South Korea is facing a new political controversy after Ukraine disputed Seoul’s claim that both governments had agreed to keep the transfer of two North Korean prisoners of war confidential.

The issue emerged after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy publicly disclosed that two North Korean soldiers captured during the Russia-Ukraine war had been transferred to South Korea. Seoul subsequently indicated that the matter had been discussed as a confidential issue and that Ukraine had not clearly communicated its intention to make the transfer public. Ukraine has now rejected that account.

Dmytro Lytvyn, communications adviser to Zelenskyy, said there had been no agreement requiring the transfer to remain confidential. His statement has created a direct disagreement with the South Korean government’s description of the prior discussions.

The dispute has quickly become a domestic political issue in South Korea, with opposition lawmakers demanding an explanation from the government over how the decision was made and why officials believed confidentiality was necessary.

People Power Party lawmaker Park Sung-hoon called on the administration of President Lee Jae-myung to clarify when the decision concerning confidentiality was reached, who approved it and what information had been communicated to Ukraine. He also questioned the government’s explanation regarding the safety of the prisoners.

The controversy concerns two North Korean soldiers who were captured in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and subsequently transferred to South Korea. Their arrival in South Korea carries unusual diplomatic significance because North Korean nationals captured while fighting for Russia present complicated legal, security and humanitarian questions for Seoul.

South Korea has historically treated North Korean defectors and citizens arriving from the North as a sensitive national-security matter. The government therefore has to balance transparency with concerns involving personal safety, intelligence and relations with other countries.

The disagreement with Ukraine has added another diplomatic dimension.

Seoul’s position is that prior communication regarding the transfer was not adequately reflected in Ukraine’s subsequent public announcement. Kyiv, however, says no confidentiality agreement existed. The conflicting accounts have prompted calls for the governments to clarify what was discussed before the transfer became public.

The controversy comes while President Lee is conducting an active foreign-policy programme. Lee recently travelled to Mexico and has been promoting stronger economic and diplomatic cooperation with Mexico. During a business forum in Mexico City, he called for the rapid resumption of negotiations for a South Korea-Mexico free-trade agreement.

Lee has also been engaged in discussions with the United States on security and economic issues. During his visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week, he held talks with U.S. President Donald Trump covering issues including the future of the South Korea-U.S. alliance and defence cooperation.

The North Korean POW issue is therefore emerging at a time when Seoul is managing several sensitive foreign-policy relationships simultaneously.

The government must also consider the broader implications of North Korean military involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war. North Korea has been providing military support to Russia, while South Korea has closely monitored the deployment of North Korean personnel and the potential transfer of military technology and battlefield experience back to Pyongyang.

The arrival of North Korean prisoners in South Korea could provide authorities with information concerning North Korean military activities and the circumstances surrounding their deployment to Russia. At the same time, the identities and personal circumstances of the individuals involved create additional privacy and security considerations.

For President Lee’s administration, the immediate political challenge is to explain the decision-making process and clarify its communications with Ukraine.

The opposition’s questions do not by themselves establish wrongdoing by the government, while Ukraine’s denial does not independently establish which side’s account of the communications is complete. Further clarification from the governments involved could determine how the disagreement is resolved.

The issue is expected to remain part of South Korea’s foreign-policy debate as Seoul continues to respond to developments surrounding North Korea, Russia and Ukraine.