The work that cannot wait

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 is sometimes understood as a euphemism for concessions to the aggressor state, and Ukrainian society reacts strongly to that framing, understandably so.

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 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, constructive ways to address it: where such mechanisms exist, disagreements can inform decisions; where they do not, grievances deepen over time.

Ukrainian society has shown extraordinary solidarity since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion. Recognising emerging internal tensions does not weaken that unity, it helps communities address them before they harden into deeper divisions.

Some tensions are already visible: differing wartime experiences, displacement, military service, caregiving, loss of homes and loved ones, years under bombardment. There is pressure on housing and services in host communities, veterans navigating civilian life, and questions of language, identity and belonging. These are not signs of fragility but consequences of an experience of extraordinary scale, and the task is to give people safe, fair, credible ways to address them.

My work, including visits to frontline, war-affected and host communities, has surfaced three patterns.

First, the visible issue is often not the underlying one: a dispute over assistance or resources may reflect deeper questions of recognition or fairness, and once acknowledged, solutions become easier to find.

Second, many tensions exist within communities rather than between clearly defined groups, and are rarely visible from the capital, understanding them takes direct engagement and sustained local presence.

Third, impartial facilitators create space for difficult conversations: members who raise sensitive issues themselves risk being seen as representing one side, while a trusted third party helps all perspectives be heard.

Beyond individual disputes, dialogue serves a broader purpose: war and recovery are reshaping expectations between the state and citizens, and among citizens themselves, through thousands of practical conversations about compensation, services, veterans' reintegration and local decisions. Acknowledging these differences is the first step; the second is treating them not as fault lines but as realities institutions and communities must navigate. Difference recognised and given a constructive channel becomes a resource; difference denied becomes 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, and local facilitation and mediation capacity cannot be created overnight.

Ukraine has already laid a legislative foundation through the 2021 Law on Mediation, which establishes mediation as a voluntary, confidential procedure. The next stage is to translate that framework into practice, trained professionals, trusted institutions, quality standards and local referral mechanisms, to meet substantial potential need: compensation for damaged homes; property, inheritance and land disputes; return and reintegration in de-occupied areas; access to services; and employment challenges linked to veterans' transition to civilian life.

Not every disagreement requires mediation, and dialogue should never replace legal remedies or accountability. But addressing disputes early and fairly saves people time, eases pressure on administrative and judicial systems and gives communities a better chance of preserving relationships.

Learning from others while respecting Ukraine's context

International experience offers valuable lessons and tools, but global dialogue and mediation models cannot simply be transferred to Ukraine; some need adaptation, others need their assumptions reconsidered. Programmes that prioritise formal models or qualifications over local legitimacy risk building mechanisms communities do not trust or use. Ukraine's social dynamics also cannot be reduced to a framework of "two sides": the fundamental cause of the war is Russia's external aggression, and any approach must recognise that.

Practical solutions are usually more effective when dialogue is tied to concrete issues, housing, compensation, services, employment, local decision-making. The objective is not dialogue platforms for their own sake, but embedding dialogue and mediation in recovery processes where people already face real questions requiring workable solutions.

Impartiality, not neutrality

For international organisations, one distinction matters: impartiality is not synonymous with neutrality. The UN's Guidance for Effective Mediation defines impartiality as running a balanced process that treats all participants fairly, while a UN mediator stays bound by universal principles and international law — a position grounded in the UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions reaffirming Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity, and calling for a just and lasting peace. That is fully compatible with fair, inclusive domestic processes: when communities address tensions between displaced people and host communities, veterans and employers, or residents and local authorities, participants must have a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

International support adds value by convening actors and contributing comparative experience and long-term investment, but it 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 and continuity; civil society and mediation professionals bring local knowledge and trust; local governments are where these elements come together in practice. The strongest results emerge when institutions create space, partners provide sustained support and local actors lead — with real safeguards: voluntary, inclusive participation, recognised power imbalances, and dialogue that never substitutes for rights, accountability or access to justice.

Investing in the foundations of recovery

Recovery is often measured in visible achievements: roads rebuilt, energy restored, 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 or resolve disagreements fairly. Reconstruction restores buildings; social cohesion restores the relationships that let communities and institutions function.

The scale of investment ahead is immense: the Fifth Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA5) estimates Ukraine's ten-year recovery 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, but that should not be mistaken for marginal importance, it is an enabling condition for effective recovery: when people can take part in decisions, challenge them fairly and address disputes early, reconstruction is more likely to strengthen public trust than generate new grievances.

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

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