Ukraine handed over to South Korea two North Korean servicemen captured in January 2025 during the fighting in the Kursk region on the side of Russia. According to media reports, both expressed a desire to live in South Korea. The transfer took place in September 2026, but publicly known details gave rise to a dispute between Kiev and Seoul — first of all, whether there was an agreement to keep it secret.
What exactly was conveyed and why the question of secrecy arose
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the transfer of prisoners in a speech at the UN General Assembly. The South Korean authorities said that Kiev thereby violated the preliminary agreement not to disclose the transfer. Seoul demanded an explanation and an apology, arguing that the parties had agreed to maintain confidentiality.
Kiev disputed the existence of such an agreement. The publications also provided a version of the understanding reached between the parties that the transfer could be made public. As a result, the main subject of disagreement is not the very fact of sending prisoners to South Korea, but the conditions and moment of disclosure: whether there was a promise of complete secrecy or the parties differently understood the order of the public announcement.
According to open reports, the entire text of the alleged agreement has not been published. Therefore, it cannot be confidently stated that it was a signed document with a specific non-disclosure period. South Korea describes the arrangement as clear and binding; the Ukrainian side disputed the existence of the confidentiality agreement. These versions should be distinguished from the confirmed circumstances of the transfer itself.
Was there a deal in exchange for aid to Ukraine?
There is no evidence in public records that the transfer was an exchange for arms, military aid, or political concessions to South Korea. Reuters, citing a report by a South Korean lawmaker after an intelligence briefing, wrote that Seoul did not promise military support in exchange for the transfer, and Ukraine did not put forward preconditions. The suggestion that the announcement might have influenced the public debate about aid to Ukraine was presented as an assessment rather than an established motive for the deal.
Thus, the expression "unspoken agreement" in this story, as far as the published information allows, refers primarily to the alleged confidentiality of the transfer, and not to the secret exchange of prisoners for military assistance.
The legal question remains open
Separate from the diplomatic dispute is the issue of the status of servicemen after the transfer. Reuters noted that Ukraine and South Korea did not disclose the legal basis for the transfer and did not explain whether the status of prisoners had formally ended. The Third Geneva Convention establishes the rules for the treatment of prisoners of war and their release and repatriation after the end of active hostilities. At the same time, the expert quoted by Reuters pointed out that this does not necessarily exclude an earlier transfer to a third country of the choice of the prisoners themselves, if it is ready to accept them.
This is an expert assessment, and not a published court decision or an official explanation of the legal basis for this particular transfer. Therefore, the correct conclusion is as follows: it is known that two prisoners were brought to South Korea; it is known that Seoul and Kiev differed in the interpretation of the non-disclosure agreement; but the content of the alleged agreement and the legal registration of the transfer are not fully disclosed publicly.