By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The European Parliament adopted an amendment criticizing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to rename an elite military unit after the World War II-era Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). This move, seen as an “unnecessary and unprovoked escalation,” has caused a diplomatic rift with Poland, which associates the UPA with the massacre of tens of thousands of Poles. While acknowledging Ukraine’s path to EU membership and its fight against Russia, the Parliament expressed regret over the disregard for Polish sensitivities and grief. The amendment underscores the need for de-escalation and reconciliation to maintain neighborly relations and align with European values.
Read the original article here
The European Parliament has voiced significant disapproval over Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to name a military unit after heroes of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). A substantial majority of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) cast votes in favor of an amendment that expressed strong regret concerning what was described as an “unnecessary and unprovoked escalation” by the Ukrainian president. This action, while Poland has consistently offered unwavering support to Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian invasion, was seen as particularly problematic given historical sensitivities.
The Parliament’s text specifically called out what it perceived as a “disregard for Polish sensitivities and grief linked to the UPA’s estimated tens of thousands of victims and their families.” This sentiment underscores a deep-seated historical grievance that the UPA’s actions, particularly its role in wartime atrocities, have caused profound suffering to Polish communities. The decision was therefore viewed not just as a historical misstep, but as a direct affront to a key EU ally.
Furthermore, the EU Parliament articulated that President Zelenskyy’s decision “undermines neighbourly relations” and importantly, is “not in line with European values.” This highlights a concern that Ukraine, by seemingly glorifying a historical organization associated with such violence, is straying from the fundamental principles of reconciliation and respect for human rights that are central to the European project. It suggests a broader concern about the narrative Ukraine is promoting, especially as it seeks closer integration with the European Union.
It seems clear from the European Parliament’s vote that there is significant concern regarding the UPA and President Zelenskyy’s recent actions. While Poland’s position was always going to garner support within the EU, this does not necessarily signal an end to support for Ukraine’s broader defense efforts. However, it is evident that this particular decision has not garnered much goodwill and represents a significant diplomatic misstep. While support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression remains paramount, this specific naming convention was undeniably a poor strategic choice for Ukraine, especially considering the UPA’s documented involvement in acts that are widely considered genocidal against Poles, including some Jewish and even Ukrainian populations. The prevalence of black and red flags, often associated with nationalist movements, at Ukrainian war cemeteries, Euromaidan events, and public gatherings, serves as a stark visual reminder of the contentious nature of these historical symbols.
This issue appears to be more widespread than just a single unit’s name, reflecting a national problem within Ukraine. Nevertheless, condemning the naming of the military unit is seen as the right course of action, if only to demonstrate solidarity with Poland, a fellow EU member state. While this condemnation might not alter the immediate course of aid or support for Ukraine, it serves as an important signal of European concerns. Simultaneously, it is considered equally important to continue offering Ukraine the strongest possible support in its fight against Russian aggression and to work towards its eventual integration into the European community in the mid to long term.
Ukraine, it appears, failed to accurately gauge the room on this issue. While national pride and historical remembrance are understandable, antagonizing Poland without apparent justification is seen as a significant oversight. This is particularly noteworthy given the crucial aid Ukraine has received from Poland and other nations, which has been instrumental in its survival. The situation has certainly created a stir, with many who were quick to defend President Zelenskyy now facing a more complex reality where national heroes can indeed be controversial. Naming an elite military unit in Europe after individuals linked to Nazi collaboration and war crimes was always going to invite severe scrutiny and consequences.
It is worth recalling that the European Parliament had previously condemned the glorification of the UPA back in 2010, making this recent vote a continuation of long-standing concerns. While maintaining support for Ukraine’s war effort should be unwavering, endorsing Ukraine’s diplomatic blunders is viewed as unwise. This suggests that not all actions taken by Ukraine in its current situation are beyond reproach and that a critical stance on certain decisions is necessary.
The situation also highlights the complexities faced by Ukraine, which is described as being highly factionalized, with various political leanings united primarily by the current war. In such a serious context, every decision carries significant weight. It is plausible that internal political pressures within Ukraine led to the UPA unit’s naming, with President Zelenskyy agreeing to appease certain groups in the hope of maintaining wartime unity, perhaps underestimating the international reaction.
However, the historical context of the UPA, particularly its role in wartime atrocities, cannot be easily overlooked. Many draw parallels to the Nazis, emphasizing the need for Ukraine to cease promoting such historical figures, much like Germany has had to confront its own dark past. The concern about the flourishing of far-right elements in Ukraine, often unaddressed in public discourse, leads some to question Russia’s stated goal of “denazification,” suggesting it may not be entirely without basis, even if the methods are abhorrent.
The situation is also complicated by the fact that Ukraine is not an EU member, and some argue that the European Parliament should refrain from interfering in such matters until after the conflict. There is also the argument that in times of war, naming units after groups known for brutality could serve to boost troop morale and demoralize the enemy, regardless of the political sensitivities. However, this pragmatic view is countered by the strong historical narratives and the potential for such actions to alienate key allies.
The debate also touches upon the historical memory of both Poland and Ukraine, with differing recollections of wartime events and figures. While Poland reveres the Armia Krajowa (Home Army), which Ukraine associates with atrocities, Ukraine commemorates figures like Stepan Bandera and the UPA for their role in fighting Soviet rule and pursuing independence. This historical divergence creates a complex backdrop against which current events are interpreted.
Ultimately, the European Parliament’s condemnation underscores a critical juncture for Ukraine. While unwavering support for its defense against Russia is essential, diplomatic missteps and the controversial commemoration of historical figures associated with wartime atrocities pose significant challenges to its integration into the European community and its standing among international allies. The situation demands a delicate balance between national identity, historical remembrance, and the pragmatic realities of diplomacy and alliance-building, particularly in the ongoing geopolitical climate.