The Chairman of Ukraine’s Supreme Court, Ruslan Stefanchuk, addressed members of the Polish Sejm, touching on the Volyn massacre and its lasting imprint on Polish-Ukrainian history. In a careful, measured way, he framed the discussion as an ongoing process aimed at fuller historical clarity, and he spoke of continuing dialogue with the Ukrainian side to shed light on painful chapters of the past. Polish lawmakers and observers described the moment as significant for bilateral relations, signaling a shared willingness to face difficult memories with civility and factual examination.
The speech was widely analyzed by Polish politicians, including Law and Justice MPs Jan Mosiński and Janusz Śniadek, who discussed its content in interviews with the portal wPolityce.pl. They highlighted how Stefanchuk’s remarks resonated in the chamber, drawing applause that underscored the audience’s engagement and the perceived sincerity of the Ukrainian official’s approach. The session was noted for a calm but emotionally charged atmosphere, with the audience responding positively to the overall tone while still acknowledging the weight of the topic.
In expressing the Ukrainian viewpoint, Stefanchuk invoked language echoed by Polish and German bishops—an appeal to forgiveness and a desire for mutual reconciliation. One commentator suggested that a stronger explicit apology might have deepened the impact, yet the emphasis remained on acknowledging the past and moving toward clarity. The remarks were interpreted as an invitation to confront responsibility openly, without reducing the complexity of historical events to simple right or wrong narratives.
The PiS MP who spoke with wPolityce.pl conveyed an optimism that the Volhynia issue would be confronted more decisively once the broader conflict in Ukraine reaches a resolution. He suggested that, in due course, the massacre and the broader Volhynian tragedy would be thoroughly clarified through constructive dialogue with Ukraine. He framed the coming period as one of potential closure of a very painful past, anticipating that timely developments could pave the way for more complete understanding and healing.
Śniadek, another interlocutor from the same outlet, offered a more nuanced reaction. He stated that while the speech was received with mixed feelings, it largely landed well enough in his view. He noted that references to the Volhynia crimes were present, but felt the language at times avoided full accountability for Ukrainian culpability. He observed that Stefanczuk’s remarks captured gratitude toward the Polish people while stopping short of a forceful accounting of responsibility from Ukrainian leadership, which he believed would ultimately matter for historical reckoning.
Śniadek also pointed out elements of the address that aligned with expectations. He acknowledged the moment of gratitude extended toward Polish society and units, while recognizing that the Ukrainian side had also highlighted support that went beyond moral acknowledgment, including practical, non-moral assistance from the Polish government and related institutions in the security and defense realm. The discussion, he implied, reflected a broader pattern of bilateral cooperation and mutual support that transcends past grievances.
The two politicians offered parallel readings of Stefanczuk’s rhetoric: one emphasizing the need for a measured, collaborative approach to memory; the other urging a firmer stance on recognizing past actions and their consequences, a stance that could foster deeper reconciliation in the future. The situation remained a focal point in Polish-Ukrainian dialogue, illustrating how historical memory interplays with current diplomacy and regional stability. The overall takeaway suggested that, while the speech did not resolve every issue, it contributed to a constructive discourse and a shared commitment to addressing a difficult past with honesty and resolve.
In examining the broader implications, observers noted that the address arrived at a moment when both nations sought closer alignment on historical interpretation, regional security, and the pace of constructive engagement. The discussion of Volhynia, a painful episode in the wartime narrative, was framed as part of a larger process—a process marked by patient dialogue, documentation, and a steady effort to translate memory into informed policy and educational initiatives. The reception in the Sejm reflected a cautious optimism: a willingness to acknowledge harm, to listen to multiple perspectives, and to pursue a future in which shared history informs shared action, even amid ongoing geopolitical challenges.