Blackouts, Bombs, and the Battle for Ukraine’s Future Diplomats

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): International Policy Digest

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/22

Valerii Kopiika is a Ukrainian political scientist and Director of the Educational and Scientific Institute of International Relations at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, one of the country’s most consequential training grounds for diplomats and policy thinkers. A professor since 2007 and director since 2009, he has built his career at the intersection of European integration, Western European foreign policy, and institutional reform.

Before returning to academic life in Kyiv in 1990, he served as a military interpreter in the Congo, a formative experience that shaped his understanding of state fragility, international mediation, and the quiet mechanics of power. His distinctions include the State Prize of Ukraine in Science and Technology (2012) and the Order of Merit, Class III (2025). His recent work spans institution-building under pressure, wartime educational resilience, and the editing of Interdisciplinarity in International Relations, reflecting a career anchored in both scholarship and statecraft.

In this conversation, Kopiika reflects on what it means to lead Ukraine’s premier institute of international relations amid invasion, blackouts, and bombardment, while still insisting on intellectual rigor and institutional continuity. He describes how wartime necessity accelerated innovations that had long been academically discussed but rarely operationalized: hybrid teaching models, crisis-management planning, redundant digital systems, and dense webs of international academic partnerships that now function as strategic lifelines rather than symbolic gestures.

He frames Ukraine’s path toward European Union accession not as a prize to be seized in the near term but as a generational project of legal, political, and cultural transformation. At the same time, he maps the cognitive and professional architecture of wartime diplomacy—scenario planning, coercive negotiation, alliance management, and narrative construction under pressure. Kopiika also makes the case for a pragmatic “govern, don’t ban” approach to artificial intelligence in the classroom, arguing that the goal of higher education in an age of permanent crisis is not to produce compliant technicians, but strategists capable of thinking clearly when systems fail and stakes are existential.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What has the experience been of teaching through a war?

Valerii Kopiika: I will not hide that the panic of the first days affected everyone. However, there was something comforting in the way both the student and faculty communities supported each other despite everything. The online communication tools, which had firmly entered our lives during the COVID period, didn’t disappear; instead, these chat groups, whether course-related or not, with or without instructors, became spaces of support and mutual assistance.

Offers of evacuation from students whose homes were in safer regions, help with transportation, and simply warm words – all of these became invaluable assets to our institutional community despite the horrors of war. In fact, under such conditions, we resumed academic activities in April 2022 in response to requests from both students and faculty to act. Again, we had experience with remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic, so the tools were already well-established. We saw continuing education as our contribution to future victory, so we could not compromise on quality.

Despite shelling and blackouts, we are finding new approaches and implementing non-standard methods, moving Ukrainian education closer to European standards by relying on the experience and dedication of our instructors and the thirst for knowledge of our students. Therefore, to briefly answer your question, I would say that what allowed us to preserve academic standards was the institute community’s desire to make a worthy contribution to the future of a free and capable Ukraine.

Jacobsen: Which adaptations should persist postwar as best practice for resilient higher education?

Kopiika: The war has forced Ukrainian universities to become remarkably agile. In just a few weeks, they learned to survive and function amid bombings, power outages, and overall uncertainty. Some of these wartime adaptations should become permanent features of Ukrainian higher education.

Online platforms have been extremely helpful. And digital tools aren’t just temporary solutions; they are instruments of accessibility and resilience. Hybrid learning models, combining in-person and online components, allow displaced students, students abroad, and even those serving in the armed forces to remain connected to their studies.

We’ve also learned that digital infrastructure needs redundancy and security, including cloud-based systems, backup servers, and protected data storage. In the postwar context, we should also develop and institutionalize flexibility and embed crisis-management units within governance systems.

Before the war, few rectors thought about evacuation plans, bomb shelters, or cyber defense. Now every university manager knows what ‘resilience planning’ means. This knowledge should not fade away.

Global academic solidarity helped Ukrainian universities a lot. Partnerships with foreign institutions provided platforms for displaced scholars and students. We shouldn’t treat this as temporary humanitarian aid; it’s the foundation for long-term academic diplomacy. Joint degrees, shared curricula, and collaborative research can anchor Ukraine firmly within the global knowledge ecosystem.

Ukrainian higher education has accumulated an extraordinary amount of practical experience. It’s vital to keep this knowledge.

For us, for the Institute of International Relations, wartime also brought some – partly unexpected – outcomes. The very fact that the number of freshmen grows each year proves the resilience of our higher education system. Also, this proves how many youngsters see themselves invested in a) becoming IR professionals in different fields and b) rebuilding Ukraine in the near future. It seems wartime is an appropriate breeding ground for diplomats, analysts, and professionals in international law, business, and economics.

For an undefined postwar future period, the main task is retaining people. This applies both to students and educators. Second, it continues to build on our unique expertise in wartime teaching and learning, as well as to apply it to real-time challenges. Third, yet no less important, is expanding our network of cooperation with partners abroad – both from the EU and the West, as well as from the Global South. We have seen unprecedented interest and support from many educational institutions in recent years. Preserving these essential ties is crucial.

Jacobsen: European Union integration is a long, procedural undertaking even in the best of circumstances. In wartime, the process becomes exponentially more difficult. From your perspective, what sequencing of accession steps makes the most strategic sense for Ukraine while the war is still ongoing, and which reforms realistically need to precede others?

Kopiika: European integration, the prospect of becoming part of the European space, is one of the reasons why we are fighting against the aggressor. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this is one of the reasons why Russia is waging this shameful war against us. Despite all the challenges, we continue on this path, and the latest European Commission report on Ukraine’s progress toward integration shows that we are making quite successful strides. Whether we will become part of the EU during the war – that is a question to which no one has an answer.

I would say, probably not. However, that does not mean the journey is not worthwhile. Because we are changing thanks to the challenges of this path. We are changing our perspectives, orientations, and priorities. In the context of scientific integration, we are actively collaborating with EU partners, the academic community, and, given the specific nature of our institution, with diplomats both in Ukraine and abroad. I notice that one of our current tasks is to overcome the complex of inferiority, as we have much to share with our colleagues and are ready to become an integral part of the European educational space.

Jacobsen: War makes diplomacy complex. What concrete skills should be prioritized to train wartime diplomats?

Kopiika: Ukraine’s got a unique experience in diplomacy during a war. We also have a unique experience in teaching future diplomats.

We’re already aware that wartime diplomacy demands a somewhat different set of skills. When a state faces an existential threat, diplomacy must combine crisis management, coercive negotiation, alliance maintenance, and moral legitimacy under extraordinary pressure.

Wartime diplomacy is much about managing risks. Thus, strategic thinking is necessary. It implies understanding the military balance, the mechanics of coalitions, the potential of sanctions, and global security trends. A diplomat at war should possess a highly developed scenario planning.

Like normal peacetime diplomacy, wartime diplomacy is rooted in negotiation, but often under coercive and distributive conditions. Knowing how to negotiate is a must. In particular, it’s about the critical assessment of Ukraine’s own experience in negotiating, dealing with mediators and third parties, and trusting promises.

Maintaining broad international support is vitally important for a country in war, and that is a focus of diplomacy. It is challenging and demands enhanced skills in communication, building narratives, and understanding the strategic interests of partners.

In wartime, diplomacy becomes sharper. Training wartime diplomats requires more than traditional protocol or etiquette; it requires strategic foresight, coercive negotiation, alliance maintenance, legal argumentation, and emotional resilience.

Jacobsen: What deals should Ukraine deliberately court to protect strategic autonomy goals?

Kopiika: It is indeed unfair that Ukraine must make compromises to achieve its strategic goals. As a country fighting for its independence and territorial integrity, we should not be forced to choose between maintaining our autonomy and integrating into international structures or making critical deals.

However, given the geopolitical situation, we must understand that some compromises may be necessary. This does not mean abandoning our strategic objectives, but at certain stages, we may have to make concessions to ensure our security, stability, and development. Therefore, to preserve strategic autonomy, Ukraine will need to carefully select agreements that do not undermine its core interests, while simultaneously supporting its progress on the international stage.

Jacobsen: ESIIR embraces ChatGPT Edu with a “govern, don’t ban” stance. What guardrails and assignments have proven effective for training analysts?

Kopiika: The LLM revolution we have witnessed over the past few years is indeed a remarkable shift in the global educational landscape. On the one hand, access to up-to-date models and their frequent use in classrooms are essential for an imminent AI-powered future. On the other hand, the overreliance on LLMs is not something we strive to see among students. The educators’ task transformed alongside such swift technological progress.

Now, the interaction with those models focuses on hard skills, while in-class lessons and discussions are mostly focused on soft skills. Many educators have adopted and adapted their teaching materials and assignments to the changing circumstances. Short answer to your question: fewer old-school written assignments and more interactive tasks, a faster pace, and better structuring of curricula. However, with all the perks, it is of utmost importance to continue training professionals who can keep up with the pace of change, not just ChatGPT operators.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time and this opportunity, Valerii.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.