Ukraine says abducted children were sent to North Korea for reeducation

A new front in the struggle over abducted Ukrainian children

Ukrainian authorities told lawmakers in Washington that abducted children from occupied parts of Ukraine were transported thousands of kilometers to North Korea for ideological training. The account centers on two minors, a 12 year old boy named Misha from occupied Donetsk and a 16 year old girl named Liza from Simferopol in Crimea. They were taken to the Songdowon International Children’s Camp on North Korea’s east coast, about 9,000 kilometers from their homes, where they were exposed to military themed instruction and Soviet era narratives adapted to North Korean ideology. The testimony describes classes that urged children to defeat Japanese militarists and meetings with veterans who took part in the 1968 attack on the United States Navy ship Pueblo.

The cases form part of what Ukraine and independent researchers describe as a wider and organized system of unlawful deportations, reeducation and forced assimilation. Kyiv has verified information for more than 19,500 children deported since 2022. Researchers at the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale University estimate that at least 35,000 Ukrainian children, from infants to 17 year olds, have been temporarily or permanently under Russian custody. Their work has documented over 210 facilities inside Russia and in occupied Ukrainian territory that have hosted or trained deported children, with a mix of summer camps, sanatoriums, religious sites and even a military base.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding the immediate return of all Ukrainian children transferred by force or illegally deported since 2014, and an end to new deportations, family separations, changes of citizenship, adoptions and ideological conditioning. Russia rejects the allegations, says it has evacuated minors for their safety and reports that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children crossed into Russia. Moscow says it has procedures for family reunifications when possible.

Why this matters beyond Russia

Sending Ukrainian children to a third country, North Korea, would signal deeper coordination between Moscow and Pyongyang. It raises the cost and difficulty of repatriation because any return would require cooperation from two governments, not one. Transfers outside Russia also complicate tracing, consular access and oversight by neutral organizations, and they widen the geographic scope of an already complex effort to reunite children with their families.

What investigators say happened to Misha and Liza

In sworn testimony to a United States Senate subcommittee, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer said her organization recorded two verified cases of children taken to North Korea. Misha, 12, from Russian occupied Donetsk, and Liza, 16, from Simferopol, were moved to the Songdowon camp. The camp, a coastal complex near Wonsan, has long featured mass youth programs with patriotic content for domestic and invited foreign groups. According to the testimony, the two children were shown a heroic version of North Korean military history and were told to destroy Japanese militarists. They also met Korean veterans tied to the 1968 Pueblo incident.

Ukrainian investigators say these children were isolated from their families, barred from using the Ukrainian language and immersed in a narrative that denies the existence of Ukraine as a nation. The pattern mirrors what researchers have found in other locations where Ukrainian minors are kept, including restrictions on contact with relatives, mandatory Russian language use and “patriotic education” that erases Ukrainian identity.

Inside Songdowon

Songdowon has operated for decades as a flagship youth complex that North Korean media presents as a seaside retreat for children. External accounts describe regimented schedules, large group activities, uniformed routines and frequent political instruction. For Ukrainian children taken there, the camp experience fits a larger program of ideological conditioning that Ukraine says is designed to break national identity and replace it with loyalty to Russia and friendly powers. Unlike short term holiday camps, these placements can involve prolonged stays, strict isolation and curated contact with officials and veterans who reinforce wartime narratives.

How the deportation system works and why experts call it illegal

Yale’s Humanitarian Research Lab has mapped a network of at least 210 locations where Ukrainian children have been held since 2022. Eight types of sites have been documented, including summer camps, sanatoriums, educational centers, religious institutions, a military facility and temporary shelters. Some children are moved for weeks, others for months or longer. The cohort includes children from state institutions, those separated from parents in conflict areas, minors with disabilities and children taken directly from families by occupation authorities. A share of these children is placed with Russian guardians or adoptive families, sometimes after a series of transfers through different camps.

Russian authorities simplified the path to Russian citizenship for Ukrainian minors and accelerated adoption procedures. Human rights lawyers argue that these practices violate the Geneva Conventions, which require diligent registration, monitoring and family reunification for children moved from conflict zones. Transferring children of one national group to another can also meet the definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention when it aims to destroy the identity and continuity of the protected group. In March 2023 the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for President Vladimir Putin and the Russian official for children’s rights, Maria Lvova Belova, alleging their roles in the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. The court’s move was a legal milestone, yet enforcement depends on cooperation from states where the suspects might travel.

Ukrainian legal experts say the deportations are often mislabeled as evacuations, without the safeguards international law requires. They cite the absence of shared registries with the International Committee of the Red Cross, a lack of standardized documentation and the denial of voluntary return. Introducing her testimony, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer described these failures in plain terms.

“No list was provided to the Red Cross. No assessment was carried out. No voluntary repatriation took place,” she said, urging stronger pressure to secure the return of the children.

North Korea and Russia grow closer

Since the full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Moscow and Pyongyang have tightened ties. Their leaders signed a comprehensive partnership agreement in mid 2024 that included far reaching security language. Western governments say North Korea has supplied artillery shells and ballistic missiles to Russia, while both capitals argue their cooperation does not violate international rules. Visibility into the relationship is limited because North Korea allows little independent scrutiny, yet the partnership has clearly grown in political and military terms.

Against that backdrop, placing Ukrainian children in a North Korean camp would align with propaganda and control methods common in Pyongyang. Songdowon’s programs highlight loyalty, discipline and state history, and visits often feature patriotic pageantry. If Ukrainian minors are present there under Russian auspices, their cases combine the custody challenges already seen inside Russia with the closed environment of North Korea, making repatriation even harder.

Russian leaders have also said North Korea should be involved in future talks on the conflict. Any role for Pyongyang in negotiations would give it a voice in humanitarian arrangements, including child returns. That prospect adds urgency to efforts to document the children’s whereabouts and to secure firm commitments on access, communication and eventual return.

What Ukraine, the UN and courts are doing

The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that calls for the immediate and unconditional return of all Ukrainian children transferred by force or deported since 2014. Ninety one countries voted in favor, while a dozen, including Russia, Belarus and Iran, voted against. The text demands an immediate halt to new deportations, family separations, changes of status or citizenship, adoptions or foster care placements and ideological conditioning. While General Assembly resolutions are not binding, they set political benchmarks and build a record of the international view.

Ukraine’s deputy foreign minister, Mariana Betsa, underscored the stakes during the debate. She argued that the issue cuts beyond politics and should not be traded away.

“There will be no just peace in Ukraine without the unconditional return of Ukrainian children. This resolution is not about politics. It is a matter of humanity,” Betsa said.

The International Criminal Court’s warrants for the Russian head of state and the children’s commissioner were a clear legal signal that deportations are prosecutable as grave crimes. The warrants constrain diplomatic travel for the accused and raise the long term costs of continuing the program. Separately, governments have sanctioned Russian officials, agencies and institutions linked to the transfers.

Ukraine has managed to bring home roughly 1,800 children since 2022, often through third party mediation. Qatar, South Africa and the Vatican have helped in individual cases. Each return involves months of verification, negotiation and travel logistics, highlighting the scale of the challenge when thousands of children remain missing or in foreign custody.

Why deportations matter for any future peace

In testimony to United States lawmakers, Nathaniel Raymond, director of the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab, said the return of abducted children should be a condition for any negotiated settlement. He framed the requirement as a baseline for moral credibility and a practical backstop against the normalization of wartime child transfers.

“The return of all abducted Ukrainian children should be a prerequisite for any negotiated solution to this war,” Raymond said.

Without a binding mechanism to identify and return every child, the families of occupied regions cannot rebuild their lives. The issue shapes public support inside Ukraine and abroad, and it carries weight in any talks over ceasefires, prisoner exchanges or humanitarian corridors. Measured progress on child returns would signal that agreements are enforceable and that both sides are prepared to respect core protections for civilians.

Voices from Ukraine and human rights experts

Ukraine’s human rights ombudsman, Dmytro Lubinets, has urged a concerted search for every missing child and a comprehensive system to protect them from ideological and physical harm. He argues that any program that moves children across borders without consent and strips them of their identity is a form of weaponization.

“Every child must be found, protected and brought home. Ukrainian children cannot be used as weapons by the aggressor,” Lubinets said.

Ukraine’s first lady, Olena Zelenska, has spoken about the emotional toll of these deportations on families and the nation. In a recent speech she described forced transfers as one of the most painful realities of the war and called for faster international action.

“Perhaps the most painful recognition of this war is the systematic deportation of Ukrainian children,” Zelenska said, adding that delaying decisions carries a human cost measured in lives and lost childhoods.

What could help bring children home

Humanitarian advocates say four strands of work are essential. First, map, verify and track every child. That requires open registries shared with neutral bodies and detailed records of transfers, guardians and locations. Second, expand safe channels for return through third countries that can mediate quietly and provide travel documents, with priority for children whose parents are identified and reachable. Third, put direct pressure on officials and institutions running the program. Targeted sanctions, asset freezes and travel bans increase the cost for those who arrange, fund and publicize deportations and adoptions. Fourth, prepare for accountability. Evidence collected now will shape future prosecutions and bolster civil claims for restitution and support.

On the ground, non governmental groups and Ukrainian agencies are using open source methods, school records and DNA matching to trace children. Ukraine has also delivered official lists of deported minors in talks with Russia, demanding direct answers on location and status. Each confirmed case, such as the two children reportedly taken to Songdowon, helps establish a legal chain and can open a narrow path to repatriation. The scale remains daunting, yet the combination of documentation, diplomacy and legal pressure has already brought hundreds of children back to their families.

At a Glance

• Ukrainian officials say at least two abducted children were sent to North Korea’s Songdowon camp, about 9,000 kilometers from home, for ideological training.
• Kyiv has verified more than 19,500 deported children, while researchers estimate at least 35,000 have been under Russian custody since 2022.
• Investigators documented over 210 facilities in Russia and occupied Ukraine that host or train deported minors.
• The UN General Assembly passed a resolution demanding the return of all Ukrainian children deported since 2014 and an end to forced transfers and adoptions.
• The International Criminal Court issued warrants for Russia’s president and the children’s commissioner over alleged unlawful deportations.
• Russia denies wrongdoing, says children were evacuated for safety and cites large numbers of minors who entered Russia during the war.
• Ukraine has returned about 1,800 children, often through mediation by third countries.
• Experts argue that returning every abducted child should be a condition for any negotiated settlement of the war.