What kind of victory will ensure peace in Ukraine?
What should the future processes of reintegration and reconciliation look like after the victory? What impact will they have on our society, and how can the Ukrainian territories that have been separated be successfully stitched back together?
1x
--:--
--:--
Estimated Reading Time: 7 min
This topic was discussed in the latest episode of the program «Free Our Relatives», featuring a conversation with Maxym Yeligulashvili, a member of the human rights «Ukraine 5 AM» Coalition.
Maxym Yeligulashvili, a dialogue facilitator and expert at the Institute for Peace and Understanding, is also a member of the human rights coalition «Ukraine 5 AM» Coalition. He specializes in social mediation, conflict transformation, and group process facilitation—skills we believe will be crucial in the territories occupied by Russia after de-occupation.
How prepared are we for engaging in a dialogue with the residents of currently occupied territories after de-occupation?
Maxym Yeligulashvili: We need to be ready to listen to various war experiences, as they differ even within the same city. It’s essential to discuss these experiences now, without waiting for victory. There’s a well-established saying that victory doesn’t always guarantee peace. Drawing on my expert experience in the Western Balkans, the Caucasus, and Cyprus, I suggest that processes may be slower than we anticipate. For instance, the first crossing points in Cyprus were established 50 years after the armed conflict began.
Understanding our vision of the future is crucial. What kind of victory will ensure peace in Ukraine? We should initiate the process of building interaction, conducting research, and analyzing practices around this vision. It’s time for a mature conversation. Are we to remain a society driven by hype, or one capable of making difficult decisions?
We need to define our «red lines»
Maxym Yeligulashvili: We need to calculate what we will be able to do as a society and identify our exact «red lines’ — to clearly understand that certain actions are unacceptable for us. For example, I used to think that war crimes constituted these red lines, but now I see the practice of exchange. I understand that I am ready to tolerate this at a certain price; that is, to agree that in the process of exchanges, we give away criminals who should be punished. This is happening now, and I see no resistance in society. It seems to me that this is about negotiating how we live together in a rather complicated context of war because this topic could be raised by the relatives of those who suffered war crimes from the perpetrators we release.
Read also: Two years of full-scale invasion: A photo report from the liberated territories of Ukraine
«The memory of this war should be about dignity, not just about trauma»
Maxym Yeligulashvili: There are people living in the occupied territories who need to be talked to. There are also university and school graduates who have been studying under Russian occupation for ten years. There are settlements that have disappeared and ceased to exist as a result of the occupation and active hostilities. Is our society ready for the fact that not everything will be rebuilt? What then should we do with the memories of the people to whom this particular settlement or street is tied?
If we are rebuilding and memorializing, what is the priority? What will we do with the mass graves or the unexcavated buildings that buried Ukrainians under them? This is a matter of establishing the facts and exhumation. And this is a long process. How long will the people of Mariupol be willing to wait for the exhumation process, and before that, for the demining process, as is the case in the liberated communities of Kherson and Kharkiv regions? People are still walking along certain paths because demining of certain territories is not a priority, as there are more pressing problems.
This is about a joint agreement – what are we doing? What will we invest in memorialization and what will we restore? What do we want this memory to be like? It seems to me that the approach to memorialization should definitely not be only about sacrifice and suffering. It should give the right to the truth – what happened, why it happened, who is to blame, who suffered from it, and how. But it must also give us the strength and resistance to live on, to build on, to make difficult decisions, to debate, to hate our neighbors – whatever it takes to keep us from being trapped in trauma. Because societies that are locked in their mourning face enormous challenges and problems.
It also seems to me that our memorialization should stop this practice of canonical sacrificial grieving as a key idea. We are, I’m sorry, fighting with a huge neighbor, we have been fighting for years, decades, and even centuries. We are here, and this is about proving our capability. We had different periods, it was difficult for us, but here we are.
It’s like in Jerusalem – they have a fantastic approach to the Holocaust memorial space. You immerse yourself in a large and heavy exposition, but you won’t find numbers or aspects related exclusively to the dead or exclusively to torture. However, there are, for example, tools for self-care that women in the concentration camp used. And for me, it’s about dignity: being in inhuman conditions, finding tools to turn into a tool for self-care. And it seems to me that our memorialization should be about this story, about the ability to go through very difficult aspects with dignity.
For example, I hope that we will resolve with dignity the question of what we will do with the memorial spaces of the «SVO», with the graves of Russians and their memorial plaques.
Can we already develop a strategy for the reintegration of the occupied territories and what could it be?
Maxym Yeligulashvili: There should be several aspects. The first is the approach, and it should definitely not be about objectifying people. It should be about the aspect of reconnecting, the experience of readiness for coexistence and cohabitation.
The second aspect is that we need to work on leveling this widespread separation between the state and people. The sooner we realize our direct dependence on each other, the better. Territories are seized and liberated by states. And some issues must be resolved by the state. The question of what to do with teachers in the occupied territories will not be solved by NGOs or donors.
The third aspect is about a political nation living in different territories. It can be a diaspora, it can be a history that has happened now. It’s whether we are ready for this scenario and what it should be like. What kind of connection should Ukrainian citizens have with the state if they are not in the controlled territory of Ukraine or abroad? And the trick here is not how we reintegrate them, but how we build a common bond.
Today marks exactly two years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to the interactive map by DeepStateUA, over the course of the war in Ukraine and to date, the Russian army has managed to seize almost 18 per cent of Ukraine’s territory. In addition, about 7 per cent of the territory has been liberated by the Ukrainian military at various times.
In times of war, the program «Free our relatives» tells the stories of people, cities, villages, and entire regions that have been captured by Russian invaders. We discuss the war crimes committed by the Kremlin and its troops against the Ukrainian people.
The program is hosted by Igor Kotelianets and Anastasia Bagalika.
The coverage of war crimes resulting from Russia’s war against Ukraine is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in the framework of the Human Rights in Action Program implemented by Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union.
Opinions, conclusions and recommendations presented in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the United States Government. The contents are the responsibility of the authors.
