The support that Ukrainian civil society needs now

Orysia Lutsevych: Right now, the biggest burden is the exhaustion of living in insecurity, of not understanding how this war may come to an end. But at the same time, there is a good English word for what the Ukrainians have: Grit. Ukrainians are holding on very tightly to life.

Lutsevych: They try to do what is under their control, to preserve as much normal life as possible under this terrible invasion, to take children to school, go to cafés, buy books, go to the theater.

Busche: What I personally observe together with my team is that there are increasing discussions about how the future of the country could unfold. Of course, everyone wants to end this brutal war, but everyone is affected differently by the implications of it. Those who lost their home and had to flee or those who have partners, parents, siblings, or friends at the front might have a very different view to those who may be less directly affected personally. International partners such as the Robert Bosch Stiftung can strengthen local initiatives and other actors to be a vehicle for a discourse in which the different views can be expressed and a joint vision for Ukraine’s future can be sought and shaped.

Lutsevych: Actually, after the full-scale invasion, there has been a lot of very similar experiences across the country. It's not like what the people of Odessa are experiencing is irrelevant to the people of Lviv. At the beginning of the war, when you asked, “How is your family?” the typical answer was, “I have a family of 42 million.” I think this kind of cohesion is unchanged. When we look at the support for Zelenskyi's quest for a just and durable peace, there is overwhelming support for that, while there is perhaps disagreement about how this should be achieved.
 

Lux: First of all, the role of civil society is crucial for Ukraine. I would like to illustrate this with a brief example. It is one of Russia's aims to destroy Ukrainian culture, literally theaters, libraries, monuments. And the Ukrainian government did what they could to save cultural artifacts, but they mainly had the resources to do this in some of the bigger cities. So the civil organization Insha Osvita was given the task to organize the rescue of cultural artifacts in the western city of Ivano-Frankivsk and its surrounding region. Here, civil society stepped in and took over a task that the administration could not take care of. 

I would also like to mention the volunteer movement directly supplying the fighters on the front line with everything they need. Volunteers are transporting weapons and ammunition, and bringing food and clothing for the soldiers. All of this has been mainly organized by civil society over the three years. And of course this gives people a strong sense of self-efficacy. They see that they can contribute to a common goal, and this contributes to cohesion, a cohesion that has grown horizontally, rather than being imposed from above. That is good.
 

Lutsevych: We are experiencing that the involvement of civil society in recovery contributes to social cohesion and resilience. This is what 76 percent of regional organizations confirmed in the annual survey conducted by Chatham House. It binds people together to do something collectively for the war effort or for their community. For instance, they are building shelters for schools to continue education. Then there are several groups that help to repair homes for vulnerable people which have been damaged by drones. This work is often done during school holidays, like a summer camp. Also, they bring citizens together, for example in a town hall, to work out how they would like to rebuild their community in the future. This is a very important example of what can be done now, during the war. You need light spots in this time of darkness. And the feeling that my actions are making a difference is psychologically very empowering.

Busche: There is an abundance of organized, structured, but also semi-organized and informal civil society initiatives. There are some very capable, very progressive and professional organizations with a long track record. They do not need the support that, for example, a local informal initiative that operates quite close to the frontline needs. Building on this capacity, partners such as Robert Bosch Stiftung and GIZ can play an important role in providing further support for these organizations to become mentors, so that they can then in turn help less advanced initiatives to grow and give them the voice they need.

Lutsevych: Ukrainian civil society is like a zoo. There are all kinds of animals.

Lux: The zoo is a good picture. I am also impressed by how established organizations have adapted to the situation. To give you an example, there is the Rokada Foundation, which is 21 years old and has branches almost everywhere in Ukraine. It was founded for the integration of Syrian, Afghan and other refugees. From 2022 on it became a trusted partner for international donors, especially on the issue of internally displaced persons (IDPs). They have initiated many IDP councils to enable these people to participate at the local level. And now Rokada is focusing on helping Ukrainians who are coming back from abroad. These people are often unable to return to their original hometowns because they are still occupied or destroyed.
 

Lux: We have a Swiss colleague who coined a very good term: hambitious. It means both humble and ambitious. And that's what we have to be as Western donors: ambitious in our actions, supporting the structures there, yet humble in our approach. Now, where do we apply the support? The easiest way is to find internationally well-established organizations with a long track record. But it is also possible to support smaller organizations and movements. The best way is to be open to learn about the expectations, needs and conditions of local partners, and then to act. If you ask me now how to organize it, I think you should focus on the local level and support those who I call the conveners or intermediaries on the ground. Because they guarantee that the local partners work together. And that's something we can't do from the outside.

Lux: I think it is very important that we pool our activities and that we learn from each other. And this is something that the Robert Bosch Stiftung and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation from the USA try to offer. We are building a platform, Foundations for Ukraine, where we can learn and exchange ideas, maybe pool funds, think about simplifying legal conditions, and about reporting. But while we are doing this, private funding for Ukraine is declining. That is because after three years of war, emergency aid is no longer comprehensible to the boards of many foundations and other philanthropic donors. So, there is one crucial next step: Ukraine must become part of the regular funding of foundations so that Ukrainian partners can simply apply for programs in Europe. Many private organizations are still not open to applications from Ukraine.

Lutsevych: Well, first of all, it is important to understand that Ukrainian civil society is proactive. They do not wait until partners come their way. They see the causes and act. Very often they start with these informal groups, as Daniel described, through Facebook fundraising. But then the next question is, how do you solve this systemically? How to make assistance or services reach more people? For example, if a civil society group has developed a good program for children to socialise after school, how can this experience be introduced in all schools with similar needs? Or how to make modern rehabilitation services available to more veterans? I think this is where Ukraine can make a real leap by transforming these experiences of people in crisis into systemic change. And donors like the Robert Bosch Stiftung can help them design and test models. However, that still won't be enough, because a third step is needed, and that is a market or a state. Any social change requires that this becomes either a state policy, funded from the state budget, or a market, and can live on its own.

Lux: Firstly, it is important for Ukraine. When I talk to Ukrainians, I often hear “we want to give something back”. They mean that they are willing to share what they have learned. And that makes perfect sense for us. Let me give you an example that we could spread to the rest of the world. Ukraine is the only country I know that has ever openly discussed mental health and psychosocial support during a war. The problem is huge. They can't find a solution within the national health system. Instead, they need to find community-based solutions, and they are already developing them. And we will bring an example of such community-based approaches from Khmelnytskyi to the German twin city of Stuttgart as a knowledge transfer.