In defiance of Moscow, Ukraine chooses the wrong “heroes”

Although little known to the wider Ukrainian public, the return of his remains, marked by a grand ceremony at a cemetery in Kiev, marked a new phase in Ukraine’s relationship with its past. The reburial of Andriy Melnyk (1890–1964) and his wife Sofya Fedak-Melnyk (1901–1990) was overseen by Volodymyr Zelensky on 25 May, in the presence of numerous officials, including former President Viktor Yushchenko, Chief of Presidential Administration Kyrylo Budanov, and Parliament Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk. Describing Melnyk as “a great Ukrainian figure,” Zelensky took a significant step forward in one of the country’s most sensitive issues of historical memory, a subject he had previously approached with great caution.

Melnyk was no ordinary historical figure. A key figure in 20th-century Ukrainian nationalism, he was one of the leaders of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), and later led the faction that bore his name (OUN-M) after the movement split with Stepan Bandera (1909–1959), who became his main rival. In the struggle for Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union, OUN supporters collaborated with Nazi Germany and participated in the Holocaust. Melnyk was briefly interned in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Germany in 1944, when Ukrainian aspirations for independence clashed with the goals of the Third Reich. He died in exile in Luxembourg in 1964 and remained a marginal figure in Ukraine for decades, mostly respected in nationalist circles in the diaspora.

In the context of war, there is enormous space for a nationalist movement, while those who emphasize the complexity of these choices have fewer opportunities to be heard. Especially since critics can more easily be suspected of serving Russian interests, said sociologist Ana Kolin Lebedev, an expert on post-Soviet societies.

Reactions to the reburial of the OUN-M leader were immediate in Israel. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that “there is no place for ignoring the historical truth and the memory of the victims killed by the Nazis and their collaborators.” Yad Vashem, the International Holocaust Remembrance Center, also condemned the move on May 25, stating that it was “deeply concerned” about the commemorations: “Honoring the leader of a movement that supported and collaborated with Nazi Germany during the persecution and murder of millions of Jews undermines the moral integrity necessary for the remembrance of the Holocaust,” the institution wrote.

A delicate position

The Ukrainian president’s reversal of historical memory policy did not stop there. Just days later, on May 27, Zelensky named a military unit after “heroes of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army” (UPA). The decision reignited a battle of memory between Kiev and Warsaw that has been simmering for decades over the massacres of civilians at the end of World War II. While Ukraine presents the UPA, the armed wing of the OUN, as a national resistance movement against Soviet rule, Poland recalls its responsibility for the massacres of Polish civilians in Volhynia, in northwestern Ukraine, attributing the deaths of more than 100.000 Poles to UPA fighters between 1943 and 1944.

“By paying tribute to the UPA bandits, the president of Ukraine has insulted me, as well as all our compatriots who were massacred,” said former Polish president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lech Walesa. In a more predictable reaction, given his hostility to Kiev, Poland’s nationalist president Karol Nawrocki said the glorification of the UPA showed that “Ukraine is not ready to be part of the European family.”

Zelensky’s shift in stance on these issues of historical memory comes at a time when the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has profoundly altered Ukrainians’ relationship with their own history. The authorities are now seeking to create a national pantheon to honor the many figures of Ukrainian nationalism throughout the centuries. Zelensky has thus found himself in a delicate position, caught between the risk of failing to meet the demands of a narrative centered on resistance to Moscow and the international consequences of such a policy of historical memory.

A finger in Russia's eye

The figures of Ukrainian nationalism, long a source of deep divisions in society, have experienced an accelerated rehabilitation since 2022. “The invasion in a sense re-legitimizes the struggle of Ukrainian nationalists from the mid-20th century, who saw Russia as the main enemy,” explained sociologist Anna Kolin Lebedev, an expert on post-Soviet societies. “The longer the war goes on, the more Russia shows a willingness to destroy what makes Ukraine Ukraine, the more Ukrainians will justify this old struggle, without necessarily paying attention to the historical context.”

She says the war simplifies the historical narrative and thus obscures the reality of collaboration: “Today’s nationalist representatives do not emphasize the struggle of these 20th-century figures with the Nazis, but their struggle against Moscow, which is very clearly divided.” Lebedev also attributes this form of rehabilitation to the desire of Ukrainians to “provoke” the Russians. A figure like Bandera is thus increasingly viewed positively by a part of Ukrainian public opinion. Such rehabilitation is often misunderstood abroad. “Many Ukrainians feel that they are defying Russia,” Lebedev noted. “But they are less aware that it can also be seen as a defiance of the European Union.”

The change of course by Zelensky, who comes from a Jewish family far from the nationalist strongholds of western Ukraine, also reflects the changing power relations in society. The decision to return Melnikov's remains to Ukraine came after the highly politicized Institute of National Remembrance was taken over in June 2025 by historian Oleksandr Alfyorov, who is seeking to rehabilitate these controversial figures.

The influence of certain highly visible commanders on the front lines may also explain Zelensky’s change of heart, Lebedeva said. “Today, it is difficult for the Ukrainian authorities to challenge the demands of charismatic officers,” she said. “In the context of war, there is a huge space for a nationalist movement, while those who emphasize the complexity of these choices have fewer opportunities to be heard,” she added. “Especially since critics can more easily be suspected of serving Russian interests.”

Translation: NB