As a transition, I want to say the forthright stance that NATO has taken by more forwardly deploying its troop presence has also raised the confidence among Ukrainians that NATO is an important ally.
For decades, the public was suspicious of NATO because of old Soviet-era hangovers of propaganda. Today, if a referendum were held in Ukraine on NATO membership, 62% of the public would support it and only 26% would be opposed, so there is a forthright support for it.
I think that working with civil society and democratic institutions is extremely important because we are in a period where, if you look at the polling data from Ukraine, we do not know who will be the next president or what will be the configuration of the next parliament. It's very important to help structure civil society to give voice to continuing to advance a reform agenda, no matter who is in power.
The good news is that, no matter who is likely to be elected, a fifth column of Russia will operate but will have nothing near the ability to access power or to take over power. Ukraine's public is western-oriented, so working with that public.... If there is a populist president to keep them on the reform agenda, if there is a reluctant reformer president to keep them on the agenda, or if there is a reformer president, there is an opportunity for continued aid to civic society.
There is one caveat: that is to say, naming and shaming is extremely important. There are very many good civil society groups that are fighting corruption and so on, but they focus exclusively on exposing the failures. It's extremely important that aid packages also highlight successes so that the public has confidence that the reformers are actually succeeding, maybe not at the pace we would like, but they actually are.