By Matt Underwood 
The recent decision by Ukrainian officials to return Polish awards marks a significant escalation in a diplomatic spat ignited by President Zelenskyy’s decision to name a special forces unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). This move, stripping Zelenskyy of Poland’s highest state decoration, the Order of the White Eagle, by the head of Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance, Karol Nawrocki, came in direct response to the UPA designation. The UPA is a deeply controversial paramilitary organization with a history of alleged massacres of Poles during World War II, a legacy that continues to cast a long shadow over Polish-Ukrainian relations.
From a diplomatic standpoint, the choice of naming the unit something so historically fraught seems, at best, ill-advised, especially for a nation aspiring to EU membership, where consensus among all member states is crucial. While many understand the context of Ukraine’s fight for survival and the need for symbols of resistance, the UPA’s past actions, particularly the events in Volhynia, remain a raw wound for many Poles. The argument is that Ukraine could have undoubtedly found a less polarizing designation for its elite forces, one that wouldn’t predictably provoke such a strong reaction from a key ally.
However, the situation is complex, and it’s difficult to ignore the perception that the Polish response might be politically motivated. While the UPA issue is undeniably sensitive, the timing and nature of Nawrocki’s action raise questions about its primary drivers. Yet, even with the political maneuvering, the core issue remains: why name a military unit after an organization implicated in such horrific events, especially when building strong ties with neighbors is paramount?
Many Ukrainians themselves acknowledge that the naming of the unit was an unfortunate and potentially damaging choice, regardless of Polish sentiments. There’s a sentiment that Ukraine is actively crafting its own narrative of resistance, and there’s no inherent need to draw upon the most contentious aspects of its past. For some, the UPA legacy is a burden that Ukraine would be better off addressing internally rather than actively celebrating.
The difficulty in resolving this impasse lies in the deeply ingrained historical narratives on both sides. While Ukraine’s embrace of UPA figures might be seen by some as a complex expression of national identity and a rejection of Soviet-era suppression, Poland’s historical memory of the UPA’s actions is equally potent and, for many, unforgiving. There’s a perceived imbalance in how historical grievances are handled, with some suggesting that Poland’s own complex past, including instances of mistreatment of Ukrainians, often goes unacknowledged or is explained away.
The situation is further complicated by the broader geopolitical context. The ongoing conflict with Russia means that a strong, united front with neighboring countries like Poland is essential for Ukraine’s security and future aspirations. This internal dispute, therefore, has external implications, potentially playing into narratives that aim to weaken Ukraine’s international standing and support.
For many observers, the entire episode feels like a self-inflicted wound for Ukraine. The naming of the unit appears to have been an unnecessary provocation, given Poland’s long historical memory and its significant support for Ukraine. It raises questions about the strategic thinking behind such a decision, particularly when the stakes are so high. The pragmatic solution, many argue, would be a simple retraction of the UPA unit name, which could swiftly de-escalate the situation.
The reluctance to backtrack, some suggest, stems from a post-Soviet mentality where conceding on such matters can be perceived as weakness. However, in the current geopolitical climate, flexibility and pragmatism should arguably take precedence over perceived pride. The return of Polish awards by Ukrainian officials, while a gesture of solidarity with their government, is seen by some as counterproductive, further fueling the diplomatic fire and playing directly into Russia’s hands.
It’s also pointed out that Poland’s decision to strip Zelenskyy of the Order of the White Eagle stands in stark contrast to its historical treatment of other recipients. Figures like Benito Mussolini and Philippe Pétain, who have orders of the White Eagle, have never had them rescinded. This selective application of the order’s prestige fuels accusations of political opportunism and raises questions about the true motives behind Nawrocki’s actions.
The argument that Poland is leveraging this situation for its own political or economic gain is also prevalent. Some believe that Poland’s growing apprehension about Ukraine’s potential economic competitiveness within the EU, particularly in agriculture, is a significant underlying factor. The historical narrative, in this view, is being weaponized to justify a gradual distancing from Ukraine, moving from an ally to a potential rival.
Conversely, there are voices that see the UPA legacy as a genuine concern, irrespective of Poland’s own historical complexities or political motivations. The argument is that to be taken seriously on the international stage, and especially for EU membership, Ukraine needs to confront and acknowledge its problematic historical elements. This perspective suggests that while Poland might have its own agenda, the fundamental issue of glorifying groups associated with mass atrocities cannot be ignored.
Ultimately, the resolution of this dispute hinges on a willingness from both sides to engage in genuine dialogue and acknowledge the historical sensitivities involved. While Ukraine may have the right to choose its own heroes, the implications of those choices on international relations, particularly with crucial allies, cannot be underestimated. The current tit-for-tat exchange of awards and condemnations is unlikely to foster the understanding and reconciliation necessary for a stronger, more unified future. The desire for a more peaceful and cooperative relationship between Poland and Ukraine, free from the constant burden of historical revisionism, remains a distant hope for many.