The seminar aims to reflect on the wartime reconstruction effort in Ukrainian cities, and to follow up on the cooperation between academics and professional consultants around a concept masterplan for Mykolaiv. The publication of a book summarising visions and strategies for repositioning Mykolaiv in a post-war scenario, together with the analyses supporting them, occasioned this event. 

However, planning activities in Mykolaiv were carried out in the expectation of a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia that has not materialised so far and will be hard to achieve. Therefore, the seminar also questions whether Ukrainian cities need to reconstruct civilian infrastructure for a durable peacetime or prepare to resist further Russian warfare. This question is not only relevant for Ukraine; Europe is also facing a geopolitical turning point as the United States reorients in the international arena toward the South-East and the Arctic. 

Looking at the reconstruction plans for Ukrainian cities without being touched by what is happening on the ground is challenging. Even the basic concept of rebuilding looks idealistically grounded on an “Atlantic” vision of reconstruction in what should have been a pacified Ukrainian land… This is just a piece of broken glass nowadays. Europe is rearming, NATO is undergoing a profound reform, while negotiations on a truce are progressing with enormous difficulty. 
 

The seminar engages with these conditions, remaining flatly attached to the facts: over three years ago, the Ukrainian government, recognising the scale of the impending urban crisis, sought the expertise of the UNECE and other international partners. In a move to translate reconstruction hypotheses into tangible actions, the UNECE launched the #UN4 project, which galvanised a multi-agency Task Force. Rather than a mere bureaucratic manoeuvre, it was a strategic intervention aimed at bridging the gap between abstract planning and the brutal reality on the ground. 

In this context, the experiences addressed through wartime reconstruction presented a dual bias. On the one hand, the masterplans were based on assumptions of socio-political and economic stability — the conditions needed for a rapid recovery — which remain very uncertain as the conflict persists. On the other hand, the masterplans drew up flexible, long-term visions for urban development that accommodated alternative implementation scenarios. 

The preparation of the master plan for Mykolaiv, in particular, took place through a delicate balance between several challenging conditions: the inadequacy of outdated planning tools and a planning system whose reform is incomplete; the objectives of the municipal leadership and a commitment to listening to the voices of residents; the need for up-to-date territorial data for damage assessment and the gaps of the available datasets; the influence of European urban models and respect for local urban traditions. Moving along this ruggedridge, we completed a planning activity that we hope will contribute to the equitable and sustainable reconstruction of Mykolaiv on land firmly Ukrainian and included in the European Union.