Before the full-scale invasion, decentralization reform was considered as one of the most successful reforms in Ukraine. By establishing the principles of self-government and decentralization, it was possible to significantly increase grassroots participation and management, as well as contribute to the deepening of democratic transformation in Ukraine. The experience gained during the decentralization process, in conditions of war and occupation, became the basis for cooperation and mutual support among residents of territorial communities, which today include 1) residents of territorial communities living under occupation; 2) those who have moved to other regions/oblasts of Ukraine, 3) and those who have moved abroad. This creates a unique alternative to communities that, in accordance with Ukrainian legislation, were formed on a territorial basis. Today, we have a unique situation of community management in catastrophic conditions, where community leaders, located outside the occupied territory, perform their functions for each of the three groups of people mentioned above, who continue to remain a community despite the absence of a binding territorial factor. The new format of community functioning complements their ‘territorial’ characteristics with ‘virtual’ ones and leads to the creation of a new type of community of people who had previous experience of direct communication but, under the new conditions, are forced to maintain long-distance ties, including online. Contemporary Ukrainian-German partnerships are based on previous experience of twin cities, as well as on new grassroots initiatives and partnerships that have emerged as a result of individual contacts and mutual interest in cooperation (e.g. between medical or educational institutions). The latter have the potential to develop into broader contacts at the municipal level, but may also remain exclusively cooperation between institutions, organizations or enterprises.

My paper examines the role of local authorities and civil society initiatives (including NGOs, architects, urban planners, environmental experts, anti-corruption activists, volunteer networks) in Ukraine’s reconstruction during and after the war. Focusing on frontline and heavily affected communities in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, the study explores how local actors search for adaptive solutions under crisis conditions and how participatory and innovative practices were applied in recovery planning across cities. The paper adopts a political science and sociological perspective to analyze interactions between bottom-up civic initiatives and top-down reconstruction frameworks. It addresses both the process of developing Programs for Comprehensive Recovery and their substantive outcomes, assessing whether these programs include participation mechanisms and whether they offer adaptive or innovative responses to emerging challenges such as demographic change, business relocation, donors’ or sister-municipal’s’ support, and long-term security risk The analysis shows that not all war-affected communities or regions follow inclusive or innovative approaches. While some cities have institutionalized broad civic and expert participation, others rely on more closed, elite-driven planning models. Nevertheless, these more exclusive approaches have often been effective in attracting foreign stakeholders, international expertise, and donor funding, challenging the assumption that participatory planning is a prerequisite for financial success. Methodologically, this research consists of two interconnected parts. First, it draws on qualitative research conducted between 2023 and 2025, including 18 semi-structured interviews with local officials, members of formal and informal working groups, civic activists, professional experts, journalists, and representatives of donor-supported initiatives in Kyiv region, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Zaporizhzhia. These interviews provide insights into how different actors understand their roles, partnerships, and decision-making procedures in the development of reconstruction strategies. Second, the paper offers a comparative analysis of both the instruments and outcomes of Programs for Comprehensive Recovery in selected cities, focusing on public participation mechanisms, expert involvement, and the degree of innovation embedded in the adopted strategies. The findings suggest that frontline communities play a key role in developing adaptive responses to destruction and uncertainty, but their influence on reconstruction agendas varies. Overall, Ukraine’s reconstruction emerges as a multilayered and uneven process shaped by diverse local governance practices rather than a single national model. The paper contributes to debates on post-conflict recovery, participatory governance, and the political agency of local communities and civil society under prolonged war and long-term security risks in Ukraine.

This paper examines the role of the Ukrainian diaspora in Germany in shaping post-war recovery, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Adopting a political science and sociological perspective, it analyzes how a new wave of the diaspora actively engages in supporting and rebuilding their homeland. Methodologically, the study draws on 22 in-depth interviews with Ukrainian civic activists in Germany (conducted in summer-autumn 2025), exploring the diverse visions, strategies, and motivations of both recent arrivals (post-2022) and long-term migrants in contributing to Ukraine’s future. The research identifies three key areas where activists serve as a bridge between the diaspora, the host society and Ukraine: supporting refugees in integration, sustaining transnational ties, and fostering political advocacy together with resource mobilizing in the host country. The analysis shows diaspora’s efforts to support refugees in their integration are not only a response to the crisis, but also a deliberate strategy to develop their agency. In addition to targeted assistance to newcomers, it includes mentoring programs, language courses, and vocational training, as well as counselling on labour market orientation and recognition of qualifications. Advocacy for flexible employment conditions and requalification further enables refugees to avoid marginalization and align their skills with local opportunities. The findings suggest that activists maintain robust personal and organizational connections with Ukrainian communities, volunteers, and civic associations, coordinating financial, humanitarian, and expert assistance. This includes fundraising for reconstruction, launching joint business projects, and lobbying for international support (e.g., grants, German-Ukrainian partnerships), which facilitates knowledge transfer and the adoption of European standards in Ukraine. The research highlights how participation in rallies, public discussions, and social campaigns amplifies the diaspora’s voice on critical issues. Importantly, activists mobilize other refugees to engage in public life, strengthening collective agency and transnational resilience. Empirically, the study demonstrates that the diaspora acts not merely as a recipient of support but as an active social and political agent, capable of influencing recovery processes through transnational resilience. The findings suggest that flexible integration policies in Germany, especially ones that recognize and support transnational connections, would enhance the diaspora’s capacity as full partners in Ukraine’s post-war transformation. Theoretically, the paper contributes to debates on forced migration by illustrating how contemporary diasporas combine local integration with transnational activism, forging unique pathways for post-war engagement.