As the world looks ahead to the 2026 Winter Olympics in Italy, a bold new proposal has emerged: a global truce during the Games. The idea, championed by Italy and swiftly endorsed by Ukraine, has rekindled both hope and skepticism in a region still reeling from years of conflict. But as diplomats debate the merits of a ceasefire, experts and peacebuilders are quietly working behind the scenes, exploring what true reconciliation might look like for Ukraine—both during and beyond any Olympic truce.
On October 11, 2025, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Heorhii Tykhyi publicly voiced Kyiv’s support for Italy’s initiative. “We support such a call,” Tykhyi stated, as reported by Tamilla Hasanova. The proposal, first floated by Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani on October 7, calls for a worldwide cessation of hostilities during the Winter Games, scheduled for February 6 to 22, 2026. Italy has already presented the idea to the United Nations, seeking global buy-in for what could become a rare moment of pause in ongoing conflicts.
Yet Ukraine’s endorsement comes with a heavy dose of realism. Tykhyi didn’t mince words about Russia’s track record regarding Olympic truces. “It should be recalled that Russia started a number of wars during the Olympic Truce. Russia began its invasion of Georgia during the Olympic Truce, and Russia began the invasion of Ukraine during the Olympic Truce,” he said, referencing the 2008 and 2014 conflicts that flared while the world’s attention was on the Games. This historical context casts a long shadow over the current proposal, raising tough questions about whether an Olympic truce could truly hold where past ones have failed.
Still, Ukraine’s position is clear: they are ready for a ceasefire, not just during the Olympics, but immediately. “We are, in principle, insisting that it happens before the Olympics,” Tykhyi emphasized, adding that Kyiv had already accepted a ceasefire proposal from the United States—one that Moscow chose to ignore. “If Russia needs an ‘Olympic truce’ for this, then let it be an Olympic truce,” he continued, suggesting that any opportunity to bring Russia to the negotiating table should be seized, even if only temporarily. “I think that the Italian minister’s statement is also aimed at stimulating Russia toward the peace process—toward meaningful diplomacy and real steps toward peace.”
While the headlines swirl around diplomatic maneuvers, there’s another layer to the story—one that unfolds far from the glare of cameras and official statements. According to a recent feature published on October 10, 2025, a Ukrainian-born social psychologist, now working in the United States, has spent decades delving into the complexities of conflict and reconciliation in Ukraine. This expert, whose work has spanned everything from grassroots workshops to national TV programs, insists that the seeds of peace must be sown even in the midst of war.
“If you wait for the end of the war to start reconciliation, it will never happen,” the psychologist explains. Through research involving 90 in-depth interviews and 2,400 surveys, the team uncovered a stark truth: those who have endured more violence, such as internally displaced persons, often become more supportive of peace, while those who have lost loved ones tend to harden in their support for war. “They need to make meaning of what is happening to them and justify the loss,” the psychologist notes, underscoring the deeply personal dilemmas at the heart of public opinion.
These findings have profound implications for any peace process, Olympic truce or otherwise. Reconciliation, the psychologist argues, is not a single event but a continuous process of redefining social relations, identity, and boundaries. “War poses a challenge, which we need to address by rethinking, restructuring, and reconstructing: What does it mean to be a member of a particular nation?” she asks. The answer, she suggests, lies in fostering a civic form of national identity—one that unites citizens through shared values and rights, rather than dividing them along ethnic or linguistic lines.
To that end, the psychologist has developed the BRIDGE model for peace processes, which places identity-related mechanisms at its core. The model emphasizes bonding strategies to build common ground, reassuring strategies to protect minority rights, and involving strategies to empower all stakeholders. It also calls for determining guides to address collective traumas and build trust, as well as equalising strategies to reduce power imbalances between conflicting parties. “If you want to promote reconciliation, think about civic engagement, civic education, and a civic meaning of national identity,” she urges.
Past peace negotiations, such as the Minsk agreements, have often faltered, the psychologist says, because they were too exclusive—limited to political leaders and lacking input from communities, businesses, and civil society. By contrast, successful peace processes in places like Northern Ireland, Colombia, and the Philippines have involved a broad cross-section of society, from youth and women to religious groups and entrepreneurs. “If you want to involve people in negotiation, you need to train them to increase their legal literacy or negotiation literacy. With Ukraine-Russia, that was never done. It was perceived as an agreement between two leaders. We’ve been doing that, wrongly, for centuries. And we’re still doing that. You will never bring reconciliation into society like this,” she warns.
Reconciliation, in her view, requires tackling three pillars: beliefs and perceptions that transform identity; intergroup mechanisms such as trauma, trust, and threat; and the dynamics of power relations. Empowerment, she says, is essential—victims must not be seen solely as passive sufferers, but as active agents of change. Memory sites and monuments, she points out, can serve as powerful tools for contesting narratives and asserting agency, as seen in Korea and among Native American communities.
Internationally, the psychologist’s work continues through the International Association for Reconciliation Studies, which brings together scholars and practitioners from diverse backgrounds to examine the interplay between religion, history, and social psychology in peacebuilding. Her comparative research, spanning Africa, Asia, and Europe, highlights both the universal and context-specific aspects of conflict resolution. “On this meso-level, I bring together the interplay of generalisation and local localisation. Give people a repertoire, a set of possible strategies, solutions, ideas, and work to help them select what works for them and effectively adopt for their aims,” she explains.
For all the challenges, the psychologist remains optimistic about the potential for nonviolent action and social psychological approaches to reconciliation. “Peace is not possible if there is no justice, so we need to address that. We’re back to the BRIDGE model that stresses equalising strategies: how you deal with asymmetric conflict, use different tools to empower people, promote emancipation, to contest existing narratives and so on,” she says. The work is ongoing, and she invites others to join: “Please come and join our work… the more the merrier, the more impact!”
As the world debates the promise and pitfalls of an Olympic truce, it’s clear that the path to lasting peace in Ukraine will require more than a temporary halt to the fighting. It will demand a deep, inclusive process of reconciliation—one that reaches into the hearts and minds of all Ukrainians, and perhaps, sets an example for conflict resolution far beyond its borders.