Two wounded North Korean soldiers captured by Ukrainian forces in early 2025 have become more than just prisoners of war — they are now political pawns in the complex geopolitical chessboard of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The captures provided the first undeniable public proof of North Korean combat involvement on Russia’s side. Since then, the fate of these men has highlighted the tensions between international humanitarian law, defection risks, alliance obligations, and diplomatic maneuvering.
North Korea’s Growing Role in the Conflict
Under a 2024 Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement, North Korea sent thousands of troops — estimates range from 11,000 to 15,000, primarily special forces — to support Russian operations. These soldiers, often fighting in Russian uniforms, were deployed mainly in Russia’s Kursk region. In exchange, Russia has provided North Korea with technology, financial support, and backing for its strategic programs.
The two captured soldiers, reportedly named Ri Gang-eun (around 27 years old) and Baek Pyung-gang (around 22), were taken in early January 2025 in Kursk Oblast. Ukrainian officials quickly released videos, photos, and interrogation materials, while South Korean intelligence verified their identities.
Life in Captivity and Their Pleas
The two men have been held in Ukraine, including facilities in Kyiv, for well over a year as of mid-2026. According to their statements, they were told they might face “South Koreans” fighting for Ukraine and received poor support from Russian forces. They also described pressure from their own side to commit suicide rather than allow themselves to be captured.
Both have publicly expressed a desire to defect to South Korea, citing well-founded fears of execution or severe punishment upon return to North Korea. Pyongyang’s policies often extend punishment to the families of those deemed traitors. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and the United Nations, have warned against any forced repatriation, citing credible risks of torture and reprisals.
Ukraine has treated the pair as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. While they can legally be held until the end of hostilities, their case raises important questions about non-refoulement principles — the prohibition on returning individuals to places where they face persecution.
High-Stakes Diplomatic Leverage
Russia has requested the inclusion of these North Korean soldiers in prisoner exchanges on at least two occasions, showing unusual priority for them compared to other foreign fighters. Ukraine has conducted multiple swaps with Russia but has so far refrained from handing over the two men.
For Ukraine, the POWs represent a significant propaganda victory and a source of leverage. Their capture offered concrete evidence of the expanding “axis of authoritarians” supporting Moscow. Holding them also provides potential intelligence value and a humanitarian card in negotiations.
North Korea views any captured soldier as a traitor, with state media emphasizing heroic suicide narratives to discourage surrender. Russia, meanwhile, seeks their return to honor alliance commitments and limit embarrassment.
South Korea has indicated it would accept the defectors but has proceeded cautiously, balancing concerns over escalation, relations with China and North Korea, and broader diplomatic considerations. Activists and some South Korean lawmakers continue to push for swifter action.
Broader Implications
As of mid-2026, the two North Korean soldiers remain in Ukraine. Reports suggest heavy casualties among North Korean troops — potentially hundreds to thousands — making these two rare living examples of the partnership’s human cost.
Their ongoing detention underscores how modern proxy conflicts complicate traditional POW rules. The case tests the enforcement of Geneva Conventions, the protection of defectors, and the willingness of involved parties to prioritize human rights over strategic interests.
In the larger picture, these two men symbolize the messy intersection of manpower shortages, authoritarian alliances, and the human stakes in Europe’s largest conflict since World War II. Their eventual fate may reveal much about how the involved nations balance propaganda, alliances, and basic humanitarian principles.
About The Author
