South Korean President Lee Jae-myung publicly expressed dissatisfaction with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over the latter’s disclosure of the transfer of North Korean prisoners of war.
Two North Korean soldiers were captured in Russia and subsequently transferred to South Korea. Seoul and Kyiv had originally agreed to keep the matter confidential due to its high sensitivity. However, Zelenskyy referenced the incident during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly this week, presenting it as a diplomatic achievement and emphasizing the difficulty of capturing the two soldiers alive.
Following this, Lee posted on X (formerly Twitter), refraining from naming Zelenskyy directly but making his message clear: political leaders must prioritize national interest over personal reputation and avoid opportunistic behavior. He criticized Ukraine’s actions as “cruel and irresponsible, utterly unacceptable,” reiterating that both Seoul and Kyiv had previously agreed to maintain secrecy.
Opposition lawmaker Yoo Young-woon has long supported the reception of these prisoners. He told reporters that the two arrived in South Korea earlier this week, and that the relevant agreement was likely reached in June. He criticized the Lee administration’s desire for confidentiality, arguing that the government should have acted more proactively and decisively. Kyiv has long sought direct military aid from Seoul, citing North Korea’s deployment of troops to support Russia.
According to Yoo, the transfer of the prisoners did not require South Korea to alter its policy of not supplying weapons to Ukraine. South Korea does not formally recognize Pyongyang’s government, maintaining that all people on the Korean Peninsula are members of the same ethnic nation, regardless of whether they were born in the South or the North. Reports indicate the two soldiers were captured in January 2025, and both stated their desire to go to South Korea.
The incident appears on the surface to be a dispute over credit, but beneath lies a collision between diplomatic confidentiality, wartime propaganda, and humanitarian considerations. If Seoul and Kyiv indeed had an agreement to keep the matter secret, Zelenskyy’s public mention at the UN could reasonably be seen as turning a sensitive arrangement into a personal publicity opportunity.
War-time leaders need international support and aid; revealing the capture of North Korean soldiers can demonstrate Pyongyang’s involvement, pressure Western powers, and showcase tangible results. Yet the most valuable currency in diplomacy is trust. Today’s breach of confidence for applause may undermine future willingness to engage in covert cooperation. Lee’s reaction, while understandable, underscores the delicate balance involved.
However, Lee’s use of strong language—“cruel and heartless,” “unacceptable”—also reflects domestic political pressures within South Korea. The opposition backs the reception of the prisoners, while the government remains concerned about provoking Russia and North Korea, and fears being drawn into military assistance for Ukraine. While receiving the prisoners carries humanitarian and symbolic weight given the shared ethnic identity across the peninsula, the practical implications risk straining inter-Korean and Russia-South Korea relations. Yoo’s criticism of the government’s passivity highlights that South Korea’s policy toward Ukraine remains internally divided.
More fundamentally, the two prisoners themselves must be central. Their safety, autonomy, and future should take precedence—they must not be reduced to pawns in a bilateral blame game. If Zelenskyy indeed breached the agreement, he bears responsibility to restore trust. If Seoul wishes to take a leading role, it should act with greater initiative rather than reacting only after the fact.
The war in Ukraine has woven North Korea, South Korea, Ukraine, and Russia into a single complex web. Middle powers cannot afford to uphold abstract moral principles without bearing real costs. Diplomacy demands credibility; wartime communication requires visibility—but the essential boundary must remain: never reduce a captured person from a human being into a bargaining chip.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1877378843448459/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.