South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has escalated a rapidly developing diplomatic dispute with Kyiv, warning that Seoul will take unspecified "further action" unless Ukraine issues a public apology for disclosing that two North Korean prisoners of war had been transferred to the South. The threat, delivered in a post on the social media platform X, marks a sharp deterioration in relations between two countries that have broadly shared a common stance against Russian aggression.
At the centre of the row is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's decision last week to reveal the transfer during his address to the United Nations General Assembly. Seoul had expected the arrangement to remain confidential and reacted with visible anger to the public disclosure, arguing that the revelation jeopardised sensitive arrangements surrounding the two soldiers.
Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha attempted to lower the temperature on Thursday, describing the episode as a "diplomatic misunderstanding" and insisting that Kyiv was actively working to resolve it. Speaking to Ukrainian media, Sybiha said he hoped the matter would be settled "in the very near future," adding that South Korea remains an important partner for Ukraine and that he anticipated concrete results from ongoing contacts between the two sides.
Lee, however, rejected that framing outright. In his X post, he said the dispute concerned "the dignity of the Korean people and the nation," signalling that Seoul does not view the matter as a technical or procedural misunderstanding. His office had already set out last week why it believed the transfer should have stayed secret, citing two principal concerns.
According to Lee's office, it was Ukraine that requested confidentiality in the first place. One reason given was the safety of the North Korean soldiers' families, who could face reprisals in the isolated state. The other was that Kyiv wished to avoid domestic and international criticism that it had forfeited a valuable bargaining asset, namely the possibility of exchanging the captured soldiers for Ukrainian prisoners of war held by Russia.
Zelensky's office pushed back on that account, stating that the two countries had never reached any agreement to keep the transfer confidential. That contradiction has only deepened the rift, leaving each side publicly asserting a different version of events with no immediate sign of a compromise.
The political fallout has also been felt inside South Korea. Lee came under heavy domestic criticism following Zelensky's disclosure, with opposition figures accusing him of concealing the transfer in order to avoid antagonising Pyongyang. The accusation places the president in a difficult position, caught between his government's stated sympathy for Ukraine and the political costs at home of appearing too accommodating toward North Korea.
The two soldiers at the heart of the affair were captured while fighting alongside Russian forces. They were among thousands of North Korean personnel that Western and South Korean officials say have been deployed to support Moscow's war effort. Before the current row erupted, the soldiers had told local media that they wished to be sent to South Korea, a request that gave Seoul both a humanitarian and a strategic interest in the case.
In his latest remarks, Lee went further than simply demanding an apology. He accused Kyiv of "attempting to provoke a war on the Korean Peninsula," expressing what he called serious regret that Ukraine was discussing an imminent military clash between North and South rather than acknowledging the facts of the agreement and offering an apology. The language represents a striking turn for a leader whose government has generally avoided direct confrontation with Kyiv.
Seoul's broader posture toward the conflict has been carefully calibrated since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. South Korea has expressed sympathy for Ukraine and joined international sanctions efforts, but it has maintained a longstanding policy of not supplying lethal weapons to any country engaged in active warfare. That restraint has frustrated some Western partners who have pressed for greater South Korean military assistance.
The prisoner dispute therefore risks complicating a relationship that Seoul has been managing with considerable caution. South Korea's value to Ukraine lies partly in its capacity as a major producer of artillery and air-defence systems, though its non-lethal policy has limited what it can provide directly. A prolonged public feud could reduce the willingness of both sides to cooperate on intelligence, reconstruction, and diplomatic coordination.
For Ukraine, the timing is awkward. Kyiv is seeking to sustain international attention and support as the war continues, and a public quarrel with a prosperous democracy that has broadly backed its cause is an unwelcome distraction. Sybiha's conciliatory tone appeared designed to prevent the dispute from hardening into something more lasting.
For Lee, the calculation is different. Domestic opponents have seized on the episode to portray his government as overly secretive and insufficiently transparent with the public. A firm demand for an apology allows him to project strength and defend his handling of a sensitive transfer that involves defectors from North Korea, a matter of intense political salience in the South.
The incident also underscores the unusual legal and humanitarian questions raised by North Korean troops fighting for Russia. Their status is not straightforward under international law, and any decision to accept them into South Korea carries implications for Seoul's relations with Pyongyang and Moscow alike. The two soldiers' stated desire to resettle in the South adds a human dimension to a dispute that has quickly become diplomatic.
Whether the row can be contained now depends largely on whether Kyiv is prepared to offer the public apology Seoul is demanding. Ukraine has so far characterised the matter as a misunderstanding rather than a breach, a position that falls short of what Lee has insisted upon. Without a clearer gesture from Kyiv, the president's threat of "further action" leaves open a range of possible responses, from diplomatic protests to adjustments in cooperation.
Neither capital has indicated what specific measures might follow. What is clear is that a disclosure made before the UN General Assembly has evolved into a test of trust between two governments that had previously found reasons to work together. The coming days of contacts between Seoul and Kyiv are likely to determine whether the episode fades as a misunderstanding or becomes a lasting irritant in their relations.
(0)