Ukraine’s Resilience: From Buzzword to Useful Concept

Ukraine’s resilience in the face of Russia’s full-scale aggression has surprised many and been praised by many. However, the use of the term ‘resilience’ has been viewed critically, particularly by scholars of Ukraine. Some argue that focusing on resilience ignores the country’s long-standing structural problems, which the war has exacerbated. Another perspective highlights the political use of the word, which spreads a narrative of Ukrainians as superhumans and blurs their vulnerability to justify continued piecemeal support for Ukraine. From this perspective, a focus on resilience arguably dilutes the genocidal character of the war: Ukrainians, essentially, have no option but to be resilient.

Both critiques point to an inflated use of the term ‘resilience’ that has turned it into a counterproductive buzzword. What is needed is a more nuanced perspective. Resilience should be defined as the outcome of coping with a crisis in a way that maintains a clearly defined core, even as a system adapts to or resists stress.

The initial crisis: one shock or many?

Resilience results from a trigger event – a crisis – that exposes a system’s vulnerabilities and disrupts its functioning. In analyses of Ukraine, the full-scale Russian invasion that began in February 2022 was initially treated as a shock. Against this backdrop, observers saw Ukraine’s ability to maintain its statehood as an indicator of resilience.

But this perspective of the war as a single shock blurs the country’s nuanced responses to several specific war-related shocks. Instead, for both analytical and policy purposes, it is more useful to examine the individual crises that followed the initial invasion: displacement, institutional disruption, economic breakdown, and infrastructure damage, to name a few. Analysts can then compare how different actors responded to these events. Thus, it is essential to grasp resilience not as a single heroic act but as a set of processes that unfold across various places and sectors with different levels of intensity.

Recognizing the core of a system

The core of a system is the central characteristic or function that is worth preserving even if everything else has to change. If the core changes, the system’s purpose and value alter as well. Then, it is no longer a case of resilience but of transformation or collapse.

The core is a social construct: societies, organisations, municipalities, and teams define what they want to maintain or protect in a crisis. It comprises two levels. The first focuses on functional aspects, such as preserving institutions and public services, maintaining democratic governance, the generation of tax revenue, and the continued provision of administrative and social services. The second level concentrates on values, practices, and beliefs, including the values of freedom and self-determination as well as the fight for these as elements of national identity.

Coping with a crisis aimed at protecting the core is a visible element of societal resilience. Indeed, Ukraine has developed various coping strategies. For example, municipalities that faced a crisis of internal displacement created databases of community contacts and opened centres for displaced people so the authorities could continue to provide public services despite the occupation. The way public services were delivered changed with the displacement, but the system’s main function – the ability to provide those services – continued thanks to its adaptation.

The importance of clear thinking

Viewing resilience as the result of coping with a crisis in a way that protects the core of a system allows for a more nuanced approach to the term that does not ignore the costs and limitations of resilience.

First, a focus on the trigger event means that the vulnerabilities that turn an external event into a crisis come under scrutiny. This opens the door to discussing the structural weaknesses that precede a shock.

Second, concentrating on the resources needed to sustain the core allows the human cost of resilience to be brought into sharper focus. . For example, while citizen engagement is critical for societal resilience in Ukraine, it places an excessive burden on responsible local government employees.

Third, focusing on the core function or characteristic of a system means that attention can be drawn to the conditions that would leave no sufficient coping measures to sustain the core, leading to its collapse or transformation. For example, even if damaged water supplies are restored to a war zone, there is a breaking point at which hostilities make the damage irreparable; this is where infrastructure resilience reaches its limit.

Finally, this definition allows linking resilience to issues of democracy and power, without undermining resilience as a social phenomenon. For example, analysts can ask who defines the core and who is excluded, which groups in society bear the costs of resilience more than others, and how these costs may be more evenly distributed.

Resilience is neither a given capacity nor an empty buzzword. If it is defined as above, the term gains a more realistic definition. By developing clear indicators, it is possible to define the conditions and limits of resilience and to set governance goals for how a system should behave in a crisis, which can then be measured if a crisis occurs.

Dr Oleksandra Keudel is an associate professor and vice-dean for science in the Social Sciences Department and a founding director of the Center for Democratic Resilience at Kyiv School of Economics (KSE). Since September 2025, she has been a fellow at the Ukraine Research Network@ZOiS (UNET), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology, and Space.

Dr Oksana Huss is a research fellow at the Research Center Trustworthy Data Science and Security of the University Alliance Ruhr, University Duisburg-Essen.