Ukraine is bracing for a fifth winter under Russian bombardment, but for the communities closest to the front line, the stakes go far beyond keeping the lights on. The real danger, argues Ihor Terekhov, the mayor of Kharkiv and chair of Ukraine's Association of Frontline Cities and Communities, is the slow erosion of the social and economic fabric that makes a city worth living in.
Speaking for more than 300 municipalities that have endured direct conflict, Terekhov identifies three intertwined challenges that will shape both the coming months and the country's long-term future: energy security, economic resilience, and poverty. How Europe responds to these pressures, he insists, will determine whether Ukraine emerges from the war as a viable, integrated member of the European Union.
Energy security: more than just repairs
In Kharkiv, a city that has suffered repeated strikes on its power grid, the immediate priority is no longer simply patching up damaged infrastructure. Instead, local authorities are redesigning the energy system from the ground up. Decentralised generation, reserve capacity, and underground facilities are becoming the new norm, so that a single missile cannot plunge half the city into darkness and cold.
Education has undergone a similar transformation. With ordinary schools considered legitimate targets, Kharkiv has moved classrooms into metro stations and built purpose-designed underground schools. These are not ideal solutions, Terekhov concedes, but they are born of necessity. He hopes no other European city will ever have to learn these lessons the hard way, but he stresses that Ukraine is ready to share its hard-won expertise with partners across the continent.
Economic resilience: keeping businesses alive
Infrastructure alone cannot sustain a city. Businesses need to operate, jobs need to exist, and people need a reason to stay. For frontline communities, this is becoming an existential question. An entrepreneur in Kharkiv faces risks that their counterparts in Warsaw or Berlin cannot imagine: war risk, insurance gaps, and a banking sector that is understandably cautious.
The result is a paradox: the places that most need private investment are precisely those where capital is hardest to attract. Terekhov argues that Europe's recovery strategy must address this directly, not through permanent aid dependency, but through war-risk insurance, affordable finance, and targeted support for small and medium-sized enterprises. Only then can frontline cities retain the economic life that will make them worth returning to.
Poverty and the threat of depopulation
War does not only destroy buildings; it exhausts families. According to the World Bank, 41.6% of Ukraine's population lived below the national poverty line in 2025. Behind that statistic are painful daily decisions: whether to buy medicine or pay rent, whether to stay in a hometown under fire, or whether to seek work elsewhere in Ukraine or abroad.
For frontline regions, prolonged hardship carries an additional danger: depopulation. A building can be rebuilt, a substation replaced, a road repaired. But it is far harder to restore a city once its people have left, its businesses have closed, and its young people no longer see a future there. That is why Terekhov insists that recovery cannot wait for the war to end. In frontline communities, it has already begun.
If people are to return tomorrow, schools, hospitals, and businesses must function today. If investment is to flow after the war, Ukraine must preserve its workforce and human capital now. Europe's support is indispensable to this effort, Terekhov acknowledges. He welcomes the European Union's €920 million package under its 2026–2027 Winter Energy Plan, which aims to stabilise Ukraine's energy system and strengthen its resilience. But he also stresses that the bloc must look beyond the immediate winter.
Not every part of Ukraine faces the same conditions. Proximity to the front determines whether families stay, whether companies continue operating, and whether banks and insurers are willing to take risks. Future European support should recognise that frontline territories face a distinct combination of security, demographic, and investment pressures, and design recovery instruments accordingly.
This matters all the more as Ukraine moves towards EU membership. European integration is often discussed in the language of negotiating clusters and legal harmonisation, but for most Ukrainians, Europe will be experienced locally: in the quality of public services, transport, and energy infrastructure, and in how public money is managed. Transparency, accountability, and zero tolerance for corruption must therefore be built into recovery from the start—not because Brussels demands it, but because trust is one of Ukraine's most valuable resources.
As another difficult winter approaches, Russia will again try to cripple Ukraine's energy system and weaken its resolve. But Terekhov's message is clear: the fight is not just about surviving the cold. It is about keeping frontline cities alive, so that when the war ends, there is something worth rebuilding. Europe's role in that effort, he concludes, will be measured not in spreadsheets, but in whether Ukrainian communities can thrive as active participants in the European project.
