Two North Korean soldiers captured while fighting for Russia in Ukraine have sparked diplomatic tensions between Seoul and Kyiv, highlighting deeper differences in their approaches despite a mutual concern over Pyongyang’s role in the conflict.

The controversy emerged after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky disclosed in a United Nations General Assembly address on September 23 that the two prisoners of war (POWs) had been transferred to South Korea. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung criticized the announcement as a breach of confidentiality, calling the matter "extremely sensitive" due to its implications for diplomacy, national security, and the delicate situation on the Korean Peninsula. Seoul has since demanded an explanation and apology from Ukraine, while Kyiv denied any prior confidentiality agreement.

Experts suggest Kyiv’s public disclosure was a strategic move intended to underscore North Korea’s military collaboration with Russia as a global security concern, not limited to Eastern Europe. Bek Bum-hyn, a visiting research fellow at Seoul National University, noted that Ukraine may be seeking to leverage the POW transfer to encourage greater military support from South Korea, which has so far limited its assistance to humanitarian aid and non-lethal supplies due to a policy of refraining from providing weapons to active combatants.

Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Kyiv has repeatedly requested military aid from Seoul, including anti-aircraft systems. While South Korea has contributed approximately US$100 million toward reconstruction and other non-lethal support, it has avoided direct military involvement. At a July summit in Ankara, Lee and Zelensky agreed to address the POW issue in line with international law and humanitarian principles, respecting the rights and wishes of the prisoners. The transfer reportedly took place in mid-September, shortly before Zelensky’s announcement.

South Korea views North Koreans as its own citizens under its constitution, given the peninsula’s contested sovereignty. Analysts suggest Kyiv may have used the POW disclosure to pressure Seoul into providing more significant support. Doo Jin-ho of Kyungnam University posited that with waning Western military aid, Zelensky is seeking to strengthen Ukraine’s defenses while exploiting diplomatic leverage over Seoul.

However, the tactic appears to have been counterproductive. Olena Guseinova, a visiting professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, explained that Seoul’s diplomatic approach to North Korea is cautious and discreet, influenced by concerns over nuclear deterrence, regional military escalation, and relations with both Moscow and Beijing. The timing of the POW transfer also complicates Seoul’s efforts to resume dialogue with Pyongyang, particularly as President Lee has positioned himself as a potential intermediary to restart US-North Korea talks—a process stalled since 2019.

Kyiv’s revelation risks undermining the diplomatic space Seoul aims to cultivate, especially as it aligns with Washington on denuclearization dialogue. Nonetheless, analysts emphasize the need for Seoul and Kyiv to acknowledge their differing strategic priorities while maintaining cooperation where their interests converge. Doo pointed out that Kyiv will likely depend on South Korean support for postwar reconstruction, and Seoul could benefit from Ukraine’s combat experience against North Korean forces.

Bek underscored that managing the dispute requires separating the handling of POWs, which should follow international legal and humanitarian norms, from broader discussions about North Korea-Russia military ties, which should be addressed through distinct diplomatic channels. Both Seoul and Kyiv are expected to work towards balancing their concerns to avoid a lasting rift in their bilateral relationship.