On March 4, 2025, Ukraine Crisis Media Center hosted a presentation of a survey concerning justice in the context of war that was conducted by the Rating Sociological Group on January 3-12 at the request of the Human Rights Centre ZMINA. The survey covers the impact of the war on Ukrainian society, citizens' attitudes towards lustration, preservation of the memory of the war and the state policy of recovery.

See the key findings of the survey below.

You can also watch the recording of the broadcast here:

https://www.youtube.com/live/TrutVNN0mSY

Lossess casued by the war

• Half of the respondents (50%) reported experiencing a deterioration in their psycho-emotional state due to the war. Additionally, 36% noted a decline in their health, 24% reported a loss of income, 21% suffered the loss of a loved one, and 20% experienced family separation.
• Other reported losses included job loss (17%), injury to a loved one (17%), estrangement from family members or close ones (15%), destruction or damage to property (16%), forced displacement or migration (14%), and loss of a business (7%).
• Meanwhile, 9% stated that they had not experienced any of the listed losses. Compared to 2023, the number of those who lost a loved one increased from 19% to 21%, while the percentage of those who lost income (from 29% to 24%) and jobs (from 22% to 17%) decreased.

Lustration

• The majority of respondents (68%) believe that lustration can serve as one of the tools for restoring trust in government institutions after the war, while 27% disagree with this view.
• According to the respondents, lustration as a mechanism for restricting access to public office for those who collaborated with the occupying authorities should primarily apply to individuals who remained in Ukrainian-controlled territory but cooperated with or supported Russia (53%), were elected as deputies or heads of illegally created bodies (51%), worked in illegal occupation administrations (50%), or served in the military, law enforcement, or judicial bodies in occupied territories (37%).
• About a quarter (23%) of respondents are well aware of the lustration process carried out in Ukraine between 2014 and 2016, while 44% have heard something about it, and 33% are unaware of it. Among those familiar with or who have heard about lustration, 58% view it positively, 26% negatively, and 9% are indifferent.
• Regarding responsibility for conducting lustration to address the consequences of the war, 43% of respondents believe this should be handled by a newly created nationwide body. Meanwhile, 19% support assigning this task to a national lustration commission under the Ministry of Justice or another ministry, 18% believe it should be managed by local governments and territorial communities, and 10% think the responsibility should lie with a national lustration commission under the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory.

Liability for ties with Russia

• A vast majority (79%) believe that individuals who maintained ties with Russia after its aggression began in 2014 should be barred from holding any positions in state authorities. Additionally, 62% support a ban on positions in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies, while 57% believe higher political and military positions should be restricted. Meanwhile, 18% think bans should apply to positions in local and national government bodies, whereas 3% believe there should be no restrictions at all.
• When asked whether Ukrainian lawyers who continued working in temporarily occupied territories should face professional restrictions, most respondents (73%) stated that each case should be assessed individually. Meanwhile, 17% believe such lawyers should be barred from practicing in Ukraine, while 8% argue that they should not face restrictions, as they provide legal assistance to Ukrainians under occupation.
• The majority of respondents (82%) believe that criminal liability should apply only to lawyers who collaborated with Russia and the occupation administrations, including those who held official positions. Meanwhile, 10% think that all lawyers who continued working in occupied territories should be held criminally responsible, while 6% believe they should not face punishment for working under occupation.
• A majority (69%) of respondents are willing to provide any known information about Ukrainian citizens' cooperation with the occupying authorities to the body responsible for lustration. Additionally, 14% are only willing to report cases where they or their loved ones were personally affected, while 15% are unwilling to provide any information.

National memory and commemoration

• Two-thirds of respondents (65%) believe that memorial sites and commemorative events should evoke gratitude and recognition of heroism, while half (50%) emphasize the importance of remembering events and honoring the fallen. Other emotions and sentiments mentioned by respondents include a sense of responsibility for the future (29%), hope that such events will not be repeated (28%), the restoration of justice (24%), grief and sorrow for the victims (21%), and an awareness of historical significance (17%).
• Two-thirds (66%) of respondents believe that, in response to Russian aggression, the primary focus of commemoration should be the heroism of the military, while 59% highlight the role of volunteers and the rescue of civilians. Other frequently mentioned aspects include fundraising efforts for the army (28%), civilian resistance, including actions in occupied territories, and efforts to restore critical infrastructure under shelling (both at 24%).
• Among the preferred ways to commemorate the Russo-Ukrainian war, respondents most often mentioned the implementation of support programs for the families of fallen soldiers (52%) and the creation of documentary and feature films (48%). Other frequently suggested initiatives include the establishment of a museum and thematic exhibitions (36%), the creation of a Memory Park (35%), the installation of a monument or sculpture (34%), scholarships for children and young people in honor of the fallen (30%), the introduction of a national remembrance lesson (26%), the creation of a Digital Memorial and archive (25%), the development of a Memory Alley (24%), and educational courses in schools and universities (21%).
• When asked about personal participation in commemorative activities, 64% of respondents expressed willingness to visit burial sites of the fallen, while 39% would attend the opening of a memorial site or monument. Other commonly mentioned events or locations included burial sites or memorials in different regions (23%), public gatherings at significant locations (20%), and museum exhibitions (17%).
• More than half of respondents (56%) believe that the design of gravestones, memorial plaques, and other commemorative objects should be chosen individually based on personal preferences and financial means, a view most strongly supported by residents of active combat zones. Meanwhile, 41% advocate for a unified design standard.
• Decisions regarding commemorative measures for victims and participants of the Russo-Ukrainian war should, according to 39% of respondents, be made by local governments, while 36% believe the responsibility should lie with the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. Additionally, 32% think that the relatives of the fallen and affected individuals should have a say. Other institutions frequently mentioned include the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (27%), the government or specific ministries (25%), the President of Ukraine (22%), and public or charitable organizations (19%).
• Half of the respondents (52%) believe that the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory should focus primarily on collecting and researching information about the events of the war. Nearly a third (31%) consider its main role to be spreading awareness about the war internationally, while 28% emphasize the importance of preserving records and verifying cases of collaboration with the occupiers. Additionally, 24% see its role in fostering patriotism, national identity, and civic engagement, as well as countering the effects of Russian propaganda. Other suggested priorities include developing and implementing state memory policies (21%), initiating the creation of memorials, cemeteries, and monuments (19%), and organizing an archival record of wartime events (19%).