“We chose escalation”: a Ukrainian editor’s frank admission on Poland tensions

“I wrote about it publicly, so I must publicly admit the (so far probable) mistake,” began Sergiy Sydorenko, editor-in-chief of EUalive’s partner European Pravda, in a widely discussed Facebook post on Sunday.

Sydorenko reflected on his earlier view that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy should have attended events in Gdańsk, Poland. He now believes his assessment missed a “critically important element” that only became clear later: Kyiv appears to have deliberately chosen a path of further escalation in historical and symbolic issues rather than de-escalation.

“I proceeded from the assumption that Kyiv intended to look for ways to reduce tensions in its dialogue with Poland. It seemed to me that this was so necessary that it was obvious,” he wrote. “Therefore, I could not even imagine the opposite scenario — that the chosen vector was one of further escalation.”

The Pantheon law and the spark

The immediate trigger is a draft law on the creation of a Ukrainian National Pantheon in Kyiv, which Zelenskyy registered in parliament on Saturday.

As Ukraine marks the 35th anniversary of the restoration of its independence, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy [@ZelenskyyUa] has announced plans to create a Ukrainian National Pantheon to honor the country’s heroes. pic.twitter.com/dtLo4XGGQA
— TVP World (@TVPWorld_com) June 28, 2026

The bill reportedly envisions a major public memorial complex to honour national heroes and preserve collective memory. It explicitly includes figures such as Roman Shukhevych, a commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) during World War II. There is ambiguity – but significant concern – that it may also encompass Dmytro Klyachkivsky (“Klym Savur”), another UPA leader whose units are directly linked by historians to the Volyn tragedy (the mass killings of Poles by Ukrainian nationalists in 1943–1944).

Sydorenko notes that if Klym Savur is included, other recent symbolic moves (such as naming a Special Operations Forces unit after “UPA Heroes”) would pale in comparison. He expresses hope that this is not the case, but warns that a public clarification to reassure Poland may not be forthcoming given the apparent policy direction.

Historical sensitivities and Polish-Ukrainian relations

The Volyn tragedy remains one of the most painful unresolved issues between the two nations. Poland officially recognizes it as genocide and has repeatedly called for full historical reckoning. In Ukraine, Shukhevych and the UPA are widely revered as anti-Soviet fighters and symbols of the independence struggle – though their methods and involvement in civilian deaths are hotly debated.

Recent Ukrainian steps – including the Pantheon bill and other memory-policy decisions – are seen by many in Poland as moving away from joint reconciliation efforts toward unilateral assertion of a national narrative. This comes at a time when both countries face a common existential threat from Russia’s war, making the friction particularly damaging.

Sydorenko suggests that if the escalation vector was chosen deliberately before the Gdańsk events (including the reported downgrading of Ukraine’s delegation), then Zelenskyy’s participation there would have been untenable – a meeting with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk could have been interpreted as accepting a “black mark.”

The bigger picture: eurointegration at risk?

Ukraine’s European integration remains a strategic priority, with accession talks underway. Poland has historically been one of Ukraine’s strongest advocates in the EU and NATO. Strains over history could complicate bilateral support, slow technical cooperation, and give ammunition to skeptics in Europe who question Ukraine’s readiness or commitment to European values.

Sydorenko leaves the question open: “What to do with Eurointegration in this scenario?”

He notes that skeptics would argue the path is already closed.

A moment of reflection

Sydorenko’s public self-correction is notable in Ukraine’s often polarized information space. It underscores a broader debate: how Ukraine balances legitimate nation-building and historical justice with pragmatic diplomacy toward key partners like Poland. As the war continues, both sides have powerful incentives to manage these tensions – but symbolic politics can quickly become self-reinforcing.

Whether the Pantheon bill and related moves represent a temporary hardening or a longer-term shift remains to be seen. In wartime, Ukraine can ill afford historical disputes of this kind, which risk straining vital partnerships at the very moment when unity and support are most critical.

Disputes over history – ranging from ancient grievances and medieval legacies to 20th-century conflicts such as the Yugoslav wars – have repeatedly marred the EU enlargement process and continue to complicate accession negotiations for candidate countries.

Caption: President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on 28 June 2027 that he submitted to parliament a law on the National Pantheon. “All heroes who fought for Ukraine across centuries and eras will be united, forever inscribed in our history”, he said. [Photo credit: website of the President of Ukraine]