"This narrative doesn’t work." Head of Ukraine’s Institute of National Remembrance on relations with Poland

The head of Ukraine’s Institute of National Remembrance is the official responsible for presenting and researching the country’s historical memory. However, the supplied article text gives no name, so identifying him would require information outside the excerpt. The headlines focus instead on his assessment of Polish-Ukrainian relations and the Volhynia massacre.

His reported message is that Ukraine should not be treated as someone else’s political subject. One headline quotes the phrase “Nie jesteśmy czyimś podmiotem”, meaning “We are not somebody’s subject”. Another rejects a simple personal analogy, saying, “We are not husband and wife”. These phrases suggest a relationship between two separate states, not a hierarchy or emotional partnership.

The article also presents the relationship as difficult to classify. A headline says there are neither purely bad nor purely good relations between Poland and Ukraine. That framing points to cooperation alongside unresolved historical disputes, rather than a single, permanent judgment.

The phrase “this narrative doesn’t work” refers to a rejected explanation of Polish-Ukrainian relations. The supplied headlines connect it with the Volhynia massacre, the difficult past, and the broader question of how both countries relate today. The wording suggests that one familiar story is too simple or no longer persuasive.

A likely target is the idea that present relations can be understood only through historical guilt, blame, or a permanent Polish-Ukrainian conflict. That interpretation overlooks other parts of the relationship, including separate national interests and cooperation. The article’s other quoted phrases reinforce this point: Ukraine is “not somebody’s subject”, and the countries are “not husband and wife”.

The exact narrative is not defined in the supplied excerpt, so a more precise attribution would go beyond the source. Its clear implication is that history should be discussed, but should not become the only lens for judging current relations or one country’s political independence.

The Volhynia massacre usually refers to mass killings during the Second World War, especially the 1943–1944 campaign in Volhynia in which many Polish civilians were killed by forces associated with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and its armed wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Polish retaliatory actions also killed Ukrainian civilians. The supplied headlines call it a difficult past.

The issue is sensitive because it combines civilian suffering, national identity, and competing memories of responsibility. In Poland, the events are commonly described as genocide or ethnic cleansing against Poles. In Ukraine, public discussion may place them within a wider history of wartime occupation, Ukrainian independence efforts, and violence affecting both communities. Terminology itself therefore carries political weight.

The dispute matters today because remembrance influences official ceremonies, exhumations, monuments, and education. The article’s headlines show that the subject remains tied to current relations, while the Ukrainian position stresses that historical disagreement should not make Ukraine a subordinate partner.

Historians generally agree that the wartime violence in Volhynia and neighboring regions killed many tens of thousands of people and displaced large numbers, but they do not agree on one final total. Estimates for Polish victims often range from about 50,000 to 100,000, while Ukrainian civilian deaths in retaliatory actions are also counted in substantial numbers. The supplied article text gives no figures.

The key mechanism behind the disagreement is how researchers define the event. They may use different borders, time periods, archives, and categories of victims. Some count only civilians killed in organized attacks. Others include deaths from reprisals, local fighting, imprisonment, disease, or forced migration. Wartime records were incomplete, and many communities disappeared or moved.

Because the numbers carry moral and political meaning, estimates are often treated as statements about responsibility. Careful historical work therefore presents ranges and explains its method. The article’s focus on difficult relations shows why these figures remain important in public debate, even without a settled total.

Historical-memory disputes affect present cooperation because governments must balance relations with demands from victims’ families and national audiences. The Volhynia issue can turn a discussion about archives, graves, monuments, or commemorations into a test of national dignity. The supplied headlines reflect this tension by linking the massacre directly with current relations between Poland and Ukraine.

The main mechanism is political pressure. Each side may expect the other to use particular words, recognize particular victims, or approve particular memorial actions. Disagreement can slow permits for exhumations, complicate ceremonies, and produce sharp public statements. At the same time, it does not automatically end practical cooperation in other fields.

The current reality is therefore mixed rather than completely hostile. One headline says there are no simply bad or good relations, while others stress independence and distance. Future cooperation will depend partly on whether both governments can discuss historical crimes without turning memory into a demand for political subordination.

Poland and Ukraine remember the same wartime events differently because their communities experienced different forms of violence and loss. Polish memory usually emphasizes the organized killing and expulsion of Polish civilians in Volhynia. Ukrainian memory often places those events within the broader Second World War, occupation, armed struggle, and violence affecting Ukrainians as well.

The mechanism is selective remembrance. Families preserve local stories, states choose commemorative language, and historians work with archives that may be incomplete or interpreted differently. Terms such as “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, or “mutual violence” highlight different aspects of the past. These choices influence which victims are centered and which causes are stressed.

Neither national memory is identical to every individual’s view, and scholars continue to debate details. Still, the divide has public consequences. The article’s headlines show that the disagreement affects current relations, while the Ukrainian institute’s position emphasizes equality and rejects the idea that historical disputes make Ukraine politically subordinate to Poland.

Governments and national remembrance institutes influence public history by deciding which events receive official attention and how they are described. They support archives, research, museums, school materials, commemorations, and sometimes searches for victims’ remains. Because these institutions speak with public authority, their wording can shape national understanding far beyond academic circles.

Their main mechanism is framing. Calling an event a massacre, ethnic cleansing, genocide, or shared tragedy directs attention toward different victims and responsibilities. Officials also decide which anniversaries are marked and which symbols appear in public spaces. In the Polish-Ukrainian case, the Volhynia dispute shows how historical language can affect diplomacy as well as remembrance.

These institutions can help societies confront painful evidence, especially when they cooperate across borders and acknowledge civilian suffering. They can also deepen conflict if each side treats its interpretation as a test of political loyalty. The supplied headlines underline this tension by presenting history, sovereignty, and current relations as closely connected.