Public Discussion & Parliamentary Briefing | Berlin, 2 December 2025
Europe is no longer asking whether its security order is under pressure, but how societies can hold together against persisting threats. At the Nordic Embassies in Berlin, experts from the Nordic-Baltic states, Ukraine and Germany came together to discuss the following question: what can Europe, and Germany in particular, learn about total defence, resilience and democratic stability from the Nordic-Baltic region and Ukraine, which is at war? The discussion focused not on abstract concepts, but on how states, cities and communities and individuals stay functional when pressure is real and the risks are no longer abstract.
Iryna Shulikina, CEO of Vitsche “Across all viewpoints, one message stood out: Europe’s security depends on societies that are informed, prepared, connected and capable of acting together.”
More than 100 guests, among them policymakers, researchers, diplomats, volunteers, and journalists attended the event.Russia’s war against Ukraine has shown that modern conflict spreads far beyond the battlefield. It hits digital communication, public trust, and the cohesion that keeps democracies steady. Several speakers warned that Germany, as the EU’s largest state, is both an obvious target and a central pillar for Europe’s stability.
Inna Nelles, moderator, Co-Founder of the German-Ukrainian Bureau (DUB) quotes Silke Willems “We are witnessing a sharp escalation of the situation in Germany. We are facing cyber attacks, sanctions evasion, arson – all of these on a scale we have never seen before.”
The Nordic-Baltic states have spent decades building models that treat every citizen, every company, and every institution as part of national resilience. These countries showcase clear chains of responsibility, well-rehearsed emergency plans, and strong cooperation between public and private actors.
Dr. Pekka Kallioniemi, researcher on disinformation and social media “In the Finnish comprehensive system, everybody knows what they have to do in case of a crisis. Everybody plays a role, and everybody should know their role. This is what is called comprehensive defense or comprehensive preparedness in Finland. It’s a whole-of-society approach to crisis management.”
Any discussion of total defence in the European context is incomplete without Ukraine. Its experience combining state institutions, volunteer networks, small businesses and adaptive local communities provides key insights for enhancing resilience and defence throughout the European Union.
Dr. Oksana Huss, University of Duisburg-Essen “Resilience is what we talk about after everything has already gone wrong. Before that, we have to talk politically – about fighting Russia where it is now – with sanctions and with the weapons Ukraine needs to deter further aggression.”
This perspective reframes resilience as a last line of defence once political choices have failed. It underlines that if Europe takes current challenges seriously, it must take prevention seriously: sustained sanctions, military support for Ukraine, and clear political will to stop Russian aggression before societies are forced to endure the consequences.
Germany already recognises the need to rethink its approach to civil and societal resilience. What it now faces is a practical challenge.
Throughout the discussion, several recurring needs emerged:
- Clear leadership and responsibility across federal, state, and municipal levels.
- Stronger cooperation between government, business, and civil society.
- Crisis communication that earns and keeps public trust.
- Volunteer networks that are trained, equipped, and integrated into official planning.
- Investment in infrastructure that remains functional under hybrid and physical stress.
Johannes Steger, security policy and resilience expert “Germany urgently needs a strategic communication approach that goes where the people are… Before we talk about how we speak about crises, we need to actually talk about them – and about why it’s important to be aware of these things.”
The challenge ahead is not simply protecting infrastructure. It is protecting the democratic and social fabric that holds countries together.
Sigita Struberga, Secretary-General, Latvian Transatlantic Organisation “We started in 2014, and it was far too late. Unfortunately for Latvians, as for other Europeans, 2008 was not a wake-up call.”
This requires long-term political will, coordination across ministries, and a hegemony that treats resilience as a shared responsibility. The Nordic-Baltic states showed what is possible. Now, the task is to make these insights part of Germany’s next chapter of a real “Zeitenwende”.To support this work beyond a single event, we want to highlight key publications that map the threat landscape and offer practical models for total defence.
These include:
The joint Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung / Stockholm Free World Forum study Russia’s Hybrid War: The Northern Front, which documents everyday hybrid intimidation and sabotage across the Nordic-Baltic region
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency brochure In case of crisis or war – Important information to all residents of Sweden, which shows how total defence can be communicated in concrete terms to every household.
Further work on Germany’s preparedness debate includes Deutschland im Ernstfall by Johannes Steger and Ferdinand Gehringer.
Oksana Huss’s research on societal resilience and internal displacement in Ukraine can be found in her article “Polycentric crisis response and societal resilience…”
Practical guidance for households is also available in Latvia’s national 72 stundas preparedness plan, which sets out how citizens can cope independently during the first three days of a crisis. Sigita Struberga also underlined: “We began with the idea of a ‘72-hour backpack’. Later we realized that’s a bad narrative. A backpack means you grab and run. The idea is not to grab and run – the idea is to stay, be resilient, and in the best case, resist.”
Contributions came from:
- Sigita Struberga, Secretary-General, Latvian Transatlantic Organisation
- Dr. Oksana Huss, University of Duisburg-Essen
- Johannes Steger, security policy and resilience expert
- Dr. Pekka Kallioniemi, researcher on disinformation and social media (online)
Moderation by Inna Nelles, Co-Founder of the German-Ukrainian Bureau (DUB).
The event was organised by Vitsche e.V. and the German-Ukrainian Bureau (DUB) in partnership with: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS); Embassy of Denmark; Embassy of Latvia; Embassy of Estonia; Embassy of Sweden
We are gathering once again in front of the Staatsoper to protest its continued cooperation with Anna Netrebko – an artist whose documented ties to Vladimir Putin’s political sphere have long been a matter of public concern.
🗓 08/12/2025
🕑 19:15–20:15
📍Staatsoper Unter den Linden
Despite repeated demonstrations, public statements, and ongoing appeals from Berlin’s citizens, the opera administration remains unwilling to engage in dialogue, offering no response to the very people whose taxes sustain this cultural institution.
Our protest is a reminder that publicly funded cultural spaces carry a responsibility to examine the positions of the artists they promote. When an institution refuses transparency or conversation, this is not neutrality – it is a political choice.
This action will include a rave-inspired sound intervention by Liza Aikin It is not an opposition to classical music or opera as an art form. Rather, it draws on the political history of electronic music culture: a tradition in which people gather, reclaim public space, and express resistance through rhythm, movement, and collective presence.
Culture is not owned by those in power, but shaped by the people who show up, speak out, and refuse silence.
We refuse the silence imposed on us – and we show that there are many ways for the public to make itself heard.
Join us – stand with us in protest!
Because art is political, public institutions are accountable, and we will continue to show up until our voices are acknowledged.
No peace deals on russia’s terms
Statement from Vitsche The future of Ukraine must not be negotiated without Ukraine. Decisions on security in Europe must not be determined without Europe. The Ukrainian people have a tremendous desire for a just and lasting peace, but this can only be guaranteed through reliable and effective security guarantees.
A peace plan must not resemble Munich in 1938. If the international community gives in to an aggressor, it will not promote peace, but lay the groundwork for the next escalation. Concessions to a tyrant who deliberately shifts borders and uses violence as a political tool do not create security, but encourage further attacks. Those who accept an unjust peace today risk an even more extensive war on their own doorstep tomorrow.
Sustainable peace requires, first and foremost, the clear identification of the aggressor who has attacked Ukraine in 2014 and, on a full scale, in 2022. The experience of recent years shows that a frozen conflict is merely a pause during which russia renews its forces and later strikes again. Any proposal for a peace process must ensure that Ukrainian sovereignty remains protected against new aggression, so that this war is not only interrupted but ended permanently. Peace in Europe should not only be achieved for our generation, but also for future generations, and not only in Ukraine, but also in Europe and Germany in particular. Today, the future of Europe is also being decided, and that is why we must all stand alongside Ukraine.
- No negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine and on Europe without Europe.
The representatives of Ukraine and Europe must have a legitimate seat at the negotiating table, with Ukraine serving not as an object of geopolitical interests, but as a sovereign state. The original draft was largely drawn up without European and Ukrainian involvement. Europe demands full transparency – no covert negotiations between major powers over the heads of those affected.
- Negotiations should start once a ceasefire has been established
Last week, we saw in Kharkiv, Dnipro, Ternopil and other cities that russia does not want peace, but rather the total destruction of Ukraine. Time and again, we see russia using negotiation processes as a strategic weapon to divide Ukraine’s coalition of supporters.
- Credible mechanisms for security guarantees
Although the present plan speaks of guarantees, it simultaneously restricts Ukraine’s defence capabilities and offers no credible mechanisms for security guarantees, meaning that russia could launch another massive attack at any time. An effective deterrent must be clearly defined, enforceable and effective against any violations. The plan on offer is being called the ‘Budapest Memorandum 2.0’ – in other words, a guarantee without a guarantee. Germany calls for binding, robust and sanctionable security mechanisms. Europe must not allow military aggression to be rewarded by gaining territory that it has previously occupied. Europe must make it clear that without verifiable, enforceable security mechanisms, there will be no peace, but rather a standstill in preparation for the next attack.
- No ultimatum for Ukraine, but for russia
russia attacked Ukraine and should take responsibility for it; you cannot expect the victims to pay for a lasting and just peace. russia’s wish list is focused on restricting the Ukrainian army, but not the russian one. Any restriction on Ukrainian soldiers forces Ukraine into structural defencelessness. Europe must strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend itself – not artificially weaken it.
- russia’s wish list paves the way for the next war
Several points contradict the fundamental principles of European security and international law. These include unconstitutional restrictions on Ukrainian sovereignty, such as a NATO ban, the de facto surrender of Ukrainian territories, the limitation of armed forces, and russia’s possible return to international structures before the war has actually ended and issues of reparations and compensation have been resolved.
- russian funds to be treated as leverage rather than as an imperative for the aggressor
Clear commitment to the use of russian state assets for the benefit of Ukraine – not as a geopolitical bargaining chip. The plan provides for reconstruction-linked release, which is politically linked to concessions. Germany should make it clear that recourse to frozen assets is russia’s legal responsibility, not a matter for negotiation. The plan provides for Moscow’s geopolitical reintegration, while Ukraine is expected to make concessions.
- Ukraine is a sovereign country that belongs to its people, not a pawn of external powers
Ukraine must decide for itself which coalitions (such as the EU or NATO) it wishes to belong to. Europe must make it clear that security policy decisions must never be made under russian or any other coercion. Europe must never accept a russian veto over Ukraine’s future.
Finally, we would like to emphasise and make it clear to you that any proposal that implicitly or explicitly urges a ‘final settlement’ is contrary to international law. There can be no peace that protects perpetrators and disenfranchises victims. The moment perpetrators are not being prosecuted, international borders are being shifted by force, and victims are being denied the right to self-determination, a world emerges in which no one can believe in international laws and feel safe anymore – just like after 1938.
Thursday, 27 November 202518:00–19:00In front of the German Chancellery (Bundeskanzleramt), Berlin
Every euro that flows to russia means more missiles against Ukrainian cities — and poses a greater threat to Europe.
Our demands:
- Air defence systems for Ukraine.russia continues to bomb residential areas, kindergartens, and hospitals. Without protection, every day costs lives.
- Support Ukraine’s energy resilience.russian attacks target the energy grid, forcing millions into darkness. Ukraine needs transformers, mobile heating, and repair funding now.
- End imports of russian oil, gas, and LNG.German and European money still fuels this war. Energy policy is security policy — stop financing the aggressor.
This is not just about Ukraine. It’s about Europe’s security, democracy, and peace — peace built on justice, not dependence.
Join us! Stand for Ukraine. Stand for Europe.
Date: 24.11.2025Time: 19:30At Berliner Ensemble
Tickets available via link: Click here
We’re honored to invite you to a crucial conversation featuring Oleksandra Matviichuk, who will share insights from her work documenting war crimes and defending human rights in Ukraine.
Part 1: 19:30 – 20:30A conversation between Oleksandra Matviichuk and journalist Sabine Adler on justice in wartime, moral courage, and the unwavering strength of civil society that fights for justice even in the darkest hours.
Part 2: 20:45 – 21:30A panel discussion with Oleksandra Matviichuk, Michael Meyer and Rebecca Harms, moderated by Mattia Nelles, exploring critical questions: Does democracy survive under martial law? What does post-war democracy look like? And what can Europe learn from Ukraine’s experience?
The evening concludes with networking and informal discussion over drinks and refreshments.
Speakers:• Oleksandra Matviichuk (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate)• Sabine Adler (Journalist)• Michael Meyer-Resende (Lawyer)• Rebecca Harms (Former Politician)• Mattia Nelles (Ukraine Expert)Join us for this important dialogue on democracy, courage, and resilience.
22 November 2025, 17:00Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, BerlinLanguage: ENEntrance: free donation
Registration is required: Click here
Between the 1940s and 1950s, thousands of Ukrainian women were imprisoned in the Gulag for real or alleged ties to the national anti-Soviet resistance. Despite hunger, violence, and dehumanizing conditions, they sang, wrote poetry, embroidered, and created art. What meaning did creativity hold for women facing daily survival? And what can their handmade artifacts tell us about resilience and dignity under total oppression? The lecture draws on Oksana Kis’ award-winning book Survival as Victory: Ukrainian Women in the Gulag (Harvard, 2021).
Speaker: Oksana Kis is a feminist historian and anthropologist, a head of the National Research Foundation of Ukraine and a President of the Ukrainian Association for Research in Women’s History.
21 November 2025, 18:30Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, BerlinLanguage: ENEntrance: free donation
Registration is required: Click here
Donetsk Oblast is often viewed through the prism of war and destruction, yet its cultural landscape is much deeper and more diverse.Olya Tsyprykova, co-founder and head of the North Azovian Greeks NGO, will shed light on the history and identity of the Urums and Roumeans – an indigenous community from the northern coast of the Sea of Azov in Ukraine, and how russia’s war endangers their cultural heritage. This talk will be followed by a Q&A and a tasting of psatyr – a traditional North Azovian Greek bread recently added to Ukraine’s National List of Intangible Cultural Heritage.
We, the Berlin-based NGO Vitsche e.V., whose mission is to counteract russian propaganda and amplify Ukrainian voices across Europe, write to express our deep concern regarding the return of the performances “Museum of Uncounted Voices” by Marina Davydova at HAU Hebbel am Ufer, scheduled for 2–11 November 2025.
As an organisation representing Ukrainian allies living and working in Berlin’s cultural and political spheres, we are committed to supporting artistic freedom and open discourse. In this matter, we strongly value HAU Hebbel am Ufer’s legacy as a progressive theatre that offers opportunities to artists who cannot realise their projects in their own countries due to political or economic repression, and that works with respect needed to ensure its projects do not retraumatise or devalue anyone. Such an approach is crucial in a moment when authoritarian forces are regaining visibility and power, including within Germany’s public sphere.
However, we believe that cultural institutions bear an ethical responsibility for the narratives and particular works of art they choose to host, particularly in times of violent conflicts, such as the ongoing russian war against Ukraine.
Marina Davydova, a long-time figure of the russian theatrical establishment, presents herself as a liberal exile, while reproducing the very logic that underpins russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Platforming such narratives, especially those emerging from cultural elites in russia, risks reproducing imperial frames and blurring the distinction between aggressor and victim, coloniser and colonised. On top of that, it actually reinforces the absurd justification of the russian invasion of Ukraine.
In this respect, we believe that the play “Museum of Uncounted Voices” is not an act of a sophisticated reassertion of russian exceptionalism disguised as irony and self-victimisation. Without proper contextualisation, such framing becomes dangerous, misleading and insensitive for the groups directly affected by russian aggression today.
Not Handling Complexity Ends Up Reinforcing Propaganda
Davydova constructs her stage as a pseudo-museum of “russian greatness.” The opening episode presents scenes of imperial ecstasy intertwined with mainstream russian propaganda claims, where, among many falsified “facts,” the annexation of Ukrainian territories such as Kherson and Crimea is described as a “voluntary joining.” Today such statements in public completely ignore the fact that they are traumatising and triggering without accurately formulated context. For example Davydova herself has remarked that some audience members reacted with alarm to such statements, recognising them not as satire but as reinforcement of russian territorial claims: “When the actor says: ‘Kherson, Sevastopol, beautiful Odesa — these are our cities,’ a woman — I assume Ukrainian — stood up and screamed that this is horrible, that one must not say these are russian cities, taking it literally.” (Interview with Radio Svoboda, 31 May 2023) Instead of acknowledging the dramaturgical responsibility for such misreadings, Davydova chose to dismiss these reactions as a failure of audience understanding, implying that those who criticise the portrayal simply lack the sophistication to comprehend the irony. This condescension toward the audience, especially those whose lands and lives are directly impacted, reveals an underlying hierarchy in which Davydova’s “risky artistic provocation” is treated as inherently legitimate, while the lived experiences of the directly affected are dismissed as irrational or overly emotional.
Appropriation of Colonised Voices
In the following scenes, the director assumes the authority to speak on behalf of five nations historically oppressed by the russian and Soviet regimes — Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. She fabricates fictional dialogues among these nations, portraying them as quarrelling over “who suffered more,” as if their histories of violence, genocide, and colonisation were interchangeable. Davydova further underscores this by staging a “short opera” in which all characters sing, “We are the victims, we are the main victims,” reducing the anti-colonial struggles of these nations to a caricature of competitive victimhood.
The performance provides no evidence of research, consultation, or engagement with the communities whose histories it claims the authority to retell. It is quite worrying for us to see that in your anti-colonial Institution such a colonial approach is finding its stage. Instead, their perspectives are refracted solely through Davydova’s own interpretive framework — one shaped by a cultural position historically aligned with russian narratives. In this structure, national identities marked by imperial subjugation are flattened into stereotypes, and their experiences become instruments for a theatrical concept rather than the subjects of meaningful representation. The result is a reproduction of a familiar hierarchy: a russian-coded worldview remains central, while the experiences and histories of formerly dominated nations are seconded to a narrative constructed elsewhere.
In political and documentary theatre, representation practices demand responsibility: centring marginalised voices without collaboration, consent, or contextual accuracy is not neutrality but a continuation of the very generalising and identity-erasing structures the artwork claims to interrogate, which in case of russia often follows with the armed invasion.
We urge HAU Hebbel am Ufer to critically reflect on the implications of giving the space in their house to this production without contextual framing.
We call on HAU Hebbel am Ufer to refrain from presenting this production in its current form and to commit to curatorial practices that do not legitimise imperial narratives, but instead centre informed, responsible representation.
We write this letter not to silence but to demand responsibility, to remind that neutrality is a form of complicity in times of rising authoritarian threats and brutal war. We stand for artistic dialogue that is ethically grounded and historically aware, not for the normalisation of imperial trauma narratives or the reproduction of harmful power structures on stage.
We invite HAU Hebbel am Ufer to enter into an open conversation with representatives of the affected communities in Berlin to ensure that the stage remains a space for justice, not for distortion.