Resilience Reconsidered: Lessons from Ukraine’s Response to War

‘Resilience’ dominates discussions of Ukraine’s civilian and military resistance. The term appeals to people’s emotions and has a mobilising effect at home and abroad. Yet, assumptions of resilience may lead to blind spots and ineffective support. This report explores the tensions between stability and change—coping, adaptation, transformation—inherent in resilience. Drawing on evidence from decentralisation, care, trauma and economic development, it shows how individuals, communities and institutions adapt in wartime while structural and personal challenges persist or emerge. Rather than repeating tropes, the reports seeks a nuanced, policy-relevant debate on diverse resilience trajectories. The key findings are as follows:

Ukraine’s resilience is not uniform

Different regions, sectors and social groups experience shocks differently and have varied capacities to adapt or transform. Treating resilience as homogeneous obscures unequal vulnerabilities and risks misinforming policymaking, particularly in the recovery context.

Local governance has been central—but capacities vary significantly

Decentralisation enabled local communities to act quickly and effectively during the full-scale invasion. However:

Urban hromadas with strong administrative and financial capacities meet wartime challenges better than rural or frontline ones.
Staff shortages, budget constraints, uneven donor access and limited opportunities for peer-learning widen these gaps.
Wartime re-centralisation trends risk weakening local autonomy and innovation during recovery.

Care systems function through overstretch, not robustness

Healthcare and social care remain operational not due to structural soundness but largely thanks to underpaid, exhausted workers.

Many hromadas are failing to provide the legally required minimum of social services.
At the same time, demand is rising sharply (veterans, people with disabilities, older adults, displaced people).
Without major reforms, the care system will not be able to meet future needs.

Psychological trauma is widespread but politically under-addressed

Between a quarter and a third of the civilian population—including displaced individuals—pass the diagnostic threshold for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Complex PTSD, yet trauma remains a sensitive topic.

The medium and long-term effects of psychological trauma on social trust, political attitudes (e.g. democratic preferences) and participation are particularly uncertain.
Trauma care is under-prioritised domestically and internationally.
Addressing trauma requires better data based on validated research instruments, interdisciplinary research involving clinical psychologists, psychiatrists and social scientists, and well-resourced immediate and medium-term recovery policies backed by the EU and other donors.

The economy adapts—but structural vulnerabilities persist

Despite massive destruction, Ukraine has thus far avoided economic collapse thanks to foreign support and domestic policies. However:

Ukraine’s position in low value-added segments of global value chains limits its capacity to absorb future shocks.
In preparation for EU accession, strategic support is needed to upgrade technologically, diversify exports, and strengthen domestic value creation.
Drawing on past enlargement experiences and emerging EU industrial policy tools, the EU can strengthen both Ukraine’s resilience and the Union’s cohesion.

Celebratory narratives overlook the costs of resilience

Resilience carries emotional, financial and institutional burdens. A critical lens is required to avoid celebrating resilience while overlooking individual and societal costs, exhaustion and structural fragility. Support should be geared to distributing resources equitably and instituting structural reforms in order to reduce reliance on individual or community adaptation alone.

Note: The data on trauma cited in part of this report was collected for a study carried out by the KonKoop research network.