ED Zelenskyy's credibility crisis: From Seoul to Washington

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy must answer for a damaging diplomatic disclosure, while U.S. President Donald Trump’s demand for new leadership raises difficult questions about Kyiv’s future.

Zelenskyy’s increasingly strained relations with international partners highlight a fundamental problem of leadership: a country fighting for survival cannot afford to squander the trust of those whose support it needs. The Ukrainian president’s disclosure of the transfer of two North Korean prisoners of war (POWs) to South Korea has triggered a serious diplomatic dispute with Seoul. His subsequent confrontation with Trump over Russian diesel supplies has further exposed the dangers of personalizing diplomacy and treating allies’ concerns as secondary to political messaging.

On Sept. 23, Zelenskyy announced at the United Nations General Assembly that Ukraine had sent two captured North Korean soldiers to South Korea. Seoul maintains that both governments had clearly understood the transfer would remain confidential because of the potential danger to the POWs and their families. Kyiv, however, denied that a formal confidentiality agreement existed. South Korea has since acknowledged that no written nondisclosure document was signed, while insisting that discussions at multiple levels established an understanding of secrecy. The distinction matters, but it does not excuse either side from explaining what was communicated and why expectations diverged.

The controversy is therefore not simply about whether a document was signed. It concerns whether one government can rely on another to respect the sensitivities surrounding a humanitarian and security operation. Publicity may have helped Zelenskyy draw attention to North Korea’s military involvement in Russia’s war. Yet that objective did not eliminate the need to consider Seoul’s security concerns or the possible repercussions for the families of the POWs.

The more damaging development came when Ukraine’s presidential office rejected Seoul’s account of the confidentiality understanding. If Kyiv agreed in substance to secrecy and subsequently denied that understanding without adequately explaining the discrepancy, it would have compounded the original diplomatic mistake. South Korea has demanded an explanation and apology, recalled its ambassador to Ukraine on Oct. 8 and continued pressing its case. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha has described the dispute as resolved, but Seoul has made clear that it does not consider the matter settled.

For Zelenskyy, the implications extend beyond bilateral relations. South Korea has provided substantial humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and has its own compelling reasons to monitor the growing military cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang. Alienating Seoul would be strategically shortsighted. Ukraine needs international support, but support cannot be treated as an unconditional entitlement. Credibility depends on respecting partners’ legitimate interests, acknowledging misunderstandings and accepting responsibility when mistakes occur.

Zelenskyy’s confrontation with Trump has added another dimension to his credibility problem. On Friday, Trump announced an arrangement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to release Russian diesel supplies into international markets, starting with an initial shipment exceeding 300,000 tons. His administration subsequently eased sanctions to facilitate the exports. Zelenskyy criticized the arrangement as a gift to Putin, arguing that additional Russian energy revenue will help sustain Moscow’s war effort. Critics in Washington have also questioned whether the move undermines sanctions and delivers meaningful relief from elevated fuel prices.

On Saturday, Trump responded by accusing Zelenskyy of repeatedly missing opportunities to end the war and demanding that Ukraine get a new president. His remarks reflect growing frustration with Kyiv’s refusal to accept terms Washington considers necessary for a settlement. However, Trump’s demand is not a solution in itself. Russia launched the invasion, and any durable peace must address Ukraine’s security, rather than merely reward Moscow’s willingness to negotiate. Nor can a foreign leader legitimately decide who should lead Ukraine.

Still, Zelenskyy cannot dismiss the political reality behind Trump’s intervention. Ukraine depends heavily on external assistance, and Washington’s willingness to sustain that support cannot be taken for granted. On Tuesday, Trump said the United States was continuing to share intelligence with Ukraine and working with both Kyiv and Moscow to end the war, even as criticism of the diesel arrangement persisted. The relationship remains consequential but increasingly unpredictable.

Ukraine also faces a difficult constitutional and security question over wartime elections. Trump’s demand for new leadership should not dictate Ukraine’s democratic choices, particularly while Russian attacks continue. Nevertheless, Zelenskyy must demonstrate that his government remains accountable, open to serious negotiations and capable of maintaining the confidence of its partners.

The lesson from Seoul and Washington is clear: International solidarity cannot survive on appeals to sympathy alone. Zelenskyy should provide a credible account of the POW transfer dispute, acknowledge any failure to honor the parties’ understanding and work toward repairing relations with South Korea. He must also engage Washington pragmatically without compromising Ukraine’s essential security interests.

A leader’s credibility is measured not only by the cause he defends, but by how reliably he deals with those who support it. Zelenskyy cannot afford to forget that distinction.