Solidarity Conference | Panel 2 Summary: Political Activism and Civic Engagement

The second panel of the 2026 TCUP Conference shifted the focus inward, examining solidarity within Ukraine — through political activism, civic engagement, and democratic practice during wartime. Moderated by Emily Channell-Justice (Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute), the panel featured Yuliya Bidenko (HURI / V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University), Emma Mateo (HURI), Ivan Shmatko (Washington and Lee University), and Yevhen Shybalov (independent consultant and former Prisoner of War). 

Framing the discussion, Channell-Justice noted that as U.S. political rhetoric increasingly centers on corruption, elections, and distorted narratives about Ukraine, one of the greatest losses has been a diminished understanding of how Ukrainians themselves continue to engage politically and socially under wartime conditions. This panel sought to re-center that story. 

War as a Series of Transformations 

Ivan Shmatko opened with a conceptual intervention: rather than treating the Russo-Ukrainian war as a single, continuous phenomenon, it may be more analytically accurate to see it as a series of successive wars — technologically, socially, and politically distinct. The war of 2022, he argued, differs profoundly from the war of 2026. 

In the early months of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s response was marked by widespread grassroots mobilization rooted in shared emotions and understandings. Collective action required little coercion; solidarity among Ukrainians across the country seemed almost instinctive. 

But Shmatko cautioned that this unity may have rested partly on an illusion — the belief that Ukrainians shared identical motivations. He distinguished between two “ideal-type” logics driving resistance: 

• An unconditional logic, in which Ukraine’s flourishing and survival are ends in themselves, regardless of what the state becomes. 
• A conditional logic, in which resistance is motivated by what Russia represents — authoritarianism, homophobia, repression — and the desire to avoid those outcomes. 

Over time, he suggested, these logics have diverged, producing fragmentation within the social body. Wartime solidarity remains strong, but it is more complex and less uniform than in 2022. 

Civilian Engagement at Unprecedented Levels 

Emma Mateo grounded the discussion in empirical data and field research. According to survey findings, over 80% of Ukrainians have engaged in the war effort in some form — whether through volunteering, donating, or military service. Over 40% have participated in volunteering specifically. 

This level of civilian engagement is extraordinary — particularly given displacement, trauma, economic hardship, and sustained bombardment. While Ukraine is not unique in experiencing grassroots mobilization during wartime, the scale and durability of engagement are notable. 

In the first six weeks of the full-scale invasion, when international assistance had not yet fully materialized, Ukrainian volunteers filled critical gaps — evacuating civilians, delivering aid, supporting territorial defense units. Even today, international organizations such as the UN rely heavily on partnerships with hundreds of Ukrainian local groups to distribute assistance. 

Over time, wartime engagement has evolved. Initial spontaneous mobilization has given way to institutionalization and specialization. Volunteer efforts now focus on areas where the state cannot fully provide — including drones and vehicles for frontline units. Meanwhile, some civil society organizations that pivoted entirely toward wartime needs are gradually returning to their pre-war missions. 

Mateo emphasized that engagement also serves as a form of agency for those most affected by the war. Displaced Ukrainians and residents of heavily impacted regions are among those most likely to initiate new civic efforts. Participation is not only support for the state; it is a means of reclaiming control in conditions of profound upheaval. 

Democracy Without Elections? 

The panel then turned to one of the most contentious international questions: can Ukraine be considered democratic while elections are suspended under martial law? 

Yuliya Bidenko responded directly: 

Elections now in Ukraine would actually threaten democracy in the country.

She outlined three core challenges: 

• Logistical impossibility — air raid alarms, missile strikes, and the risk of polling station evacuation would undermine procedural integrity. If observers must leave shelters mid-count, election results could be challenged as having been tampered with. 
• Exclusion of major constituencies — soldiers at the front, millions of refugees abroad, and citizens under occupation would struggle to participate fully. 
• Risk of fragmentation — wartime elections could deepen societal divisions rather than resolve them. 

Public opinion supports postponement: only a small minority favor immediate elections, while a large majority prefer to wait until after a stable ceasefire. Mateo added that democracy cannot be reduced to elections alone. Practicing democracy may involve protest, volunteering, and holding institutions accountable. 

Shybalov approached the question from a more philosophical angle, arguing that democracy is not synonymous with elections. Elections are a tool — one mechanism among many through which citizens influence governance. The key question, he suggested, is whether Ukrainians retain meaningful avenues to shape decisions. 

Anti-Corruption and the Right to Protest 

Last summer’s anti-corruption protests offered a powerful test of democratic resilience. Despite martial law, thousands gathered to oppose a government decision that would have limited the autonomy of key anti-corruption institutions. 

Shmatko noted that anti-corruption occupies a “privileged” place in Ukrainian political culture. While protests over electricity outages were often dismissed as inappropriate during wartime, anti-corruption mobilization received widespread support. 

When it comes to anti-corruption, Ukrainians are ready to fight — no matter the circumstances.
Ivan Shmatko

Bidenko emphasized that these were not merely protests “against corruption,” but protests in defense of institutions seen as public goods. Cross-generational participation underscored the depth of civic investment. The episode suggested that wartime does not eliminate democratic accountability. Rather, it reshapes the boundaries of legitimate dissent. 
 

War, Technology, and the Future of Solidarity 

Yevhen Shybalov brought a frontline perspective shaped by his experience as a former POW and combat veteran. 

He highlighted the rapid transformation of warfare in Ukraine — the increasing replacement of soldiers with drones and robotics — arguing that military-technological evolution has profound social implications. 
“If you want to know what future wars might look like — keep an eye on Ukraine.” Yevhen Shybalov  
He also warned that Russian psychological warfare actively targets domestic solidarity and relations between Ukraine and its allies. 

Speaking personally about captivity and occupation, he underscored the stakes: “I survived Russian captivity, and I know that no one can compete with Russia when it comes to cruelty.” 

For many Ukrainians, he suggested, the choice is stark: surrender or survival. This existential framing continues to shape solidarity inside Ukraine. 

Solidarity as Compassion — and as Burden 

In closing reflections, the panelists wrestled with the meaning of solidarity itself. 

Bidenko expressed discomfort with the term, recalling its overuse in Soviet political ritual. For her, solidarity means compassion and shared purpose — but also cold, strategic thinking. 

Shmatko invoked a deeper historical meaning of solidarity as shared burden — a reminder that symbolic gestures are not equivalent to lived sacrifice. 

Mateo emphasized the importance of connecting with ordinary struggles, resisting the temptation to reduce Ukraine’s experience to geopolitical abstraction. 

Across their different perspectives — from cautious optimism to sober realism — the panel converged on a central insight: Ukraine’s civic vitality remains strong, but it is evolving. Wartime solidarity is not static. It is contested, negotiated, and continually redefined.