Beyond the Battlefield: Civil Defense, Care Infrastructure, and Gender in Comprehensive Resilience

Speakers

• Dr. Cordula Dittmer – Disaster Sociologist, Senior Researcher at the Academy of the Disaster Research Unit (ADRU)
• Dr. Ulrike Hopp-Nishanka – Head of the Task Force Ukraine, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)
• Nataliya Machalina – Researcher on gender equality and women’s participation in the security and defense sector; Coordinator at the Research Centre Ukraine / Max Weber Foundation
• Olga Nemanezhyna – Resilience strategist specializing in civilian preparedness and institutional resilience in crisis contexts
• Dr. Olena Strelnyk – Sociologist and Senior Researcher at the CSO “Gender in Detail”
• Dr. Tamara Zlobina – Feminist philosopher, activist, and Head of the CSO “Expert Resource Gender in Detail”

Moderator

• Robert Sperfeld – Senior Program Officer, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (East and South East Europe Department)

The expert discussion “Civil Defense and Care Infrastructure: Key Pillars of Comprehensive Resilience” took place on 24 February 2026 at the Berlin office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation. The event brought together researchers and practitioners to examine how comprehensive defense can be understood beyond the military sphere and how societal resilience can be shaped through gender perspective. The discussion focused particularly on lessons from Ukraine’s experience during the full-scale Russian invasion, as well as insights from Sweden and Germany, highlighting how democratic societies can strengthen their preparedness for prolonged crises.

Opening the discussion, Tamara Zlobina addressed the conceptual framework of war and security. She argued that the commonly used distinction between “hybrid warfare” and “war” risks obscuring the nature of contemporary conflicts. In her view, such distinctions suggest that some forms of aggression are somehow less severe or less consequential than others, while in reality they are simply different manifestations of the same phenomenon. War today often unfolds simultaneously across multiple domains — military, informational, economic, and social — and should therefore be understood as a comprehensive form of aggression against democratic institutions, human rights, and open societies.

Zlobina emphasized that current geopolitical developments reveal an increasingly visible divide between authoritarian regimes and democratic states. In this context, democratic societies must reconsider how they conceptualize security and resilience.

The concept of comprehensive defense provides an important analytical framework for this discussion because it recognizes that national security does not depend solely on military strength but also on the resilience of civilian institutions, social infrastructure, and communities.

Within this framework, Dr. Zlobina presented the research project “Gender Mainstreaming in Comprehensive Defense.”  The project examines how gender perspectives can be integrated into security and resilience policies. The research focuses on seven sectors that are central to comprehensive defense: volunteer movements, civil defense, information policy, economic resilience, care work, women’s participation in the armed forces, and women’s representation in state governance.

To better understand how comprehensive defense can function in practice, the research team conducted a study visit to Sweden, where the concept originated. A group of 21 researchers examined Swedish institutional structures and policy approaches in order to analyze how different sectors of society are integrated into national preparedness systems and how gender perspectives are incorporated into these structures.

Building on this comparative perspective, Olga Nemanezhyna explored the differences between Swedish and Ukrainian civil defense systems. She explained that Sweden’s defense model is built around a highly institutionalized and coordinated system that distributes responsibilities across different levels of governance. The system begins at the national level, continues through regional and municipal authorities, and ultimately reaches individual citizens.

In Sweden, the concept of civil defense emphasizes that every member of society has a role to play in maintaining resilience. Citizens are expected not only to prepare individually but also to contribute to the functioning of institutions and essential services during crises. At the same time, Nemanezhyna pointed out that Ukraine’s experience during the full-scale invasion demonstrates another critical dimension of resilience: speed and adaptability. Ukrainian society has repeatedly shown the ability to mobilize rapidly in response to emerging threats. Civil society organizations, volunteer networks, local governments, and informal initiatives often react faster than institutional bureaucratic systems would allow.

This capacity for rapid mobilization has played a crucial role in sustaining Ukrainian society during wartime. However, Nemanezhyna noted that long-term resilience also requires institutional stability and coordination. For this reason, she suggested that 

An effective comprehensive defense system should combine the strengths of both models: the institutional coordination characteristic of Sweden and the flexibility and responsiveness demonstrated by Ukrainian society.

Nataliya Machalina presented key empirical findings from the research on civilian preparedness in Ukraine. The study reveals a significant gap between the high motivation of citizens to contribute to national resilience and the limited availability of systematic training opportunities.

According to the survey results, only 14.7 percent of respondents reported having received any civil defense training since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. At the same time, the research indicates that societal motivation remains high. Forty-three percent of respondents believe that civilians should actively participate in responding to emergencies and supporting national resilience. Moreover, 48 percent indicated that they would be willing to engage in such activities if they had access to appropriate training.

These findings suggest that Ukrainian society possesses a strong potential for civic engagement in civil defense, but the institutional mechanisms necessary to transform this motivation into structured participation remain underdeveloped.

Machalina also highlighted the crucial role played by women in strengthening societal resilience. Women are heavily involved in volunteer movements, humanitarian coordination, community-based support networks, and crisis management initiatives. In many local contexts, women have taken on organizational and logistical roles that help sustain community resilience during wartime.

Despite this strong involvement, women continue to face barriers to fuller participation in the security sector. These barriers include persistent gender stereotypes about appropriate roles in defense and security, insufficient institutional integration of women-led initiatives, and the absence of systematic training and professional pathways within civil preparedness structures.

Based on these findings, the research proposes several recommendations aimed at strengthening civilian resilience in Ukraine. These include integrating civil security training into the activities of national resistance training centers, developing certification systems and continuous training programs for volunteers, institutionalizing women’s initiatives within civil preparedness frameworks, and creating decentralized governance systems that connect state institutions, local authorities, and civil society organizations.

Machalina also emphasized that civil defense should not be understood exclusively in military terms.

 Everyday preparedness — including basic first aid training and the ability to respond effectively to emergencies — is a crucial component of societal resilience.

An interesting insight from the Swedish model concerns the existence of pre-coordinated wartime responsibilities for civilians organized through employers. In Sweden, certain civilian functions during crises are already assigned within professional structures, allowing workplaces to play an active role in national preparedness. While this system itself requires updating and modernization, elements of this approach could be adapted in Ukraine to strengthen coordination and preparedness.

Olena Strelnyk focused on a dimension of resilience that is often overlooked in security debates: care infrastructure. She argued that care should be conceptualized as a critical component of comprehensive defense because the functioning of society during wartime depends heavily on the continuity of care systems.

The Swedish model of comprehensive defense emphasizes the importance of ensuring that essential services — including healthcare, education, and social services — continue to function during crises. However, Strelnyk noted that care work itself is rarely conceptualized explicitly as part of national security infrastructure.

She emphasized that both paid and unpaid care work should be recognized as central elements of resilience systems. During wartime, the demand for care services increases significantly, while at the same time care infrastructures are often disrupted by displacement, resource shortages, and institutional strain.

War also creates unequal burdens within care systems. Caregivers and people dependent on care services are particularly vulnerable during crises. Since many professions within healthcare, education, and social services are predominantly female, women often carry a disproportionate share of the social responsibilities associated with sustaining communities during wartime.

Recognizing care infrastructure as part of comprehensive defense would therefore allow policymakers to better understand how resilience is produced and maintained at the societal level.

Dr. Cordula Dittmer provided the German perspective on civil defense and highlighted several conceptual and historical factors shaping current debates in Germany. She explained that in the German policy context, civil defense and civil protection represent distinct concepts. Civil defense primarily refers to activities aimed at supporting the armed forces during wartime, while civil protection focuses on disaster management, emergency response, and the protection of civilian populations.

Dittmer noted that contemporary discussions about strengthening defense systems in Germany are shaped by what sociologists describe as a “fatigue of change.”

 While Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated the fragility of peace in Europe and the need to strengthen security structures, many Germans remain hesitant about major shifts in defense policy.

This hesitation is deeply rooted in Germany’s historical experience of initiating and losing two world wars and the legacy of the Holocaust. For decades, German political culture has been strongly influenced by the idea that peace should be achieved without militarization. As a result, the country now faces the challenge of reconciling its historical responsibility with the need to respond to new security threats.

Another important issue concerns the organization of critical infrastructure protection. In Germany, many aspects of civil defense remain closely linked to military structures. However, a framework act adopted at the end of 2025 introduced new provisions recognizing the importance of childcare, healthcare, and other civilian infrastructure in resilience planning. As in Ukraine, these sectors are heavily feminized, which raises important questions about gender equality and labor distribution in crisis governance.

Dittmer also highlighted the central role of voluntary engagement within the German civil protection system. More than 90 percent of individuals involved in emergency response and crisis management work as volunteers, while only a small proportion are professional staff. While this high level of civic participation represents a significant strength, it also raises concerns about sustainability and institutional capacity in the context of prolonged crises.

Finally, Ulrike Hopp-Nishanka addressed the role of international cooperation and development policy in strengthening resilience in countries affected by war. She explained that the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development supports Ukraine in several interconnected areas that are essential for long-term stability and recovery.

These efforts include strengthening local governance systems, rebuilding energy infrastructure, restoring social infrastructure and public services, and supporting institutional reforms that contribute to Ukraine’s European integration. 

The objective is not only to facilitate immediate recovery but also to strengthen the institutional foundations necessary for sustainable democratic development.

The discussion demonstrated that comprehensive defense must be understood as a multidimensional framework that integrates military preparedness with civilian resilience, social infrastructure, and democratic governance. The experiences of Ukraine, Sweden, and Germany illustrate that building resilient societies requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors, including civil defense, care infrastructure, civic participation, and gender equality.

In this sense, comprehensive defense is not only about protecting states from external threats but also about ensuring that democratic societies can continue functioning, supporting their citizens, and maintaining their institutions even under the most challenging circumstances.