When President Zelenskyy named two North Korean prisoners transferred to Seoul in a speech before the United Nations, what seemed a minor disclosure became a rupture between two nations that share a common adversary but not yet a common trust. South Korea demanded an apology, Ukraine denied any agreement to silence, and the contradiction between their accounts revealed how fragile diplomatic partnerships can be when built without the architecture of sustained dialogue. The episode is less about the two men at its center than about the difficulty of forging alliances across vast distances of cu
Ukraine-South Korea Rift Widens Over Secret North Korean Prisoner Transfer
We should be standing shoulder to shoulder, but that's not the case, due to a lack of trust.
Mark
Why did Zelenskyy mention this at the UN at all? It seems like an obvious thing to keep quiet.
Mimi
That's the central mystery. His spokesperson says there was no agreement to keep it secret. But South Korea says Ukraine explicitly asked for confidentiality. One of them is not telling the truth, or at least not the whole truth.
Luke
Or both are telling a version of the truth. Maybe Ukraine asked for discretion informally, but Zelenskyy's team didn't consider that binding. Or maybe Seoul is retroactively claiming an agreement that was never formalized. The source material doesn't give us the actual text of any agreement.
Mark
What was South Korea so worried about?
Mimi
Domestic politics, mostly. Under their constitution, North Koreans are considered South Korean citizens. Opposition lawmakers wanted to know why President Lee agreed to keep it secret—they thought he was trying to appease the North. And Lee's government is trying to reestablish communication with North Korea, so a public prisoner transfer looked bad.
Luke
But the source also says Russia had demanded the North Koreans back, and refused to swap Ukrainian prisoners for six months because it wanted them. That's a real strategic problem for Ukraine, not just a PR issue.
Mark
So Ukraine gave up leverage?
Mimi
It appears so. Russia had been holding Ukrainian prisoners hostage, essentially, because it wanted these two North Koreans. Once they went to South Korea, that leverage evaporated.
Luke
But we don't know if Ukraine had any choice. The source doesn't say whether Russia would have released prisoners if Ukraine had kept the North Koreans. It's possible the transfer was the only way to get any prisoners back at all.
Mark
Will this damage Ukraine-South Korea relations?
Mimi
Almost certainly. Experts quoted in the piece say South Korea was already not particularly friendly, and this will push them further away. The real cost is military technology cooperation—South Korea doesn't sell weapons directly to Ukraine, but it supplies Poland, Finland, and others, and it's integrating with European supply chains.
Luke
One expert says military cooperation is "out of the question now and in the future." That's a strong claim. But trade and humanitarian aid are expected to continue. So it's not a complete rupture.
Mark
Could Ukraine have handled this differently?
Mimi
Yes. If they'd stayed quiet and pursued what one expert calls "quiet diplomacy," they might have gotten support in other forms—technology transfers, for instance. Instead, they're now seen as having broken a confidence, whether or not that agreement actually existed.
Luke
But again, we don't know Zelenskyy's reasoning. Maybe he felt the agreement was illegitimate. Maybe he wanted to show that Ukraine was treating the prisoners humanely. The source doesn't explain his thinking.
The Pulse
- Zelenskyy's seemingly offhand UN remark about North Korean POWs transferred to Seoul detonated a diplomatic crisis neither country appears to have anticipated.
- South Korea summoned Ukraine's ambassador and demanded an apology, insisting Kyiv had broken a confidentiality agreement; Ukraine flatly denied any such agreement ever existed.
- The contradicting accounts have fed opposition attacks on South Korean President Lee, who faces domestic questions about why he shielded a transfer that his own constitution arguably made public business.
- Russia, which had leveraged its demand for the prisoners' return to block Ukrainian POW swaps for six months, now loses that card — while Seoul fears the publicity damages its quiet outreach to Pyongyang.
- Analysts in both countries warn the scandal has likely closed the window on military technology cooperation between Ukraine and South Korea, perhaps permanently.
When President Zelenskyy named two North Korean prisoners transferred to Seoul in a speech before the United Nations, what seemed a minor disclosure became a rupture between two nations that share a common adversary but not yet a common trust. South Korea demanded an apology, Ukraine denied any agreement to silence, and the contradiction between their accounts revealed how fragile diplomatic partnerships can be when built without the architecture of sustained dialogue. The episode is less about the two men at its center than about the difficulty of forging alliances across vast distances of culture, politics, and strategic interest — and the cost of neglecting that work.
On September 23, Zelenskyy mentioned before the UN General Assembly that Ukraine had transferred two North Korean prisoners — captured during fighting in Kursk in January 2025 — to South Korea, where both men had asked to resettle. The statement seemed unremarkable. Within days, Seoul had summoned Ukraine's ambassador and demanded an apology, accusing Kyiv of unilaterally breaking a confidentiality agreement that both sides had supposedly honored to protect the transfer from public view.
The two governments offered flatly incompatible accounts. Ukraine's presidential spokesperson said no secrecy agreement had ever existed and that concealing the destination of transferred prisoners would have been wrong. South Korea's presidential office said Ukraine had itself requested confidentiality, worried that without a reciprocal swap of Ukrainian prisoners held in Russia, the transfer would draw domestic criticism. Seoul had agreed, it said, partly to shield the North Koreans' families still living in the North.
The dispute laid bare a structural problem. Analysts noted that Ukraine and South Korea — natural partners given North Korea's military involvement against Ukraine — had never built the sustained, trust-based diplomatic channel that might have prevented the collision. The scandal also landed in volatile domestic terrain: under South Korea's constitution, North Koreans are considered southern citizens, and opposition lawmakers used the episode to question why President Lee had agreed to secrecy at all.
Some Ukrainian analysts read Seoul's reaction as political damage control — Lee caught off guard by the disclosure and scrambling to redirect blame toward Kyiv. Meanwhile, Russia's stake in the affair added another layer: for six months, Moscow had refused all prisoner exchanges with Ukraine, using its demand for the North Koreans' return as leverage. That leverage is now gone, and Seoul fears the public nature of the transfer complicates its quiet efforts to reopen communication with Pyongyang.
For Ukraine, the costs appear durable. Analysts in Kyiv described South Korean-Ukrainian relations as already cool before the incident, and now likely to grow cooler still. Military technology cooperation — once a distant but real possibility — is now considered off the table. Trade and humanitarian ties are expected to continue, and South Korea is unlikely to tilt toward Russia given its obligations to Washington. But the moment for a deeper partnership, observers on both sides suggest, has passed.
On September 23, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stood before the United Nations General Assembly and mentioned, almost in passing, that Ukraine had recently transferred two North Korean prisoners of war to South Korea. The men had been captured by Ukrainian forces during fighting in Russia's Kursk region in January 2025, and both had expressed a desire to resettle in the South. It seemed like a straightforward statement of fact. It was not.
Within days, South Korea's Foreign Ministry summoned Ukraine's ambassador to Seoul, Andrii Vieshkin, and demanded an explanation and an apology. Seoul characterized Kyiv's disclosure as a unilateral breach of a prior confidentiality agreement—one that both countries had supposedly understood would keep the prisoner transfer quiet. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung weighed in, calling the matter sensitive, with implications that stretched across diplomacy and national security on the Korean Peninsula.
The two governments immediately contradicted each other on a fundamental point. Dmytro Lytvyn, Zelenskyy's spokesperson, stated on Facebook that no confidentiality agreement had ever existed between Ukraine and South Korea. He argued that it was wrong to keep secret where such prisoners were being transferred. South Korea's presidential spokesperson Kim Sung-wan rejected this denial, telling Reuters that Ukraine had explicitly asked for confidentiality. According to Kim, Kyiv had worried about domestic criticism if the North Korean prisoners were not swapped for Ukrainian prisoners held in Russia. Seoul had agreed to the secrecy for diplomatic reasons and to protect the prisoners' families still living in North Korea.
The dispute exposed a deeper fracture. Nataliya Butyrska, an Asia-Pacific expert at the New Europe Center in Kyiv, told Deutsche Welle that Ukraine and South Korea lacked the kind of continuous, trust-based dialogue that might have prevented such a collision. "We should actually be natural partners," she said, "standing shoulder to shoulder, with North Korea fighting against Ukraine. But that's not the case, due to a lack of trust." The prisoner transfer had become a flashpoint in South Korean domestic politics. Under South Korea's constitution, North Koreans are considered citizens of the South, and opposition lawmakers had seized on the issue to question why President Lee had agreed to keep the transfer secret—suggesting he was trying to curry favor with the North.
Mykola Polishchuk, a Korea expert based in Ukraine, saw the scandal differently. He believed that Lee had been caught off guard by Zelenskyy's public disclosure and was now trying to shift blame onto Kyiv. The transfer would have become public eventually, Polishchuk argued, and Seoul likely knew that Ukraine would eventually comment on it. The claims that Ukraine had requested secrecy, he suggested, were a scrambling attempt by Seoul politicians to construct an explanation. "Ukraine has ended up mired in a scandal which it neither wanted nor planned for," Polishchuk said.
What made the situation more complex was Russia's own interest in the two North Koreans. Russia, which typically shows little concern for foreign prisoners, had actually demanded their return. For six months, according to Butyrska, Russia had refused to release any Ukrainian prisoners of war, unwilling to undertake any swap because it wanted the North Koreans back. This leverage had mattered. Now, with the prisoners in South Korean custody, that leverage was gone—and Seoul was worried that the public transfer might damage its efforts to reestablish communication with the North.
Shim Sangmin from the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul noted that South Korea had been pursuing the prisoner transfer for a long time, and that everyone seemed satisfied the North Koreans were now in custody. But the Lee government's broader aim—to reconcile with North Korea—was now at risk. Shim suggested that Seoul was more open to reestablishing ties with Russia than to deepening cooperation with Ukraine, and that this skepticism extended to military collaboration, even where it might benefit South Korean forces.
For Ukraine, the fallout was immediate and likely lasting. Butyrska said the latest developments pointed toward a further cooling of ties between Kyiv and Seoul. "The South Korean government wasn't particularly friendly toward us to begin with, and will now likely keep its distance," she said. She noted that Ukraine might have secured support in other forms—technology, for instance, delivered through third countries—had it pursued quiet diplomacy instead. Polishchuk was more pessimistic about military technology cooperation, calling it out of the question now and in the future, though he expected trade and humanitarian assistance to continue. South Korea, he said, was highly unlikely to side with Russia, given its many obligations to the United States. But the window for deeper partnership had, for now, closed.
Notable Quotes
We should actually be natural partners—we should be standing shoulder to shoulder, with North Korea fighting against Ukraine. But that's not the case, due to a lack of trust.— Nataliya Butyrska, Asia-Pacific expert at the New Europe Center in Kyiv
Ukraine has ended up mired in a scandal which it neither wanted nor planned for.— Mykola Polishchuk, Korea expert based in Ukraine
Want the full story?
Read the original at Deutsche Welle ↗