“Social solidarity economy during the war: The sources of individual and community resilience”

Due to the full-scale war of Russia against Ukraine in 2022, extreme danger and vulnerability have caused changes in the social and economic stability of a person both on the individual and at the family level, in various social groups, as well as in territorial communities. Thus, the study aims to investigate the sources of social and economic resilience of Ukraine’s population during the war in the context of developing a social solidarity economy in Ukrainian society to maintain fragile stability. The paper investigates the main reasons for the displacement of Ukrainians, explores the living conditions in communities where they moved, and identifies the main socioeconomic factors for ensuring the resistance of the individual and the community in wartime. The paper applies the sociological survey involving 1,200 respondents. The results show that Ukrainians recognize the authority’s right to make authoritarian decisions. The analysis gives empirical evidence on the sources of social and economic resistance and sustainability in Ukraine. This includes quantifying the role of social and financial payments, examining the intensification of social and solidarity ties, and evaluating the importance of a social solidarity economy for resilience. The study revealed the directions of supporting stability within the social solidarity economy in Ukraine under war conditions. They include incentive programs for returning qualified personnel, powerful tools of social support, encouraging socially-oriented small businesses, remote employment, state and local programs to support public organizations, and financing local initiatives.


INTRODUCTION
The full-scale war in Ukraine has been going on for more than two years.It is increasingly becoming a battle of attrition.Therefore, Ukrainians need to strengthen their own sustainability and work ahead.It is not only about increasing armaments and the fighting spirit but also about increasing the social and economic stability of citizens, strengthening the capabilities of territorial communities, and supporting civil society and local economies (Petrushenko et al., 2023).It is going about building up multidimensional formulas of stability, which consist of individual and group ability to accumulate internal and external resources, develop abilities to plan and accept decisions in conditions of turbulence and uncertainty (Borissov, 2024), rally and unite around values, goals, and tasks, strengthen faith and continue democratic and economic transformations.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Many researchers are studying the problems of supporting societal resilience and developing a social solidarity economy in a vulnerable environment.In the field of humanitarian and behavioral sciences, the concept of "resilience" has been clearly defined.In conditions of uncertainty and threats, disasters, pandemics, and wars, resilience is the ability of systems to function purposefully in response to shocks inflicted on them, absorb disturbances, and preserve themselves (Artyukhov et al., 2024;Glavovic et al., 2002;Keck & Sakdapolrak, 2013).Moreover, it is the ability to recover and return to normal life (Kimhi & Eshel, 2009;Maclean et al., 2014).According to Clark (2024), resilience is usually represented not as something that needs to be actively encouraged and stimulated but as an existing quality among Ukrainians.The author suggests that resilience is an important "concept at work" for targeting different aims.Moreover, under a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine (starting on February 24, 2022), the application of the concept of "resilience" in the public sphere, both in the country and at the international level, proved to be effective (Clark, 2024).
When considering resilience, the main focus should be primarily on people and their ability to maintain a stable level of functioning after traumatic events and "a stable trajectory of healthy functioning across time" (Bonanno, 2005).For people, as a key element of socioeconomic systems, social resistance and sustainability becomes more important in a situation of extreme danger and vulnerability (Takemoto et al., 2024;Lima, 2024).Kostenko et al. (2024) and Kupenko et al. (2023) explored stochastic resilience changes among target groups during crises and concluded that the source of stronger resilience is likely tight family and social relations.The stability and vulnerability of people under martial law were analyzed on the example of Ukraine, implementing the appropriate data collection at the level of territorial communities.To substantiate various management decisions, based on the data obtained, the algorithm for analysis was proposed.It was proved that in response to the manifestations of war trauma, it is expedient to activate resources and mechanisms for the formation of social stability, development of cohesion, strengthening of vertical and horizontal ties in society, overcoming alienation, and ensuring equality of human rights.The basis of this is the stability of social and economic relations, especially in territorial communities, and the strength of decision-making tools, which can be provided by developing social and solidarity economy mechanisms.These findings allowed a better understanding of the sources of the resilience of Ukrainians during the ongoing war in the country.
Current literature predominantly focuses on the social solidarity economy in stable contexts (peaceful times).For example, Tadesse (2023) explored the characteristics of social solidarity economy organizations and their contribution to the European economy.Sotnyk et al. (2023) examined the transformation of mechanisms for social and solidarity financing, their essence, and main sources to support the development of the social solidarity economy.OECD (2023) investigated the positive contribution of social solidarity economy entities to society.Wendt (2022) studied the prospects and advantages of implementing solidarity economic projects to improve the population's welfare.
The scholars offer recommendations on how policymakers can support social impact measurement for the social solidarity economy by improving policy frameworks, providing guidance, building evidence, and supporting capacity, but their works have limited exploration of how society adapts, survives, and potentially thrives amidst the chaos and disruptions of war.
This study suggests that the role of the social solidarity economy becomes more significant during military conflicts.This assumption is based on the results of Kuzior et al. (2023), who considered the tools for the social solidarity economy formation under the war, including investing in programs of social protection, supporting the development of local economies, encouraging the participation of civil society organizations and community groups in peacebuilding and conflict resolution efforts.In addition, Sinaj et al. (2024) identified public policy instruments that would help in the most effective recovery of Ukraine's post-war economy and found that financial and social tools connected to a social solidarity economy could be used to facilitate recovery and ensure long-term stability and resilience.
The full-scale Russian aggression in Ukraine caused unprecedented internal and external population movements, shifts in societal values and priorities, economic transformations, and the emergence of new social movements, which had an essential influence on societal resilience.Since 2014, a new stratum of internally displaced persons (IDPs) has begun to form in the country due to the first wave of Russian aggression in Ukraine.Mykhnenko et al. (2022) investigated this negative phenomenon of the war.The study referred to the forced displacement of the population as "a lifechanging, often tragic, experience; one that can have a lasting impact on individuals and their successive generations" and stressed the "need for full restoration of legitimate democratic government at home as the necessary condition for return." Conducting a sociological survey among respondents helps scholars identify opportunities, challenges, and prospects for IDPs' adaptation in host communities, including the involvement of social solidarity ties.For example, Voznyak et al. (2024) identified the following opportunities for the integration of IDPs into the host society: declining the risk of territories' depopulation, reducing imbalances in the local labor market, strengthening social cohesion, and developing small businesses.Local governments were found to be a significant source of resilience and a threat at the same time as they face a great challenge in ensuring the adaptation of IDPs in the community and further integration of IDPs through the interaction with regional authorities, efficient use of the capacity of relocated businesses, cooperation with charitable foundations, social solidarity organizations.According to Voznyak et al. (2024), solving these problems requires public organizations' active involvement and territorial communities' cooperation.Considering the manifestations of democratization and social cohesion, supporting these trends and developing social initiatives that strengthen community solidarity is vital.Vasyltsiv et al. (2024) investigated the problems of youth migration caused by the war impacting societal sustainability and perspectives for regional development.The authors mentioned socioeconomic and security reasons as the main factors of migration and suggested the measures to prevent it: an increase in quality of life and wages, better opportunities for professional growth and selfrealization, and favorable conditions for doing business.Without these actions, there is a risk factor for Ukrainians choosing not to return home from European countries due to the higher wage levels.This concern applies to both recipients of remittances within Ukraine and those who decide to permanently change their country of residence.Ushakova and Shevchenko (2022) emphasized that this could hinder the post-war renewal of Ukraine's economy.Therefore, they suggested that Ukraine should develop its own re-emigration policy involving European countries, international organizations, and migrants.
Despite the significant body of research on the social solidarity economy and its role in fostering and maintaining societal resilience and sustainability (Saher et al., 2024), there is a noticeable gap in understanding how these mechanisms operate under conditions of extreme danger and vulnerability, such as those experienced during wartime.
Thus, the paper aims to fill the identified gap by providing an in-depth analysis and assessment of sources of societal resistance and sustainability within the social solidarity economy development in Ukrainian society during the war.
There are several hypotheses related to the research aim: H1: Social and financial payments are the main sources of existence for many people in wartime.

METHOD
The key method of the study is a survey.The poll was conducted in May-June 2023 within the fourth wave of social sustainability research in Ukraine (2021-2023) in conditions of "hope" for the end of the war (Kostenko et al., 2023).The survey involved Ukrainians who lived in Kyiv, Lviv, Zakarpattia, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv oblasts before and after February 24, 2022, when the Russian full-scale invasion started.Chernihiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv, and Zakarpattia oblasts were chosen for research as their social processes are rarely investigated.Along with this, Lviv and Kyiv oblasts were considered in the study as regions that massively accept IDPs and have strategic importance.
The target audience was respondents who resided in their locality or by the border or had moved to another area in Ukraine by the time of conducting the survey.Thus, the survey focused on locals and internally displaced persons (IDPs), as well as refugees who lived or arrived in the settlements covered by the study before the full-scale invasion.
The poll applied quantitative and qualitative strategies and was conducted in the form of an online survey.The respondents were asked to fill in a Google form through personal verification.
Separate groups of participants were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone.A total of 1,200 respondents were covered.The gender structure of respondents included 65.7% of women and 34.3% of men.
The assessment of the capacity of territorial communities for social stability, restoration, and development in the conditions of martial law was carried out using a group of indicators (according to Cannon (2008)): • availability of basic means of livelihood; • economic well-being and basic condition; • feeling of security; • access to social services; • public participation and governance.
That is, the social stability of territorial communities was evaluated through the prism of the ability of residents, in particular women and men who were in a vulnerable situation, to cope with the challenges associated with war.Horizontal and vertical connections and community participation were also explored.At the same time, the administrative, financial, and social capacity of communities (internal resources), as well as external support in the form of subventions and humanitarian aid, remained out of consideration.
The analysis of the survey results was structured in the following way to reveal the sources of resilience: • firstly, the reasons for people's relocation were explored, and the key factors influencing movement were identified across the population groups of different ages and regions; • secondly, the economic situation in communities and the types of assistance residents of the studied areas receive were analyzed.Additionally, the availability of various services and the population's need for other services not provided by territorial communities were assessed; • thirdly, based on the analysis of the socioeconomic situation, the psychological state of the population and the development of social solidarity networks during the war were investigated.

Displacement of the population and reasons for moving
Table 1 illustrates the population's aspirations for certain stability and certainty, revealing the reasons that prevent people from returning to their previous place of residence.Taking into account the complexity of the real situation and the possible "overlapping" of several challenges, as well as the multiplicity of threats faced by the interviewees, the questionnaire included a sufficient number of items, and the respondents could choose all possible options.Therefore, the total indicator in Table 1 exceeds 100%.
In general, the respondents indicated two main groups of reasons for not returning home.They include (1) difficult security situations with their original community and (2) integration into the host community.Thus, IDPs who managed to find housing and work are less ready for a new move, while those who moved due to a difficult security situation but did not integrate tend to return home.
The highest percentage of respondents who do not return to their community due to a difficult security situation is among IDPs in Kyiv oblast: 21.6% of them indicated that their settlement is located in the occupied territory, and 13.7% said that their housing was destroyed/damaged as a result of the occupation/military actions.At the same time, the persons currently living abroad show a higher level of integration in a new environment: 25% of them reported settling their life; 17.9% found work or a place of study for themselves or their children; 14.3% found housing.
The analysis revealed a threatening tendency of young people to leave their current places of residence.Thus, 8.3% of respondents aged 18-24 plan to move to another region shortly, 3.7% -to another country, and 2.8% -to move within the re-gion.About 14% of young people aged 18-24 are planning to leave their community.These results show high mobility of young people who do not "hold back" family universities and tend to leave territories with a difficult economic and security situation.
It is also revealed that in the case of relative safety, residents aged 35-44 are inclined to remain in their community: 91.8% of this age group does not plan to move somewhere within the next six months, which can be explained by "attachment" to the place of residence of their minor children.
Based on the survey results, the safety factor determines the motivation for a change of residence.
In particular, in the border regions of Chernihiv (97.9%) and Sumy (90.1%), as well as Lviv oblast (93.4%), respondents do not plan to move within the next six months.This is due to the feeling of relative security in these communities.Despite the close proximity to the border with the aggressor, Sumy and Chernihiv oblasts succeeded in restoring relatively calm life in communities, which helped stabilize migration flows.In addition, the plans of the respondents of Mykolaiv oblast to return to their community (12.3%) or move to another settlement of their region (7.5%) confirm the impact of the security factor, including the lack of drinking water.
However, the economic factor that can influence the departure of Ukrainians abroad remains relevant.A similar trend is observed among residents of Zakarpattia oblast (a relatively safe region); The survey does not identify the critical or decisive reasons for moving.Obviously, each region and each family had a specific set of motivating factors that led to such a decision.However, more than 87% of respondents said that they had no plans to move, which indicates a certain stabilization of the situation.
Among those who push to move, economic reasons can be considered the most pronounced factor, as 4.4% of respondents indicated the impossibility of finding worthy earnings.Moving to relatives is often cited as a reason (4.1%).It is notable that in the list of options for moving, none were directly linked to threats to personal safety (Table 2).
Overall, citizens who went abroad demonstrate a high probability of not returning to their original communities (Table 2).Thus, 57.1% of such respondents do not plan to move.The reasons for returning home for this category are worthy earnings and educational services (10.7% each) and difficulties in finding housing and obtaining medical services (7.1% each).In addition, Ukrainians feel homesick, which is also a factor in their return.After all, 7.1% of respondents who are currently abroad said that they wanted to return home, and 14.3% planned to move to their relatives.
The problems faced by the citizens currently residing in Ukraine and planning to move are economic and social ones.For example, 8.5% of residents of Mykolaiv, 5.1% of Zakarpattia, 5% of Sumy, and 4.6% of Kyiv oblasts marked the impossibility of finding a decent income.The complexity/impossibility of receiving medical and social services was mentioned by 7.5% and 6.6% of residents of the Mykolaiv oblast respectively.5.1% of residents of Zakarpattia indicated complexity in finding a dwelling, while 4.7% of residents in the Mykolaiv oblast and 4.4% in the Zakarpattia region feel oppressed as IDPs within the community.
Therefore, the research results indicate that a significant part of the human resources of the considered communities is lost/replenished based on the following factors caused by the war: • leaving of youth and persons aged 45-54 and 55-64, i.e., reproductive population, due to the absence/loss of family ties; • staying or returning of residents aged 35-44, in case of relative security in the community, due to having "minor" (under 18) children; • staying with persons with disabilities even in conditions of real danger in the community due to their low mobility; Note: Respondents could choose several possible options.
• staying or returning of pensioners and low-income families due to limited financial means.
It should be noted that IDPs who managed to find housing and work are less ready for a new move, while those who still need to integrate are prone to return home.Notably, persons who moved abroad demonstrate a higher level of integration into a new environment that will not promote their return.
Still, safety and economic factors remain relevant motivations for leaving the community.On the one hand, in the case of stabilization of the security situation in the area, there is a tendency to halt migration processes (for example, for Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts).On the other hand, even in relatively safe territories, if the economic situation deteriorates, citizens will be inclined to go abroad (for example, in the Zakarpattia region).

The economic situation in communities
The survey shows that about 50% of Ukrainian citizens in the considered oblasts lived below the minimum income.The latter was calculated as the total monthly income of the family (that is, all family members living together).Thus, 17.1% of families earned less than 150 EUR per month, and 29.8% of respondents indicated their income between 150 and 250 EUR.31% of families had up to 500 EUR per month, and if the consisted of three persons, then such total income per person did not exceed the minimum wage (170 EUR).Only 14.9% of families had a monthly income of 500 to 1000 EUR, and 7.1% of respondents made more than 1000 EUR.
A distinctive trend of wartime is that a third of citizens are unemployed or employed informally.Among them, 14% of respondents work informally, with equal shares working full-time and part-time.Additionally, 5% of respondents are unemployed and looking for work, 1.5% are not working and not looking for work, and 1.4% are on forced leave.Officially, 37.2% of respondents work full-time, and 5.5% have part-time employment.
Due to the poverty brought on by the war, a significant number of the respondents noted the rel-evance of financial assistance.Therefore, analyzing the results of financial support is crucial for understanding the scale of current and future social payments and the possibilities for their optimization.
Of those who indicated receiving payments, benefits, or compensation, the largest percentage (13.1%)have monthly targeted assistance.5.4% receive assistance for persons or children with disabilities, and 4.6% receive assistance for low-income families.4% of respondents are paid by the Social Insurance Fund of Ukraine.
A rather small share (among those interviewed) is for childbirth assistance (2.8%) and payments for single mothers, guardianship, or caregiving services (1.8%).Thus, traditional types of social assistance that operated in the pre-war period prevailed.Table 3 illustrates the distribution of assistance in more detail.Closely related to financial payments are the issues of accessibility to public services at the place of residence, which directly affect the economic situation and social security of families.Despite wartime, local authorities ensure the availability of basic services (Figure 1).The respondents rated the availability of emergency medical care the highest (it is available for 79.3% of respondents), as well as administrative services (issue of passports, certificates, land documents, etc.; it is available for 67.6% of respondents).Availability of educational services, legal assistance, and other forms of support fluctuates between 45-62%.Among educational services, the lack of need is declared for kindergarten (29.7%), school education (24.6), and adult education (22.6%).
Among other necessary assistance, which is currently not provided in communities but is needed by residents, the following are noted: 1. Financial support: interest-free loans, lowcost mortgages, cash assistance, subsidies for utilities for the winter period, compensations for the purchase of fuel, and accommodation payment compensations.
2. Education and training: free language courses, full-day childcare in kindergarten, and equipment for online learning.
3. Housing restoration assistance: building materials, financial assistance for housing repairs.
4. General and specialized medical assistance: compensations for medicines, provision of hard-to-obtain medications for persons with disabilities and serious illnesses.
5. Social and other assistance: children's hygiene products, baby formula, assistance for persons with disabilities (hygiene items, special aids), legal assistance, psychological support, rehabilitation for children with disabilities, and help with housework.
To sum up, the war negatively affected the wellbeing of the population and increased citizens' dependence on state social payments, pushing many families to the brink of survival.This situation was also exacerbated by the rise in unemployment due to business closures and the migration of labor resources to safer regions.As a result, about half of the citizens live at or below the minimum income level, putting them at risk of vulnerability.At least a third of the economically active population is engaged in informal and part-time jobs, which cannot be considered a stable and reliable source of income for families.Women are more likely to work part-time, making them a potential resource for community employment.Overall, the obtained results confirm H1 about the main sources of living for many people during the war.

The psychological state of the population and the development of social solidarity ties during the war
Military actions have a detrimental effect on mental health, as people live in a constant state of stress and uncertainty.At the same time, these circumstances often foster social cohesion, strengthening social and solidarity ties with neighbors, rela- tives, volunteers, and even strangers.This allows individuals to receive social and economic support, distract themselves from negative thoughts and the horrors of war, and find motivation for further action.According to a survey, about 70% of Ukrainians felt the negative impact of the fullscale war on their lives, both directly and through relatives and friends.The key negative effects include: • separation from relatives, either because their loved ones changed their place of residence (28.3% of respondents) or because they had to move themselves (24.8%); • emotional imbalance and psychological stress, with 32.3% of respondents experiencing emotional imbalance themselves and 23.5% noting it in loved ones; • relatives being mobilized (16.5% of respondents); • material losses, with 8.9% of respondents experiencing damage to housing and 4.6% having destroyed housing or farms; • relatives suffering losses (3.9% of respondents) and relatives with wounds or combat-related injuries (3.8% of respondents).
The majority of citizens continue to live in a persistent state of danger and uncertainty.Specifically, 18.7% of respondents feel in danger most of the time, 19.3% feel in danger in the evenings or in remote parts of their community, and 24.8% are undecided on their assessment of safety.Only 37.2% of interviewees noted that they generally feel safe.It is worth noting that compared to November 2022, when nearly 65% of those interviewed felt more or less safe at home or in their community, by May-June 2023, this fraction had nearly halved.It can be assumed that the assessment of the situation is influenced by missile strikes, which reduce the general sense of security even in areas far from the front.
The ability to satisfy emergency needs in a vulnerable situation is crucial for ensuring safety and maintaining mental and physical health.Hence, the investigation included an analysis of the pro-vision of humanitarian and other aid under martial law.Generally, there are no procedures for the continuous monitoring of the population's needs during wartime in the considered communities.Only 30% of respondents reported being surveyed about humanitarian needs, 18.7% do not recall such a survey, and 51.1% noted that they were never surveyed about humanitarian needs at their place of residence.
Social connections (both direct and via communication platforms) are the most common means of information about opportunities to receive aid.Specifically, 56% of respondents stated that they primarily receive information about humanitarian aid from relatives, friends, and neighbors, while 48.6% obtain it from social networks (Facebook, Instagram, etc.).Various messaging apps (Viber, Telegram, and WhatsApp) are also popular sources of information about aid opportunities, used by 35.2% of respondents.
Conversely, only 32.9% of interviewees use the websites of state and local authorities, various orand foundations.Other sources of information have even lower usage rates for obtaining information about assistance opportunities: television was cited by 17.6% of respondents, social advertising by 14.7%, the press by 7.7%, informational stands by 7.1%, and radio by 6.6%.
There are distinct differences in how men and women evaluate the significance of these information sources.Both genders value information from friends, relatives, or neighbors equally, with 56% in each group citing this option.Women more frequently emphasize the importance of messaging apps (Viber, Telegram, and WhatsApp) for receiving information about aid opportunities -37.1% compared to 31.6% of men.Women also use social networks more often: 51.4% compared to 43.2% of men.A similar pattern is seen regarding the internet (websites of authorities, organizations, foundations, etc.), with 34.5% of women versus 30.7% of men using these sources.Men more often (despite generally low figures) mention television as a source of information (19.4% compared to 16.6% of women).To conclude, women are more active in consuming and sharing information on social networks than men.
Overall, despite gender differences, Ukrainians have become more active in public and political life following the full-scale invasion.62.4% of respondents (nearly two-thirds) reported increased activity in response to the war.This can be considered a powerful resource for the development and restoration of communities, as well as for the citizens themselves, who are responding to life's challenges and difficulties in this way.However, this indicator has slightly decreased from the corresponding figures for spring 2022 (66.3%) and autumn 2022 (71.8%).Its dynamics may reflect a certain reevaluation of social activities or indicate that some of the more active population might have left their communities.Only 35.8% reported no increase in their activity in public or political life.
It is worth noting an increase in the level of solidarity within communities, as 28.7% of interviewees provided help to strangers.This indicates a real level of trust and solidarity primarily within the "closest" circles, as well as between different social groups, with social ties and networks being created and changed.Activity toward helping the Armed Forces, territorial defense, community residents, even strangers, volunteers, and public organizations can be considered positive and significant.These results confirm H2 and H3 about intensified social and solidarity ties during the war and the importance of a social solidarity economy to maintain societal resilience.
A clear idea about the state of social well-being in territorial communities can be formed based on the results of answers to questions about how much people feel part of the community and their ability to influence certain decisions (Figure 2).
In general, 70.7% of those interviewed consider themselves part of their communities -fully or more or less; 63.8% feel they can protect their rights.Along with this, 47.5% of respondents feel they have the opportunity to influence decisions in the community, while every third respondent (32.8%) denies the possibility of such influence.Even among those 47% who believe they have such opportunities, only 20.7% are fully convinced of it.One of the reasons for such distribution of the answers can be the low levels of trust in local authorities.These results reveal the importance of further development of a social solidarity economy in communities and prove H3.  2022), supporting the conclusions that the war in Ukraine has led to massive population migration both within the country and beyond its borders, causing crises in many regions of Ukraine and abroad (worsening housing conditions, unemployment, increased strain on social benefits in host region budgets, etc.).The situation is particularly dire for the youth, who are largely reluctant to return to their previous places of residence, which could negatively impact the country's future development and post-war recovery.Additionally, a significant number of people who left the country may not return, creating demographic and economic challenges.This outcome is supported by Kupenko et al. (2023), who showed that 6.7 million Ukrainians had gone abroad after the full-scale war started in 2022 and had not returned; continuing war reduces their chances of returning.
The analysis has revealed the increased needs of IDPs for social benefits and services, as well as their expectations from the authorities.These results are in line with Vasyltsiv et  Powerful mechanisms of social support, the development of socially oriented small businesses, opportunities for remote employment, and innovations are needed in Ukraine, which allows socially vulnerable groups of the population to create or find decent work, thereby easing the burden of social payments to the state.Therefore, the policy recommendations include implementing microfinance and grant programs for small businesses, financing mechanisms for local initiatives, developing national and local programs to support and stimulate the return of qualified specialists, and investment programs for the construction of primary housing and social infrastructure facilities.In addition, there is a need for the purchase and energy-efficient modernization of secondary housing, the creation of remote work platforms, and providing access to psychological help and rehabilitation.Favorable economic conditions should be created to support startups to solve the current problems of Ukrainian society, such as the provision of social adaptation and medical rehabilitation services, the creation of inclusive infrastructure, the construction of shelters, the development of new concepts for the construction of residential and administrative buildings with underground floors, the development of decentralized micro-energy networks, etc.
The prospects for further research include exploring innovative social solidarity economy models that can adapt to diverse local contexts, assessing the long-term impact of these interventions on community resilience, and developing policy frameworks that integrate remote employment and social support programs into broader economic recovery strategies.Additionally, research can focus on measuring the effectiveness of socially-oriented businesses and volunteer organizations in enhancing community cohesion and economic stability in post-conflict scenarios.

CONCLUSION
The study aims to identify the sources of strength of Ukrainians during wartime based on the sociological survey conducted among local residents who currently live in Ukrainian communities of Kyiv, Lviv, Zakarpattia, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv oblasts or have moved there due to a full-scale invasion.
The analysis shows that Ukrainians became more active in social and political life after February 2022; cohesion and horizontal ties within the community are strengthened.It is confirmed by the fact that 70.7% of respondents consider themselves part of communities, 63.8% feel an opportunity to protect their rights, and 47.5% feel an opportunity to influence decisions in the community.Being oriented toward democratic governance, Ukrainians recognize the right of the government to make authoritarian decisions under martial law.However, citizens want these decisions to be made by authoritative people, leaders whom they trust.In addition, people's positive/optimistic assessment of Ukraine's prospects remains stable: 51.7% of Ukrainians believe that the situation in the country will most likely improve.
The research results confirmed the main hypotheses of the study regarding the socioeconomic living of Ukrainians, their resilience during the war, and the feasibility of proposing and applying mechanisms to support the stability and resilience of the individual and the community in wartime.In particular, the limited financial resources for livelihood give rise to conflicts, unemployment, and migration, and therefore, the study suggests developing programs to support qualified personnel, remote employment, or founding startups.The confirmed hypothesis on increased social and solidarity ties in the communities necessitates the further extension of social solidarity economy tools under the appropriate support of local authorities.It could be provided by supplementing the development of public organizations, volunteering, or socially-oriented businesses.

Table 1 .
If you do not live in your own community now, specify the reasons for which you do not return home (to the abandoned place of residence), %

Table 3 .
Types of social payments, benefits, and compensation received by the respondents, % Note: Respondents could choose several possible options.

Figure 1 .
The availability of different services in the regions, % al. (2024), indicating that 51.6% of the 2,200 young people (students) surveyed are ready Figure 2. Perceptions of community belonging and influence on decision-making, %