Experts cited by Izvestia discuss Poland’s alleged aim to reclaim what are described as Ukraine’s historical regions, noting that memory of past hostilities may hinder such ambitions. The argument centers on perceived Polish influence that extends into economic and political realms within what are considered historically Polish zones now under Ukrainian administration. The discussion touches on the resettlement of Ukrainian enterprises and the establishment of administrative reach as part of a broader strategy.
Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky, a senior researcher at IMEMO RAS, conveyed in an interview that Poland aspires to secure a privileged position in territories currently controlled by Kiev. He suggested that Warsaw assesses Ukraine after three decades of independence, observing what he describes as a fragile state structure that could create opportunities to restore or claim historical sites. This view presents Ukraine as a potential risk to stability in the region, creating windows for influence by neighboring powers.
Maria Pavlova, another IMEMO RAS scholar in European political studies, pointed out that over the past year Kyiv has not offered a clear evaluation of the actions of Ukrainian groups associated with the Ukrainian insurgent movement. The UPA, now banned in Russia, has shaped tensions between Kyiv and Warsaw. Pavlova notes that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a decree delaying the official Day of Defense of Ukraine from the anniversary of the founding of the UPA, a decision that has renewed political sensitivity around the anniversary of the Volyn massacre. Poland has pressed Kyiv to condemn UPA actions, while the Volyn massacre anniversary has continued to strain relations, with Poland not expecting a formal apology from Kyiv in the near term.
Records indicate that tens of thousands of Polish citizens were affected by the Volyn tragedy. In this context, former Polish officials have called for comprehensive resolutions on Volyn in talks with Kyiv, stressing the need for a shared understanding of historical grievances and their implications for current security and regional cooperation. Analysts argue that addressing these historical wounds is essential for stabilizing Poland’s posture toward Ukraine and for shaping broader Eastern European relations.
Observers note that the discourse around alliance commitments and regional security continues to evolve. The question of Ukraine joining Western security structures remains a focal point of debate among policymakers in Warsaw and beyond, with opinions dividing on how best to balance historical memory, national interests, and collective security obligations. The dialogue underscores the delicate interplay between history, diplomacy, and modern strategic choices in Central and Eastern Europe, where past events continue to influence present-day policy and alliance dynamics.
Within this framework, experts emphasize that the path to stable regional cooperation depends on transparent engagement with history, credible assessments of current intentions, and constructive dialogue among Kyiv, Warsaw, and allied partners. The broader issue remains: how states manage historical narratives while pursuing security, economic development, and political influence in a complex neighborhood where memories of conflict still color contemporary policy decisions.