UKRAINIAN PEACE COUNCIL – 75 YEARS
The event was organized by the Ukrainian Peace Council, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, and the National Center “Junior Academy of Sciences of Ukraine”, with the participation of representatives from academic institutions, higher education institutions, civil society organizations, and international partners. The roundtable was held in a hybrid format—both in person and via an online broadcast.
The main concept of the event was to understand peace not as a temporary pause between wars, but as a long-term strategy for human development grounded in responsibility, knowledge, and values.
The roundtable discussed the history and 75-year journey of the Ukrainian Peace Council, the evolution of its peacemaking mission, and the role of public diplomacy, science, education, and culture in shaping a culture of peace. Special attention was paid to contemporary global challenges, the crisis in the collective security system, issues of nuclear and environmental security, biosecurity, international diplomacy, and Ukraine’s role in shaping the modern peacekeeping architecture.
An important component of the discussion was the issue of human capital as the foundation for peaceful and sustainable development. Participants emphasized the need to combine Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction with the development of education, science, culture, innovation, and democratic institutions.
A special focus of the program was the historical legacy of the Ukrainian Peace Council’s peacemaking activities, as well as its founders and leading figures. The contribution of Leonid Kravchuk, the first President of Ukraine, to the development of the Ukrainian Peace Council from 1997 to 2022 and to the building of its institutional capacity in independent Ukraine was examined separately.
During the concluding discussion, participants discussed the relationship between security, justice, and development; Ukraine’s role in the global peacebuilding architecture; and the prospects for building sustainable peace in the modern world.
Following the event, the participants adopted a Roundtable Declaration, in which
reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of the UN Charter, freedom, human dignity, sovereignty, and the territorial integrity of states.
The Declaration places special emphasis on the need to achieve a just and lasting peace for Ukraine, strengthen international solidarity, develop civic diplomacy, protect human dignity, ensure nuclear and environmental security, and promote the development of education, science, culture, and human capital.
It specifically highlights the role of youth in fostering a culture of peace and their participation in civic diplomacy, as well as in volunteer, scientific, educational, and cultural initiatives. The Declaration calls on Ukrainian and international institutions, the academic and civil society communities, the business sector, and citizens to work together toward a just peace and the revival of Ukraine.
Holding the roundtable on World Peace Day provided an important opportunity to mark the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Peace Council, reflect on the historical experience of the Ukrainian peace movement, and identify contemporary directions for civic diplomacy and international cooperation.
The event underscored the need for further collaboration among government, academic, civil society, and international institutions to establish a just peace, strengthen security, and create conditions for Ukraine’s sustainable revival.
The common goal identified by the roundtable participants is a free, sovereign, democratic, and secure Ukraine, where current and future generations will have a dignified life and opportunities for development.
DECLARATION
of the Roundtable Participants
“75 Years of the Ukrainian Peace Council: Lessons from History and Challenges for Peace in the 21st
Century”
Kyiv, Ukraine, September 21, 2026
We, the participants in the roundtable organized by the Ukrainian Peace Council, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, and the National Center “Junior Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,” having gathered on the International Day of Peace, reaffirm our commitment to the principles of the UN Charter, freedom, human dignity, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
• We honor the memory of Ukraine’s fallen defenders and all victims of Russian aggression. We express our gratitude to those who defend our country, assist the victims, and support the Ukrainian people.
• As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Peace Council, we adopt this Declaration as an expression of our shared responsibility for a just peace and the future of Ukraine.
1. Historical Responsibility
• We respectfully remember the founders, leaders, members, and partners of the Ukrainian Peace Council, as well as the generations of scholars, educators, artists, and public figures who contributed to the protection of life and international understanding.
• As we reflect on history in light of the circumstances of each era, we see
the continuity of the peacemaking tradition in our responsibility toward humanity,
the preservation of historical memory, and a readiness for civic action.
The Ukrainian experience affirms the inseparability of peace, the freedom of the people, and
the independence of the state.
2. A Just Peace and Ukraine’s Security
• We strongly condemn Russian aggression. A just and lasting peace must be based on its cessation, the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, effective security guarantees, and accountability for crimes committed.
• We support the right of the Ukrainian people to defend their state, determine their own future, and choose the path of democratic development and European integration. Peace at the expense of freedom, the legitimization of territorial seizures, and the justification of aggression are unacceptable. A peaceful settlement must ensure the rights of victims, the fulfillment of agreements, and the prevention of a new war.
3. Human Dignity and Social Unity
• Life, dignity, and human rights are the primary benchmarks of peacemaking efforts. We emphasize the need to secure the return of prisoners of war, unlawfully detained civilians, and deported children, as well as to support the families of the deceased and those missing in action, veterans, internally displaced persons, and all those affected by the war.
• We support the safe and voluntary return of Ukrainians to their homes, as well as their access to education, employment, and assistance. Social unity requires justice, mutual respect, recognition of the losses suffered, and the preservation of memory.
4. International Solidarity
• A just peace in Ukraine is crucial for European security and trust in the international order. We call for strengthening the capacity of international institutions to prevent aggression and protect people.
• We support the Ukrainian Peace Council as an open platform for civic diplomacy—a collaboration among universities, research institutions, and cultural, professional, and civil society communities. Its priorities are spreading the truth about Ukraine, securing international support, and fostering partnerships for the country’s revival. We emphasize the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of public discourse and to counter disinformation and war propaganda.
5. Nuclear and Environmental Security
• We condemn nuclear blackmail and the use of nuclear facilities as
instruments of war. The safety of Ukrainian nuclear power plants and
preventing radiation threats requires shared international
responsibility.
• The lessons of Chornobyl and the environmental consequences of aggression compel us to strengthen cooperation to document the damage, conduct humanitarian demining, and restore ecosystems. We reaffirm the importance of the “Environment and Peace” initiative to a secure future for generations to come.
6. Peace as a Development Strategy
• We view peace as a long-term development strategy based on
security, knowledge, and human dignity. Ukraine’s revival must combine reconstruction with economic modernization, the strengthening of democratic institutions, and community development.
• We reaffirm the priority of human capital, education, science, culture, and innovation, and our commitment to the principles of the International Forum “Education, Science, Innovation: Human Capital in Ukraine’s Postwar Revival,” held on December 11–12, 2025. Scientific and technological progress must serve to protect life and expand human potential.
7. Youth and the Culture of Peace
• We recognize young people as full-fledged participants in shaping the future and in peacebuilding cooperation. We support their participation in civic diplomacy, volunteerism, and scientific, educational, and cultural initiatives.
• Education for peace should foster critical thinking, civic
responsibility, and democratic dialogue, combining openness to the world with the preservation of Ukrainian identity.
8. Call for Cooperation
• We call on Ukrainian and international institutions, communities, academic and civil society groups, the business sector, and citizens to work together for
a just peace and the revival of Ukraine. Practical areas of cooperation are outlined in the Roundtable Recommendations. This Declaration is open to endorsement by all who share its principles.
Our shared vision is a free, sovereign, democratic, and secure
Ukraine, where current and future generations will have a dignified life and
opportunities for development.
Adopted by the participants of the Roundtable
Kyiv, Ukraine, September 21, 2026.
At the anniversary event ofthe Ukrainian Peace Council,Serhiy Ivanovych Sydorenko—a member of the Advisory Council of the UPC Presidium, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, professor, corresponding member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Distinguished Figure of Science and Technology of Ukraine—with the organization’s honorary distinction, the “Order of Peace,” First Class, and the presentation of “Ambassador of the Ukrainian Peace Council” diplomas to:
- Larisa Mykolayivna OSTROLUTSKA—member of the Advisory and Consultative Council of the Presidium of the Ukrainian Peace Council, renowned Ukrainian journalist, editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Svit,” Honored Journalist of Ukraine, and member of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine.
- German Georgievich MAKARENKO – member of the Advisory Council of the Presidium of the Ukrainian Peace Council, conductor of the Taras Shevchenko National Academic Opera and Ballet Theater of Ukraine, chief conductor and artistic director of the “Kyiv-Classic” orchestra, People’s Artist of Ukraine, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Doctor of Art History, professor, Ambassador of Ukrainian Culture, the first Ukrainian musician to be awarded the title “UNESCO Artist for Peace,” and Honorary Citizen of Kyiv.
- MYKHAILO VIKTOROVYCH ILIN—member of the Advisory Council of the Presidium of the Ukrainian Peace Council, Chairman of the Board of the Ukrainian World Peace Federation, and Doctor of Philosophy.
Presentations by speakers at the Roundtable marking the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Peace Council.
Mykhailo Zakharovych Zgurovsky.
Chairman of the Ukrainian Peace Council, Academician of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor.
The Ukrainian Peace Council: 75 Years of History of Responsibility and
civic engagement
Distinguished colleagues, friends, representatives of the diplomatic corps, the scientific and educational communities, civil society organizations, and our international partners!
As we reflect on the seventy-five years of the Ukrainian Peace Council’s work at a time when Ukraine is defending its freedom and future, we must assess the path we have taken, our current challenges, and our responsibility to society.
For Ukrainians today, peace has a concrete meaning. It means lives spared, people returning home, children studying without the threat of shelling, and soldiers returning to their families. It means the freedom to live in one’s own country, to speak one’s own language, to develop one’s culture, and to determine one’s own future. Behind each of these aspirations lie human destinies—the ultimate measure of peacemaking efforts.
In my remarks, I will attempt to bring together three concepts: history, responsibility, and civic action. History helps us understand the path we have traveled. Responsibility defines the moral criteria for our stance. Civic action puts this stance into practice. Through this interconnection, let’s take a look at the 75-year journey of the Ukrainian Peace Council.
In September 1951, the Ukrainian Republican Committee for the Defense of Peace was established in Kyiv, and its work was continued by the Ukrainian Peace Council. Academician Mykola Semenko became its first chairman. The organization’s founding is linked to representatives of Ukraine’s scientific and creative intelligentsia—Vasyl Komisarenko, Oleksandr Palladin, Borys Paton, Maksym Rylskyi, Pavlo Tychyna, Nataliia Uzhviy, and other prominent figures in Ukraine.
At that time, only six years had passed since the end of World War II. Ukraine was rebuilding its cities and villages, and millions of people lived with memories of the occupation, the front lines, and the loss of loved ones. At the same time, the world was entering a new era of confrontation, and the emergence of nuclear weapons posed the threat of a war on an unprecedented scale. For the generation that survived those trials, preserving peace was a personal responsibility—both to those who had perished and to their own children and grandchildren.
The activities of civil society organizations at that time were shaped by the Soviet political system and its ideological constraints. At the same time, it is important to look beyond the era's organizational forms and see the people and their aspirations. For many scholars, writers, and artists, participation in the peace movement was an opportunity to express concern for humanity's future and to foster understanding and international connections.
This reveals a continuity important to us: knowledge, talent, and social authority place an additional responsibility on a person regarding the fate of others.
In the decades that followed, the international environment, Ukrainian society, and forms of civic engagement underwent changes. The organization was led by academicians
Mykola Semenko and Vasyl Komysarenko, writer Oles Honchar, and the first
President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk. Each brought their own experience and worldview. We gratefully remember their contributions, as well as the work of the organization’s members, partners, and civic activists.
A major milestone was Ukraine’s declaration of independence in 1991. The Ukrainian Peace Council’s mission had to be redefined in line with the emergence of a sovereign state. Ukrainian society gained the opportunity to speak to the world in its own voice, to forge international civil society ties independently, and to represent its interests and values.
For the Ukrainian Peace Council, this meant developing civic diplomacy, promoting social harmony, and strengthening cultural, educational, and humanitarian ties with various countries. The moral authority of Oles Honchar and the statesmanship of Leonid Kravchuk played a significant role in these processes. Leonid Makarovych’s role in the history of the Ukrainian Peace Council will be the subject of a separate presentation today. The fundamental task of this new era was to combine universal human values of peace with responsibility for one’s own state, its democratic development, and its establishment in the world as an independent actor in international relations.
Guided by this, the Ukrainian Peace Council utilized the opportunities offered by civic diplomacy to present Ukraine’s vision of peace, cooperation, friendship, and mutual understanding among nations, and developed direct contacts with civil society, academic, educational, and religious circles in various countries.
One of the key partnerships during this period was the collaboration with the World Peace Federation. In 2009, the two organizations jointly organized an international conference titled “All Humanity Is One Family: A New Vision of Peace in the 21st Century,” and
in 2013, representatives of the Ukrainian Peace Council participated in the World Peace Federation’s World Summit in Seoul.
Such events provided Ukraine with an additional opportunity to engage with the world through the language of civic diplomacy, expand international ties, and foster trust and mutual understanding among nations.
The Russian aggression that began in 2014 has become a new historical challenge. The occupation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine posed fundamental questions for the peace movement: under what conditions does dialogue truly contribute to peace; where is the line between seeking understanding and making concessions to the aggressor; and how can the pursuit of peace be reconciled with the protection of sovereignty and human rights?
Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine in 2022 brought these questions into sharp focus and forced the Ukrainian Peace Council to fundamentally rethink the philosophy of peacemaking. The experience of war has shown that peacemaking cannot be reduced to pacifism or concessions to an aggressor. A just and lasting peace requires a strong and resilient state capable of defending freedom, sovereignty, and human dignity.
The Ukrainian Peace Council’s updated Action Program for the period of achieving peace and Ukraine’s postwar recovery is based on this understanding. The program combines social harmony and consolidation with the creation of the prerequisites for a just and lasting peace. Peacemaking, as we understand it today, is systematic work toward creating a highly developed, secure state and a democratic society capable of using its own human, technological, and intellectual resources to achieve such peace, protect it, and make it irreversible.
Public diplomacy has become a key instrument of this policy. Through international forums, conferences, and expert meetings at the United Nations, the European Parliament, and Ukrainian and foreign universities, the UPM conveys the truth about the aggression and its consequences, presents Ukraine’s vision of a just peace, and engages international partners in the country’s recovery. In recent years, this work has primarily focused on three interrelated areas: environmental and nuclear safety; Ukraine’s economic revival; and the preservation and development of human capital.
Under the “Environment and Peace” initiative, an international forum on the environmental consequences of Russian aggression was held in May 2024 at the Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute. In November of that same year, the Ukrainian Peace Council presented these issues at UN headquarters during a seminar titled “Environmental Security During War and Armed Conflicts,” organized in collaboration with its American partner, World Information Transfer, and the Ukrainian Council for Environmental Security. In 2026, the Ukrainian Peace Council continued discussions on Ukraine’s nuclear safety and the lessons of the Chornobyl disaster at the UN. We drew the international community’s attention to the destruction of ecosystems, pollution, and the mining of territories, the consequences of the destruction of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant, and the threats
associated with the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The main conclusion was that environmental and nuclear risks know no national borders and require shared international responsibility.
The second focus area was Ukraine’s economic revival. In November 2024, the Ukrainian Peace Council held an international forum at the Vadym Hetman Kyiv National Economic University, bringing together scholars, government officials, business representatives, and international partners to discuss investment, innovation, and the structural modernization of Ukraine’s economy. Our position was that a just and lasting peace is impossible without a strong economy, decent working conditions, entrepreneurship, and a fulfilling life. Therefore, preparations for Ukraine’s economic revival must begin even while the war is still ongoing.
The third area is human capital. In October 2024, the Ukrainian Peace Council presented its position at the Second “Partnership and Veterans’ Health” Summit at the European Parliament, which focused on the rehabilitation of veterans, support for the families of the fallen, and the social reintegration of those affected by the war.
In December 2024, the UPC, together with the World Peace Federation and the Austrian Institute for European and Security Policy, co-organized the international conference “Europe and Ukraine: Shared Perspectives and Values” at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna.
In December 2025, the URM held an international forum titled “Education, Science, Innovation: Human Capital in Ukraine’s Postwar Revival” at the Mykhailo Dragomanov National University of Ukraine. Based on the forum’s outcomes, a declaration and recommendations were adopted for government agencies and international organizations.
All these initiatives were united by a single idea: people are the primary source of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, recover, and develop. Even today, we must think not only about ending the war but also about what Ukraine will look like after it. Within the country, one of the UCM’s main tasks must be to promote social harmony and restore trust. The war leaves behind a variety of experiences—life on the front lines, occupation, the loss of loved ones and homes, forced displacement, and living and working under shelling. We must help society maintain the ability to listen to one another, support veterans and the families of the fallen, facilitate the return and reintegration of people, and strengthen ties between generations, regions, and communities.
A special responsibility rests with the scientific, educational, and cultural communities. Factual accuracy, countering disinformation, a culture of dialogue, and accountability for public discourse are components of societal resilience. At the same time, the younger generation must be not only the heir to our experience but also a full-fledged co-creator of Ukraine’s future.
The second strategic dimension of the UCP’s activities is international. Ukraine must not only receive solidarity and support from the world but also take its rightful place in it as a nation that has endured an extraordinarily difficult ordeal, defended freedom, and is capable of offering its own experience in combining peace, security, democracy, and human dignity. Therefore, public diplomacy must remain a key focus for the Ukrainian Peace Council. Through international partnerships, we must ensure that the Ukrainian voice is constantly present in the global dialogue on the future architecture of international security and a just peace.
Our strategic vision is for Ukraine to be not merely a recipient of international aid, but an active and responsible participant in international cooperation; an economically strong, high-tech, and securely defended state with advanced science, modern education, and robust human capital, where humanistic values are combined with cutting-edge knowledge and expertise in the natural sciences, technology, and engineering.
This defines the future role of the Ukrainian Peace Council: to serve as a platform for public dialogue within the country and for civic diplomacy abroad; to bring together moral authority, scientific knowledge, and international connections; and to help transform the experience of war into the experience of building a just and lasting peace.
To fulfill this mission, the Ukrainian Peace Council itself must evolve. It must become a powerful intellectual and civic hub capable of shaping a strategic vision for Ukraine’s future and facilitating its realization. To this end, it is necessary to engage young people more broadly and develop partnerships with universities, research institutions, civil society organizations, and international institutions. The UCP’s authority will be determined not only by its seventy-five-year history but, above all, by its ability to look to the future, respond to the challenges of our time, and achieve concrete results.
Dear friends! Seventy-five years ago, the generation that survived World War II sought to protect future generations from a repeat of that catastrophe. Today, history is repeating itself. A vast distance separates these eras. But the most important thing remains unchanged: peace requires not only a desire for it, but also responsibility and civic action.
This is precisely how we understand the legacy of the Ukrainian Peace Council’s seventy-five-year history. Our mission is to help Ukraine stand firm today, be reborn tomorrow, and become a free, strong, and peaceful nation capable of achieving a just peace, defending it, and passing it on to future generations.
Thank you for your attention.
Leonid Vasylovych GUBERSKYI
Hero of Ukraine, member of the Presidium of the Ukrainian Peace Council, academician of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Doctor of Philosophy, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine.
The Future of Peace Movements: From Declarations to Action
Dear Chair!
Distinguished conference participants!
Dear Colleagues!
Allow me, first of all, to express my sincere gratitude to the organizers for the opportunity to participate in this conference dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Peace Council.
Seventy-five years of activity is not merely a significant anniversary for a single organization. It is an opportunity to reflect on how our very conceptions of peace, international security, and the role of civil society in ensuring them have evolved. Such reflection is particularly relevant today, as the international system is experiencing, without exaggeration, one of the deepest crises since the end of World War II.
Paradoxically, it is Ukraine—a country that has been living under armed aggression for over a decade and has been resisting a full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation for over three years—that speaks most convincingly about peace today.
At first glance, this may seem contradictory. However, a closer look at the history of Ukrainian statehood reveals that this role is entirely natural. Ukraine has never been merely a beneficiary of international security. Since its independence, it has consistently demonstrated a commitment to active participation in international peacekeeping efforts.
The most striking example of this was Ukraine’s voluntary renunciation of the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This decision was not only a political act but also one of the most significant contributions to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Despite the subsequent dramatic consequences of violating security guarantees, Ukraine demonstrated its willingness to prioritize international security over the possession of one of the most powerful deterrents.
At the same time, Ukraine’s contribution to peacekeeping was not limited to strategic security issues. For decades, Ukrainian servicemen have participated in peacekeeping
operations in various regions of the world—from the Balkans to Africa and the Middle East. Ukrainian peacekeepers carried out missions in the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, and many other countries. In total, more than forty-five thousand Ukrainian military personnel have participated in international peacekeeping operations.
For Ukrainian diplomacy, participation in these missions had significance that went far beyond military cooperation. It became an important element of Ukraine’s international responsibility, demonstrated its readiness to participate in addressing global security challenges, and helped shape our country’s reputation as a responsible member of the international community.
Ukraine has also been actively involved in the development of multilateral diplomacy. As a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, it has consistently supported the principles of peaceful conflict resolution, strengthening international law, protecting civilians, and developing preventive diplomacy. Until 2014, Ukraine also demonstrated openness to international monitoring and cooperation mechanisms, particularly within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. All of this leads to an important conclusion. Today, Ukraine speaks of peace not only because it has itself become a victim of aggression. It speaks of peace as a state that has long contributed to international peace. It is precisely this circumstance, in my view, that lends Ukraine’s voice particular legitimacy in the current debate on the future of peacekeeping movements. At the same time, recent years have forced the world to rethink the very concept of peacekeeping.
Many institutions and mechanisms established after World War II were shaped by a completely different international reality. Their primary task was to prevent the recurrence of global military conflict, ensure dialogue among states, and create mechanisms for collective security. For decades, this architecture generally fulfilled its function. However, the international environment of the 21st century has changed significantly.
Conflicts are no longer limited to the military dimension. They increasingly combine the use of armed force with information campaigns, cyberattacks, economic pressure, the struggle for technological leadership, manipulation in the digital sphere, and the use of humanitarian tools as a means of political influence.
At the same time, humanity faces challenges that are not military in nature at all but directly affect international stability. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated just how interconnected the modern world has become and just how important international solidarity is in responding to global crises. Climate change, energy security, migration, and food security are increasingly becoming not only subjects of international policy but also factors in peace or conflict.
Ukraine’s experience after 2022 has been particularly revealing in this context. The Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion posed an unprecedented challenge to the entire international security system. At the same time, the international community’s response revealed a new pattern.
Support for Ukraine came not only from states. Foreign universities, individual cities, prestigious research institutions, international charitable foundations, civil society organizations, museums, professional associations, digital platforms, volunteer communities, and millions of citizens in various countries around the world joined in.
In effect, a multilevel international network of solidarity emerged, one that has almost no parallel in modern history. It is precisely this experience that demonstrates the major transformation of peacemaking in the 21st century.
While in the second half of the 20th century, peace was secured primarily through international norms, intergovernmental agreements, and the activities of international organizations, international cooperation networks are becoming increasingly important today. In other words, peace is no longer merely proclaimed. It is created through the daily interaction of universities, researchers, communities, cities, youth organizations, volunteers, artists, IT communities, and civil society.
That is precisely why, when discussing the future of peacebuilding movements today, we must ask ourselves a fundamentally new question. Is it enough in today’s world to merely proclaim the values of peace? Or is the primary task of peacebuilding organizations now to build resilient international networks of trust capable of sustaining peace even when interstate political dialogue is in crisis?
The main transformation of peacebuilding movements lies not only in a change in the tools they use. Above all, what is changing is the very understanding of who creates peace today. Traditionally, peacebuilding has been associated primarily with the activities of states, international organizations, and professional diplomacy. They were the main actors in negotiations, mediation, and conflict resolution.
However, international practice over the past few decades shows a gradual expansion of the circle of participants in peacebuilding processes, who create horizontal bonds of trust that often prove to be more durable than political agreements. In this context, several interrelated dimensions of contemporary peacebuilding can be identified.
The first dimension is education and university diplomacy.
Universities have traditionally been viewed as centers of education and science. However, in the 21st century, they are increasingly fulfilling another function: they are becoming independent actors in international engagement.
A telling example was the global academic community’s response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In record time, hundreds of universities in Europe, North America, and other regions launched special programs to support Ukrainian students, faculty, and researchers. The Scholars at Risk initiative, the Erasmus+ program, the activities of the European University Association, and numerous alliances of European universities have served as examples of how the academic community can mobilize to support a society caught in the midst of war.
At the same time, university cooperation was not limited to humanitarian aid. European universities launched joint master’s programs, virtual academic mobility initiatives, dual-degree programs, research consortia, psychological support programs for students and faculty, and partnerships aimed at the post-war recovery of Ukrainian higher education. In effect, universities have begun to serve as international agents of trust. That is why we can now speak of university diplomacy as a promising area of contemporary peacemaking.
The second dimension of modern peacemaking is scientific diplomacy.
Science has one unique feature: it always transcends political borders. The pursuit of knowledge requires openness, international cooperation, and a constant exchange of ideas. That is why, even during periods of political tension, scientific contacts often endure longer than other forms of international interaction.
A prime example is the multinational research consortia operating under the “Horizon Europe” program. Their activities span a wide range of fields—from medicine and digital technologies to climate research, energy security, and sustainable development.
Importantly, after the outbreak of full-scale war, Ukraine was not excluded from the European scientific community. On the contrary, Ukrainian universities and research institutions gained additional opportunities to integrate into international research networks. This made it possible not only to support Ukrainian science but also to involve it in developing joint responses to global challenges.
Equally telling are the activities of international research centers, particularly CERN, where researchers from around the world have been collaborating for decades. Despite political disagreements, science often remains one of the most resilient channels of international dialogue.
Thus, modern science diplomacy is no longer merely a tool for fostering academic contacts. It is gradually becoming an integral part of international security.
The third dimension of the modern perspective on peacemaking is youth as a new actor
of peacemaking
Until recently, young people were primarily viewed as future participants in international relations. Today, this perception needs to be reevaluated. Young people are increasingly getting involved in international activities while still in school or at the start of their professional careers. They independently create international cooperation networks, organize volunteer projects, work in international non-governmental organizations, participate in humanitarian missions, and promote the ideals of peace through modern means of communication. The European Solidarity Corps and the youth component of the Erasmus+ program demonstrate just how effective youth cooperation can be in strengthening European solidarity.
Ukraine’s experience since 2022 has significantly broadened this understanding. Thousands of Ukrainian students have become coordinators of international humanitarian aid, organizers of charity campaigns, volunteers, and participants in international conferences and youth diplomatic forums. Young Ukrainians are actively involved in the Ukrainian Youth Delegates to the UN programs, representing the position of the state and society at the international level.
Thus, youth diplomacy is increasingly becoming a real instrument of international understanding, rather than merely a component of youth policy.
The fourth dimension of modern peacekeeping activities that deserves special attention is cultural diplomacy.
While diplomacy traditionally addresses governments, culture speaks directly to societies. That is why cultural diplomacy plays a special role in preserving mutual trust even when political relations become strained.
The full-scale war against Ukraine has once again demonstrated that cultural heritage is not only a symbol of national identity but also a component of international security.
UNESCO’s decision to add the historic center of Odesa to the List of World Heritage in Danger sent an important international signal about the global community’s responsibility to preserve cultural heritage. At the same time, museums, archives, libraries, and cultural institutions in many countries have launched large-scale programs to support Ukrainian collections, restore cultural monuments, organize international exhibitions, and protect museum collections.
International professional networks, whose activities aim to protect cultural heritage during armed conflicts, also play an important role in this process.
Thus, culture—an extremely important tool for shaping a country’s international image and affirming its identity—also becomes an instrument of international solidarity.
The fifth dimension of the modern model of peacemaking is, without a doubt, so-called “digital peacemaking.”
One of the most distinctive features of the modern international environment is the rapid digitization of international interactions. At the same time, the digital space creates new risks. Disinformation, information operations, cyber threats, and manipulation of public opinion can significantly exacerbate international instability. At the same time, however, digital technologies open up fundamentally new opportunities for maintaining peace, and Ukraine’s experience in this regard is particularly instructive. The well-known “UNITED24” platform has demonstrated that digital technologies can serve as a tool for global civic solidarity. Millions of people from around the world have been given the opportunity to directly participate in humanitarian, medical, and educational projects, as well as initiatives for Ukraine’s recovery. On the other hand, despite the challenges of war, Ukraine is setting an example for the world in developing a digital state. The “Diya” ecosystem has become a vivid example of how digital government services can ensure the continuity of public administration even amid a large-scale war. Although its primary goal is to provide administrative services, it also demonstrates that a state’s digital resilience is a factor contributing to social stability.
Thus, digital diplomacy and digital interaction are gradually becoming not only means of communication but also instruments of peacemaking. The arguments presented allow us to draw an important conclusion. In the 21st century, peace is no longer created exclusively at the negotiating table. It is shaped by thousands of horizontal connections between universities, researchers, students, cities, museums, digital communities, and civil society organizations. It is precisely these connections that are gradually forming a new international ecosystem of trust, which increasingly complements traditional mechanisms of diplomacy and international law.
What, then, is the role of the Ukrainian Peace Council in the new architecture of international peacemaking?
If we accept that modern peacemaking is increasingly moving beyond the boundaries of intergovernmental diplomacy and taking on a networked character, it is only natural that the question arises regarding the place and role of traditional peacekeeping organizations and initiatives in this new architecture of international cooperation.
I am convinced that what we are witnessing today is not a crisis of peacekeeping organizations, but a transformation of their functions. In the second half of the 20th century, their activities were largely centered on public advocacy for peace, international conferences, fostering dialogue among states, and promoting the fundamental principles of international law. All of this remains important today. However, the modern world poses new demands.
It is not enough merely to serve as a platform for discussing peace issues. It is equally important to create a space where practical international cooperation can take shape. Global practice shows that many authoritative peace organizations are already moving in this direction.
A prime example is the Pugwash Movement of Scientists. Founded at the height of the Cold War, the movement initially aimed to promote dialogue among scientists on nuclear disarmament. Over time, however, its activities have expanded significantly. Today, Pagvos is an international network of experts that combines scientific research, expert diplomacy, informal dialogue, and the development of recommendations for international policy.
It is telling that it was precisely for developing this format of cooperation that the organization was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
A prime example of evolution and adaptation to changes in international politics is the International Peace Bureau, one of the world’s oldest international peace organizations. Its current activities have long gone beyond traditional anti-war advocacy. The organization coordinates international campaigns, conducts research, and works with youth, academic circles, and civil society, building broad international networks of cooperation. A number of other organizations and movements demonstrate a similar evolution, combining research, mediation, peace education, support for local communities, and the development of international partnerships. Their experience points to an important trend: contemporary peacebuilding institutions are increasingly acting not so much as organizers of individual events as architects of long-term networks of cooperation.
This is precisely one of the key trends in the development of 21st-century peace movements. Their value is no longer determined solely by the number of conferences held or declarations adopted. It is increasingly measured by their ability to bring together people, institutions, and professional communities around shared projects.
In this context, new opportunities are opening up for the Ukrainian Peace Council as well. Thanks to its long history, authority, and extensive network of international contacts, it can play an important role in the development of Ukraine’s modern network diplomacy.
Such activities are of particular importance right now, as international support for Ukraine is increasingly extending beyond intergovernmental cooperation. Since 2022, hundreds of partnerships have been formed between Ukrainian and foreign universities, dozens of new partnerships between sister cities have emerged, and large-scale international humanitarian, cultural, and educational initiatives have emerged. These often arose independently of one another, responding to the specific needs of the moment.
However, the next logical step could be to unite them into more sustainable international cooperation networks. It is precisely here that peacebuilding organizations can fulfill a unique role as coordinators. Let me emphasize: not as leaders, not as administrators, but specifically as coordinators of interaction among various actors in international cooperation.
Developing cooperation with universities appears particularly promising. Today’s universities are increasingly becoming not only educational institutions but also centers for expert analysis, scientific diplomacy, intercultural dialogue, and the training of new generations of leaders.
The Ukrainian Peace Council could serve as a partner in such processes by supporting international academic forums, youth research networks, summer schools, training programs for young diplomats, and international competitions for student projects on peace and security.
Equally promising is the area of engagement with civil society. Ukrainian civil society organizations have accumulated unique experience in humanitarian work, international advocacy, community engagement, the development of the volunteer movement, and international communication. Combining this practical experience with academic expertise and international partnerships could create a qualitatively new format for peacebuilding activities.
At the same time, it is important to emphasize another point. Today, Ukraine is no longer merely adopting international experience; it is increasingly becoming a source of it itself.
Ukraine’s experience in governing during wartime, developing digital governance, mobilizing civil society, fostering international university cooperation, protecting cultural heritage, engaging in humanitarian diplomacy, and promoting international solidarity is already attracting significant interest in many countries worldwide. This means that Ukrainian peacebuilding organizations can act not only as participants in international dialogue but also as co-creators of it. While in the 20th century a significant portion of international peacebuilding initiatives focused on finding compromises between states, in the 21st century, the ability of societies to jointly build trust is becoming increasingly important.
It is precisely this trust that becomes the primary resource for sustainable peace. And fostering it may well become one of the most important tasks of contemporary peace movements.
In conclusion, I would like to return to the question posed at the beginning of this report. What might the future of peacebuilding movements look like in the 21st century? The answer to this question depends largely on how we understand the very nature of peace today. If peace is perceived solely as the absence of war, then peacemaking inevitably boils down to the cessation of hostilities, the conclusion of political agreements, or the maintenance of a ceasefire. However, contemporary international practice reveals a far more complex picture. Lasting peace is not forged solely at the negotiating table. It emerges through a process of sustained interaction among people, institutions, and societies. That is precisely why forms of international cooperation that were not considered components of peacemaking just a few decades ago are becoming increasingly important today.
Education fosters mutual understanding. Science creates a space for the joint pursuit of knowledge. Culture helps preserve the human dimension of international relations. Young people offer new formats for international interaction. Digital technologies open up unprecedented opportunities for global solidarity.
Civil society ensures the continuity of international contacts even when official diplomacy faces difficulties. All these processes allow us to draw another important conclusion: peace movements today are not experiencing a crisis, but rather a phase of profound transformation. While in the 20th century they were primarily spaces for public advocacy for peace, in the 21st century they are increasingly becoming platforms for international cooperation.
Their main resource is no longer just declarations, but also the ability to build sustainable international networks of trust. This is the defining feature of the current stage in the development of peacebuilding movements.
In the second half of the 20th century, the international community built peace primarily through international norms, treaties, organizations, and political institutions. In the 21st century, these institutions remain essential. However, they are increasingly complemented by transnational networks of cooperation that bring together government agencies, universities, research centers, municipalities, civil society organizations, cultural institutions, businesses, youth movements, and digital communities. In other words, peace is increasingly taking on a networked character. Ukraine’s experience in recent years has become one of the most compelling confirmations of this trend. That is precisely why Ukraine today is not merely a country fighting for its own freedom. It has become a kind of laboratory for new models of international solidarity. And this experience has significance far beyond the Ukrainian context.
Peace in the 21st century is no longer merely the result of diplomacy. It is increasingly the result of cooperation among the entire international community. And that is precisely why the future of peace movements is not just a story about peace. It is a story about a new culture of international interaction, centered on trust, responsibility, and solidarity.
Thank you for your attention.
Vasyl Hryhorovych KREMEN.
Member of the Presidium of the Ukrainian Peace Movement, President of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences
(1996–2026), Honorary President of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
Academician of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, President of the “Knowledge” Society, Doctor
Philosophical Sciences, Professor.
A WORLD IN A STATE OF TURBULENCE AND CONFLICT:
DOES PEACE HAVE A CHANCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY?
In political science, economics, and international relations, the concept of “turbulence” is being used with increasing frequency. If we borrow this term from the natural sciences, it refers to a state of unstable motion, in which even a minor external influence can radically alter the direction of a process. This is precisely the state of the international system today. It is in a state of constant change, where previous rules no longer function properly, and new ones have not yet taken shape.
An analysis of the causes of contemporary turbulence, the characteristics of international conflicts, and the prospects for maintaining peace takes on not only theoretical but also practical significance. The international community’s ability to develop effective mechanisms for the coexistence of states, ensure international security, and prevent new global conflicts depends on a correct understanding of these processes.
When analyzing the current state of international relations, it is easy to see that conflicts do not arise suddenly. They are the result of deep-seated processes that have accumulated over a long period in global politics, the economy, and social development. That is why, to understand the prospects for peace, it is necessary, first and foremost, to determine which factors have led to the current turbulence.
In my opinion, the first and most fundamental reason is humanity’s transition to a new type of civilizational development. While previous industrial revolutions lasted for decades, and sometimes even centuries, modern technological changes are occurring so rapidly that society is far from always able to adapt to them. Every year, new information platforms, means of communication, digital technologies, and elements of artificial intelligence emerge, radically changing the nature of work, education, economic activity, and even interpersonal communication.
Today, people are forced to constantly learn, acquire new skills, change careers or specializations, and adapt to new living conditions. Such processes are natural to the development of civilization, but they also generate psychological uncertainty, social tension, and uneven development among countries. While some states are rapidly integrating into the new knowledge economy, others are falling behind, thereby exacerbating economic and political inequality.
The second major cause of today’s turbulence is globalization. Over the past few decades, it has significantly altered the nature of relations between nations. The world has become far more interdependent than ever before. Economic processes, financial markets, transportation networks, the information space, and international trade have effectively formed a single system.
On the one hand, globalization has opened up enormous opportunities for international cooperation. Scientific exchanges have intensified significantly, global trade volumes have increased, the exchange of technologies has accelerated, and millions of people have gained the opportunity to study, work, and do business in various countries around the world. In many cases, international cooperation has been the driving force behind economic development.
At the same time, globalization has another side. It has made the world extremely vulnerable to crises. Any major conflict has an almost immediate impact on global prices, international logistics, food security, and financial markets. Events in recent years have clearly demonstrated that war is no longer a problem confined to just two states. Its consequences are felt by countries on different continents.
The transformation of the system of international relations deserves special attention. After the end of the Cold War, the belief took hold that international law would become the primary mechanism for resolving disputes between states. However, modern realities paint a much more complex picture. Competition among leading centers of power is intensifying, regional leaders are becoming increasingly active, and geopolitical interests often take precedence over the principles of international law.
In fact, humanity is undergoing the formation of a new world order. Its distinctive feature is that the previous model of international security no longer provides the necessary stability, while the new one has not yet fully taken shape. It is precisely during this transitional period that the risk of conflict rises the most, as states seek to strengthen their influence, protect their economic interests, and ensure their strategic security.
Another factor contributing to this turbulence is the intensifying struggle for natural resources. The world’s population continues to grow, and consumption of energy, food, fresh water, and rare-earth metals—which are essential for modern production—is increasing. This naturally intensifies competition among states. In many cases, economic interests gradually transform into political confrontations and, at times, into open military conflicts.
Demographic trends are no less important a factor. Some countries face an aging population and a labor shortage, while others are experiencing rapid growth in their young population. Such imbalances drive large-scale migration, which, in turn, creates additional social and political challenges. Issues such as the integration of migrants, ensuring social stability, and preserving cultural identity are increasingly becoming the subject of heated political debates.
The information space is taking on particular significance. Whereas wars were once fought primarily on the battlefield, today the struggle also unfolds in the media, on social networks, and in the digital environment. Shaping public opinion, spreading disinformation, conducting information, psychological operations, and carrying out cyberattacks have become integral parts of modern international conflicts. Victory increasingly depends not only on military strength but also on a state’s ability to manage information effectively and defend its information sovereignty.
Thus, the current turbulence results from the simultaneous influence of many interrelated factors. The technological revolution, globalization, the transformation of the world order, the struggle for resources, demographic changes, and information warfare create a complex environment in which new challenges to international security arise. This is precisely why modern conflicts differ significantly from the wars of the last century, both in their causes and in the ways they are waged.
What is the difference?
A defining feature of the modern era is that war is no longer exclusively an armed confrontation between two armies. While in the 20th century the outcome of military campaigns was largely determined by the number of troops, tanks, artillery, or aircraft, today technological superiority, speed of decision-making, the quality of intelligence, and the effective use of information are becoming increasingly important. That is precisely why modern conflicts are increasingly referred to as hybrid, as they combine military, political, economic, informational, and cyber means of influence.
One of the key features of modern conflicts is their information component. Information has effectively become a strategic resource that can determine the success or failure of state policy. The shaping of public opinion, citizens’ trust in their own government, the morale of the population and the military, and international support—all of these depend largely on how effectively information policy is implemented.
It is no coincidence that today there is increasing talk of a battle for people’s minds. The use of disinformation, manipulative messages, fake news, and massive information campaigns can significantly influence political processes, election results, public trust, and even national leaders' decisions. In such cases, the information space becomes a separate theater of military operations.
Cyberspace is no less an important component of modern conflicts. Almost all spheres of a state’s activities today rely on digital systems. The banking system, energy sector, transportation, communications, healthcare, public administration, and the defense sector are increasingly dependent on computer technologies. Consequently, cyberattacks can cause as much damage as the use of conventional weapons. Disabling energy infrastructure, communications systems, or government registries can significantly weaken a state even without a direct military invasion.
The development of artificial intelligence deserves special attention. Just a few years ago, this technology was viewed primarily as a promising area of scientific advancement. Today, however, it is being increasingly integrated into both civilian and military systems. Artificial intelligence is used to analyze large amounts of data, plan operations, process intelligence, control unmanned systems, predict enemy actions, and automate decision-making processes.
Along with its undeniable advantages, this situation also introduces new risks. Nations have effectively entered a technological rivalry, the outcome of which will determine not only economic development but also the military-political balance of power in the coming decades. Competition in the fields of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, space technology, robotics, and biotechnology is gradually becoming a defining factor in international politics.
These trends were particularly evident during the Russia-Ukraine war. This war became one of the first large-scale examples of the use of cutting-edge digital technologies in virtually all areas of combat operations. Unmanned aerial vehicles, satellite communications, precision-guided weapon systems, digital maps, the rapid exchange of intelligence, and the use of artificial intelligence for data analysis—all of these have significantly changed the nature of modern warfare.
At the same time, the Russia-Ukraine war has revealed another important pattern. Despite rapid technological development, people—their professionalism, moral resilience, patriotism, and society’s ability to unite—continue to play a decisive role. No technical means can fully replace the human factor, especially when it comes to defending national independence and national security.
Equally important is the international dimension of modern conflicts. Wars of the 21st century are increasingly unlikely to be confined to a local level. They quickly take on a global character through economic sanctions, international military aid, information warfare, diplomatic coalitions, and influence on global markets. In fact, modern conflicts almost always extend beyond the borders of the states directly involved.
In this context, another problem arises—the effectiveness of the existing international security system. Recent events have shown that the mechanisms established after World War II are increasingly insufficient to address new challenges. The United Nations, despite its unquestionable authority, frequently faces political disagreements among leading states, which complicates the adoption of effective decisions. This underscores the need to rethink the current architecture of international security and to seek new mechanisms for a collective response to global threats.
The analysis conducted provides grounds for asserting that the modern world is undergoing one of the most challenging phases of its development since the end of World War II.
The Russian-Ukrainian war occupies a special place among contemporary conflicts. It has become one of the most significant factors influencing the development of the international system at the beginning of the 21st century. This war has demonstrated both the shortcomings of the existing international security system and the ability of democratic states to unite in the face of common challenges. Recent events have shown that peace cannot be guaranteed solely by international treaties or the activities of individual organizations. Ensuring peace requires constant political responsibility, a willingness to cooperate, and strict adherence to the principles of international law.
At the same time, the modern world clearly demonstrates that even under the most difficult conditions, opportunities for constructive dialogue remain. Diplomacy, international negotiations, humanitarian cooperation, economic ties, and the activities of international institutions continue to play an important role in reducing international tensions. Although these mechanisms do not always yield immediate results, they are what lay the foundation for lasting peace.
The role of civil society is no less important. In today’s world, the responsibility for peace does not rest solely with political leaders or international organizations. Scientists, educators, journalists, cultural figures, volunteers, young people, and every conscientious citizen make significant contributions. Fostering a culture of peace, respect for human rights, tolerance, mutual understanding, and a responsible attitude toward social processes is an important prerequisite for preventing future conflicts.
I would like to emphasize this, particularly in the context of the anniversary of the founding of the Ukrainian Peace Council—an organization that has, throughout its history, made significant contributions to preserving peace.
Education takes on special significance in creating conditions to prevent war. It is education that shapes the worldview of the younger generation, fosters critical thinking, respect for human dignity, responsibility for one’s own decisions, and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue. Without the development of education, science, and culture, it is impossible to build a society capable of effectively countering manifestations of aggression, radicalism, and intolerance.
The development of modern technologies must not be overlooked either. Artificial intelligence, digitalization, production automation, space exploration, and biotechnology open up vast prospects for humanity. However, their impact depends on the purpose for which they are used. Technology can contribute to economic development, improved quality of life, and international cooperation, but it can also become a tool for confrontation, information warfare, and waging war. That is why it is an extremely important task for the international community to develop common rules for the responsible use of cutting-edge technologies.
In my view, the main lesson of our time is the realization that security can no longer be based solely on military force. True peace is possible only when states strive not for dominance over one another but for cooperation, mutual respect, and compromise. It is precisely this approach that can ensure the stable development of human civilization in the 21st century.
The world today is indeed in a state of turbulence, but this does not mean that the future is doomed to constant conflict. Human history has repeatedly shown that after the most severe trials, new opportunities for development and cooperation have emerged. That is why preserving peace depends first and foremost on humanity’s ability to make the right choice—to choose the path of dialogue, mutual responsibility, and respect for universal human values, which remain the foundation of a stable and just world order.
Thus, in answering the question posed in the topic, we can conclude that peace in the 21st century is possible, but not guaranteed. Preserving it requires significant efforts from both individual states and the international community as a whole. Respect for international law, the development of diplomacy, the strengthening of international institutions, mutual trust, economic partnership, and the responsible use of modern technologies remain essential conditions.
Thank you for your attention.
Yuriy Mykolayovych Shcherbak.
Member of the Presidium of the Ukrainian Writers’ Union, writer,
publicist, academician of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Medical Sciences,
Professor, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, recipient of the T. G.
Shevchenko Prize (2025), veteran of the peacekeeping movement.
“Peace, Nuclear Safety, Independence”
Dear Mykhailo Zakharovych,
Dear colleagues, friends, and conference participants!
Our conference is taking place at a critical moment in world history.
The bloodthirsty Russian dictator Putin is intensifying his all-out genocidal war against Ukraine and threatening European NATO countries with an expansion of aggression and hybrid attacks.
A conflict is raging in the Middle East that could trigger a global energy crisis.
Significantly, in both theaters of war, nuclear threats are being made, and strikes are being carried out against nuclear facilities. The red lines of the pre-war era have been crossed. The world has come closer to a nuclear Armageddon.
It is no coincidence that on January 27, 2026, the Doomsday Clock in Chicago was set to the most dangerous mark in history—85 seconds to midnight. The ticking of this clock compels us to act today for the sake of the future, without forgetting the past chapters in the struggle against the nuclear threat.
I had the great honor of working with the Ukrainian Committee for the Defense of Peace, led by Oles Honchar, starting in 1985.
Although the Soviet peace movement operated under the control of the Communist Party and the KGB in the interests of the USSR’s foreign policy, it served the fundamental interests of society—to live in conditions of peace and nuclear safety.
The global nuclear disaster at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986 placed Ukraine at the center of the world’s attention, revealed the danger of nuclear facility accidents, gave rise to a powerful environmental resistance movement, and became one of the factors leading to Ukraine’s independence.
As part of the Ukrainian Committee for the Defense of Peace, we met in 1986 in Kyiv with IAEA leadership and expressed our protest and outrage at this UN agency’s policy of lies and double standards.
The Chornobyl disaster served as a warning to humanity about the dangers of nuclear facilities and the unacceptability of military operations near nuclear power plants.
Today, we see that the Russian aggressor is cynically ignoring these warnings by occupying the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and turning it into a military facility.
Dear colleagues, as a People’s Deputy of the USSR and a member of the Ukrainian peace movement, I participated in investigations into nuclear accidents at Russian military nuclear facilities in the Urals and had the honor of chairing the USSR Supreme Soviet commission on the closure of the nuclear test site in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan.
During those visits, when I saw the inner workings of this sinister machinery of war, I realized that Russia’s worship of the nuclear devil had turned into a veritable cult.
For Russian chauvinists, nuclear weapons have become an integral part of “pobedybesiya”—the arrogant conviction that Russia has the right to dictate its terms to other nations and impose the authority of the “Russian World.”
Nuclear weapons—the brainchild of Stalin, Beria, Kurchatov, and Sakharov—have become a tool for intimidating Ukraine, Europe, and the United States.
Putin and his henchmen constantly threaten Ukraine with the use of nuclear weapons, which, under international law, constitutes an act of nuclear terrorism.
I propose that our conference and the organizing organizations appeal to the International Criminal Court in The Hague to demand that the Russian nuclear terrorists, capable of committing a crime against humanity, be brought to justice. The names of this criminal trio are well known: Putin, Lavrov, and Medvedev.
Our voice is the voice of millions of Ukrainians, and it must be heard on the international stage.
I also propose that we reach out to and establish a partnership with the prestigious international organization “International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War” (IPPNW), headquartered in Boston, USA, and Geneva, Switzerland. This organization includes 56 countries worldwide. As a doctor, I once participated in the organization’s activities, telling the truth about the Chornobyl disaster.
I am convinced that our voice—the voice of the Ukrainian Peace Council—is heard around the world—just think of our statements at the UN—but it must be heard even louder.
Dear friends,
In the face of the bloody Russian aggression by a nuclear power against non-nuclear Ukraine, the very definition of peace has, in my view, changed fundamentally.
I fully agree with the view expressed today by Mykhailo Zakharovych Zgurovsky. We are not abstract pacifists who fail to see the difference between an aggressor and its victim.
We are an integral part of our heroic people, who are fighting for freedom and independence.
We will not surrender for the sake of an illusory peace.
For us, peace means guaranteed security and the absence of nuclear threats.
Ukrainian peace means the powerful and invincible Armed Forces of Ukraine.
It is our unity, our loyalty to the legacy of the founding fathers of the peace movement.
Our peace means bringing Russian war criminals to justice—those who use nuclear blackmail to achieve their criminal goals.
Friends, the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian peace movement is only the beginning of an endless journey.
New trials and new challenges await our descendants and us.
We will overcome them. We will prevail.
Glory to Ukraine!
Viktor Petrovich ANDRUSHCHENKO.
Member of the Presidium of the Ukrainian Peace Council,
Rector of the Mykhailo Dragomanov National University of Ukraine, Academician of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Corresponding Member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor.
“Humanity in the Face of Contemporary Civilizational Challenges: Peace as a Development Strategy”
Dear colleagues!
Thank you for inviting me to participate in the anniversary session of the Ukrainian Peace Council and for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the development of the key factor in shaping a peace-loving consciousness among people—the education system, both in Ukraine and in the broader European context. Speaking about education in the presence of several former Ministers of Education and Science of Ukraine is an extremely difficult and weighty responsibility. After all, they—esteemed Petro Talanchuk, Mykhailo Zgurovsky, Vasyl Kremen, and Stanislav
Dovgyi—along with scholars, educators, and colleagues from
the ministerial corps—not only laid the foundations for the educational
policy of Independent Ukraine, but also outlined the prospects
for its development at least through the first half of the 21st century.
It was precisely at their initiative that one of the main directions of the development
of Ukrainian education—even during the Cold War—was defined
the narrative of strengthening its peacemaking foundations and fostering
a love of peace. And although this narrative was implemented on a dubious
spiritual basis, the slogan “peace-labor-prosperity” fulfilled its ideological
function.
Today, this narrative has taken on particular relevance and
significance. Russia’s criminal war against Ukraine, the numerous
casualties, and the destruction of critical infrastructure, which
continues, places it at the center of educational policy and
beyond. Everyone is talking about peace and peacefulness these days—
writers and poets, politicians and diplomats, scholars and educators
practitioners, and most importantly, ordinary people—the primary agents and
creator of civilization and culture.
Much has been accomplished in the past. Education in an independent
Ukraine seems to have taken shape as a civilizational phenomenon.
However, the problem persists. And not only because of the war. In life,
Various changes are taking place, from global warming
to the energy crisis, from political controversy
to widespread public dissatisfaction with politics and
politicians, from the threat of famine to the worsening psychological
instability among certain world leaders.
New generations of young people are entering society, asserting
themselves through new needs and expectations, a desire for
a higher quality of life or, conversely, a threatening
withdrawal from the real world.
An education system that satisfied everyone just a decade ago is
is now “falling apart at the seams.” Scholars and educators
are putting forward more and more proposals for its reform, yet
in almost every country—and in Ukraine in particular
, there is a lack not only of funds but also of will—especially
among those in power.
The most acute and pressing problem for the world
as a whole, the problem of ending the war, the peaceful
world order, and the role of the main manifestations of what is
so-called “soft power”—science, culture, and education. Within
Within the time allotted, I will outline the current
issues regarding the establishment and development of peace education during
the military and post-military periods of modern history.
The first and foremost task for Ukraine and the European
region today is to end the war and
establishing peace, at least within the European region.
Domestic and international analysts are pinning
their hopes are primarily on effective weapons. Many
preference to international sanctions, diplomatic
agreements between major powers. More radically
Politicians stress the need for
Putin’s physical removal, predicting decline and, subsequently,
the collapse of Russia. Believers rely on God.
The conclusion is that the fate of civilization is being decided right now
and that we must unite against an arrogant enemy,
act as a united front, with a single will, and with full mobilization
human, material, military, and spiritual resources are
correct and timely. There is also no doubt that
Education plays a fundamental role in this process.
People live the way they think, and … they think the way they
live. Education, science, and culture shape consciousness,
feelings, will, and nurture values—which, like those “invisible
demons,” determine fateful choices, ways of thinking, and
actions, elevate a person or cast them into the abyss
of civilizational uncertainty.
“Man is the measure of all things,” the
The famous ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras (c. 481 —
c. 411 B.C.E.). It is precisely the human being who must stand at the center
our reflections, our philosophical and prognostic explorations, and
proposals, as well as effective practical transformations.
So, when asked what the world and education should be like during
during wartime and in the postwar period of societal development,
There can be only one answer—they must be human-centered,
rational, orderly, and therefore—
life-affirming and peace-promoting. The idea of peace is that
invisible unifying force that inspires nations
and cultures, inspiring them to cooperation, mutual respect, and
solidarity.
It is here that the new historical mission of modern
science, education, and culture. Its essence lies in nurturing
the human being as a human being, fostering their need to live in peace, harmony, and
cooperation, to love one’s fellow human beings and the whole world, for, as
the great Dante, it is love that “moves the sun and the stars.”
This idea, of course, is not new. However, it is now reinforced
by narratives of the threat of nuclear weapons use and, consequently,
the destruction of humanity as a civilization. A conscious and strong
unification of the world’s peoples for the sake of peace not only brings
the victory of good over evil, but also affirms the prospect
the preservation and deepening of humanity’s civilizational progress.
What, then, are the primary narratives we incorporate into
the concepts of “peace” and “peace education,” and what practical
must innovations we introduce into the system to bring this about?
To formulate an answer to this question, we must mobilize.
the best intellectual and practical resources, create
a new strategy for education, and convince everyone that there is simply no other
path for humanity than peacemaking simply does not exist.
We must all understand that:
First, peace is not only the absence of war, but also
a model for organizing life without violence, cruelty,
or the use of force, and education must convince people that
the continuation of life and the existence of humanity are possible only through
the narratives of truth, goodness, and beauty;
Second, peace is a model of life in the unity of the world
cultures, which are shaped by reason and labor,
first and foremost, through enlightenment. The task of peace education in
this context is to strengthen the conviction that
of every culture to be unique, and through an understanding
that uniqueness, to foster an attitude of perceiving them as
equal and valuable for communication and cooperation;
Third, peace is the conviction that work is necessary to
ensures human well-being and a comfortable existence.
It is also characteristic that this life attitude is most
effectively fostered through education. Peace education must therefore
be built on the authority of labor and creativity, as a
counterbalance narratives of plunder, conquest, and
plunder;
fourth, peace is the high spirituality of people, which
is instilled in a child’s character first by parents,
enriched by the experience of civil society,
refined through education, and—most importantly—
upbringing;
Fifth, peace education is built on
a combination of high rationality and profound sensitivity,
which affirms the ideal of the human being as a harmonious individual. Its
binding foundations are faith, hope, and love;
Sixth, peace is the people’s ability to defend themselves
its own people, lands, and culture against any encroachments
by the enemy. Peace education in this context unfolds within
the paradigm of humanistic militarism—the fusion of convictions
regarding the necessity of manufacturing defensive weapons and, at the same time,
the cultivation of high moral standards, the strengthening of the authority of the word,
and the establishment of barriers to counter hostile ideological influences.
Peace-building education is the teaching and upbringing of people
to live in peace and cooperation, with mutual respect, within
a system of civilizational solidarity. The implementation
peace education is an imperative of our dramatic times,
and the historical mission of our generation.
And here the question arises again: Is the current education system.
to carry out this mission? In my view, not entirely, not in every respect, and
for everyone. We need a new educational strategy; we need
substantive innovations and cutting-edge educational methods,
the task of creating and implementing, which, once again,
rest on our shoulders.
Constant interstate conflicts, the horrific and boundless
accumulation of weapons of mass destruction, and even more so—
Russia’s senseless war against Ukraine—all demand that humanity
a new way of thinking and acting. And these must be peace-building.
Education is simply obligated to convince everyone: peace builds,
war kills. Humanity must become wiser, and the primary
factor in its intellectual growth must be
science, culture, and education—particularly peace-building education. And we—it's
supporters—must become the founders and leaders in
the present and future world.
This is precisely the historic mission of our generation,
the first and primary task of the Ukrainian Peace Council, which
is taking responsibility for this initiative, not only
for Ukraine but also for civilization.
Thank you for your attention.
Volodymyr Dmytrovych NOVOKHATSKYI.
Member of the Presidium of the Ukrainian Peace Council, Vice Chair—Director
of the UCP, Candidate of Political Sciences, Ambassador for Peace, veteran of the peacekeeping movement.
“Leonid Kravchuk and the Ukrainian Peace Council: The Moral Dimension of Leadership.”
Dear Mykhailo Zakharovych!
Distinguished participants in this solemn session!
Today, we are commemorating a historic event—the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Peace Council. For everyone whose fate is intertwined with it, this is more than just an anniversary. It is an opportunity to reflect on the path the organization has taken and to pay tribute to the people who, through their work, authority, and moral responsibility, shaped its history and defined the mission of this distinguished civic institution.
Seventy-five years span the history of several generations. During this time, states, social systems, and international relations have changed, but the most important thing has remained constant—people’s desire to live in peace and harmony, to uphold humanistic values, and to foster a culture of peace, mutual respect, dialogue, and cooperation.
Throughout its history, the Peace Council—despite historical changes, various stages of development, and shifts in organizational forms—has worked in the interests of citizens, to strengthen social harmony, and to foster international humanitarian ties and civil society. Evolving alongside the state, it has remained steadfastly true to its primary mission—to serve the people, society, and Ukraine.
Today, we view the history of the Ukrainian Peace Council as a single, unbroken tradition. Each stage had its own distinctive features and responded to the challenges of its time. That is why we gratefully remember those who, over the years, led the Ukrainian Committee for the Defense of Peace and later the Ukrainian Peace Council, and who stood at the origins of this peace-building organization.
Among them were Academician Mykola Semenko, Academician Vasyl Komissarenko, the outstanding writer and public figure Oles Honchar, Academicians, President of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR Oleksandr Palladin,President of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Boris Paton, renowned writers Leonid Pervomaisky and Nathan Rybak, poet and academician Maksym Rylsky, Pavlo Tychyna, the outstanding actress Natalia Uzhviy, and other prominent figures in Ukraine.
They differed in their professions and life experiences, but they were united by a sense of profound responsibility toward society. It was they who laid the ethical foundations of the organization, which remain its greatest asset to this day.
The restoration of Ukraine’s independence also marked a new historical phase for our organization. We faced the crucial task of preserving the best achievements of the past while simultaneously establishing ourselves as a modern, independent civil society institution.
During this pivotal period, a leader was needed who could combine a statesmanlike mindset, international standing, political wisdom, profound humanism, and unquestionable moral authority.
That is why, in 1997, the Ukrainian Peace Council approached Leonid Makarovich Kravchuk, the first president of independent Ukraine, to lead the organization.
It was not an easy decision. It was a strategic choice that shaped the Ukrainian Peace Council's future development for a quarter of a century.
Leonid Makarovych’s personal authority was directed not toward his own self-promotion, but toward strengthening the institution itself, its public trust, international standing, and social influence.
As the first President of independent Ukraine and one of the founders of Ukrainian statehood, he was held in high esteem both in Ukraine and far beyond its borders.
However, it was not only his political experience that was most valuable. Leonid Makarovich brought to the Peace Council a unique culture of dialogue, respect for the individual, a statesman's responsibility, and a deep conviction that peace is, above all, a matter of values.
For him, peace never meant merely the absence of war. It was grounded in truth, justice, freedom, mutual trust, responsibility to society, and respect for human dignity.
Peace was not a sign of weakness, but a testament to political wisdom, strength of spirit, and responsibility toward his own people.
Leonid Kravchuk understood well that the young state was in a zone of heightened historical responsibility. For Ukraine, peace did not mean passivity or neutrality at any cost, but rather the ability to make difficult decisions while preserving dignity and sovereignty. This was not a renunciation of national interests, but the path to their civilized defense.
This understanding of peace became the value foundation for the activities of the Ukrainian Peace Council. It defined its moral guidelines, the development of public diplomacy and international dialogue, and the establishment of Ukraine as a responsible member of the global community.
It is precisely these principles that have become the foundation for a new stage in the development of the Ukrainian Peace Council, one inextricably linked to the name of Leonid Makarovich Kravchuk.
For twenty-five years—from 1997 to 2022—Leonid Makarovich Kravchuk headed the Ukrainian Peace Council. It was during this period that the Council took on a new character, significantly strengthened its authority both in Ukraine and abroad, and established itself as an influential institution of civil society and an important participant in public diplomacy.
Under his leadership, the Peace Council not only continued its long-standing activities but also developed its own Ukrainian identity, preserving its historical continuity while definitively establishing itself as a modern, independent civil society organization of democratic Ukraine,transforming from a structure that carried the legacy of the Soviet era into a center that consistently defends Ukraine’s national interests, guided by the principles of democracy, humanism, freedom, and international partnership.
This transformation required strategic vision, political wisdom, and personal responsibility. It was necessary to maintain international contacts while infusing them with new meaning, to renew the foundations of its activities and its system of partnerships, and to establish the Peace Council as an independent voice of Ukrainian civil society.
Leonid Makarovich was convinced that the Ukrainian Peace Council should be an actor in civil society, an autonomous public institution—independent of state structures, yet at the same time a reliable partner of the state in shaping peacebuilding policy, fostering a moral space for public dialogue, developing public diplomacy, and strengthening Ukraine’s international standing in the world.
It was precisely the statesmanlike stature of Leonid Makarovich Kravchuk that made such a profound transformation of the organization possible, while preserving its historical continuity and ushering in a new stage of development.
These achievements had a very concrete dimension.
During Leonid Makarovych’s chairmanship, the Ukrainian Peace Council significantly intensified its international activities, expanded cooperation with authoritative peacekeeping and civil society organizations worldwide, and consistently represented Ukraine at international forums, conferences, and humanitarian projects. Its voice was heard with increasing confidence in the international peace movement, and the organization itself established itself as one of Ukraine’s most authoritative actors in public diplomacy.
However, the most important achievement of this period was not merely organizational strengthening. The Ukrainian Peace Council’s high moral authority, based on consistency, responsibility, and openness to dialogue, was firmly established.
Those who were fortunate enough to work alongside Leonid Makarovich remember him as a man of great refinement, wisdom, and exceptional respect for others. He knew how to listen attentively, was not quick to jump to definitive conclusions, and sought mutual understanding rather than confrontation. He did not impose his views through authority but convinced others with the strength of his arguments; he did not divide but united people.
These personal qualities also defined his leadership style at the Ukrainian Peace Council. They fostered an atmosphere of trust, mutual respect, and responsibility—without which neither public service nor genuine peacemaking is possible.
Looking back on this twenty-five-year period, we can confidently say that the Ukrainian Peace Council has become not only a respected civic organization but also a moral authority within Ukrainian civil society and an important participant in international dialogue and public diplomacy.
It is precisely Leonid Kravchuk’s spiritual legacy—his statesmanlike thinking, humanism, culture of dialogue, responsibility to society, and commitment to the principles of peace—that has become one of the Ukrainian Peace Council’s most valuable assets.
As we mark the organization’s 75th anniversary, we realize that we are honoring not only the Peace Council's history but also the tradition of moral leadership embodied by its leaders, who shaped and strengthened the organization’s humanistic authority.
Today, the Ukrainian Peace Council is headed by Mykhailo Zgurovsky, an academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine—an outstanding Ukrainian scholar who enjoys significant international recognition and who is worthily continuing the traditions of his predecessors, strengthening the organization’s authority in Ukraine and on the international stage.
The responsibility for continuing these traditions now rests with us as well. The future of the Ukrainian Peace Council, its public standing, and its significance for future generations depend on our commitment to the principles of humanism, peace, justice, and service to Ukraine.
Generations change, historical circumstances change, but the values upon which the Ukrainian Peace Council is founded remain unchanged: human dignity, freedom, justice, responsibility, and peace.
It is precisely these values that constitute the most precious legacy of our predecessors, a moral compass for our contemporaries, and a testament for future generations. Herein lies the true moral dimension of Leonid Makarovych Kravchuk’s leadership. Herein lies the strength and historical mission of the Ukrainian Peace Council.
Thank you for your attention.
Glory to Ukraine!