Let local organizations prioritize aid and provide recommendations on how international actors can express solidarity with Ukraine in the most effective way.
In the midst of war, we cannot ignore the needs of the military. We know that aid is rarely "neutral". However, we are unable to get much-needed resources because of bias against this assumption of "neutrality." The civil society sector has documented numerous cases where even so-called "neutral" aid has unintended consequences and can exacerbate local social conflicts, reduce people's self-reliance, and harm local economies.
We do not want to remain "neutral". The value of human life must come first, and supporting the needs of those on the front lines can significantly reduce the amount of civilian assistance needed and the number of casualties. While we recognize that international organizations may wish to be perceived as "neutral," in these circumstances, local civil society must determine our own approaches and priorities.
Our approach and the demand for solidarity-based funding is supported by the academic Hugo Slim, who wrote that solidarity, not neutrality, should dictate the actions of the international humanitarian community working with and in Ukraine. According to Slim, this approach would follow the long tradition of "resistance humanitarianism" that was part of the resistance in Nazi-occupied Europe; and more recently documented in places like Myanmar and Syria.
Needs change rapidly and are different in different parts of the country and for different populations. With our historical and cultural knowledge and our detailed understanding of local alliances and support networks, we are much better able to identify what divides and unites people. Funding must remain flexible so that we can provide it according to the prioritized needs of local communities. False assumptions of neutrality should not be a barrier to funding.
Wouldn't you want the same if you were in danger too?