Civil Resistance Forum, Nicosia “Truth Is Our Weapon”
The second edition of the Civil Resistance Forum, organised by Kipro Lietuvių Bendruomenė (KiLB), the Community of Ukrainian–Cypriot Friendship, and UKRCY.news, brought together activists, diplomats, cybersecurity experts and members of the diaspora to take stock of disinformation, cultural warfare and nonviolent resistance. Moderated by Yuliya Vertova, journalist, copywriter and documentary director, speakers alternated personal testimony, technical analysis and urgent calls for solidarity.
- Civil society first
Hosted at the University of Cyprus, the forum put civil society at the centre. HE Ms Lina Skerstonaité, Lithuania’s ambassador in Greece, accredited to Cyprus, reiterated that ordinary people make the difference: with courage, they resist. “Lithuania was an example in the past,” she said, “and Ukraine shows us that freedom is not guaranteed. There are people fighting for their country and for Europe, defending truth and human dignity. Even those who live far from Ukraine have chosen to unite in the name of freedom.”
HE Mr Serhiy Nizhinsky, Ukraine’s ambassador to Cyprus, delivered a blunt warning: silence can be as violent as a weapon. “Ukraine speaks and resists,” he said, reminding the audience that attacks on civil society began as early as 2014 and intensified after 24 February 2022. Rebuilding and protecting the social fabric, he argued, requires strategic policies focused on restoring the labour market, developing human capital and strengthening skills and knowledge. Only then can social resilience and recovery take root. The room fell silent for a minute of remembrance for those who lost their lives on the battlefield.
Ruta Peckyté, chairwoman of the Lithuanian community in Cyprus, described the forum as a meeting point for shared experience and dialogue: “Today is a place to exchange lessons between countries with similar struggles.” She evoked 13 January 1991, a pivotal day for Lithuanian independence, to stress that courage is not only historical memory but a lived, present reality. She thanked the University of Cyprus as a fitting venue: “A place of knowledge, ideal for spreading awareness.”
- The digital battleground: defending truth and freedom in the age of AI-powered warfare
One of the forum’s most followed panels, “Digital battlegrounds: defending truth and freedom in the age of AI-powered warfare,” featured Kazimieras Sadauskas, national cybersecurity adviser and co-founder of CBRX. Sadauskas warned about the rise of AI-generated deepfakes and the manipulation of public information. The AI-born “deepfake revolution,” he said, threatens citizens’ ability to distinguish truth from falsehood and erodes trust in media and government.
Disinformation and manipulation directly undermine public trust and when trust collapses, democratic stability is at risk. Sadauskas argued for proactive defence platforms capable of catching threats before they spread: “We need an AI-based defence approach that anticipates attacks.” His prescription is human–AI collaboration: there can be no effective cyber defence without AI, but AI alone is useless without robust cyber defences.
He also pointed to a worrying asymmetry: authoritarian regimes often hold structural advantages in information warfare because of their control over the media. Any response, he insisted, must protect democratic values and avoid measures that would curtail fundamental freedoms. The antidotes he proposed are clear: critical thinking, metaskills such as self-awareness and security awareness, social resilience and a renewed commitment to human and democratic values.
- “Russia’s War Aims, Ukraine’s Priorities, and Europe’s Divided Voice in 2025”
Marios Efthymiopoulos, CEO and professor of international security and strategy, set the tone from the start: he was not an optimist but a realist.
Efthymiopoulos described the fighting between Russia and Ukraine as one of the largest wars in recent history in terms of lives lost. He argued that civil resilience, the social, cultural and institutional ability to withstand coercion and disinformation, has become a central strategy in modern conflict. This is not a remote regional war, he warned, but “another war on the European continent” with ripple effects across security, politics and identity.
On Ukraine’s place in Western structures, Efthymiopoulos was blunt but nuanced: in political and cultural terms, Ukraine belongs in Europe; NATO membership, he said, remains contested. “Ukraine must first feel part of NATO,” he argued that membership is as much about perception, shared security practices and mutual commitment as about formal treaties. Meanwhile, Russia, he warned, is “testing the waters” in northern countries and trying to resurrect old geopolitical narratives to justify expansion.
Europe unready
One of the sharpest warnings was addressed to the European Union: we are ill-prepared. Since World War II, the EU has invested heavily in diplomacy and words, but words may no longer suffice, Efthymiopoulos said. He cited historical ties among Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (referencing a “Sister Countries” framework, 2001 date uncertain) to explain the Kremlin’s narrative that these countries share language, culture and history, a narrative used to justify interference.
On the war’s possible end, the professor sketched a sobering scenario: meaningful liberation of Ukrainian territory would require a far stronger military commitment from European actors, an “EU army” in his words but the EU today remains too dependent on Russian gas and too politically fragmented to speak with one decisive voice. He predicted that 2026 would be a crucial phase and suggested that an end to large-scale hostilities was unlikely before 2027 unless capacity on both sides changed dramatically and negotiations followed.
Questions of law, markets and moral responsibility
Efthymiopoulos also touched on war crimes and accountability: if abuses are being committed, why has Russia not been brought before a court? The question was rhetorical and pointed to a challenge to Europe’s professed values. He noted another grim market born of war: weapons. War reshapes economies and creates new demand where politics have failed to provide durable solutions.
In the audience Q&A, he raised dark hypotheticals: if Ukraine holds, Belarus might remain intact; if Ukraine falls, Belarus could be next. The overall message was clear: Russia seeks both strategic points, access to the Black Sea, ports and corridors and a rewriting of historical geography; Europe must keep attention focused and provide solutions, not just statements.
- Panel 1 — Narrative as a battlefield: resisting propaganda through culture and media
Moderated by Alkas Paltarokas, director of the Lithuanian NGO Strategic Initiative Centre and an expert on hybrid warfare, this panel framed culture and media as frontlines. “Every civilian is a warrior,” Paltarokas declared, arguing that attempts to destroy Western civilisational norms are part of the same logic that once occupied parts of Cyprus, a pointed local parallel.
Michael Sirivianos, associate professor of computer science engineering and scientific coordinator of FactCheck Cyprus, drew the link between extremism and information economies: far-right actors monetise disinformation (he referenced viral activity on platforms like TikTok), while far-left groups may align geopolitically with Russia, China or Iran on specific issues. The result, he warned, is a crowded ecosystem where extremist narratives meet and reinforce each other.
Kazimieras Sadauskas, the cybersecurity adviser who also spoke earlier, returned to technical threats: AI-driven manipulation, coordinated influence operations and the erosion of trust.
Ksenia Murkhortova, president of the Community of Ukrainian–Cypriot Friendship and co-founder of UKRCY.news, emphasised the role of community media and grassroots journalism in countering state-led propaganda.
The panel closed on a stark note: the “cancer” of fascism and authoritarian propaganda remains a present danger. The remedy, speakers agreed, is critical thinking and unity. The more fragmented the audience is, the weaker the response.
- Cultural Accompaniments: The Soul of Resistance in Wartime
Alongside the Forum’s debates, the abstract concept of resistance took concrete form through two deeply impactful initiatives. The touching photo exhibition “Jazzmen at War” brought the faces and stories of jazz musicians who took up arms to defend Ukraine. The images, the work of Artem Fedosenko, a photojournalist and defender who fell in 2024, were more than documentation: they were an artist’s final gaze upon his comrades, a testament to their dignity and drama.
Alongside them, the audio narratives “Voices of Resistance” from Cyprus, Lithuania, and Ukraine created a sonic mosaic of struggle across different eras. Together, these elements reminded all of us that, beyond political analysis, resistance has a human face: it lives in memory, in art, and in the courage of individual lives, giving a concrete soul to every debate.
- From war infrastructures to peace infrastructures: Cyprus as an example
After lunch, the conversation shifted from analysis to practice. Yiannis Papadakis, professor of social anthropology, reflected on Cyprus’s long and fraught path from conflict to fragile coexistence. He highlighted small, pragmatic projects, shared utilities in Nicosia, pedestrian history walks and joint technical committees on education, as early peace infrastructures that once seemed impossible.
Dr Loizos Kapsalis (Association for Historical Dialogue and Research) argued that history education must go beyond competing national narratives: teaching should enable citizens to use the past to think about the present, not to harden polarisation. Doğa K. Avseven described education projects that aim to build common frameworks for future generations.
Marios Michaelides and Huseyin Gurshan, members of the Cyprus Bicommunal Conflict Resolution Trainers Group, introduced us to their personal experiences and recounted the longstanding barriers to communication between the island’s communities, a dialogue that became possible only after the border opened in 2003.
They outlined Benjamin Broon’s three-step method, which was useful for creating a dialogue between the two sides: 1) define the problem; 2) create a shared vision for the future; 3) develop concrete ideas to make that vision real. They stressed that the point is not to find a political solution to Cyprus, that is the job of politicians; their role is to make a solution possible by preparing the ground, fostering dialogue, and helping leaders accept viable agreements.
- Narratives, norms and the law
A later session examined how law and media shape resistance.
Dr Olesia Gorbun, lecturer in International Law of the Sea at Mykolas Romeris University in Lithuania and consultant on international and EU law, addressed why international law has failed to stop Russia since 2014, when it first sought to take Ukraine. At the UN level, Russia’s position as a permanent member of the Security Council allows it to veto any resolution. The General Assembly, in turn, lacks the power to enforce binding measures, while the International Court of Justice cannot act since Russia is outside its jurisdiction. By contrast, some agreements, such as UNCLOS (the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) are respected internationally, making cases like Russia’s aggression in Ukraine or disputes such as the United Kingdom vs. the Chagos Archipelago instructive examples. Dr. Gorbun stressed that international law is not an abstract system but something shaped and sustained by civilians; civil resistance, therefore, plays a crucial role. For law to matter, it must be actively strengthened and reinforced.
Alona Tatarova, Executive Director of the Institute for Fiscal and Economic Studies (IFES), political scientist and strategic communication specialist, focused on Ukraine’s resistance as both the defence of its territories and the preservation of its national identity. She argued that the media often acts less as a neutral reporter and more as an agenda setter, telling people what to think about rather than how to think. This distortion, coupled with the failure to reflect reality, undermines trust in traditional media, creating fertile ground for disinformation. In such a vulnerable communication environment, Ukraine has responded by strengthening institutions, promoting media literacy, and supporting independent journalism. According to Tatarova, building resilience requires better reporting, which is also a way to counter populism. At the same time, she noted, social media is rapidly overtaking journalism as the primary source of information, with all the risks and challenges this entails.
- Exposing and countering russian influence networks and intelligence operations in Cyprus: safeguarding democracy and civil society
Investigative journalist Boris Demash closed the afternoon with a local case study: Russian influence networks in Cyprus. He described persistent infiltration attempts, shadow operations and the unsettling closeness between some local actors and Kremlin-linked interests. From drone provocations in the region to social-media campaigns that carry conspiracy theories into mainstream debate, Demash painted a picture of an island where geopolitics and local politics intertwine.
As an example, he pointed to the case of young Cypriot MEP Panayioutou, a TikTok influencer known for spreading conspiracy theories and allegedly receiving funding from a Russian “peace fund” to support his run for the presidency.
- Panel 2 — Memory, Identity and Resistance: Confronting History to Build the Future
The second panel turned inward: how memory shapes identity, how identity becomes a target in modern wars and how communities can reclaim narrative and space through art, storytelling and civic courage. Moderators and speakers argued that confronting uncomfortable histories is not an academic exercise but a frontline act of resistance.
History as a battleground
Marios P. Efthymiopoulos opened the debate with a stark provocation: “Will we win or lose? In many ways, humanity has already lost.” His point was philosophical rather than defeatist, a warning that the stakes of cultural erasure and historical revisionism go beyond territory. If societies abandon the truth about the past, he argued, they surrender the foundations of future solidarity.
Speakers agreed that Russian imperial narratives are not just nostalgic geopolitics but active instruments of policy: by rewriting history, claiming shared origins, or appropriating cultural figures, an aggressor can delegitimise a people’s right to selfhood.
Erasure, education and everyday history
Lyolya Filimonova, a Ukrainian historian, tourist guide and communications coordinator for the Community of Ukrainian–Cypriot Friendship, gave a concrete example of this slow erasure: textbooks and local teachings that attribute Ukrainian historical figures to Russian culture. She cited the 18th-century traveller-monk Vasyl Hryhorovych-Barsky, who chronicled parts of the Ottoman-era Eastern Mediterranean and Cyprus in particular, a figure often presented in some curricula as Russian despite Ukrainian roots. Russia’s attempt to erase Ukrainian culture aims to deny the very grounds for resistance: if all identities are portrayed as the same, there is nothing left to fight for. Ukraine, instead, insists on its distinctiveness and independence.
Alesia Parkhomenka, representing the Democratic Embassy of Belarus in Cyprus, described how dissident networks inside Belarus are both brave and vulnerable. “There are groups within Belarus that put themselves in real danger trying to change the regime,” she said, using the term “oppression groups” to underline how activism inside authoritarian systems is a life-risking endeavour. Her testimony tied the panel’s theme to the wider region: identity politics, repression and the diaspora’s role in sustaining resistance.
Memory as a tool for reclaiming space
Yiannis Papadakis, professor of social anthropology at the University of Cyprus, stressed that memory work must be principled, not purely reactive. “We must stand with people because of shared humanity and rights, not only because they were invaded,” he said, drawing a deliberate parallel between Cyprus’s own divided history and the Russia–Ukraine context. Papadakis noted visible signs of dissent on the island, Russian flags flown in protests against the war in Limassol alongside antiwar messages and asked whether spaces like Cyprus could host meaningful dialogue between Ukrainians and Russians opposed to the conflict. His reference to Cyprus’s own experience, a society split yet hosting cross-community encounters, suggested cautious optimism: dialogue is possible when it is rooted in safe, external spaces where neither side is under immediate state pressure.
Panelists explored practical ways to use culture and memory as resistance: community-led exhibitions, history walks that acknowledge scars rather than erase them, and arts projects that make contested narratives visible rather than invisible. These interventions, they argued, are not symbolic only; they rebuild civic trust and create shared reference points that undercut propaganda.
Conclusion:
The closing remarks brought the discussion back to a central idea: memory is never neutral. It can be manipulated as a weapon, but it can also be reclaimed as a source of strength. Panellists called for active civic engagement from better history education that resists oversimplification, to grassroots cultural initiatives, and protection for those who risk their lives to preserve the truth. Beyond the technical threats addressed throughout the forum, the spotlight repeatedly returned to the cultural front: psychological warfare, colonial legacies, and the urgent need to decolonise dominant narratives so that communities can reclaim their sovereignty.
Art, storytelling, and collective memory emerged as frontline tools of nonviolent resistance ways to document truth, keep wounds visible and rebuild identity under attack. Yet this cannot remain symbolic alone: defending truth requires daily commitment, the responsible use of technology for protection rather than deception, and concrete policies that invest in people, education and resilient institutions.
The forum closed with a clear call to action: to turn dialogue into deeds, to strengthen grassroots memory work and cultural initiatives and for European communities to stand openly with civil resistance in Ukraine and beyond. Culture and civic courage, sustained over time, are not secondary to the struggle; they are as decisive for the future as any diplomatic or military strategy.
SHORT VERSION
Truth as a Shield: Civil Resistance Forum Unites Voices in Nicosia
The second Civil Resistance Forum in Nicosia sent a powerful message: in an age of digital deception and armed aggression, truth remains our most vital weapon. The event, a gathering of diplomats, cybersecurity experts, and activists, was not merely a discussion but a call to action.
The tone was set by stark realism. Ambassadors from Lithuania and Ukraine emphasised that courage and resilience are not abstract concepts but daily necessities for survival. The warning was clear: silence in the face of disinformation is a form of violence.
This theme continued in a gripping panel on the “digital battleground,” where experts detailed the alarming rise of AI-powered deepfakes designed to erode public trust. The solution proposed was not just better technology, but a stronger society, one built on critical thinking and media literacy.
In a sobering analysis, Professor Marios Efthymiopoulos outlined the harsh realities of the war in Ukraine, framing it as a European conflict with global ramifications. He argued that civil resilience, the social and cultural capacity to withstand coercion, has become a central strategy of modern warfare. His prognosis was stark: Europe remains unprepared, divided and dependent, with a decisive end to the conflict unlikely before 2027.
- Cultural Highlights
In addition to discussions, the Forum presented several powerful cultural projects that highlighted the human dimension of resistance, memory, and identity:
Jazzmen at War — a photo exhibition about jazz musicians who joined the Armed Forces of Ukraine to defend their homeland. The exhibition was kindly provided by the Embassy of Ukraine in Cyprus.
Works by Artem Fedosenko — photographs by the Ukrainian photographer and soldier who was killed in June 2024; the project was presented by the Ukrainian Cultural Center “Obiimy.”
Voices of Resistance — short audio testimonies reflecting different historical moments in Cyprus, Lithuania, and Ukraine, illustrating the many faces and forms of resistance.
A Collection of Audio Narratives
These artistic elements complemented the Forum’s political discussions, serving as a poignant reminder — through the language of art — of the true cost of freedom.
The forum also looked forward, exploring how to build “peace infrastructures.” Drawing on Cyprus’s own divided history, speakers highlighted how shared utilities, joint educational committees, and grassroots dialogue can slowly mend a fractured social fabric, proving that coexistence, however difficult, is possible.
The event closed with a powerful consensus: defending truth requires more than just words. It demands daily commitment, robust institutions, and the courage to protect our collective memory. In the fight for the future, culture and civic courage are not secondary, but as decisive as any diplomatic or military strategy.
Photo Anna Lipeeva
Author: Giorgia Filippucci
Теги: Civil Resistance Forum