The Donbas Dialogue in Ukraine — Digital Engagement across the Contact Line
Following the annexation of Crimea and the outbreak of war in the Donbas region in 2014, peacebuilding organizations brought the concept of “community dialogues” to Ukraine to respond to high levels of polarization within the Ukrainian society. Town hall meetings were facilitated across the country to foster exchange between pro-Ukrainian citizens, internally displaced people (IDP´s) and those who held “anti-Maidan”, “anti-European” and “pro-Russian” political views.[1]
However, empirical research conducted in the following years found that established dialogue formats suffered under a striking inclusion gap. While prior to the Russian invasion in 2022, an estimated 34% of the Ukraine population were against a close relationship with the EU and at least 17% held distinct “pro-Russian” views, those opinions were entirely absent or silenced in most conducted dialogues.[2] The resulting lack of inclusivity on the grassroot-level rendered sustainable peacebuilding efforts ineffective and even increased polarization further, as hostile narratives and preconceptions remained unchallenged.[3]
In light of this backdrop, Nikolai Borisov founded the “Donbass Dialogue” (DD) in 2015 to connect members of the Ukrainian society across military and political frontlines. While being a comparably small-budget and understaffed project, the “Donbass Dialogue” reached international recognition by the UN Department for Peacebuilding (DPPA) due to their unique and effective methodology.[4] Ten dialogue sessions were conducted between 2015–2020 with up to 400 people participating each time.
Combining online and offline formats, the “Donbas Dialogue” succeeded not only to include a diverse range of political opinion holders, IDPs and people located across the contact-line, but also managed to identify and address controversial and “identity-based” topics, which were often impossible to discuss in analogue dialogue sessions.
I. Methodology of the “Donbas Dialogue”
A social media based crowdsourcing methodology and a secure peer-to-peer network service, enabled to engage and connect dialogue participants across conflict divides.
The gateway of the “Donbas Dialogue” is a closed Facebook group with approximately 550 members run by “DD” facilitators.[5] Membership to the Facebook group is granted upon request for all profiles regardless of login location or use of an alias. Thus, an anonymous engagement between group members were possible and used by approximately 50% of all participants. The “Donbas Dialogue Process” consists of five phases:
1. Opening Question: First an openly framed subject area is chosen by “DD” facilitators and posted in the Facebook group. The participants are asked to “Imagine the future of the Donbass” or to think about “What is desirable to save from the pre-war Donbas for its future?”. The questions are intended to not immediately trigger the participants’ answer, but to rather encourage them to think about the corresponding topics.
2. Crowdsourcing — Theme Collection: In the next step, the group members are requested to formulate their own questions corresponding to the umbrella theme and post them as comments in the respective threads.
The still quite openly framed but personal questions posted by participants, such as — “Why do people forget about the rights of those living in the uncontrolled territory?”, “What could civil society do to overcome the consequences of conflict”? or “Was it worth it?” — provide a valuable insight into the different attitudes participants have towards the proposed topics. The whole crowdsourcing process runs over approximately two weeks and is closely monitored by “DD” facilitators.[6]
Repeated or vaguely formulated questions are discussed and adjusted in individual chats between facilitators and group members using direct messaging services. Furthermore, “DD” officials join the crowdsourcing process by formulating their own questions to extend the scope of the topics and keep the process running.
3. Crowdsourcing — Aggregation: After collecting dozens of participant questions and statements over a period of several weeks within the Facebook group, all submissions are listed and categorized by “DD” facilitators and presented to the group to be voted upon. Those questions receiving the most votes per category are subsequently discussed online.
4. Online discussion: All members of the Facebook group are asked to register for an online discussion, optionally indicating which question they are most keen to discuss and their personal attitude about it. The online discussions are subsequently conducted with two to four participants, ideally those who formerly expressed different attitudes, and are led by one facilitator.
Using a video conference platform with a peer-to-peer encryption technology, every topic can be discussed with highest confidentiality and from a remote location, while participants are allowed to keep their anonymity at will.[7] Facilitators ensure the compliance of rules, ask questions to encourage comprehension and to keep the conversation going.
People are encouraged to speak about their personal experiences of displacement, loss and grievances. Learning about the misfortunates and hardships of the “other” — stories which often resemble experiences of many participants in the groups — humanizes the outgroup and sparks empathy. In addition to establishing emotional connections between the participants, the online dialogues set out to further elaborate on the initial questions, providing space for deliberation and opinion sharing. The insights gained in all virtual discussion are subsequently summarized by the facilitators and posted in the Facebook group.
5. Hybrid offline/online discussion: To continue working with the insights gained in the online discussions and reach a broader audience, a hybrid discussion format is conducted twice a year in different locations across Ukraine. Dialogue participants, members of the civil society as well as international peacebuilding experts are invited to discuss the issues addressed during the online sessions. The offline consolations are live streamed to the Facebook Group where members can weigh in using a chat program.
II. Horizontal Inclusion — Safe Space Engagement
The “Donbass Dialogue” successfully established cross-contact line engagement between citizens holding “pro-Russian” and “pro-Ukraine” views.[8] According to a series of interviews with participants and facilitators, the “DD“ format managed to incorporate a variety of diverging views, and the establishment of orderly and genuine dialogues between opposing opinion holders.
2.1. Self-Determined Agenda Setting
Exchange between participants also about controversial and “identity-based” issues are encouraged through both the extended crowdsourcing process as well as by providing an online space that protects the participants’ physical and personal integrity.[9]
“While at the beginning of each Dialogue Marathon participation is quite restrained, members of the Facebook group become more and more active over time, almost as if inspired by the responses of their peers.”
“Responding to the proposed topics by posting question instead of statements, seems to encourage more candid responses from the participants.”[10]
The participants, among them many IDPs and people living in the non-government controlled area, were successfully involved into the agenda setting process, offering valuable insights into hidden topics and narratives which underpin the conflict dynamics.[11] Furthermore, by using the social media platform Facebook, “DD” promotes a horizontal and easily accessible network communication that enables confirmed members to participate on equal footing.
Encouraging people to join the agenda setting of the dialogues increases a sense of ownership regarding the topics and the motivation to discuss them.
So while conventional dialogue processes in Ukraine struggled to involve minority opinion holders and raise identity-based issues due to the polarized public atmosphere, the “Donbas Dialogue” managed to empower their members to participate in the dialogue agenda setting within a protected online ecosystem.
However, the crowdsourcing technology also has its pitfalls. Depending on the identity composition of the “crowd”, proposed topics and their ratings can be biased towards the majority will. Individual experiences expressed during the online theme collection can easily be “overheard” or marked as less relevant. It is therefore mandatory that the crowdsourcing process is constantly monitored by experienced “DD” facilitators, who should look out for issues they judge as important to add them to the dialogue agenda even though they received less votes.
2.2. Self-Selection and Identity Change
The anonymous online access to the “DD”-Facebook group allowed the self-selection of participants. Instead of actively identifying and inviting minority opinion holders to the dialogues, “DD”-officials run campaigns to raise awareness and train communities in how to participate. This approach enables a steady increase of members, counting more than 527 in 2021, with a broad spectrum of experiences and opinions.
Furthermore, by exposing the participants to the lived reality of their interlocutors, the “Donbas Dialogue” set out to dissolve polarized narratives and hostile preconceptions. The aim was not to convince people to adopt opposite standpoints but to broaden the perspectives of all participants by acknowledging valid human claims on the “other side”.
Hence, the intention is to transform one-sided political identities.
“Only when people no longer accept the established positions, imposed by the media and politicians, will they be able to realize that this war is not in their interest”[12]
However, while direct confrontation between participants in conventional dialogue formats often discourages people to genuinely express their convictions, remote engagement can provide an important buffer. According to one interviewer, emotions are much more regulated during the online dialogues and participants maintain a rational focus on the content discussed. Both leads to increased efficiency during the dialogue.
“In two hours online, we often achieve more than in one week of offline dialogue — when people meet in person you often spend a lot of time overcoming arguments, whereas online every side just presents the opinions and positions and immediately start to work on the content”.[13]
Furthermore, “DD” facilitators commended the small size of the dialogue groups with two to four participants, the informality of the talks, and particularly the “Nansen Dialogue” practice which generated increased intimacy. According to one interviewer, people sharing their experiences and daily hardships from their own homes, while living amid the ongoing conflict significantly increased the authenticity of the dialogue.
“I often hear participants saying: I could not have imagined that I would be able to speak with the people from the other side, let alone recognizing that they suffer too.”
Consequentially, the interviewers as well as the dialogue protocols indicate that the confidential and remote format successfully countered a premature exclusion of “pro-Russian” views caused by an intimidating atmosphere, as happened in offline dialogues. This increasingly results in a shift of grievance among all dialogue participants, many of which no longer perceive their fellow citizens as opponents. Judging from the dialogue protocols, participants feel that the conflict is distorted and seem very concerned with how Ukrainians might be able to come together in the future.
“In Ukraine there is no reason for this conflict, except that a small minority imposes its will on the majority. There are Ukrainians fighting against Ukrainians … the conflict is absolutely artificial.” [14]
However, the remote engagement and possibility to remain anonymous during the online dialogues, makes it difficult for participants to read the body language of their dialogue partner, which sometimes renders remarks less convincingly.
In fact, anonymous online conversations can impediment trust building in “the purported identity of the online interlocutors with whom one is engaging.”[15] This is especially true as Russian-fuelled disinformation is common practice in the Ukrainian conflict, with the risk of manipulation and sabotage ubiquitous.
2.3. Channel across the Contact Line
By incorporating digital tools, notably social media, into the dialogue format the “Donbas Dialogue” enters the main environment of disinformation. According to one interviewer the “DD” Facebook group is a frequent target of trolls and proxies from both sides of the conflict, who once admitted spread propaganda or try to intimidate other participants. It is therefore among the most important tasks of “DD”-facilitators to closely monitor the crowdsourcing processes in order to assess the credibility of the statements posted in the group and expel members in cases of misconduct. This is a task which might endanger the neutrality of the facilitator and requires extensive experience.[16]
However, online access to the group and the ability to keep one’s own profile disguised prevents physical intimidation and encourages participation across contact-lines. The small groups and the peer-to-peer encryption software used during the online dialogues convincingly assures the confidentiality of the conversations and often encourages people to speak genuinely and even disclose their profile during the private sessions.
“The “DD” dialogue format has made important contributions to promote more amiable community relations.” [17]
Furthermore, challenges of time and irregular access to internet can be met as the agenda setting via crowdsourcing lasts several weeks and the online dialogue sessions are scheduled individually between the participants and the facilitator. Lastly, the conduction of in-person dialogues every six months (during which online access is also possible) allows to further discuss the insights gained during the digital sessions and adds transparency to the discourse.[18] However, while the “Donbas Dialogue” successfully overcomes the physical obstacles of security threats and travel restrictions, the online format sets new accessibility barriers.
The main conditions for participating in the online dialogues is internet connectivity and digital literacy. Although internet penetration is generally well established in Ukraine — even in the non-government controlled areas — there is still a notable demographic divide among those proficient to use digital means. As a result, older generations in particular are underrepresented in the “Donbas Dialogue” online format, a social group most vulnerable to the ongoing conflict.[19] When applying digital tools in peace processes, it is greatly important that facilitators take into account these socio-cultural, political and technological factors, such as digital accessibility barriers and the importance of trust in the integrity of the process, as will be discussed in detail below.
III. “Donbas Dialogue” — Efficacy and Limiting Context Factors
By applying a hybrid online/offline format, the “Donbass Dialogue” offers promising solutions to some of the most pressing challenges to conducting inclusive dialogues in an environment of polarization and fragile security.
Participation: The opportunity of non-physical engagement is well received by people living across the government and non-government controlled areas. With hundreds of participants actively joining the agenda setting (crowdsourcing) process and dozens joining the virtual consultations of every dialogue process, “DD” counts as one of the larger dialogue formats in Ukraine.[20] The increased and diversified participation renders the dialogue format more effective than many of their conventional counterparts.[21]
Representation: The increased participation but especially the confidential set up of the “Donbas Dialogue”, both during the crowdsourcing process and the online discussions, encourages people to express issues and to genuinely discuss their perspective. Minority opinion holders having the possibility to raise their voice in a protected environment -during an active armed conflict– is not only a prerequisite for lasting peace but also provides practitioners a fine-grained picture of public sentiments and relationship changes within the country, and hence enriches the peacebuilding process on the whole.
Integration: Particularly interesting is the effect remote engagement has on the dialogue atmosphere. Intimidation and pre-mature identity change are described as huge challenges to conventional dialogue formats taking place in a polarised social atmosphere. However, informal and personal engagement within the virtual dialogue rooms regulates emotions and enhances intimacy between the dialoguers provided that all participants disclose their profile within the confidential talks. This mix of being personally engaged with an interlocutor in real-time while being simultaneously physically safe seems to rationalise the discussions and enhances rapprochement.
However, as mentioned above, the application of digital tools in an environment of conflict is a highly sensitive endeavour and might unintentionally create new entrance barriers or biased conclusions. Hence, to assess the “DD”-formats efficacy in enhancing horizontal inclusion during community-dialogue sessions, it is necessary to consider the technological, socio-cultural and political context factors, that might limit a balanced and genuine participation of dialoguers.
Technological Factors: For the “Donbas Dialogue”-format, public connectivity to the internet and the accessibility and popularity of Facebook are the most decisive technological factors. With prices for internet access among the lowest in the world and a rapidly growing internet penetration, the connectivity rate among Ukrainians is comparable with those in Western Europe.[22] Even in the non-government-controlled regions of Luhansk and Donetsk the internet and mobile phone infrastructure is still relatively well intact. Furthermore, after the banning of the Russian social network “VKontakte” more than 40% of the Ukrainian population use Facebook, yet the demographic is particularly skewed towards younger generations.[23]
Socio-Cultural Factors: Across a range of ages, Ukrainian women use Facebook noticeably more often than men. In fact, “with 59% of women among Facebook users, Ukraine is the world leader by share of women using the social network.”[24] And while elderly people in Ukraine remain largely offline and digitally illiterate, those senior citizen who have a Facebook account and participate in “Donbas Dialogue” are almost always women.[25] However, even though the digital entrance barriers to the “DD”-Facebook group and the online dialogue sessions are comparably low, and “DD”-officials personally encourage older people to participate, most dialoguers are under the age of 50 and above average female.[26] Given that 75% of the people living in proximity of the conflict are women, children and elderly citizens, a greater participation especially of the latter would be very desirable.[27]
Political Factors: As the Ukrainian internet market is barely regulated and providers are well connected with neighbouring countries such as Poland and Romania, the internet in Ukraine remains largely uncontrolled.[28] However, a decisive challenge for the country´s social media ecosystem remains the wide spread of disinformation and hate speech. While the protective mechanisms of the “Donbas Dialogue”, especially the end-to-end encryption of the online dialogues, are comparably sophisticated and unlikely to be a target of professional hackers, it is still striking that the anonymous participation in the crowdsourcing process is always decisively higher than in the online dialogue sessions.[29]
In sum, the “Donbas Dialogue” is not meant to replace conventional in-person meetings but offers an additional venue to bring them together. Enabling people to engage with each other in cyber space holds potential in areas where personal meetings are logistically, legally and politically impossible. The “Donbas Dialogue” shows that technology can be used to maintain channels of communication across contact fault lines and to counteract de-humanization by enabling personal engagement between people, thus supporting the peacebuilding effort by enhancing horizontal inclusion in dialogue processes.[30] In fact, judging from experience of the “DD”-facilitators and dialogue protocols, the “Donbas Dialogue” successfully meets some of the challenges common in conventional dialogue processes, such as physical safety concerns, pre-mature identity change and uniliteral agenda setting and can thus be perceived as a valuable supplement to offline dialogues.
References
[1] Holper & Kyselova (2020), S.2.
[2] Zarembo (2020).
[3] Holper & Kyselova (2020), S.2.
[4] United Nations (2019a).
[5] Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DonbassDialog (viewed 15.11.2020).
[6] Background: “Crowdsourcing is an open call for anybody to participate in a task online, where ‘the crowd’ refers to an undefined group of people who participate.” Aitamurto (2012). P. 1
[7] For a detailed description of the technological functioning of the platform, as well as how it can be adjusted to a low data transmission rate, visit: https://ddtalk.donbassdialog.org.ua/ (viewed 15.11.2020).
[8] Disclosure: The following citations are a blend of three sources: The assessment of written and a filmed interview: https://spark.adobe.com/page/Ga8TqAZab7izr/ and conduction of a semi-structured interview with one of the facilitators of the Donbas Dialogue.
[9] Kyselova (2018), S.123.
[10] Source: Semi-structured interview with facilitators of the Donbas Dialogue.
[11] Hirblinger (2020a).
[12] https://spark.adobe.com/page/ryrx4iNbU1TKx/ Interview Nr.3; beginning at min. 7:20 (viewed 16.11.2020).
[13] https://spark.adobe.com/page/ryrx4iNbU1TKx/ Interview Nr.1; beginning at min. 2:40 (viewed 16.11.2020).
[14] https://spark.adobe.com/page/ryrx4iNbU1TKx/ Interview Nr.4; beginning at min. 0:50 (viewed 16.11.2020).
[15] UNDPPA and HD Centre (2019) “Digital technologies and mediation in Armed Conflict” S. 20
[16] Joëlle u. a. (2018)
[17] Presentation of the “Donbas Dialogue” format at the Geneva Peace Week 2017. Speaker: Dr. David Lanz (Swisspeace). https://www.donbassdialog.org.ua/2017/11/Platform-Donbass-Dialogue-at-the-Geneva-Peace-Week.html
[18] Carl & Conciliation Resources (Organization) (2019).
[19] Boulègue u. a. (2018), S.17.
[20] Suter (2018)
[21] United Nations (2019a).
[22] Deutsche Welle: “Low Prices, Good Connectivity — Ukrainian Internet infrastructure allows usage to grow rapidly”. (07.2019). https://www.dw.com/en/low-prices-good-connectivity-ukrainian-internet-infrastructure-allows-usage-to-grow-rapidly/a-49266786 (viewed: 15.01.2021)
[23] Internet Database PlusOne: Survey 2019. Facebook in Ukraine. https://plusone.com.ua/fb/en/facebook_in_ukraine.pdf (viewed: 15.01.2021)
[24] Internet Database PlusOne: Survey 2019. Facebook in Ukraine. P.7. https://plusone.com.ua/fb/en/facebook_in_ukraine.pdf (viewed: 15.01.2021)
[25] Interview: Daria Kuznetsova (coordinator of the “DD” working group)
[26] Donbas Dialogue Webiste: https://www.donbassdialog.org.ua/p/peace-building-in-ukraine.html (viewed 15.01.2021)
[27] Lazarenko (2019).
[28] Deutsche Welle, Article: “Low Prices, Good Connectivity — Ukrainian Internet infrastructure allows usage to grow rapidly”. (07.2019). https://www.dw.com/en/low-prices-good-connectivity-ukrainian-internet-infrastructure-allows-usage-to-grow-rapidly/a-49266786 (viewed: 15.01.2021)
[29] Suter (2018)
[30] Lanz & Eleiba (2018), S.3.
