Why Kyiv failed to prevent an anti-Ukrainian amendment in the European parliament resolution
Last Thursday, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on Ukraine. The lengthy document is devoted to supporting the country during the war and advancing its path towards European Union membership. However, one provision of the resolution has nothing to do with either Ukraine’s EU accession or Russia’s aggression against it.
Strangely enough, it appears in the section titled Commitments Related to EU Accession and Accession Negotiations.
In paragraph 34, the European Parliament criticised Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy personally over what MEPs described as an "unnecessary and unprovoked escalation" - namely, naming a Special Operations Forces unit after the heroes of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA).
Read more about this episode and how Kyiv should respond in the article by Anatolii Martsynovskyi, European Pravda's editor: On Poland’s side and without Ukraine: How criticism of the UPA exposed Kyiv’s systemic problem within EU institutions.
The way the UPA provision ended up in the European Parliament’s resolution is itself somewhat unusual.
Initially, on 30 June, two amendments to the draft resolution were submitted by openly fringe members of the Europe of Sovereign Nations group. Their sponsors included representatives of Alternative for Germany (AfD), Poland’s Confederation party and the leader of the newly established Italian far-right party National Future.
Their proposed amendments described the UPA as "a formation responsible for the Volhynia genocide and mass crimes against Poles, Jews, Czechs, Russians, Armenians, other national minorities and Ukrainians who did not support its actions".
European Pravda knows for certain that even before 30 June, MEPs from Poland’s mainstream parties had been conducting what they called "explanatory work" in the European Parliament, persuading colleagues from other countries that the issue of the UPA should be included in the Ukraine resolution. The submission of amendments by controversial far-right parties appears to have provided a convenient opportunity: their more radical wording was replaced with what was presented as a "more moderate" version.
This is how paragraph 34 emerged. The revised amendment was introduced by Michael Gahler, well known for his pro-Ukrainian stance, and Polish MEP Andrzej Halicki. Both belong to the European People's Party (EPP), the European Parliament’s largest political group, which also includes Donald Tusk’s Civic Platform.
As a result, the resolution adopted language that fully reflects the Polish interpretation of the issue and places the blame for the current crisis in Polish-Ukrainian relations entirely on Ukraine.
Beyond securing the adoption of paragraph 34 itself, Polish members of the European Parliament also made full use of the chamber’s debate.
No one challenged the misleading claims made on the Parliament floor – either regarding the causes of the current tensions between Poland and Ukraine or concerning the historical events in Volhynia themselves.
Only a handful of MEPs offered more balanced views.
Among them was Lithuanian MEP Dainius Žalimas of the Renew Europe group, who argued that different countries may interpret history differently and that reconciliation, rather than mutual recriminations, should be the goal. Polish MEP Michał Kobosko, also from Renew Europe, spoke about the complexity of historical issues and the need for reconciliation.
In this political battle, the Polish side prevailed.
It was Poland’s position, not Ukraine’s, that ultimately received the backing of the European People's Party, whose members secured passage of the amendment reflecting the Polish view of the dispute. This happened despite the fact that four Ukrainian political parties – Batkivshchyna, European Solidarity, UDAR, and Samopomich – are associate members of the EPP.
However, they were not involved in coordinating this part of the resolution.
The episode demonstrates that Ukraine needs a genuine presence within EU institutions, including the European Parliament.
In this context, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s proposal to accelerate Ukraine’s integration into the EU appears particularly valuable for Kyiv. He has suggested giving Ukraine access to EU institutions even before formal membership.
Had Ukraine already been part of the institutional process, it could at the very least have helped make the European Parliament’s resolution mentioning the UPA more balanced.