Post-Release: Tymofii Brik on the Evolution of Ukrainian Society through Data on Social Change and Cohesion

A Society under Constant Transformation 

Opening the conversation, Tymofii Brik argued: “Ukraine is such a paradoxical society in that way, and there are many narratives that co-exist even today. On the one hand, … Ukraine has not had elections for many years and perhaps will rally around the flag effect. There could be concerns about the state of democracy in Ukraine, but on the other hand we also know that Ukraine has supported the European Union, European integration, and the EU is valued quite a lot among Ukrainians”. Before turning to regional identity studies, the sociologist outlined data from the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrating that support for privatization dropped dramatically from around 50% in 1992 to roughly 25% by 2018. At the same time, while only about 45% of respondents identified primarily as Ukrainian citizens in the early 1990s, this share has grown to over 70% in 2025. These reversals, Brik argued, illustrate Ukraine’s high degree of social flexibility — “a society under transformation”, moving in different directions over time under the influence of major political events, from independence and the Orange Revolution to Euromaidan and the full-scale invasion.  

Later, he revisited classic sociological research on identity formation in Ukraine, including studies by Natalia Chernysh, who compared local identities in Lviv and Donetsk in the 1990s. Early post-Soviet Ukraine showed sharp contrasts: political and national identification in the west versus occupational and social identification in the east. Younger generations across regions increasingly adopted political and civic identities, such as identifying as Ukrainian or as part of the state. 

Importantly, Brik emphasized that regional differences in Ukraine should not automatically be seen as divisive. “Regions are just the vehicles”, he noted, shaped by local schools, churches, and media. Change at the local level, therefore, can produce lasting shifts in identity. 

This argument was reinforced by research from political scientist Leonid Peisakhin, who demonstrated that even within the same administrative region, historical legacies, such as former imperial borders can still influence political attitudes. The implication is that Ukraine’s diversity operates at the micro level and cannot be reduced to a simple East–West divide. 

Trust, Mobilization, and the Power of Networks

A central paradox addressed during the talk was Ukraine’s high level of civic mobilization despite persistently low trust in formal institutions. Survey data show that Ukrainians have historically distrusted courts, political parties, and central authorities, yet they repeatedly mobilized during the Orange Revolution, Euromaidan, and the full-scale invasion.

According to Brik, this paradox can be explained by networks rather than institutions. Studies by Olga Onuch as well as Brik’s own research demonstrate that Ukrainians are mobilized primarily through social media, personal contacts, and informal networks. This pattern remains visible today: surveys conducted during anti-corruption protests in 2024 showed that calls from bloggers, online communities, and trusted personal contacts were the most important triggers for participation.

Socioeconomic status also matters. Data analyzed by Olena Somancheva indicate that participants in the Orange Revolution and Euromaidan were disproportionately drawn from small and medium-sized business owners and the professional “service class.” These groups’ “desire to support democracy and be mobilised correlates with social and economic status because… those who are integrated in the market economy, also want to defend their vision of socio-economic development in Ukraine”. 

Civil Society as Identity, Not Membership

While only 10–15% of Ukrainians formally belonged to NGOs or associations during the 1990s and 2000s, surveys conducted by Kateryna Zarembo reveal a striking contrast. Nearly 80% of Ukrainians consider themselves part of civil society. When asked to define this belonging, respondents cited values, actions, and democratic commitment rather than formal membership. 

This self-perception was echoed in 2024 protest surveys, where participants framed their involvement not only as opposition to corruption, but also as a way to “act like citizens in a democracy” or signal European values. 

Resilience Through Decentralization and Cooperation

Turning to wartime resilience, Brik presented findings from a study of Ukrainian municipalities conducted after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Moving beyond the idea of resilience as simply “bouncing back,” the research conceptualized resilience as a combination of preparedness, robustness, and adaptability.

The results showed that preparedness depended strongly on fiscal decentralization, particularly on municipalities’ own revenue sources rather than central transfers. Robustness was shaped by proximity to the frontline, while adaptability was often strongest in frontline communities forced to innovate under pressure.

One factor, however, proved decisive across all models: horizontal cooperation agreements between municipalities. Cities and communities that had prior partnerships were able to mobilize resources, share equipment, and support each other immediately after the invasion. According to Tymofii Brik, these networks represent a form of social capital that decentralization reforms helped unlock long before the war began. 

Values, Europe, and the Question of Polarization

Using data from the European Social Survey, Brik situated Ukraine within a comparative map of values. Before 2014, Ukrainians closely resembled Poles and Slovaks: community-oriented rather than individualistic, and moderately open to change. Crucially, these values appeared remarkably consistent across regions, age groups, and genders.

Data from Euromaidan protesters showed a distinctive shift: while still community-oriented, protesters were significantly more open to change, resembling societies such as Finland or Norway. Whether Ukrainian society as a whole has since moved in this direction remains an open empirical question. 

Addressing widespread fears of wartime polarization, Brik presented results from a 2024 experimental survey measuring affective polarization. Respondents were exposed to different scenarios involving neighbors with varying language use, religious affiliation, and wartime behavior. Contrary to expectations, the study found no strong evidence of systematic hostility toward any particular group. Attitudes toward Russian-speaking Ukrainians, displaced persons, or civilians abroad remained largely moderate. 

While acknowledging the limitations of the data, for instance the absence of military respondents, Brik concluded that Ukrainian society remains remarkably cohesive. However, it is still vulnerable to future polarization if institutional support erodes. 

Trust, Cynicism, and the Future

In the discussion that followed, participants addressed declining trust in central authorities after the initial “rally around the flag” in 2022. Brik noted that while trust in the army and volunteers remains high, trust is fragile without institutionalization. Scandals involving volunteer fundraising illustrate how quickly social trust can erode if transparency mechanisms are absent.

He also highlighted Ukraine’s persistent “social cynicism”: a belief that others are dishonest, while oneself and close networks are moral. While cynicism can protect against authoritarian populism, it also discourages long-term engagement. Expanding the boundaries of trust through institutions, transparency, and inclusion remains a key challenge.

In his concluding remarks, Brik stressed that Ukraine cannot be understood or supported through isolated reforms or single narratives. Trust, identity, resilience, and democratic values are shaped simultaneously by institutions, local governance, networks, economic structures, and discourse. 

We thank Tymofii Brik for a rigorous and nuanced analysis of Ukrainian society grounded in three decades of sociological data. His lecture showed that Ukraine’s resilience is not accidental, but the result of long-term social transformation from shifting identities and values to the growth of local trust and civic engagement. While Ukraine has remained a low-trust society toward formal institutions, the data reveal how decentralization, local governance, and social networks have strengthened social cohesion and collective action, even under the pressure of war. Understanding these findings is essential not only for grasping how Ukraine endures today, but also for supporting its democratic development and European future.