How do we talk about civilians whose lives were taken by the war? Who should decide how they are remembered? And should we begin this conversation now, while the war is still ongoing?
Throughout the “Dignity and Memory: Recognition of Civilian Victims of War” project, supported by the International Renaissance Foundation, we sought answers to these questions together with communities. To do this, the team of the Institute for Peace and Common Ground drew on an approach it has worked with for many years — dialogue.
On 10 September, we presented the results of this work and discussed what we had seen in practice: where dialogue can genuinely help a community, where its boundaries lie, and why working with memory is about much more than discussing a future memorial.
For IPCG, this work did not begin from scratch. Back in 2015–2016, the team worked with communities facing difficult questions around commemorating fallen service members: how the community wanted to remember them, what their families needed, and what dignified commemoration should look like. Following the full-scale invasion, we gradually began working more with the memory of civilian victims of war.
After a tragedy, people often begin creating memory themselves: they bring flowers, candles, children’s toys, and leave objects at the place where people were killed. It is a natural need — to express sympathy, support one another, and show that the person and what happened to them have not gone unnoticed.
But when the question becomes what should happen next, there may be no single answer. For some, it is important that the names of those who were killed appear at the site. Others want to plant trees. Some want the site of the tragedy to remain untouched, while for others it is important to create something new there.
As Alona Horova, co-author of the methodology, said during the presentation:
“It is very important to understand what expectations people have, what they are striving for, what they actually want.”
This is where dialogue is needed — to see different expectations and positions and to make space for different voices.
One of the difficult questions that accompanied this work was: should we even be talking about remembrance now? The war is ongoing, and communities face countless urgent challenges, so it may seem that this conversation should be postponed until later.
“Remembrance is something that happens anyway, one way or another. It happens spontaneously, intuitively.”
Memory will not suddenly begin to take shape on some designated day in the future. It is already being formed — through the way people talk about a tragedy, the stories they tell, and what they pass on. Over time, details and testimonies are lost. That is why it is important to create conditions in which working with memory can support people and the connections within a community
As part of the project, we worked with four communities in Chernihiv, Sumy, Poltava, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts. These were different places, with different experiences of war and different tragedies.
This experience once again showed that there is no universal scenario for remembrance that can simply be brought into a community and implemented. The methodology must be adapted to the specific community, its people, and their needs. Dialogue creates a space in which answers can gradually emerge.
At the same time, it is important to understand the boundaries of this format. Dialogue is not therapy, although the work must be trauma-sensitive. It is not reconciliation or forgiveness. Nor is it a meeting after which a community must necessarily come away with a ready-made decision about a memorial.
Alona describes it this way:
“Dialogue is more about understanding yourself, understanding what this experience meant to me, how I can move forward from it, what resources I can rely on, and how I feel this experience should be remembered and acknowledged.”
Perhaps one of the project’s most important conclusions is that working with memory is not only about the past. It affects how we live together right now.
When a community has an opportunity to talk about a difficult experience, hear different positions, and look for points of connection, what Alona calls common ground gradually begins to take shape.
“Actively shaping memory is one of those underestimated yet truly incredibly powerful tools […] for building a strong foundation, a common ground.”
This does not mean that everyone will agree after a single conversation. But the process itself can help build connections and trust between people.
“It is about building strong relationships of trust within our communities. And it is about building resilience, about enabling and making possible the resilience of ourselves and our communities during this period.”
Memory is created together with those who have experienced loss. In this way, it can become not only a means of preserving history, but also a way of acknowledging people’s experiences, supporting the community, and creating common ground for how we will live together in the future.
Watch the recording of the project results presentation
View the “Memory made Together” presentation
The “Dignity and Memory: Recognition of Civilian Victims of War” project is implemented by the Institute for Peace and Common Ground with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation.