The content of the opinion has not been disclosed, and the President’s Chancellery only stated that the head of state will make a decision “in due course.” For Poland – and for the Polish diaspora in the USA observing this matter from across the ocean – this means that the most important resolution is still ahead of us.
How the dispute arose
The spark was a decree signed by Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the end of May, bestowing upon one of the Ukrainian armed forces units the honorary name “in honor of the Heroes of UPA.” In the official Ukrainian historical narrative, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army is presented as part of the national liberation movement. In Poland, the memory of UPA remains inextricably linked with the Volhynian Massacre and anti-Polish ethnic cleansing, in which – according to conservative historical estimates – approximately 100,000 Poles died. In response to the decree, President Nawrocki appealed to the Chapter to consider stripping Zelenskyy of Poland’s highest decoration, which he received in April 2023 from then-President Andrzej Duda – as a token of recognition for his leadership in the face of Russian aggression.
Who really decides
In public discussion, the question of who actually decides the fate of the order resurfaces – and here the answer is unequivocal. The Chapter, composed of knights of the order, serves an advisory function. Its position is significant but not binding. The final decision rests with the incumbent President of the Republic of Poland. This separation of roles is not accidental. The Order of the White Eagle, established in 1705, is Poland’s highest state decoration, and the procedure for bestowing and potentially revoking it was deliberately separated from current political disputes – to protect the prestige of the order and limit the risk of decisions made under the influence of momentary emotions. In the history of the Second and Third Republics, the most famous case of being stripped of this decoration is considered to be that of Wincenty Witos, who had it revoked after the Brest trial in 1932, only to have it restored in 1939. Every such decision therefore weighs much more than the current dispute.
A dispute that does not align along party lines
Significantly, this issue has from the outset divided the Polish political scene in an unusual way – not along the usual government versus president divide. The idea of revoking the order came from Nawrocki, a politician from the right-wing camp. But Donald Tusk’s government, though equally critical of Zelenskyy’s decision regarding the UPA, reacted differently to the idea of revoking the order. The Prime Minister appealed for caution, warning: “Before it’s too late.” Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz called Zelenskyy’s decision “unacceptable” and spoke of “reopening old wounds,” but added that if he were in the president’s shoes, he would rather call Kyiv than resort to a symbolic gesture. This distinction – between evaluating Zelenskyy’s action and evaluating Nawrocki’s reaction – cuts across Polish political camps. We are therefore not dealing with a simple dispute about Ukraine, but with a dispute about how Poland should assert its own memory.
A matter bigger than one order
Although the discussion concerns a specific decision by the Ukrainian authorities, its significance is broader. It touches upon one of the most difficult topics in Polish-Ukrainian relations – historical memory. Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, Poland has been one of Kyiv’s most important allies, and many American Polonia communities have actively supported Ukraine – from parish collections to appeals to American politicians. At the same time, issues of Volhynia, the exhumation of victims, and the assessment of the UPA have for years remained a source of tension. Both states have repeatedly tried to separate strategic cooperation from historical disputes, but a complete separation of these topics proves extremely difficult. For the American Polonia, this issue is particularly uncomfortable, as it forces them to reconcile two loyalties that have gone hand in hand throughout three years of war: solidarity with fighting Ukraine and the vivid memory of Volhynian victims in many families.
What’s next
For now, it is unknown when the president will make a decision or what it will be. We also do not know the position of the Chapter itself. Various speculations are appearing in the public sphere – about the motives for the delay, the content of the opinion, the direction of the resolution – but none of them are currently confirmed by official communications, and the delay could just as well result from legal analysis, political consultations, divisions within the Chapter itself, or simple procedural caution. The facts today are as follows: the Chapter has concluded its work, the opinion has reached the president, and the responsibility for the final resolution rests with the head of state.
Regardless of the outcome, the decision will have significance beyond the order itself. It will become a signal of how Poland intends to balance the memory of its own history with foreign policy interests during one of Europe’s most serious wars since 1945. And precisely for this reason, the way Poland arrives at this decision – through procedure, opinion, and deliberation, rather than an emotional reflex – says as much about the maturity of the state as the verdict itself.
Kamil Brzozowski, editor of poland.us. For more political commentary by Kamil Brzozowski, please visit poland.us. Polish business, institution, and expert directory: PolishPages.com.
📱 Download the PolishPages app:
App Store (iPhone) | Google Play (Android)
