Thursday Interview: Mykhailyna Skoryk-Shkarivska

In 2022, Russian forces advanced towards Kyiv from Belarus. Bucha, only a 30-minute drive from the capital, became the site of mass atrocities, including summary executions, torture chambers, and the deliberate hunting of civilians. Ukrainian officials described this as “a plan of terror against the population.”

This week, commonspace.eu welcomes Mykhailyna Skoryk-Shkarivska, who served on Bucha’s city council during the invasion and was later appointed deputy mayor to support the city’s recovery. Mykhailyna shares the story of how a suburb of Kyiv grieved, became a global symbol of Russian atrocity, and ultimately rebuilt. 

"We saw this scale of killing first in Bucha, and we showed it to the world because it required global attention and serious punishment. Not only domestic court cases, but international justice.” 

“We needed to transform a place of tragedy into a place for living again. A smart, liveable city."

Read the full text of our conversation with Mykhailyna below: 

Before local government, you spent 20 years working as a journalist. You were working in Bucha’s City Council when Russia invaded, and later returned as deputy mayor to lead the recovery after occupation. Can you tell us about your background and how it’s inspired the work you’re doing today?

I was trained as a journalist and when I began my career, Ukraine was a post-Soviet country without a free media. At the same time, the country was undergoing major reforms in local and state governance, and we were creating our own currency after our economy transitioned out of the Soviet system. It was a period of profound transformation, and I worked as a journalist throughout it.

After 20 years in journalism, I came to see decentralised reform as the final step in transforming Ukraine into a European state. This excited me and led me to focus on local governance. That is how I left the media and began working in local governance in Bucha.

No one expected Russia to invade Ukraine around the time I joined the City Council, and it just so happened that I was on staff when Russian soldiers occupied Bucha. In that moment, my media experience and international contacts, including friends in Warsaw, Brussels, France, the United States, and the United Kingdom, became critically important. 

I relied on these connections when I returned to occupied Bucha. Even while evacuated and outside of the community, I understood that the war crimes had to be documented openly and shared with the world. They could not be hidden. These crimes changed everything, including relationships between those who remained in Bucha and relatives elsewhere, even in Russia. After the mass killings carried out by the Russian army in our community, many of those relationships came to an end.

So you used your connections as a journalist to shine a spotlight on your city?

Part of my media background included consultancy work for companies such as CBS and CBC, both of which were later expelled by Putin during the war. I also maintained close connections with field teams from Reuters, NBC, and The New York Times in Ukraine, among many others.

After the full-scale invasion, we understood how foreign media operated in Ukraine and remained fully open to them. We organized events, responded to all of their requests, and provided comments. Initially, this involved standard commentary, but after the war crimes committed by the Russian army in Bucha, we opened an information office near the site where investigators and forensic teams were working with casualties. We then established a media centre and held press conferences for international teams. When we had to bury victims who had been killed but not yet identified by relatives, we did so publicly to demonstrate that these were not isolated incidents but evidence of mass killing.

This was a large-scale massacre of civilians. We recognized that it required special coverage and had to be shown exactly for what it was, without hiding any parts of the tragedy. We pursued this approach with the full support of my colleagues in the City Council. We invited photographers and opened the city completely to the media from around the world. 

In comparison, places such as Hostomel or Borodianka did not engage with the media in the same way, and their tragedies became more private and less visible. For example, in Hostomel, Russian officers killed the mayor, yet this story is not as widely known as it might have been if the community had worked more actively with the media.

At the same time, similar crimes occurred elsewhere, including in Mariupol and, more recently, in villages in the Sumy region, where civilians were killed simply for being Ukrainian. We first saw this scale of killing in Bucha, and we showed it to the world because it demanded global attention and serious punishment. Not only through domestic court cases, but also international justice.

Bucha has become a world symbol of Russian atrocities, but you’ve also spoken to your high hopes for the city’s future. How do you see Bucha’s legacy moving forward?

At the beginning, we knew it was important to show the truth of what had happened. However, after a year, we realised that for people returning and trying to rebuild their lives, these stories were extremely difficult to carry. We understood that we needed to transform a place of tragedy into a place for living again. A smart, liveable city. Many people saw Bucha only as a site for memorials, but it is very difficult to live in a memorial. As a result, we decided to focus on success through rapid rebuilding and recovery, which became the municipality’s central strategy.

Even with fast reconstruction, the memory of what occurred remains. Today, however, Bucha looks like a typical Ukrainian city, though to truly understand this, one needs to visit in person. From the outside, many people still hesitate to come because of the city’s past. Publicity surrounding the war crimes continues to shape Bucha’s image, creating another challenge for local residents. To address this, we are working on initiatives that promote Bucha as a peaceful and forward-looking community once again.

In 2022, Bucha was nearly empty. Infrastructure had been destroyed, and there were almost no children left in the city. The first priority was restoring infrastructure, which was accomplished within two months. We then rebuilt schools to encourage families to return, with reconstruction efforts focusing heavily on education and social facilities. We also established a centre for psychological and social support that offers free therapy and group sessions to help residents process trauma.

At the same time, we collaborated with donors and international partners, emphasizing that while Bucha required long-term support, it also aspired to become a model of rapid recovery and democratic rebuilding. This is not a single achievement but an ongoing process that continues to bring us closer to the future we envisioned years ago.

Could you describe your oganization’s current work, the Institute for Sustainable Development of Communities (ISDC)?

The Institute for Sustainable Development of Communities began at Bucha’s project office when we recognized the need for outsourced project teams. We trained staff, established international departments, and strengthened our ability to manage complex projects. The outsourced team focused on areas where the City Council lacked sufficient resources, including psychological support, infrastructure, and recovery planning. In the summer of 2023, I joined the project office full time.

Our goal was not only to support Bucha but also to share its recovery experience with neighbouring communities such as Hostomel and Borodianka, promoting the region as one capable of rapid rebuilding. Today, much of our work centres on negotiations with international partners and engagement with the media. The emergency phase has ended, and partners now expect more strategic, long-term thinking.

We built expert teams to support communities over the next five to ten years, particularly in the context of European integration. Organizations like ours can offer participative approaches that help Ukrainian municipalities adapt to EU standards at the local level.

You're interested in connecting Ukrainian and European cities through partnerships. What could that actually look like – and what would both sides get out of it? What do European partners most need to understand most now about supporting local governance in Ukraine?

We see huge potential in building these relationships. Connecting at the local level creates understanding faster and more effectively than formal arrangements at the national level. Bucha, for example, had strong ties with Palanga in Lithuania, which was instrumental in 2022, and we learned from them how to attract EU funding. We also developed relationships with Bergisch Gladbach in Germany, focusing on horizontal, people-to-people connections rather than only official ties. These partnerships led to practical projects, including improvements to public transport and knowledge exchange on infrastructure, blackout management, and bomb shelter planning. We now recommend this approach to other Ukrainian communities, as friendship between towns and villages is the most effective way to foster mutual understanding. These partnerships create an expertise in crisis management that can be shared with EU partners, which is difficult to find anywhere else.

These relationships are human-centred and create genuine, lasting partnerships. In terms of EU integration, Ukraine has made significant progress, but local-level changes are critical, such as waste management, certification, and construction standards. Integration is a step-by-step process that requires participation across the country, not just national legislation. We can learn from countries like Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states, adapting their experience to the Ukrainian context.

Thank you for your insights. One final question: You are doing very challenging work under difficult circumstances. What keeps you going?

What drives me every day is simple: we live here. We could leave Ukraine, but we choose to maintain our identity, protect our families, and improve life despite the war. Every sign of normal life our families, community, friends motivates us. From the war, we have learned that to survive, people must fight and live at the same time, continuing everyday life even under extraordinary circumstances. That’s how nations have survived over the centuries. Even during conflict, people kept cooking borsch and mashed potatoes, tending to daily life, and celebrating the small moments. This is very understandable to people in the EU because we continue to normally, despite facing the greatest threat we have ever experienced.

Follow Mykhailyna on Facebook and LinkedIn

Follow the ISDC on Facebook and LinkedIn

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)