While Vitali Klitschko is declaring a “survival mode” in Kyiv and urging residents to leave, in frontline Kharkiv Ihor Terekhov’s team is ensuring the operation of free public transport, underground schools, and a social support system. Political analyst Yevhenii Prokopyshyn drew attention to this contrast in the work of the two mayors, UNN reports.
“Kyiv and Kharkiv are excellent examples of how a city should and should not be managed during wartime,” Prokopyshyn wrote. According to him, Kyiv’s authorities spent the year reporting on preparations for winter and allocating substantial funds for this purpose. However, at the beginning of October, the city encountered disruptions in electric transport, electricity, and water supplies. “The city’s electric transport has effectively stopped, there is no electricity, problems have begun with water and sewage, and Klitschko himself, throwing up his hands, declared a survival mode in the city and urged residents to leave. Is this the same ‘effective management’ that his supporters have repeatedly spoken about?” the analyst noted.
Meanwhile, Prokopyshyn emphasized, Kharkiv is located approximately 25 km from the front line and is constantly under Russian shelling. Despite this, free public transport continues to operate in the city, underground schools are functioning, and socially vulnerable residents and those affected by the war receive free meals. The analyst separately highlighted the difference in the positions of the two mayors. While Klitschko urges residents to leave the capital, Terekhov, according to him, invites people to return to Kharkiv.
“Terekhov is not urging citizens and businesses to leave the city; on the contrary, he says: come back. And he is inviting not only residents who have left, but also internally displaced persons, refugees, and relocated businesses to Kharkiv. About 200,000 citizens have already moved to Kharkiv to live, mostly from Donbas,” he stated.
Prokopyshyn also compared the cities’ financial capabilities: according to the data he cited, Kharkiv’s annual budget, with a population of approximately 1.3 million, is about UAH 20 billion, while Kyiv’s budget, with a population of approximately 2.6 million, is about UAH 120 billion.
“In Kharkiv, they do not promise to prepare somehow or do something someday — Terekhov and his team simply get things done,” the blogger stressed.
He acknowledged that Kyiv and Kharkiv differ in scale, resources, and problems, and that the consequences of Russian attacks cannot be blamed solely on the mayors. At the same time, in the analyst’s view, it is precisely during crises that the quality of management decisions, preparedness for emergencies, and the authorities’ attitude toward people become most apparent.
“Kyiv’s authorities must be held accountable for their failed work, acknowledge this, and resign so that other people can correct the mistakes and save the city. As for Kharkiv’s authorities, they can only be praised — Terekhov is truly a capable manager, the kind so sorely lacking even at the higher, national level,” Yevhenii Prokopyshyn concluded.