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.
National Overview
Due to changing support from the US government, the Ukrainian public space has increasingly been saturated with speculations about the probability of a ceasefire. It is clear that the US support to Ukraine is no longer a ‘given’, replaced by a strong push for an immediate peace deal, with little consideration for its factual or ethical ‘costs’, or Ukraine’s future. Despite the shift in the public domain, there have been limited proactive steps to analyse the potential impact or put in place contingency plans to anticipate and respond to needs that may emerge.
While the current conflict dynamics are far from being conducive for peace negotiations, it is essential to ensure proper planning and comprehensive participation of relevant stakeholders at the local level, as a foundation for sustainable future solutions. In line with the Early Warning, Early Response (EWER) approach, NP Ukraine has launched a localised “Preparedness and the Future of Community” assessment. It explores key questions about both the present and the future, such as existing community tensions and obstacles to post-conflict transition, framed within a potential ceasefire context. This helps identify current challenges and highlight future barriers that may arise if a ceasefire is implemented without incorporating local perspectives.
The findings will support INGOs, local actors, and government stakeholders in designing evidence-based programming and strengthening collective advocacy for civilian needs that ought to be highlighted in any future recovery/ceasefire efforts, particularly in areas where the context may shift dramatically. This includes potential increase in returns of refugees and internally displaced civilians, influx of IDPs from land-swapped territory, veteran reintegration challenges, declining welfare conditions, and changes along the front line.
The analysis and accompanying interactive data dashboard will be updated periodically to reflect evolving civilian perspectives as the context remains volatile. This resource is intended to support INGOs, national NGOs, and donors in the design and adaptation of current and future programming in Ukraine. It aims to inform stakeholders of current levels of community preparedness and ident
This assessment was conducted using a structured online questionnaire developed in KoboTool. During key informant interviews (KIIs), field teams entered responses directly into the system or uploaded completed forms upon returning from the field when internet connectivity was limited.
The questionnaire combined closed-ended (single- and multiple-choice) and open-ended questions, enabling the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data. This mixed-methods approach allowed NP’s Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) team to capture measurable trends while also documenting contextual insights and nuanced perspectives. One validation workshop was conducted in the Kramatorsk NP Hub, where the results of the assessment were presented and discussed. This was not done in every location due to time constraints. However, as Donetsk is arguably the most contested Oblast, being a significant aspect of ongoing peace talks, it was important for NP to validate the findings there.
Participant selection aimed to ensure broad representation across social groups, including internally displaced persons (IDPs), persons with disabilities, households with dependents, veterans, and duty bearers. Rather than applying fixed quotas per stakeholder category, NP established a minimum target of 25 KIIs per Oblast. This approach prioritised diversity of perspectives over proportional representation. As a result, the composition of respondents varies across Oblasts. For example, in Kharkiv there is a higher proportion of IDP representatives, whereas in Mykolaiv duty bearers are more prominently represented. This variation limits the comparability of findings across regions, as datasets are not identical in structure. The assessment should therefore be interpreted as indicative rather than statistically representative. Furthermore, in some hromadas only one community representative was interviewed (e.g., in Odesa and Kharkiv Oblasts). While these interviews provide valuable insight, NP recognises that a single respondent cannot fully reflect the range of views within a community. Findings should therefore not be considered definitive or exhaustive.
Operational constraints also affected data collection. Regional contextual differences, access challenges, and the evolving security situation (particularly in Kharkiv and Donetsk Oblasts) limited engagement with certain population groups. Due in part to the escalation of hostilities and associated mobility restrictions, 75–85% of respondents were women. This gender imbalance may influence the perspectives reflected in the data. Overall, as a humanitarian assessment rather than an academic research project, the primary objective was to gather a wide range of perspectives to inform programming and advocacy, rather than to produce statistically significant findings.
Overall, throughout the assessments, 130 KIIs were conducted across the 5 Oblasts and 30 Hromadas. 104 of the respondents being women (predominantly between the age of 31-50), and 26 being men also between the age of 31-50. 69% were host community members; 18% IDPs and 13% were returnees, with 50% either being related to a veteran, someone currently serving, captured, or killed in action, or veteran themselves. The remaining 47% had no current link to the military or veterans’ community.
- Security perceptions are worsening nationwide, though regional differences remain.
62% of respondents reported that the security situation is deteriorating. In eastern regions, perceptions of improvement are almost nonexistent—0% in Donetska and below 3% in Kharkiv. Southern regions show slightly more positive perceptions (21% in Mykolaiv, 9% in Odesa), while Kherson recorded the highest share of improvement, likely linked to the relatively static frontline along the Dnipro River. However, continued UAV and artillery activity means civilians still experience persistent insecurity.
- Public expectations of a ceasefire are low and closely tied to local security conditions.
Most respondents consider a ceasefire within the next six months unlikely, and 22% reported they could not even imagine such a scenario. Those who perceived improvements in local security were also more likely to believe a ceasefire was possible, suggesting that optimism about political developments is strongly influenced by local security dynamics.
- Immediate needs are shifting toward a mix of humanitarian, economic, and psychosocial priorities.
Across Ukraine, the most frequently cited needs are security (24%), housing and infrastructure (17%), and livelihoods and employment (17%). Respondents also emphasised the importance of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) and reconciliation initiatives, indicating that communities are increasingly concerned not only with material recovery but also with long-term social and psychological stability.
- Community tensions are widespread and often linked to competition over limited resources.
60% of respondents reported existing tensions, most commonly related to competition over resources (18%), political or ethnic divisions (17%), mistrust between authorities and civilians (14%), and tensions between IDPs and host communities (9%). These dynamics suggest that housing availability and employment opportunities will be critical early recovery challenges, as shortages in these areas could exacerbate tensions between host communities, IDPs, and returnees.
- Return dynamics are closely linked to security, housing, and economic stability.
Respondents identified security guarantees, repaired infrastructure, and employment opportunities as the most important conditions for the dignified return of displaced populations. While many expressed confidence in the capacity of Oblast authorities to manage recovery, respondents widely acknowledged that the key constraints—particularly security and economic guarantees—remain external.
- Reconstruction efforts are constrained by uncertainty around future security arrangements.
Many respondents expressed skepticism that a potential ceasefire would hold, which contributes to hesitation around long-term investments such as reconstruction. This uncertainty risks slowing recovery efforts, as local authorities may be reluctant to prioritise rebuilding if renewed hostilities could reverse progress.
- Social cohesion and dialogue will be essential for long-term recovery and reintegration.
A significant share of respondents highlighted the need for community dialogue and reconciliation initiatives to rebuild trust between different population groups and support sustainable reintegration of displaced populations.
- Security perceptions are worsening nationwide, though regional differences remain.
62% of respondents reported that the security situation is deteriorating. In eastern regions, perceptions of improvement are almost nonexistent—0% in Donetska and below 3% in Kharkiv. Southern regions show slightly more positive perceptions (21% in Mykolaiv, 9% in Odesa), while Kherson recorded the highest share of improvement, likely linked to the relatively static frontline along the Dnipro River. However, continued UAV and artillery activity means civilians still experience persistent insecurity. - Public expectations of a ceasefire are low and closely tied to local security conditions.
Most respondents consider a ceasefire within the next six months unlikely, and 22% reported they could not even imagine such a scenario. Those who perceived improvements in local security were also more likely to believe a ceasefire was possible, suggesting that optimism about political developments is strongly influenced by local security dynamics. - Immediate needs are shifting toward a mix of humanitarian, economic, and psychosocial priorities.
Across Ukraine, the most frequently cited needs are security (24%), housing and infrastructure (17%), and livelihoods and employment (17%). Respondents also emphasised the importance of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) and reconciliation initiatives, indicating that communities are increasingly concerned not only with material recovery but also with long-term social and psychological stability. - Community tensions are widespread and often linked to competition over limited resources.
60% of respondents reported existing tensions, most commonly related to competition over resources (18%), political or ethnic divisions (17%), mistrust between authorities and civilians (14%), and tensions between IDPs and host communities (9%). These dynamics suggest that housing availability and employment opportunities will be critical early recovery challenges, as shortages in these areas could exacerbate tensions between host communities, IDPs, and returnees. - Return dynamics are closely linked to security, housing, and economic stability.
Respondents identified security guarantees, repaired infrastructure, and employment opportunities as the most important conditions for the dignified return of displaced populations. While many expressed confidence in the capacity of Oblast authorities to manage recovery, respondents widely acknowledged that the key constraints—particularly security and economic guarantees—remain external. - Reconstruction efforts are constrained by uncertainty around future security arrangements.
Many respondents expressed skepticism that a potential ceasefire would hold, which contributes to hesitation around long-term investments such as reconstruction. This uncertainty risks slowing recovery efforts, as local authorities may be reluctant to prioritise rebuilding if renewed hostilities could reverse progress. - Social cohesion and dialogue will be essential for long-term recovery and reintegration.
A significant share of respondents highlighted the need for community dialogue and reconciliation initiatives to rebuild trust between different population groups and support sustainable reintegration of displaced populations.
Across Ukraine, 62% of respondents reported that the security situation is worsening, while 23% stated that it remains unchanged and only 15% perceived an improvement. Regional variation is notable. In eastern Oblasts, perceptions of improvement were extremely limited: in Kharkiv only 3% reported improvement, and in Donetsk no respondents indicated that the situation had improved. In the south, perceptions were somewhat more positive, though still limited overall. Kherson recorded the highest share of respondents reporting improvement, while 21% in Mykolaiv and 9% in Odesa noted that conditions had improved.
One explanation for this regional difference may be the relative stability of the frontline in the south, where the Dnipro River acts as a natural barrier to large-scale territorial advances. However, this relative stability should be interpreted cautiously. Drone activity has significantly increased in southern regions, particularly in Kherson, meaning that civilians continue to face persistent insecurity even in areas where frontline shifts are less frequent.
Despite these regional variations, the most striking finding is the widespread perception that the situation is deteriorating. If this question had been asked in 2024 or even early 2025, responses may have reflected greater optimism. Today, respondents increasingly express fatigue, uncertainty, and reduced expectations regarding improvements in the security environment.
This sentiment is also reflected in attitudes toward a potential ceasefire. The majority of respondents considered a ceasefire within the next six months to be unlikely or impossible, while 22% stated that they could not imagine such a scenario at all. This reflects limited confidence in political developments and contributes to a sense of reduced agency among civilians. In frontline regions such as Donetsk, this skepticism is likely influenced by the legacy of previous failed ceasefire agreements, including the Minsk process, which many respondents perceive as having simply prolonged the conflict rather than resolving it.
Community tensions also appear to be increasing. Around 60% of respondents reported the existence of tensions within their communities, while approximately 40% reported none. Among those reporting tensions, the most common causes included competition over access to resources (18%), political or ethnic divisions (17%), mistrust between civilians and local authorities (14%), and tensions between host communities and IDPs (9%). After four years of full-scale war, the gradual erosion of social cohesion is not unexpected. However, these tensions may intensify further if a ceasefire or halt in hostilities leads to new population movements, including returns of displaced persons or additional displacement from frontline areas.
In terms of priority needs, respondents most frequently identified security (24%), housing and infrastructure (17%), livelihoods and employment (17%), and social cohesion and trust (12%). While security concerns naturally vary depending on proximity to the frontline, it remains a top priority in almost all assessed Oblasts. At the same time, the prominence of housing, livelihoods, and social cohesion indicates growing demand for early recovery and stabilisation programming. Addressing these needs will require integrated approaches that combine humanitarian assistance with peacebuilding and resilience initiatives, effectively beginning to “build peace during wartime.”
At the same time, respondents widely acknowledged the practical constraints posed by ongoing hostilities. Reconstruction efforts, particularly in housing and infrastructure, remain difficult to implement while communities continue to face the risk of shelling or aerial attacks. This highlights the importance of flexible programming, contingency planning, and adaptable funding mechanisms that allow actors to respond to evolving needs as conditions permit.
Across all assessed regions, 77% of respondents expressed partial or full confidence in their Oblast’s ability to engage in recovery efforts, while only 12% stated that they did not believe their region would be capable of managing such a transition. This indicates a relatively strong level of trust in local governance structures and community resilience.
At the same time, respondents overwhelmingly recognised that the broader conditions necessary for recovery lie largely beyond local control. A large majority identified external factors—including security arrangements, political decisions, and military developments—as the primary constraints to recovery. This perception reflects the reality that reconstruction efforts cannot meaningfully progress while active hostilities continue, although this is different in case of critical infrastructure repairs as it is essential for the survival of civilians. It also reinforces the limited sense of local agency in shaping the overall trajectory of recovery and stabilisation.
This perception is closely linked to the widespread skepticism surrounding potential ceasefire arrangements. Many respondents indicated that even if a ceasefire were agreed upon, it would likely represent only another phase of the conflict rather than a definitive end to hostilities. The legacy of previous failed ceasefire arrangements has contributed to a cautious outlook among civilians, underscoring the need for credible guarantees and sustained trust-building measures in any future political settlement.
When asked about priorities in a post-conflict or early recovery scenario, respondents highlighted a combination of structural and social needs. Housing reconstruction, restoration of healthcare and education facilities, and employment opportunities were consistently identified as key priorities. At the same time, mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) emerged as the third most frequently cited need. This reflects growing recognition of Ukraine’s ongoing mental health crisis, which is a natural consequence of prolonged exposure to war, displacement, and trauma.
Encouraging the dignified return of displaced populations will depend on a combination of factors. Respondents most frequently identified security guarantees and repaired infrastructure as essential conditions for return. However, a significant share also emphasised the importance of community dialogue and reconciliation initiatives to address social divisions that have emerged during the conflict. Approximately half of respondents indicated that such efforts would be necessary to support peaceful coexistence and reintegration within communities. While social cohesion initiatives alone cannot drive returns, they are likely to become increasingly important once basic conditions such as safety, housing, and livelihoods are restored.
Overall, respondents indicated that humanitarian assistance broadly aligns with current needs in many regions, particularly in eastern Oblasts where humanitarian presence remains strong. In these areas, the types of support provided—such as infrastructure repair, cash assistance, and emergency humanitarian aid—generally correspond to the immediate needs identified by communities.
However, this alignment appears weaker in regions that have received comparatively less humanitarian attention, such as Odesa, where respondents reported greater discrepancies between available support and local priorities. This highlights the importance of maintaining flexible programming approaches that can respond to shifting regional needs as the conflict evolves.
When asked how coordination and cooperation could be improved, respondents identified several key areas. The most frequently cited included greater transparency from local authorities, increased opportunities for community dialogue and mediation, more inclusive participation in decision-making processes, and stronger support from neutral organisations. Respondents also emphasised the importance of inclusive programming that engages diverse groups within communities, including youth, older persons, and women.
These findings suggest that while humanitarian assistance remains essential, there is also growing demand for programming that strengthens local governance, improves communication between authorities and civilians, and supports social cohesion. Donors, NGOs, and INGOs therefore have significant opportunities to expand programming that not only addresses immediate humanitarian needs but also strengthens community resilience and cooperation during an increasingly protracted conflict.
