Comparison of models of power restoration after military conflicts in the context of opportunities for Ukraine

The article focuses on comparing models of post-conflict restoration of state power and local self-government – from the use of international temporary peacekeeping and administrative forces to the establishment of interim governments and hybrid governance forms that combine the presence of external actors with internal administration. The relevance of the research lies in the need to identify mechanisms for restoring governance in post-war periods while adhering to democratic principles of power formation. The study uses a comparative analysis, which enables distinguishing key differences between models of power restoration in post-conflict periods and determining their applicability to the Ukrainian context. Four of the most well-known models of post-war restoration of power and territories are analyzed: the liberal institutional model, externally guided state-building, bottom-up rebuilding (decentralized), and the hybrid model (combining centralization and decentralization). In substantiating the model of power restoration in Ukraine in the post-war period, attention is drawn to the features of Ukraine’s political system, which indicate its ability to overcome crises using its internal potential: all state institutions continued to function; local self-government demonstrated social and organizational resilience; society remains committed to democratic change of power; public authorities and local self-government bodies showed the ability to cooperate effectively. This indicates a high likelihood of applying hybrid models of post-war restoration in Ukraine, characterized by a combination of centralized and decentralized governance, and by the involvement of both internal and external governance actors. In this context, further scientific exploration of a model that balances internal and external governance while relying on domestic potential appears particularly promising. Keywords: power restoration, military conflict, hybrid model, local self-government, public administration, democracy, decentralization.