NoBorderSpace Project: Bridging across legacies of conflict and politics of division
Photo by Tatevik Ghukasyan
What if a border is not the line, which separates,
but rather the area in between us and them,
where we can meet and connect.
Introduction
Across European countries and the United States, politicians with authoritarian agendas are gaining power using nationalist and populist rhetoric that stirs up ideas of insiders and outsiders and fosters division and xenophobia. In many societies, citizens are interpreting these political developments as the failure of liberal values and democratic mechanisms.
However, this trend may rather be the result of a global polycrisis where the complexity of problems keeps increasing and ready-made solutions are impossible. The liberal agenda cannot offer clear, simple answers—because such answers do not exist. This gap creates an opening for certain political forces to use scapegoating and narratives of othering—often targeting migrants or foreign states—to provide people anxious about life and society with a sense of certainty. By exploiting people’s yearning for identity and belonging, they manipulate public sentiment to gain followers, increase popularity, and ultimately seize or retain power. These strategies are far from new, but their scale, speed of spread, and the extent to which they are reshaping the political landscape appears unprecedented.
Can activists counter this discourse? What tactics and approaches can civil society actors use to help people recognize political manipulation, deconstruct the language of hostility and division, and find alternative responses and values to live by in a time of global crisis?
Paradoxically, in the heated struggle between ideologies and political parties, competing actors often resort to similar tactics—regardless of the values or ideals they claim to promote. Every side aims to demonstrate strength and superiority; to defeat and dominate the other, to drive out the opponent. Within this dynamic of confrontation and rivalry, there is almost no space left for win-win outcomes, no room for genuine encounters, no opportunity to search for common ground and to transition toward mutually beneficial coexistence and cooperation.
The search for common ground becomes possible when we move beyond the binary of “right and wrong” and recognize the complex forces that shape our minds, inform our perspectives, and arise from lived experience.
To achieve a shared presence and co-being in diversity, dialogue must involve the recognition of difference and its articulation, and moreover move toward the conflict’s root or cause. Conflict invariably arises between certain identities (most often political or national), and it is only by deconstructing them and disidentifying from rigid ideologies that individuals can encounter each other as complex human beings, rather than only as representatives of groups, beliefs, or agendas. It is our belief that making visible and audible as much diversity as possible helps create the complex, rich fabric of a collective we. Finding that we, building trust, and challenging limiting beliefs lays the foundation for strengthening democracy and protecting communities from authoritarian efforts.
Thus, moving toward conflict and difference rather than away from it, combined with the deconstruction of narratives promoted by state powers or ideological movements (often deeply internalized) was at the very heart of our project.
Project overview
The NoBorderSpace project [1] was implemented by the Center for Independent Social Research e.V. Berlin as a series of live dialogue meetings and schools held in the South Caucasus region during 2023 and 2024.
Around 150 participants took part in the project, which was mainly targeted towards activists, educators, academics, journalists, and other young professionals and civil society representatives from Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Russia, mostly living in the South Caucasus region at the time.
The aim of the project was to create a space for dialogue around complex and timely issues, including: contemporary armed conflict, histories of interstate relations, imperial and colonial legacies, memory and political history, nationalism, and the dynamics between migrant and local communities. These discussions were shaped by the strained sociopolitical context of the South Caucasus, by both regional and global political transformations and challenges.
The idea for the project emerged in 2022, in part triggered by the 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War [2], a war that reignited the long-standing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan that dates back to the end of 1980s. This new phase of military aggression deeply discouraged regional peacebuilders who had spent years working to foster dialogue and promote a vision of citizens of neighboring countries not as enemies, but as fellow human beings also suffering from the consequences of war and political decisions.
At the same time, the violent crackdown on protests against electoral fraud in Belarus in 2020 led to a mass exodus of Belarusian activists and political opposition, many of whom fled to Georgia [3]. Even more significantly, the full-scale war in Ukraine, launched in 2022, triggered a large wave of Russian migration to the region, primarily to Georgia and Armenia. These were Russian civil society representatives, as well as citizens, leaving the country because of the threat of forced military mobilization, and for economic reasons connected to the economic impact of international sanctions [4]. The war brought long-standing tensions between Georgia and Russia back into sharp focus: Russia’s continued control over territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as fears of renewed aggression against Georgia itself [5]. These anxieties quickly translated into negative public attitudes toward newly arrived Russian migrants.
Against this backdrop, the core concept of the NoBorderSpace project was to explore new ways of discussing conflicts, and mitigating their negative impact on relationships between people involved or affected by them. We aimed to create a shared space where people could reflect on nationalism and imperialism in a broader sense, drawing on diverse personal experiences from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, and Belarus.
Thus, the project’s key topic areas were the following:
Conflicts over historical memory between people coming from five former Soviet republics (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Belarus, Russia): State narratives of the shared Soviet past, as well as new nationalistic discourses specific to each post-soviet independent country, differ greatly–shaping people’s identities and creating tensions in relationships;
Polarization between Armenians and Azerbaijani: Fueled by strong state narratives portraying the other as hostile, alongside the reality that national identities are deeply influenced by traumatic experiences and collective memories of prolonged armed conflict;
Strains between local and migrant communities: Migrants with limited understanding of their new environment and locals who tend to distance themselves and avoid direct engagement with newcomers.
Additionally, another project goal was to build community-like networks of activists and professionals based on trust despite differences. These cross-border networks could serve as a foundation for future cooperation on these complex and sensitive topics.
Project Design
Teamwork
The project team, consisting of core members and invited facilitators or guest lecturers, was characterized by diverse national, cultural, and professional backgrounds. All shared migration experiences, either to EU countries or to the South Caucasus region.
This diversity was a strong advantage, enabling the development of a program that combined a solid theoretical foundation, drawing on contemporary approaches to the analysis of nationalism and historical memory, with non-formal education methodology including interactive exercises, experiential learning and network-building techniques. Meanwhile, the shared background of migration, language, and culture, allowed the team to better understand the concerns of participants. It also helped team members recognize unspoken motivations, tensions, and conflicts during the events.
The main approach to addressing tensions and contradictions within the team was through direct and open communication during team meetings. At times, there were different opinions on how to balance the academic and informal components of the dialogues, as well as theory and practice elements of the program. Some team members considered it important to first provide a solid conceptual basis for critically understanding the problems of nationalism and the conflicts rooted in it, through lectures and discussions. Others saw greater value in exploring these topics through non-formal education methods that engage with participants’ personal experiences and the questions and challenges that accompany them.
It took significant effort and time to come to a common vision, but the process of sharing opinions and questioning helped to deepen an understanding of the contradictions between team members, and to better see the benefits and drawbacks of each position. The aim was to find consensus, but the facilitator(s) of a particular activity could make a final decision. And when it came to the structure of the program in general, decisions were made by the project coordinators.
Project Structure
The project was structured in four successive stages:
A series of dialogue meetings in three South Caucasus countries;
An Autumn School for dialogue participants;
Individual and joint creation of media projects;
A Facilitation School as a final event.
All project stages were designed to deconstruct widespread assumptions around nationalism, patriotism, and legacies of the past, as well as to foster open dialogue between people coming from polarised sociopolitical contexts. It was also important to build bridges of trust and understanding—grounded in real and shared experience—that could counter the dissemination of othering narratives in home states by authoritarian populist political figures or groups.
Dialogues
Stage one was a series of dialogue meetings where locals and migrants (newcomers) met and had the opportunity to listen to first-person narratives and opinions from “the other.” The goal of these two-to-three day meetings was to share and learn each other's opinions and generalized assumptions, to express the contradictions and tensions that exist between the groups and to address these assumptions with critical analysis.
These dialogues were held in:
Baku, Azerbaijan, for citizens of Russia and Azerbaijan
Tbilisi, Georgia, for citizens of Georgia, Belarus, and Russia
Yerevan, Armenia, for citizens of Armenia and Russia
Batumi, Georgia, for citizens of Belarus and Russia
For some participants, these events were the first opportunity they ever had to meet their counterparts, to ask uncomfortable questions, to share complaints and also to be heard and to receive support. Some participants said the experience of directly speaking of problems rather than avoiding and downplaying them helped them feel more trust and provided insights for further reflection.
This stage of the project allowed the organising team to identify specific dynamics in the relations between locals and newcomers in different countries, as well as the issues that cause the most pain and tension, which then shaped the framework of the Autumn School.
Autumn School
Stage two was the Autumn School, a five-day, full-time event which consisted of lectures, interactive exercises, guided tours, group work, and informal communication. The goal of the school was to provide a theoretical basis for problem analysis and also to encourage participants to study and to reflect on complex topics through media and art instruments.
Media Projects
During stage three, participants, over the course of almost a year, worked individually and in teams on media projects, such as articles or podcasts [6]. This allowed participants to explore deeper a specific topic that had resonated with them during the Autumn school. It was also an opportunity to continue to work together and stay in contact after the end of the school. Even though many of them did not manage to bring projects to completion, working on the media projects helped participants deepen their understanding of the issues and develop relationships.
Facilitation School
Stage four was a five-day, full-time Facilitation School that was focused on sharing project formats, methodology, and approaches, aiming to encourage and equip those interested in facilitating similar workshops or incorporating elements of dialogue into their practice.
Safety Concerns
Organizing international gatherings required the team to take into account the safety of participants. First, there were legal risks. Some countries were sensitive about their citizens meeting with people from conflict-related states (Armenia and Azerbaijan). In cases where the country was authoritarian, potential consequences had to be considered. For example, in the case of Russia or Azerbaijan, authorities persecute those who collaborate with foreign NGOs. The team tried to assess the level of personal risk for participants during the interviews, based on their individual situations.
Second, there were psychological concerns. Open dialogue requires trust among participants. Holding interviews and verification of participants were necessary to provide a basic level of trust, meaning that while someone in the group might encounter disagreement, they would not face hatred or radicalism. Applicants with signs of psychological distress were filtered out through interviews. The interview also tested the level of motivation and personal involvement of applicants.
Principles and Approaches
Questioning
Dialogue itself allows us to hear different perspectives, to learn things we had no idea about. Sometimes, that alone creates a space for change. However, more often than not, it takes a great deal of work and effort to dismantle myths: to see the militarism embedded in peace slogans, the resentment and revanchism hidden within historical grievances, the nationalism behind cultural symbols, and the chauvinism masked as patriotism. These phenomena always disguise themselves as something else—something good.
In today’s world, wars are often called "liberation efforts," xenophobia is framed as a necessary security measure, and nationalism is dressed up as decolonization. This is why it’s crucial to trace the roots of our beliefs and uncover the origins of our current mental frameworks: when nation as a concept emerged, and how nations formed. Only then we can begin to see what lies behind the concepts and so-called “facts” that have been instilled in us since childhood.
Participants were engaged in questioning—unpacking beliefs, opinions, and concepts—in order to open space for unfamiliar or unknown forms of knowledge, perspectives, and representations to emerge. In this way, most of the interactive lectures focused on deconstructing widespread assumptions around identity, nationalism, patriotism, and legacies of the past. However, this process often causes rejection, as it can feel like a threat to one’s identity and runs counter not only to official state narratives but also to widely accepted social beliefs. Participants were encouraged to explore how those beliefs had been shaped within them, to ask what they really meant when they used certain terms, how those positions and beliefs actually influenced and structured their relationships with others, and, ultimately, whether the existing frameworks of interaction were truly mutually beneficial.
One exercise consisted in randomly allocating positions. Participants were given a controversial question: should monuments to a famous Russian writer erected during the Russian Empire, the Soviet era, or in modern times, be preserved or demolished? This question touches on painful issues of cultural heritage, colonialism, the problems of language policy and сenter-periphery relations in the former imperial provinces and Soviet Union republics. Participants were randomly assigned to groups and asked to argue for a given position, which might not reflect their own views. After exchanging arguments and counter-arguments, they were free to share their real opinions. This seemingly simple exercise of stepping into an opposing perspective helped participants experience how opinions can be fluid.. The ability to explore other viewpoints, listen, and revise one’s own stance is essential to dialogue and to challenging rigid narratives imposed by authoritarian populists.
This skill of questioning disarms the impulse to defend one's opinion at any cost, and unburdens us of the feeling that changing opinions is shameful or a betrayal of one’s own people or views. The goal was to show that "trying on" a different opinion allows one to make a more conscious choice.
Not-Knowing
The principle of “not-knowing" meant that the team assumed that knowledge is limited and nobody can claim to know the absolute truth. Thus, the team did not offer participants ready-made “correct” answers to the complex questions that arose during the discussions. The lecturers and trainers drew on their expertise in certain areas such as history, sociology, conflict studies, but still the team was open to questioning. The lecturers shared questions rather than answers. By offering materials for reflection and analysis, they opened up a space for discussion and dialogue. And it was this very process of exploration that we considered one of the core values and aims of the project.
When a person is focused on the "knowing" mindset—built from past experiences, beliefs, principles, and values—it becomes more difficult to learn and to discover something new. It also becomes harder to truly listen to others or acknowledge others’ perspectives. But when people recognize that their knowledge and viewpoints are shaped and limited by their personal histories, education, cultural and linguistic contexts, and sociopolitical backgrounds, then space begins to open up for diversity, for a vision that differs. That is the first step toward going beyond borders and boundaries, to a place of encounter and connection.
Moreover, the idea of knowing often leads to comparison and competition: who knows more, whose knowledge is more accurate or correct. If you do not know for sure, if your knowledge is limited you are allowed to be wrong, and you are allowed to change your perspective in light of new information.
Balancing rational and emotional
The NoBorderSpace project program mainly worked at the level of ideas and concepts, as well as personal beliefs and values. Although the program was mostly oriented to the rational intellectual modality, quite often strong emotions and feelings would come up within participants. Processing emotions was not the main focus of the workshop, and participants were responsible for their own mental well-being.
However, when emotional situations did arise, one of the main ways to respond was to notice and acknowledge the feeling and to consider whether it highlighted a group process. These feelings could become part of the reflection and discussion. If the reaction was too strong or too personal, then support was provided outside the main group process through a personal conversation between a team member and the person.
Another way of addressing emotions were informal storytelling sessions in the evenings. Storytelling, as a way of sharing personal life and work experiences, proved to be a very powerful, inspiring and effective tool to create trust, connections and feelings of community. At the Autumn School we held a circle of personal and family stories, in which people shared stories connected to their migration experience. At the Facilitation school there was an evening of stories about challenging or inspiring dialogue experiences at the professional and personal level. These stories of real life experiences grounded the workshop and allowed people to express feelings more openly, connect, and sympathize with each other.
A very important part of the workshop which supported personal transformation and trust-building was free time. During breaks, mealtimes, and specially designated “free time” slots, when people would sit together or walk or party, they tended to speak their mind directly, share emotions more freely, could find common interest, and explore future cooperation. During the Autumn school, participants from Armenia and Azerbaijan went to the market together to do some shopping, talk to locals and to look for ideas for their media projects. This joint trip was an important step in establishing connections and trust.
All of these program elements increased the level of trust, mutual interest, and contributed to forming personal connections, friendships, and, in the long term, generated motivation to stay in touch with people after the workshop.
Timeline Dialogue Methodology
Timeline dialogue is the central format we used for dialoguing. This methodology was developed by the Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation [7] and colleagues from CISR e.V. Berlin.
Participants joined in groups according to their country of origin, and were asked to make a list of historical events that strongly shaped their current relations with representatives of other countries. Then the groups presented each event, sharing what they knew of it and how they felt its influence. Other groups could answer, add comments, ask questions, present their vision of the same events, and share their attitudes, thoughts and feelings etc. The facilitator held space for this multi-hour dialogue process: observed the dynamics and involvement of all participants and the level of tension.
Often groups chose the same events, but used different names for them or provided different interpretations. At times, participants would recount what they were told at school, but did not remember it very well. It was more of an impression than knowledge. In certain dialogues some participants would share things from history that they did not know at all. The closer to the present time, the more clashes and contradictions occurred based on differences in interpretations and attitudes to events.
Disagreements about an event arose not only between groups, but also within the same country groups. This highlighted that no “group” is unanimous and there is diversity within any community. It is important to give space for expression of alternative opinions within a group because there is always complexity and heterogeneity—we must balance collectivity with individuality.
Reflection on the dialogue process usually took place the next day so that participants could rest and cool down. Participants discussed what they learned and discovered, where they saw a different perspective on familiar things, if their interpretations of the history and current situation had expanded. They also reflected on their emotional experience—when they felt anxious, when they felt confident or insecure, what reactions surprised them, both in themselves and in others.
As already mentioned above, conflict and disagreement were essential components that inevitably arose and had to be processed for genuine dialogue to take place. The biggest challenge the team faced was resistance to change—a psychological resistance that often manifested as an inability or unwillingness to shift one’s habitual patterns or mental frameworks.
In dialogue, it quickly became apparent when people operated from different assumptions and conceptual categories. Where one appealed to collective responsibility rooted in national identity, the other struggled to relate to any nationality at all. Where one called for the recognition of what they saw as historical injustice, the other did not understand why they should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors.
Frequently, during lectures aimed at debunking historical clichés, and how and by whom the idea of the nation was constructed, for example, we encountered resistance not so much in the form of denial of facts, but rather in how participants re-interpreted those facts in ways that were more familiar and comfortable to them.
Deconstructing an entire worldview or mode of thinking is a difficult and comprehensive task. Of course, it cannot be accomplished through a single dialogue or one educational program. It takes sustained effort. But even the emergence of doubt—the moment when a participant asks “Why are we taught this way of thinking in school? Could there be another valid perspective?”—is a step along this long path.
Final Reflections
Project Evaluation
It is almost impossible to predict the long-term effect of such projects. As organizers, we monitor the group dynamics, how active and involved the participants are, how connections are formed between them, how they overcome tension and conflicts, and how their statements change day by day. We listen to their feedback and reflections on the school. However, the participation experience takes time to internalize and is highly dependent on the person and their environment. It can take time for the people to recognise what was most significant and valuable in their experience.
Still there are several indicators by which, to some extent, it is possible to track the long-term effects of the program.
Sustained Contact
Some of the participants maintain informal communication in chats and follow each other on social networks; they share information and announcements in personal messages. Others even developed close friendships.Joint Activities, Implementation of Projects and Initiatives
We know that many participants of the Autumn School worked on joint projects, but unfortunately did not bring them to completion. For the most part, this was due to the insufficient quality of media products, which required longer work to improve them. That is, the participants had enough interest to work together, but not enough motivation to bring it to the level necessary for publication. Still several articles and a podcast were released. [6]Personal Change
Many participants share that participation in the program had a deep influence; helping them overcome prejudices and tensions and better understand others. They use this experience when they find themselves in other difficult groups and situations that require meeting with another opinion and other people.Continued Dialogue
Suggestions of ideas for implementation by the project team or requests for consultative assistance occur from time to time. There is a feeling that the program participants maintain a sufficient level of trust in the project team and a willingness to cooperate.Mutual Cooperation
Participants involve each other in events and activities, inviting each other as experts, consultants, participants, etc. This does not happen often, but from time to time we hear about such events, suggesting mutual trust and interest.Further Training
We see some people choose to participate in other educational events on similar topics. Several people continued their training on non-violence, conflict resolution and dialogue.
In sum, for most participants, the program provided an important experience of understanding and overcoming prejudice towards “the other” within themselves and on an interpersonal level, expanding opportunities for communication and understanding of others. These changes affect their worldview, attitudes, personal life, and, partly, their professional activities. Many preserve a network of contacts with other participants. Some of the most motivated participants decided to continue their development in the sphere of the NoBorderSpace program theme.
We realize that in such programs, where we work with people and with large complex topics that do not have simple correct answers, there is a high degree of unpredictability. We do what we believe in, what we consider valuable and important and what depends on us, but we realize that personal transformation is a long and complex process, which primarily depends on the interest and motivation of each person.
Considerations for the Future
Examining the project from ideation through implementation, and beyond, has given us insight we believe is useful to consider when preparing such programs generally and for future iterations of this particular one:
The idea of gathering representatives from several countries, from several “opposing” groups into one group has proven successful. Participants in such cases manage to see a bigger picture without being stuck in “their” conflict, they can look at themselves from a different point of view, and relate with others they normally wouldn’t. This helps to go beyond the usual perceptions people may have of each other, and to explore new reasoning. Although such an approach is more difficult in terms of recruiting and working with a group, it definitely has its value.
A project team consisting of people who have personal and cultural experiences similar or close to those of the target audience is effective and strong. Surely, there may be disagreements and disputes in such a team, but the combination of different perspectives and experiences similar to the project’s issue areas allows one to better understand and assess the needs of the participants and to find adequate solutions for the implementation of the program.
The principle of combining theory and practice, rational and emotional, personal and collective experience, formal and informal communication allows one to put together a balanced program of events that provides a holistic and deep experience of understanding and living, current topics. The question of how to build this balance may depend on the competencies of the team, the goals of each event, the target audience, etc. Each specific case requires a unique solution.
The principle of presenting information through lectures that include interactive elements—where materials are offered for questioning and analysis rather than to convince the audience of a single “correct” position—encourages participants to open up to new ideas and adopt an active, exploratory mindset.
Seeing conflicts, resistance, contradictions and criticisms as part of the educational process rather than a problem allows us to increase the level of trust and also delve into complex, sometimes taboo topics.
Collaboration on projects by school participants is an important part of integrating and developing the experience. However, participants require serious regular support and supervision to overcome difficulties and bring the media project to completion.
Selection of participants is a singular challenge in a complex socio-political context. It requires prudent pre-planning and an action plan that considers the different levels of socio-political relations and people’s safety. When selection is carefully undertaken, participants are able to come to the meeting more open and motivated, and the team is better prepared.
Security issues should be a priority at all stages of the project implementation. It is important to monitor the socio-political situation, listen to the requests and questions of the participants in order to adapt security mechanisms to current needs.
Collecting feedback from participants after a period of time (one month, three, six) will help clarify the long-term effect of the program. Unfortunately, our program did not have this plan and the information was received randomly. It seems important to think it through in the future in terms of post-project work.
Creating a platform and support mechanisms for communication and interaction between participants after the program can provide more systematic communication and support the emergence of a sustainable community/network. This requires additional human and financial resources, which unfortunately were not provided for in the NoBorderSpace project.
Recognising the Struggle to Change
The project was implemented in a difficult socio-political context, with intense strains both within countries and between them. This inevitably affected interpersonal relationships. The project team’s hypothesis was that this crisis could also be seen as an opportunity to open up dialogue and engage in joint reflection, a rethinking of both the past and the present. We believed that, while the circumstances were tragic, they had brought people together into one country creating a rare opportunity for mutual recognition, connection, and collective action.
Yet we observed two opposite tendencies. On the one hand, representatives of different countries and communities, tired of propaganda and the manipulation of public opinion, expressed a strong interest in meeting others and engaging in dialogue. There was a sense that people deeply longed for personal contact and firsthand experiences of interaction, something different from what they hear in official narratives or the media. Each event received more applications than we could accommodate, and we had to run a competitive selection process. During the events, there was often active engagement among participants, lots of questions, and lively discussions.
On the other hand, when conversations grew deeper and touched on issues of national identity or challenged the habitual nationalist way of thinking, facilitators often encountered resistance to change. This resistance manifested either as an inability to understand or as a refusal to acknowledge an alternative perspective. Wherever there was a risk and a moment of questioning or shifting deeply held beliefs, participants would often attempt to skip over these moments, to bypass them altogether. In such moments, the depth to which the “us vs. them” paradigm is deeply internalised became clear in many people’s thinking. Still, the aim of the project was not to change people’s opinions—rather to be able to make them aware of their resistance, and to facilitate an honest questioning of these viewpoints.
Authoritarian populism thrives on manipulation, simplified images of the enemy, and conspiratorial thinking. Breaking out of slogans and encountering real people, real stories, and lived experiences makes it possible to create an alternative to the dominant informational environment. This means offering an alternative to societal stereotypes, mainstream media, political dominance, and even counter-propaganda, which often relies on the same tactics. In a time of global polycrisis and the rapid rise of populism, the very existence of an alternative narrative is already significant—it becomes both a site for the emergence of doubt and a refuge for those who refuse to conform.
Voices of Participants
Finally, we would like to give the floor to the participants of the program. We contacted them while writing this article and asked them to share what has changed in their lives and how the program has affected them. Here are some quotes, which we provide with their permission.
Do you use any of the skills and knowledge you acquired during participation in the program?
Yes, absolutely! Not directly in a way they were presented and tried out, but adapted towards the job I do: workshops on controversial topics with teenagers, moderation of discussions.
Masha, theater-maker, artist, art-practitioner, ex-Russia
I've also started paying more attention to how ready people are for a conversation, and I'm learning to ask questions more carefully to avoid causing aggression, so that the conversation can begin even if someone is being aggressive.Hanna, career consultant, political research scientist, Russia-Belarus
At the end of May, I also attended a large gathering of activists involved in non-formal education — with participants from Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Georgia. Spontaneously, over two separate sessions, we had a conversation where we asked each other questions and learned more about how Lithuanians and Georgians perceive Belarusians, and how Georgians relate to Ukrainians — and actually they made a perfect match. We touched on some rather sensitive topics, and I’m really glad the conversation happened. I put a lot of energy into making it happen — my questions to the Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Georgians worked well, and my experience from the school and its discussions really came in handy. In general, I now regularly find myself in such settings and take part in initiating and facilitating these kinds of conversations.
Marysia, educator, Belarus-Poland
Have you saved contacts and communication with other participants?I can't say these are very much bonded relationships, but with 2-3 people whom I met during the school I am in stable contact: we follow each other’s social media and so that keep ourselves updated on ongoing projects, exchange some experience/contacts/practical info in direct messages.
Masha, theater-maker, artist, art-practitioner, ex-Russia
I want to be honest that I haven’t met some people from a certain nationality in my life before this school. Of course the problem was the conflict situation between our countries but it was both intriguing and inspiring to see and talk and discuss things with them and understand that you have many things in common with each other. I won’t lie that I am keeping in touch with all the people I met even though I have them in my social accounts but I am keeping in touch with some of them. Meetings like this give their fruits over time; nobody knows how everything will turn out.
Rouben, architect, lecturer, Armenia
On a personal level, I have stayed in touch with a few participants. One of them lives in the same city as me, and I would say that we have developed a friendship, which is especially important because we are both immigrants here. Also, we have come from different countries and we learn from each other about the situations there.
Olga, journalist, Russia-Georgia
Would you like to share anything else that touched you at the event?The presentation about the war museum somehow very much touched me emotionally (out of general frustration I feel concerning Humanity, haha, and this presentation just convinced me of that even more). But of course also triggered a motivation to research this topic of "militarisation of minds", a bit under a different angle: "how the political subjectivity is basically formed, under which factors". And I got a research scholarship for that this year even. Also, the exercise about views on historical events from the point of "different histories" was very tense, but at the same time very relieving and surprisingly "freeing".
Masha, theater-maker, artist, art-practitioner, ex-Russia
The school in Gori helped me with my project, the Peace Heroines podcast. Initially, the knowledge and insights gained at school helped my colleague and me to conceptualise the idea of the podcast more deeply.Olga, journalist, ex-Russia
For me, the school was an opportunity to freely communicate with people with different views on the world and the reality around us. I saw how much the history of countries can be viewed through completely different lenses, including through the use of news blackouts, propaganda, and half-truths. In my opinion, it is very important to be able not only to talk about your own vision of problems - regional, socio-political, etc. But also to be able to hear others, which can be difficult and painful for both parties.
Hanna, career consultant, political research scientist, Russia-Belarus
After school I became more interested in conflict facilitation. In the spring, I completed a course in conflict studies, and I’m now in a six-month program on nonviolent communication. I’m gradually getting to know more and more people involved in mediation, conflict facilitation, and dialogue work. Some have promised to send me more information and learning materials. I want to explore this field further and take part in organizing and facilitating dialogues and similar formats, though I’m still not quite sure what my own development path might look like.Marysia, educator, Belarus-Poland
This paper cannot be considered as the official point of view of the NoBorderSpace project team nor of CISR e.V. Berlin. The authors of the text joined the project in 2023 as a facilitator and project coordinator. It contains personal reflections of its authors which can differ from the ones of other team members.
Endnotes
1. NoBorderSpace, “NoBorderSpace / Gori (Autumn School in Gori),” Center for Independent Social Research (CISR Berlin), accessed July 28, 2025,
https://www.cisr-berlin.org/noborderspacegori
2. Crisis Group, The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: A Visual Explainer, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/nagorno-karabakh-conflict-visual-explainer
3. Chaikhana Media, “From Here to Home: Belarusian Political Refugees in Batumi,” accessed July 28, 2025,
https://chaikhana.media/en/stories/1335/aqedan-sakhlshi-beloruseli-ltolvilebi-batumshi
4. Exodus22 Team, “Mass Exodus of Russians from the Country in the Context of War and Mobilization: Overview Analytics of Two Waves of Military Emigration,” March 7, 2023, accessed July 28, 2025,
https://exodus22team.wordpress.com/2023/03/07/pressrelease-eng/
5. Caucasus Research Resource Center (CRRC) Georgia, “How Do Georgians Feel About the Influx of Russians?” accessed July 28, 2025,
https://crrc.ge/how-do-georgians-feel-about-the-influx-of-russians/
6. NoBorderSpace / Gori (Autumn School in Gori), Center for Independent Social Research (CISR Berlin), accessed July 28, 2025,
https://www.cisr-berlin.org/noborderspacegori#project-outcomes
7. Imagine Dialogue. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://www.imaginedialogue.com/
Author bio:
Ekaterina Chigaleichik is a researcher from Russia, based in Tbilisi, Georgia, since 2022. Her work explores the sociology of contemporary Russian migration to the South Caucasus. Alongside her research, she engages in activist initiatives and projects fostering dialogue.
Tatevik Ghukasyan is a dialogue facilitator with a background in human rights, peacebuilding, and reconciliation. She was born in Armenia, grew up in Russia, and since 2022, she has been mostly based in Georgia. Tatevik works with groups, teams, and communities on the topics of ethnic and national identity, conflict resolution, deep ecology, and body-mind awareness.
Editor's note: The ideas expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of the Othering & Belonging Institute or UC Berkeley, but belong to the authors.