See the show notes for this episode: S 02 | Ep .. Oleksandra Matviichuk.
0:00:01 - Alex Shevelenko
Welcome to Experienced-focused Leaders! This is a very special and deeply personal episode for me. I am honored to share with you the story of Oleksandra Matviichuk, who is the head of the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties, an organization established 15 years ago to protect human rights in Ukraine. This organization, led by Oleksandra, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022. Time magazine has featured Oleksandra as one of the 100 most influential people, and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Oleksandra as living proof that women are not just victims of war—they can be agents of peace and justice. So, Oleksandra, welcome to the program.
0:01:01 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Thank you for the invitation, Alex!
0:01:06 - Alex Shevelenko
Ordinary people can have a much greater impact than they might imagine. Can you share a story with our audience about ordinary people doing extraordinary things in Ukraine?
0:01:25 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Let me start with the large-scale war that Russia launched against Ukraine three years ago. At that time, not just Putin, but even our international partners, were confident that Ukraine lacked the potential to resist such enormous opposing power. Russia has veto power in the UN Security Council, nuclear weapons, a population of 140 million, oil and gas resources that bring in significant money, and strong military capabilities.
I was in Kyiv when Russian troops tried to encircle my city. I refused to evacuate, and, along with part of my team, I continued our human rights work. I witnessed international organizations, including humanitarian ones, evacuating their personnel. They left us alone, but ordinary people stayed. Ordinary people started to do extraordinary things. It was ordinary people who helped others survive under artillery fire. It was ordinary people who rescued people from ruined cities. It was ordinary people who broke through encirclements to deliver humanitarian aid.
Suddenly, it became obvious that ordinary people fighting for their freedom and human dignity are stronger than even the second-largest army in the world. This has been my greatest life lesson.
As a human rights lawyer, I use the law to defend people and human dignity. Yet, I often find myself in situations where the law doesn't work—where you can't rely on legal instruments, security guarantees, or the international UN system for peace and security. But you can always rely on people. That’s why I said in my Nobel speech in 2022 that ordinary people have a far greater impact than they can imagine. The mass mobilization of ordinary people in different countries can change world history faster than any UN intervention.
0:03:51 - Alex Shevelenko
Let’s talk about what people outside of Ukraine can do and what they have been doing. Obviously, we’re speaking at the beginning of 2025. Political support in some countries is wavering, at least within certain parties, regarding the situation in Ukraine. However, on a human level, beyond politics—which is relatively easy to pontificate about—when people hear stories of everyday bravery and heroism, they feel inspired and want to support it. So, what can people do? And I would say business leaders in particular—what can they do to support the cause of justice, dignity, and human life, which is what you’ve been working on in Ukraine?
0:04:50 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Let me start with some context because it’s crucial to understand what can be done. There is a lot of hope placed on the new presidential administration in the United States because President Trump has publicly declared that he will stop this war. But Russia did not start this war simply because Putin wanted to seize another piece of Ukrainian land or occupy cities like Bakhmut or Avdiivka—cities that, before this large-scale war, were largely unknown to Russians. Putin started this war because he wanted to destroy and occupy the entirety of Ukraine and then go further. He aims to forcibly restore the Russian Empire. He is thinking about his legacy—how his name will be etched in world history.
The problem is that, after ten years of war, including three years of large-scale conflict, and despite all the human losses Russia has suffered, Putin has not abandoned his goal. In the Russian state, human life is considered the cheapest resource. This is the context we must take seriously. We cannot afford wishful thinking, because we are dying. This is a bloody war, and when you’re at war with a country like Russia, you need support.
This problem cannot be solved within national borders alone. What we as Ukrainians are fighting for—freedom and human dignity—has no national limitations. These values transcend borders. That’s why, especially now, after three years of large-scale war, when the situation is no longer headline news, we still need help. Just yesterday, Russians deliberately attacked Zaporizhzhia, killing and injuring dozens of people in trolleybuses, hospitals, and other civilian spaces. But this is no longer seen as newsworthy.
In such circumstances, we need assistance. I’m not the best person to tell your audience or listeners exactly what they can do, because they know best. They know what actions they are capable of taking. The only thing I want to say is this: we need your help. There are hundreds of ways to contribute. People can write about what’s happening, collect donations, urge their governments to provide more aid or find other ways to be helpful.
Sometimes, people who have already done a lot still ask me, “What more can we do?” They also ask me a deeper question: “How can my individual efforts stop this Russian war of aggression against Ukraine?” This is the real question because when faced with a war of this scale—an existential challenge—it’s natural to feel that your efforts are small in comparison.
0:08:34 - Alex Shevelenko
You're a little drop. You're a drop in the ocean of war.
0:08:38 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
You’re like a drop in the ocean. And it’s very good that you mentioned this quote because it reminds me of something from the Revolution of Dignity 10 years ago. During that time, millions of people in Ukraine raised their voices against the corrupt, authoritarian, and Russian-backed government. They faced systematic, large-scale state repression. It was another situation where the law didn’t work, and the entire state machinery tried to suppress peaceful protests, even through physical violence.
At the time, I was the coordinator of the civil initiative Euromaidan SOS. Every day, hundreds of people who had been beaten, arrested, tortured, or falsely accused of fabricated criminal charges came to us for help. To overcome the feeling of helplessness, Ukrainian artists created a series of posters. One of them featured a drop of water with the title We Are Drops in the Ocean. It symbolized that, while we are just human beings and not all-powerful, together we form an ocean, and together we can change the situation.
0:10:00 - Alex Shevelenko
That’s brilliant! On that note, you’ve previously shared a story about what you did during Euromaidan. When I heard it, it struck me as an example of entrepreneurial thinking. You started by asking people if they needed help when they were in trouble, and then you provided legal support. You soon realized there weren’t enough trained lawyers, so you found a way to bridge that gap. Would you tell us more about what you did? I think many of our listeners, particularly those in the entrepreneurial community, will find it inspiring.
0:10:52 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
That’s a great story. On the day the large-scale peaceful protests began—triggered by the brutal dispersal of student demonstrators in the center of Kyiv—we had planned to conduct a seminar for regional activists. When I arrived at the venue, I could sense the disappointment and frustration in the room. It was clear we couldn’t proceed with the seminar after police had brutally beaten hundreds of students just hours earlier. These students were singing the Ukrainian national anthem and peacefully protesting for a country where everyone’s rights are protected.
I spoke with two colleagues I had never met before, as this seminar brought together activists from different regions. I suggested we think about what we could do as civil activists and human rights defenders. If we didn’t come up with anything specific, we could simply join the general protest. But perhaps we could create something more impactful.
We quickly identified a gap: there was a disconnect between people who were beaten, arrested, or whose relatives had disappeared and those who could provide them with legal assistance. That’s when we decided to create a Facebook page called Euromaidan SOS. Since the earlier student protests had been dubbed Euromaidan, we added “SOS” to signal that we were a service offering pro bono legal assistance.
Our first post said: “If you’ve been beaten, if your relatives have disappeared or been arrested, please call these mobile numbers. We will provide legal assistance to you or your loved ones pro bono. You can rely on us.”
This was a bold move, as I’m a lawyer but not an attorney, and I don’t have a license to operate in court. None of the regional activists in the room were attorneys either. To address this, within 30 seconds, we posted another message...
If you’re an attorney, if you’re a lawyer, and if you want to provide pro bono legal assistance to people who were brutally beaten by the police just hours ago, please call us, and we will connect you with those in need.
Suddenly, this mechanism started to work. It felt like a miracle. People began calling us, saying things like, “I’m a lawyer,” or “I’m an attorney,” or “I’m the head of a large legal firm. I want to help because this is unjust, unfair, brutal, and cruel. They beat children. We have to stop this.”
We also received messages and calls from people desperately needing legal assistance. I still remember that Saturday when we launched the Euromaidan SOS initiative with just two posts. That same day, we began providing legal help to the students who had been brutally beaten the night before.
But I could never have imagined, even in my worst nightmares, that we would end up working 24 hours a day for several months. Every single day, hundreds of people who had been beaten, arrested, tortured, abducted, or falsely accused in fabricated criminal cases came to us for help. Eventually, this pro-Russian, corrupt, authoritarian regime began killing peaceful, unarmed people in the center of Kyiv. I could never have predicted such a horrifying scenario.
0:15:14 - Alex Shevelenko
By the way, for those watching on YouTube, you might have noticed me tearing up. For context, I was born in Ukraine, in Kyiv. One of my earliest memories is of my parents sharing samizdat—prohibited literature from the Soviet era. This included typewritten, self-published works like Yevgeny Yevtushenko’s poem Babyn Yar. It was passed around in secret, with the understanding that you mustn’t talk about it at school.
I know you grew up with examples of dissidents as well. For those who have never lived under authoritarian regimes, could you explain how critical and important the work you’re doing is?
0:16:28 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
It’s very difficult to put this experience into words because people living in stable, democratic societies tend to take a lot for granted—things like their own security and freedom.
Yes, democratic societies are not perfect, and there are many problems. However, you can be sure that if you post something critical on social media, the secret police won’t show up at your home the next day to arrest you. You won’t be imprisoned without cause, tortured, or sexually abused. Your family won’t be taken hostage because of your opinions.
It’s very hard to explain what it means to fight for freedom in non-free or partially free societies to people who are fortunate enough not to have such experiences. We are striving to become part of these stable, free societies ourselves. The Euromaidan movement, and now this war with Russia, is all about fighting for our democratic choice—the chance to build a country where the rights of everyone are protected, the government is accountable, the judiciary is independent, and the police don’t beat students peacefully demonstrating.
We have paid a very high price just for this chance. What I want to emphasize is that, unfortunately, nothing in our world is truly stable—not even for those living in so-called stable democratic societies. Freedom is like oxygen: when you have it, you get used to it and assume it will always be there. But nothing is permanent—not oxygen, not human rights. We make choices every day that determine whether these freedoms endure.
What I see in many stable democratic societies is that people are beginning to question the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Decisions are increasingly being based on economic benefits, political interests, security concerns, or geopolitical issues, rather than on the values of freedom and human rights.
This is a serious problem—a huge problem—because human rights and freedoms are not something you achieve once and keep forever. If decisions are made based solely on short-term benefits or interests, catastrophe is inevitable in the long term. Only values provide the foundation for a sustainable future. That’s why it’s both rational and pragmatic to base decisions, strategies, and actions on values—alongside economic considerations and other factors.
0:19:42 - Alex Shevelenko
On that note, Ukraine is in a state of war. Historically, countries in wartime are not known for moving toward democratic processes—they often lean toward more authoritarian approaches. Economies become centrally mobilized for security, press freedoms may be restricted, and elections delayed. How are you addressing this tension within Ukraine? The country needs to mobilize for the war effort, which can lead to autocratic tendencies, yet the mission of the war itself is to secure Ukraine’s freedom, self-determination, and self-expression.
0:20:41 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Our world is incredibly complex, and so is life. Let me try to answer this complex question with a concrete example of what we are fighting for in this war with Russia. This war didn’t begin in February 2022; it started in February 2014. It began immediately after millions of Ukrainians succeeded in the Revolution of Dignity, giving us a chance to pursue a democratic transition.
When an authoritarian regime collapses, it doesn’t miraculously transform into a sustainable democracy overnight. It requires significant effort and daily work to build democratic institutions, reform the country, establish a professional police service, enact economic changes, and so on. Just as we were beginning this crucial work to rebuild our country, Russia invaded.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding about why Putin chose to invade Ukraine. Russia has propagated the narrative that NATO was a threat, which supposedly led to the invasion in 2014. But that’s nonsense. It’s not true, and I apologize for being blunt, but it’s utter nonsense.
In 2014, Ukraine was a neutral country. We had no intention of joining NATO. Our neutrality was even enshrined in our constitution. However, we changed our constitution after several years of war, as a result of Russia's invasion. Now, we want to join NATO—not only to ensure collective security but also to contribute to it, because we now have a strong army, one of the strongest in our region of Europe.
Over the past ten years, we’ve had to work on two tasks simultaneously. First, we have to defend our country, our freedom, our people, and our democratic choice. Second, we must implement democratic reforms. We cannot afford to postpone these reforms until the war ends because we have no idea whether we are at the end of the war, in the middle of it, or just at its beginning.
This means we have to change our legislation, our practices, and our state institutions while transforming our country—a process that is already difficult in peacetime.
0:23:28 - Alex Shevelenko
It’s probably even more challenging in peacetime…
0:23:31 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Exactly. In the United States, these processes have taken centuries, and even now, there is significant criticism of state functions. Yet, we only have ten years for this monumental task. Despite the challenges, we are moving in the right direction.
This is the complexity of our situation: we must balance two parallel logics—the logic of war, which prioritizes survival, and the logic of democratization, which focuses on transforming our country. War is a poison for any democracy because it forces survival issues to the forefront. Balancing these priorities is not easy, but we feel an immense sense of responsibility.
I believe your podcast is about leadership, and responsibility is the first characteristic of true leadership. We want to succeed. We don’t want to leave this burden for our children to bear.
0:24:44 - Alex Shevelenko
Beautiful, beautiful. This underlying theme of bravely taking on incredibly challenging tasks during difficult times is evident to anyone working with Ukrainians right now.
I feel fortunate to have Ukrainian team members. For everyone on our team, their commitment is evident—not only to delivering exceptional work but also to their communities, loved ones, and country. As you mentioned, they have likely adapted to these challenges to such an extent that it no longer feels as remarkable to them.
But for those watching from the outside, the efforts are extraordinary. What are some of the most remarkable examples you’ve seen of people stepping up and becoming leaders in Ukraine? Whether within your organizations or others you work with, what stands out? Often, in startups or larger organizations, meaningful work requires facing the impossible. What’s happening in Ukraine is, in many ways, the impossible becoming possible.
0:26:31 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
I want to explain that the people in Ukraine are very ordinary—the same as people, for example, in the United States. Ukrainians didn’t choose to be heroes. But when Russia invaded Ukraine, we had no other choice. We have to resist. We have to overcome our fear, discomfort, tiredness, and all the challenges that come with it.
It’s incredibly difficult to endure a large-scale war for three years, going to bed each night not knowing if you’ll wake up the next morning because your residential building might be hit by Russian rockets. It’s an extraordinary burden for ordinary people.
When faced with such dire circumstances, you still have a choice about how to respond. While I would never wish this experience on anyone, dramatic times provide an opportunity for people to express the best within themselves—to reveal their courage, fight for freedom, make difficult but righteous choices, take on the burden of responsibility, and help one another.
In our Euromaidan SOS initiative, the vast majority of the thousands of volunteers who joined us across the country were people without any prior background in civil participation. They simply couldn’t remain indifferent in such circumstances. This demonstrates that, even in the darkest times, we always have a choice in how we respond.
One of the most profound lessons I’ve learned from working on war crimes—which are among the most painful aspects of war—is that it’s not just about documenting violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions. It’s about human pain. We’re documenting the tragedies of individuals and their families.
For this reason, there’s much about this war that I want to forget in the future, as it’s personally very painful. But I never want to forget what it means to be human. Being human is about helping one another, even risking your life for strangers. It’s in those acute moments that you truly understand what humanity means.
Time also provides an important definition of hope. You mentioned Soviet dissidents earlier, and I recently came across a memory from them that resonated deeply. Václav Havel, the Czech dissident, expressed the same thought in his writings. He said: Hope is not the certainty that everything will turn out fine. Hope is the deep conviction that everything we do has meaning.
0:30:02 - Alex Shevelenko
I want to focus on this idea of communicating meaning. As you mentioned earlier, when Russia invaded, ordinary people started doing extraordinary things they never expected to do.
Many in our audience are committed to communication within their organizations and the world. I’d like to share an example of communication that’s simple yet profoundly impactful.
There’s an author who self-published a book called Good Morning. Russia Invaded Ukraine, which is a collection of WhatsApp chats and SMS messages exchanged by parents and loved ones when the war began. It captures their raw emotions—parents asking, “Are you okay? Is everything fine?” and families desperately trying to find each other.
For those watching online, I’ll share my screen and provide the link in the notes. The book offers a deeply human perspective—beyond statistics, bomb counts, or drone attacks. It evokes deep empathy for the human condition during war.
What do you see as some of the most effective ways your organization—or others—has communicated this kind of human experience? How do we move beyond numbers and statistics to truly connect people to the humanity behind the crisis, motivating them to take action?
0:32:20 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 not because Putin was afraid of NATO. Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin feared the idea of freedom—the idea of freedom coming closer to Russian borders. In response, Russia unleashed unbelievable violence to break people’s resistance and occupy the country.
This isn’t just a war; it’s a war where Russia uses war crimes as a method of warfare. They deliberately inflict intense human suffering on civilians. That’s why we have documented more than 80,000 episodes of war crimes in our database. These include Russians deliberately shelling residential buildings, schools, churches, museums, and hospitals; attacking evacuation corridors; torturing people in filtration camps; forcibly taking Ukrainian children to Russia to place them with Russian families for forced adoption, raising them as Russians; and deliberately destroying Ukrainian cultural heritage in occupied territories. They have banned the Ukrainian language and culture, abducted, robbed, raped, and killed civilians in the occupied areas.
So, what can I do as a human rights lawyer? I communicate these stories. I try to honestly show the price people are paying just for the chance to build a sustainable democratic country. This is my method of communication—I share the stories we document in our human rights work.
However, I believe the most impactful way to understand the reality is for people to come to Ukraine and see it with their own eyes. You can read the news, watch videos, examine photos, and even hear testimonies from witnesses or survivors of Russian war crimes. But it’s a very different experience when you come to Kyiv or other cities and see what’s happening for yourself—when you hear the people on the streets, feel the atmosphere, and witness the reality firsthand.
It’s a life-changing experience. Many people who were skeptical or indifferent before visiting Ukraine change their minds after being here. There are things that cannot be fully conveyed digitally. While I believe in the rapid progress of digital technology, we are human, and some experiences must be felt in person to truly understand their meaning.
0:35:44 - Alex Shevelenko
Let’s say we can’t have everyone come to Ukraine right now. I’ll quote from your book, The Peninsula of Fear, where you wrote: “The communicative memory of lived experiences lasts only three generations. All that remains after that is whatever meanings we have brought to light, thought through, and recorded.”
So, even if we come, and I come, and we have this first-hand experience, what happens with our children and our children’s children? How do we embed the meaning of what’s happening now?
Maybe digital is only part of the answer—it’s certainly part of it. But how would you approach the process of ensuring that this tragedy isn’t forgotten in the busy news cycle, even within our generation? As we know, there’s a kind of fatigue—take Syria, for example. Over time, people stop paying attention, and then suddenly Syria is back in the headlines, and we remember the atrocities that have been ongoing. We don’t want that to happen with Ukraine.
What do you think we should or could do to communicate and preserve the meaning of these events for future generations?
0:37:29 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
I think it’s important to define goals from both short-term and long-term perspectives. In the short term, we’re talking about a war that is still ongoing. As a human rights lawyer, I don’t just want to document war crimes—I want to stop them. I believe that people in different countries have the power to help stop these Russian war crimes.
To understand what’s happening, we need to look at the broader picture. Let me explain. I live in Kyiv, and my city is constantly under attack, not only from Russian rockets but also from Iranian drones. Iran has provided Russia with drones and rockets. North Korea has supplied rockets and even sent thousands of troops to Russia. China is helping Russia evade sanctions and import critical technologies for warfare. Before the Assad regime’s fall, Syria supported Russia in every UN General Assembly vote.
What we’re witnessing is the formation of an authoritarian bloc. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and Syria—all these regimes share a common ideology: they deny human rights and freedoms. They aim to impose a new world order where people have no protection from authoritarian governments.
In this context, this is not merely a war between two nations, Russia and Ukraine. It’s a war between two systems: authoritarianism and democracy. That’s why the outcome of this war is so critical. For Russia and its authoritarian allies, Ukraine isn’t the ultimate goal—it’s a tool. Their aim is to dismantle the existing rules-based international order. While this order is not perfect, it still places human rights and values at its core, at least in its declarations and conventions.
The new world order promoted by Russia, China, and North Korea would be disastrous—for entrepreneurship, human development, dignity, personal security, and freedom as a whole. This is a huge problem. Last year, half of the world’s population participated in elections, but don’t be naive: 80% of the global population lives in non-free or partially free societies. This means only 20% of people had a real choice in voting. We are losing freedom as a global phenomenon.
Because we live in an interconnected world, this isn’t just Ukraine’s problem—it’s everyone’s problem. You can’t build a paradise, even on an isolated island, while the world around you is bleeding.
0:41:13 - Alex Shevelenko
This is a complex topic, and I’m curious to get your take on two themes. As an American, I’d say that America supports democratic regimes when it aligns with American interests. However, when it suits U.S. foreign policy, America partners with non-democratic, so-called authoritarian regimes. These regimes may not be the worst abusers of human rights, but they don’t align with the American ideals of freedom, women’s rights, and self-determination. Yet, they are treated as allies. This was evident during the Cold War, when the anti-Soviet bloc included many authoritarian regimes that merely shared an anti-communist ideology.
In such a messy world, can we still operate under the paradigm you’re introducing—where authoritarianism is all bad, and democracy is all good? Democracies clearly have their own problems, and some of these are becoming more visible and embarrassing, making it harder to present ourselves as a flawless model to the rest of the world.
The second theme, which is related, is this: in an ideal world, we would strive for peace. Everyone wants a peaceful resolution in Ukraine. But in the messy world of foreign policy that I studied in university—and that you’ve also studied—the opposite of war isn’t necessarily peace. The opposite of war can simply be a state of “no war.”
So how do we deal with these gray areas? We’ll always have imperfect neighbors. Whatever happens, Russia under Putin will remain an imperfect neighbor. Even after the war ends, we’ll still need to deal with them. There are families, colleagues, and human rights concerns connected to Russia. The reality is that we often have to negotiate with regimes and people who don’t align with our ideals.
It’s a difficult question, especially for someone like you who is in the midst of defending and fighting. But looking at the long term, if you could step back from Ukraine’s current situation, how do we address the complexities of a gray, messy world?
0:44:07 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Thank you. I’ll try to respond to these very complicated questions. First, I want to clarify that I’m not saying democracy is an ideal system or that democratic countries are perfect. What I am saying is that for the people who live in them, democracies are much safer systems for governing society because they provide individuals with some influence and instruments to protect themselves.
In an authoritarian regime, people are merely objects of control. They have no rights, no freedoms, and that’s why such regimes often create a chain of terror. Initially, organized terror targets certain groups, but eventually, no one is safe. This model of governance is terrible and dangerous for society as a whole. Even from a pragmatic perspective, democracies are far more secure. Democracies encourage resolving problems through legal, diplomatic, cultural, or other nonviolent mechanisms. In contrast, authoritarian regimes rely on force, which is unfair to most and benefits only the strongest—and even that is temporary because no one remains strong forever.
We’re living through a turbulent time. The existing world order is collapsing before our eyes. The UN Security Council is paralyzed, and it’s easy to predict that conflicts like wars will become more frequent in different parts of the globe. Sparks of unrest are everywhere, and the international system is failing to contain them.
I believe it’s in America’s national interest to protect freedom because freedom doesn’t stop at national borders. This is a bipartisan issue that should unite Democrats and Republicans. Protecting freedom is what has made the United States the country it is today—imperfect, but still home to innovation, like Silicon Valley.
Take Silicon Valley as an example. Only in a free environment can you nurture technology, ideas, and startups. While there’s always a risk of failure, there’s also the possibility of defending your property and your vision. In authoritarian or partially free societies, even large banks can’t defend themselves, and property owners can’t protect their assets. When an authoritarian regime decides something, there is no recourse—the decision is final and unchallengeable.
0:47:56 - Alex Shevelenko
So it's a convenient but shaky foundation. It could be convenient at times. It may be…
0:48:03 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
I just want to say that business also has to defend freedom because freedom allows business to flourish. Regarding the next part of your question, I think we need to properly define what peace means and what war means. I think we have problems with these terms because peace is not just the absence of war; it’s not just a state where armies stop fighting. Peace means the ability for people to live without the fear of violence and to have a long-term perspective. That’s why, when we look at many countries around the world, some have no aggressors invading them, but there’s still no peace within their societies because of widespread violence. It’s very interesting that you bring this up, especially considering countries like Ethiopia, which have not been invaded but face significant internal challenges.
0:49:25 - Alex Shevelenko
It’s amazing to see the short-term mindset that people bring to lives without stability. When there’s no stability, everything becomes about survival, and there’s no long-term commitment. It becomes harder to build long-term relationships, and that attitude affects everyone around you. Part of this issue is economic, but it’s also about broader social stability. It sounds like what you're saying is that it’s very hard to build a society and life with maximum human dignity in a situation of instability and war, where there’s a constant set of worries.
0:50:18 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Returning to the term "war," we also need to define war properly. I know people often think of war only when bombs fall on their heads, but war has many dimensions, not just military. War has an economic dimension, a digital dimension, an informational dimension, and a values dimension. In this regard, war has no limits when it comes to national borders. We now have many examples where Russia has caused harm in the United States, or where Russia and China have sought to find weak points in American society and play their own game by using the information space as a battlefield. So, we need to rethink our approach to understanding what war is and what peace is about. Let’s build on that.
0:51:23 - Alex Shevelenko
Speaking of informational war and propaganda, it’s obviously very difficult to get complex messages out in a world that relies on sound bites, especially in the U.S. I think part of the cost of democracy and part of the cost of rights, like freedom of speech, is living in a noisy environment. I believe you even described it yourself in one of your interviews as a “post-knowledge environment,” where people seek simple answers to complex problems. So, what can we do to share more robust, more complete answers and help build societies—whether they’re thriving democracies or emerging ones—that are well-equipped not to be swayed by the soundbite of the day?
By the way, democracies face one of the dangers, right? Once people get riled up over an issue, democracies have a harder time reaching peace. Eventually, they may not start wars, but the population historically doesn’t seek practical accommodation once activated—it seeks justice. These are the challenges of informational war and democracy in the informational war. What are your thoughts on what we could be doing to help democracies avoid shooting themselves in the foot?
0:53:16 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
To not shoot themselves in the foot, I think that the person who finds the answer to this question will receive the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m sure of it because there is no clear solution; the answer is very abstract. People must take responsibility because all these problems cannot be fixed just by technology.
What do I mean by that? What we see at the moment is that, according to last year’s report, more and more people around the world have access to the internet, and half of these people spend a lot of time on social networks. I also saw a statistic that every adult who has access to the internet spends at least seven hours per day online, which means that digital reality has become very important to us—more important, for some people, than real life.
Our digital life, our digital reality, is very polluted—polluted with disinformation, anger, hate, and various campaigns conducted by politicians, businesses, or states. People are not prepared to live in such a digital reality. Sometimes, I feel that people are losing the ability to distinguish between lies and truth, and with the era of deep fakes, it’s becoming more and more difficult to make that distinction. What we have as a result is even in small communities, people no longer share the same reality because they belong to different informational bubbles.
In one small community, they have no shared reality. When you have no shared reality, you have no common actions to solve real problems. How can you have real common actions when you have no shared reality? It’s impossible because you see the problems very differently. And if you have no common actions, sooner or later, you will lose democracy. So it’s a real threat. That’s why I said that someone who finds a way to change human behavior and help people make this distinction between lies and truth in our post-information world will get the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m sure of it.
0:56:16 - Alex Shevelenko
Well, that’s an encouraging prize. I’m sure of it. We will try to, in my other role at RELAYTO, throw our hat in the ring, at least from a technology perspective, into this journey because I think what's really important is to hear, even in short pockets, some of this conversation. We’ll get that out so it catches people’s attention but then provide a broader narrative of the work. Or was it AI, right? But it’s the evidence and great depth underneath that to surpass this mistrust and the bubbles we live in.
On that note, I think there’s one document that I think everyone who’s listening should trust, and that’s the annual report of your amazing work. I hope you can support it. I’ll share it as well. We’ll also share it in the notes for the YouTube and other podcast platforms. This is the Center for Civil Liberties that Oleksandra leads. This is the English version of their annual report, and you can consume and understand the data, the organizational challenges, and everything you’re doing. If you don’t want to read the whole report, you could ask it questions. We’re going to provide that to our audience so they can go, and if they can’t participate themselves or visit Ukraine this year, they can still support you and the great work you’re doing, bringing truth in this informational and real war we live in right now. Thank you, Oleksandra, so much for joining us today.
0:58:11 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Thank you for this opportunity.
0:58:14 - Alex Shevelenko
Are there any last words or messages you want to share with our audience?
0:58:21 - Oleksandra Matviichuk
Yes, there is one. For me, the war is not just a period of horror and loss but also a period of gratitude. I want to express my sincere gratitude to all the people in the United States and other countries who support us in this dramatic time of our history, who support our fight for freedom. I’m very grateful. We survived because of you. Thank you.
0:58:55 - Alex Shevelenko
And thank you, Oleksandra. You inspire us to do extraordinary things. Thank you!