Post-War Ukraine (Political Challenges, Forecasts, Possible Solutions)

Ivan OSADTSA
Volodymyr FISANOV

Abstract: The article examines possible pathways for Ukraine’s post-war devel­opment, focusing on the political conditions that will shape recovery after the end of the war. It argues that reconstruction cannot be reduced to rebuilding infra­structure or restoring the economy, since its success will also depend on the qual­ity of governance, democratic accountability, decentralization, anti-corruption policy, public trust, and Ukraine’s progress toward European integration. The study identifies the main political risks of the post-war period, including wartime institutional inertia, excessive centralization, difficulties in restoring political com­petition, corruption in reconstruction, regional disparities, declining public trust, and weakening international support. The analysis combines systemic, institu­tional, comparative, and scenario approaches and draws on recent Ukrainian and international research. Particular attention is given to the role of expert forecast­ing in assessing alternative paths of development and helping policymakers re­spond to uncertainty. Three scenarios are considered: institutional-reformist, iner­tial-adaptive, and crisis-destabilizing. The article also outlines the political indi­cators that may signal movement toward each of them. It concludes that Ukraine’s post-war transformation will depend on whether the state can combine security needs with democratic recovery, effective local self-government, transparent re­construction, continued European integration, and the ability to maintain public trust over the long term while avoiding the persistence of wartime practices in peacetime governance.

Keywords: post-war Ukraine, democratic recovery, decentralization, European integration, public trust.

Introduction

Ukraine’s post-war future is one of the key issues facing contempo­rary political science, public admin­istration, and international relations. The full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war has caused enormous human, eco­nomic, infrastructural, and humani­tarian losses and has also changed the political system, public governance, relations between central and local authorities, and public expectations. Ukraine’s recovery will therefore depend not only on rebuilding infra­structure and the economy, but also on whether political institutions can move from wartime mobilization to a stable democratic model of govern­ance.

Post-war recovery should be un­derstood as a political process in which reconstruction, security, dem­ocratic recovery, European integra­tion, institutional reform, and public trust are closely connected. Current research addresses public governance and administration¹, the institution­alization of reconstruction², strategic challenges for public administration³, reconstruction priorities in the con­text of EU membership⁴, and the development of the welfare state⁵. Other studies focus on transparency in international aid and anti-corrup­tion policy⁶. Comparative experience of post-war recovery⁷, national resili­ence⁸, and the relationship between economic, administrative, and secu­rity dimensions⁹ also show that re­construction cannot be treated as a purely economic or technical task. A broader framework linking recovery, reform, resilience, security, and de­velopment is offered by the collective volume edited by S. Nate¹⁰.

The political consequences of the war require particular attention. Cen­tralized decision-making, a stronger executive branch, and restrictions on some political procedures may be justified under martial law, but they may create risks if extraordinary wartime practices continue after the security situation changes. The return to political competition, parliamen­tary oversight, electoral procedures, and effective local self-government will therefore be an important part of post-war transformation¹¹. Public trust will be equally important. Stra­tegic communications can help ex­plain reforms, maintain dialogue between the state and society, and support the legitimacy of public pol­icy during a difficult transition¹².

Post-war development will also remain highly uncertain. The security environment, international support, European integration, demographic change, economic recovery, political competition, and public trust may develop in different ways. Forecast­ing should therefore not be under­stood as an attempt to predict one inevitable future. Its value lies in comparing alternatives, identifying risks, and recognizing early signs of possible change¹³.

The aim of this article is to ex­amine the main political challenges of Ukraine’s post-war development, possible political and administrative responses, and the role of expert forecasting in assessing alternative paths of transformation. Particular attention is given to democratic ac­countability, decentralization, anti-corruption policy, European integra­tion, social cohesion, public trust, and international support. On this basis, the article considers three possible scenarios: institutional-reformist, inertial-adaptive, and crisis-destabi­lizing.

The study combines systemic, in­stitutional, comparative, and scenario approaches. The systemic and insti­tutional perspectives are used to ex­amine the interaction between politi­cal institutions, democratic proce­dures, public trust, international sup­port, and local self-government. Comparative analysis brings together recent research on reconstruction, resilience, European integration, de­centralization, and public administra­tion, while the scenario approach is used to compare alternative trajecto­ries under conditions of uncertainty. Expert forecasting is treated here as a tool for identifying risks and possible early-warning indicators rather than as an attempt to predict a fixed out­come.

Presentation of the main material

Ukraine’s post-war recovery should be viewed not only as physi­cal and economic reconstruction, but also as a political process that will reshape relations between the state, society, and public institutions. Its success will depend on the quality of governance, institutional capacity, transparency, anti-corruption mecha­nisms, and the state’s ability to maintain public trust. This is why the institutionalization of reconstruction and the strategic challenges of public administration are treated in current research as central conditions for effective recovery¹⁴.

Post-war Ukraine will also face the need to combine material recon­struction with institutional renewal, security resilience, and European integration. This broader approach is reflected both in systemic models linking economy, governance, and security¹⁵ and in frameworks that connect recovery with reform, resili­ence, and development¹⁶. Compara­tive experience from other countries also shows that successful post-war recovery depends not only on finan­cial resources, but on the ability of institutions to adapt to new condi­tions¹⁷.

Public governance will therefore be critical. Reconstruction will re­quire coordination among central authorities, local self-government, international partners, and civil soci­ety, especially while Ukraine remains dependent on external support, secu­rity guarantees, administrative ca­pacity, and public trust¹⁸. At the same time, recovery must remain closely linked to EU integration, since Euro­pean standards of governance, rule of law, transparency, anti-corruption policy, and local self-government will shape the framework of future reforms. Reconstruction priorities should therefore reflect not only the scale of destruction, but also Ukraine’s long-term goal of integra­tion into the European political, legal, and economic space¹⁹.

At the same time, post-war recov­ery will create serious political risks. Society will expect rapid reconstruc­tion, fair access to resources, ac­countability for abuses, support for veterans, the return of citizens from abroad, economic opportunities, and security. If these expectations are not met, public trust may decline, while populism, political fragmentation, and conflicts over post-war justice may increase. Post-war policy will therefore have to manage not only resources, but also expectations and political tensions.

One of the main challenges will be the transition from wartime gov­ernance to a fully functioning demo­cratic system. Centralized decision-making, a stronger executive, and restrictions on some political proce­dures may be justified during a full-scale war, but they should not be­come permanent features of post-war governance. Political competition, parliamentary oversight, regular elections, and broader public partici­pation will need to be restored.

The risk is that some wartime practices may persist after their im­mediate security justification has weakened. This could lead to an ex­cessive concentration of power and reduce the role of representative in­stitutions and political competition. Current debates about the Ukrainian leadership already reflect concerns about the growing concentration of decision-making around the presi­dency and the possible tension be­tween political control and broader state interests²⁰. For this reason, post-war democratization should involve not only elections, but also the resto­ration of institutional balance, trans­parency, parliamentary oversight, and effective public control. The trans­formation of public authority under martial law therefore remains im­portant for understanding how war­time practices may influence Ukraine’s future political system²¹.

A distinct place in this process is occupied by the problem of future elections. Post-war elections in Ukraine must become not merely a procedure for renewing power but an important test of the state’s ability to return to a normal democratic cycle. At the same time, they will take place under complex challenges: a large number of internally displaced per­sons, citizens abroad, destroyed in­frastructure, security risks, the prob­lem of servicemembers’ participa­tion, possible territorial restrictions, the influence of information manip­ulation, and the need to ensure the legitimacy of results. This is why the debate over the electoral system for post-war Ukraine is of fundamental importance for the quality of demo­cratic recovery²².

The return to democratic compe­tition will also entail the need to re­configure the party system. The war has substantially altered societal pri­orities, strengthened the role of secu­rity issues, transformed perceptions of political leadership, and created new symbolic resources for political actors. After the war, political com­petition may take shape around ques­tions of victory, accountability, re­construction, European integration, social justice, attitudes toward veter­ans, anti-corruption policy, and the model of relations between the center and the regions. This will require the political system to be able to resolve political conflicts through institu­tional means.

At the same time, no less im­portant will be the question of legis­lative-executive relations. During the war, the role of the executive branch naturally grows, but in the post-war period the Verkhovna Rada must restore its role as the central platform for political representation, oversight, and public debate on strategic deci­sions. Research on legislative-execu­tive relations under wartime condi­tions shows that the balance between governance effectiveness and demo­cratic accountability is one of the key issues of a state’s political resili­ence²³. For post-war Ukraine, this will mean the need to avoid both administrative paralysis and an ex­cessive concentration of power.

The problem of democratic return is logically linked to the further de­velopment of the complex processes of decentralization and local self-government. Decentralization is one of the most important achievements of Ukrainian reforms of the past dec­ade, and its importance will only grow in the post-war period. Local communities will play a key role in rebuilding housing, social infra­structure, educational and medical facilities, the local economy, transport links, and life-support sys­tems. It is precisely at the local level that citizens will most quickly assess the real results of recovery, and the capacity of communities will there­fore become one of the main indica­tors of the effectiveness of post-war policy.

At the same time, the war has cre­ated a complex dilemma for decen­tralization. On one hand, security conditions have objectively increased the need for centralized coordination. On the other hand, local self-gov­ernment has in many cases demon­strated a high capacity for adaptation, resource mobilization, and support for the population. The post-war governance model should therefore not mean a return to the familiar model of centralization. On the con­trary, it must involve an updated form of decentralization that takes into account the experience of the war, security needs, and the tasks of reconstruction.

Research on decentralization re­form under wartime conditions em­phasizes that its continued imple­mentation remains an important pre­condition for democratic governance and effective management of territo­rial development²⁴. In the post-war period, this will require a clear delin­eation of powers among central gov­ernment, regional executive authori­ties, and local self-government bod­ies. It will also be important to avoid a situation in which the temporary wartime administrative mechanisms that have become familiar are used as a substitute for elected local govern­ment.

The problem of decentralization is also directly linked to the question of internally displaced persons. After the war, communities will undoubt­edly face complex demographic situ­ations: some territories will lose a significant share of their population, others will gain new residents, and certain regions will require reintegra­tion after occupation or large-scale reconstruction. The role of local au­thorities in supporting internally dis­placed persons has already shown that a decentralized system can be a source of resilience if it has sufficient resources, powers, and legitimacy²⁵.

In this context, post-war policy must provide for several key deci­sions. First, the principle of subsidi­arity must be preserved, whereby decisions are made at the level clos­est to citizens, provided that level has adequate capacity. Second, a finan­cial foundation for local self-gov­ernment must be secured, since with­out resources communities cannot be genuine agents of reconstruction. Third, it is important to create trans­parent mechanisms for citizen par­ticipation in setting local reconstruc­tion priorities. Fourth, effective con­trol over the use of funds must be introduced, but without turning that control into an instrument of central­ized political pressure.

Decentralization in post-war Ukraine also has a distinct security dimension. Capable communities can respond more quickly to crisis situa­tions, sustain social cohesion, organ­ize local services, and work with veterans, IDPs, families of the fallen, businesses, and international part­ners. In this sense, decentralization should be regarded not merely as an administrative reform but as an ele­ment of national resilience, consistent with the broader vision of resilience as a component of post-war recon­struction²⁶.

However, the expanded role of the local level and the large-scale resource inflows into reconstruction will inevitably sharpen the issue of transparency and accountability. Anti-corruption policy will become one of the most sensitive areas of post-war recovery. The scale of in­ternational aid, the volume of recon­struction projects, the need for rapid decision-making, and the large num­ber of interested actors will generate heightened corruption risks. In this sense, corruption in the post-war period will be not only a domestic governance problem but also a matter of international trust, political legiti­macy, and Ukraine’s European inte­gration prospects.

Transparency in the use of foreign aid is critically important, since ex­ternal partners will assess not only Ukraine’s needs but also the Ukrain­ian state’s ability to guarantee ac­countability and control. Research on transparency and corruption in the context of foreign aid to Ukraine shows that the turbulent environment of war and reconstruction can heighten the risk of inefficient re­source use unless effective mecha­nisms of control, reporting, and openness are established²⁷. The trust of donors and citizens alike will therefore depend directly on the quality of the anti-corruption infra­structure.

In this context, an important question arises: will post-war recon­struction become a driver of deeper reform, or, on the contrary, a domain for reproducing old practices of in­formal influence, political patronage, and resource control? Research on anti-corruption reforms in post-war Ukraine highlights the dilemma be­tween a merely declarative retention of reformist rhetoric and the genuine construction of a qualitatively new system of accountability²⁸. For Ukraine, this means that anti-corrup­tion policy must be built into the very architecture of recovery rather than exist as a separate strand.

The link between trust, the fight against corruption, and security takes on particular importance. During the wartime and post-war periods, trust in the state becomes a political re­source that affects citizens’ readiness to support reforms, pay taxes, par­ticipate in recovery, accept difficult decisions, and cooperate with the authorities. Under such conditions, corruption scandals can have a far more destructive effect than in peacetime, since they undermine not only the reputations of individual officials but also citizens’ faith in the fairness of the post-war order. Trust can therefore be regarded as a kind of “defense resource” against internal destabilization²⁹.

Post-war anti-corruption policy must combine several dimensions. The first is institutional: preserving the independence of anti-corruption bodies, the judiciary, and audit and control mechanisms. The second is digital: maximum openness of data on reconstruction projects, procure­ment, contractors, financing, and results. The third is civic: engaging civil society, the media, and local communities in monitoring recon­struction. The fourth is international: establishing joint control mechanisms with partners providing financial assistance. The fifth is political: the inevitability of accountability for abuses regardless of officials’ politi­cal affiliation.

At the same time, it is important to avoid the opposite extreme, in which anti-corruption policy turns exclusively into punitive rhetoric that paralyzes decision-making. Post-war reconstruction will require speed, flexibility, and administrative cour­age. The task, therefore, is not to create an excessively bureaucratized system that stifles any initiative, but to ensure a reasonable balance be­tween efficiency, transparency, and accountability.

The transparency and accounta­bility of reconstruction, in turn, are directly linked to European integra­tion, which will become one of the main frameworks for Ukraine’s post-war transformation. Preparation for EU membership will shape not only the state’s foreign policy course but also the internal logic of reforms. This concerns the adaptation of leg­islation, judicial reform, anti-corrup­tion policy, the modernization of public administration, stronger pro­tection of human rights, the devel­opment of local self-government, economic competition, environmen­tal standards, and institutional capac­ity.

In this context, Ukrainian policy­makers, both during the reconstruc­tion period and in the longer term, should devote constant attention to strengthening national security in all its dimensions. As military expert D. Hrebeniuk has emphasized, contem­porary challenges require a substan­tial broadening of the understanding of security, so that national security now encompasses not only the mili­tary sphere but also economic stabil­ity, social harmony, ecological resili­ence, and information security. Thus, the resilience of society depends on the authorities’ ability to integrate efforts, as well as on the adaptive capacity of the political system under conditions of risk³⁰.

It is worth analyzing in more de­tail Ukraine’s reconstruction pro­spects in light of its European inte­gration aspirations. The strategic partnership with the European Union in Ukraine’s reconstruction process should be viewed not only as a source of financial support but as a mechanism of political moderniza­tion. The EU can simultaneously act as donor, normative benchmark, in­stitutional partner, and external guar­antor of reforms. In this sense, post-war reconstruction must be linked to fulfilling European integration crite­ria rather than set apart from them as a merely “technical” or “humanitar­ian” process³¹.

At the same time, post-war Ukraine’s European integration will proceed under conditions of complex political conditionality. The EU’s enlargement policy toward Ukraine will combine support with require­ments concerning the rule of law, democratic institutions, the fight against corruption, and the capacity of public administration. Research on the rule of law in EU-Ukraine rela­tions shows that the European inte­gration process cannot be reduced to the formal approximation of legisla­tion, since the real quality of institu­tions and the state’s ability to enforce norms will be of key importance³².

This creates both opportunities and challenges for Ukraine. On one hand, European integration can be­come a powerful stimulus for contin­uing reforms and preventing a relapse into non-transparent administrative practices. On the other hand, an ex­cessive accumulation of require­ments, the complexity of reforms, societal fatigue, and expectations of quick results may create space for Eurosceptic or populist rhetoric. This is why the political class must not only see to the fulfillment of tech­nical criteria but also explain to citi­zens the long-term meaning of Euro­pean integration as part of a long-term post-war development strategy.

European integration will also re­quire a revision of approaches to public policy. Post-war Ukraine must gradually move from the logic of crisis response to the logic of strate­gic planning, program-based man­agement, policy impact assessment, and long-term institutional accounta­bility. This means that every major area of recovery – infrastructure, energy, education, healthcare, re­gional development, social policy, and security – must be linked to Eu­ropean standards of quality, transpar­ency, and accountability.

The problem of national interests within the process of European inte­gration takes on particular signifi­cance. The economic strategy of post-war recovery must be oriented not only toward attracting funds but also toward protecting the state’s long-term agency, developing do­mestic production, technological modernization, energy resilience, and creating conditions for the return of human capital³³. European integra­tion must therefore be not an external “control framework” but part of Ukraine’s own strategic vision at every level of political governance and public life.

Institutional and European-inte­gration transformations will, how­ever, have a lasting effect only if social cohesion is preserved. It is clear that post-war Ukraine will face not only institutional and economic challenges but also profound social consequences of the war. These in­clude the traumatization of society, the return of veterans, the reintegra­tion of internally displaced persons, the situation of citizens who spent a long time abroad, regional disparities, questions of justice, expectations of compensation, the restoration of de­stroyed housing, social inequality, and the possible rise of political ten­sion against this backdrop. All these factors will affect the level of public trust and citizens’ readiness to sup­port state policy.

The question of compensation for damaged and destroyed housing is one example of how legal and ad­ministrative decisions can have sig­nificant political consequences. If compensation mechanisms are per­ceived as unfair, non-transparent, or too slow, this may deepen distrust of the state and create new lines of so­cial tension or even crisis. Research on the socio-legal instabilities associ­ated with Ukraine’s compensation legislation for damaged and de­stroyed housing shows that such mechanisms must be not only legally sound but also politically sensitive to the expectations of affected citi­zens³⁴.

In this context, strategic commu­nications must become an important component of post-war policy. This does not mean propagandistic expla­nation of decisions, but systematic, transparent, responsible, and dialogi­cal communication among the state, society, and international partners. Built at every level of the adminis­trative hierarchy and within self-gov­ernment bodies, strategic communi­cations must explain reconstruction priorities, the logic of resource allo­cation, the complexity of reforms, the expected timeframes for results, the state’s limitations, and opportunities for civic participation.

In the course of a protracted war, trust has become one of the key re­sources of Ukrainian resilience. In the post-war period, however, this resource may prove vulnerable due to accumulated fatigue, social disillu­sionment, unequal access to recov­ery, political competition, and infor­mation manipulation. Strategic com­munications must therefore perform not only an informational but also an integrative function – namely, bringing different social groups to­gether around a clear vision of the future, reducing space for manipula­tion, and sustaining the legitimacy of difficult political decisions³⁵.

Communication regarding unpop­ular and not always expected reforms will be especially important. Post-war Ukraine may be compelled to make decisions that will not produce a quick positive effect. Without good-quality communication, even rationally justified decisions may be perceived as unfair, imposed, or po­litically motivated.

Strategic communications also have an external dimension. Ukraine will need to continually sustain the trust of international partners, explain the results of reforms, demonstrate the effective use of aid, and shape the image of a state capable not only of defending itself but also of modern­izing. In this sense, communication policy will be part of the diplomacy of recovery, since partners’ trust will directly affect the stability of financ­ing, investment, and political support. In this context, it is worth sustaining the effort to build and strengthen stable military-political alliances in the Central-Eastern European region, in particular with Ukraine’s closest and most influential neighbors, Poland and Romania. In historical perspective, despite temporary Polish-Ukrainian disagreements, Poland is destined for an alliance with Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. As analyst J. Bugajski notes, it is preparing for two interre­lated challenges: a renewed Russian aggression “against its neighbors, should it win in Ukraine, and Rus­sia’s inevitable collapse, should it continue to lose the war against Ukraine”³⁶. The strategic Black Sea flank will be defended together with Ukraine by Romania, which under current political conditions represents a growing military-political power in the region, where Romania’s ability to transition “from a passive benefi­ciary of EU security initiatives to an active contributor in the evolution of Europe’s defence-industrial land­scape”³⁷ has yet to be confirmed. Consequently, Ukraine’s political class, at every level of cooperation, should orient its foreign-policy com­pass toward the promising Romanian direction.

Public trust in post-war policy will also depend significantly on how fair and predictable economic deci­sions turn out to be. The economic dimension of post-war recovery can­not be considered outside the politi­cal context. Decisions on reconstruc­tion priorities, resource allocation, tax policy, investment, public fi­nance, and business support will have direct political consequences. They will determine the level of trust in the authorities, social stability, regional development, and the state’s ability to fulfill its obligations to citizens.

National policy instruments for the recovery of the post-war econ­omy must take into account not only the need for reconstruction but also factors of long-term resilience. Eco­nomic recovery must be linked to institutional development, the pro­tection of property rights, transpar­ency of regulatory policy, support for entrepreneurship, and integration into European markets³⁸. Politically, this means that the economic strategy must be publicly understandable, fair, and oriented toward the state’s long-term capacity.

Attracting foreign direct invest­ment will also depend not only on economic indicators but also on po­litical stability, the rule of law, secu­rity, anti-corruption policy, and the predictability of state decisions. The prospects for attracting foreign in­vestment into post-war Ukraine are linked to investors’ trust in institu­tions, guarantees for the protection of capital, and a clear state development strategy³⁹. Economic reconstruction therefore requires political predicta­bility.

Public finance will play an im­portant role. Post-war Ukraine will have to balance the needs of defense, social protection, reconstruction, debt servicing, regional support, and the financing of reforms. The role of public finance in Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction lies not only in providing resources but also in shaping a financial architecture capa­ble of sustaining stability, transpar­ency, and long-term development policy⁴⁰.

Post-war economic policy must also take into account the principle of “build back better,” meaning recon­struction not as a simple restoration of the pre-war state but as moderni­zation. This applies not only to infra­structure but also to governance, en­vironmental policy, digitalization, energy resilience, and spatial devel­opment. In the Ukrainian context, the “build back better” concept is linked to the need to integrate sustainability, circularity, and long-term planning into reconstruction processes⁴¹. At the same time, approaches to sustain­able recovery link reconstruction with the modernization of urban gov­ernance and the formation of «smart» governance models⁴², while the im­plementation of the Sustainable De­velopment Goals is regarded as one of the benchmarks for Ukraine’s re­newal⁴³. Politically, this means that reconstruction should be not a resto­ration of the past but the design of a more predictable future.

It is precisely the high interde­pendence of institutional, social, eco­nomic, and international factors that makes expert forecasting one of the key tools for understanding the de­velopment of post-war Ukraine. The state’s future development will de­pend on many variables, some of which remain uncertain. It is impos­sible to predict precisely the duration of security threats, the scale of inter­national support, the pace of Euro­pean integration, the dynamics of population return, the rate of eco­nomic growth, the configuration of political competition, or the level of public trust. This is why what matters is not the creation of a single “fore­cast” but the formation of several possible, most probable scenarios of development that make it possible to assess the opportunities, risks, and consequences of political decisions.

Scenario planning for Ukraine’s post-war recovery makes it possible to move from reactive management to strategic anticipation. The meth­odology of scenario planning in­volves identifying key factors of un­certainty, constructing alternative development trajectories, assessing risks, and formulating political deci­sions capable of functioning under different conditions⁴⁴. This is espe­cially important for post-war Ukraine, since recovery policy can­not rely on the assumption of a stable environment.

Scenario modeling can also be used to identify priority directions for economic and political recovery. Re­search on the priorities of Ukraine’s economic recovery based on scenario modeling shows that different dev­elopment options require different administrative decisions, resource emphases, and time hori­zons⁴⁵. Poli­tically, this means that the authorities must work not only with the opti­mistic scenario but also with riskier or crisis-related development options.

For the analysis of post-war Ukraine, at least three scenarios can be conditionally identified.

The first scenario is institutional-reformist. It presupposes that Ukraine successfully combines reconstruction with reforms, retains international support, deepens European integra­tion, restores democratic competition, strengthens local self-government, ensures transparency in the use of aid, and sustains a high level of pub­lic trust. Under this scenario, post-war recovery becomes not merely compensation for losses but a foun­dation for the qualitative moderniza­tion of the state.

The second scenario is inertial-adaptive. It presupposes partial re­covery of infrastructure and the economy and continued external support, but at the same time slow reforms, fragmented administrative decisions, periodic corruption scan­dals, regional disparities, and a grad­ual decline in public trust. In this case, Ukraine will move forward but without sufficient speed and con­sistency, which could significantly weaken its European integration pro­spects.

The third scenario – crisis-desta­bilizing – is the least desirable, though not to be excluded. It could materialize through a combination of several negative factors: declining international support, intensifying domestic political struggle, corrup­tion abuses in reconstruction, social disillusionment, excessive centrali­zation of power, poor communication of reforms, and unresolved security threats. This scenario does not imply the state’s inevitable defeat, but it would significantly complicate dem­ocratic transformation and could cre­ate grounds for political instability within society.

Expert forecasting makes it possi­ble not only to describe the proposed scenarios but also to identify indica­tors of their approach. For the insti­tutional-reformist scenario, such in­dicators may include growing trust in institutions, stable international fi­nancing, progress in negotiations with the EU, transparency of recon­struction projects, restoration of democratic procedures, and effective local self-government. For the iner­tial-adaptive scenario, characteristic indicators may include continued international support alongside slow­ing reforms, fragmented pro­gress in fulfilling European integra­tion com­mitments, uneven recon­struction across regions, periodic corruption scandals, and a gradual decline in public trust. For the crisis-desta­bilizing scenario, indicators may include rising political polarization amid a recurring “authoritarian syn­drome”, declining public trust, cor­ruption scandals, growing social an­archy, center-region conflicts, sub­stantial delays in adequate reforms, and fatigue among international part­ners.

As already noted, the use of alter­native and innovative forecasting methods in the study of ambiguous political and international processes makes it possible to avoid a linear vision of the future and to account for the dynamics of the interaction of various factors, particularly at points of political bifurcation. Forecasting should not substitute for a political decision, but it can improve its qual­ity by enabling the assessment of risks, alternatives, and deferred con­sequences⁴⁶. In this context, strategic thinking is a necessary condition for effective post-war governance, as it allows one to move beyond short-term reaction and shape policy ori­ented toward achieving long-term resilience⁴⁷.

Scenario analysis has practical value only when it leads to concrete political and administrative decisions. For post-war Ukraine, the main pri­orities will include restoring demo­cratic political processes, reviewing extraordinary wartime practices, pre­paring legitimate elections, strength­ening parliamentary oversight and media freedom, and preserving a balance between central coordination and local self-government.

These priorities must be com­bined with transparent reconstruction, continued decentralization, European integration, public participation, and regular risk assessment. Open pro­curement, independent audit, suffi­cient resources for local communi­ties, fair compensation mechanisms, and closer alignment with EU stand­ards should form part of the same policy framework rather than operate as separate measures.

Post-war policy should therefore be built around a coherent strategy that connects reconstruction, demo­cratic recovery, transparency, Euro­pean integration, and public trust. The central challenge will be to maintain security while returning to democratic normality, so that war­time centralization does not become a permanent model of governance. A more integrated approach can help move Ukraine from fragmented re­covery toward a more predictable model of post-war development, in which political decisions and expert forecasting reinforce one another⁴⁸.

Conclusions

Ukraine’s post-war recovery should be understood not only as the reconstruction of infrastructure and the economy, but as a broader politi­cal process that will shape the quality of governance, democratic develop­ment, institutional resilience, and public trust. Its success will depend on the ability of the state to address several interconnected tasks at the same time: restoring political compe­tition, overcoming wartime institu­tional inertia, preventing excessive centralization, continuing decentrali­zation, ensuring transparency in re­construction, preserving anti-corrup­tion mechanisms, and advancing Eu­ropean integration. One of the main political risks of the post-war period is the persistence of extraordinary wartime practices after their immedi­ate necessity has passed. The transi­tion from a mobilization model of governance to a democratic and ac­countable system will therefore re­quire the restoration of parliamentary oversight, electoral procedures, in­stitutional balance, and meaningful political competition.

Decentralization will remain an important part of this transition. Lo­cal self-government will have a cen­tral role in reconstruction, the inte­gration of internally displaced per­sons, support for veterans, and the restoration of social infrastructure. At the same time, transparency and anti-corruption policy will directly influ­ence both domestic legitimacy and the confidence of international part­ners. Public trust should also be treated as a strategic resource. It will depend less on official declarations than on fairness, accountability, open communication, and the visible re­sults of reconstruction.

The scenario analysis developed in this article shows that Ukraine may move along different trajectories. The institutional-reformist scenario com­bines reconstruction with democratic reforms, transparency, stable interna­tional support, and deeper European integration. The inertial-adaptive scenario assumes partial recovery but slow and uneven reforms. The crisis-destabilizing scenario emerges when political polarization, corruption, excessive centralization, social frus­tration, and weakening external sup­port reinforce one another. European integration will remain the main strategic framework for post-war transformation. Further research should therefore focus on the empiri­cal testing of these scenarios and on identifying political, institutional, and social indicators that can signal changes in Ukraine’s post-war tra­jectory.

Notes

• Fedyk, S. Fedyk, „Public govern­ance and administration in Ukraine’s post-war recovery”, Visegrad Journal on Human Rights, Nr. 5, 2024, pp. 168-172.
• Aleksin, „Institutionalizing Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction”, Three Seas Economic Journal, Vol. 6, Nr. 2, 2025, pp. 9-14.
• Marenichenko, L. Berezynskyi, J. Vasilenko, D. Herasymchuk, O. Kazmin, „Strategic challenges for the public administration system in the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine”, Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald, Series: Public Management and Administration, Vol. 10, Nr. 1, 2026, pp. 192-203.
• Leshchenko, S. Leshchenko, „Determining priorities for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction in the conditions of preparation for EU membership”, Economics of Development, Vol. 22, Nr. 3, 2023, pp. 42-51.
• Л. Ільченко-Сюйва, Я. Ткачук, „Повоєнне відновлення в Україні: теоретичні засади розбудови держави суспільного добробуту”, Аспекти публічного управління, Vol. 13, Nr. 3, 2025, pp. 100-108.
• Cifuentes-Faura, „Government transparency and corruption in a turbulent setting: The case of foreign aid to Ukraine”, Governance, Vol. 37, Nr. 2, 2024, pp. 659-670; M. Richter, „‘Call the bluff’ or ‘build back better’ – Anti-corruption reforms in post-war Ukraine”, Global Policy, Vol. 14, Nr. 4, 2023, pp. 611-622.
• Kravchenko, L. Sergiienko, H. Niameshchuk, T. Mamatova, I. Chykarenko, „Post-war recovery practices for Ukraine, based on the experience of other countries that have undergone similar processes”, Economic Affairs, Vol. 68, Nr. 4, 2023, pp. 2277-2288.
• Nazarov, „National Resilience and Post-war Reconstruction of Ukraine”, în Ukraine’s Journey to Recovery, Reform and Post-War Reconstruction: A Blueprint for Security, Resilience and Development, S. Nate (ed.), Springer, Cham, 2025, pp. 63-73.
• Semenenko, I. Havryliuk, O. Solomitskyi, Y. Kliat, Y. Dobrovolskyi, A. Hetman, „Ukraine’s postwar recovery strategy: A systemic model for integrating economy, governance, and security”, Social Development and Security, Vol. 15, Nr. 2, 2025, pp. 12-19.
• Nate (ed.), Ukraine’s Journey to Recovery, Reform and Post-War Reconstruction: A Blueprint for Security, Resilience and Development, Springer, Cham, 2025.
• І. Осадца, І. Поліщук, „Трансформація системи публічної влади в умовах воєнного стану у контексті гібридизації політичного режиму в Україні”, Історико-політичні проблеми сучасного світу, Vol. 52, 2025, pp. 137-146.
• В. Фісанов, І. Осадца, „Стратегічні комунікації як інструмент формування суспільної довіри в умовах довготривалої війни”, în Стратегічні комунікації у сфері забезпечення національної безпеки та оборони: проблеми, досвід, перспективи: тези доповідей VI Міжнародної науково-практичної конференції, 29 жовтня 2025, НУОУ, Київ, 2025, pp. 22-26.
• І. Осадца, „Мислити як стратег”, Медіафорум: аналітика, прогнози, інформаційний менеджмент, Vol. 9, 2021, pp. 292-299; І. Осадца, В. Карпо, „Прогностичні методики у дослідженні сучасних міжнаро-дних відносин (на прикладі динамічної моделі Річардсона)”, Медіафорум: аналітика, прогнози, інформаційний менеджмент, Vol. 11, 2022, pp. 77-95.
• Aleksin, op.cit., pp. 9-14; V. Marenichenko, L. Berezynskyi, J. Vasilenko, D. Herasymchuk, O. Kazmin, op.cit., pp. 192-203.
• Semenenko, I. Havryliuk, O. Solomitskyi, Y. Kliat, Y. Dobrovolskyi, A. Hetman, op.cit., pp. 12-19.
• Nate (ed.), op.cit.
• Kravchenko, L. Sergiienko, H. Niameshchuk, T. Mamatova, I. Chykarenko, op.cit, pp. 2277-2288.
• Fedyk, S. Fedyk, op.cit., pp. 168-172.
• Leshchenko, S. Leshchenko, op.cit., pp. 42-51.
• І. Ведернікова, „Виродження влади. Як Зеленський досяг своєї стелі, а система держуправління – дна”, UA, 17 серпня 2026, https://zn.ua/ukr/politics/virodzhennja-vladi-jak-zelenskij-dosjah-svojeji-s-teli-a-sistema-derzhupravlinnja-dn-a.html (accesed pe 18 august 2026).
• І. Осадца, І. Поліщук, cit, pp. 137-146.
• А. Авксентьєв, „Електоральна сис-тема для повоєнної України: актуальні альтернативи для парламентських виборів”, Вісник Харківського національного університету імені В. Н. Каразіна, Серія «Питання політології», Nr. 48, 2025, pp. 51-59.
• Pelchar, E. Herron, G. Flikke, „Legislative–executive relations in Ukraine’s wartime conditions”, PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 58, Nr. 1, 2025, pp. 125-127.
• Zayats, „Decentralisation reform in Ukraine: Achievements and implementation prospects amidst war conditions”, Democratic Governance, Vol. 17, Nr. 2, 2024, pp. 5–17.
• Romanova, „Does decentralization boost Ukrainian resilience? The role of local authorities in supporting internally displaced persons”, Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 41, Nr. 5, 2025, pp. 459-477.
• Nazarov, op.cit., pp. 63-73.
• Cifuentes-Faura, op.cit, pp. 659-670.
• Richter, op.cit., pp. 611-622.
• Markovska, O. Serdiuk, I. Soldatenko, „Trust as a weapon of war: Fighting corruption and corpo-rate crime in Ukraine”, Crime, Law and Social Change, Vol. 83, 2025, Article 12, pp. 1-12.
• Д. Гребенюк, „Трансформація концепції національної безпеки”, Національні інтереси України, Nr. 4(4), 2024, pp. 22-28.
• Kostiuchenko, „Strategic partner-ship with the EU in Ukraine’s recon-struction”, Visegrad Journal on Human Rights, Nr. 3, 2024, pp. 101-107.
• Rabinovych, „EU enlargement policy goes east: Historical and comparative takes on the EU’s rule of law conditionality vis-à-vis Ukraine”, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, Vol. 16, 2024, pp. 715-737.
• А. Янчук, „Економічна стратегія повоєнного відновлення як основа забезпечення національних інтере-сів”, Вчені записки ТНУ імені В. І. Вернадського, Серія: Юридичні науки, Vol. 35(74), Nr. 5, 2024, pp. 80-89.
• Unruh, „Socio-legal instabilities in Ukraine’s wartime compensation law for damaged and destroyed resi­dential property”, International Journal of Law in Context, Vol. 20, Nr. 4, 2024, pp. 581-597.
• В. Фісанов, І. Осадца, cit., pp. 22-26.
• Bugajski, „Janusz Bugajski’s Washington View: Poland is Europe’s Pivotal Power”, Istraga, 9 October 2024, https://istraga.ba/janusz-buga-jskis-washington-view-poland-is-eur-opes-pivotal-power/ (accessed 8 July 2026).
• Iancu, „Romania’s Defence Policy and National Security Interests in the European Defence Fund Amidst European Defence Integration”, Land Forces Academy Review, Vol. 30, Nr. 2, 2025, pp. 218-228.
• Sinaj, F. Vela, G. Shaip, „National policy instruments for restoring the post-war economy and factors of sustainability of the Ukrainian eco-nomy”, Development Management, Vol. 23, Nr. 2, 2024, pp. 49-55.
• Riznyk, „Perspectives for post-war recovery in Ukraine in the sphere of attracting foreign direct investments”, Economics of Systems Development, Vol. 5, Nr. 1, 2023, pp. 31-34.
• Bogdan, „The role of public finance in Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction”, Journal of European Economy, Vol. 23, Nr. 4, 2024, pp. 615-634.
• Shevchenko, B. Yannou, M. Saidani, „‘Build back better’ for war-torn Ukraine: Dual strategies for integrating circularity in post-disaster recovery”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Vol. 5, 2025, pp. 821-830.
• Cifuentes-Faura, „Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction: Building smart cities and governments through a sustainability-based reconstruction plan”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 419, 2023, Article 138323.
• Stavytskyy, G. Kharlamova, „SDGs Realization for the Renovation of Ukraine”, în S. Nate (ed.), Ukraine’s Journey to Recovery, Reform and Post-War Reconstruction: A Blueprint for Security, Resilience and Development, Springer, Cham, 2025, pp. 31-48.
• Kucherenko, A. Kolosov, A. Barylov, „Methodology of scenario-based planning for Ukraine’s post-war recovery”, European Journal of Management Issues, Vol. 33, Nr. 1, 2025, pp. 57-65.
• Prokhorova, O. Kravchenko, O. Shkurenko, A. Babichev, A. Polivantsev, „Study of priority directions of economic recovery of Ukraine based on scenario model-ling”, Economics of Development, Vol. 24, Nr. 1, 2025, pp. 26-34.
• І. Осадца, В. Карпо, cit., pp. 77-95.
• Іdem, „Мислити як стратег”, cit., pp. 292-299.
• Semenenko, I. Havryliuk, O. Solomitskyi, Y. Kliat, Y. Dobrovolskyi, A. Hetman, op.cit., pp. 12-19.

Bibliography

Articles and studies

ALEKSIN, G., „Institutionalizing Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction”, Three Seas Economic Journal, Vol. 6, Nr. 2, 2025, pp. 9-14, doi: 10.30525/ 2661-5150/2025-2-2.

BOGDAN, T., „The role of public finance in Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction”, Journal of European Economy, Vol. 23, Nr. 4, 2024, pp. 615-634, doi: 10.35774/jee2024.04.615.

CIFUENTES-FAURA, J., „Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction: Building smart cities and governments through a sustainability-based reconstruction plan”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 419, 2023, Article 138323, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138323.

CIFUENTES-FAURA, J., „Government transparency and corruption in a turbulent setting: The case of foreign aid to Ukraine”, Governance, Vol. 37, Nr. 2, 2024, pp. 659-670, doi: 10.1111/ gove.12835.

FEDYK, O., FEDYK, S., „Public gover-nance and administration in Ukraine’s post-war recovery”, Visegrad Journal on Human Rights, Nr. 5, 2024, pp. 168-172.

IANCU, N., „Romania’s Defence Policy and National Security Interests in the European Defence Fund Amidst European Defence Integration”, Land Forces Academy Review, Vol. 30, Nr. 2, 2025, pp. 218-228, doi: 10.2478/raft-2025-0021.

KOSTIUCHENKO, Y., „Strategic partnership with the EU in Ukraine’s reconstruction”, Visegrad Journal on Human Rights, Nr. 3, 2024, pp. 101-107, doi: 10.61345/1339-7915.2-024.3.14.

KRAVCHENKO, O., SERGIIENKO, L., NIAMESHCHUK, H., MAMATOVA, T., CHYKARENKO, I., „Post-war recovery practices for Ukraine, based on the experience of other countries that have undergone similar processes”, Economic Affairs, Vol. 68, Nr. 4, 2023, pp. 2277-2288, doi: 10.46852/0424-2513.4.2023.35.

KUCHERENKO, S., KOLOSOV, A., BARYLOV, A., „Methodology of scenario-based planning for Ukraine’s post-war recovery”, European Journal of Management Issues, Vol. 33, Nr. 1, 2025, pp. 57-65, doi: 10.15421/ 192506.

LESHCHENKO, K., LESHCHENKO, S., „Determining priorities for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction in the conditions of preparation for EU membership”, Economics of Development, Vol. 22, Nr. 3, 2023, pp. 42-51, doi: 10.57111/econ/3.2023.42.

MARENICHENKO, V., BEREZYNSKYI, L., VASILENKO, J., HERASYMCHUK, D., KAZMIN, O., „Strategic chal-lenges for the public administration system in the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine”, Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald. Series: Public Management and Administration, Vol. 10, Nr. 1, 2026, pp. 192-203, doi: 10.54891/2786-698X/2026-1-17.

MARKOVSKA, A., SERDIUK, O., SOLDATENKO, I., „Trust as a weapon of war: Fighting corruption and corporate crime in Ukraine”, Crime, Law and Social Change, Vol. 83, 2025, Article 12, doi: 10.1007 /s10611-024-10191-5.

NATE, S. (ed.), Ukraine’s Journey to Recovery, Reform and Post-War Reconstruction: A Blueprint for Security, Resilience and Development, Springer, Cham, 2025, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-66434-2.

NAZAROV, M., „National Resilience and Post-war Reconstruction of Ukraine”, in Ukraine’s Journey to Recovery, Reform and Post-War Reconstruction: A Blueprint for Security, Resilience and Development, S. Nate (ed.), Springer, Cham, 2025, pp. 63-73, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-66434-2_5.

PELCHAR, K., HERRON, E., FLIKKE, G., „Legislative–executive relations in Ukraine’s wartime conditions”, PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 58, Nr. 1, 2025, pp. 125-127, doi: 10.1-017/S1049096524000763.

PROKHOROVA, V., KRAVCHENKO, O., SHKURENKO, O., BABICHEV, A., POLIVANTSEV, A., „Study of priority directions of economic recovery of Ukraine based on scenario modelling”, Economics of Development, Vol. 24, Nr. 1, 2025, pp. 26-34, doi: 10.63341/econ/1.2025.26.

RABINOVYCH, M., „EU enlargement policy goes east: Historical and comparative takes on the EU’s rule of law conditionality vis-à-vis Ukraine”, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, Vol. 16, 2024, pp. 715-737, doi: 10.1007/s40803-024-00223-6.

RICHTER, M., “‘Call the bluff’ or ‘build back better’ – Anti-corruption reforms in post-war Ukraine”, Global Policy, Vol. 14, Nr. 4, 2023, pp. 611–622, doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.13251.

RIZNYK, D., „Perspectives for post-war recovery in Ukraine in the sphere of attracting foreign direct investments”, Economics of Systems Development, Vol. 5, Nr. 1, 2023, pp. 31-34, doi: 10.32782/2707-8019/2023-1-5.

ROMANOVA, V., „Does decentralization boost Ukrainian resilience? The role of local authorities in supporting internally displaced persons”, Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 41, Nr. 5, 2025, pp. 459-477, doi: 10.1080/1060586X.2025.2547336.

SEMENENKO, O., HAVRYLIUK, I., SOLOMITSKYI, O., KLIAT, Y., DOBROVOLSKYI, Y., HETMAN, A., „Ukraine’s postwar recovery strategy: A systemic model for integrating economy, governance, and security”, Social Development and Security, Vol. 15, Nr. 2, 2025, pp. 12-19, doi: 10.33445/sds.2025.15.2.2.

SHEVCHENKO, T., YANNOU, B., SAIDANI, M., „‘Build back better’ for war-torn Ukraine: Dual strategies for integrating circularity in post-disaster recovery”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Vol. 5, 2025, pp. 821-830, doi: 10.1017/pds.2025.10096.

SINAJ, Z., VELA, F., SHAIP, G., „National policy instruments for restoring the post-war economy and factors of sustainability of the Ukrainian economy”, Development Management, Vol. 23, Nr. 2, 2024, pp. 49-55, doi: 10.57111/devt/2.2024.49.

STAVYTSKYY, A., KHARLAMOVA, G., „SDGs Realization for the Renovation of Ukraine”, in S. Nate (ed.), Ukraine’s Journey to Recovery, Reform and Post-War Reconstruction: A Blueprint for Security, Resilience and Development, Springer, Cham, 2025, pp. 31-48, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-66434-2_3.

UNRUH, J., „Socio-legal instabilities in Ukraine’s wartime compensation law for damaged and destroyed residential property”, International Journal of Law in Context, Vol. 20, Nr. 4, 2024, pp. 581-597, doi: 10.1017/S174455-232400020X.

ZAYATS, D., „Decentralisation reform in Ukraine: Achievements and implementation prospects amidst war conditions”, Democratic Governance, Vol. 17, Nr. 2, 2024, pp. 5-17, doi: 10.56318/dg/2.2024.05.

АВКСЕНТЬЄВ, А., „Електоральна система для повоєнної України: актуальні альтернативи для парламентських виборів”, Вісник Харківського національного університету імені В. Н. Каразіна. Серія «Питання політології», Nr. 48, 2025, pp. 51-59, doi: 10.26565/2220-8089-2025-48-05.

ГРЕБЕНЮК, Д., „Трансформація концепції національної безпеки”, Національні інтереси України, Nr. 4(4), 2024, pp. 22-28, doi: 10.52058/3041-1793-2024-4(4)-22-28.

ІЛЬЧЕНКО-СЮЙВА, Л., ТКАЧУК, Я., „Повоєнне відновлення в Україні: теоретичні засади розбудови держави суспільного добробуту”, Аспекти публічного управління, Vol. 13, Nr. 3, 2025, pp. 100-108, doi: 10.15421/152536.

ОСАДЦА, І., „Мислити як стратег”, Медіафорум: аналітика, прогнози, інформаційний менеджмент, Vol. 9, 2021, pp. 292-299, doi: 10.31-861/mediaforum.2021.9.292-299.

ОСАДЦА, І., КАРПО, В., „Прогности-чні методики у дослідженні сучас­них міжнародних відносин (на прикладі динамічної моделі Річардсона)”, Медіафорум: аналітика, прогнози, інформаційний менеджмент, Vol. 11, 2022, pp. 77-95, doi: 10.31861/mediaforum.202-2.11.77-95.

ОСАДЦА, І., ПОЛІЩУК, І., „Трансформація системи публічної влади в умовах воєнного стану у контексті гібридизації політичного режиму в Україні”, Історико-політичні проблеми сучасного світу, Vol. 52, 2025, pp. 137-146, doi: 10.31861/mhpi2025.52.137-146.

ФІСАНОВ, В., ОСАДЦА, І., „Страте-гічні комунікації як інструмент формування суспільної довіри в умовах довготривалої війни”, in Стратегічні комунікації у сфері забезпечення національної безпеки та оборони: проблеми, досвід, перспективи: тези доповідей VI Міжнародної науково-практичної конференції, 29 жовтня 2025 р., НУОУ, Київ, 2025, pp. 22-26.

ЯНЧУК, А., „Економічна стратегія повоєнного відновлення як основа забезпечення національних інтере-сів”, Вчені записки ТНУ імені В. І. Вернадського. Серія: Юридичні науки, Vol. 35(74), Nr. 5, 2024, pp. 80-89, doi: 10.32782/TNU-2707-0581/2024.5/14.

Online resources

BUGAJSKI, J., „Janusz Bugajski’s Washington View: Poland is Europe’s Pivotal Power”, Istraga, 9 October 2024, https://istraga.ba/janusz-bug-ajskis-washington-view-poland-is-eur-opes-pivotal-power/.

ВЕДЕРНІКОВА, І., „Виродження влади. Як Зеленський досяг своєї стелі, а система держуправління – дна”, ZN.UA, 17 серпня 2026, https://zn.ua/ukr/politics/virodzhennja-vl-adi-jak-zelenskij-dosjah-svojeji-steli-a-si-stema-derzhupravlinnja-dna.html.