South Korean President Lee Jae-myung has said Seoul will take unspecified further action unless Ukraine acknowledges what South Korea says was an agreement to keep the transfer of two captured North Korean soldiers confidential and makes a public apology.
The warning, issued on 2 October, is the latest escalation in a dispute that has emerged between two countries whose cooperation has been shaped by Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s involvement alongside Moscow. Lee did not say what steps South Korea might take, set a deadline, or announce that any measure had been adopted.
A disagreement over confidentiality
The row concerns two North Korean prisoners of war captured by Ukrainian forces while fighting for Russia. Ukraine’s president disclosed their transfer to South Korea during an address to the United Nations General Assembly last month. He said the men had been captured in Russia’s Kursk region in January 2025 and had expressed a wish to resettle in South Korea.
South Korea says the transfer had been subject to a confidentiality understanding, requested by Ukraine and intended to protect the prisoners and relatives who remain in North Korea. Seoul has said it holds written records of the understanding, but has not made them public, citing the normal confidentiality of diplomatic documents.
Ukraine disputes that account. Its officials have said that no such agreement existed. The difference is therefore not a minor disagreement over wording: it is a direct conflict over whether an undertaking was made at all. Neither side has published a document that resolves the competing claims.
Lee said Ukraine had unilaterally disclosed a matter that the two governments had agreed to keep private. His demand is for acknowledgement and a public apology, rather than an explanation of a new policy. He also criticised Ukrainian remarks about the prospect of an inter-Korean military clash, which he described as encouraging conflict on the peninsula.
What is known — and what is not
The two prisoners’ identities, precise whereabouts and personal circumstances should not be treated as subjects for public speculation. South Korea had previously declined to confirm their arrival publicly, referring to safety concerns for them and for family members. The public accounts establish that a transfer was announced; they do not establish the full terms on which it was arranged.
The measures mentioned by Lee remain unknown. There has been no announcement of a change to South Korean assistance, diplomatic representation or any other practical arrangement with Ukraine. Describing the warning as a decision to impose a particular sanction, cut support or alter security policy would go beyond the information made public.
Ukraine’s foreign minister has sought to lower the temperature, characterising the matter as a diplomatic misunderstanding and saying Kyiv wanted it resolved quickly while maintaining cooperation with South Korea. South Korean officials have said the two foreign ministers are in direct contact and that possible wording for a Ukrainian statement, including an apology, has been discussed. No agreement on that wording has been announced.
A test of trust, not a settlement
The dispute exposes a practical difficulty in sensitive prisoner cases: governments may agree on a humanitarian outcome while still disagreeing sharply about how it can be disclosed. For the people transferred, discretion can be connected to safety and to the vulnerability of relatives. For Ukraine, public disclosure framed the transfer as part of its account of North Korea’s role in the war.
That tension does not decide which account of the confidentiality arrangement is correct. It does explain why the language now matters so much to both capitals. The next meaningful development would be an agreed statement, a confirmed diplomatic step or a specified measure. Until then, Lee’s intervention is a conditional warning, not a description of action already taken.
