# REPORT: Tusk Tells Kyiv to Confront Its History With Warsaw

> On July 3, 2026, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said, according to Reuters, that Ukraine must "confront its history" while seeking to ease bilateral tensions between the two countries.

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Reportage
- Published: 2026-07-20
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/report-tusk-tells-kyiv-to-confront-its-history-with-warsaw

## Introduction: One Sentence, Two Capitals, an Ally Under Strain

### On July 3, Tusk Attaches a Condition to Easing Tensions

On **July 3, 2026**, Polish Prime Minister **Donald Tusk** said, according to **Reuters**, that Ukraine must **"confront its history"** while seeking to ease bilateral tensions between the two countries. The statement, made amid intense electoral rivalry between Tusk's coalition (**Koalicja Obywatelska**, **KO**) and the conservative **PiS** party, puts back at the center of the news one of the most sensitive files in Polish-Ukrainian relations: the memory of the **Volhynia tragedies** of **1943**-**1945**, during which tens of thousands of Polish civilians were killed by Ukrainian nationalist units.

This sentence, diplomatic on its surface, carries considerable political weight. It comes at a time when **Poland** remains one of **Ukraine**'s most consistent backers against the Russian invasion, providing weapons, refugee shelter and logistical support since 2022. The paradox is striking: the most militarily committed ally is, in the same breath, demanding a historical acknowledgment that **Kyiv** has so far granted only partially.

### What This Report Documents

This piece traces the origins of this historical tension, how it recently eased through concrete gestures, and why it resurfaces precisely as **Tusk** faces growing domestic electoral pressure from the **PiS** and President **Karol Nawrocki**. No speculation is offered about the Polish prime minister's exact intentions — only reported facts and verifiable context shape this analysis.

*There's something deeply human in this scene: two nations fighting side by side against a common aggressor, still unable to agree on how to mourn their shared dead from eighty years ago. History doesn't disappear just because a more urgent war occupies the present.*

## Volhynia, a Wound That Has Never Fully Healed

### Tens of Thousands of Victims, a Contested Memory

Between **1943** and **1945**, units of the **Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)**, tied to the **Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists**, killed a number of Polish civilians historians estimate at between **40,000 and 100,000 people** in the regions of **Volhynia** and eastern **Galicia**, then under German occupation. Polish reprisals also cost the lives of several thousand Ukrainian civilians. The **Polish Sejm** described these events as **"ethnic cleansing with the characteristics of a mass atrocity"** in a **2013** resolution, a characterization Ukraine continues to officially dispute, preferring to speak of a **Polish-Ukrainian conflict** with shared responsibility.

This difference in interpretation isn't a mere historians' debate. It shapes part of both countries' national identity: Poland sees a targeted persecution of its civilian population, while a portion of Ukrainian opinion regards the **UPA** as a force that fought for national independence against Soviet and Nazi occupations. This memorial tension has weighed on bilateral relations for decades, resurfacing at every anniversary or diplomatic misstep.

### The 2017 Moratorium, a Symbol of Frozen Relations

In **2017**, the **Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance** imposed a **moratorium** on **exhumations** of Polish victims on Ukrainian soil, in response to the demolition of a controversial UPA monument in Poland. This blockage, maintained for seven years, kept Polish families from accessing the remains of their missing relatives, fueling lasting resentment in **Warsaw**. The thaw only came in **November 2024**, when **Kyiv** lifted the ban, paving the way for joint exhumations to resume in 2025.

This historical context directly illuminates the **July 3, 2026** statement: Tusk isn't reviving a forgotten file, he's recalling a question that has never been fully resolved, despite real diplomatic progress over the past two years.

*When a country waits eighty years to bury its dead with dignity, its citizens' patience eventually runs out. That's not idle resentment. It's the bare minimum any nation owes those it has lost.*

## The Puźniki Exhumations: A Documented But Fragile Thaw

### Zelensky and Tusk, a Deal Hailed as a Breakthrough

On **January 15, 2025**, Ukrainian President **Volodymyr Zelensky** and Donald Tusk announced an agreement allowing the resumption of **exhumations** of Polish victims in **Ukraine**. Tusk called it a **"breakthrough"** at the time, noting the two nations had found **"a common language and methods of joint action"** on this painful file. The first exhumations began in **April 2025** in the vanished village of **Puźniki**, where at least **42 victims** were found and identified by a joint Polish-Ukrainian team, before being given a dignified burial in **September 2025**.

This concrete cooperation, documented by the **Polish Institute of National Remembrance** and several international media outlets, shows that the Polish-Ukrainian relationship has managed, despite tensions, to produce tangible results on the memorial front. This isn't a file frozen in hostility — it's a file in motion, slow, but real.

### Ukrainian Teams Are Also Searching in Poland

The reciprocal nature of this effort deserves to be highlighted: Ukrainian teams have also conducted searches on Polish soil, notably near **Jureczkowa**, to find the remains of UPA fighters killed in clashes with the Polish army in the 1940s. This bilateral work, reported by **RFE/RL** in October 2025, shows a shared willingness to treat the memory of this conflict with a principle of fairness, even though the human tolls remain largely disproportionate between the two sides.

Thirteen sites are planned for excavation on the Ukrainian side, four on the Polish side — an ambitious program whose pace remains dependent on the security conditions of the ongoing war and the administrative burdens inherent to this type of cross-border cooperation.

*We should credit what's working: Polish and Ukrainian researchers digging together, in the mud, to give a name back to victims eighty years gone. That's an act of civilization few contemporary conflicts can claim.*

## Polish Domestic Politics, the Catalyst Behind the Statement

### Tusk Weakened, Nawrocki Waiting in Ambush

Tusk's **July 3, 2026** statement can't be understood without its domestic political context. Since **Karol Nawrocki**, a candidate backed by the **PiS**, won the presidential election of **June 2025**, the coalition government led by Tusk has faced a strengthened opposition and a tense institutional cohabitation. The **PiS**, historically more uncompromising on recognizing the events in **Volhynia** as a **mass atrocity** specifically targeting Poles, regularly uses this memorial file to criticize what it calls Tusk's overly conciliatory line toward **Kyiv**.

In this context of renewed electoral rivalry, Tusk's statement can be read as an attempt to seize the initiative on ground where the **PiS** traditionally holds the rhetorical advantage. By demanding that Ukraine **"confront its history,"** Tusk simultaneously sends a message to **Kyiv** and to his domestic opposition, showing he isn't sacrificing Polish national memory on the altar of geopolitical support for Ukraine.

### A Hard Diplomatic Balance to Hold

This dual constraint — militarily supporting Ukraine while maintaining firmness on memorial questions — illustrates the complexity of Poland's position in the current war. **Warsaw** can't afford to appear weak toward Moscow by scaling back its support for **Kyiv**, but it also can't ignore a significant part of its electorate for whom recognition of the Volhynia victims remains a non-negotiable matter of national dignity.

Reuters notes that Tusk, in the same statement, insisted on his desire to **ease** bilateral tensions, a sign that this verbal firmness doesn't come with any rollback of Polish support for Ukraine's war effort. It's a diplomatic balancing act, carried out under the pressure of an electoral calendar that leaves little room to breathe.

*One can understand Tusk's position without applauding it blindly. Using a wound this deep as an electoral lever, even indirectly, carries a risk: turning a question of memory and dignity into mere political currency.*

## What Ukraine Can Actually Do, and What It Has Already Done

### Real Gestures, Official Recognition Still Absent

Since 2022, amid the Russian invasion, Ukraine has considerably softened its position on the **Volhynia** file, lifting the **moratorium** on **exhumations** and allowing joint excavations to resume. These concrete gestures contrast with the continued absence of official recognition by the **Ukrainian Parliament** of the events as a mass atrocity specifically targeting the Polish civilian population — the characterization Poland has demanded for years and that **Kyiv** continues to refuse, citing a more complex reading of the historical conflict.

This asymmetry between practical gestures and symbolic recognition explains why Tusk can, factually justified, claim Ukraine still needs to **"confront its history,"** while acknowledging the progress made since 2024. The two claims aren't contradictory — they describe an unfinished process, underway but far from concluded.

### The Weight of War on Ukraine's Capacity to Address This File

It would be unfair to ignore the context in which Ukraine is being asked to address this memorial file: a country in an existential war against **Vladimir Putin's Russia**, where political, symbolic and human resources are mobilized primarily for national survival. Devoting significant political energy to a contested historical debate, one liable to divide Ukrainian domestic opinion, carries a cost **Kyiv** must weigh against the urgency of the front.

This observation doesn't absolve Ukraine of its memorial responsibilities — it simply puts the pace in context. The cooperation begun since 2024, however imperfect, shows that **Kyiv** isn't ignoring the issue. It's handling it with the caution of a country that can't afford new internal fractures in wartime.

*I refuse to place on equal footing a nation fighting for its existence and a nation rightly demanding recognition for its dead. Both demands are legitimate. The tragedy of this story is that they must coexist while Russian bombs keep falling on Kharkiv and Kyiv.*

## The European Stake: A Fracture Moscow Is Watching Closely

### Every Bilateral Tension Potentially Weakens the Western Front

Any weakening of the Polish-Ukrainian relationship carries a geopolitical risk that goes far beyond the bilateral framework. Poland remains one of the most important logistical entry points for Western military aid destined for Ukraine, and it plays a leading diplomatic role within the **European Union** and **NATO** on the Ukraine file. A lasting deterioration of this relationship, even limited to memorial questions, could be seen by the **Kremlin** as an exploitable crack in **Western solidarity**.

European partners, aware of this sensitivity, have generally avoided publicly interfering in this bilateral file, treating it as a matter of historical sovereignty for the two nations concerned. This diplomatic restraint, understandable as it is, shouldn't obscure the real strategic stake: the cohesion of Western support for Ukraine partly depends on the solidity of its relations with its direct neighbors, Poland foremost among them.

### A Propaganda Opportunity for the Kremlin

Russian propaganda has, in the past, tried to exploit historical tensions between European nations to weaken the perception of Western unity against the aggression against Ukraine. Any Polish statement on the **Volhynia** file, even one framed in a measured diplomatic tone like Tusk's on **July 3, 2026**, risks being weaponized by disinformation channels seeking to portray the Polish-Ukrainian alliance as fragile or artificial.

This reality demands particular vigilance from both governments in how they handle this file publicly, so that legitimate memorial questions aren't hijacked by those seeking precisely to divide the nations standing in **common front** against Russian aggression.

*Vladimir Putin doesn't need to invent divisions among Western allies — he just has to wait for them to resurface naturally, then amplify them. The responsibility not to hand him that gift rests on Warsaw and Kyiv, today more than ever.*

## How Other Baltic and Central European Capitals See It

### Similar Memorial Precedents Across Central Europe

Poland isn't the only Central European nation having to reconcile historical wounds inherited from the Second World War while building strategic solidarity against contemporary Russia. The Baltic states, facing their own painful history of Soviet occupation, are closely watching how **Warsaw** and **Kyiv** handle this file, since it could serve as a model — positive or negative — for other necessary memorial reconciliations in the region.

**Lithuania**, in particular, maintains close ties with Ukraine while also carrying a complex memory of the Soviet and Nazi eras. This regional dimension reinforces the idea that the Polish-Ukrainian file can't be treated in isolation — it fits within a broader memorial geography, where every step forward or every tension carries lessons for neighbors.

### Germany, a Reconciliation Model Invoked but Hard to Replicate

Several Polish and Ukrainian commentators have, in recent years, cited the postwar Franco-German **reconciliation** model as a possible reference for the Polish-Ukrainian relationship. That parallel has its limits: Franco-German reconciliation was built over several decades of peace, while the Polish-Ukrainian relationship must be built in the middle of a war, under pressure from a common aggressor who has no interest in seeing that reconciliation succeed.

This time constraint partly explains both governments' caution: building a lasting memorial **reconciliation** takes time, a luxury the current war only partly affords **Warsaw** and **Kyiv**.

*History sometimes offers inspiring models, rarely off-the-shelf solutions. Polish-Ukrainian reconciliation will have to invent its own method, suited to the urgency of a war neither France nor Germany had to face at the time of their own reconciliation.*

## Next Steps in the Memorial File

### A Judicial and Diplomatic Calendar Still Open

Thirteen exhumation sites are now planned on Ukrainian territory, according to information reported by **RFE/RL**, with a pace dependent on security conditions tied to the ongoing conflict and bilateral administrative approvals. No precise timeline has been communicated for a possible Ukrainian parliamentary recognition of the Volhynia events under a characterization closer to what Warsaw has demanded, leaving this part of the file open for an indefinite period.

Upcoming bilateral summits between the two governments, along with the **July 11** commemorations, a Polish day of remembrance for the victims established in 2016, will be symbolic moments capable of either easing or, conversely, re-straining this complex memorial relationship.

### What Tusk Actually Expects From Kyiv

While Reuters doesn't detail specific demands made by Tusk beyond the general call to **"confront history,"** the Polish context suggests expectations fall along three lines: continuing and accelerating exhumations, more explicit official recognition by Ukrainian institutions, and easier access to Soviet and German archives that could clarify precise responsibilities from that period. These expectations, whether explicitly stated or not, shape the ongoing memorial dialogue between the two capitals.

What happens next on this file will depend as much on Tusk's domestic political solidity against the PiS as on Ukraine's ability to devote, despite the war, institutional resources to this unfinished chapter of its shared history with Poland.

*A timeline with no fixed deadline isn't a failure in itself, as long as it remains an active timeline. What would be a failure is silence, abandoning the file, a return to the 2017 moratorium. Nothing in the documented facts suggests Warsaw or Kyiv is heading toward that scenario.*

## Conclusion: A Friendship Tested, Never Broken

### Two Nations Bound to Get Along

Donald Tusk's July 3, 2026 statement doesn't signal a rupture between Warsaw and Kyiv, but it reminds us that an alliance forged in the urgency of war doesn't automatically dissolve historical wounds decades old. Poland remains, in the documented facts, one of Ukraine's most committed backers against Russian aggression — that material and diplomatic support has never been called into question by this memorial tension.

### What the Shared History Can Still Become

The joint exhumations at Puźniki show that a path to reconciliation exists, slow but real, between two nations with every strategic and moral reason to stay united against a common enemy. Tusk's statement, placed in this context, should be read as a reminder of an expectation rather than a threat of rupture — a reminder that the memory of the dead can't be indefinitely pushed behind the urgency of the present, however legitimate that urgency may be.

*I deeply believe Poland and Ukraine will emerge from this war more bound together than before, not despite their shared history, but because of their ability to face it together, one excavation at a time. It's slow work. It's better than a comfortable silence.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [Poland's Tusk says Ukraine wants lower tension but should confront history — Reuters, July 3, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/world/polands-tusk-says-ukraine-wants-lower-tension-should-confront-history-2026-07-03/)

- [Funeral Ceremony in Puźniki: A Final Resting Place for Victims of the Volhynia Tragedy — Polish Institute of National Remembrance, September 6, 2025](https://eng.ipn.gov.pl/en/news/12006,Funeral-Ceremony-in-Puzniki-A-Final-Resting-Place-for-Victims-of-the-Volhynia-Ma.html)

- [Eight decades after Volhynia, Ukrainians search for Polish graves — RFE/RL, October 2, 2025](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-poland-volhynia-exhumations-war-upn/33546162.html)

### Secondary sources

- [Poland hails breakthrough with Ukraine over Second World War Volhynia atrocity — The Guardian, January 16, 2025](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/16/poland-hails-breakthrough-with-ukraine-over-second-world-war-volhynia-atrocity)

- [Notes from Poland: tracking Polish-Ukrainian relations and Volhynia exhumations, April 2025](https://notesfrompoland.com/)

- [Euronews: coverage of the Volhynia victims' funeral ceremony in Puźniki, September 6, 2025](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/report-tusk-tells-kyiv-to-confront-its-history-with-warsaw