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

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
 Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States resumed in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, November 11. The second day of meetings follows an initial round of discussions that received positive assessments from Kyiv and Washington but exposed continuing divisions over the terms of a potential peace agreement. The talks, brokered by the United States, address prisoner exchanges, security guarantees and possible de-escalation, while territorial disputes remain the central obstacle to an agreement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described Tuesday's discussions as “constructive and quite substantive”, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them as “very productive”. US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff reportedly told participants that Washington had narrowed the differences between the two sides. Kushner also raised the possibility of developing a new European security framework. However, the US administration has provided few details about concrete progress. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the prospect of a ceasefire, accusing European countries of seeking a temporary truce to facilitate the deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine. He also dismissed the presence of European representatives in Abu Dhabi, saying: “Well, they flew to Abu Dhabi. Let them sit there.” European officials have held separate consultations with Ukrainian and American representatives but remain excluded from the trilateral negotiations, despite Washington signalling that their participation could eventually be considered. Territorial control seems to be an issue that the parties are unable to resolve. Russia continues to demand the entire Donbas region, including territories it has not captured, while Ukraine refuses to relinquish its land. A senior US official indicated that both sides had demonstrated some flexibility privately, but stressed that territorial arrangements could not be resolved before Ukraine's post-war security guarantees were established. Simultaneously, military escalation continues. On November 11, Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergii Koretskyi reported Russian strikes against six major electricity substations across four central regions, as well as railway infrastructure. Russia also reported targeting Ukrainian military-related facilities and a cargo vessel near Odesa. Meanwhile, NATO fighter jets were activated following overnight drone alerts in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. European divisions over continued assistance to Kyiv further complicate the diplomatic environment. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz faced opposition from Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary and Bulgaria after proposing to link the EU's next long-term budget to additional financial support for Ukraine. Conversely, Denmark announced a €643 million military assistance package and €20 million for Ukraine's energy sector on Tuesday. As negotiations continue, the contrasting positions of Moscow, Kyiv and their Western partners highlight the considerable obstacles to reaching a settlement. The discussions have opened diplomatic channels, but fundamental disagreements over territory, security arrangements and Europe's future security architecture remain unresolved.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)