When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, global observers anticipated a rapid collapse, especially of Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital with nearly three million residents. Many analysts speculated the city would capitulate within days or weeks, overwhelmed by the military onslaught. Yet, nearly three years later, Kyiv remains defiant, and much of Ukraine endures despite staggering human and infrastructural costs. The resilience exhibited by Ukraine challenges typical war narratives and offers profound insights into the interplay between state power, local governance, and civil society in times of conflict.
Recent scholarship offers a multifaceted exploration of Ukraine’s perseverance, emphasizing not only traditional military resistance but also the power of decentralized governance and grassroots mobilization. This body of work, assembled in a special issue of Post-Soviet Affairs, edited by political scientists Sarah Wilson Sokhey of the University of Colorado at Boulder and Inna Melnykovska of Central European University, Vienna, reframes resilience as a function of political innovation and social participation. They trace the roots of Ukraine’s defiant survival to sweeping decentralization reforms initiated in 2014, which redistributed authority from centralized state organs to locally administered municipalities known as hromadas.
The decentralization reform represents a sophisticated political recalibration, shifting fiscal autonomy and administrative decision-making to 1,469 hromadas across the country. This policy prerogative bestowed these municipal units with broad powers over budgeting and service provision, fundamentally altering the citizen-state relationship. In many communities, citizens directly participate in the budgeting process, an approach known as participatory budgeting. These practices cultivated a profound sense of ownership and civic engagement well before the invasion, laying crucial groundwork for collective action amid crisis.
Empirical analyses within the Post-Soviet Affairs special issue delineate how local governments and community organizations transitioned from routine governance to urgent war-time mobilization. Mayors, volunteer groups, educators, and parent associations swiftly adapted their roles to meet wartime demands, such as securing medical supplies, providing shelter for displaced populations, and maintaining critical infrastructure like electricity grids under persistent threat. These examples underscore the strategic importance of subsidiarity—the principle that political authority ought to rest at the lowest feasible level—in enhancing state resilience.
One striking case emerges from Dnipro, where a parent organization originally dedicated to school improvement reoriented its efforts toward producing candles for the military front in 2022. Similarly, youth activists in Kyiv—previously engaged in participatory budgeting advocacy—established warming centers during power outages caused by destruction of energy infrastructure. These transformations illustrate how prewar civic ties and organizational capacities enabled flexible, rapid responses to emerging needs, bridging gaps left by disrupted national structures.
In complement to these ethnographic observations is Sokhey’s quantitative research on voter participation in local elections, which reveals a direct correlation between higher turnout and increased investment in social services. These services include housing and support for displaced persons, a critical concern given the millions uprooted by the conflict. Such findings illuminate a virtuous cycle where democratic participation cultivates responsive local governance, which in turn fortifies public trust and collective resilience during upheaval.
Scientists also caution, however, that the Ukrainian experience is complex and imperfect. Certain hromadas have implemented martial law regimes that potentially compromise local democratic accountability. This highlights an ongoing tension between security imperatives and democratic governance under the shadow of war. The research underlines the necessity for careful balancing of emergency powers with protections for political plurality and citizen oversight to sustain this resilience over time.
At a global level, Ukraine’s political adaptations provide instructive lessons for other nations facing institutional fragility or external threats. Melnykovska points to the synergy between robust civil society and decentralized governance as a bulwark against systemic collapse. “Strong societies, where people feel empowered to address their own problems,” she notes, “become pillars supporting the state during crises.” This insight challenges models that rely solely on centralized authority or military force for national survival.
Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to modernize infrastructure, as seen in smaller municipalities adapting projects on energy systems and water pipelines, demonstrate forward-looking governance that anticipates post-conflict recovery. International interest and funding have been leveraged creatively to bolster these developments, which will prove vital when displaced citizens begin returning home. These initiatives underscore the interconnectedness of resilience during war and reconstruction in peace.
Yet, both editors sound a note of caution: societal endurance has limits. Prolonged conflict strains volunteer networks, exhausts material resources, and tests communal solidarity. Therefore, sustained international support remains essential to prevent fatigue and ensure that Ukraine’s multifaceted resilience can be maintained. The research calls for policies that reinforce grassroots capacities alongside traditional aid mechanisms.
The implications of these studies resound beyond Ukraine’s borders, offering a new paradigm of resilience rooted in local autonomy, participatory governance, and social cohesiveness. This framework contrasts sharply with conventional state-centric security doctrines and invites reconsideration of how democratic institutions function under duress. The Ukrainian case exemplifies the vital role of empowered communities in shaping not just resistance but survival itself in the modern era.
Ultimately, the evolving scholarship on Ukraine’s resistance provides a nuanced understanding of how political and social systems adapt dynamically to catastrophic challenges. It spotlights the emergent capabilities cultivated through decentralization reforms, illustrating that resilience is not merely about withstanding destruction but about actively reconstructing society and governance amid chaos. As Ukraine’s people navigate the ongoing conflict, their experience offers a powerful testament to the potential of democratic renewal born from local initiative and collective resolve.
Subject of Research: Ukraine’s political resilience and local governance during Russia’s full-scale invasion
Article Title: The local and regional dimension of Ukraine’s resilience during Russia’s full-scale invasion: an introduction
News Publication Date: 20-Aug-2025
Web References:
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1060586X.2025.2545626
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1060586X.2025.2491969
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1060586X.2025.2529766
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1060586X.2025.2520167
References: Included articles from Post-Soviet Affairs special issue, various contributing authors
Keywords: Ukraine resilience, decentralization reforms, local governance, participatory budgeting, civil society, war-time mobilization, democratic participation, Russia-Ukraine war, hromadas, local elections, social services, grassroots activism
