Yonhap News Agency and AFP confirmed on September 28 that the South Korean government had summoned Ukraine’s acting ambassador to Seoul, expressing “serious concern” over Kyiv’s unilateral disclosure of the transfer of two North Korean prisoners of war to South Korea.
The Blue House explicitly stated that both sides had previously agreed to handle the matter confidentially. However, Ukraine’s aide, Litvin, denied disclosing personal details and asserted there was no prior agreement on confidentiality.
Why did Ukraine choose this moment to go public? President Zelenskyy’s disclosure during the United Nations General Assembly was clearly deliberate. With Ukrainian forces facing a stalemate along the Kursk front and Western military assistance slowing, South Korea—among Asia’s major arms producers—holds tangible strategic value for Kyiv through its supply of artillery shells and military materiel. Publicizing the prisoner transfer objectively generates international pressure by implying North Korean involvement, potentially pushing Seoul toward deeper support for Ukraine.
Yet this move carries significant risk. South Korea remains highly sensitive to issues involving North Korea, and any information about North Korean personnel could be exploited by Pyongyang for propaganda purposes. By releasing the details without consultation, Ukraine effectively placed Seoul in a precarious position.
South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol has already taken to social media to accuse Ukraine of breaching a confidentiality agreement, triggering immediate domestic debate over whether the president was being truthful.
The transfer of the two North Korean prisoners reflects a threefold geopolitical contest: first, the level of intelligence trust between Seoul and Kyiv; second, South Korea’s authority to identify and manage the status of North Korean individuals; third, whether the indirect confrontation between North and South Korea on the battlefield in Ukraine is now being made public.
Seoul also fears this dispute may hinder Kyiv’s ability to secure weapons from allies, including South Korea. This concern is not unfounded. While the South Korean Foreign Ministry’s statement refrained from directly mentioning military aid, the reference to “friendly bilateral relations” implies that sustained damage to trust could restrict future cooperation.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877680647462986/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.