Hołownia on Ukraine Dispute: Zelenskyy’s Blunder Undermines Relations

During a recent interview, Deputy Speaker of the Sejm Szymon Hołownia criticized President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for renaming a Ukrainian military unit after the UPA, arguing the decision harmed Polish-Ukrainian diplomatic dialogue.

The UPA naming controversy

Szymon Hołownia stated that relations are currently strained due to a significant error committed by Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He characterized the president’s decision to name a special operations unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) as reckless and disrespectful toward Polish sensitivities.

In late May, Zelenskyy announced the naming of the unit to honor historical military traditions and exemplary defense of Ukraine’s independence. This move triggered widespread backlash across the Polish political spectrum, including condemnation from Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz.

Diplomatic fallout and the Order of the White Eagle

The dispute intensified when Karol Nawrocki decided to revoke Zelenskyy’s Order of the White Eagle in response to the naming decision. Hołownia criticized this reaction as disproportionate, arguing that Poland gained nothing from the move and suffered a diplomatic loss instead.

Following the revocation, Zelenskyy returned the order to Warsaw via courier. Hołownia emphasized that Zelenskyy is not facilitating dialogue and suggested that the Ukrainian leader should replace his current advisors, noting that Ukraine’s attempts to maneuver behind Poland’s back regarding EU accession are counterproductive.

Historical memory and the Volhynian tragedy

The UPA remains a highly contentious issue in bilateral relations. Polish historians define the events of July 1943, involving coordinated attacks on approximately 150 Polish villages, as the Volhynian genocide, carried out by the OUN and UPA.

While Poland officially recognizes these events as genocide, many Ukrainian figures view the OUN and UPA as symbols of anti-Soviet resistance and the fight for independence. This fundamental divide in historical interpretation continues to complicate contemporary political discourse.