Think Tank Results

Date: March 5th, 2026 Location: University College London Topic: How to Eliminate Russian Language and Culture in Ukraine UA.Youth has continued its series of youth-led policy discussions exploring the key challenges shaping Ukraine’s future. This session examined whether it is possible to completely eliminate Russian language and culture in Ukraine. The discussion underscored the complexity of the situation, highlighting weak resilience of Ukrainians towards Russian culture and propaganda. We express our gratitude to University College London and to Birkbeck, University of London’s Ukrainian Societies for their assistance in organising this event. Key Findings Russian Language: Despite the ongoing war, Russian remains in routine use for many citizens across Ukraine. This creates a complex policy challenge: language use is not only a matter of identity and culture, but also one with potential implications for national resilience and information security. The Ukrainian government is therefore likely to continue strengthening the role of the Ukrainian language in public life, including through closer oversight of existing language regulations in educational institutions and other public-facing settings. At the same time, any further measures will need to be calibrated carefully. Overly coercive approaches could be interpreted as discriminatory toward Russian-speaking communities or national minorities, potentially generating legal and political concerns in the context of Ukraine’s European integration. For that reason, policies aimed at reducing the public role of Russian should remain consistent with European legal standards and framed as part of a broader state-building and security strategy rather than as punitive language enforcement. Russian Cultural Influence: Russian cultural content continues to retain significant reach in Ukraine, particularly among younger audiences. This is reflected in the popularity of Russian-language music and other media on major streaming platforms and digital channels. In addition, platforms such as Telegram remain important vectors for the dissemination of Russian cultural and informational content. For Ukrainian policymakers, this raises a broader question of cultural resilience in wartime: how to limit the influence of content linked to the Russian state or pro-war actors while avoiding overly expansive restrictions that may prove impractical or politically counterproductive. One potential approach would be to focus restrictions more narrowly on artists and producers who actively support the Russian regime or remain embedded in its state-aligned cultural space, while simultaneously investing more heavily in the promotion and visibility of Ukrainian-language music, media, and cultural production across the same platforms. Proposals for a blanket ban on Telegram would likely be seen as disproportionate given the platform’s widespread everyday use in Ukraine. A more targeted strategy would be to strengthen monitoring and, where legally justified, restrict channels that systematically promote pro-Russian narratives, Russian state propaganda, or content undermining Ukraine’s cultural and informational sovereignty. Role of Ukrainian Civil Society: Because the Ukrainian government must balance national security concerns with European legal and political standards, civil society has an especially important role to play in consolidating the use of Ukrainian and reducing reliance on Russian-language spaces. This places considerable weight on individual and community-level choices: speaking Ukrainian in daily interactions, prioritising Ukrainian cultural products, and establishing social expectations that normalise Ukrainian as the default language of public life. For many Ukrainians, using Ukrainian domestically and avoiding Russian abroad can also serve as a symbolic marker of political identity and civic solidarity. From a policy perspective, this bottom-up dimension is critical, as lasting language change is more credible and sustainable when it emerges through social norms and civic agency rather than coercion alone. Conclusion The discussion concluded that, under present conditions, an elimination of Russian language and culture in Ukraine is unlikely to be achieved through the governmental initiatives alone. By taking into account Ukraine’s European aspirations, the government is limited in their actions regarding Russian language, so there should be a public consensus against the usage of it inside of Ukraine, and among Ukrainians living abroad. In this context, Ukraine will be able to raise a Ukrainian-speaking generation, which will be more resilient to the Russian culture and propaganda, which will allow for the Ukrainians to shift further from Russian influence. UA.Youth will continue to facilitate open, informed dialogue among young Ukrainians in the UK, contributing to a broader vision of a democratic, resilient, and united Ukraine.

Diplomats Listen Up: Who Will Be The Next Stoltenberg? As world leaders debate the terms for peace in Ukraine and policymakers gather to shape Europe’s security future, youth organisations across Europe and Ukraine urge diplomats to act with clarity, resolve, and responsibility. This moment demands leadership – not symbolism. Recent media reports suggest some EU governments are considering appointing a special negotiator to engage with Vladimir Putin, driven by fears that Ukraine’s future could be decided without Europe at the table. These concerns are not new, but leadership under pressure matters.  Facing War, the documentary following Jens Stoltenberg’s final years as NATO Secretary General, shows that diplomacy only works when grounded in principles, deterrence, and unity. Europe does not need a negotiator who normalises aggression or trades away long-term security for short-term calm. It needs leadership willing to defend a just and durable peace. The situation in Ukraine is worsening: renewed strikes, deepening insecurity, and rising psychological strain on civilians. Ukrainian youth face disrupted education, displacement, and deep psychological harm. Under Russian occupation, many endure forced re-education, cultural erasure, deportation, and the risk of coerced mobilisation. These are daily realities, not distant threats.  Any European diplomatic initiative must therefore strengthen Ukraine’s position, not constrain it. As young people across Europe, we call on diplomats to ensure that any special negotiator or peace framework is guided by the following principles: An unstable Ukraine endangers young people across Europe. Our futures, rights, and livelihoods depend on decisions being made now. The Budapest Memorandum showed the cost of weak security assurances: promises were broken, and aggression followed. Europe cannot repeat that mistake. As the generation that will live longest with the consequences, we urge leaders to choose deterrence over denial, principles over performative diplomacy, and lasting peace over temporary fixes Co-authored by Rebirth Ukraine, UA.Youth C.I.C., and supported by Think-Film Impact Production If you wish to sign this letter, simply drop us an email on team@uayouth.uk  

Date: November 19th, 2025 Location: University College London Topic: Achieving a Just Peace Through Diplomacy The Ukrainian Youth Organisation has continued its series of youth-led policy discussions exploring the key challenges shaping Ukraine’s future. This session examined whether a just and durable peace with Russia can be achieved through diplomacy. The discussion underscored the profound obstacles facing any negotiated settlement, highlighting numerous unresolved questions and the limited room for compromise. We express our gratitude to University College London’s Ukrainian Society for their assistance in organising this event. Key Findings Ongoing Peace Efforts: Latest proposals, driven largely by the current US administration, are seen as overly favourable to Russia and therefore unfit to form the basis of a just peace. With both Russia and Ukraine firmly opposed to the involvement of actors they consider adversarial, any workable settlement should be endorsed by states acceptable to both sides. Countries such as Türkiye were noted as realistic candidates capable of playing a constructive guarantor role without triggering immediate political rejection from either party. Territorial Questions: Territorial integrity forms the foundation of Ukrainian statehood and should not be compromised to accommodate aggression. The possibility that certain international actors, including the United States, may be open to legitimising Russia’s territorial claims was viewed as deeply concerning. Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts must therefore prioritise preventing any normalisation of territorial gains acquired by force. While it is likely that parts of Ukraine will remain under de facto Russian control after any realistic settlement, long-term strategies should be developed to ensure their eventual reintegration under Ukrainian governance. Potential Concessions: Symbolic concessions, such as enhanced protections for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchy) and the Russian language can not be contemplated. These measures could be utilised by the aggressor to further undermine Ukraine’s political sovereignty. Although language and religion have been weaponised by Russia as instruments of soft power, Ukrainian society’s heightened resilience and public consciousness should act as a safeguard against such influence. Beyond these narrowly defined areas, any concessions that diminish Ukraine’s sovereign authority or restrict its ability to strengthen its defence capabilities were deemed unacceptable. Security Guarantees: While US involvement remains desirable, it cannot constitute the sole basis of Ukraine’s security. The volatility of recent US foreign policy across multiple administrations underscores the need for diversified and dependable support. Strengthening Ukraine’s European trajectory, consolidating domestic institutions, and expanding partnerships within the EU and beyond should be seen as essential steps. A just peace must rest on a multilayered security framework that reduces Ukraine’s vulnerability to external political fluctuations and ensures continuity of international support.  Conclusion The discussion concluded that, under present conditions, a just peace is unlikely to be achieved through diplomacy alone. With the interests of Ukraine and Russia fundamentally incompatible, no viable settlement currently exists that would both satisfy Ukraine’s sovereignty requirements and ensure durable stability. In this context, military progress remains essential for reshaping the strategic landscape. A strengthened Ukrainian position would be necessary to compel Russia to reconsider its demands and approach negotiations from a more realistic and equitable standpoint. The Ukrainian Youth Organisation will continue to facilitate open, informed dialogue among young Ukrainians in the UK, contributing to a broader vision of a democratic, resilient, and united Ukraine.

Date: October 23rd, 2025Location: King’s College LondonTopic: Ensuring Free and Fair Elections After Martial Law The Ukrainian Youth Organisation has launched a new series of youth-led policy discussions examining the sociopolitical future of Ukraine. The first session focused on the prospects for free and fair elections once martial law is lifted. The conversation underscored both the urgency and the complexity of preparing a post-war electoral system that is inclusive, resilient, and aligned with Ukraine’s democratic and European ambitions.  We express our gratitude to King’s College London’s Ukrainian Society for their assistance in organising this event. Key Findings Administrative Capacity & Accessibility: The logistics of organising elections in a post-war setting will require exceptional institutional preparation. Millions of refugees and internally displaced persons will need accessible registration and voting mechanisms. Simplified procedures for deployed military personnel, expanded voting infrastructure abroad will be critical. Electoral commissions must be adequately resourced and trained, with contingency planning in place.  Safeguarding Social Cohesion: Political competition is expected to intensify once wartime unity gives way to renewed debate about reconstruction, security, and institutional reform. While democratic pluralism must be protected, the post-war context demands clear safeguards against political actors promoting anti-Ukrainian, anti-European, or destabilising narratives. Electoral regulators, security services, and civil society will need coordinated mechanisms to balance openness with the defence of constitutional principles, ensuring that social fragmentation does not undermine state resilience. Mitigating Hybrid Interference: Future Ukrainian elections will take place under unprecedented exposure to hybrid threats. Russia’s information operations, potential misaligned influence from foreign partners, and the rapid evolution of disinformation channels present a multi-front challenge. Legislative updates may be required to ensure transparency of online political advertising, data protection, and platform accountability, drawing lessons from recent electoral disruptions elsewhere in Europe. Temporarily Occupied Territories: Integrating citizens from temporarily occupied territories into Ukraine’s democratic process will be one of the most sensitive post-war challenges. Any mechanism designed to enable their participation must safeguard against coercion by occupying authorities, fraudulent involvement of collaborators, and manipulated voter data. The overarching objective is to balance democratic inclusivity with the uncompromising protection of electoral integrity. Conclusion The discussion concluded that free and fair elections in post-war Ukraine are achievable if planned proactively, anchored in strong legal safeguards, and supported by both domestic institutions and international partners. The challenges are significant, but they also present an opportunity to modernise Ukraine’s electoral system in line with European standards. The Ukrainian Youth Organisation will continue to facilitate open, informed dialogue among young Ukrainians in the UK, contributing to a broader vision of a democratic, resilient, and united Ukraine.