🇺🇦Mazepa Statue in Moscow🇺🇦

@damiansobilo010 @5channel Meanwhile no AK literally says “the extermination began with the Banderites” it mentions the situation the Soviets created and “ began an action of extermination of the Poles in Volhynia”

@aidan_n @5channel We’re going in circles because you read the AK report literally. It lists factors shaping the situation, not three perpetrators. “Began an action” describes Soviet‑created chaos, not NKVD killings. UPA remains the organized operational actor. I’ll leave it here.

Президент Польщі позбавив Зеленського ордена Білого орла - найвищої польської державної нагороди. "У польсько-українських відносинах є межі, які не можна переступати", - заявив Навроцький. *Орден Зеленський отримав з рук експрезидента Польщі Анджея Дуди у 2023 році.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel Buddy, we are going in circles. In the document it never mentions “extermination” is from the Banderites but from the NKVD

@aidan_n @5channel “Began an action” refers to the effect of Soviet‑created chaos — that their sabotage groups triggered conditions in which the extermination escalated. It doesn’t say NKVD carried it out. AK still treats UPA as the organized actor; Soviets are context, not perpetrators.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel Again, Is it possible for a local field commander to not order to kill Poles? (Which happened BTW)

@aidan_n @5channel Decentralized doesn’t mean “random” or “inconsistent”. In ethnic cleansing, local commanders can act independently while still pursuing the same goal. The fact that operations weren’t centrally ordered doesn’t erase the pattern — it confirms a decentralized campaign.

The report doesn’t repeat “extermination” under UPA because point (a) lists their organization, not their actions. “developed propaganda for the struggle for the independence of Ukraine, in particular with Poland, and gave their own people to the leading positions of the police” That’s an action legally

@aidan_n @5channel The report doesn’t repeat “extermination” under UPA because point (a) lists their organization, not their actions. Point (b) uses “began an action” to describe the effect of Soviet‑created chaos, not Soviet authorship. AK never transfers the killings from UPA to NKVD.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel “Began an action” what was the action? “ began an action of extermination of the Poles in Volhynia”

@aidan_n @5channel “Began an action” in AK language means the Soviets created chaos that enabled the extermination, not that they physically carried it out. AK lists UPA as the organized actor with cadres, police control and propaganda. Conditions ≠ perpetrators.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel Bro you can’t be real… for the past hour and more we have been arguing if this was systematic…. If it was driven by local field commanders, it’s possible that other local commanders didn’t issue the same order, because as you said it was decentralized.

@aidan_n @5channel Policy ≠ operations doesn’t mean “no ethnic cleansing”. It means the killings were driven by field commanders, while the Provid debated how to politically frame what was already happening. Ethnic cleansing can be decentralized — and in 1943–44 it was.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel It never mentions “ began an action of extermination of the Poles in Volhynia;” to the UPA

@aidan_n @5channel Point (a) lists UPA’s organizational capacity — propaganda, cadres, police control. It’s not meant to list every action. Point (b) describes the conditions Soviets created that helped the extermination escalate. AK never transfers the killings from UPA to the USSR.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel “began an action of extermination of the Poles in Volhynia;” isn’t clear for you?

@aidan_n @5channel That line describes the conditions the Soviets created — chaos, sabotage groups, and an environment that helped the extermination escalate. AK never says the Soviets carried out the killings. UPA is listed as the organized force; the Soviet part is about context, not authorship.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel “The report lists three contributors to the situation, not three authors of the extermination“ Thank you, because it only ascribes “began an action of extermination of the Poles in Volhynia” to the NKVD NOT the Banderities

@aidan_n @5channel Point (c) just adds a third factor — local violent groups acting on their own. The report lists three contributors to the situation, not three authors of the extermination. AK still names UPA as the organized force behind the violence.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel Who do you think they report to? If you admit Policy ≠ operations, there wasn’t a ethnic cleansing

@aidan_n @5channel That line is about policy, not about deciding whether to start killing. UPA had already been killing Poles since early 1943. In 1944 the Provid was only debating how to frame or handle a reality already created by field commanders. Policy ≠ operations.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel It never mentions the word killing once in their comment on Banderities “ developed propaganda for the struggle for the independence of Ukraine, in particular with Poland, and gave their own people to the leading positions of the police; ”

@aidan_n @5channel The report splits roles, not guilt. “Began an action” refers to Soviet‑created chaos that helped the extermination escalate — not that they carried it out. AK still lists the Banderites as the ones mobilizing forces and leading the violence.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel “began an action of extermination of the Poles in Volhynia” this was literally credited to the Soviets NOT the UPA

@aidan_n @5channel The report separates roles, not guilt. (a) describes UPA’s organization and capacity. (b) describes Soviet‑created chaos that helped the extermination escalate. AK never says the Soviets organized the killings — UPA is still the actor.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel They were naming organizations in Polish Regions, are you serious? Read c) “local adventurous elements, the number of which increased in local conditions."

@aidan_n @5channel If AK believed the Soviets organized the killings, they wouldn’t list the Banderites first as the ones mobilizing forces and leading the action — but they do.

@damiansobilo010 @5channel “not deciding whether UPA should start killing Poles.” Yeah they were, read the last line: “resolving the issue by violent actions or attempting to establish cooperation”

@aidan_n @5channel Exactly — they were debating minority policy, not deciding whether UPA should start killing Poles. The killings had already been happening since early 1943. By 1944 the Provid was only trying to decide how to politically handle a reality that was already created by UPA commanders

@damiansobilo010 @5channel Let me ask you again who “began an action of extermination of the Poles in Volhynia” if you say Banderities, thank you for not reading the report

@aidan_n @5channel The report says the Soviets created conditions and chaos that helped the violence escalate — not that they organized UPA’s extermination campaign. UPA is still identified as the actor; the USSR as the geopolitical beneficiary.

“ the Bolsheviks, who gave an impetus to the action and created conditions where those who spoke found support in sabotage gangs in the forests and who, at the Ukrainian expense, began an action of extermination of the Poles in Volhynia;” I don’t know how much clearer it needs to be

@aidan_n @5channel Exclusively in favor of the Soviets” means the strategic benefit went only to the USSR — not that UPA had no motive. AK separated two things: • UPA = the actor with its own ideological motive • USSR = the geopolitical beneficiary Benefit ≠ authorship, and intelligence reports

@damiansobilo010 @5channel Bro you can’t be serious now… They are questioning about the minorities themselves and what should they do with them and not trying to justify murder

@aidan_n @5channel They debated because political bodies always lag behind military reality. UPA had already chosen the path; the Provid was just trying to decide how to frame it.

Report of the Polish Ministry of Internal Affairs for May-June 1943 "a) the Banderites, who mobilized the police, cadres of the former Ukrainian armed forces and developed propaganda for the struggle for the independence of Ukraine, in particular with Poland, and gave their own people to the leading positions of the police; b) the Bolsheviks, who gave an impetus to the action and created conditions where those who spoke found support in sabotage gangs in the forests and who, at the Ukrainian expense, began an action of extermination of the Poles in Volhynia; c) local adventurous elements, the number of which increased in local conditions." Can you read the Soviet part for me?

@aidan_n @5channel NKVD didn’t need to “influence them to kill Poles.” UPA was already doing that. NKVD infiltration was about exploiting, steering, and gathering intelligence inside a violent movement — not about teaching it what it was already doing.

Wouldn’t they know the UPA would also gain strategically? “Exclusively in favor of the Soviets” AK seems to say it’s ONLY the Soviets who benefit from the killing and could be organized by them because they can’t find a motive for the UPA. Wouldn’t a motive be important in cases of mass murder to find who did it and why?

@aidan_n @5channel “Exclusively in favor of the Soviets” = only the Soviets benefited strategically, not that only the Soviets were involved. AK is analysing who gains from the extermination , not who carries it out. In the same reports they still describe UPA units as the ones doing the killing