The full-scale Russian invasion in Ukraine in February of 2022 was preceded by an eight-year hybrid war that weaponized religion, language, and history to achieve Russia’s desired political outcomes. This hybrid war actuated deep fakes, alternative facts, and other forms of (dis)information to try to persuade and mobilize the Ukrainian population to help reestablish the Soviet/Russian empire. The full-scale invasion, however, had the exact opposite effect, as connections, links, and exchanges of all kinds—political, economic, social, and cultural—between Russians and Ukrainians were severed by Ukrainians. A massive grassroots effort to further “decolonize” Ukraine from Russia ensued, involving wide faith-based representation and mobilization. 

Ukraine is a multi-cultural and multi-religious country, and probably will be even more after the end of the active phase of the war. From my perspective, the cross-cultural religious literacy (CCRL) approach is a part of a wider process of peacebuilding, one which is urgently needed both in Track 1 diplomacy (peace negotiations between governments) and in grassroot social cohesion development (Track 2). Taking into account all the developments of the past three years, it is a crucial moment for overall social cohesion and cooperation, for the “Track 1.5” diplomacy necessary between civil society and government, both inside the country and with international governmental and non-governmental partners. 

My response to the current context developed in the work of the Dialogue in Action (DiA) NGO, which I co-founded nine years ago, which supports those who serve others. We (referring to the DiA team) are approached by representatives of both secular communities and leaders and believers of various religious organizations. For religious communities, we become guides into secular society, explaining the need for changes to meet modern challenges. For secular communities, we act as interpreters, helping them to understand the specifics of religious beliefs, ideas, and practices. As a result, both communities get along with each other, and the level of trust between them increases. That is the point where the true dialogue begins. 

We use the term “religious actors” to refer to clergy, active lay leaders of religious communities, and members or employees of faith-based organizations (FBOs).  Although many communal leaders could play a role in facilitating dialogue, we focus specifically on religious actors because their potential to motivate others is so significant. Some religious actors have considerable moral authority and credibility, and this translates into public trust, especially on the local level. As a result, religious actors are capable of catalyzing empathy and openness to begin the arduous process of imagining what constructive engagement with diverse peoples, groups, and priorities might look like and how to best navigate differences given the daily challenges war brings. 

We aim to change the traditional culture of coercion, abuse of power, corruption, and avoidance, which unfortunately still persists in Ukrainian society. Our goal is to develop a culture of sincerity, open communication, and cooperation. We do not promise to achieve complete mutual understanding, but we do everything possible to ensure open communication so that both sides can hear each other. 

Secular and religious societies often exist separately, lacking an understanding of each other’s specifics. This isolation creates a “ghetto” effect, leading to stereotypes and misunderstandings. Our task is to break this circle of isolation, promoting mutual understanding and communication that will help overcome barriers and build new connections. We create a common space where participants can not only express their thoughts but also hear and allow for (but not necessarily agree with) the views/beliefs of others. Our goal is to develop more platforms for open and honest conversations in society where different views can be expressed without fear or judgment. 

CCRL gives an exact pathway on how such a safe space for dialogue and cooperation may be created.¹ Below are some examples of how DiA’s work is similar to the framework and goals of CCRL in our Ukrainian context. 

1. Transforming the signs of mistrust and social polarization 

One of the core barriers to intersectoral cooperation is mutual mistrust between secular civil society actors and religious communities. These tensions are often rooted in historical misunderstandings, ideological differences, or perceived political alignments. Religious organizations may be viewed with suspicion by civic actors, while secular initiatives are sometimes regarded as hostile to religious identity and values. Russian propaganda attacking what it calls “human rights ideology” sometime inhibits religious leaders from strong cooperation with secular civil society organizations (CSOs). 

A potential response lies in the creation of safe, non-hierarchical dialogue platforms where stakeholders from different backgrounds can engage on equal terms and empower horizontal networks. Building trust in this context entails not only the exchange of ideas but also the intentional disruption of structural power asymmetries. 

2. Dealing with moral trauma and psychological burnout 

Clergy, chaplains, and active believers frequently operate at the frontline of social trauma—conducting funerals, offering pastoral care, and organizing humanitarian relief under conditions of extreme stress. These responsibilities, often carried out without adequate institutional support, lead to high levels of emotional exhaustion and burnout. 

Addressing this challenge involves investing in programs of psychological support and emotional resilience tailored to religious leaders and volunteers. Reflective retreats, interdisciplinary seminars, and community care networks may serve as spaces for recovery, theological reflection, and strategic reorientation. Without such support mechanisms, the long-term sustainability of grassroots peacebuilding remains in question. In addition, joint theological reflection is required—within and among religious traditions—answering to the issues of moral trauma and war explanation. 

3. Overcoming institutional inertia 

While many local religious actors demonstrate openness to collaboration and innovation, larger institutional structures are sometimes resistant to change or take too much time to exact transformations. This resistance may stem from internal conservatism, fear of political co-optation, fear that some followers may leave and join a different house of worship, and/or a lack of mechanisms for inclusive governance within religious hierarchies. 

Effective engagement with institutional actors requires identifying and empowering internal reformers—“insiders for change”—who can advocate for dialogue and pluralism from within—and rooted in—their respective traditions. Encouraging cross-confessional exchanges, collaborative publications, and ecumenical learning platforms may help generate momentum for gradual transformation without provoking defensive reactions. 

4. Changing the culture of fragmented communication and vertical decision-making 

Religious and secular actors often operate with fundamentally different conceptual languages and symbolic systems. This lack of shared vocabulary impedes collaboration, even when values and objectives overlap. 

To overcome this barrier, CCRL should catalyze the development of interpretive tools such as cross-sectoral glossaries, dialogue protocols, and training for cultural mediators fluent in both religious and civic discourse. These mediators can serve as translators of meaning, enabling mutual intelligibility across diverse epistemic and normative frameworks. 

5. Integrating CCRL into Education 

A further strategic dimension of the CCRL approach lies in its integration into formal and informal educational processes. Developing CCRL curricula not only addresses immediate gaps in mutual understanding between secular and religious actors, but also contributes to the long-term cultivation of civic competence, democratic engagement, and peacebuilding capacity. 

This integration can and should occur across multiple levels of education. At the school level, CCRL principles can inform the design of special courses or interdisciplinary modules that introduce students to the religious and cultural diversity of Ukrainian society in a manner that avoids proselytism and emphasizes critical thinking, empathy, and historical awareness. Such programs can help counteract stereotypes and exclusion from an early age. 

At the level of adult education and community engagement, CCRL provides a foundation for structured dialogue programs, interfaith civic trainings, and professional development initiatives—particularly for educators, journalists, social workers, chaplains, and public officials. These programs enhance not only knowledge but also dialogical competence, enabling participants to navigate complex identity dynamics in conflict-affected contexts. 

A special priority in adult education should be placed on government representatives and social services professionals who are dealing with different social groups as well as interfaith dynamics and tensions all the time. Step by step, changing their culture of communication and addressing the issues can create a big shift in the overall social culture and dialogue style. 

Moreover, cross-regional and international exchange initiatives grounded in CCRL principles can serve as platforms for peer learning and comparative reflection. Within Ukraine, such exchanges foster understanding between communities with differing experiences of the war and post-Soviet transformation. Internationally, partnerships with educational institutions and civil society actors in other post-conflict or multi-faith societies offer valuable perspectives that inform Ukraine’s own peacebuilding efforts. 

By embedding CCRL into educational systems and lifelong learning frameworks, CCRL contributes not only to reconciliation and recovery in the present but to the formation of a society resilient to future divisions.²

Conclusion

The challenges outlined above are significant, yet they also reveal the depth of the societal transformation required for sustainable recovery. The CCRL approach positions dialogue not as a superficial goal, but as a means of action by cultivating social trust, civic resilience, and covenantal pluralism. As Ukraine moves toward eventual postwar reconstruction, the task of rebuilding must include the moral and communicative infrastructures necessary for peaceful coexistence. 

By advancing inter-religious understanding, facilitating inclusive dialogue, and investing in trust-based cooperation, CCRL contributes to the formation of a democratic culture grounded in dignity, solidarity, and shared responsibility and can be developed in several spheres mentioned above. Every long and noble quest begins from the first step on the right path; the CCRL approach provides signposts on the peacebuilding path that leads to a better future for Ukraine.

*******

About the Author

Together with other colleagues, Tetiana Kalenychenko created an organization called “Dialogue in Action” that aims to develop culture of dialogue by uniting secular and religious leaders in the fieldwork. She has more than 10 years of experience in Peacebuilding, Sociology of Religion, Conflict studies, Conflict management, Restorative practices and dialogues in cooperation with international (USIP, OSCE, UNDP, USAID, MCC, DRC and others) and many national organizations. Educated as peacebuilder at Mirovna Academia (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Hercegovina). From 2023 is a Guest Researcher at Sankt Ignatios College (Sweden) and based in Ukraine. She is combining work in the field of analysis and academic research as well as field work as dialogue facilitator and trainer in the frames of adult education.