Zelenskyy's UN disclosure of North Korean POW transfer sparks diplomatic row with South Korea

Why it matters

The dispute marks a rare public rift between Ukraine and a democratic Asian partner over a North Korea–related prisoner-of-war issue tied to Russia's war, and puts at risk Seoul's humanitarian and financial support for Kyiv at a time when Ukraine is pressing for greater international assistance.

What happened

On September 23, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the UN General Assembly that Ukraine had recently transferred two North Korean prisoners of war to South Korea. The two soldiers had been captured by Ukrainian forces in Russia's Kursk border region and arrived in South Korea in mid-September in good health; while in Ukraine they expressed a desire to resettle there. The next day, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung accused Ukraine of violating a nondisclosure agreement and called the repatriation issue "extremely sensitive" and tied to diplomacy and national security. Ukraine's Office of the President denied that any confidentiality agreement with Seoul existed; Presidential Communications Advisor Dmytro Lytvyn wrote on Facebook that there was no such deal and that it would have been wrong to conceal where the prisoners had gone.

South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS) told a parliamentary committee that Ukraine had itself been the first to request confidentiality over the transfer, citing concerns about the impact on future prisoner exchange negotiations, and that both sides had agreed through various channels to keep it secret. A senior South Korean presidential official told Korea JoongAng Daily that Ukraine had informed Seoul in advance via diplomatic channels that Zelenskyy planned to mention the two POWs at the UN despite a prior agreement not to do so, and asked for Seoul's understanding. Ukraine's framing, denying any agreement existed, implies the disclosure was not pre-cleared.

On September 27, South Korea said it wanted an official explanation and apology. On September 28, the Foreign Ministry summoned Ukraine's chargé d'affaires Andrii Veshkin; First Deputy Foreign Minister Park Yoon-joo conveyed Seoul's position and called on Kyiv to apologize. South Korea's presidential office said Ukraine's denial "seriously undermines" mutual trust and damages friendly relations between the countries. On October 1, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said he had been in daily contact with South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun, expected the dispute to be resolved soon, and called it a "diplomatic misunderstanding." On October 2, Lee Jae-myung wrote on X that if Ukraine continued to refuse to recognize the facts and publicly apologize, "additional measures" would be taken, without specifying what they would be. Lee also expressed "deep regret" over Ukrainian statements about an imminent North–South military clash, equating them with incitement of war on the Korean Peninsula. South Korea's NIS assessed that Zelenskyy's disclosure was likely intended to rally South Korean public support for supplying weapons and other assistance to Ukraine. As of the NIS briefing, Ukraine had not offered an apology or expression of regret through official or unofficial channels. North Korea has not publicly commented on the transfer.

How Ukrainian sources describe it

Ukrainian outlets have framed the dispute as a "diplomatic misunderstanding" being worked out through normal channels, with Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha stressing daily contact with Seoul and calling South Korea an important partner. The Presidential Office's flat denial that any nondisclosure agreement existed is central to the Ukrainian framing, supported by advisor Dmytro Lytvyn's Facebook post arguing it would have been wrong to conceal where the prisoners had gone. Ukrainian media have cited Koreanist Mykola Polishchuk's suggestion that Seoul may have intended to hand the POWs to Kim Jong Un for propaganda use, recasting the row as a substantive clash rather than a procedural breach. Ukrainian Ambassador Valeriy Chaly wrote that the episode exposes weakened communications within Ukraine's own foreign policy system. The Office of the President told Yonhap that Kyiv disclosed only the fact of the transfer itself, without revealing details of the process.

How international sources describe it

South Korean–sourced reporting, reproduced in US and German outlets, frames Zelenskyy's disclosure as a violation of a mutual agreement and emphasizes Seoul's demand for an official explanation and apology. These accounts center the National Intelligence Service's assessment that the disclosure was likely aimed at rallying South Korean public support for weapons supplies to Ukraine, and quote South Korean officials saying it could endanger the two soldiers and their families in the North and complicate inter-Korean and US–DPRK diplomacy. Coverage highlights Lee Jae-myung's threat of unspecified "additional measures" and his "deep regret" over Ukrainian statements about a possible North–South military clash. A senior researcher at the Korea Institute for National Unification, Cho Han Beom, suggested those measures would most likely concern humanitarian, financial, and reconstruction support South Korea already provides Ukraine.

Where reporting differs

The central dispute is whether such a confidentiality agreement existed at all: South Korea, citing the NIS, says it did and that Ukraine was the first to request it; Ukraine's Office of the President says it did not. A related disagreement is whether Ukraine gave Seoul advance notice through diplomatic channels that Zelenskyy would mention the POWs at the UN: a senior South Korean official cited by Korea JoongAng Daily says Kyiv warned Seoul and asked for understanding, while Ukraine's denial of any underlying agreement implies the disclosure was not pre-cleared. The two sides also differ on whether Ukraine has expressed any regret: the NIS told lawmakers there has been no apology or expression of regret through any channel, while Ukrainian officials publicly call the matter a "diplomatic misunderstanding" and say they seek to resolve and rebuild relations, though they have not issued a formal apology. Finally, the content of Lee's threatened "additional measures" is unresolved: a Korean Institute for National Unification researcher suggests they would concern humanitarian, financial, and reconstruction support, while Lee himself has not specified.