Uppmärksamhet som ett vapen: hur Ukraina hindrade världen från att vända bort blicken

We are often asked, in various forums, how Ukraine has managed to remain at the centre of international attention for a fifth year, despite competing crises and political cycles in partner countries. We interviewed dozens of Ukrainian experts and saw a mosaic of factors emerge, among which eight stand out.

1.   The moral clarity of war

In many modern conflicts, it is difficult for an outside observer to grasp quickly what exactly lies at the heart of the confrontation: historical trauma, religious divisions, disputed territories, or overlapping claims accumulated over decades. In the case of Ukraine, Russia declared its intentions openly from the outset: it denies the very idea of an independent Ukrainian nation and has therefore resorted to genocidal attempts to erase Ukrainian identity, language, culture and historical memory.

Unprecedented public warnings from western intelligence agencies about an imminent Russian attack, which appeared as early as autumn 2021, created a situation in which the war appeared in the global news even before it began at full scale. The world could no longer claim ignorance. Therefore, despite years of Russian propaganda, the aggression looked unambiguous: an attempt to destroy a sovereign state with internationally recognized borders and return the world to a logic in which the strong determine the future of the weak by force. Russia was an obvious evil, and on March 22nd 2022 the UN General Assembly, by 141 votes in favour and only five against, condemned the Russian invasion and demanded the immediate withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine.

Missile strikes on civilian infrastructure, mass graves of civilians, the weaponization of grain supplies, and nuclear threats did not let the world forget who the aggressor was in this war. They pointed not to the random cruelty of war, but to the brutal logic of the Russian war machine. After Bucha and Mariupol, ambiguity became almost impossible, and Russia finally lost any credible claim to Ukraine as its “sphere of interest”.

As a result, Ukraine gave many people something they had begun to lose: the belief that evil can be called evil, freedom can be defended, and the world can still be changed, despite everything. This moral framework gave legitimacy to support for Ukraine and raised the political price of indifference. It became increasingly difficult for western governments to explain to their societies why they were not acting in such a morally obvious situation. Ukrainian resilience also created the sense that this support was not in vain: that Ukraine, its freedom and its people were worth fighting for.

2.   The David and Goliath archetype

Moral clarity would certainly not have been enough if Ukraine had not resisted. Sympathy for the suffering of a victim sooner or later fades, but Ukraine abandoned the role of victim and managed to put up an effective resistance. From the first days of the war, despite low expectations and widespread disbelief, Ukraine defied predictions and transformed the world’s sympathy into respect, producing new examples of asymmetric resistance almost daily.

This resistance fell into the classic David and Goliath archetype: the smaller and weaker side, yet fighting for the truth, facing off against greater brute force. The whole of western civilisation is built on this archetype, which is repeated hundreds of times in history and culture: from the 300 Spartans to the American colonists; and from the hobbits, Asterix and Harry Potter to freedom fighters resisting evil empires in Star Wars or Dune.

Kyiv did not fall in three days, the economy did not grind to a halt, the state did not crumble, and society did not lose its cohesion. Instead, Russian tanks burned by the dozen, and the Russian fleet lost its flagship. Almost no one expected this, and the gap between forecast and reality sustained international attention.

This surprise was reinforced by the fact that, for many in the West, Ukraine became a kind of great geographical discovery of the 21st century: David turned out to be very close, yet remained largely unknown, and embodied virtues that some in the West considered lost. Cultural proximity allowed westerners to understand and inhabit the Ukrainian experience much more easily, while technological advances such as real-time video and Google Maps amplified the effect. Ukraine’s exceeding of expectations turned out not to be a one-off, but something repeated, each time on a greater scale.

In this archetype, not only David but also Goliath matters. Russia’s scale, and the traditionally great attention paid to it, also prevented the war from slipping off the agenda and becoming a merely local story. The great enemy made Ukrainian resistance visible to those who had previously looked past Ukraine.

The public nature of the war, its unprecedented unfolding in real time not only on CNN or Fox but also on social networks, through the eyes of real participants in events, made Ukraine’s story not only tragic but also dramatic and tense. The absence of an obvious winner holds attention like a good series, with suspense and the possibility of a happy ending.

3.   Zelenskyy as the personification of Ukrainian resistance

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave the Ukrainian David a voice and a rhythm, and brought him onto the international stage. His decision to stay in Kyiv was the first powerful political image of the full-scale war seen by the world. His phrase “I need ammunition, not a ride” began to be repeated in pubs around the world. Zelenskyy’s style, recognizable military clothing, intonation, short speeches, jokes, command of words and ability to pause created an atypical yet understandable image, sharply contrasting with other European leaders. In a sense, he became a rock star of global politics.

The experience of a showman, often criticized in peacetime, became a tool for attracting attention in war. Zelensky understands the camera, the audience, the drama of the moment and the power of a simple message. As early as March 1st 2022, he addressed the European Parliament. That same month he also spoke before the parliaments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, Germany, France and Japan. By the end of 2022, he had addressed forty parliaments and international forums, including the Grammys and Cannes Film Festival. His speeches often struck a nerve with their audiences, although Zelenskyy’s language often went beyond the boundaries of classical diplomacy. He could be sharp, awkward and emotional, and sometimes irritated partners, but it was precisely this manner that prevented Ukraine from becoming just another item on the agenda.

On December 21st 2022, in Washington, during his first trip outside Ukraine after February 24th, he addressed a joint session of both houses of Congress. One of the authors of this column was present at the event and felt the deepest respect for Ukraine and its wartime leader, who brought congressmen a flag straight from the front line and said, to a standing ovation: “Ukraine is alive and kicking.”

Every day, the Ukrainian president delivered video addresses to Ukrainians and to the world. These several hundred appeals a year together formed an unprecedented communication marathon. The global media constantly had content directly from Kyiv, which attracted attention and greatly reduced the risk that someone else would tell our story instead of us.

4.   Public diplomacy and a network of global sympathy

A wider ecosystem of support for Ukraine grew around official Ukrainian communication. Politicians, artists, monarchs, actors, historians, public intellectuals and opinion leaders made support for Ukraine part of their own mission and invested part of their reputation in helping the country. For many audiences, it mattered that Ukraine was supported by people they considered authoritative, interesting or morally convincing. Figures such as George Clooney, Robert De Niro, Alexander Stubb, Ursula von der Leyen, King Charles and Prince Harry, as well as United24 ambassadors from world-famous actors to Timothy Snyder, worked not merely as “stars in the background”, but as multipliers of the attention Ukraine needed.

This ecosystem also included millions of Ukrainians who were forced to live abroad in dozens of countries around the world. The very presence of these usually well-educated, active and professional people worked as part of public diplomacy. By telling their deeply human stories in local communities, they turned kitchens, classrooms, hospitals, coffee shops, charity fairs and after-work conversations into platforms for people’s diplomacy promoting Ukrainian resilience. The power of horizontal connections added further strength: this was not one vertical campaign, but many local efforts that together created a permanent presence for Ukraine in public discourse.

This grassroots energy was complemented by professional communication campaigns such as Be Brave Like Ukraine in Times Square or the United24 platform. They transformed Ukrainian courage into a recognizable international image. Professional think tank diplomacy and a vibrant constellation of Ukrainian human rights activists, journalists, historians, philosophers and public intellectuals explained Ukraine in different languages, on different platforms, and for different audiences and communities.

Ukrainian words were supported by images broadcast on news channels and by visual actions from Ukrainian athletes and artists. Films and books at international festivals transformed Ukraine from a news event into a subject of long-term intellectual and moral reflection. The pinnacle of this was Mstislav Chernov’s 2024 Oscar for Best Documentary Feature for the documentary 20 Days in Mariupol.

This gradually changed both media and academic discourse. For many westerners, an unknown country with its own history, culture, traumas, institutions, memory disputes and political agency suddenly opened up. Timothy Snyder’s Yale lecture course “The Making of Modern Ukraine” attracted more than 2.5 million views just in 2022, becoming the most visible symbol of a broader shift: sympathy for Ukraine began to permeate not only media discourse, but also academic conversation.

5.   Ukraine’s military agency

In the largest war in Europe since the Second World War, Ukraine not only survived but also performed remarkably well, thanks to courage, adaptability and innovation. From a victim country in need of help, we have grown into a partner with our own strength, experience and knowledge worth studying.

Russia’s war against Ukraine has become one of the main places where new knowledge about 21st-century warfare is now being generated. That is why it is closely followed by military headquarters, defence companies, intelligence agencies, analysts and governments.

The defence of Kyiv; the liberation of northern Ukraine and the southern city of Kherson; the sinking of the flagship cruiser Moskva by Ukrainian Neptune missiles and the overall destruction of more than a third of the Black Sea Fleet; clandestine operations such as "Spiderweb", drone attacks on four distant Russian airfields that destroyed or damaged more than 20 strategic bombers; strikes on more than 50 oil refineries; attacks on both Moscow, the Urals and even Siberia, including hitting key Russian economic and military objects, even remote ones. Through all this, Ukraine kept surprising its partners with continual novelty, demonstrating that their support ultimately translates into unique capabilities.

A separate factor has been the innovative nature of Ukrainian defence tech. FPV strike drones, naval drones, interceptor and deep-strike drones, situational awareness and battlefield management systems, ground robotic platforms, electronic warfare, and new ways to protect cities, energy and logistics have all become part of the global learning process. The greatest Ukrainian innovation is not a single product, but a new type of military innovation system: cheap mass production, fast feedback and rapid adaptation, multiple supply channels, and the integration of R&D and production within the defence forces. This unique ecosystem cannot be bought, but it can be joined through joint investment, development and production.

The experience of the most combat-ready army in Europe, and of millions of people, energy facilities and logistics networks surviving and working under daily shelling, has become highly valued. Even the National Bank of Ukraine provides technical assistance to other central banks preparing for war.

And the world, unfortunately, is entering a period in which those who know how to resist, fight, adapt and live under pressure are becoming valuable again. Ukraine, therefore, is a solution, not a problem: living knowledge studied by those preparing for their own future scenarios.

6.   The horizontal power of civil society

Ukraine’s military agency has a broader source. Behind the army stands an active society which, from the first days, joined the resistance with money, time, skills, personal connections and risk-taking. Ukraine, as a democracy, constantly demands efficiency from its government and forces it to look back at public sentiment. This can lead to populism in peacetime, but in a full-scale war it has become a resource for survival.

Ukrainian political culture has long had experience of self-organization: from the medieval “viche” and Magdeburg Law to Cossack councils and the modern Maidans. The decentralization reform and strengthening of local self-government carried out after 2014 gave Ukraine a depth that many external observers underestimated.

The first to demonstrate this were tens of thousands of Ukrainians who volunteered for the army. From the first days of the war, people stopped Russian columns with their bare hands, joined territorial defence, wove camouflage nets, carried food and personal protective equipment, evacuated civilians and their pets, opened business warehouses to the army, and converted offices into volunteer headquarters. This was a grassroots initiative that did not wait for a call from the authorities.

Business communities became centres for the formation of volunteer networks, production clusters and even new armed units. Businesses transferred resources to the army, evacuated people, financed equipment, repaired machinery, built logistics, created innovative medical centres and supported their mobilized employees. NGOs turned into a powerful infrastructure for supporting the army where the state could not keep up with everything. This is especially true given the scale and complexity of the war.

Despite fatigue and exhaustion, and despite periodic political scandals and protests in defence of the anti-corruption infrastructure, this force has not disappeared even in the fifth year of the full-scale war. Ukrainian society did not crumble and remains a stable rear for its army. Civil society once again proved that people are Ukraine’s key value. External partners saw that it was not only the president, the state or the army that was resisting. The whole society was fighting, and it knew what it was fighting for. This will, this thirst for existence, also attracted the attention of the world, because it showed that Ukraine was relying not only on external assistance, but also on an internal consent to continue fighting.

7.   Institutional diplomacy and international coordination

All these factors would not have worked for so long without strong institutional diplomacy. Ukrainian society, the army, President Zelenskyy and public diplomacy created attention, but attention had to be turned into decisions. This was done by the diplomatic Team Ukraine: the foreign ministry, embassies, representatives to international organizations, government officials, MPs, and teams working with the UN, the US, EU, NATO, IMF, World Bank and other institutions, including PACE and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. They projected the right messages outward, maintained the attention of international audiences, often acted unconventionally, and knew how to use the moment.

Ukrainian ambassadors ceased to be merely protocol diplomats. They went on television and spoke in parliaments, universities, business associations, think tanks and regional media. An ambassador under martial law had not only to represent the state, but also to explain the war, respond to fatigue and emotion, and ask for weapons, money, sanctions, humanitarian aid and political support.

Active diplomacy materialized not only in bilateral agreements, but also in a series of UN General Assembly resolutions, decisions of international courts, ICC warrants and the establishment of a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression. These were not merely symbolic gestures. They consolidated the interpretive and legal framework of the war and did not allow the international community to forget who the aggressor was and who bore responsibility.

Attention to Ukraine gradually became institutionalized. Permanent mechanisms of international coordination appeared at the level of the EU, G7, NATO, IMF, World Bank, EBRD and others. Military formats and donor platforms began to operate, transforming political support for Ukraine into specific defence contracts, financial packages and security commitments. Sometimes support came as an advance, but it also became a signal that Ukraine could be relied upon. This ensured the stability of budget planning and protected support from possible political fluctuations or changes in sentiment within individual countries. Ramstein, PURL, the Ukraine Facility Plan, IMF programmes, EU macro-financial assistance and sanctions packages provided the contours along which support could move even after the emotional wave had subsided.

After all, the world’s attention cannot be held for five years solely by sympathy or powerful speeches. But when attention turns into institutions, it receives schedules, budgets, mandates, meetings, tranches, packages, deadlines and responsible people. This is how political sympathy became a system of long-term support for our country.

8.   Ukraine as a defender of world order

For Europe, the scale and geography of the war made the Ukrainian question acute from day one. Under the NATO security umbrella, many European countries had grown used to the idea that war takes place somewhere far away, or must be stopped by someone else. After decades of comfortable belief in eternal peace on the continent, Russian aggression brought the fear of a Third World War back to the centre of Europe. It has now become clear that the European way of life rests on the fact that the war was stopped in Ukraine; had Ukraine fallen, the war would have moved further west.

The war soon spread beyond the continent. The blockade of the Black Sea hit grain supplies to Africa, the Middle East and South-East Asia. Russian energy blackmail fuelled inflation in a world still grappling with the effects of the pandemic. Growing military anxiety forced many governments to review defence budgets while their fiscal space was already limited. Even distant countries began to feel the impact of the war through prices, supplies, risks and new budget priorities.

Russia violated international law so clearly and blatantly that further silence, or mere expressions of “deep concern”, would have meant capitulation to barbarism. Its alliance with the most destructive authoritarian regimes on the planet turned the threat into a global one. The Kremlin’s efforts to undermine the world order demonstrated that no nation can feel safe in a world without rules. But Russia’s attempt to paralyse the world with fear instead made it obvious that the war in Ukraine is the last line separating global stability from total chaos.

The unpredictability of American policy towards Europe increased the importance of developing Europe’s own defence solution, and it was Ukraine that already had the army, experience and real practice of containing Russia. It seems that Ukraine is the country holding Europe’s shield.

In these conditions, Ukraine, which at first appeared only as an aid recipient, has demonstrated its new role as a security provider, one in which it is worth investing resources in order to avoid far greater losses from a possible war tomorrow. Not everyone saw this change quickly or equally, but in the end attention to Ukraine shifted from moral and emotional shock to cold calculation.

Not all five years were the same

Taken together, these factors explain why Ukraine has remained visible for so long: moral clarity, cultural proximity, the breadth and determination of resistance, constant battlefield adaptation, technological ingenuity, the institutionalization of support, and the growing understanding that Ukraine’s survival matters for European and global security.

But in reality, these five years were not one long, uniform period. In 2022, the world was in shock. Ukrainian society, with its first wave of resistance, managed to pull the world out of its initial paralysis. In the second half of that year, the Ukrainian army gave a new impulse of hope, when the Kharkiv region and Kherson showed that Russia could not only be stopped, but also pushed back.

The following years proved that attention cannot rest on a single moral impulse. It needs trust earned on the battlefield and a clear political path. This is why battlefield credibility and Ukraine’s determined movement towards the EU became so important, eventually leading, despite resistance from some countries, to the recent opening of the first cluster of formal accession negotiations.

The first international assistance arrived as early as March 2022, but systematic support was built gradually. The IMF programme in March 2023 helped preserve macroeconomic stability. The Ukraine Facility in March 2024 gave Ukraine a longer financial horizon. ERA loans and the Ukraine Support Loan opened access to resources backed by immobilized Russian assets, while PURL turned allied support into purchases of American weapons for Ukraine.

At times, the world was forgetting about us. It grew tired, moral truth did not always translate into political decisions, and elections in key partner countries made support look like a mirage. But while journalists, human rights defenders, prosecutors and volunteers worked to ensure that Russia’s war crimes did not disappear from view, diplomats kept searching for new solutions, and the military kept returning territory and the dignity of strength to Ukraine.

The quality of assistance also changed. F-16s, the Czech ammunition initiative, the Danish model for financing Ukraine’s defence industry, SAFE, drones, long-range systems and production inside Ukraine all show that, despite fighting a powerful adversary, Ukraine is steadily taking its place in the architecture of European security.

In 2022, the world looked at Ukraine as David facing Goliath. Now the Ukrainian David must keep attention as a weapon, turning it into a long horizon of Ukrainian victory and sustainable peace for Europe.

Valerii Pekar is a chairman of the board of the Decolonization NGO, the author of four books, an adjunct professor at the Kyiv-Mohyla Business School and Business School of the Ukrainian Catholic University, and a former member of the National Reform Council.

Vladyslav Rashkovan is Alternate Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund, former Deputy Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine, and the co-author of two books.