RESCOM Learning Lab II: Culture Under Threat: Partnerships, Risks and Opportunities in Ukraine’s Regions
Culture Under Threat: Ukrainian Perspectives at the Cultural Pearls Network Conference in Płock
On 17–18 September in Płock, Poland, IZOLYATSIA took part in the Cultural Pearls Network Conference (RESCOM Learning Lab II), contributing Ukrainian perspectives to a broader European discussion on culture, resilience, and community development in times of crisis. One of the central moments of the conference was the panel discussion “Culture Under Threat: Partnerships, Risks and Opportunities in Ukraine’s Regions”, which brought together representatives of Ukrainian municipalities, civil society, and displaced communities.
Moderated by Tetyana Semchuk (Rivne Regional State Administration) and Mykhailo Glubokyi (Development Director, IZOLYATSIA), the discussion focused on how war has fundamentally reshaped the meaning, conditions, and responsibilities of cultural work in Ukraine.
Culture under war: vulnerability and resilience
Panelists from different regions of Ukraine shared experiences shaped by very different security realities. Oleh Volskyi, Mayor of Zhovkva (Lviv region), spoke about the role of rear regions as shelters for displaced people, while also addressing the growing pressure on local resources and infrastructure.
From the occupied south, Ielizaveta Ievseieva (Nova Kakhovka, Kherson region) described the suppression of cultural life under occupation and the importance of informal, underground, and memory-based practices as forms of resistance.
Olena Khmelnyk (Agency for City Development, Rivne) highlighted culture as a key driver of civic unity and local pride, even in regions relatively distant from the frontline. Olena Boiko (Okhtyrka, Sumy region) reflected on rebuilding cultural identity after bombardments, emphasizing grassroots initiatives emerging despite destroyed infrastructure.
The voice of displacement was represented by Iryna Herasymchuk, speaking on behalf of Chmerivka village in Luhansk region, now in exile. She addressed the fragile conditions in which displaced communities try to preserve traditions and social ties outside their home territories. From the NGO perspective, Kateryna Stets (IZOLYATSIA) spoke about the role of civil society in creating cultural platforms when local institutions are damaged or no longer functioning.
The discussion was further enriched by perspectives presented during the Learning Lab sessions, including contributions from Alina Oliinyk, co-founder and project manager of Bakota Hub, a cultural and educational space that hosts art residencies, rehabilitation camps for veterans and their families, and integration programmes for internally displaced people. Working at the intersection of culture, education, and social support, Alina collaborates with several Ukrainian NGOs and initiatives, focusing on social cohesion, empowerment of vulnerable groups, and strengthening local communities through creative practice. With a background in classical music and education, her work exemplifies how structured cultural approaches can support long-term community resilience and recovery in times of war.
Partnerships in wartime: red lines and responsibilities
The second part of the discussion focused on cultural partnerships in times of war. Panelists agreed that cooperation cannot be politically neutral under conditions of aggression. Any form of collaboration involving Russian institutions or actors was identified as unacceptable. Instead, participants stressed the importance of strengthening partnerships between Ukrainian communities, European institutions, and civil society networks.
A recurring theme was the need for partnerships that produce tangible, locally grounded impact rather than symbolic or extractive projects. Tokenism was named as a significant risk: cultural initiatives must be based on real needs and security considerations, not on external expectations or simplified narratives of resilience.
Different security realities, shared cultural responsibility
The final round addressed the stark differences between frontline, occupied, liberated, rear, and exile contexts. Life-threatening risks for cultural workers in occupied or frontline regions coexist with challenges of integration and sustainability in safer cities hosting internally displaced people. Participants emphasized that international partners must understand these differences when designing support mechanisms and cultural programmes.
In his concluding remarks, Mykhailo Glubokyi underlined that “culture under threat” is ultimately about maintaining connections between people, places, and memories despite fragmentation caused by war. Tetyana Semchuk summarized the discussion with three key takeaways: culture in Ukraine is both deeply vulnerable and remarkably resilient; partnerships must be built on solidarity rather than compromise; and despite radically different security conditions, culture continues to bridge frontline and rear, displacement and home.
The panel in Płock became not only a space for testimony, but also a reminder that cultural work in Ukraine today is inseparable from questions of security, ethics, and long-term responsibility — for local communities, for partners, and for Europe as a whole.