By Sasha Iwaniuk, an author of the books “Amor[te]” and “Lessons in Philosophy”.
In my opinion, the current “telethon” of returning awards is a reaction rather than a response.
And I want to be absolutely clear here: the decision of the Polish president is pathetic, outrageous, and damaging to Polish–Ukrainian relations. Above all, it causes enormous harm to Poland itself. There is no doubt about that.
But does this mean we should respond by showing middle fingers and demonstratively returning awards? Is it really so easy for us to give up distinctions that were awarded not only to specific individuals, but effectively to Ukrainian society as a whole?
I don’t think so. This is not fun or “cool.” It is painful, unjust, and upsetting. And it is certainly not a reason to showcase on social media the process of sending back an award via “Nova Poshta.” In my view, it is time to acknowledge that part of the responsibility for the current situation also lies with us.
The problem is not that someone is telling Ukrainians whom to consider their heroes. The problem is that Ukrainian authorities have for years demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to the Polish context and historical traumas. This applies not only to the current administration, but also to the previous one. Decisions on historical policy were repeatedly made without proper communication and without understanding how they would be perceived by partners. And this is not about “why should we justify ourselves to anyone” or “no one will dictate to us who our heroes are” — it is at least about basic human empathy.
Many Poles today are convinced that certain actions by Kyiv were deliberate gestures against Poland. The hardest part is explaining that these are often not malicious intentions, but incompetence, indifference to the Polish perspective, or an inability to anticipate the consequences of one’s decisions.
That is why, for me, this story is not about “sovereignty,” but about the quality of diplomacy. Sovereignty does not exclude empathy and sensitivity. On the contrary, it implies the ability to understand one’s partners, to communicate one’s decisions properly, and at the same time not to abandon one’s own position. In international politics, it is not only what you do that matters, but also how you do it.
A separate issue is the UPA. For many Ukrainians, it is a symbol of the struggle for independence. For most Poles, it is also a symbol of the mass killings of civilians in Volhynia. These two memories exist simultaneously, whether we like it or not.
Recognizing that our heroes may have been involved in crimes against civilians does not automatically mean abandoning them. But it does mean acknowledging the reality of someone else’s trauma. For many Poles, Volhynia is not an abstract historical dispute, but part of family memory. And I personally know many such people, some of them my friends.
Many people do not realize how much effort is required to rebuild relations after each such step. And here, Poroshenko and Zelenskyy, unfortunately, are in the same league. How many conversations, articles, conflicts, explanations, and diplomatic efforts are needed to move forward after another crisis, to remain partners, to agree on exhumations, or to restore dialogue between historians.
Just a month ago, the Polish–Ukrainian congress of historians took place for the first time in a long while. Such things do not happen on their own. They are the result of years of work by many people trying to preserve space for dialogue even when politicians are doing everything to narrow it.
Perhaps it is time to treat all this less ironically and more seriously. To start real diplomacy, not an exchange of offended gestures. It is easy to react. It is much harder to respond. Reaction is born from emotion; response is born from an understanding of consequences. And it is precisely responding, not reacting, that is the task of politics and diplomacy.
