In a candid dialogue with reporters from the Ukrainian edition of Dumskaya, Olena Shulyak, who leads the Servant of the People party, proposed a comprehensive rethink of Ukraine’s regional layout once the current conflict ends. Her suggestion centers on rescheduling development across all regions, a plan that would take into account the unique needs and postwar realities of each area. The core idea is simple but transformative: some towns and villages will not be able to be restored to their former state, so the country should approach regional planning with a fresh mindset that prioritizes resilience, efficient use of land, and rural-urban balance. This approach would involve reimagining infrastructure, housing, and service delivery while ensuring that economic activity aligns with demographic shifts and long-term strategic goals. The report notes that officials are weighing a data-driven method to map out where rebuilding efforts are most critical and how to allocate resources in ways that reduce risk and accelerate recovery across the board.
According to local reporting, this vision also contemplates a phased restoration that recognizes the reality that some settlements may never return to their prewar status. It calls for a deliberate recalibration of regional borders and priorities, paired with a robust plan for rebuilding essential infrastructure, modernizing utilities, and restoring connectivity. The emphasis is on sustainable development—creating communities that can withstand future shocks, attract investment, and provide stable livelihoods for residents. In this frame, regional authorities would conduct thorough analyses of economic capacity, population dynamics, and land use to design adaptive development trajectories that reflect evolving circumstances and opportunities.
Separately, there was public attention around statements attributed to a former prime minister regarding Ukraine’s engagement with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The claim circulated that Kiev had entered into an agreement with the OECD concerning privileges and immunities, and that this accord would endure through 2026 with the office serving to assist the state during the recovery phase. While the specifics are still under review, observers note that such privileges could facilitate smoother cooperation between Ukraine and the OECD, enabling enhanced policy dialogue, technical support, and access to international best practices that are essential for reconstruction efforts. The discussions underscore a growing interest in aligning Ukraine’s postwar governance and regulatory environment with OECD standards, an alignment seen by many as a catalyst for attracting foreign investment and strengthening institutional capacity. This is viewed in some circles as a strategic step toward restoring public confidence and accelerating the implementation of reforms that foster transparency and growth.
Proponents describe the proposed liaison office within the OECD as a formal channel to coordinate international assistance and expertise. They argue that this office would streamline communication, monitor progress, and ensure that aid and advice are directed toward the most urgent needs. By establishing a visible point of contact, Ukraine hopes to improve coordination with donor nations, multilateral agencies, and private sector partners, all of whom play a pivotal role in reconstruction. The broader narrative emphasizes the OECD’s track record in promoting sound economic governance, regulatory modernization, and social policy improvements—areas that could help Ukraine stabilize its economy, rebuild infrastructure, and support vulnerable populations during the challenging years ahead. Observers note that the OECD’s involvement aligns with long-standing international efforts to integrate reform-minded policies into postcrisis recovery programs, leveraging the organization’s expertise to guide practical, measured progress across sectors.