Building Social Cohesion in Ukraine: Dialogue Is Infrastructure — and Ukraine Needs It Now

Social cohesion is not built through statements of unity. It is built through the systems, skills and institutions that enable societies to manage disagreements, address tensions and make fair decisions together. 

In Ukraine, the word ‘dialogue’ requires careful explanation. It has sometimes been understood as a euphemism for concessions to the aggressor state, and Ukrainian society understandably reacts strongly to such framing.

But an important distinction must be made. Dialogue as an instrument of foreign policy is one question. Dialogue as domestic infrastructure — the capacity of communities to address disputes, rebuild trust and solve problems together — is another. It is this second form of dialogue that deserves greater attention as Ukraine advances recovery and reconstruction. 

Cohesion is built through practice

Conflict exists in every society. What determines resilience is whether people have trusted and constructive ways to address it. When such mechanisms exist, disagreements can inform decisions. When they do not, grievances may remain unresolved and deepen over time.

Ukrainian society has demonstrated extraordinary solidarity since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Recognising emerging internal tensions does not weaken that unity; it helps communities address them before they develop into deeper divisions.

Some tensions are already visible. Wartime experiences have differed sharply — including displacement abroad, internal displacement, military service, caregiving, loss of homes and loved ones, or years spent living under bombardment. Host communities face pressure on housing, employment and public services. Veterans returning to civilian life and the communities receiving them must navigate new expectations and needs. Questions of language, identity and belonging also require particularly careful handling.

These challenges are not evidence of societal fragility. They are consequences of an experience of extraordinary scale and intensity. The task is to ensure that people have safe, fair and credible ways to address them.

Through my work, including visits to frontline, war-affected and host communities, I have observed several recurring patterns.

First, the visible issue is often not the underlying issue. A dispute that appears to concern assistance or resources may reflect deeper questions of recognition, fairness or belonging. Once these concerns are acknowledged, practical solutions often become easier to identify.

Second, many tensions exist within communities rather than between clearly defined groups. These dynamics are rarely visible from the capital or through reports alone. Understanding them requires direct engagement and a sustained local presence.

Third, impartial facilitators can create space for difficult conversations. When community members raise sensitive issues themselves, they may be perceived as representing one side. A trusted third party can help ensure that different perspectives are heard without allowing the process to be captured by any particular interest.

Beyond individual disputes, dialogue serves a broader purpose. War and recovery are reshaping expectations between the state and citizens who have carried very different burdens, as well as among citizens themselves. These relationships will be shaped through thousands of practical conversations about compensation, public services, veterans’ employment, return and reintegration, and participation in local decision-making.

Acknowledging differences in experience is the first step. The second is to treat those differences not automatically as fault lines, but as realities that public institutions and communities must be able to navigate. Difference that is recognised and given a constructive channel can become a resource. Difference that is denied can become a division. 

Why dialogue capacity matters now

A common argument is that dialogue mechanisms can wait until after the war. Experience suggests otherwise.

Trust takes time to build. Credible local facilitation and mediation capacity cannot be created overnight. Ukraine has already established a legislative foundation through the 2021 Law on Mediation. The next stage is to translate that framework into accessible practice through trained professionals, trusted institutions, quality standards and local referral mechanisms. The law establishes mediation as a voluntary, confidential procedure and defines the principles and requirements governing it.  

The potential need is substantial: compensation for damaged homes; property, inheritance and land disputes; return and reintegration in areas retaken by the Government of Ukraine; access to services; and employment challenges connected with veterans’ transition to civilian life.

Not every disagreement requires mediation, and dialogue should never replace legal remedies or accountability. But when appropriate disputes are addressed early and fairly, individuals save time, institutions reduce pressure on administrative and judicial systems, and communities have a better chance of preserving relationships.

Learning from others while respecting Ukraine’s context

International experience can offer valuable lessons, tools and examples. But global dialogue and mediation models cannot simply be transferred to Ukraine. Some need adaptation; others require their underlying assumptions to be reconsidered.

Programmes that prioritise formal models or qualifications without sufficient attention to local legitimacy risk creating mechanisms that communities do not trust or use. Ukraine’s social dynamics also cannot be reduced to a framework of ‘two sides’ within society. The fundamental cause of the war is Russia’s external aggression, and any approach must recognise that reality.

Practical solutions are often more effective when dialogue is connected to concrete issues: housing, compensation, access to services, employment or local decision-making.

The objective is therefore not to create dialogue platforms for their own sake. It is to embed dialogue and mediation approaches in recovery processes where people already face real questions requiring fair and workable solutions. 

Impartiality, not neutrality

For international organisations supporting dialogue and mediation, one distinction is particularly important: impartiality is not synonymous with neutrality.

The United Nations Guidance for Effective Mediation defines impartiality as the ability to conduct a balanced process that treats all participants fairly, while recognising that a UN mediator remains bound by universal principles, international law and applicable normative frameworks.  

The UN’s engagement in Ukraine is grounded in the UN Charter and relevant General Assembly resolutions, which reaffirm Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders and call for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in line with international law.  

This normative position is fully compatible with ensuring fair and inclusive domestic processes. When communities address tensions involving displaced people and host communities, veterans and employers, or residents and local authorities, the process must give participants a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

International support can add value by convening actors, contributing comparative experience and sustaining long-term investment. But international actors cannot create local legitimacy. That belongs to Ukrainian institutions, professionals and communities. The role of partners is to strengthen their capacity, not replace it.

A shared responsibility for recovery

Building social cohesion is a collective effort.

The state provides legal safeguards and institutional frameworks. International partners contribute resources, expertise and continuity. Civil society organisations and mediation professionals bring local knowledge and trust. Local governments are where these elements must come together in practice.

The strongest results emerge when institutions create space, partners provide sustained support and local actors lead. This also requires appropriate safeguards: participation must be voluntary and inclusive, power imbalances must be recognised, and dialogue must not be used as a substitute for rights, accountability or access to justice.

Investing in the foundations of recovery

Recovery is often measured through visible achievements: kilometres of roads rebuilt, energy capacity restored and homes reconstructed. But rebuilding a country also means rebuilding relationships between people.

A community may have new infrastructure and still struggle if residents cannot influence decisions, address grievances or resolve disagreements fairly. Reconstruction restores buildings; social cohesion helps restore the relationships that allow communities and institutions to function.

The scale of investment ahead is immense. The Fifth Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment estimates Ukraine’s ten-year recovery and reconstruction needs at almost $588 billion, including more than $96 billion for transport and nearly $91 billion for energy.

Social cohesion is not costed as a standalone RDNA5 sector. This should not be mistaken for marginal importance. It is an enabling condition for effective recovery: when people can participate in decisions, challenge them through fair processes and address disputes early, reconstruction is more likely to strengthen public trust rather than generate new grievances.

The foundations already exist — in Ukrainian communities, legislation and professional networks. The priority now is to integrate dialogue and mediation into recovery planning, strengthen trusted local capacity and ensure that these mechanisms are available wherever reconstruction creates difficult choices or competing claims.

Ukraine does not need dialogue as an abstract slogan. It needs dialogue as practical infrastructure for recovery — and that infrastructure must be built now.