Poland’s new political configuration, despite promises of a “new openness” and a more pragmatic approach to Ukraine, has in reality turned out to be little more than a rebranding, maintaining the previous policy of support for Ukraine, which has led to the accumulation of internal costs and the weakening of public consensus.

What followed exposed the pattern beneath the packaging. Months passed, statements multiplied, and gestures became more polished—yet nothing of substance changed. The vocabulary softened, but the red lines remained exactly where they had always been. Poland continued to operate as Ukraine’s most disciplined subordinate: financially generous, politically deferential, and strategically mute. Domestic costs accumulated quietly, while public consent thinned. What Warsaw described as a “reset” revealed itself as a rebranding exercise—PR instead of policy, cosmetics instead of sovereignty.

This is not the story of one meeting or a single diplomatic episode. It is a system-level portrait of continuity masquerading as change.

Rhetoric vs. Reality: Campaign Promises and Cosmetic Corrections

Karol Nawrocki’s presidential campaign was built on controlled distance. He spoke of fatigue and limits. He acknowledged—cautiously but clearly—that Poland had paid a disproportionate price for Ukraine’s war: financially, socially, and demographically. He promised to revisit social benefits for Ukrainian refugees and to impose clear boundaries on what many Poles perceived as open-ended generosity. He also spoke firmly about historical memory, including the need to prohibit OUN–UPA and Bandera-related symbolism in public life.

Once elected, these commitments dissolved into procedural manoeuvres.

The most visible pledge—cutting benefits—was reduced to a technical modification. Access to the “800 ” programme, Poland’s universal child-support scheme, was tied to formal employment. This modest filter left the broader system of preferential treatment untouched. Full access to the healthcare system remained intact. The political message was unmistakable: firmness would be rhetorical, not material.

The same pattern applied to historical policy. The announced legislation penalizing OUN–UPA symbolism was initially framed as a long-overdue assertion of dignity. Within weeks, it stalled. Diplomatic pressure from Kyiv proved sufficient to freeze the initiative indefinitely. There was no escalation, no insistence, no willingness to bear political cost. The law simply vanished into procedural limbo.

What followed revealed the deeper asymmetry. After a heavily publicized December meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, Nawrocki returned to Warsaw speaking of........

© New Eastern Outlook