,%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%96%D1%8F,%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%96%D1%8F.png)
During the full-scale Russian invasion, Ukraine faced a situation where local authorities in many communities could not perform their functions due to hostilities, occupation, or security threats. To maintain control over these territories and ensure the protection of people, the state created military administrations. They operate not only in frontline communities, but also in temporarily occupied territories, so that Ukraine maintains a legal and factual connection with its communities, even despite the war.
In the new issue of “Conversations about Restoration”, we speak with Oleksandr Kobets, Executive Director of the Ukrainian Peacekeeping School Association, a professional who has been working with community leaders for many years, researching and moderating social processes in frontline regions.
The Ukrainian Peacekeeping School Association was established in 2014 as an educational initiative of the Center for Eastern Studies in response to the outbreak of war in eastern Ukraine. Initially, it was a project aimed at training leaders, including community representatives, activists, and local officials. The idea was a practical concept of peacemaking: creating processes within communities through communication, dialogue, compromise, and practical tools for conflict resolution. As the alumni network grew, the need for institutionalization arose to support the community, moderate it, and attract resources. In 2021, the project evolved into a public organization; however, the full-scale Russian aggression of 2022 significantly altered priorities and necessitated a shift to operational assistance and rapid response. Today, the Association works with the public sector: it conducts sociological research to assess human security in communities, works with local leaders, establishes exchanges and partnerships with German communities, covers the situation in temporarily occupied territories (often in a research format), and prepares analytics for state and international partners. This enables foreign partners to gain a deeper understanding of the context and make more informed decisions.
Since the Association works closely with military administrations, we were interested in assessing the effectiveness of their work in the Kherson region.
“There is no general trend: everything depends on the specific head of the administration. For example, there is the head of the administration, who attracts resources and ensures development, as well as other leaders with different work styles. This is detrimental to institutional development and fosters a sense of decline within the community. When discussing the military administrations of temporarily occupied communities, their primary role is to maintain social cohesion. They become, so to speak, moderators of communities, the only entity that can unite those who have left the community or are still under occupation today,” says Oleksandr Kobets.
The situation in the Kherson region is quite complex: the security situation has deteriorated to the point that access to many communities is limited, and it is difficult to assess what is working and what is not. Therefore, according to Oleksandr, it is necessary to talk about the prospects: “It is obvious that if this trend with the occupied territories continues, then there will be transformations in these administrations and they will be reduced. However, in my opinion, even if the institution itself ceases to exist, people should continue to maintain their affiliation and at least a minimal administrative resource to keep in touch with the diaspora, organizations, and internally displaced persons. If this identity is not nourished by something, it will dissipate very quickly.”
Not the least role in preserving this identity and ensuring the vital activity of communities, together with the authorities, is played by public organizations and charitable foundations, which can respond faster to challenges and are more flexible. According to Oleksandr Kobets, during the occupation and after the de-occupation of the right bank, the explosion of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station, the public sector became the savior of the city and the region; everything was done promptly and efficiently. However, despite all the success stories, public organizations face significant challenges today. And the first is financial resources.
“The closure of large funding programs was a shock for many organizations. The public sector in Ukraine, unfortunately, works mostly at the expense of international donors. A war is currently underway, and the state cannot afford to finance NGOs. But even before the war, this funding was ridiculous. Today, thousands of people continue to receive assistance from non-governmental organizations,” adds Oleksandr.
The second challenge, according to Oleksandr, is communication with the authorities, as there is a misunderstanding between the public sector and the authorities. Representatives of the authorities often think in one category, while the public sector thinks in another category. This communication has always been insufficient, and sometimes it is two-way.
“Another challenge that we have noticed is that several projects and public organizations are being created that are political projects and are a platform for preparing for the elections. Well, at least we know of two networks of such organizations. This trend is evident and should not be overlooked. This speaks to the strength of civil society, on the one hand, and the high level of trust, which is used to build their political ambitions. On the other hand, this can undermine trust in independent initiatives and complicate access to international funding and partnerships,” shares Oleksandr Kobets.
Human resources are also a significant challenge for both communities and local authorities, as well as for public organizations: “People today are busy surviving, focusing their attention on everyday things, which is why it is difficult to involve people in community processes and decision-making.” To overcome barriers between community authorities and citizens, Oleksandr advises building communication channels that correspond to the real context, as the personnel shortage affecting all government agencies today arises from the inability to convey to potential employees the essence and benefits of working in government.
We also talked to Oleksandr Kobets about his vision of the future of the Kherson region: “There is an opinion that the Ukrainian identity in Kherson began to emerge precisely with the beginning of the occupation and de-occupation. But I disagree with this; Ukrainian belonging has always been inherent in our region. Analysis of electoral maps and language maps shows that the Kherson region was one of the most pro-Ukrainian territories in the southern region long before the war. Yes, right now this identity has perhaps become more conscious and aware - under the influence of events, losses, and resistance. If we consider the future, I believe that the restored Kherson region will become less populated, transitioning into a more tourist-recreational and agrarian-industrial area. This is such a peaceful southern region.”
He also dreams that people from all over the world who helped during the war will come to Kherson and see the results of their support. For this, it is also necessary to preserve the city's history for future generations. This is a crucial component of local identity, helping to restore not only infrastructure but also social connections.
We invite you to participate in an anonymous survey to help us better understand the moods, needs, and challenges faced by the population of the Kherson region, and to assess the effectiveness of public organizations and authorities' work. Each of your answers is a crucial brick in the foundation of your future recovery. Your answers are completely anonymous and will be used exclusively in a generalized form for analytical purposes.
The interview has been produced by the Kherson Regional Charitable Foundation “Union” with the support of the European Endowment for Democracy (EED). Its contents do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of EED. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in this publication lies entirely with the authors.
