In fresh years we have increasingly observed the phenomenon of relativisation of symbolism and narratives derived from the tradition of Ukrainian chauvinism. The case of Deputy Minister Andrij Szeptycki, who commented entry The band release Rainshouse shows how easy it is in public debate to ignore the historical and moral context of specified content. In the face of expanding global tensions, it is peculiarly worrying that officials avoid unequivocal distance from the symbolism associated with extremist nationalism.
Polish (?) Deputy Minister approves of banners wishing to Przemyśl. Andrij Szeptsky of the Tusk government has already accustomed us to highly pro-Ukrainian statements. This time it was about Ukrainian territory. According to media reports, the sale featured a flag depicting the imagination of “Big Ukraine”, including Polish cities specified as Przemyśl or Chełm. The product description referred to red-black UPA colours and ideological slogans characteristic of utmost environments.
Instead of powerfully criticizing specified content, Szeptycki's reaction was limited to a general comment that did not mention to issues of territorial claims against Poland or to the general propaganda character of the publication. He wrote for the Crimea being Ukrainian. specified an attitude can be perceived as a silent approval to reinterpret past in the Ukrainian spirit.
The problem is not just a single statement. In the broader context, we can see a tendency to normalize the symbolism associated with formations, which for many Poles stay synonymous with the tragic events of the 20th century. Historical “etnographic” maps, which are cited by any Ukrainian environments, have already been utilized as a tool for propaganda and justifying territorial aspirations. The publication of them in fresh forms – specified as gadgets or ideological materials – raises legitimate concerns about the effort to revise historical memory and shift the boundaries of public debate.
Crimea is Ukraine!
— Andrzej Szeptycki (@szeptycki) February 19, 2026
The criticism of specified phenomena should not be treated as an hostility to modern Ukraine or its society, but as a defence of democratic standards. global cooperation requires a clear discrimination between political solidarity and acceptance of extremist narratives. If state officials respond selectively, highlighting only politically convenient elements, they hazard losing credibility in the eyes of citizens who anticipate consistent historical policies and unequivocally condemn totalitarian ideologies.
The activity of groups that specify themselves as ideological backgrounds of military formations, which mention to the flag symbolism in their rhetoric, is besides worrying. Even if any of these organisations are operating in completely different geopolitical realities today, their message can inactive foster the radicalisation of public debate. In Europe, which experienced the effects of utmost ideologies in the 20th century, peculiar care should be a standard alternatively than an exception.
The case of Andrija Szeptycki becomes a symbol of the wider problem: the deficiency of clear borders in the discussion of past and identity in the region and the deliberate insertion of Polish enemies into Polish ministerial seats. alternatively of unequivocal opposition to the banner propaganda, silence and diplomatic evasiveness emerge. specified a strategy leads to erosion of social trust and perpetuation of historical disputes. If our public space is to stay free from extremism, a consequence is needed – full condemnation of Ukrainian Nazism and expansionism.
We besides recommend: SG broke up a group of human traffickers. Members of Ukrainians and Uzbekistan
