A sociologist on Ukraine's pressing problems

The well-known Ukrainian magazine Kraina has published an interview with the Director of the Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine, Professor Yevhen Golovakha.

The journalist Oleksandr Kurylenko opened the conversation by asking how Ukrainian society sees a possible end to the war. Is it ready for concessions to the demands of the Russian leadership?

The scholar responded as follows: “Let me say frankly at once: Ukrainians are almost not prepared to make concessions. Sociological data confirm this. According to our monitoring at the Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine, as early as 2022 only 4% were ready to agree to any terms just so long as the war ended. Those are people who simply could not withstand the strain. In 2024 there were 14% of them. That is, their number has grown, but it is still a small share.”

The head of the Institute supplemented its research with data from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology and summed up: “Of course there is no unanimity in society, but the main thing is clear: Ukrainians do not accept the Kremlin's imperial logic. And if we speak of public opinion, the most realistic and supported scenario looks like this: stop at the front line, recognise no conquests and pursue the return of the territories by political and diplomatic means. This option is supported by the greatest number of people — slightly more than reject it (54% against 35%).

To the question of how the war is changing society and the authorities, the sociologist replied: “Only about 20% of Ukrainians have no personal losses connected with the war. For the majority this means the death of relatives or friends; most are in some way touched by forced emigration or the loss of work, housing or income. Yet even in such conditions optimism holds — and it has grounds. Although the war does, of course, exhaust.”

Summing up the changes in Ukrainian society in recent years on the basis of the annual monitoring survey the Institute has been conducting for two decades, the professor concludes: “The mafia is now almost at the bottom of the ranking. And at the top are those who actually work, fight, and create the economy and culture. That is Ukraine's new agency, a new conception of itself. According to our test of agency, from the 2000s up to and including 2021 most Ukrainians considered Ukraine a country without agency. Now the situation has changed radically. Ukrainians have come to feel that they have agency. And, most importantly, the world really does recognise us as such. Ukraine has found itself at the centre of global political events, and that is extremely important for the future.”

Speaking of Ukrainians' conceptions of “us” and “them”, the scholar observes: “Here too there has been a revolution in consciousness. My wife Natalia Panina and I spent many years measuring social distance — that is, whom Ukrainians consider closer and whom more distant. And it was always the same: Americans or Europeans were far away, while Russians and Belarusians were considered the closest. We called this the phenomenon of ‘East Slavic closeness'.

Now it is the other way round. Russians and Belarusians have ended up at a great distance, and Europeans have become far closer. This is the phenomenon of ‘East Slavic separation'. What is decisive now is not ethnic or linguistic kinship but political closeness and closeness of values.”

The sociologist pointed to fundamental shifts in overcoming Ukraine's internal regional and ideological divisions and in the formation of a political nation, illustrating this with research data: “In the 1990s only 40% answered that they felt themselves to be first and foremost citizens of Ukraine. The rest identified primarily with their region, their city, even with the former Soviet Union. Before 2014 the figure had grown to 60%. And now, after three years of full-scale war, about 80% say: ‘I am a citizen of Ukraine.' That is an enormous leap in the formation of a political nation. Moreover, according to the latest surveys, more than 80% declare that they use Ukrainian, which is practically twice as many as at the beginning of independence.”

As for Ukraine's political class, the scholar admitted: “It has, unfortunately, not taken shape. Normal ideologies corresponding to the values we wanted to establish in the country in order to become part of the European space are only now forming. Let us hope that after the war the building of a normal political system will begin. If only we do not slide into populism.

Incidentally, our institute has published a monograph edited by Oleksandr Reznik on political populism. It demonstrates that populism is a defining current in Ukrainian politics. And not only ours: it is a threat on a global scale. One need only look at Trump.

To the journalist's question about what new challenges are arising and what may sharpen after the war, the sociologist pointed to a number of new social groups that did not exist before. These are internally displaced persons, those who have gone abroad, and a third group — servicemen. The status of “I was on the front line” will become a very important argument in post-war society. A separate, if isolated, group are the “draft evaders”. All of this together is forming a new social structure that will have a serious influence on politics after the war.

Among the factors that will weigh heavily on Ukraine's post-war revival the scholar named continued assistance from Western partners and our own state policy — specifically, a clear programme for the adaptation and readaptation of those who return from the front and from abroad. We do not yet see such a programme, and it is needed now.

The professor confirmed his forecast that intensive fighting will begin to wind down in 2026, especially if the United States overcomes its isolationist tendencies and does begin supplying weapons intensively — at least at Europeans' expense.

In closing, the sociologist named the urgent post-war steps that will have to be taken: “First, a real comprehensive ten-year programme broken down by year; a full survey of Ukraine — economic, sociological, infrastructural. To understand what we have actually lost. That will become the basis of a rapid recovery programme. Then the rebuilding of infrastructure: housing, schools, hospitals, roads. This is the most acute question — look at Kharkiv. I go there; this autumn we are holding a sociological congress in Kharkiv, and every trip there is a reminder that recovery must be the priority. And finally, a strategy of integration into the EU. We can make a leap, as Poland and Romania did in their time. The main thing is to have a clear programme and a shared goal.”

The interview with the leader of Ukraine's academic sociology showed that in the difficult conditions of war the country's scholars continue important sociological research, keep a finger on the pulse of social processes and form a research basis for the urgent political and administrative decisions to be taken. It is up to the country's leadership to make use of that basis.

The magazine also gave a brief biography of Yevhen Golovakha.