e most high-profile development in Poland over the past two weeks has been an initiative by President Karol Nawrocki to consider revoking the Order of the White Eagle — Poland’s highest state decoration — awarded to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by former Polish President Andrzej Duda in April 2023.
Nawrocki justified the move by citing President Zelensky’s decision to bestow upon one of the Special Operations Forces units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine the honorary designation “named after the Heroes of the UPA” (Ukrainian Insurgent Army).
Following a June 8 meeting of the Chapter of the Order of the White Eagle, which was expected to issue its position on the matter, the Polish presidential office announced that Nawrocki would make a decision “at the appropriate time.”
In an interview with Ukrinform, former Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz discussed Nawrocki’s initiative, the significance of the Polish side’s statement that a decision would be made “at the appropriate time,” the impact of the controversy on Ukrainian-Polish relations and the broader international environment, and the steps that should be taken under the current circumstances.
WAR IS NO TIME FOR HISTORICAL DISPUTES
Ukrinform (UI): Mr. Czaputowicz, how do you assess Polish President Karol Nawrocki’s initiative to potentially revoke the Order of the White Eagle awarded to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky?
Jacek Czaputowicz (JC): First of all, I would note that the decision by the President of Ukraine to bestow the honorary designation “Heroes of the UPA” on one of Ukraine’s military units caused genuine pain in Polish society. For many Poles, the UPA is associated primarily with the Volhynia tragedy and the mass killings of Poles. I believe the word “pain” is entirely appropriate in this context.
At the same time, I believe Poland should have engaged more actively with Ukraine on this issue at an earlier stage. President Nawrocki has yet to visit Kyiv and continues to raise a number of contentious issues.
What is needed instead is dialogue, deeper mutual understanding, and closer cooperation so that both sides can calmly build a shared understanding of the difficult chapters of their common history and gradually move toward reconciliation.
Poland suffered far greater losses at the hands of Germany, yet despite that painful legacy, we succeeded in building friendly and allied relations and developing close cooperation. The same path lies ahead for the Polish and Ukrainian peoples.
Poland should leave room for dialogue and negotiation. War is not the best time for Ukraine to engage in debates over complex historical issues. Today, Ukraine is fighting for its very existence, sovereignty, and statehood, and it seems to me that this reality is still not fully understood in Poland.
Instead, what we are witnessing from the Polish side is an attempt—which I strongly criticize—to take advantage of Ukraine’s difficult situation in order to pressure it into changing its position on historical matters. We cannot adopt a paternalistic attitude toward Ukraine. Ukraine is a strong state with an army of nearly one million personnel. The notion that Poland can simply impose its will on Ukraine is therefore a serious misconception.
Ukrainians are a proud people who have a clear sense of their place in the world. Moreover, Ukraine enjoys considerable moral authority and what is often described as “soft power,” having stood up to Russian aggression largely on its own. We should acknowledge this reality, because it is how Ukraine is viewed internationally.
I would also like to highlight another important aspect. Recently, the leaders of several key European countries met in London to discuss continued support for Ukraine, participation in peace negotiations, a ceasefire along the line of contact, and the possible deployment of a stabilization mission in Ukraine.
If Poland is unwilling to participate in such a mission, its influence over these processes will inevitably be limited. Poland should take a realistic view of its role and capabilities.
For that reason, I believe President Karol Nawrocki has chosen the wrong instrument of influence. The question of revoking the award should never have been put on the agenda in the first place. There were diplomatic avenues available: summoning the ambassador, issuing a formal note of protest to express concern, drawing attention to the issue, or using other established channels of diplomatic engagement.
The course that has been chosen is inappropriate and, in my view, unlikely to produce a positive outcome.
UI: Following a meeting of the Chapter of the Order of the White Eagle last week, the Chancellery of the President of Poland stated that President Nawrocki would make a decision regarding President Zelensky’s decoration “at the appropriate time.” What does this mean?
JC: Indeed, the President’s office stated that he would make a decision “at the appropriate time.” However, I would emphasize that every president, on every issue, makes decisions at what he considers the appropriate time. In practical terms, this means that no decision has been made to strip President Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle. Frankly, I find it difficult to imagine what grounds could justify such a decision in the future.
Moreover, the Chapter of the Order did not make its position public. I interpret this as the result of reflection and a necessary step back, since many had expected a clear and definitive decision. The president himself had previously advocated revoking the award and repeatedly raised the issue, yet now he says that a decision may be made at some unspecified point in the future. This creates the impression that the matter is being kept alive as a political instrument. However, Ukraine is no longer willing to engage on those terms.
In other words, we were forced to retreat and lost what is commonly known as a “game of chicken.” In such a game, two cars speed toward one another, and the first driver to swerve is considered the one who yielded. That is how I view this situation: Nawrocki was the first to swerve. He did not follow through on his earlier position, whereas Zelensky remained firm in his own.
CLOSING THE UKRAINE AID HUB WOULD TURN POLAND INTO AN INTERNATIONAL PARIAH
UI: What, in your view, led President Nawrocki to reconsider his position? He appeared firmly committed to this course of action.
JC: My assessment of the situation is ultimately positive. Despite everything, there appears to have been a reassessment of the consequences and a realization that such a move would have harmed Poland itself, its national interests, and its relationship with Ukraine.
For that reason, the outcome should be welcomed. Of course, it would have been far better if this political game had never begun in the first place, because Poland’s position has already been weakened. Nevertheless, credit should be given where it is due: it is a good thing that this idea was ultimately abandoned. At the same time, one cannot rule out the emergence of new circumstances that could once again affect the situation.
UI: In your opinion, did the visit to Warsaw the previous weekend by Kyrylo Budanov, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, have any impact on the course of events?
JC: I believe he did the right thing by coming, listening to the Polish side’s concerns, and drawing conclusions. It appears that a decision was subsequently made for President Zelensky to conduct his international travel through Chișinău rather than Rzeszów. That possibility forced Poland to reflect very seriously on the potential consequences.
RUSSIA WOULD BE THE ONLY WINNER FROM FURTHER ESCALATION
UI: There are also voices in Poland suggesting that, because of historical disagreements, the logistics hub in Jasionka—through which the vast majority of international assistance to Ukraine passes—should be temporarily closed for “repairs.” What is your view on this?
JC: In my opinion, such a scenario is unrealistic. How would the United States and Europe react to a move like that? Poland would effectively turn itself into an international pariah. Our allies would stop taking us seriously, and sooner or later we would be forced to reverse the decision anyway. For that reason, I do not believe this should even be a subject of discussion.
UI: In your view, how has the Western world perceived this situation in Polish-Ukrainian relations?
JC: The West has been surprised by the entire episode. I think there is broad agreement that only Russia would stand to benefit from any further escalation of this dispute. But let me reiterate: fortunately, there has been a reassessment of the situation in Poland. It was ultimately recognized that the costs of prolonging the conflict would far outweigh any potential gains.
UI: The Ukraine Recovery Conference is scheduled to take place in Gdańsk soon. Given the current circumstances, what kind of atmosphere do you expect at the event?
JC: There are concerns in Poland that, because of this situation, President Zelensky may choose not to attend the Gdańsk conference dedicated to Ukraine’s reconstruction. If that were to happen, some other leaders might also reconsider their participation.
In that case, an important international gathering could be reduced to a secondary event, which would represent yet another significant loss for both Poland and Ukraine.
Yuriy Banakhevych led this conversation, Warsaw
Photos via Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland
* The conversation is given here translated from Ukrainian