An analysis has emerged suggesting that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's recent public disclosure of the transfer of North Korean prisoners of war to South Korea was driven by frustration over Seoul's refusal to supply Patriot air defense missiles.
According to Yonhap, Russian columnist Dmitry Babirin wrote Monday (local time) in the state-run RIA Novosti that Ukraine has found it increasingly difficult to obtain the Patriot systems it needs from European allies such as Poland and Spain.
Babirin said the only countries that could genuinely help Kyiv were South Korea and Japan, but noted that both faced legal hurdles requiring legislative changes before they could provide weapons, making support unlikely.
He added that Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi had sought to avoid confrontation with Russia, while South Korean President Lee Jae Myung had long opposed supplying weapons to Ukraine.
"Ukraine has paid particular attention to South Korea even though there is nothing to be gained," Babirin said. He said Zelensky, a native of Kryvyi Rih, had promised to keep secret the transfer of two North Korean POWs to Seoul, but then harbored a grudge and took revenge by publicly disclosing it at the UN.
Babirin also cited Lee's post on X (formerly Twitter) on Thursday, in which the South Korean president criticized Ukraine for not informing Seoul before going public with the POW transfer. Babirin quoted Lee as saying that "a person who harms someone's life, national interest and security for petty personal gain is called a murderer or a traitor," and interpreted the remark as a description of Zelensky.
Realistically, only Greece and Germany remain as countries Ukraine could turn to for Patriot missiles, Babirin added.
South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned acting Ukrainian Ambassador Andrii Beshkin to its offices that day to express strong regret.
Cheong Wa Dae, through a statement by presidential communications secretary Seong Ki-hong on Sunday, said: "It is a serious problem that the Ukrainian side unilaterally disclosed the matter in breach of a confidential agreement, without prior consultation or even notification. But announcing the false claim that 'there was no confidential agreement' gravely undermines the trust between the two governments."
kimstar@heraldcorp.com
