Since mid-February, there have been renewed efforts to end the war in Ukraine. Preliminary negotiations have focused on ceasefires and short-term concessions rather than long-term solutions that could bring sustainable peace to Ukraine. Yet even at this stage of negotiations, some Ukrainian peacebuilders are emphasizing the importance of listening to people living on both sides of the contact line between Ukrainian-controlled and Russian-occupied areas. Any ceasefire or peace agreement that does not include this local perspective will be less sustainable.

In this interview, Nina Potarska discusses the importance of a human-centered peace process. Nina Potarska is Co-founder and Director of the Center for Social and Labor Research, and Ukraine National Coordinator—Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. She is also a member of the Ukrainian Women’s Network for Dialogue and Enduring Peace, a network of women peacebuilders and humanitarian aid leaders from across Ukraine and both sides of the contact line that was founded in 2015.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Where we are right now in the negotiations, there’s not really a peace process yet; it’s more at the stage of negotiations on ceasefires or short-term concessions. What are you looking or advocating for in these preliminary negotiations?

We are not even at the beginning of the beginning. Currently, we are at a stage where there is hope, but this hope is very foggy. Our task is to continue trying to bring a human-centered agenda to the negotiating table, even though it may seem unconvincing compared to political and economic arguments. It is still unclear what will happen, but I hope that the sides will be able to continue the current exchanges of proposals. There is a lot of work ahead to build trust. One step is to include the experience of humanitarian organizations in the negotiations. These organizations have been interacting across the front line for more than ten years, through exchanges of children, prisoners of war, and humanitarian aid. They have established communication channels, trust, cooperation, and relationships. This can serve as a foundation for developing more stable and trusting relationships between the negotiating parties.

It is also very important at this stage to conduct consultations with civil society and experts. Local residents of specific communities know best what they need in the context of a ceasefire. It is crucial to consider their opinions, as this helps to build trust and a sense of involvement in the peace process. For example, how to live in the buffer zone, how to pass checkpoints, and how to organize logistics—those who face these problems are the best informed about them. Therefore, we want to facilitate the circulation of these needs from the bottom up.

This speaks to your advocacy for a human-centered peace process in Ukraine. Could you talk about what you mean by a human-centered peace process and why that’s important?

A human-centered peace process means putting the needs, concerns, and voices of ordinary people at the heart of negotiations and peace agreements. It is important because, in many cases, negotiations tend to focus primarily on political issues, which often do not lead to a stable or lasting peace. By prioritizing the experiences and priorities of those most affected—listening to their needs and understanding what they want to achieve—we can develop more meaningful and sustainable solutions. Our approach involves collecting people’s needs and concerns through various analytical methods, such as interviews, and ensuring that these voices are included in the negotiations. This helps create a peace process that is more inclusive, genuine, and capable of building long-term stability.

Without a human-centered approach, you focus on the needs of the majority rather than those most affected by what is happening. When donors decide to provide assistance, if they focus on the needs of the majority, such support will be much less effective than if they target the most vulnerable groups of people. It is within our power to facilitate the communication process between negotiation tracks by conducting surveys, interviews, and focus groups so that their needs are reflected in the text of ceasefire and peace agreements.

One of the things you’ve advocated for is dialogue between different communities, including across the contact line. Could you talk about why you think that’s important and how you could facilitate that type of dialogue?

We have a very disconnected information space. We don’t know how our friends on the other side are living, and we have almost no news exchange. We only find out what’s happening on the other side through personal communication. But one thing is certain: we all suffer. Perhaps in different ways, but we need to put an end to it. We all suffer from shelling, from the inability to move freely across the country, from losing friends and loved ones, and from not being able to communicate with each other because we can’t guarantee a future for our children. We need to sit down together, talk, and figure out how we can live together moving forward—while preserving each other’s dignity and safety.

This approach to intercommunity dialogue is also reflected in your network, which includes women peacebuilders from all parts of Ukraine, including parts that are currently occupied by Russia. What are some of the challenges you’ve faced as a network of peacebuilders that includes women from such a wide variety of backgrounds?

The biggest challenge is that we face risks and threats just to maintain contact with one another. Both sides could accuse us of espionage or collaboration or simply discredit us, which often happens.

Talking about peace in Ukraine can be sensitive, as there’s a divide in the public over whether Ukraine should pursue peace by negotiating with Russia. How do you respond to people who tell you it’s not the time to be talking about peace?

When people talk about peace, everyone has their own understanding of what it means. Some simply refer to a ceasefire, others to the return of territories or to going back to life as it was before the war started. In any case, it is a very painful conversation that requires acknowledging the lack of resources and dependence on external aid. But even when starting a conversation about peace, we move into yet another difficult area—that of security guarantees. There is no clear consensus here either, as we will have to deal with compromises.

Ukraine has a National Action Plan for women, peace, and security that commits to many of the principles you’re advocating for, like the equal participation of women and men in decision making on conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and post-conflict recovery. How much do you see the Ukrainian government following through on the commitments in this National Action Plan?

Sometimes there’s a contradiction between the content of the plan and the shape it takes. Indeed, there is a plan, and there are talks, there are groups, there are even dedicated budgets for it. But if we look at the visible and meaningful participation of women, it’s not always clear who takes part in those. Who are those women? What groups do they represent? Does this framework that has been established give voice to the women who should be heard? If the woman who is present at the table behaves as any other man and doesn’t represent the interests of women, is it any good? If we just add more women to the table to mix things up, then we shouldn’t be surprised there is no actual result.

Nonetheless, these plans should be there, even if only at the rhetorical level, to remind local communities that women, peace, and security should be part of their work.

There are a lot of women in Ukraine already active in peacebuilding, even if they might not be included in track one processes. Could you share an example of some of the work women peacebuilders in Ukraine have been involved in over the past few years?

Broadly speaking, all activities related to reducing conflict and tension within communities at any level can be called peacebuilding. This includes dialogues between internally displaced persons and local communities, dialogues between authorities and civil society, and discussions on humanitarian issues. These dialogues can take place both at the regional level and between countries. Unfortunately, I cannot list specific examples or organizations, but all these processes have been ongoing for the past ten years, since the beginning of the war in Donbas.

The Ukrainian Women’s Network for Dialogue and Enduring Peace has existed for ten years—almost since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. How did this network begin, and how has it evolved?

It all started with my research looking into how women adapt and survive in times of crisis: “War and the Transformation of Everyday Life: A Women’s Perspective.” I began to meet with women’s organizations, first in the government-controlled parts of Ukraine and then in the occupied territories. As a result, I ended up with a lot of contacts for various women. We stayed in touch and realized we all had a lot in common. They all agreed they couldn’t carry on like this, that they needed to build some kind of common communication.

Then we asked a woman who was working for a foundation in Ukraine to develop an organizational map, which gave us an opportunity to bring women together from different parts of Ukraine, including the occupied parts, to discuss issues related to the war. This was during the talks in Minsk, and some women wanted to go there to pressure the negotiators, but I wanted to ensure that we were better prepared. We started meeting more frequently, and we asked ourselves, “How can we, as women who are involved in humanitarian work, who are leaders of our respective communities, how can we gain more visibility and enhance our voice?” When we started out, we had no idea what we wanted because we did not have specialized knowledge. We did not know where we were going. But over the past ten years, we have each developed specializations, some of us in peacemaking, others in mediation or dialogues, and others in humanitarian assistance.

The biggest challenge was that we represented two sides of the front line, because ultimately it was our family members who were at war with each other. It was our men who were shooting at each other. And, understanding that, we needed to come to the realization that what was going on was not something that any of us wanted. No one wanted the conflict, so we needed to find strength to overcome our differences, to overcome our egos, to overcome our fears, and to try to develop something.

You’re here in New York talking to diplomats at the UN. If you had one goal for what you’d want someone to take away from their conversation with you, what would that to be?

We may seem like these insane, crazy women who don’t realize that the war is actually over money, resources, and power. But let me tell you, we do understand that. But for us, human relations, nonviolence, lack of hatred—that’s the path to the future. That is what can help us achieve a safe future where we can all live together. Maybe to achieve that, we all will have to give up our respective ambitions, fears, and maybe even pride. We should do that in order to survive as human beings. War dehumanizes people. It takes away our personalities. We should work to create a space that will make it possible for us to find a way back to human-centered life.