A wartime alliance collides with unresolved historical memory.
WARSAW, Poland, June 2026.
Polish President Karol Nawrocki revoked the Order of the White Eagle from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after Ukraine named a military unit in honor of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, commonly known as the UPA. The distinction is Poland’s highest state decoration and had been awarded to Zelenskyy in April 2023 for his contribution to bilateral cooperation, European security and the defense of human rights. Nawrocki argued that honoring an organization associated in Poland with the wartime massacres of Polish civilians was incompatible with retaining the award. The decision has opened one of the most serious diplomatic disputes between Warsaw and Kyiv since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The controversy began after Zelenskyy approved the designation “Heroes of the UPA” for a Ukrainian military unit in late May. In Ukraine, the insurgent organization is frequently remembered for its resistance to Soviet domination and its campaign for national independence during the Second World War. In Poland, however, it is linked primarily to the mass killing of Polish civilians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia between 1943 and 1945. Those sharply opposed historical interpretations have repeatedly complicated reconciliation between two countries whose present-day security interests remain closely aligned.
Before formally revoking the decoration, Nawrocki requested an assessment from the Chapter of the Order of the White Eagle, the body responsible for reviewing matters connected to the distinction. Polish law allows an award to be withdrawn when it was obtained through deception or when subsequent conduct is considered incompatible with the dignity of the honor. Legal specialists have nevertheless raised questions about whether the president can complete the procedure independently or whether the prime minister’s signature is also required. That debate means the political significance of the announcement may currently be clearer than its final legal status.
Zelenskyy responded by returning the decoration to the Polish presidency, saying it had originally been presented as recognition of the Ukrainian people and armed forces rather than merely as a personal honor. He maintained that Ukraine remained open to dialogue about the most painful episodes in the two countries’ shared history. At the same time, senior Ukrainian officials condemned the Polish decision as damaging to a strategic partnership forged under the pressure of Russia’s war. Kyiv’s foreign minister described the revocation as a serious mistake that risks transforming historical disagreement into a contemporary diplomatic rupture.
Kyrylo Budanov, Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, also renounced a Polish state decoration in protest, characterizing Nawrocki’s action as politically beneficial to Moscow. Other Ukrainian officials announced similar intentions, broadening the dispute beyond the two presidents and turning it into a symbolic exchange of returned honors. Their argument is that Russia gains whenever Poland and Ukraine allow historical grievances to weaken military, diplomatic or economic coordination. Polish officials supporting the revocation counter that strategic cooperation cannot require silence when Ukrainian state institutions celebrate groups associated with atrocities against Poles.
The disagreement has also exposed divisions inside Poland’s own political leadership. Prime Minister Donald Tusk criticized the escalation and called for restraint, emphasizing that unity between Poland and Ukraine remains essential while Russia continues its aggression. Nawrocki, however, has presented the withdrawal of the award as a defense of national memory and respect for the victims of wartime violence. The dispute therefore reflects not only tensions between Warsaw and Kyiv, but also competing approaches within Poland over how historical justice should interact with immediate security priorities.
Public opinion appears to provide significant domestic support for Nawrocki’s position. A recent United Surveys poll conducted before the formal announcement found that 51.2 percent of respondents favored withdrawing the decoration, including 31.9 percent who strongly supported the measure. Another 35.5 percent opposed revocation, while 13.3 percent said they were undecided or had no opinion. Those results suggest that the memory of the Volhynia massacres remains politically powerful and cannot easily be separated from Polish perceptions of contemporary Ukraine.
The timing of the confrontation is especially sensitive because Poland remains one of Ukraine’s most important European partners in defense, logistics and humanitarian assistance. Warsaw has served as a principal transit hub for military supplies and has hosted large numbers of Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of the invasion. Relations have nevertheless become more difficult because of disputes involving agricultural imports, refugee fatigue and competing interpretations of wartime history. The revocation of the Order of the White Eagle adds a symbolic grievance to an alliance already under pressure from domestic politics on both sides.
Neither government has indicated that the dispute will alter fundamental security cooperation against Russia, but the episode demonstrates how historical memory can shape current diplomacy even during an active war. Poland seeks acknowledgment of crimes committed against its civilians, while Ukraine continues to construct a national narrative around resistance to both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. These objectives are not necessarily irreconcilable, but political gestures that glorify contested organizations make compromise more difficult. The future of the relationship may depend on whether both countries can establish a shared framework for remembrance without allowing the past to undermine their strategic partnership.
Contra la propaganda, memoria. / Against propaganda, memory.