchanging the North Koreans for Ukrainian captives held by Russia.
In rebuttal, Dmytro Lytvyn, spokesperson for President Zelenskyy, denied the existence of any confidentiality pact via a Facebook post, asserting that transparency regarding the prisoners’ locations was the correct approach. However, Kim Sung-wan dismissed these denials as false, maintaining that Ukraine sought discretion to protect the prisoners and their families still residing in North Korea, as well as for broader diplomatic reasons.
Analysts suggest the incident has damaged bilateral relations. Nataliya Butyrska, an Asia-Pacific expert at the New Europe Center in Kyiv, criticized the lack of continuous, trust-based dialogue between the two nations. She noted that while Ukraine and South Korea should be natural allies given North Korea’s military support for Russia, the current climate is hindered by mutual distrust. Butyrska argued that the prisoners could have been leveraged to strengthen ties rather than causing friction, adding that no one in South Korea is now inclined to thank Ukraine for the transfer.
The controversy has also become a tool in South Korea’s domestic politics. Opposition lawmakers have questioned why President Lee agreed to secrecy, accusing him of attempting to curry favor with North Korea. Mykola Polishchuk, a Korea expert based in Ukraine, suggested that the Lee administration was caught off guard by Zelenskyy’s announcement and is now shifting blame to Kyiv. Polishchuk claimed that reports of a secrecy request may be a retrospective justification by South Korean politicians.
Shim Sangmin of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies highlighted that the Lee government is currently pursuing reconciliation with the North, raising fears that the prisoner transfer could obstruct efforts to reestablish inter-Korean communication. Shim observed that the current administration appears more open to improving relations with Russia than deepening military cooperation with Ukraine, despite potential strategic advantages.
Looking ahead, experts predict a cooling of Kyiv-Seoul relations. Butyrska stated that South Korea is likely to keep its distance, noting that quiet diplomacy might have secured alternative support, such as technology transfers through third countries like Poland, Finland, the Czech Republic, and Romania. While South Korea does not sell weapons directly to Ukraine, it supplies neighboring nations and is integrating with European military supply chains. Polishchuk concluded that while humanitarian aid and trade may continue, any prospects for military-technology cooperation are now extinguished, though he affirmed that South Korea remains unlikely to side with Russia due to its obligations to the United States.
Leave a Reply