South Korea decided on October 8 to recall Ambassador Park Ki-chang from Ukraine. It’s Seoul’s first ambassador recall since 2008, when South Korea withdrew its envoy from Japan over a territorial claim to the Dokdo islets.
The decision came 15 days after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy disclosed the transfer of two captured North Korean soldiers to South Korea in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. Seoul says the two governments had agreed to keep the transfer confidential. However, Kyiv first denied any such agreement before its Foreign Ministry attributed the dispute to differing interpretations.
The two soldiers at the center of the dispute were captured in January 2025 in the Kursk region of Russia. North Korea had sent troops there to support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The captured soldiers arrived in South Korea in mid-September after saying they wished to settle there.
Zelenskyy’s public announcement of their arrival drew a response from South Korean President Lee Jae-myung on September 24 in a post on the social platform X. He called the disclosure deeply regrettable. Lee also cited the problems that disclosure could cause.
Kyiv rejected that account the next day. Dmytro Lytvyn, a communications adviser to Zelenskyy, denied that any confidentiality agreement existed.
The South Korean presidential office voiced strong regret over the disclosure and Ukraine’s denial on September 27. It demanded an official explanation and apology. It also signaled that additional measures were under consideration. Seong Ghi-hong, senior presidential secretary for public relations, said that Ukraine’s had sought the secrecy itself. He added that Kyiv had cited possible criticism at home for giving up a chance to swap the soldiers for Ukrainian prisoners held by Russia.
The next day, First Vice Foreign Minister Park Yoon-joo summoned Andrii Vieshkin, who is Ukraine’s acting ambassador in Seoul. The vice minister repeated the demands to him.
Still, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha described the dispute on October 1 as a diplomatic misunderstanding. Sybiha did not offer the public apology that Seoul had demanded.
In a post on X the next day, Lee wrote that Ukraine had made the South Korean head of state a “liar” by denying the agreement. He also warned of further measures unless Kyiv publicly apologized.
Lee also broadened his criticism to remarks by Kyrylo Budanov, head of the Ukrainian presidential office. Budanov had warned in an interview on September 27 that tension along the inter-Korean border was rising by the day. Days earlier, suspected North Korean mines had exploded inside the Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas and wounded three South Korean soldiers. So Lee accused Kyiv of speaking of an imminent clash between the two Koreas as if wishing for war.
On October 6, Foreign Minister Cho Hyun told lawmakers that a message from Ukraine had included words of apology. However, he said it fell somewhat short of the expectations of Seoul.
Kyiv characterized the message differently. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Heorhii Tykhyi said on October 7 that Ukraine had expressed regret over the public criticism between the two countries. The spokesperson also attributed the dispute to differing interpretations of the confidentiality arrangement.
A separate dispute surfaced in the same week. Vladyslav Vlasiuk, the presidential commissioner of Ukraine for sanctions policy, said on October 6 that fuel shipments from South Korean ports had helped Russia offset refinery losses caused by Ukrainian strikes. The South Korean presidential office rejected the claim on October 7.
In the announcement recalling Ambassador Park the next day, the South’s Foreign Ministry said it hoped to settle pending issues through continued consultations with Ukraine.
The Foreign Ministry of Ukraine responded that diplomacy should prevail over emotions. Tykhyi added that diplomatic efforts were underway through private channels.
Park returned home on October 10.
Seoul had good reasons to want the transfer kept quiet. According to Seoul, the families of the two men remain in North Korea, where they could face reprisals over their relatives’ decision to defect.
The National Intelligence Service also told lawmakers on September 30 that the disclosure appeared aimed at building public support in South Korea for arms supplies to Ukraine. Seoul has supported Ukraine with financial and humanitarian aid but not with lethal weapons, even after North Korea began sending tens of thousands of soldiers to fight for Russia.
If Ukraine’s government was hoping to bolster its image with South Koreans, it badly miscalculated. Instead, Kyiv has lost the trust of Seoul, and the harm cannot be repaired in private. Because the disclosure was public, a message passed between ministers cannot solve the problem.
Meanwhile another Ukrainian official opened a second dispute. Vlasiuk raised the fuel claim on October 6 while Seoul was still waiting for an apology. The South Korean government says petroleum products are not on its list of controlled exports. Whatever the merits, the claim muddied a dispute that Kyiv had started. The fuel question belongs in a separate channel on sanctions compliance.
With that question set aside, Seoul has demanded three things. Kyiv should acknowledge that a confidentiality agreement existed. The Ukrainian government should offer an official, public apology. And Kyiv should commit to steps that prevent a recurrence.
Park may return to Kyiv only after Ukraine does all three.
