Community Preparedness
Highlighting local
Ukrainian perceptions
Since early 2025, there has been intensified speculation around a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, yet little planning has been undertaken to assess its implications on communities or prepare for their emerging needs. In response, NP assessed local perceptions of current tensions and anticipated challenges in a possible ceasefire scenario. The findings aim to support evidence-based programming and advocacy by highlighting risks related to displacement, reintegration, and changing frontline dynamics. Updated regularly, this analysis provides a resource for stakeholders to design inclusive, forward-looking interventions.
Explore Oblast-Specific Analysis
The assessment indicates a marked deterioration in perceived security across Kharkivska Oblast (worse than the July data), with the majority of civilians still not believing that there will be a ceasefire in the coming six months. At the same time, social cohesion has emerged as a rapidly growing challenge, reflecting increased tensions related to resource scarcity, strained host–IDP relations, and political or ethnic divisions. Despite ongoing NGO support, findings suggest a partial mismatch between assistance delivered and communities’ most urgent and evolving concerns, particularly as needs shift from immediate humanitarian relief toward longer-term resilience and cohesion.
Looking ahead, respondents anticipate complex and multidimensional recovery needs, with no single priority dominating. Security guarantees, employment, MHPSS, service restoration, and reconciliation efforts are all viewed as critical to sustainable recovery and dignified returns. While most respondents identify external factors as the primary determinants of future recovery and the sustainability of a ceasefire, a majority also express confidence in local capacity to engage in recovery processes.
78% report existing tensions (also an increase from July), most being political and ethnic, but also over access to resources. Given the high level of existing tensions and limited preparedness for a potential ceasefire or sudden demographic shifts, the findings underscore space for creative programming designed to address more prolonged conflict needs.
“A peaceful life – something I don’t believe in – a life spent in other people’s homes, since mine is no longer there.”
-Female, IDP, 51-65
“People are people, and they’re always arguing, especially when everyone’s on edge; we’re all tired and overreacting, but the real problem will arise when someone takes up the weapons – there might be plenty of those.”
-Male, host, veteran's family member, local administration representative, 31-50
In January 2026, 26 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted across five villages in five hromadas in Kharkivska Oblast. Due to the deteriorating security situation (particularly in the Kupiansk direction) the NP team was unable to revisit all hromadas assessed in July 2025.
Respondents reflected a diverse cross-section of the population in terms of gender, age, displacement status, and veteran background. Of those interviewed, 18 were women and 8 were men. The lower visibility of men in public spaces when conducting the interviews, is likely linked to ongoing conscription. Regarding displacement status, 54% identified as host community members, 27% as internally displaced persons (IDPs), and 19% as returnees. Most respondents reported having dependents (ranging from one to seven), while 35% indicated they had none.
Perceptions of security have deteriorated significantly since July 2025. While 43% of respondents previously reported that the situation was worsening, this figure rose to 77% in January 2026. All respondents from Izumska and Bohodukhivska hromadas described a worsening situation. Only 4% reported improvements, all from Slobozhanska hromada, though even there this represents the lowest recorded response. These findings reflect growing concerns about civilian safety and correspond with the escalating hostilities in the Kupiansk direction.
Security remains the primary concern, identified by 25% of respondents as the most pressing issue in their community. Other key challenges include housing (14%), livelihoods and employment (12%), access to education (11%), and access to healthcare (10%), indicating persistent gaps in basic services. Notably, social cohesion (previously identified by only 4% of respondents in July) has increased sharply to 16%, making it the second most cited challenge in January. This suggests a growing strain on community relations.
None of the respondents believed a cessation of hostilities or ceasefire was likely within the next six months. Specifically, 15% considered it completely impossible, 31% viewed it as highly unlikely, and 19% stated they could not imagine such a scenario at all. These responses reflect deep skepticism and uncertainty regarding near-term improvements in security. At the same time, it is notable that 35% assessed a ceasefire as “likely,” indicating some divergence in expectations compared to July.
Despite this variation, overall findings suggest that communities are not prepared for a sudden shift in conflict dynamics. Given Kharkiv’s geographic location, a ceasefire could result in a significant influx of returnees and IDPs from neighbouring Oblasts. At present, respondents report existing tensions within their hromadas, including political or ethnic divisions (24%), competition over resources (24%), and tensions between host and IDP communities (16%).
Without proactive measures to address these fault lines, sudden demographic or political change, such as large-scale returns or displacement movements, risk exacerbating existing tensions, and further undermining social cohesion.
Respondents identified a broad range of priorities for post-conflict recovery, with no single issue emerging as dominant (all ranging between 14–18%). The most frequently cited needs include mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) (18%), security and demining, employment opportunities, and the restoration of health facilities and schools. The absence of a clear leading priority (both overall and at the individual Hromada level), highlights the multidimensional nature of anticipated recovery needs. This suggests that post-war recovery is likely to be at least as complex as the current wartime context, requiring simultaneous progress across sectors rather than isolated interventions.
Regarding conditions for the dignified return of displaced populations, security guarantees (19%) were identified as the most important factor. While this mirrors findings from July, the proportion has slightly decreased, with responses now more evenly distributed across various needs. Respondents highlighted a wide range of priorities, including housing, employment, and services. This shift indicates that a cessation of hostilities and security guarantees alone would be insufficient for return without a serious investment in the rebuilding of affected areas – from schools, hospitals, the labour market etc.
Notably, 13% emphasised the importance of community dialogue and reconciliation (a big increase from July). This is particularly significant given that 86% reported existing tensions within their Oblast. These tensions are primarily linked to competition over limited resources, strained relations between IDPs and host communities, and political or ethnic divisions, including differing views on wartime governance and strategy. As such, mediation and dialogue efforts should focus on various community groups (those who stayed, left, fought, avoided conscription, accused of collaborating etc).
Despite these internal challenges, the majority expressed some level of confidence in local capacity to engage in recovery: 69% stated the Oblast could partially undertake recovery efforts, and 27% believed it could do so fully. However, the biggest threat in Kharkivska is clearly external, with, 25 out of 26 respondents identifying external factors as the primary threat to recovery efforts. This fear has real ground given previous ceasefire attempts pre the full-scale invasion and shed light on the extent to which trust building needs to be a fundamental part of any ceasefire attempts.
Respondents identified several concrete opportunities to strengthen cooperation and support within their communities. The most frequently cited measures included inclusive engagement of all groups in decision-making processes (23%), community dialogue and mediation initiatives (23%), increased transparency from local authorities (23%), and support from neutral organisations (19%).
Collectively, these responses point to a strong demand for improved communication, more inclusive governance practices, and trusted support structures. Given the high proportion of respondents reporting existing tensions, these suggested interventions are both timely and necessary. They indicate that communities are not only aware of current fault lines but are also articulating practical pathways to mitigate them.
While most respondents reported having received some form of NGO support, addressing a range of humanitarian needs; a comparison with the data on current security challenges suggests a potential mismatch between the most urgent community concerns and the assistance being delivered. This gap may reflect the protracted nature of the conflict and a shift in needs away from traditional humanitarian assistance toward longer-term recovery, social cohesion, and governance-related support.
These findings highlight the importance of adapting programming to evolving community priorities and ensuring that assistance aligns with both immediate vulnerabilities and emerging recovery dynamics.
Kharkiv • June 2025
Communities across Kharkivska Oblast report high levels of concern for their safety, with nearly half saying the situation is consistently bad, and most do not expect a ceasefire soon. Security, livelihoods, housing, and access to services remain the main challenges. Looking ahead, respondents prioritize employment, demining and safety, and housing reconstruction.
Most residents deem that their Oblast is ready for recovery but say real progress depends on improved security and economic opportunities – two factors the majority see as ‘external’. About 62% also report tensions (mainly over scarce resources), especially between IDPs and host communities. This highlights the need for more livelihood support and dialogue to prevent conflict escalation.
Communities also call for better communication, more inclusive decision-making, transparency from authorities, and support from neutral actors. Overall, respondents remain motivated to rebuild their lives but need safety, economic stability, and stronger community cohesion to move forward. These topics can and should be addressed already now, supporting communities to nurture pockets of peace during war.
During Jul–Aug 2025, Kharkiv field team conducted a series of community-level interviews across Kharkivska Oblast. In total, 42 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were carried out in 15 villages across 9 hromadas. The team scheduled several appointments per day, being able to interview 3–5 respondents daily. Whenever possible, interviews also included representatives holding official roles at hromada level to capture institutional perspectives alongside community views. Key informants included heads of hromadas, village council representatives, heads of military administrations, and leaders of local NGOs/CSOs.
Assessment aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the thoughts, needs, and expectations of different population categories (host community, IDPs, veterans or their family members, duty bearers, volunteers, etc.), for the future.
The population assessed reflects a diverse mix of gender, age, and displacement status. Among the respondents, women were the larger group, with both younger (18–24) and older (25–64) age categories represented. Men were also included in both age groups, though in slightly lower numbers compared to women. It is perceived that men were less ‘visible’ in the public spaces where NP conducted these interviews primarily due to conscription. In terms of displacement status, most participants, 79%, identified as host community members. Additionally, 14% were internally displaced persons (IDPs), while 7% were returnees. This distribution indicates that most perspectives gathered in the assessment come from long-term residents, complemented by insights from displaced and returning populations.
In terms of safety and security aspects, the findings show a mixed perception of security in the assessed communities. Almost half of respondents (48%) stated that the situation stays the same, though they described this stability as consistently bad and insecure. A significant proportion (43%) reported that the situation is worsening, reflecting growing concerns about safety and the overall volatile environment. Only one Hromada noted any improvement (Blyznukivska), representing 10% of respondents, with this community being located further from the frontline than others.
The assessment shows that the population in Kharkivska Oblast is facing many challenges in their communities. Security stands out as the biggest issue with 28%, making it the top concern for most respondents. Other challenges mentioned include livelihoods and employment (14%), access to education (14%), housing and infrastructure (13%), and access to healthcare (11%), showing a wide range of basic needs that are still unmet. Smaller but still important issues include access to humanitarian aid (9%), social cohesion and trust (6%), and other challenges (5%), such as road conditions, demining, and population movement. Overall, while communities face many difficulties, the data makes it clear that security remains the biggest challenge for most respondents.
None of the respondents believed that a cessation of hostilities or a potential ceasefire is possible within the next six months. Of these, 7% said a ceasefire is completely impossible, 5% viewed it as highly unlikely, and 88% said they could not even imagine this possibility at all, stating that a ceasefire feels unrealistic or too distant to consider. This reflects a prevailing sense of uncertainty and deep skepticism about any near-term improvement in security conditions.
These responses indicate that, in the event of a cessation of hostilities or a potential ceasefire, the population is clearly not prepared and given Kharkiv’s location, such a development would likely trigger a significant influx of returnees and IDPs from neighbouring Oblasts. As shown in the ‘Future Challenges and Needs’ section, most host community members reported existing tensions with IDPs, particularly around access to resources and economic opportunities. Inadequate preparedness for a sudden shift in the context compounded by already-noted tensions suggests that, without proper planning and support, these tensions could easily intensify.
According to the respondents, post-conflict, ceasefire, and recovery efforts should prioritise employment, which respondents identified as the most significant challenge (19%). This is followed by the need to rebuild health facilities and schools (18%), and to repair or reconstruct housing (16%). At the same time, 14% of respondents highlighted the need for reconciliation initiatives. This is particularly important given that 62% reported existing tensions within their Oblast, primarily related to limited resources (closely linked to the lack of employment and economic opportunities) and tensions between IDPs and host communities.
These findings underscore the need for both local and international actors to proactively address these tensions to prevent them from becoming major obstacles during post-conflict transition and future programme implementation. Looking ahead to potential returns, respondents also emphasised the need for expanded economic opportunities (20%) and reconciliation, mediation, and dialogue efforts (10%) to reduce the risk of conflict escalation.
Overall, future key priorities include employment opportunities (20%), access to schools and health services (15%), and repaired infrastructure (14%), mirroring the earlier findings on current needs and challenges. Housing availability (13%) and community dialogue (10%) were also cited, though less frequently. Priorities vary significantly between Hromadas: in Kupyanska (92%) and Shevchenkivska (80%), security is the dominant concern, while Bohodukhivska (29%), Slobozhanska (25%), and Blyznukivska (21%) place greater emphasis on employment opportunities as key to restoring their wellbeing. It is clear that the proximity to the frontline also impacts respondents' opinions and feelings towards the future. For instance, in the most exposed communities - Kupyanska and Shevchenkivska Hromadas, security remains the main concern for future, whereas in other Oblasts further away state that key future issues are social cohesion, reconstruction and economic opportunities. These differences underscore the need for tailored, Hromada-level recovery plans, rather than broad Oblast-wide strategies, to ensure local nuances and priorities are adequately addressed.
Across Kharkiv Oblast, 50% of civilians deem that their Hromadas are ready for a transition and recovery period. Only 10% of respondents said “no,” arguably echoing the overall skepticism of a potential halt in fighting or ceasefire. Overall, the results indicate generally positive attitudes and trust in the Hromada's ability to manage a future transition. However, this optimism contrasts with the significant concerns raised both on current and future challenges. When asked whether external factors could influence recovery, respondents overwhelmingly said yes. Most noted that key issues such as security and economic guarantees lie beyond the decision-making power of the Oblast or Hromada, suggesting that there is limited ability to address these challenges locally.
Regarding incentives for dignified return of displaced people, respondents identified security guarantees (24%) as the most important factor, indicating that a cessation of hostilities alone is insufficient without concrete assurances of safety. This is also why they deem that ultimately it is external factors that can impact future recovery of the Oblast, not themselves.
Respondents report that there are a lot of opportunities to be taken into consideration for strengthening support and cooperation in their communities. The largest share, 28%, falls under “other,” which includes needs like better communication with authorities, psychological support, youth activities, and more stability. Engagement of all groups in decision-making (20%) and greater transparency from local authorities (20%) are also key priorities, highlighting respondents' desire for more inclusive and open governance. Community dialogue or mediation (18%) and support from neutral organizations (15%) were also frequently mentioned, pointing to the importance of trust-building and impartial support. Overall, respondents are calling for better communication, more inclusive decision-making, and stronger support systems to improve cooperation within their communities.
While most respondents report that they have at some point been supported by NGOs, there are still some civilians in exposed areas that gave a negative answer. Equally, when asked about what support they receive, the answers do not reflect what the respondents themselves had stated as the most urgent needs (current as well as future), which suggests that NGOs as well as INGOs should rethink some of their programming, to support Kharkivska Oblast better going forward.