In wartime, the state has a duty to protect the civilian population. This is one of the key functions of government authorities, enshrined in Ukraine's Constitution and laws. To this end, the state has designated authorized bodies, such as the State Emergency Service (SES), the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, and others. In short, shelters and civil defense structures—the entire infrastructure—are the responsibility of the state. Funds are allocated from the budget for this purpose, and our Western partners also provide financing for shelters and civil defense. And they provide quite substantial sums. It seems straightforward. Yet, in reality, it does not work that way.
Civic activists are reporting substandard shelters and the embezzlement of funds. Now, the authorities are making every effort to shift the burden of civil defense onto the citizens themselves. A telling example is the attempt to push amendments to the Law on Condominium Associations (OSBBs) through a parliamentary committee. effectively making co-owners of apartment buildings responsible for the stock of civil defense structures. In practice, this means not only criminal liability for OSBB boards but also higher utility bills for residents to maintain these shelters. Meanwhile, Western aid will likely go to some "Mindich" for a mansion in Kozyn... Let's try to sort this out.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
Indeed, Ukrainian legislation stipulates that the state is called upon to ensure the civil protection of the population during war. The Strategy for the Development of the Civil Defense Shelter Fund until 2034, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on March 4, 2025 (No. 183-r), defines the essence of state policy in this area as: "creating a secure environment for the civilian population by establishing a network of civil defense shelter facilities to protect lives and minimize casualties in the event of the enemy's use of modern weapons, thereby creating conditions for the further economic and social development of the state."
Billions are being allocated for the maintenance and arrangement of shelters, civil defense structures, dual-use facilities, and basic shelters from both the state and local budgets, as well as through international aid.
On November 27 of this year, the "Shelter Coalition for Ukraine" was inaugurated with great fanfare. Deputy Minister for Communities and Territories Development Natalia Kozlovska presented the Coalition as a multilateral initiative aimed at modernizing Ukraine's civil defense system. The EU, together with Finland, Lithuania, Belgium, Sweden, and Ireland, announced initial grants totaling €22 million. This is neither the first nor the only initiative by international partners to finance civil defense in Ukraine during the war.
EU Ambassador to Ukraine Katarina Mathernova stated at the launch that "the Ukraine Facility financing mechanism was introduced to support Ukraine, including for the construction of shelters. I must highlight the sum of €140 million, which was allocated under the Ukraine Facility component specifically for the construction of various types of shelters."
Aid from the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, international organizations, and other donors should be added to this list. There is also corporate assistance from firms and private capital, alongside budget funds from both the state treasury and local governments. It all adds up to a substantial amount.
For instance, the economic and social development program for the city of Kyiv for 2025 allocated an additional 1.5 billion hryvnias for the construction of shelters and 831.6 million hryvnias for capital repairs, with the majority of these funds intended for educational institutions. Significant sums were allocated for various civil defense works in previous years: 4 billion hryvnias in 2025 for mobile shelters and over 7 billion hryvnias in recent years for capital repairs and general shelter reconstruction. Additional financing in 2025 includes 1.5 billion hryvnias for "construction of shelters in educational institutions." Capital repairs of shelters: 831.6 million hryvnias. Educational institutions: 570.9 million hryvnias. Housing and utility sector objects: 209.5 million hryvnias. Other social sphere sectors: 51.2 million hryvnias. Other funds allocated in 2025 include, for example, 4 billion hryvnias for the installation of 500 mobile shelters. Total investments over previous years amount to more than 7 billion hryvnias for repair, reconstruction, and increasing the number of shelters.
The authorities are reporting "significant success" in equipping shelters and utilizing European funds for civil defense. According to official data, as of December 2024, the total fund of civil defense structures in government-controlled Ukrainian territory amounts to 62,655 facilities. The government claims these facilities provide cover for 48.8% of the population. Of this total, 19,541 are designated civil defense structures and dual-use facilities, while the remaining 42,443 are classified as basic shelters (simple cover). The capacity of the specialized civil defense structures and dual-use facilities covers approximately 17.5% of the population, while basic shelters cover 31.3%. In total, "about half of the country's population can be sheltered." But this is merely ON PAPER! In reality, the majority of shelters are unprepared and fail to meet approved standards.
Various inspections and investigations by civic activists indicate that the figure of 85.3% of civil defense facilities being "ready for use" is a cynical exaggeration. Experts in the field suggest that barely a third of them actually comply with the legal requirements for shelters and civil defense structures.
Where did the money go if only a third of civil defense structures are actually ready for use? Where is the €140 million provided by the Europeans? What will we tell EU Ambassador to Ukraine Katarina Mathernova if she suddenly asks how the conditions for civil defense aid under the "Ukraine Facility" financing mechanism are being met? Who stole this money?
ON LIABILITY
Did you know that any—and I repeat, any—shelter, even one in the Office of the President, can be fined for the absence or improper storage of any item from the mandatory list of equipment required in a shelter?
According to Ministry of Internal Affairs Order No. 579 (dated July 9, 2018) "On Approval of Requirements for the Maintenance, Arrangement, and Operation of Civil Defense Shelter Fund Objects...", there is a specific checklist of items that must be present in a shelter. If these are missing, the State Emergency Service (SES) will issue a fine to the custodian (entity responsible for maintenance):
1. Life Support Systems (Most critical for fines)
• Ventilation and Sealing System:
◦ Absence or malfunction of the Filter-Ventilation Unit (FVU) – a gross violation.
◦ Lack of airtightness: cracks in doors, windows, or utility entry points that fail to protect against the ingress of contaminated air.
◦ Absence of manual drives for ventilation system valves.
• Power Supply System:
◦ Absence of an emergency power source (generator, batteries) or its non-operational status.
◦ Absence of emergency lighting in main corridors, near exits, and at critical systems.
• Water Supply and Sewage:
◦ Absence of an emergency drinking water reserve (minimum 3 liters/day per person). For a shelter holding 50 people, this equals 300 liters for 48 hours.
◦ Absence or poor condition of sanitary facilities (toilets).
2. Communication and Alert Systems
• Absence of communication means: a landline telephone or radio point to receive signals and information from civil defense authorities.
• Absence of an internal public address system (loudspeaker).
3. Fire Safety
• Absence of fire extinguishers (minimum 2-3 units) or expired shelf life.
• Absence of sand, fire blankets, and other firefighting inventory.
4. Inventory and Documentation
• Absence of emergency tools: crowbars, axes, shovels for excavation/evacuation.
• Absence of individual protective equipment: simple respirators or cotton-gauze masks (at least a minimal stock).
• Absence of medical first aid kits.
• Absence of mandatory documentation:
◦ Shelter readiness passport.
◦ Inspection and verification log.
◦ Operation instructions for personnel (commandant).
What are the liability and fines? Liability is regulated by the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CUAO), specifically Article 88-1 "Violation of legislation in the sphere of civil defense":
◦ For untimely or improper implementation of civil defense measures, including shelter maintenance. The fine: for officials (OSBB board chairpersons, commandants) – from 5 to 10 tax-free minimum incomes (850 – 1,700 UAH). For citizens – from 1 to 3 (170 – 510 UAH). Sounds like peanuts, doesn't it?
However, the fine itself is merely the opening salvo. If violations are not rectified, the State Emergency Service (SES) can suspend the operation of the facility and refer the case to law enforcement for criminal prosecution under Articles 291 (violation of safety rules) or 425 (negligence of duty) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, provided such inaction led to serious consequences. This carries a penalty of 3 to 7 years in prison!
The SES has full authority to issue fines for the absence or poor condition of mandatory shelter elements. Inspections are conducted pursuant to the Procedure for the Maintenance of Civil Defense Shelter Fund Objects (Cabinet Resolution No. 308) and State Building Codes DBN V.2.2-5:2023. Meanwhile, the usage of shelters and civil defense structures is regulated by Cabinet Resolution No. 138 of March 10, 2017 — Some Issues Regarding the Use of Civil Defense Structures (which underwent significant amendments in 2022–2023).
Failure to meet any single item on the aforementioned list constitutes grounds for an SES fine. For Condominium Associations (OSBBs), this spells systematic financial hemorrhaging and legal risks, as bringing an old basement up to code with all these requirements is impossible without significant state funding. All these costs will be paid out of our pockets as co-owners of these buildings!
RESIDENTS TO PAY FOR STOLEN DONOR FUNDS
Now for the most intriguing part. Recently, a group of Members of Parliament led by Roman Lozynsky attempted to—surreptitiously, in violation of parliamentary regulations and through a non-core committee—slip a series of amendments aimed against OSBBs into a genuinely important legislative package. This was done during the second reading of Bill No. 13454 dated July 7, 2025, "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Emergency Prevention and Response, Formation of the Civil Defense Shelter Fund, and Creation of Safety Classes and Centers."
The MPs and their aides hid behind the alleged consent and demand of individual OSBBs. Indeed, these "benefactors" managed to motivate a few associations to support them.
It was proposed to include the following provision in Article 5 ("Common Property of an Apartment Building") of Clause 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Associations of Co-owners of Apartment Buildings": "The common property of an apartment building shall also include civil defense shelter fund objects created or arranged in basements and/or underground spaces, including underground parking lots, at the expense of co-owners, as well as through funds received for such purposes as free non-repayable aid [grants] from individuals, legal entities, foreign states, and international organizations. Such civil defense shelter fund objects are to be used exclusively for the needs of co-owners and their family members, unless otherwise determined by the general meeting and/or relevant agreements on receiving such aid."
Let me remind you that if the board or the chairperson of the OSBB fails to execute a task, or if the co-owners fail to ensure the proper collection of funds to meet maintenance conditions for a shelter or civil defense structure, administrative liability arises for the OSBB chairperson, as this person is considered an official.
The Civil Code clearly states that the "balance holder" (a role MPs want to force upon OSBBs) is responsible for the maintenance, operation, and readiness of the shelter (civil defense shelter fund object) for its intended use. This includes ensuring access to the shelter during an air raid alert and bringing it into proper condition (meeting the technical norms and conditions listed above). Failure to do so entails administrative liability, and in the event of tragic consequences, criminal liability.
Everything must be financed by the co-owners of the building! But what if we have 12 apartments, and only six are paying dues? What if the general meeting of such an OSBB does not approve an increase in fees to cover shelter maintenance costs? Is the OSBB chairperson supposed to pay for it out of their own pocket or go to prison?
For failing to open a shelter during an alert, the fine ranges from 3,400 UAH to 8,500 UAH (depending on whether it is a repeat offense). For failure to comply with lawful demands of the State Emergency Service (SES) or the National Police, the fine is 3,400 UAH to 17,000 UAH. If a person dies or sustains injuries because a shelter was locked, imprisonment for a term of 3 to 8 years is possible. The sanction under Article 270-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine stipulates imprisonment for 3 to 8 years.
Will people who have voluntarily taken on the burden of managing an OSBB be willing to accept such liability, especially when it is not financially secured?
In an attempt not to scare people off with the concept of a "shelter" and the regulations for its maintenance, the legislator proposed the term "protected space." The idea is that the OSBB has the right to decide who to admit into its private "protected space." Rules, an intercom system, and security can be established.
However, alongside this, there is a constant threat of blurring the lines between a "protected space" and a "shelter," with all the attendant legal, financial, and property consequences.
According to civil defense legislation, a shelter is a public facility. In the event of an emergency (an air raid alert), the civil defense administration has the right to force this shelter open, even if the OSBB objects. This means that complete strangers from the street will have the right to enter your building's basement. Control over one's own property will be lost.
In a "protected space," owners are primarily responsible for themselves, and this responsibility is regulated by the building's internal rules. But if, with a wave of an MP's hand, your basement transforms from a "protected space" into a "shelter," then the OSBB (as a legal entity) and board members (as individuals) will bear administrative and, most terrifyingly, criminal liability for the shelter's condition.
Insufficient ventilation? A burst water pipe? Broken doors? Fire due to faulty wiring? In the event of any tragedy (loss of life, poisoning), it will not be the abstract "budget dispensers" who answer for it, but the board chairperson and its members. They can be prosecuted for negligence of duty or even violation of safety rules resulting in serious consequences.
In a "protected space," owners decide for themselves what level of comfort and safety they need and how much money to spend on it. But if you have a "shelter," the state sets clear State Building Codes (DBN) for shelters.
Compliance with all these norms will fall on the shoulders of the OSBB. These are colossal expenses—ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single building. Foreign partner funds allocated specifically for this may have already been embezzled, leaving residents with an impossible financial obligation.
Currently, co-owners can decide to use the basement as a laundry room, a relaxation room, or even lease it out. It is joint property. As soon as we have a "shelter," the premises are removed from commercial circulation. It can be used only for its direct purpose—as a shelter. Any attempt to lease it as a warehouse or for other purposes will be illegal.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The state reports tens of thousands of shelters and claims they can protect more than half the country's population from missiles and drones. However, public inspections indicate that the majority of these "shelters" exist only on paper. The shelter map is dotted with numerous facilities that are non-functional, while those that do work fail to meet requirements. Meanwhile, the authorities want to increase the number of civil defense objects.
An OSBB is a body created to manage common property. Its goal is to maintain the building, territory, and utilities in proper condition, spending residents' funds efficiently and transparently.
By pushing through amendments against OSBBs, the state will formally report to Western partners and citizens on the "creation of thousands of new shelters" without spending a dime. There are no co-financing programs for shelters yet; it is a long procedure, but shelters are needed now. Our basements and parking lots will serve as these shelters. Thereby, officials will cover up the embezzlement of funds allocated for civil defense by shifting the financial and legal burden onto residents.
What will we, as co-owners of buildings and OSBB members, get from this scheme? An incredible burden in the form of full financial, technical, and criminal liability for a facility that we, most likely, will be unable to equip properly due to a lack of funds.
The state is an institution obligated to ensure security, defense, and law and order. The construction and maintenance of civil defense infrastructure is its direct and urgent job.
Shifting state functions onto OSBBs is a path toward the collapse of both the civil defense system (because OSBBs will not be able to ensure it at the proper level) and the housing and utility sector (because all money will be spent executing orders from above). This is not a reform, but the state's capitulation before its own duties. If this lawlessness is not stopped today, tomorrow they will try to saddle OSBBs with the duties of a neighborhood police officer (because there aren't enough of them) and a mobilization officer (because the OSBB chairman knows everyone in the building). And this is already a direct threat to civil liberties.
Thus, this initiative, disguised as "decentralization" and "empowering citizens," is in reality a classic method for the state to shirk its direct responsibilities for protecting citizens' lives and to legalize the consequences of corruption.
