Polish President Karol Nawrocki announced on 19 June 2026 that he had revoked the Order of the White Eagle — Poland's highest state honor — from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, citing Zelensky's May decree conferring the honorary title "In the Name of the Heroes of the UPA" on a Ukrainian special operations unit [1][2][3]. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) is held responsible in Poland for the massacre of up to 100,000 ethnic Poles in the Volhynia region during World War II; the Polish parliament recognized those killings as genocide in 2016 [5]. The revocation came days before Zelensky was expected to visit Poland for the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Gdańsk [9].

Nawrocki framed the decision as a defense of historical memory. "Historical truth is not, and can never be, a bargaining chip. Remembering the victims is a moral obligation of the Polish state," he stated [3][4]. He described Ukraine's decision to honor the UPA as "outrageous" and "incomprehensible," adding that it constituted "a blow not only to historical memory but also to the trust we have built over the years" [2][8][12]. He also warned that Ukraine's path toward European structures "requires a willingness to honestly confront the difficult chapters of its own history" and that "a united Europe was built on the rejection of totalitarianism and the cult of violence" [6]. Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz described the issue as deeply troubling and argued that lasting partnership requires honesty about the past [1]. Poland's opposition parties supported the revocation, while ruling coalition politicians warned of negative consequences for relations with Ukraine [22].

Nawrocki simultaneously insisted the decision "is not against the Ukrainian nation" and "does not change the strategic direction of Poland's security policy" [1][5]. The Straits Times reported that Poland's strategic direction on security would remain unchanged despite the diplomatic crisis [14].

Ukrainian officials rejected the revocation in coordinated terms. Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha called it "a strategic mistake by the President of Poland, from which only Moscow benefits" and announced he would return his own Polish Commander's Cross Order of Merit [2][6][7]. Head of the Presidential Office Kyrylo Budanov renounced his Golden Officer's Cross, writing: "Безусловно, это подарок для московского агрессора, который обязательно использует против обеих наших стран" (This is undoubtedly a gift for the Moscow aggressor, who will certainly use it against both our countries) [8]. Ambassador to Poland Vasyl Bodnar returned his Knight's Cross [6]. Parliament Chairman Ruslan Stefanchuk called the move a "catastrophic mistake that will have far-reaching negative consequences for the Ukrainian–Polish partnership" [6]. Ukrainian MP Mykola Kniazhytskyi, co-head of the Ukraine-Poland Interparliamentary Group, stated the decision "shows President Nawrocki's attitude toward the entire Ukrainian people and the Armed Forces of Ukraine" [6].

Zelensky's original decree stated the unit designation was made "with the aim of restoring the historical traditions of the national army" and recognizing the unit's battlefield performance [2][5]. Ukrainian officials maintained that armed formations on both sides committed violence during the WWII period and that no foreign president should dictate Ukraine's interpretation of its own history [3][11]. Sybiha urged both sides to leave sensitive chapters of shared history to professional historians [5].

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk occupied a position between the two presidents. He acknowledged Zelensky's unit naming was a "bad decision" and relayed that Zelensky had told him personally he had no intention to offend Poles [4]. But he warned that the resulting conflict "pleases Putin and shocks our allies" and that "the front line runs elsewhere" [7]. "Si l'Ukraine perd cette guerre, si cela devait arriver, la Pologne se retrouvera dans une situation dramatiquement plus difficile" (If Ukraine loses this war, should that happen, Poland will find itself in a dramatically more difficult situation), Tusk stated [10]. A constitutional question remained unresolved: several sources noted that the prime minister's countersignature may be required for the revocation to take legal effect, and Tusk had not indicated whether he would provide it [8][11][12].

A Polish civil society petition urged Tusk to refuse the countersignature, arguing the revocation fuels anti-Ukrainian hatred and undermines Poland's own security [23]. Notes from Poland reported that Budanov had visited Warsaw for talks with Nawrocki's staff and the Polish government in an effort to find a diplomatic solution before the revocation was announced, but those efforts did not succeed [7].

The timing raised concrete institutional questions. The Ukraine Recovery Conference in Gdańsk, which Tusk described as a key step for Ukraine's EU integration, was scheduled for the following week [27]. Former Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz speculated that Zelensky might skip the event [15], though Tusk confirmed Polish authorities still expected Zelensky to attend [16]. EU Enlargement Chief Marta Kos stated that Polish objections related to Ukraine's EU accession had "been solved at the working level," suggesting the political escalation reopened a question that institutional channels had already addressed [6]. Taiwanese outlet United Daily News reported the revocation could negatively affect Ukraine's EU and NATO integration prospects [24].

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed satisfaction with Poland's reaction, emphasizing the importance of remembering the crimes of nationalist formations during WWII, including the Volhynia tragedy [17]. That response aligned with analysis published by the Polish Press Agency, in which RUSI historian Floris van Berkel Smith explained that Russia systematically uses the shared traumatic history of Poland and Ukraine — particularly the Volhynia massacre — in disinformation campaigns designed to erode trust between the two allies [26]. Both Nawrocki and Sybiha stated the dispute should not benefit Moscow [1][2], yet Peskov's public endorsement of Poland's position illustrated the dynamic both sides said they wished to avoid [17].

Whether the revocation takes legal effect depends on Tusk's countersignature, which remained pending as of 20 June [8][12]. Tusk confirmed the Gdańsk recovery conference would proceed as planned [16][27].