A diplomatic dispute between South Korea and Ukraine over two North Korean prisoners of war is escalating, with Seoul now warning Kyiv of unspecified additional measures unless it acknowledges what South Korea says was a confidentiality agreement and issues a public apology.
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung issued the warning on October 2, saying Seoul would take further action if Ukraine continued to deny the existence of an agreement covering the transfer of the two North Korean soldiers. The soldiers had been captured while fighting alongside Russian forces in Ukraine and were subsequently transferred to South Korea.
The dispute began after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy disclosed the transfer during his address to the United Nations General Assembly last month. Seoul says the disclosure violated an understanding that the transfer would remain confidential because of the potential security and diplomatic consequences.
Ukraine, however, has denied that such a confidentiality agreement existed. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha has since described the dispute as a diplomatic misunderstanding and said Kyiv wants to repair relations with Seoul.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The disagreement may appear narrow, but it touches on several much larger issues: North Korea’s growing military relationship with Russia, South Korea’s cautious support for Ukraine, intelligence cooperation between Seoul and Kyiv, and President Lee’s efforts to reduce tensions with Pyongyang.
Why the Two North Korean Soldiers Matter
The two soldiers are significant because their capture provided rare direct evidence of North Korean military involvement in Russia’s war against Ukraine.
North Korea has supported Russia with military personnel and other forms of assistance, deepening the security relationship between Moscow and Pyongyang. The captured soldiers therefore carry significance beyond their individual status as prisoners of war.
Their transfer to South Korea also has a specific legal and political dimension. Seoul regards North Koreans as part of the Korean nation under its constitutional framework and has historically accepted North Korean defectors who seek resettlement in the South.
The two soldiers reportedly expressed a desire to go to South Korea rather than return to North Korea. Their transfer therefore became both a humanitarian issue and a potentially valuable source of information about North Korea’s military cooperation with Russia.
For Seoul, keeping the operation confidential was particularly sensitive because public disclosure could have consequences for the soldiers and their families in North Korea.
South Korean officials have maintained that Kyiv understood the need for secrecy. Seoul’s Foreign Ministry said the two sides had reached a “clear understanding” that the transfer would remain confidential, while Ukraine has disputed that characterization.
That disagreement over what was actually agreed is now at the centre of the diplomatic dispute.
Why Did Zelenskyy Go Public?
The disclosure by Zelenskyy introduced a new political dimension to an issue that had apparently been handled quietly.
During his UN address, Zelenskyy highlighted the two North Korean prisoners as evidence of Pyongyang’s direct involvement in the war. Kyiv has an obvious interest in drawing international attention to North Korea’s military support for Russia, particularly as Moscow’s relationship with Pyongyang has become increasingly important to the battlefield.
From Ukraine’s perspective, highlighting North Korean involvement can reinforce its argument that the war has broader international consequences and that Russia is receiving military support from another government.
For Seoul, however, the calculation is different.
The South Korean government has to consider the security of the prisoners and their relatives, its own relationship with North Korea, and the broader diplomatic environment on the Korean Peninsula. Lee has also sought to reduce tensions with Pyongyang, making the public disclosure particularly sensitive.
The result is a clash between two different priorities: Ukraine’s effort to internationalise the issue of North Korean involvement in the war and South Korea’s concern over the consequences of exposing sensitive information about the prisoners.
How Much Leverage Does Seoul Have?
Lee has not specified what additional measures South Korea could take.
That ambiguity matters because Seoul is not simply an observer of the Ukraine war. South Korea has provided humanitarian and financial assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and has continued to expand support for reconstruction and non-lethal assistance.
In July, Seoul pledged another $100 million in non-lethal support to Ukraine on the sidelines of the NATO summit.
South Korea could therefore potentially review aspects of its existing assistance if the dispute continues. But such a move would also carry costs for Seoul.
The relationship with Ukraine provides South Korea with access to information about North Korean military capabilities and personnel involved in the war. Ukraine has encountered North Korean forces directly, giving Kyiv a perspective that is difficult for South Korea to obtain elsewhere.
This makes the relationship strategically relevant even though South Korea is not a direct participant in the conflict.
A prolonged dispute could therefore complicate cooperation on precisely the issue that connects the two countries most closely: North Korea’s military partnership with Russia.
The Korean Peninsula Complicates the Dispute
Lee’s latest warning also went beyond the prisoner issue.
The South Korean president expressed “grave regret” over Ukrainian remarks that he interpreted as suggesting an imminent military confrontation between North and South Korea. Lee said such statements amounted to encouraging conflict on the Korean Peninsula.
That reaction reflects the particularly sensitive security environment surrounding his administration.
South Korea has recently been dealing with renewed tensions along the Demilitarized Zone following a landmine incident that injured three South Korean soldiers. Seoul has sought clarification and responsibility from North Korea, while Pyongyang has rejected South Korean allegations.
Against that backdrop, Seoul has little incentive to see foreign governments making public statements that could further heighten tensions on the peninsula.
The Ukraine dispute therefore intersects with Lee’s broader effort to manage relations with North Korea while maintaining South Korea’s international partnerships.
Ukraine Is Also Trying to De-escalate
Kyiv appears to recognise the importance of repairing the relationship.
Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha has described the dispute as a “diplomatic misunderstanding” rather than an outright bilateral crisis and said Ukraine wanted to mend ties with Seoul.
South Korean and Ukrainian officials have also been communicating directly about a possible resolution.
A senior South Korean Foreign Ministry official said on October 2 that Foreign Minister Cho Hyun and Sybiha had been discussing the details and tone of a possible Ukrainian announcement, including an apology. The official stressed that the wording had not yet been finalised.
This suggests that both sides have an interest in containing the dispute rather than allowing it to damage the broader relationship.
For Ukraine, South Korea remains an important economic and diplomatic partner in Asia. For Seoul, Ukraine is an important source of information about North Korean military activity and the growing Russia-North Korea security relationship.
Neither side therefore has an obvious interest in allowing a disagreement over confidentiality to become a wider strategic rupture.
What Happens Next?
The immediate question is whether Ukraine will publicly acknowledge Seoul’s version of the confidentiality arrangement and offer the apology Lee is demanding.
If that happens, the dispute could remain a limited diplomatic episode. If Kyiv continues to reject the existence of such an agreement, Seoul could consider measures affecting the assistance it provides to Ukraine.
The larger issue, however, will remain unchanged: North Korea’s expanding military relationship with Russia has created new links between the security concerns of East Asia and the European war.
The two North Korean prisoners are at the centre of that connection. Their capture demonstrated the direct involvement of North Korean personnel in Russia’s war effort. Their transfer brought Ukraine and South Korea into closer contact. And the subsequent dispute has exposed how differently the two governments view the political and security consequences of making that cooperation public.
For Seoul and Kyiv, the challenge now is to resolve the disagreement without allowing it to undermine cooperation on the much larger issue that brought them together in the first place: the growing military relationship between Moscow and Pyongyang.
With information from Reuters.
