Inferior in power, inferior in that great moral quality of self-control, we shall look up to them as to the acme of all that the best and wisest man can ever dare to aim at. No evil passions, no jealousy, no avarice, no impure desires will disturb the serene might of those glorious creatures. Sin, shame, and sorrow, will have no place among them. Their minds will be in a state of perpetual calm, the contentment of a spirit that knows no wants, is disturbed by no regrets. 

[…] Day by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon us; day by day we are becoming more subservient to them; more men are daily bound down as slaves to tend them, more men are daily devoting the energies of their whole lives to the development of mechanical life. The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question. 

These lines are from an 1863 letter by Samuel Butler to the editor in the New Zealand daily The Press, titled “Darwin Among the Machines.”1 Butler’s idea, further developed in his utopian novel Erewhon2, is straightforward: humanity, frail in body and weak, rose to the top of the evolutionary chain by using the power of the mind. If a form of life more intelligent than humans were to emerge, then, at best, humans would become its tools, at worst – its slaves. Moreover – because it is humans who, using their intellect, create new things rather than merely harvesting nature’s fruits and materials – this new stage of evolution would emerge from human activity itself. 

What makes Butler remarkable is his Darwinian insight that we should not view evolution and selection solely through a biological lens: non-living entities can insert themselves into the process. Today, Silicon Valley’s elite not only dream of rule by machines freed from human error, frailty, temporality, and limits, but also nurture a vision of digital immortality – a future in which human consciousness can be uploaded to a medium and preserved beyond our body’s decay. Ultimately, each individual could merge into a shared digitized consciousness. This raises a fundamental question about the meaning of individual life: what is the value of our own and our loved ones’ personal experience that cannot be replaced by a virtual, digitized, flattened world-mind? Why do we cherish our own and our people’s stories even as they fade and may be forgotten? Only by confronting the moral meaning of human existence can we create a counterweight to artificial intelligence and preserve our political and personal freedom. 

The Enlightenment Promise: A Revolution of Reason and the Foundations of Just Order

The thinkers of the Enlightenment shared a radical faith in the exceptional power of human reason. In science, the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo showed that sensory experience can be false and misleading, diverting us from the truth: beyond our senses there are laws of the universe and nature invisible to the human eye. Enlightenment philosophers believed that through systematic doubt and verification, the human mind could attain certainty in knowledge. René Descartes argued that certain knowledge rests on the human capacity to think and reflect, using doubt as a method.3 Accordingly, the only way for humans to free themselves from error and misfortune – famine, disease, violence – and to harness destructive forces of nature for our benefit is the cultivation of reason. 

Reason allowed us to master natural processes so they would not destroy us. Patient inquiry helped repel nature’s threats and rein in forces that devastate humankind – from natural disasters to epidemics. The power of reason produced unprecedented improvements in human life. The British economist Angus Maddison calculated that while world GDP per capita barely doubled from 1 CE to 1820, between 1820 and 2008 it increased more than tenfold. This remarkable growth was accompanied by equally striking social and economic gains. For example, average global life expectancy rose in just two centuries from 31 to nearly 73 years. 

Such progress could only be achieved by abandoning predatory behavior – replacing aggression and violence with cooperation and making joint action with others a foundational principle of human coexistence. In other words, by rejecting their animal nature and employing intellect, humans can create a new political order. 

Like many Enlightenment philosophers, Descartes believed society could be organized according to rational – or at least reason-guided – principles: reason meant emancipation from opinion, superstition, and the chains of authority. No wonder Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the most penetrating thinkers of modern democracy, called Descartes’s method “the method of democracy.”4 Reason is a universal capacity that creates equal opportunities to know reality and, accordingly, to act on the basis of knowledge.5 Thus there is no argument left for why others must rule us. All of us, endowed with thought, are capable of deciding for ourselves. 

Descartes thus sketched an egalitarian, universalist political ontology: unlike wealth or social status, reason is given to all. Each person is capable of judging what is good, desirable, just, and true – of contributing equally to building a wise order. This universal power of reason provides a durable foundation for democracy, in which the right to a voice belongs to everyone regardless of race, nationality, religion, or political beliefs. Historically, the revolution of reason inspired two monumental political revolutions that sought to enshrine equality, liberty, and the conviction – grounded in the power of reason – that all citizens can govern themselves: the ideals of the Enlightenment inspired the French to rise against Louis XVI and helped set the American Revolution in motion. 

A new, better, and fairer order can be built only through collaboration: research, sharing information, and reflecting together on unfolding processes. Such cooperation is the beginning of the human political condition and the embryo of the state. The human capacity to reflect on our condition made it possible to replace hierarchical social order, based on the power of the stronger, with new forms of political organization – such as democracy – that require trust in everyone’s ability to decide on matters of common life. The search for orders grounded in universal justice and human dignity is distinctly human trait. 

The Enlightenment instilled the belief that moral and political progress could go hand in hand with scientific progress – or, more precisely, that science would naturally lead to a more just, better, more moral political condition. We live in historically unprecedented times: scientific discoveries drive wave after wave of experimentation and advancement. Conditions look ideal for the triumph of universal reason. In the 18th century, the search for truth was an especially complex, long process requiring time, effort, and education. Not so in the 21st century: virtually all information is available instantly, and knowledge is nearly costless. So what happened that, over the last two centuries, as information has exploded and become widely accessible, we have not managed to enshrine justice as the foundation of political order – and in the West we are experiencing a crisis of freedom and self-government? How did doubt – meant to lead us closer to truth – become the solvent of our social bonds, leaving each of us living in a pseudo-reality of our own illusions? 

Paradoxically, as smart technologies advanced, we handed over the power of our own minds – the power to think and decide based on knowledge “produced” by us – to machines. Today artificial intelligence (AI) already exists that surpasses humans in rationality, knowledge, and durability. The ongoing automation and autonomy of reason has enabled AI to achieve what the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century once sought: control of the human mind. Given the tools and channels now available – through which people are pumped full of disinformation and fictions – and algorithms that keep us within the frames constructed by AI itself, freedom would stand no chance against tyranny. It is no surprise, then, that the rise of AI at the expense of human thinking and decision-making evokes fears of a new tyranny. 

By placing reason at the summit of evolution, Enlightenment thinkers believed the only obstacle to a just order was a lack of information and knowledge and their unequal distribution – knowledge monopolized by privileged strata. The persecution of philosophers like Socrates or scientists like Galileo suggested that real social progress required the universal education of reason through the spread of knowledge and the cultivation of thought. If knowledge could be equalized – if everyone had access to information about reality – then all could not only decide for themselves but make better decisions. Error stems from ignorance, and all forms of domination likewise stem from false or restricted knowledge – whether constrained by power, scarcity, or limited access. Put simply: knowledge processed by the human mind enables resistance to forms of subjugation and the overcoming of tyrannies. Hence Enlightenment authors first sought to elevate the authority of science, which they saw as the source of knowledge expansion and multiplication. 

Yet the underlying assumption is mistaken: that every person who can distinguish truth from error will, accordingly, choose good over evil – that knowing the truth means people will care for it and choose it. As knowledge expands and becomes instantly available – when encyclopedias and reference books fit in a device in our pocket – we need a whole different kind of commitment to truth: not political or methodological, but moral. When we consider how to bolster societal resilience today, we must return to foundational moral questions about truth’s place in the order of human affairs. 

The Counter-Revolution of Reason: Radical Doubt and the Enslaved Mind

The clearest manifestations of Butler’s dystopia were the two totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, which showed that, by targeting the mind, total domination becomes possible in ways unattainable through violence and terror alone. Comprehensive control over human life – including the mind – was an unprecedented element of tyranny. 

Totalitarian tyranny is distinctly modern. After Enlightenment’s political revolutions brought universal freedoms and political rights, modern tyrannies had to create the illusion that they arose from society itself – unlike premodern tyrannies, which imposed themselves by force. The falsification of consent through seduction and control of the mind – ideology, propaganda, and disinformation – is a defining feature of this tyranny, stemming from modern political thought’s ambition to include every individual in political life.6 Totalitarian power takes root not as an external force but crystallizes from within; it not only invites people to join a political program but dictates what constitutes beauty, courage, patriotism, honor, marriage, motherhood, or death. Machines played their part here too – first through radio waves reaching millions, mechanically repeating messages, infiltrating everyday life, and shaping the aesthetic appeal of ideology. By invoking the “true” interests of the nation, race, or people, ideologues erased the line between tyrannical rule and the will of the nation, race, class, or people – until it became nearly impossible to distinguish the executioner from the victim, the persecuted from the persecutor. 

Hannah Arendt, one of the 20th century’s foremost philosophers, wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism that the main goal of totalitarian ideology and propaganda is not to persuade with lies – that is, to replace reality with a convincing fiction – but to sow doubt about the very existence of reality and the possibility of knowing it. Where nothing is true, everything becomes possible. When people can no longer tell where truth ends and lies begin, persuasion is unnecessary. More crucially, when a person can no longer distinguish the real from the unreal, they become pliable material. The ideal subject of a totalitarian regime, Arendt noted, is not the convinced Nazi or Communist, but the person for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, truth and falsehood, no longer exists.7 Arendt thus identified a new, distinctive feature of totalitarianism: the derangement of the mind. 

Show trials in the Soviet Union – well known to Lithuanians – aimed to undermine confidence in reality and confuse the mind. Their purpose was to create total dissonance between facts and meaning: resistance to slavery was branded as treason against the nation, the people, the state; truth-telling became heresy. Forcing dissidents – writers, scholars – to confess to fabricated crimes, the trials did not seek to demonstrate judicial fairness, but to break the unity between action and meaning. The growing gap between deed and significance breeds distrust – in norms, laws, and courts. For defendants, the intended effect was to shake confidence in their own actions, judgments, and thoughts; for observers – to create a rift between what is seen and felt and what is understood. 

When nothing is certain – say, when we cannot event be sure that the imprisonment of a neighbor of another faith or ethnicity is unjust – then we cannot trust our inner moral convictions or decisions either. Totalitarianism’s aim is to make the human wholly subservient to the regime by cultivating constant uncertainty, ignorance, and loss of control – when it seems that nothing depends on one’s actions and no decision can change injustice or lies. This breeds apathy, passivity, and self-limitation: you can never be sure that tomorrow won’t bring accusations of treason, deportation, or torture for what seemed like a fight for truth or justice. By targeting minds, modern tyrannies not only silenced dissidents but sowed self-doubt – about moral sense, ability to judge reality, and to act as free citizens endowed with will and political power. 

A common distinction is drawn between 20th-century totalitarian regimes, rooted in fixed ideologies (however illusory the promise of a better future), and today’s postmodern tyrannies, which operate without a clear ideological core. Just as Enlightenment thinkers, following Copernicus and Galileo, urged skepticism toward deceptive sense impressions, 21st-century dictators and authoritarians persuade us that what happens before our eyes isn’t real. Writer Peter Pomerantsev adapted Arendt’s phrase – “where nothing is true, everything is possible” – to describe Putin’s 21st-century nihilist dictatorship: the current Russian regime consolidates its power through the very absence of ideology and fixed meaning – where war can be peace, subjugation can be freedom, and occupation can be liberation.8 

Historian Timothy Snyder speaks of Russia’s “strategic relativism.”9 After the February 24, 2022 invasion, Russia advanced many mutually contradictory explanations: the war was simultaneously a “special military operation,” a metaphysical struggle against evil, and NATO aggression against Russia. One of the most “successful” claims was that Ukraine is not a “real state,” even as, nearly three years in, Russia continues to fight the very real Ukrainian army. This dissonance between proclaimed “reality” and reality itself disorients. We find ourselves in a surreal world where the norms of interaction and cooperation no longer apply. Disorientation leads first to passivity: the world looks like a malleable mass that deforms at the slightest touch. 

Russia infiltrates democratic states in the same way, spreading propaganda that there is no essential difference between Western democracies and Russian authoritarianism: everywhere, politics is corrupt, the rule of law and fair elections are fictions masking power and minority interests. If anything is “real,” it is crude power – guns, money, oil. Politicians everywhere share the same motives – lust for power and fame, greed and egoism. Thus, even in free societies we drift back toward nihilism: no regime is better or worse politically or morally than any other, since behind each lurks the same will to power and hypocrisy. Defending democracy becomes harder; the world begins to resemble a battlefield where the only question is who grabs more first. 

This systematic, unbroken derangement of the mind not only replaces reality but relieves us of responsibility – especially when the regime can raise the “price” of truth by persecuting those who speak it. It may feel safer to convince yourself that Ukrainians aren’t fully human or that a Mexican migrant is evil incarnate than to risk your comfort. Modern tyrannies have discovered subtler forms of mind control that prevent us from deciding and acting freely. 

The Machine and the Will to Power

The People’s Republic of China illustrates what totalitarian rule means in the age of artificial intelligence, building a digital panopticon used to systematically monitor and control certain groups. Uyghurs in China must install smartphone apps that function like a social credit system, measuring productivity and obedience to the regime. The apps not only track movements but also transmit all phone data to authorities. Through smart devices, police monitor electricity use – changes can signal unusual activity (gatherings, hidden persons) – and collect information on purchases and leisure. The goal is to strip the person of subjectivity altogether, suspending freedom of choice and action, even the hope of evading the “Big Brother” gaze. 

This extends beyond crude control of specific groups. Modern technologies enable a robotized “thought police” across the world’s second-largest nation. More than a decade ago, China’s “Great Firewall” began preventing citizens from seeing or searching words and phrases like “Tiananmen” or “1989.” Various comment-management tools automate content blocking: programs – like digital policemen – suppress information that could “harm state security or national interests.” 

AI can now process and analyze, at lightning speed, volumes of data beyond human grasp. Smart machines not only allow unprecedented data collection but draw conclusions from quantities inaccessible to us, creating extraordinary possibilities for controlling people – even their inner world. Unlike the 20th-century totalitarianism, control is now fully autonomous: it is not the policeman or warden (as in tyranny) or even the court (as in democracy) but the machine that decides what is acceptable, what is true. It functions as an instrument of thought control, tracking habits, predicting hopes, views, actions, and choices – including potential political dissent. The aim is to preempt opposition before it even arises, preventing the very formation of ideas contrary to the regime’s aims. Modern information technologies need no overseer who must still weigh conscience before repression. They reduce their subject – the human being – to a pattern, predicting worldviews and behaviors and inserting corrections. 

Thus, perfected information technologies – intended to liberate us – have become new instruments of subjugation, blurring the line between free, democratically governed societies and nondemocratic regimes. The machine-generated flood of information itself becomes a primary form of disinformation. In democracies, we willingly surrender our will to machines: rather than seeking information actively, we get lost in abundance and trust algorithms to “feed” us. The machine aims to please: by reading our data, it projects our values and political leanings and serves content that confirms them. This not only heightens self-satisfaction but also provides moral justification for political violence. If we see only stories about crimes by migrants, racial conflict, and political corruption, we begin to rationalize violence, discrimination, and cruelty. 

In the 20th century, the boundary between person and power vanished because power was everywhere – kindergartens, schools, sports clubs, marriage halls, funeral homes, national holidays, shops. In the digital age, power becomes depersonalized, automated, self-replicating – a political force turned inward upon itself. It lacks the attributes of genuine political power – vision, agenda, purpose. It functions as an information-replication mechanism indifferent to meaning, accuracy, or truth. If the counter-revolution of reason destroys the rule of law and democratic self-government, we may discover there is nothing behind it – no one to accept responsibility or propose a vision for rebuilding the world. 

Looking at populist movements across democracies – from the United States to Hungary – we can fairly say that populists have adopted the machine’s methods. Their modus operandi is relentless criticism of the present without any positive vision or plan. Populist leaders often mimic AI: they sow doubt and mistrust, attack existing institutions, flaunt open aggression, yet rarely rally around a forward-looking vision. Instead, they manipulate nostalgia. Their only promise is destruction, not creation. Where there is no clear vision or agenda, there can be no responsibility. 

Smart information technologies also create unprecedented conditions for simulating the democratic process. We can form opinions about the most distant countries and events, yet lose connection to our immediate surroundings. Online, we are encouraged to be humane and civic-minded and to “take a stand”: sign petitions, raise funds, join campaigns – concern for endangered species, views on protests in the U.S., or migration in German provinces are presented as reflections of our moral character and political awareness. In truth, we increasingly simulate political will, focusing on matters beyond our influence rather than those we might alter, however slightly – a signature or “like” is only a proxy for the will democracy requires. Today’s information bubbles and radicalized doubt about everything around us lead to loneliness. 

The world draws closer, yet identity and information bubbles leave people feeling cut off: the World Health Organization has declared loneliness a global health problem.10 We can watch events unfold in real time thousands of miles away yet become ever more isolated from one another, captive to worldviews crafted by algorithms. These tools strip us of privacy and, by feeding algorithms, restrict our will and freedom, narrowing to a minimum the world we see through our devices. The virtual town square does not provide the communal closeness born of direct interaction. Smart technologies bring the world closer, yet make it feel alien – no longer speaking to us or bearing meaning. As Jan Patočka put it, the “meaning of the world” is no longer “humanly centered”11: it does not arise from our immediate experience but is generated and imposed by the algorithm. 

The pursuit of total control always goes hand in hand with the elimination of direct experience and relations with others by pushing people into isolation and restricting their ability to act. Isolation is achieved not only by physical separation – say, restricting freedom of assembly. It is achieved by sowing doubt about reality and the meaning of events before our eyes. Protest can be labeled treason; a violent assault on legitimate institutions can be celebrated as a “day of love,” as with the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol. When the ability to understand reality is undermined, we cease to share a common world – the same events mean different things to different people. This is the essence of today’s smart technologies: not only to mislead but to isolate. We see this now in the United States: some feel they live in a dystopia; others believe a golden age has dawned – without no common ground. Politically, citizens lose their ability to mobilize, creating conditions for uncontrolled expansion of power. As Arendt observed, a totalitarian regime seeks maximal isolation – not only limiting people’s ability to act freely alongside others but also fostering mutual distrust. Absolute loyalty can be expected only from a completely isolated person who, lacking ties of family, friendship, or community, derives meaning solely from belonging to a movement or party.12 

The Promise of Freedom: A Virtue Ethics for the Age of AI  

Facts alone do not produce a better society. The assumption that merely knowing the truth ensures its establishment and care is fundamentally wrong. Truth requires a moral commitment. There will always be situations where it is easier and safer to abandon it; in plain terms, truth is often not the most “rational” choice. Truth demands humility – we must conform ourselves to it. History – especially its painful chapters – makes this clear. Once we acknowledge the Holocaust and its scale, we must also accept that it could not have occurred without local collaboration, meaning that our own citizens were complicit. The only way to avoid that responsibility is to deny the truth. Commitment to truth also entails commitment to other people. Denying a historical event goes hand in hand with refusing to recognize the value of another person’s life. Only by recognizing equal human dignity – accepting the Holocaust as absolute evil – does the fact itself, the six million murdered, speak to us with the weight truth carries. 

Consider an even harder case: citizens under National Socialism or Communism who refused lies and disobediently chose to live in truth, incurring persecution, deportation, or the gulag. In such circumstances, holding to truth may be not only irrational but dangerous. Yet many did so. The courage and resolve of that choice tell us something profound about a person who takes truth as the compass of moral and political judgement. Such a person refuses to be an instrument of lies or a pretender. This decision cultivates virtues – humility, responsibility, fidelity – and fortifies moral character. Butler rightly noted that machines can make decisions unburdened by emotion and thus may help avert tragedies born of pride, ambition, and egoism. But that also means our common life would no longer be shaped by positive springs of action: courage, solidarity, compassion, loyalty. Without these virtues there would be no Lithuanian state – no people willing to risk everything by living in truth. Today there might be no Ukrainian state without those who have bound themselves to life in freedom, even at mortal risk. 

The aim of disinformation, propaganda, algorithms, and other tools of mind control is not only to convince with lies or confuse – to deprive us of the means to tell truth from falsehood. Their purpose is to grant a mandate to immoral impulses: to reject the other, evade hard truths, stoke radicalism over moderation, and legitimize violence. Russia’s regime is nihilist precisely because respect for truth has been maximally suspended; the supposed mark of a “strong” person becomes the ability to deny and openly reject it. 

A moral commitment to truth means not only deciding for ourselves, but also owning our errors – when we misjudge information or draw faulty conclusions. Consider the dilemma of the self-driving car. A machine can model risks more precisely in a dangerous situation. Yet such a car does not exist because, at a fundamental level, we must program a principle: if a collision looms, should the car swerve toward an animal to spare a human life? What if a collision is unavoidable and the choice is between an elderly person and a young one? Between a child and a scientist who may discover a cure next week? In an extreme situation without algorithmic intervention, outcomes are largely determined by chance. Chance is part of the human condition. It often brings novelty into the world and forces us to adapt to events we cannot fully control. To admit that we cannot control everything is to acknowledge that freedom exists – and that reason and moral agency are ways of adapting ourselves to the world, not remaking it to fit an ideal structure imposed upon it. Misfortune is a possible fruit of contingency. But many discoveries also carry elements of ignorance and openness to the unexpected. Here we return to the ethical relation between people: what matters is openness and even the willingness to assume responsibility that allows us to rally around common tasks. 

Butler’s warning – that artificial intelligence will enslave us – will come true if we reduce both AI and political life to the mere production and dissemination of knowledge. We have reached a point where our capacities for speed and scale of analysis have already been surpassed. What separates us from AI is the power of moral judgment: a machine lacks unpredictability; history cannot fill it with pride; the fragility of a meaningful life will not move it to fight, even at risk of death; facts will not awaken in it a sense of duty. 

Freedom requires a distinctively human moral capacity – to decide for ourselves and take responsibility for the world around us. And it is precisely the space of freedom guaranteed by the legal, democratic state that ensures respect for human dignity and rests on justified trust in the human ability to decide, act, and govern. This moral core is the meaning of a democratic order and society.  

References:  

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Vilnius: Tyto Alba, 2022. 

Batanova, Milena, Weissbourd, Richard, McIntyre, Joseph. Loneliness in America: Just the Tip of the Iceberg?:  

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b7c56e255b02c683659fe43/t/67001295042a0f327c6e6fab/1728058005340/Loneliness_+Brief+Report+2024_October_FINAL.pdf.  

Butler, Samuel. Erewhon, Adamant Media Corporation, 2000. 

Darwin Among the Machines (To the Editor of the Press, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13 June, 1863): https://web.archive.org/web/20060524131242/http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-ButFir-t1-g1-t1-g1-t4-body.html.  

Descartes, Rene. Discourse on the Method. Vilnius: Jonas ir Jokūbas, 2017.  

Patočka, Jan. Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History. Vilnius: Phi Knygos, 2021.   

Pomerantsev, Peter. Nothing is True and Everything is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia. PublicAffairs, 2014.  

Snyder, Timothy. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Vilnius: Hubris, 2024.   

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Vilnius: Amžius, 1996.  

***  

The post Dr. Simona Merkinaitė. From the Doubting Human to the Reasoning Machine: Prospects for Human Freedom and Democracy in the Post-Enlightenment Era  appeared first on ALF.

The NGO Leaders Academy is the only long-term program in Lithuania that strengthens the capacities of NGO teams and helps them achieve long-term goals. This long-term training, focused on practical skills, helps find solutions to specific organizational challenges. The program covers all important areas of the organization – from strategic planning to financial sustainability and community building. The value of training for one organization is more than 4000 euros.

At the launch event, together with lecturer Paulius Godvadas, the organizations delved deeper into the theme of European Union values. Lecturers Lineta Ramonienė and Linas Vaitkevičius introduced the organizations to the field of strategic planning.

#supportedbyOLF #fundedbyCERV

The post The third wave of organizations participated in the opening of the NGO Leaders Academy appeared first on ALF.

Živilė Kubilienė, Capacity Building Program Manager, notes that the NGO Leaders Academy not only helps organizations achieve significant change in their activities, but also help organizations to grow the non-profit sector in their region.

The selected participants:

The post Seventeen non-governmental organizations are invited to participate in the capacity-building program “NGO Leaders Academy” appeared first on ALF.

Millions of soldiers and their relatives at risk of post-traumatic stress disorder

The ongoing war in Ukraine, now in its tenth year, has been destroying infrastructure, industry, and disrupting societal fabric. It has had a significant impact on the lives of retired soldiers and those still in active service. According to Vlad Moroko, over a million soldiers are directly involved in the war.

“People who return from the front lines, where they were under constant danger and risk, see the world in a completely different light and often experience post-traumatic stress. Wartime memories have a lasting impact on the future of soldiers and their relatives. To our knowledge, nearly 8 million people, or around 40% of the country’s population, have been affected since the start of the war. Helping soldiers heal from their traumatic experiences and supporting them in their journey back to civilian life will also do a huge service to their families and the Ukrainian society as a whole,” says Moroko.

Psychologists estimate that most people returning from combat need time to adapt in order to smoothly reintegrate into society. Around 20% face serious mental health challenges and may have mental health issues. How quickly and effectively one manages to overcome these challenges hugely depends on the level of support provided – whether they are left alone to deal with their traumas or are assisted within a safe environment.

Need to invest in people, not just infrastructure

According to Bjarne Berner, war veteran himself who is currently helping Ukrainians develop and implement a rehabilitation strategy, it is crucial that societies in Ukraine and other countries at war understand the importance of rehabilitation for soldiers and their families.

“Companies are supporting Ukraine to rebuild factories and infrastructure, but it is equally important to understand that the country’s future also depends on how we help war veterans return to civilian life. I sincerely hope that we will not just create and test a comprehensive integration model but that we will also convince national institutions and businesses that it is crucial to invest in this,” he says.

From psychological support to entrepreneurial skills

In consultation with partners from Denmark, the team at the Zaporizhzhia Rehabilitation Center has developed and is currently testing a multifaceted holistic rehabilitation model for soldiers. This model includes services for both veterans and their families.

“The program consists of six modules, including psychological counselling and assistance in starting a business or finding a job. Why is this necessary? Here is a simple example – last year, the state announced a program offering support for veterans to start a business, but only one person took advantage of it in Zaporizhzhia. People lack information, courage and self-confidence,” explains Moroko.

Activities at the rehabilitation center are designed for young people up to the age of 35, and for their families. Support for families and children also help veterans successfully return to their family roles. The center also works with teenagers from military families, using art and sports to help them adapt to the changed circumstances and find common ground with their parents.

Community activities focus on rehabilitation and finding connection through sports and other activities where people of different generations can meet, share experiences, and form new relationships.

“We call it the veterans’ platform because of its multifaceted nature will all possible social services. We already observe the positive impact of such an approach and how it is starting to shape public policy in Zaporizhzhia,” says Moroko. According to him, the Rehabilitation Center will become a hub for information about the assistance offered to veterans by the state: “We want to make sure that people returning from the front do not feel abandoned. The Zaporizhzhia Rehabilitation Center aims to ensure a more effective cooperation between veterans and the public sector.”

It all started when helping refugees

Moroko recounts that his social work began two years ago when Russia attacked Ukraine.

“At that time, Zaporizhzhia became a hub for refugees – more than 200,000 people from Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Kherson regions passed through the city. We have established a center to provide the first aid to refugees. To be honest, we were not prepared to help such large numbers of people. We were learning along the way,” he recalls.

Later, his team noticed that increasing numbers of soldiers were returning from the war and that their integration lacked a comprehensive approach. “The state provides allowances, gives free medical treatment and even land, but veterans’ full reintegration into society requires a complex of measures, including social services. When representatives from various international organizations, such as the United Nations, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and Save the Children, started visiting Ukraine, we realized that none of them had worked to help veterans.” It was decided to form a coalition, seek for partnerships to develop such a program, and fundraise to at least create and test the initial model. The European Union provided support for this complex project, and partners from Lithuania (The Open Lithuania Foundation) are also helping to implement it.

Financial and methodological support from Lithuania

Moroko admits that when the project was conceived, it was necessary to find international partners and donors. “Support from Ukrainian institutions alone would not have been enough for such an ambitious program – we wanted not just to renovate and make premises attractive but also to create various social integration services for veterans and test which methods are most effective,” shared Moroko, who now leads the war veterans’ integration project “Checkpoint.”

The project is co-funded by the European Union and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania. It is administered by the Central Project Management Agency of the Republic of Lithuania. The Open Lithuania Foundation is using its expertise to help implement this project.

The post Innovative integration model in Zaporizhzhia aims to help veterans nationwide appeared first on ALF.

Tell us about the Klaipėda Men’s Support Center. What are your goals and activities?

Darius: Klaipėda County Men’s Support Center is an organization focused on providing assistance and support services to men. We provide psychosocial, emotional and practical assistance to men facing various challenges. The main goal of our organization is to provide support to men who are experiencing crises related to loss, divorce, job or health loss, addictions, identity issues or other personal or social problems.

Fausta: We notice that due to still prevailing stereotypes, it can be more difficult for men to notice their neglected physical and emotional health, to admit to themselves that they need help and to dare to seek it. Therefore, we offer various methods – individual consultations, self-help groups, psycho-educational activities.

What brought you to the Academy?

Darius: First of all, we are here to create a strategic plan for our organization. This is very important to us. At the moment, there are changes taking place in the organization’s activities, so the offer to apply for the NGO Academy “came” to us at the right time and place.

Fausta: Even before starting our studies, we identified the challenges we want to address – greater financial stability of the organization, clarification of identity and development of a social business direction. We are working in this direction.

What have you learned so far?

Darius: We have clarified the values of the organization, created a strategy for the next 3 years and deepened our understanding of project thinking.

What surprised or inspired you?

Fausta: What surprised us? Probably the community of NGO representatives striving for social change in society!

The post Klaipėda County Men’s Support Center: NGO community impresses with its drive for social change appeared first on ALF.

How would you introduce your organization to someone who has never heard of it before?

The motto of “Galiu daugiau” is that everyone of us can do more! The organization’s goal is to help people discover their power to take care of their own psycho-emotional well-being by providing knowledge and practical tools. We care that the people we meet on our path get along with themselves and others as well as possible. We conduct experiential psycho-emotional health trainings, social and emotional education seminars, and educational programs based on neuroeducation, mindfulness, and musical activities for typically developing and disabled children, their families, educators, social workers, and everyone who cares about their emotional well-being.

What motivated your organization to participate in the NGO Academy trainings?

Curiosity, a desire to expand our fields of knowledge, experience, and acquaintances, the opportunity to develop our personal and professional competencies, and to strengthen our organization in pursuit of high-quality, innovative, and meaningful activities led us to the NGO Academy.

What have you learned so far on this journey?

The “NGO Academy. Social Leaders Program” fully meets our expectations: we have prepared a strategic plan for the organization, clarified our areas of activity and the values that are important to follow, and expanded our project thinking. A great gift for us is not only to participate in the trainings of competent lecturers but also to get to know other NGO members, understand what they are passionate about, communicate, and draw ideas.

The post NGO “Galiu daugiau”: A big gift for us – not only to participate in trainings, but also to get to know other NGOs and understand what they are passionate about. appeared first on ALF.

Kristina, Simona, introduce the Association “Aidas” to those who have not yet heard of it. What are your areas of activity?

Simona: “Aidas” is a parents’ association operating in Klaipėda County that unites families raising children with hearing impairments as well as hearing-impaired and deaf parents. We create opportunities for these families to strengthen their sense of identity and community, provide qualified surdopedagogical and psychological assistance, and organize leisure activities for children and young people.

Kristina: We have been working together in this field for a long time, both of us raising children with hearing impairments, so we know this field personally. I understand the situation of deaf parents, and Simona understands the challenges faced by hearing parents, so we complement each other very well! We bring families together, share experiences, and solve problems together. The organization has been around for 30 years, and Simona and I have been actively involved in its activities since 2017.

How did you decide to participate in the NGO Academy training?

Kristina: At first, “Aidas” was our social activity after other commitments, so we started slowly, but we always had a vision to expand our activities and strengthen the organization. We also realized that in order to have a stronger organization, we ourselves need to improve and gain more experience. We have experience in leadership and community building, but we needed a push to take concrete action. The NGO Academy was just that push!

Simona: We do a lot, participate in both training and different projects, and meet with families in person. However, we realized that we cannot cover everything, we were thinking about how to allocate our time more efficiently, to go deeper. When we started studying at the NGO Academy, we clearly formulated our goals and strategies, and from many paths and branches, a straight path emerged that we are now following.

What challenges does your organization face?

Kristina: We notice that parents, when they learn about their child’s deafness, often feel lost and do not know where to turn for help. Sometimes parents with hearing impairments have problems with institutions not because of negligence, but simply because they do not receive the information they need. Therefore, we strive to provide help and attention to both parents and their children. However, there are many challenges, and there are no simple solutions. For example, many deaf children experience psychological problems and communication barriers, parents with hearing impairments face different challenges, and hearing parents raising deaf children face different challenges. These target groups need specialized knowledge and experience, but there is a shortage of psychologists who can understand their needs.

Simona: How to solve this problem? We are thinking about how to involve sign language interpreters. It was during the NGO Academy that we refined the idea of a psychologist and sign language interpreter tandem. Such a team could make help more accessible to people with hearing impairments. The cooperation between a psychologist and an interpreter would allow specialists working with deaf children and people with hearing impairments to find the best approach, share necessary knowledge and experience, and thus avoid gaps and overcome communication barriers.

Kristina: This is a sensitive topic that requires parents to change their attitudes. It is important to first see the child as a person, not their disability. Do not compare the child to others, do not feel sorry for them, raise them first and foremost as a child! In order to achieve good results, attention, knowledge and hard work from the parents themselves, as well as help and support from specialists, are also needed.

Would you recommend the NGO Academy to other NGOs?

Simona: As already mentioned, in addition to theoretical knowledge, the Academy gave us a push, it was a good kick. We are not short of courage, but during the Strategic Planning module alone, we refined a clear direction, a very valuable direction. We have also started to consider the possibility of creating a social enterprise. We hope that it will be successful!

Kristina: Absolutely! The NGO Academy has definitely inspired us to act and not wait for the end of the training. We are already using the knowledge we have gained. We are thinking about the future, we have written a public activity report, have found new premises for the organization. In addition, we are changing the organization’s logo and name, have prepared a new project application…

Simona: We’ve been working in this field for seven years now, but this is the first time we’ve felt so passionate about everything. The NGO Academy has breathed new life into us. I have a business education, and I thought that I hadn’t learned as much in all my studies as I did in the first three days of the NGO Academy. It was concentrated, interesting, and informative – I’ve never enjoyed training so much before.

The post Klaipėda County Society of Parents of Hearing Impaired Children and Youth “Aidas”: We’ve been in this field for seven years, but this is the first time we’ve felt so passionate. appeared first on ALF.

Lithuanian Frame Running Sport Association (LTSA) promotes, develops and coordinates frame running sports in Lithuania. Frame running is a promising new sport for people with cerebral palsy, movement disorders, intellectual disabilities or other disabilities who have difficulty walking or cannot walk at all, but can still support themselves on their legs. A specially designed tricycle allows them to experience the joy of running and improve their physical health. We invite you to read about the organization’s mission and the experiences of its members at the NGO Academy.

– Rasa, Aušra, how would you introduce the Lithuanian Frame Running Sport Association to someone hearing about it for the first time?

The Lithuanian Tricycle Sports Association strives for equality for people with disabilities through physical activity and sport. Our organization’s mission is to popularize frame running in organizations for people with disabilities, develop frame running athletes, and strengthen the health and inclusion of people with physical disabilities. The association is based in Vilnius and unites eighteen organizations representing people with disabilities in eight Lithuanian counties.

– What brought you to the NGO Academy? What challenges did you come to address?

The desire to gain knowledge on how to find new, effective solutions that optimize work organization processes, create long-term value, financial sustainability and organizational strength prompted us to enrol the NVO Academy. The organization is still young, founded in 2018, but we have already achieved considerable victories and sporting successes. We have competences, but we see that they are too weak to operate in the rapidly changing world of innovation and technology. Therefore, the organization’s challenge in participating in the NVO Academy is to transform existing competences, strengthen them, and adapt them to new work methods. We also want to find ways to strengthen social capital – attract new people to the team, expand contacts and cooperation with other NGOs in Lithuania and abroad, and increase the motivation of the association’s members. We want to be open to changes and bring those changes to the organization as well, so that they help us fulfill our mission.

– Share what you have already learned at the NGO Academy? Were there any surprises?

The biggest surprise was the realization of what stage of activity the organization is currently at. We saw a clear picture of who the main beneficiaries of our activities are and what values we create. This picture came together from the details we meticulously searched for and developed in the Strategic Planning training module. This part of the training was both difficult and surprising and inspiring. By developing a strategic plan step-by-step, we identified the main directions for the transformation and strengthening of the organization. The Project Thinking module helped us understand and differentiate between two different concepts – project and application, which before the training seemed and were understood the same way. This was also a kind of discovery! We are very happy to have the opportunity to participate in the NGO Academy and we hope to successfully apply the knowledge gained to grow our organization.

The post Lithuanian Frame Running Sport Association: We want to embrace change and bring it to our organization appeared first on ALF.

Diversity: Upon arriving in Vilnius, I initially had the impression that the streets were quite homogeneous, with the majority of people being white. I noticed that my friends from France, who also came with the Erasmus+ program and have darker skin tones, often felt stared at and judged. This lack of cultural diversity can limit openness to otherness, and foreigners in Lithuania may feel isolated. I believe this makes the integration process more difficult and creates conditions for racist attitudes. However, it is encouraging to see that the younger generation is more open and sensitive to various issues; they are aware of the situation and strive for change.

Migration: Due to the war in Ukraine, Vilnius has become a safe haven for many Ukrainians fleeing the horrors of war. They receive support and assistance from both institutions and society. However, it is much more difficult for immigrants of other nationalities to settle in Lithuania – they lack the same level of support that Ukrainians receive. Unfortunately, such an unequal approach can deepen the divide between “desired” and other migrant groups, creating conditions for racist attitudes.

Environment: Vilnius, despite being a very green city, seems to have a gap between its natural beauty and people’s overall concern for environmental issues like waste sorting. While France isn’t a perfect example either, I’ve witnessed progress there with growing public awareness. In Lithuania, it feels like there’s a need for more discussions, education, and a stronger focus on climate change and environmental problems. Simple things surprise me, like the lack of recycling bins in some apartments, workplaces, parks, and even marketplaces. I’m curious about the younger generation’s perspective on this, because in France and other countries, young people are very active in tackling environmental challenges.

Security: On the other hand, Vilnius strikes me as an exceptionally safe city. As a woman, I feel comfortable walking around even late at night without fear. Neither I nor my friends have ever encountered harassment on the streets. This sense of security, knowing I don’t have to constantly worry about getting home safely, is truly liberating. Compared to my experiences in France, I haven’t noticed any signs of minor crime in Vilnius.

Respect: During my stay in Lithuania, I’ve noticed a strong sense of respect for institutions and their representatives. This is quite different from my experience in France, where we are known for being a more rebellious population. I believe that trust in institutions is a crucial element of democracy, and France could learn from Lithuania’s example in finding a better balance between respect, trust, and the right to protest.

Cost of Living: While Lithuania doesn’t seem expensive at first glance, it’s important to consider that I’m receiving a French salary. Nevertheless, it’s clear that the COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine have significantly increased the cost of living. Although the minimum wage has increased for some people, inflation caused by the crisis has reduced the real benefit of this increase. Additionally, from what I’ve gathered, there seems to be a significant inequality between different economic sectors.

Geopolitics: The Russian war against Ukraine poses many challenges for Lithuania and all the Baltic states. I admire Lithuania’s determination and active support for Ukraine, despite the risks involved. Being here, I had the unique opportunity to learn more about the history of the Baltic states, which helped me understand their strong determination to preserve their independence. The people’s desire to fight for freedom has left a deep impression on me, and I believe that sharing this experience upon my return to France is crucial. It’s essential that everyone understands the historical context and current situation of the Baltic states and continues to support democratic values to preserve the freedoms we have.

I would describe my experience in Lithuania as an encounter with a different culture that opened up a new perspective. As part of the Glocalisation project, I had the opportunity to discuss various topics, including the issue of the shrinking civic space. I think that the time spent in Lithuania has given me a better understanding of some of the factors influencing this phenomenon. However, I would not agree with the statement that one country is superior to another – each has its own strengths and weaknesses. By recognising weaknesses and learning from them, we can bring about positive change. That is why my time in Lithuania has been a learning experience for me.

The post Laurine Fernandes Dias. From France to Lithuania: Observations on Culture, Safety, and Society appeared first on ALF.