Tag: Ukraine

How polarised is support for Ukraine across Europe?

Posted on May 18, 2026 | Policy Brief

Ukrainian flag waving over Kyiv with Dnipro River and city skyline, representing KSE Institute sanctions research.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 triggered broad public support across Western democracies. Since then, support in the United States has declined and become sharply partisan. In this policy brief, we use Eurobarometer data from 2022 to 2024 to show that while overall support for Ukraine remains high in the European Union, it has declined over time and become more politically polarised. We introduce a polarisation index to compare trends across countries and over time. There is substantial heterogeneity: while support remains close to universal in some countries, such as Sweden, others have seen marked increases in polarisation, with support weakening particularly on the far right. We find that higher inflation is associated with greater polarisation for costly policies, such as sanctions against Russia, but not for humanitarian aid. Finally, we present suggestive evidence that polarisation in support for sanctions may reflect domestic political debate.

 

From consensus to polarisation?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 prompted widespread public support for Ukraine on both sides of the Atlantic. According to a PEW survey less than one month after the invasion, only 7% of Americans (9% of Republicans and 5% of Democrats) said the US is providing too much support to Ukraine (PEW, 2022). Two years later, overall support dropped significantly and support for Ukraine became politically polarised: with 47% of Republicans but only 13% of Democrats saying that the US is providing too much support (PEW, 2024).

In this brief, we use microdata from Eurobarometer covering over 185,000 respondents to evaluate whether the same trends are present in the EU. We show that support for Ukraine remained relatively high and stable across Europe from 2022 to 2024. This finding is consistent with other surveys that report resilient support among Europeans despite pessimism about the war’s likely outcome (Krastev and Leonard 2024) and personal costs in terms of inflation (Demertzis et al. 2023). Our brief focuses specifically on political cleavages within countries. We show that policies supporting Ukraine have become increasingly polarising in some countries and evaluate potential drivers of that polarisation.

Support for Ukraine across the political spectrum

Figure 1 shows support for economic sanctions against Russia (Panel A) and humanitarian aid for Ukraine (Panel B) in the EU, by respondents’ self-reported left–right political placement in the Eurobarometer (for details on this measure, see also Lehne and Zhuang, 2023b). Support for Ukraine was high across the political spectrum in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, but declined in the latest Eurobarometer data from October 2024. The sharpest declines occur on the far right, especially for economic sanctions against Russia.

Figure 1A. Support for economic sanctions against Russia

Figure 1B. Support for humanitarian aid to Ukraine

Source: Eurobarometer and authors’ calculations.
This chart shows the mean support for each measure in April 2022 (in blue) and October 2024 (in red) in the EU. Based on binary transformations of Eurobarometer questions on support for each measure; dots show means and bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

A similar pattern holds for military aid to Ukraine, though the average level of support is lower (not shown). Support for humanitarian aid is uniformly higher and less politically polarising; even among respondents on the very far right, more than three-quarters are in favour.

This overall pattern masks large heterogeneity across countries. Figure 2 shows support for sanctions against Russia in four European countries: Sweden, Poland, Greece and France. In Sweden, support for sanctions is close to universal, broadly uniform across the political spectrum, and has changed little in the two years since the start of the war. Similarly, in Poland, support remains very high but declines in 2024 among respondents on the centre-right. Support varies more with political leaning in countries such as France and Greece. While support for sanctions was relatively high in France in 2022, especially in the centre, it has declined markedly on the right. This pattern is repeated across many other European countries, including Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy. By contrast, in Greece, support for sanctions was comparatively lower to begin with and declined further over time. In Greece, as in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia and Slovakia, support is particularly weak on the left.

Figure 2. Political Polarisation in Support for Sanctions across four European countries

2a. Sweden

2b. Poland

2c. France

2d. Greece

Source: Eurobarometer and authors’ calculations.
This chart shows mean support for sanctions against Russia in April 2022 (in blue) and October 2024 (in red) in (a) Sweden, (b) Poland, (c) France and (d) Greece. Based on binary transformations of Eurobarometer questions on support for each measure; dots show means and bars indicate standard deviations.

A Political Polarisation Index

In order to compare how politicised support for Ukraine is across countries and over time, we  develop a polarisation index (see technical note for details). This measures the extent to which each self-reported ideology group’s support for a policy differs from the country-wide average (in other words, how far the dots in Figure 1 lie from a horizontal line).  The index ranges from 0 (all groups share the same position on sanctions) to 1 (groups hold opposing positions that are perfectly predicted by political ideology). Comparing the same country over time, there are two factors that change the index: (i) within an ideology group, average support for a policy may change, and (ii) the size of ideology groups (and their weight in the index) may change as the distribution of political views in the country evolves.

Comparing across countries, the index does not depend on the left-right gradient of support. While France and Greece show opposite patterns in Figure 2, they score similarly on the sanctions polarisation index in October 2024 (0.16 and 0.15, respectively). For Sweden, Figure 2 shows much greater consensus across the political spectrum, which translates into a significantly lower polarisation score: 0.05.

We find that some policies are associated with greater polarisation than others. There is widespread support in the EU for providing humanitarian aid and welcoming refugees from Ukraine, and polarisation scores are lower for these measures than for financial aid, military aid, sanctions on Russia or Ukraine becoming an EU candidate country. At the same time, looking at the EU as a whole, there has been an upwards trend in polarisation across all measures (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Political Polarisation Indices for different policies supporting Ukraine

Source: Eurobarometer and authors’ calculations.
This chart shows the EU-average political polarisation index for six different policies supporting Ukraine. The EU average is constructed using population weights. Survey waves are unevenly spaced across time. Some policies are not asked about in some waves.

Figure 4 shows which countries are driving the increase in polarisation. It plots the polarisation score for sanctions in April 2022 (shortly after the full-scale invasion) against the corresponding score in October 2024 (the latest wave for which data are available). Austria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia show the greatest increase in polarisation over this period. Views on sanctions are also increasingly aligned with political cleavages in France, Germany, and Hungary. By contrast, Latvia shows a significant decline in polarisation while in Finland, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden polarisation remained at very low levels more than two years into the war.

Figure 4. Political Polarisation Index for Sanctions against Russia 2022 vs 2024

Source: Eurobarometer and authors’ calculations.
This chart shows the political polarisation index for support for sanctions against Russia from the Eurobarometer data in October 2024 on the y-axis against the polarisation index in April 2022 on the x-axis. Includes all EU27 countries.

Drivers of Political Polarisation

In the next section, we show how political polarisation in support for Ukraine is related to the economy and domestic politics.

Polarisation and Price Increases

Figure 5 shows how political polarisation and inflation are related across countries in the EU. Political polarisation in support for sanctions against Russia at the end of 2024 tended to be higher in countries where prices increased faster between 2022 and 2024. As the cost of living increased, the issue of Russian sanctions became a point of contention between voters of different political leanings. Some political parties also started to capitalise on this issue to gain support. In contrast, there has been widespread agreement on the need for humanitarian aid to Ukraine and this was unaffected by the state of the economy.

Figure 5. Political Polarisation and Inflation

Source: Eurobarometer, Eurostat and authors’ calculations.
This chart shows the polarisation index for support for sanctions against Russia (in blue) and humanitarian aid for Ukraine (in red) from the Eurobarometer data in October 2024 against the average annual HICP inflation rate between 2022 and 2024 in percentage points. Includes all EU27 countries.

Polarisation and Elections

In Figure 6, we show how the polarisation index for support for sanctions against Russia (blue) and humanitarian aid for Ukraine (red) evolves around elections. Political polarisation for sanctions increases slightly around election periods, suggesting heightened debate on this issue. In contrast, polarisation in support for humanitarian aid shows little change over the election cycle.

Figure 6. Political Polarisation and Elections

Source: Eurobarometer, PPEG, Manifesto Project and authors’ calculations.
This chart shows the polarisation index for support for sanctions against Russia (blue) and humanitarian aid for Ukraine (red) in the two years before and after national parliamentary elections. Dots show means and bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. This is based on an unbalanced sample of EU countries with a lower house election between April 2022 and October 2024. For each country, only the closest election is used.

A Tale of Three Countries

Political parties play an important role in shaping the political discourse around Russia’s war on Ukraine. They are likely to both influence and be influenced by their voters’ attitudes towards supporting Ukraine.

In this section, we present a case study of three European countries that had elections between 2022 and 2024 and where parties have mentioned Russia in their manifestos according to data from the Manifesto project (see also Lehne and Zhuang, 2023a).

In Sweden, support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression has been consistently high along all dimensions and among voters across the political spectrum. In the Swedish elections in September 2022, six out of eight parties (including all three major parties) mentioned Russia in their party manifestos, and all supported sanctions against Russia.

Russia was also mentioned in the party manifestos of many of the parties contesting the French election in June 2022. But in France, the far-right Rassemblement Nationale broke with the other political parties and struck a more conciliatory tone towards Russia. For instance, they stated that they “… will be seeking an alliance with Russia on certain fundamental issues: European security, which cannot exist without Russia; the fight against terrorism, which Russia has fought more consistently than any other power; and convergence in the handling of major regional issues impacting France …” (Manifesto Project). This divergence is mirrored in voter attitudes. Support for sanctions against Russia has declined over time in France, especially amongst voters on the far right of the political spectrum.

In Greece, political support for sanctions against Russia is lower than in many other European countries has been declining over time. Political polarisation in support for Ukraine increased, especially around the elections in May and June 2023. Few of the political parties mentioned Russia directly in their manifestos, and then mostly in conjunction with rising prices and effects on the Greek economy.

Figure 7. Political Polarisation in Support for Ukraine

7a. Sanctions against Russia

7b. Humanitarian Aid for Ukraine

Source: Eurobarometer, Manifesto Project and authors’ calculations.
These charts show political polarisation in support for sanctions against Russia (Panel A) and humanitarian aid for Ukraine (Panel B) in France, Greece and Sweden. Vertical dashed lines show the timing of national parliamentary elections.

Conclusion

Public support for Ukraine remains high in the EU, but there are worrying signs of fragmentation. While some countries continue to exhibit broad consensus in supporting Ukraine across multiple policies, other countries have seen declining support as the debate has become aligned with domestic political cleavages. Sanctions against Russia and military aid to Ukraine have become increasingly contentious, while there is broader agreement on the need for humanitarian aid. In many countries, it is particularly voters on the far-right of the political spectrum who have become less supportive of policies supporting Ukraine.

Our analysis highlights two areas of fragility in the consensus around support for sanctions against Russia. We see some indication that the domestic political debate can drive polarisation in opinions on sanctions against Russia, with the salience of these issues increasing around elections, particularly when parties competing in the elections have different policy platforms.

Another source of fragility is the economic cost of sanctions. Countries that experienced larger increases in prices since 2022 exhibit greater political disagreement over sanctions, suggesting that economic costs can shape the political sustainability of support for Ukraine. Recent increases in energy prices, linked to the war in Iran, may further amplify political polarisation around sanctions against Russia.

Despite these pressures, clear majorities across most EU countries continue to support Ukraine, especially when it comes to humanitarian aid and welcoming refugees. European solidarity has so far proven resilient in the face of growing external pressures.

Technical note:

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Migration Shocks and Voting: Evidence from Ukrainian Migration to Poland

Posted on May 11, 2026 | Policy Brief

20240128 Ukrainian Refugees Image 05

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine triggered two massive inflows of Ukrainians into Poland: conflict-induced labor migration from 2014 onward and a mass refugee inflow after the Russian full-scale invasion in February 2022. We study how local exposure to each shock reshaped voting in Poland. The findings show that greater exposure to labor migrants reduced support for conservative parties in the short run and subsequently shifted voters toward pro-redistribution parties. Both migration waves reduced far-right voting, but this effect emerged only after Ukrainian migrants became salient in public debate and the far-right Konfederacja party adopted anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. The backlash against the far-right is about ten times stronger in areas more exposed to refugees than in areas more exposed to labor migrants.

Two Migration Waves, One Origin Country

Europe has absorbed several large migration waves over the past decade, often followed by a shift to the right in domestic politics. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to the largest war-induced migration in recent European history, and many of the new arrivals have settled in post-communist countries that had long been sources of emigration rather than destinations. Poland stands out: between 2014 and 2023, it experienced two unexpected and very different waves of Ukrainian migration, which provides a rare opportunity to see how distinct types of migration affect local politics.

Before February 2022, Russia’s 2014 aggression and the economic turmoil it produced pushed large numbers of Ukrainian workers into Poland. While these migrants were not necessarily low-skilled, they mostly filled low- and medium-skilled positions, complementing rather than competing with Poland’s abundant supply of highly educated workers (Zuchowski 2025). Crucially, they had no access to Polish social benefits. The situation changed abruptly after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Over a million Ukrainian refugees, mostly women and children fleeing an immediate threat to their lives, arrived in Poland. Under the EU Temporary Protection Directive, they received unrestricted access to the Polish labor market and to a broad set of social benefits. About 90 percent of Polish society supported taking in Ukrainian refugees in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. However, as war fatigue set in, the far-right Konfederacja party increasingly relied on anti-Ukrainian rhetoric, which became one of the defining features of its 2023 parliamentary campaign.

Measuring the Local Political Effects

We use county-level data to study how local exposure to each shock changed voting patterns in the Polish parliamentary elections of 2015, 2019, and 2023. Polish counties differ substantially in the number of Ukrainian workers and refugees they received, and we compare the change in vote shares since 2011 between counties with more and less exposure. Because migrants are not randomly distributed across counties, simply correlating migrant inflows with local outcomes could confuse cause and effect. For instance, migrants may settle where labor markets are already expanding. Thus, to isolate the causal effect of immigration, we use three instruments that predict where migrants settled for reasons unrelated to local economic conditions:  the distance to historical hotspots of Ukrainian networks created by the 1947 forced resettlement “Akcja Wisla”, the distance to the nearest Polish-Ukrainian border crossing, and a novel instrument based on the distance to the Polish cities that co-hosted UEFA Euro 2012. The intuition is that each of these instruments drew Ukrainians to certain locations through ethnic networks, lower travel costs, or the connections and visibility that the tournament generated, yet these historical and geographic features had no direct impact on contemporary voting behavior, allowing us to attribute observed effects to the migrant inflows. We classify Polish parties into three non-exclusive groups: conservative (versus liberal), pro-redistribution (versus pro-free market), and far-right (versus non-far-right).

Labor Migration: Away from Conservatives, Then Toward Redistribution

Figure 1 shows the estimated effect of local exposure to Ukrainian labor migrants on voting for the three party groups in the 2015, 2019, and 2023 parliamentary elections. The pattern is clearest for conservative parties: in the first election after the 2014 inflow, a one percentage point increase in the local share of Ukrainian workers is associated with a decrease in the combined conservative vote share of about 0.3 percentage points. For pro-redistribution parties, we detect no statistically significant movement in 2015, but by 2019, the same exposure corresponds to an increase of 0.7 to 0.9 percentage points. In other words, exposure to Ukrainian labor migrants first moved voters away from conservative parties and, over time, pulled them toward parties that promise more redistribution. Voting for far-right parties follows a different pattern. Through 2019, we detect no effect, even though Ukrainian workers had been arriving since 2014. Only in 2023, after Russia’s full-scale invasion made Ukrainian migration highly visible in public debate, does a negative effect on far-right voting emerge, with a one percentage point increase in the local share of labor migrants reducing far-right support by 0.15 to 0.27 percentage points. Empirical evidence on mechanisms from local labor markets provides an intuitive explanation for the first two results: counties more exposed to Ukrainian labor migrants experienced rising wages and falling unemployment, so voters first rewarded openness and then sought a stronger social safety net for themselves, knowing that labor migrants did not themselves draw on Polish social benefits.

Figure 1. Ukrainian labor migration and vote shares in Polish parliamentary elections (2015, 2019, 2023)

Source: Mykhailyshyna and Zuchowski (2026), Figure 2. Each point reports the estimated change in the local vote share of pro-redistribution, conservative, or far-right parties for a 1-percentage-point increase in the local share of Ukrainian labor migrants, using OLS and three instrumental-variables specifications (Akcja Wisla, Euro 2012, and Border). Bars show 95 percent confidence intervals.

Refugees: A Sharp Backlash Against the Far-right

The picture looks very different for the 2022 refugee inflow, summarized in Figure 2. Local exposure to Ukrainian refugees has no statistically significant effect on either the conservative or the pro-redistribution vote share in 2023. The null effect on redistribution fits the fact that, unlike earlier labor migrants, Ukrainian refugees were eligible for Polish social benefits: expanding redistribution would be shared with migrants rather than captured only by natives. The null effect on conservatives likely reflects the broad cross-party solidarity with Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, with both conservative and liberal parties initially taking a similar pro-refugee stance. What shows up strongly is an effect on the far-right: a one-percentage-point increase in the local share of Ukrainian refugees reduces the far-right vote share by 1.1 to 1.9 percentage points, roughly ten times the corresponding effect for labor migrants. The most likely explanation combines political salience with direct contact. During the 2023 campaign, the far-right Konfederacja party made opposition to Ukrainian refugees a central theme, using slogans such as “Poland only for Poles” and attacking government spending on refugee aid. In counties with more direct exposure to refugees, that rhetoric appears to have backfired: voters who had personally seen Ukrainian refugees integrate into local labor markets and daily life became less, not more, receptive to anti-Ukrainian messaging, a pattern consistent with Allport’s contact hypothesis (Allport 1954).

Figure 2. Ukrainian refugee inflow and vote shares in the 2023 Polish parliamentary election

Source: Mykhailyshyna and Zuchowski (2026), Figure 3. Each point reports the estimated change in the local vote share of pro-redistribution, conservative, or far-right parties for a one percentage point increase in the local share of Ukrainian refugees (based on PESEL registrations), using OLS and three instrumental-variable specifications (Akcja Wisla, Euro 2012, and Border). Bars show 95 percent confidence intervals.

Conclusion

Ukrainian migration to Poland shows that the political effect of immigration depends not only on how many migrants arrive but also on who they are, how they integrate into local labor markets, and how salient they become in national debate. Labor migrants who complemented Polish workers moved voters away from conservatives and, over time, toward pro-redistribution parties. Refugees who were highly visible, eligible for social benefits, and explicitly targeted by far-right rhetoric triggered a strong backlash against the far-right in areas with direct contact. These results cut against the assumption that migrant inflows mechanically strengthen anti-immigrant parties: under the right conditions, local contact and a positive economic experience can push voters in the opposite direction. For policymakers designing refugee and migration frameworks in the EU and beyond, the Polish case suggests that integration into local labor markets, clear rules on access to benefits, and the nature of political discourse around migrants matter at least as much as the sheer scale of inflows.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Antagonistic Information Threats: Lessons from Ukraine

Posted on March 16, 2026 | Policy Brief

Control room with multiple broadcast monitors showing a political speech, illustrating “antagonistic information threats” in modern media environments.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine highlights how modern conflict increasingly relies on antagonistic information threats alongside military force. This policy brief examines how such threats operate and what lessons they offer for European resilience. First, it outlines a framework through which hostile actors gradually weaken societies’ capacity to interpret events and trust institutions. Second, the brief analyzes Ukrainian cyber operations, highlighting that sustained defensive investment can reduce destructive impact even as attack activity intensifies. The brief further examines the economic implications, showing that antagonistic threats create continuous fiscal pressure as monitoring, detection, and incident response become permanent public expenditures rather than temporary crisis measures. Finally, the brief draws policy implications for Europe, stressing the need to treat cyber and information resilience as macro-critical infrastructure and to strengthen coordination across policy domains.

Introduction

Ukraine’s experience since the full-scale invasion of 2022 illustrates how antagonistic threats operate in contemporary conflict. The war demonstrates that modern confrontation extends far beyond conventional military force. Instead, it functions as a hybrid system in which military, informational, economic, and political instruments are combined into a coordinated architecture of pressure. While this dynamic is most visible in active war, its underlying mechanisms are not confined to the battlefield. Similar forms of antagonistic pressure are increasingly directed at European societies despite the absence of open military confrontation.

Within this broader system, information threats have become particularly significant, largely due to technological change and the digitalization of communication. Networked information environments allow hostile actors to combine cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, and other forms of manipulation at low cost and large scale, amplifying the effects of other forms of pressure. Information operations can shape how events are interpreted, undermine institutional trust, and influence political behavior, often reinforcing technical disruption or economic coercion.

This brief focuses on antagonistic information threats — hostile activities that include disinformation campaigns, cyber operations, and other forms of manipulation targeting the information environment. We first outline a structural framework for understanding the targets and effects of such threats. We then examine how cyber operations have been used in Ukraine and assess their associated costs. The brief concludes with policy lessons relevant for strengthening resilience in European societies.

Layers of Antagonistic Information Influence

Understanding antagonistic information threats requires moving beyond viewing disinformation or cyber incidents as isolated events. Instead, these activities form a structured and multi-layered architecture of pressure aimed at gradually degrading democratic governance. Rather than aiming for immediate institutional breakdown, these operations gradually weaken a society’s capacity to interpret events, trust institutions, and act collectively across four interconnected layers: cognitive, institutional, informational, and behavioral. This four-layer framing synthesizes Ukraine’s wartime practice with established research on cognitive warfare and decision-making manipulation, hybrid warfare, and institutional effectiveness (NATO STO, n.d.; Havlík & Horáček, 2026; Tsybulska, 2023; World Bank, 2017).

At the cognitive layer, hostile actors target how individuals interpret reality, shaping threat perception, responsibility attribution, and identity boundaries. This dynamic is well documented in research on cognitive warfare and reflexive control, which demonstrates that perception manipulation can redirect strategic decision-making without direct confrontation (Havlík & Horáček, 2026; Thomas, 2004). By exploiting uncertainty, fear, and emotional triggers, adversaries influence how citizens understand crises before institutional responses even occur. Cognitive distortion thus lays the foundation for broader destabilization.

At the institutional layer, hostile actors target trust in government, elections, and public authority. Evidence from hybrid warfare analysis demonstrates that weakening institutional legitimacy degrades both crisis response and democratic resilience (OECD, 2022; World Bank, 2017). As Tsybulska (2023) argues, delegitimization, rather than outright destruction, is often the central objective of a hybrid strategy. When public trust erodes, policy implementation fragments, and crisis communication loses authority.

The informational layer addresses narrative dominance and agenda-setting. Hostile actors use saturation, repetition, and cross-platform amplification to ensure that adversarial frames define the terms of public debate (McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Paul & Matthews, 2016). The goal is not simply to spread falsehoods but to normalize certain interpretations over time, embedding them into how societies process political reality (Tsybulska, 2024).

Finally, the behavioral layer translates perception and narrative control into observable outcomes, from voting behavior and protest mobilization to compliance with policy measures and support for defense decisions. Research on misinformation and political behavior demonstrates that even marginal shifts in turnout, polarization, or policy support can generate significant strategic consequences (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). Behavioral influence does not require majority conversion; small distortions at scale can reshape political outcomes.

Ukraine’s post-2022 experience shows that antagonistic information threats function as a long-term governance pressure system, designed for erosion. This is why recognizing the layered architecture of these threats is essential for building durable resilience.

Threats at the Operational Level: Lessons from Ukraine

Ukraine’s wartime experience illustrates how antagonistic information threats operate in practice, particularly through cyber operations. Unlike kinetic warfare, cyber operations continue even during ceasefires: they are relatively low-cost, scalable, and persistent, generating both technical disruption and information that can later be exploited in influence campaigns.

The Computer Emergency Response Team of Ukraine (CERT-UA) recorded 4,315 cyber incidents in 2024, nearly a 70% increase over 2023 and more than triple the 2021 level (SSSCIP/CERT-UA, 2025c). In the first half of 2025 alone, incidents increased by a further 17% (SSSCIP/CERT-UA, 2025b). These figures reflect strategic structural pressure, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Registered cyber incidents in Ukraine, 2021–2024

Source: CERT-UA / State Service of Special Communications and Information Protection of Ukraine (SSSCIP), Russian Cyber Operations: Analytics for the Second Half of 2024.At the same time, a parallel trend deserves attention: while overall incident volume rose sharply, critical and high-severity incidents declined by 94% between 2022 and 2024 (SSSCIP/CERT-UA, 2025a). Ukrainian authorities attribute this to strengthened monitoring networks, early detection mechanisms, and international cooperation. The policy conclusion is clear: sustained defensive investment reduces destructive impact even as attack frequency increases.

The operational model has also evolved. Rather than prioritizing spectacular disruption, campaigns increasingly emphasize persistent access, credential theft, and selective data exfiltration, so-called ‘steal and go’ tactics (SSSCIP/CERT-UA, 2025b). The objective is chronic degradation rather than dramatic collapse. Data theft supports later narrative exploitation; minor disruption normalizes instability; repeated low-grade incidents strain administrative capacity.

This shift aligns with the broader strategic goal identified in Ukrainian cybersecurity reporting: producing distrust, paralysis, delayed response, societal fatigue, and long-term strategic advantage. The sectoral and methodological breakdown confirms this pattern (Table 2).

Table 2. Target sectors and attack methods in Ukraine in 2024

Source: CERT-UA/SSSCIP, Russian Cyber Operations: Analytics for the Second Half of 2024. Sector figures are incident counts; method figures reflect malware-specific incidents.

Artificial intelligence (AI) further accelerates this dynamic. Large-scale content saturation campaigns, such as the Pravda/Portal Kombat network, have been documented flooding digital ecosystems and targeting AI retrieval environments (American Sunlight Project, 2025; Sadeghi & Blachez, 2025). While academic debate continues over the scale of LLM manipulation (Alyukov et al., 2025), the strategic investment in content flooding is well documented.

Generative AI reduces the marginal cost of producing multilingual disinformation. CERT-UA has also identified indications of AI-assisted scripting in phishing and malware deployment (SSSCIP/CERT-UA, 2025b). As Havlík and Horáček (2026) warn, AI increasingly enables the precision targeting of cognitive vulnerabilities, thereby compressing defenders’ response time.

These dynamics illustrate how cyber operations generate effects across the four layers of antagonistic information influence identified earlier. Repeated incidents and data leaks shape the informational environment; narrative exploitation of stolen or manipulated data affects how events are cognitively interpreted; persistent disruptions undermine institutional credibility and crisis response; and accumulated uncertainty ultimately influences political and societal behavior.

Crucially, antagonistic information threats do not operate alone. They are part of a synchronized system of persistent pressure. Cyber operations, Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference, economic coercion, electronic warfare, and kinetic activity are integrated into a unified strategy. Ukrainian authorities report temporal synchronization between cyber intrusions, energy-sector targeting, and missile strikes (SSSCIP/CERT-UA, 2025a). Narrative campaigns frame events before and after disruption; cyber operations generate exploitable material; economic pressure increases uncertainty; kinetic or electronic actions amplify fear. The compound effect exceeds what any single domain could achieve on its own.

Ukrainian experience highlights vulnerabilities relevant for Europe more broadly. Hybrid pressure operates as a synchronized, multi-domain system in which military, informational, economic, and political instruments reinforce one another. European governance, however, addresses these domains through separate institutional channels. Energy security, cyber defence, strategic communications, and democratic resilience are managed in distinct policy silos with different authorities and threat perceptions. This fragmentation creates exploitable gaps: an adversary operating through tightly coordinated cross-domain pressure can exploit exactly the delays and blind spots that institutional separation produces.

The lesson from Ukraine is therefore not limited to wartime resilience. Even without open conflict, antagonistic actors can pursue gradual systemic pressure by targeting infrastructure, information, economic vulnerabilities, and institutional trust simultaneously. Effective resilience, therefore, requires moving beyond sectoral responses toward integrated governance capable of anticipating and responding to coordinated cross-domain pressure.

Economic Costs of Antagonistic Information Threats

Antagonistic information threats are persistent and structurally embedded, which means their economic implications extend beyond isolated incidents. Ukraine’s experience provides a rare empirical case showing how these costs accumulate and how sustained investment can mitigate them. Hybrid pressure does not produce only one-off destruction; it generates continuous fiscal demand. Monitoring, detection, and incident response systems have therefore become permanent budget items rather than crisis expenditures.

In 2024 alone, national monitoring systems processed hundreds of billions of telemetry events, identified around 3 million security events, and confirmed 1,042 cyber incidents requiring formal response (SSSCIP, 2024). These figures illustrate that antagonistic threats impose a constant administrative and financial burden, underscoring the fiscal consequences of inaction.

Ukraine’s cybersecurity market reached approximately 138 million USD in 2024, having quadrupled over eight years (SSSCIP, 2024). This growth reflects systemic adaptation under sustained pressure rather than discretionary digital modernization. The statistics in Table 1 show that investment did not eliminate the threat, but it fundamentally reduced its destructive impact. The burden falls disproportionately on public administration. With 76% of recorded incidents targeting government, local authorities, and the defense-industrial sector, the fiscal weight of cybersecurity concentrates where the budgets are most constrained. In this way, the institutions most essential to democratic governance bear the highest cost of defence.

Beyond direct-response spending, antagonistic threats impose systemic economic costs. Insurance premiums rise while cyber coverage narrows; compliance costs increase under frameworks such as NIS2, and procurement and crisis coordination become slower and more complex. As public administration becomes a primary target, trust and institutional credibility weaken, raising coordination costs across markets and public systems. As a result, governance efficiency itself becomes economically vulnerable.

At the same time, the costs of inaction are substantial. At the European level, ENISA estimates total cyber-related losses over five years at approximately €300 billion, with Germany alone reporting €205.9 billion in losses in 2023 (Nagy, 2023). While these figures do not isolate state-linked hybrid operations, they indicate the fiscal environment in which antagonistic threats operate and suggest a scale of what unmitigated exposure would cost.

The EU’s persistent security workforce deficit of 260,000 to 500,000 specialists (ENISA, 2024) further constrains the capacity for the type of sustained defensive investment that Ukraine’s experience shows to be effective.

Table 3 highlights a central policy lesson. In Ukraine, both the number of detected threats and the capacity to identify them increased sharply, while the share of destructive incidents declined significantly. This demonstrates that rising incident volume does not necessarily translate into rising damage. It thus indicates that the economic trade-off is not between security spending and fiscal savings, but between investing in preventive resilience and absorbing escalating systemic costs.

Table 3. The Returns on Sustained Investment, Ukraine

Sources: CERT-UA/SSSCIP (2025a, 2025b, 2025c); SSSCIP (2024); ENISA (2024); Howden (2025).

In economic terms, resilience reduces the probability of high-impact shocks, whereas delayed investment merely defers their costs. For European policymakers, cyber and information resilience must be treated as macro-critical infrastructure, with financial consequences extending well beyond IT systems into fiscal stability, labour markets, and long-term growth.

Conclusions

Ukraine’s experience since 2022 demonstrates that antagonistic information threats must be treated as a systemic governance challenge, not just a communication problem. Operating simultaneously across cognitive, institutional, informational, and behavioral layers, these threats aim to erode decision-making capacity rather than trigger immediate collapse. The strategic objective is gradual fragmentation of perception, trust, narrative coherence, and ultimately political action. For policymakers, the implication is straightforward: resilience must be built across all four layers.

Moreover, Ukraine’s operational data demonstrates that antagonistic information threats are persistent, adaptive, AI-accelerated, and strategically synchronized. Resilience must therefore be systemic, coordinated, and anticipatory, not reactive and sector-bound.

Ukrainian experience shows that sustained investment did not eliminate cyber pressure, but it dramatically reduced high-severity impact while expanding detection capacity. At the same time, the burden of defense falls disproportionately on public administration. Treating resilience spending as macro-critical infrastructure investment could be part of the solution.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Development Day 2025: Ukraine’s and Moldova’s Path Towards EU Membership

Posted on January 12, 2026 | Policy Brief

Speaker presenting at SITE 2025 Development Day conference on EU accession Ukraine Moldova, highlighting Ukraine’s and Moldova’s path toward EU membership.

The European Union’s enlargement policy has re-emerged as a central geopolitical instrument in response to Russia’s war against Ukraine and sustained destabilization efforts in its neighbourhood. For Ukraine and Moldova, EU accession is no longer a distant aspiration, but an existential strategic choice tied to security, economic development, and democratic survival. At this year’s SITE Development Day, policymakers, researchers, and practitioners gathered to take stock of where the two countries stand on their accession paths, which challenges risk undermining progress, and what role the EU and international partners can play in sustaining momentum. This policy brief synthesizes key insights from the conference discussions, focusing on three interlinked dimensions of accession: economic preconditions and foreign financing, democratic resilience under hybrid threats, and human capital development.

Introduction

The EU accession process continues to enjoy strong political and societal support in both Ukraine and Moldova, despite the profound challenges each country faces. Opening the conference, Dag Hartelius, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, emphasized that both countries have demonstrated sustained commitment to European integration, while underlining the need for stable, reliable, and predictable engagement from European partners. In Ukraine, Russia’s full-scale invasion has consolidated a broad societal consensus around a European future, with support for EU accession remaining high despite the immense economic and human costs of war. Moldova, meanwhile, has reaffirmed its European course through the election of a strong pro-EU parliamentary majority, even as it remains exposed to significant geopolitical pressure, as highlighted by Carolina Perebinos, State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Moldova.

Yet, speakers stressed that political support should not be taken for granted. As noted by Vadym Halaichuk, First Deputy Chair of the Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the EU of the Verkhovna Rada, prolonged delays, blocked negotiations, or unclear signals from the EU risk creating space for Eurosceptic narratives, particularly as wartime economic hardship persists in Ukraine.

Participants mentioned the risk of a “Balkan trap,” where candidate countries remain in prolonged negotiations despite credible reform progress. For Ukraine and Moldova, time is a critical factor.

Economic Outlook and Foreign Aid

Economic resilience is a central pillar of sustained support for EU accession. Ukraine’s economy has been recovering since the initial collapse in 2022, but the recovery remains slow and uneven across sectors. Wartime destruction, disrupted supply chains, labor shortages due to large-scale displacement, and rising defense needs continue to constrain growth. As discussed at the conference, Ukraine requires predictable external support to maintain macroeconomic stability and finance reconstruction.

In Moldova, decades of low growth, repeated external shocks, and adverse demographic trends, including population decline and ageing, have left the economy vulnerable. While macroeconomic stability has improved and inflation has fallen to historically low levels, productivity remains low and the economy insufficiently diversified, underscoring the need for greater access to capital and investment opportunities. At the same time, business sentiment has improved, with recent survey evidence (Partnerships for New Economy, 2025) suggesting that most firms believe the country is moving in the right direction and that the business community places significant importance on EU integration.

The economies of Ukraine and Moldova remain critically dependent on foreign support, but there is a need to adapt to a changing landscape for development cooperation. Potential reductions in traditional official development assistance, particularly from major bilateral donors, increase the importance of mobilising private capital, diaspora resources, and blended finance instruments. However, private investors continue to perceive Ukraine and Moldova as high-risk environments, often overestimating political and sovereign risk relative to actual default rates and recovery outcomes. Expanding guarantees and de-risking instruments in the form of EU grants for public sector projects and providing technical assistance to develop bankable projects are critical to narrowing this perception gap. Across both cases, conference participants stressed that EU accession is perceived not only as a political anchor but also as a central mechanism for addressing long-standing economic constraints.

Democratic Resilience and Hybrid Threats

A defining feature of both accession processes is the persistent pressure from Russian hybrid warfare. Moldova’s recent elections illustrated the breadth of these tactics, ranging from vote-buying schemes and disinformation to energy manipulation and attempts to overwhelm law enforcement institutions. Ukraine faces similar challenges under more extreme conditions, as democratic governance continues under martial law and constant security threats.

While corruption remains a serious concern, participants emphasized that institutions have been strengthened rather than collapsed despite the challenging circumstances. In Ukraine, anti-corruption agencies continue to function, and political scandals have not displaced the broader reform agenda or public support for European integration. Moldova’s experience demonstrates that coordinated institutional cooperation with European partners can significantly enhance the state’s ability to counter hybrid interference.

Crucially, supporting democratic resilience in Ukraine and Moldova is a core European interest, with direct implications for EU security, democratic stability, and the integrity of the enlargement process itself.

Human Capital Development

Investments in human capital are critical for long-term growth and development, yet brain drain is a major concern in both Ukraine and Moldova. Survey evidence indicates that many students are choosing to study abroad, driven by a combination of security concerns, education quality, and economic factors (see Vaskovska, 2025). At the same time, many students express willingness to return, with EU accession perceived as a key condition for long-term stability and opportunity.

Strengthening demand for skills—through private-sector involvement and public-sector capacity building—was seen as essential to raising returns to local education. Moreover, speakers stressed the importance of treating the diaspora as an asset rather than a loss, and supporting targeted mobility schemes, professional networks, and research and teaching initiatives that facilitate knowledge transfer. Comparative reflections on Poland’s accession underscored that human capital and public infrastructure investments can start a path to sustained convergence even before formal membership.

Conclusion

Discussions at the conference underscored that Ukraine and Moldova have demonstrated a high degree of political commitment and societal support for EU accession under exceptionally challenging conditions. At the same time, the sustainability of this support depends on the credibility, pace, and predictability of the accession process. Prolonged uncertainty, blocked negotiations, or reduced predictability of foreign assistance risk creating space for Eurosceptic narratives.

Both countries face significant structural economic constraints and heightened financing needs, while private investment remains constrained by elevated risk perceptions. Addressing these challenges requires not only continued macroeconomic and financial support but also targeted assistance to develop bankable investment opportunities and reduce perceived risks. Effective implementation of reforms—particularly at the local level—and efforts to retain and mobilise human capital depend on sustained institutional cooperation, strengthened local capacity, and a visible European presence on the ground.

For the EU, supporting Ukraine and Moldova is of strategic self-interest. As emphasized throughout the conference, integration is not merely an enlargement decision — it is a long-term investment in Europe’s economic stability, democratic resilience, and security.

References

List of Participants

  • Torbjörn Becker, Director of SITE
  • Raj M. Desai, Professor of International Development at Georgetown University
  • Stefan Falk, Director, Swedfund Project Accelerator
  • Kata Fredheim, Executive Vice President of Partnerships and Strategy, SSE Riga
  • Vadym Halaichuk, First Deputy Chair of the Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the EU of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine
  • Dag Hartelius, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Anders Olofsgård, Deputy Director of SITE
  • Klara Lindström, Analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies (SCEEUS)
  • Michal Myck, Director at CenEA, Szczecin
  • Anders Olofsgård, Deputy Director of SITE
  • Carolina Perebinos, State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Moldova
  • Dumitru Pintea, Expert at Partnerships for New Economy, Chisinau
  • Rustam Romaniuc, Associate Professor at Montpellier Business School
  • Nataliia Shapoval, Chairman of KSE Institute
  • Tobias Thyberg, Deputy Director General, Ministry for Foreign Affairs
  • Viorel Ursu, Moldovan Ambassador to Sweden
  • Anhelina Vaskovska, International Relations Specialist

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Strengthening Human Capital: How Ukraine and Moldova Can Retain and Reconnect Their Students

Posted on December 22, 2025 | Policy Brief

As more young people from Ukraine and Moldova choose to study abroad, the question of whether internationally educated youth return home has significant implications for demographic sustainability and economic growth. This policy brief presents findings from a survey of young people from Ukraine and Moldova. It outlines their motivations and considerations when deciding whether to study in their home countries or abroad, as well as what it would take for states to transform potential “brain drain” into “brain gain”. The survey data reveal a generation of young people facing constraints and uncertainty, yet still willing to invest in their societies. The analysis highlights a dual task facing both states: They need to offer high-quality education for students who choose to study domestically, while also maintaining meaningful ties with students and graduates educated abroad. Meeting these challenges means contributing to national resilience and human capital development.

Introduction

Across Ukraine and Moldova, an increasing number of young people are choosing to pursue their studies abroad in search of high-quality education, international experiences, and stronger career prospects. The challenge for the two states is to encourage the return of the internationally educated youth to halt the loss of much-needed human capital. Two countries already face labour shortages and ageing populations. One-way student emigration risks weakening their innovation potential and slowing economic development, just as EU integration efforts intensify. Yet, with the right policies, this mobility can be turned from a “brain drain” into a “brain gain”.

This policy brief addresses two questions. First, how do individual, structural, political, and security-related factors shape the decisions of young people from Ukraine and Moldova to study at home or abroad? And second, under what conditions are students studying abroad willing to return, and what would it take for states to transform potential “brain drain” into “brain gain”?

To answer these questions, the analysis draws on a survey of young people from Ukraine and Moldova who studied domestically and/or abroad. The survey, which included multiple-choice and open-ended questions, collected responses from 118 individuals originally from either country (N = 236). These findings, complemented by several in-depth interviews with students and academics (conducted separately from the survey), provide insight into how young people from Ukraine and Moldova chose their study destination countries and how their states can better support and engage them at home and abroad.

Ukraine: Educational Choices and Emigration Under Wartime Conditions

Background: By October 2025, Russian attacks had damaged or destroyed 38% of Ukraine’s university facilities (Mykhailova, 2025). Despite the war, universities continue to expand student opportunities, strengthen institutions, and align with EU standards. To mitigate brain drain and performance risks, they draw on government, private-sector, and international support. Participation in Erasmus+, European Universities Alliances, and Horizon Europe helps build institutional capacity and sustain research funding (ERUA, 2025; European Commission, 2024).

In almost four years of full-scale war, the young generation in Ukraine had to adapt to new realities, where war became a backdrop to their formative years. For many, student life now means managing a “war-life balance”: attending classes in shelters, studying through power outages, fundraising for their friends and lecturers in the armed forces, and helping clean campuses after nighttime attacks.

Following the Russian invasion in 2022, the number of Ukrainian students enrolled in Western universities (EU, UK, USA, Canada) increased by 47% in the 2022/2023 academic year compared to the previous one, with Poland being the country with the largest share of Ukrainian students, accounting for 40% of the 115,000 Ukrainian students enrolled in Western higher education institutions in 2023/2024 (Stadnyi, 2025). This number is likely to rise further, given that 350,990 Ukrainian refugees aged 14–17 were living in Europe in September 2025 (Eurostat, 2025).

Survey responses: Students who chose to study in Ukraine highlighted the balance of education quality and affordability, as well as the convenience of staying close to family. Many also felt a strong patriotic commitment to contributing to Ukraine’s future and believed their chosen fields offered good opportunities at home.

Interviewees who had studied both in Ukraine and, at another stage of their education, abroad, noted that international experience broadened their expertise. They valued mobility programmes, double degrees, multicultural cohorts, and Erasmus exchanges. When reflecting on what could be improved in Ukrainian higher education, students prioritised more student-centred and practice-oriented teaching, such as interactive methods, discussion-based seminars, and case-based learning. They stressed the need for better access to international research databases, electronic libraries, and up-to-date literature, which remains limited in many universities. Interviewees also called for stronger career centres, internship programmes, company-based thesis projects, and mentorship.

More broadly, respondents argued that improving Ukrainian higher education requires increased investment in research, modernised infrastructure, deeper links with the private sector, and a stronger emphasis on critical thinking, analytical skills, and interdisciplinarity.

Safety has become one of the key determinants in the educational choices of Ukrainian adolescents, as parents encourage their children to seek safety abroad. However, a decisive factor for student migration is development and opportunities, rather than safety, according to the conducted survey (Figure 1). This finding is also consistent with the Index of the Future: Professional Expectations and Development of Adolescents in Ukraine (Shymanskyi et al., 2025, p.16).

Figure 1. Importance of different factors for Ukrainian students who chose to study abroad

Source: Primary survey data collected for this policy brief.

Speaking about the conditions under which they would be willing to return, respondents mentioned broader structural factors, including security and better career prospects in Ukraine after graduation (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Long-term return intentions of Ukrainian students studying abroad

Source: Primary survey data collected for this policy brief.

For many, Ukraine’s accession to the EU would signal long-term stability and opportunity (Figure 3). One interviewee described their participation in the Create Ukraine initiative, which brings internationally trained Ukrainians to work in government advisory teams on twelve-month placements. This example illustrates how targeted return schemes can channel international expertise into the public sector.

Figure 3. Perceptions of how Ukraine’s potential EU accession would affect opportunities for young people

Source: Primary survey data collected for this policy brief.

Student Mobility in Moldova

Background. Moldova faces an acute challenge of emigration, which results in a shrinking labour force, demographic imbalance, and growing pressure on the country’s social and economic systems. Emigration also affects the education sector, as universities operate with shrinking student cohorts and a shortage of qualified staff. While over 60,000 students are enrolled in 16 higher education institutions in the Republic of Moldova, approximately 14,000 Moldovan students pursue their education in the EU, and four out of five of them are in Romania (Munteanu, 2024; Moldpres, 2025). Economic challenges drive the emigration of young people, who leave in search of more stable career prospects and higher wages (Całus, 2025).

Moldova undertakes a variety of education reforms aimed at reducing incentives for students to leave in search of better-quality studies. Recent measures include simplifying the recognition of foreign degrees, increasing scholarships, expanding dual-education programmes, and launching a national online admissions platform (Eurydice, 2025). EU support reinforces these efforts by modernising university governance, improving labour-market relevance, expanding international cooperation, and strengthening research and innovation (Council of Europe, 2025).

Over the past decade, Moldova has also expanded its engagement with the diaspora, particularly in higher education, to promote knowledge exchange and professional networks (Baltag, Bostan & Plamadeala, 2023). Initiatives include short-term skills-transfer schemes that bring diaspora professionals into Moldovan universities for teaching, mentoring, or consultancy (Bureau for Relations with Diaspora, 2022). These efforts acknowledge that full return migration is unlikely in the near future, but circular mobility and diaspora engagement offer alternatives.

Survey responses. Moldovan students said they chose to study at home because of affordability, accessibility, and the relevance of local programmes. They valued learning in a familiar language and culture, and many hoped to build their futures in Moldova because of family ties and a desire to contribute to the country’s development. However, their educational decisions are shaped by political stability and economic prospects. Those who stay or return form a highly engaged group, actively involved in volunteer work, community projects, and local NGOs. By contrast, students open to leaving cited a weak job market, low wages, and limited opportunities, seeing study or work abroad as offering better prospects.

Students with experience in both systems emphasised the need for more practical learning, internships, company partnerships, real-world projects, and a wider range of electives, as well as stronger career guidance and mobility opportunities. Moldovan students studying abroad said they would be more attracted to domestic universities if curricula were modernised, programmes diversified, and links to the labour market strengthened. Many students abroad remain unsure about returning or plan to stay abroad due to low salaries, limited career prospects, weak institutions, and broader political and economic uncertainty in Moldova (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Long-term return intentions of Moldovan students studying abroad

Source: Primary survey data collected for this policy brief.

Similarly to Ukraine, the young population views the prospect of Moldova’s EU accession as a sign of economic growth, political stability, and improved business and career opportunities, which may motivate them to return and confidently build their future in Moldova. The majority of respondents agree that Moldova’s EU membership will improve opportunities for young people in the country (Figure 5). One of the interviewees shared, “Over time, if we reach that standard of living, I wouldn’t need to look for it elsewhere, because I would have it at home.” EU membership could help reverse the “brain drain,” depending on the pace of domestic economic transformation and the government’s ability to leverage integration to grow high-value industries that retain talent and boost economic growth (Gherasim, 2024).

Figure 5. Perceptions of how Moldova’s potential EU accession would affect opportunities for young people

Source: Primary survey data collected for this policy brief.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

In Ukraine, young people make their educational choices amid war and uncertainty. In Moldova, their decisions whether to study domestically or abroad are shaped by structural conditions. But in both countries, youth demonstrate a strong sense of identity, civic commitment, and desire to contribute to their countries’ future. Therefore, supporting these students requires a dual strategy: strengthening domestic higher education systems while maintaining close ties with those who pursue opportunities abroad.

For students who choose to remain in Ukraine or Moldova, the priority is ensuring that higher education institutions provide quality and relevance. At the same time, students abroad should be viewed as a community whose expertise, networks, and global experiences can play an important role in national development. Diaspora-engagement programmes implemented in Moldova are increasingly relevant to Ukraine to help maintain meaningful connections with human capital abroad.

The survey and interview data presented above suggest the following policy recommendations, relevant for both countries and reflecting the needs and expectations of young people.

Key recommendations:

  1. Keep strengthening the quality and relevance of higher education at home:
    1. Modernise curricula and enhance teaching quality by shifting toward methods that prioritise critical thinking and applied skills.
    2. Strengthen institutional capacity through international partnerships and expand the variety of courses and programmes to better match labour-market needs, including the development of joint courses that enhance relevance and quality.
    3. Promote career services through university-employer partnerships, internship programmes, company-based thesis projects and mentorship schemes that help students transition into the labour market.
  2. Maintain meaningful connections with students and young professionals abroad:
    1. Develop diaspora networks connecting students abroad with universities and employers at home.
    2. Promote public sector and private sector programmes that integrate internationally trained young professionals.
    3. Expand short-term exchanges: visiting fellowships, research collaborations, consultancy roles.

Mobilising the potential of young people in Ukraine and Moldova is essential for long-term resilience, EU integration, and economic growth. In turn, investing in education quality, labour market development, and diaspora engagement is a strategic investment in national development and human capital. Ultimately, retaining and reconnecting talent depends on broader security, political, and economic developments, especially progress on EU integration and successful reforms.

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Tatiana Cantarji and Cristina Varzari, students at the State University of Moldova, for their valuable assistance in distributing the online questionnaire among Moldovan students and conducting interviews. The author is also grateful to all survey participants and interviewees for sharing their time and insights.

 

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Humanitarian Demining and Ukraine’s Recovery: Lessons Yet to Learn

Posted on December 1, 2025 | Policy Brief

This policy brief examines how land mine action underpins Ukraine’s reconstruction and economic renewal. It outlines the current scale of contamination and the national humanitarian demining strategy. The brief also reviews international experience from countries around the world, discussing the economic recovery driven by demining and the economic efficiency of mine action. It documents significant variation in direct mine action costs across countries and contexts, complicating the assessment of these costs in the case of Ukraine. The brief also discusses the indirect costs arising from systemic inefficiencies in Ukraine’s demining effort, including fragmented governance, shortages of qualified personnel, outdated standards, and security constraints. It concludes that Ukraine’s success in transforming demining into a catalyst for recovery depends on effective coordination, data-driven planning, gender inclusion, and the adoption of best international practices.

Understanding the Scale and Current Need for Humanitarian Demining in Ukraine

As of mid-2025, approximately 137,000 km² of Ukrainian land remains potentially contaminated by mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO). While this is a reduction from 174,000 km² at the end of 2022, Ukraine remains one of the most mine-contaminated countries in the world (Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, 2023; UDA, 2025).

The problem of demining is multidimensional, encompassing both humanitarian and economic consequences. More than six million people currently live in at-risk areas, and the number of mine incidents has already exceeded one thousand. Without addressing the problem, the number of victims could rise to more than 9,000 by 2030 (Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, 2023). Contamination affects some of the world’s most fertile agricultural regions, as well as energy, transport, and residential zones.

The funding needs are substantial. According to UNDP (2024), Ukraine’s total demining bill could reach USD 34–35 billion, requiring tens of thousands of trained specialists. As of early 2025, Ukraine has more than 4,500 sappers and deminers, but this number remains far below national needs. Experts emphasize that the workforce must increase significantly to ensure the timely clearance of contaminated territories. At present, approximately 87 mine-action operators are active in Ukraine, encompassing government bodies, private companies, humanitarian organizations, and international partners (UN Women Ukraine, 2025).

At the same time, the potential economic benefits of demining are immense. According to the TBI (2024) estimates, Ukraine loses about USD 11.2 billion each year (compared to 2021) due to mine contamination. Frontline regions such as Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv are particularly exposed, experiencing a reduction in exports of USD 8.9 billion and a loss of regional tax revenues of USD 1.1 billion annually.

In addressing the problem, the government has recently adopted a National Mine Action Strategy until 2033, which aims to clear about 80% of the de-occupied territories within 10 years (Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, 2024). However, this ambitious plan faces serious systemic challenges, including the dispersion of power among government agencies, insufficient and inconsistent funding, and delays in public procurement and tender processes (UDA, 2025). Thus, humanitarian demining stands at the crossroads of Ukraine’s security and economic recovery, affecting how quickly the country can restore farmland, rebuild infrastructure, and attract investment. Its success depends on efficient resource use, data-driven planning, and the adoption of proven international practices. The following sections examine global experience and economic efficiency in mine action, as well as the key challenges Ukraine must address to achieve tangible and sustainable recovery.

Evidence and Lessons from Global Experience

The problem of humanitarian demining is widespread globally, affecting dozens of post-conflict states across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Many of these countries, such as Afghanistan, Mozambique, Eritrea, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia, have already undergone large-scale clearance operations and provide tangible evidence of how demining drives economic recovery and social stabilization.

In Afghanistan, humanitarian demining produced wide-ranging socio-economic benefits. It vastly improved mobility and access to resources and markets, served as a prerequisite for broader development initiatives, restored agricultural productivity and employment, and positively influenced mental health and community relations by reducing fear, enabling return, and rebuilding trust within affected populations (UNMAS, 2021).

In Mozambique, large-scale railway clearance reopened a key regional trade corridor, creating more than 400 jobs. The operation restored transport connectivity, enabled the renewal of coal exports, and stimulated agricultural and industrial recovery in the surrounding areas (Lundberg, 2006). In Eritrea, humanitarian demining enabled the return of more than 20,000 refugees within a year, which allowed about 29 villages to resume crop cultivation and schooling; casualty rates for both residents and livestock fell to zero, restoring local food security and rural incomes (Lundberg, 2006).

Sudan offers a contrasting case, where political and logistical barriers pushed costs to nearly USD 45 per m² (Bolton, 2008). Despite high costs, the reopened transport corridors and access to markets demonstrated substantial humanitarian and trade benefits, underscoring that elevated expenditure in complex terrains can still deliver strong socio-economic returns.

Post-war European experiences reinforce these findings. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, humanitarian demining has served as a foundation for sustainable socio-economic recovery, enabling the rebuilding of housing and infrastructure, reducing flood risks, restoring agricultural and forest productivity, improving access to water, and ensuring safe mobility essential for trade and community development (GICHD & UNDP, 2022). Similarly, mine clearance in Croatia has been pivotal to national recovery, restoring access to agricultural and forest land, enabling infrastructure and EU-funded development projects, and supporting tourism and investment in previously contaminated regions (Mine Action Review, 2021).

Collectively, these cases demonstrate that the economic dividends of demining are consistent across contexts. Clearing mines enables agricultural revival, facilitates transport and trade, lowers accident-related health costs, and strengthens confidence in governance. However, incomplete data and fragmented decision-making might delay land release and inflate costs.

For Ukraine, where contamination covers more than 137,000 km² of high-value farmland and industrial zones, these global lessons confirm that mine action must be integrated as a central pillar of the reconstruction process.

Measuring the Economic Efficiency of Humanitarian Demining: Indicators and Limitations

The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, in its recent report, defines efficiency in demining as “a measure of how economically resources or inputs are converted to results” (GICHD, 2023, p. 6). In humanitarian demining, this means achieving the maximum area of land safely released or the largest number of explosive items cleared using the least possible resources, without compromising safety. Efficiency, however, differs from effectiveness which is defined in the report as “the extent to which the intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance” (GICHD, 2023, p.6).

Yet, the quantitative framework developed by GICHD primarily focuses on efficiency indicators, particularly cost-based metrics such as cost per square meter of land released, cost per square meter of land fully cleared, and cost per explosive item found. This narrow focus allows for financial comparison but risks overlooking effectiveness dimensions such as the humanitarian, developmental, and social outcomes of mine clearance.

To operationalize this concept, the GICHD study developed a framework of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure economic efficiency across 17 mine-affected countries between 2015 and 2019 (GICHD, 2023, pp.14-17). Three indicators are identified as central for assessing the financial efficiency of mine action operations:

  1. Cost per square metre of land released – measuring the overall cost of returning territory to productive use, encompassing land cleared, reduced, and cancelled. A lower value indicates greater cost efficiency in land release and better-targeted survey and clearance operations.
  2. Cost per square metre of land cleared – reflecting the technical cost of full clearance, which is higher due to intensive labour, equipment, and safety requirements.
  3. Cost per explosive item found – linking financial inputs to tangible outputs, i.e., the average expenditure needed to locate and neutralize one explosive ordnance.

These metrics allow analysts and policymakers to assess how funds are transformed into measurable clearance outcomes. However, as GICHD (2023) stresses, they should be used for internal evaluation and planning, not for direct comparison between countries. Differences in contamination types, topography, labour costs, access, and national data systems make cross-country benchmarking misleading. The report explicitly cautions that “no country should be considered as having a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ performance in terms of operational efficiency purely on the basis of the KPI values” (GICHD, 2023, p.21). Even similar indicators can yield different implications depending on whether operations are clearance-driven (activity-based) or survey-driven (decision-based). To illustrate the scale and variation in demining costs globally, Table 1 presents key indicators of humanitarian demining costs as of 30 November 2022.

As shown in Table 1, costs per square meter of released territory range from USD 0.02/m² (Thailand) to USD 5.87/m² (Lebanon), i.e., a 293-fold difference. Similarly, the cost per explosive item ranged from USD 274 (Sri Lanka) to USD 13,450 (Croatia) (Rohozian, 2024). Such disparities illustrate that comparing “price per m²” without context or establishing the “benchmark” in the field is quite problematic.

Table 1. Key indicators of the cost of demining across countries, as of 30 Nov. 2022

State  Cost per square meter of territory released from the local socio-economic system, USD Cost per square meter of territory that has been cleared in the local socio-economic system, USD Cost of a single found explosive item in the local socio-economic system, USD
Angola 0,32 7,88 9042
Afghanistan 0,79 1,48 911
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0,36 19,06 6059
Vietnam 0,28 0,65 500
Western Sahara 0,41 0,51 2183
Zimbabwe 1,89 4,49 289
Iraq 0,81 1,32 4437
Cambodia 0,22 0,37 678
Laos 0,99 0,99 356
Lebanon 5,87 10,65 2204
South Sudan 0,49 4,07 5667
Serbia 1,07 1,96 9757
Sudan 2,89 5,78 457
Tajikistan 1,29 1,98 1721
Thailand 0,02 2,25 281
Croatia 1,03 1,23 13450
Sri Lanka 2,26 3,65 274

Source: Rohozian, 2024.

Moreover, the study acknowledges limitations in data standardisation and completeness. Variations in how organisations record and report costs affect comparability. Aggregated national averages can obscure contextual factors such as contamination density or security conditions. For these reasons, GICHD recommends interpreting efficiency metrics in conjunction with qualitative information, including terrain, contamination type, and labour structure, and always balancing cost-efficiency with safety and effectiveness.

However, drawing on global patterns and Ukraine’s official USD 34–35 billion cost estimate, we can expect Ukraine to fall within the middle range of international demining costs. It will likely be more expensive than low-cost cases in Asian contexts but substantially below the extreme-cost cases, such as Lebanon, due to its terrain, institutional capacity, and ability to scale mechanized clearance.

Challenges in Ukraine’s Humanitarian Demining

In addition to the substantial direct costs of humanitarian demining, it is essential to understand the indirect costs generated by systemic inefficiencies, i.e., costs that arise not from clearance itself, but from delays, duplication, weak coordination, and different shortages.

A review of Ukraine’s current mine-action landscape allows us to identify the main structural challenges that contribute to elevated indirect costs. These include fragmented governance, incomplete and inconsistent data, security-related access constraints, and a shortage of trained personnel.

One of the most pressing challenges is the fragmentation of coordination and governance. Responsibilities remain dispersed across numerous actors, including the Ministry of Defence, the State Emergency Service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, the National Mine Action Authority, and over 20 accredited NGOs and private contractors.

According to the UDA (2025), this overlap of mandates and inconsistent prioritisation frameworks frequently results in duplicated surveys and delayed task approvals, reducing efficiency and transparency. At the same time, the idea of consolidating all authority within a single centralised body would risk excessive concentration of power and reduced accountability. A more effective path forward would be to strengthen the existing Mine Action Center’s coordinating role while maintaining clear institutional separation between policymaking and operational implementation, ensuring transparency, competition, and sustained donor confidence.

A persistent shortage of qualified personnel represents one of the most critical challenges to scaling up humanitarian demining in Ukraine. According to UNDP (2025), the country currently employs around 4,500 trained deminers, while full national recovery will require at least 10,000 professionals over the next decade (TBI, 2024). The workforce is under pressure from wartime mobilization, which diverts potential recruits to defense roles, and from a shortage of experienced supervisors and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) specialists, limiting the number of teams that can safely operate simultaneously. The National Mine Action Strategy for the Period up to 2033 (Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, 2024) further acknowledges that Ukraine’s training system is inadequate for the sector’s needs.

Current state-level training for the profession of “Sapper (demining)” follows military-oriented standards that demand extensive time and resources but offer limited relevance to humanitarian operations. Only ten educational institutions are licensed to train deminers, and only a few conduct active courses. To close this capacity gap, the Strategy calls for expanding domestic training infrastructure, establishing accredited qualification centers, recognizing informal and partial training, and developing new professional standards tailored to humanitarian demining.

Another set of pressing challenges in Ukraine’s humanitarian demining effort concerns data deficits and security limitations. Incomplete and inconsistent mapping of hazardous areas continues to undermine planning and coordination. According to the Ministry of Economy (2023), Ukraine inherited multiple legacy databases using different coordinate systems and lacking harmonized metadata, resulting in duplication and delays in verifying “released” land. The absence of a unified digital mine-action information management system constrains both operational oversight and donor transparency. As Rohozian (2024) observes, such imperfect information leads to “erroneous management decisions” that increase total costs and prolong recovery.

In addition, large areas in the east and south remain off-limits due to ongoing hostilities, unexploded ordnance, and damaged infrastructure. Fluctuating front lines, dense contamination, and logistical barriers raise insurance and hazard-pay costs, shorten fieldwork periods, and cause rapid equipment deterioration.

Thus, addressing these interconnected challenges is essential to accelerate Ukraine’s reconstruction and ensure that mine action effectively supports the safe return of communities, the revival of agricultural production, and the broader recovery of the national economy.

The Role of Women in Humanitarian Demining

The role of women in Ukraine’s humanitarian demining sector deserves special attention, as they have become an integral part of the national workforce serving as deminers, team leaders, and technical-survey dog handlers. Their growing participation reflects both professional competence and the importance of gender-inclusive recovery efforts (UN Women Ukraine, 2025).

However, until 2017, Ukrainian legislation classified demining as a “dangerous profession,” barring women from formal employment in this field (Ministry of Health of Ukraine, 2017). Following sustained advocacy by international organizations, this restriction was lifted, granting women official access to mine-action professions. Since then, the number of women in operational and leadership roles has grown steadily.

Nevertheless, persistent stereotypes suggesting that demining is unsuitable for women have been disproved by practice, as reported by UN Women Ukraine, 2025. In practice, modern safety protocols and technologies such as drones and remotely operated vehicles allow women and men to perform tasks under equal safety conditions.

Following the lifting of the employment ban in 2017, which opened demining professions to women, mine-action organizations began reconsidering how to better meet women’s practical needs in the field. Recognizing that protective gear and uniforms had long been designed for men, many operators are now adapting equipment to fit women’s bodies, enhancing both comfort and operational efficiency.

These findings further demonstrate that gender-inclusive employment contributes to a reconstruction process that benefits all citizens and fosters social recovery based on principles of equity and shared responsibility.

Conclusions

In conclusion, humanitarian demining represents a strategic prerequisite for Ukraine’s reconstruction, food security, and long-term economic recovery. International experience demonstrates that mine clearance delivers substantial socio-economic dividends by restoring access to land, enabling trade, and rebuilding local livelihoods. However, the economic efficiency of mine action cannot be measured through simple cross-country comparisons. Costs per square meter or per explosive item differ widely depending on terrain, contamination density, labor costs, and institutional frameworks. Therefore, efficiency should be evaluated in context, i.e., by how well resources are transformed into measurable recovery outcomes without compromising safety or inclusiveness.

For Ukraine, transforming demining into a genuine driver of recovery requires addressing several domestic challenges. Fragmented governance and overlapping mandates continue to reduce coordination and transparency, while limited training capacity and workforce shortages constrain operational progress. Inconsistent data systems and incomplete mapping impede strategic planning, and security conditions still restrict access to large contaminated areas in the east and south of Ukraine. Overcoming these barriers will require strengthening the coordinating role of the National Mine Action Center and expanding professional education and certification programs.

Equally important, the growing participation of women in mine action deserves special recognition. Since the 2017 reform that lifted employment restrictions, women have become active as deminers, team leaders, and survey specialists, demonstrating both competence and leadership in this traditionally male-dominated field. Promoting gender-balanced participation will strengthen Ukraine’s mine action capacity and align reconstruction with broader principles of equality and social inclusion.

Thus, ensuring that clearance efforts are efficient, transparent, data-driven, and inclusive will determine how effectively Ukraine can restore productive land, rebuild infrastructure, and regain investor confidence.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Saving Lives During War: How to Make Evacuation Messages More Effective

Posted on November 26, 2025 | Policy Brief

When war threatens civilian populations, effective evacuation messages can mean the difference between life and death. Drawing on a controlled survey experiment conducted with 2,006 Ukrainians during the 2022 Russian invasion, we find that providing clear evacuation plans dramatically improves a message’s perceived effectiveness, while sophisticated message framing makes little difference. Our results indicate that people facing war are not naive about dangers—they need practical information on how to escape, not persuasion about why they should leave. This is especially true for those who do not have the means to evacuate autonomously. These findings offer guidance for authorities and humanitarian organizations: focus on providing concrete evacuation logistics rather than crafting perfect messaging.

The Life-or-Death Challenge of Wartime Evacuations

Each year, tens of thousands of civilians die in armed conflicts worldwide. Many of these deaths could be prevented through timely evacuations from danger zones. Yet despite imminent threats, many civilians hesitate to leave their homes. Understanding how to increase the effectiveness of evacuation messages has become a critical challenge for saving lives.

In July 2022, five months into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we conducted the first experimental study testing the effectiveness of evacuation messages during an active war. Working with 2,006 Ukrainians from regions directly affected by combat, focusing on areas that experienced occupation, shelling, and ground fighting, we tested two fundamental approaches to improving evacuation messaging.

Figure 1. Surveyed regions with the relative share of respondents.

Source: Martinez et al. (2025)

 

Testing What Works: Plans vs. Persuasion

Our experiment compared two strategies:

Strategy 1: Persuasive Nudges

We tested different message framings inspired by behavioral economics, emphasizing either the gains from evacuating (saving lives) or losses from staying (risking death), and highlighting either deteriorating living conditions or benefits to military effectiveness. These techniques have proven effective in other contexts, from increasing vaccination rates to promoting energy conservation.

Strategy 2: Practical Evacuation Plans

We tested whether adding concrete evacuation instructions improved message effectiveness. Half of our messages included specific details: free buses available at designated locations, phone numbers for reserving seats, and clear departure times.

Participants evaluated how effective each message would be in convincing residents of their city to evacuate, using a scale from 0 (completely ineffective) to 10 (very effective).

Key Finding: People Need Logistics, Not Persuasion

Our results deliver a clear message for policymakers and humanitarian organizations:

Providing evacuation plans works

Messages that included concrete evacuation plans were rated approximately 5% more effective than those without. This improvement is both statistically significant and practically meaningful—in Donetsk oblast alone, where 350,000 civilians remained in Ukrainian-controlled areas during our study, a 5% increase in evacuation rates could mean 17,500 additional lives moved to safety.

Message framing makes little difference

Surprisingly, none of our carefully crafted persuasive messages performed better than a simple, standard evacuation notice. Whether we emphasized gains or losses, living conditions or military benefits, the framing made no significant difference to perceived effectiveness.

Different groups respond differently

The evacuation plan’s effect was strongest among those who had not previously evacuated, which is exactly the population authorities most need to reach. This particular segment of the population is characterized by lower financial means and, therefore, a lower likelihood of owning a car, which turned out to be a crucial factor when it comes to timely evacuations. Finally, women responded more strongly to evacuation plans than men.

Figure 2. Experimental Treatment Effects.

Source: Martinez et al. (2025)

Understanding the Psychology of War Zone Evacuations

Why do practical plans matter more than persuasive messaging? Our findings suggest that people experiencing war are far from naive about the dangers they face. Among our respondents:

  • 82% perceived real risk of death or injury from missile strikes
  • 40% had already evacuated at least once
  • 50% of those who stayed had considered evacuating

Which seems to suggest that the barrier is not understanding risk—it is knowing how to act on it. Our correlational analysis supports this interpretation: those offered transportation during the early invasion were 12-18 percentage points more likely to evacuate, while simply receiving evacuation information showed weaker effects.

Policy Recommendations

Based on our findings, we recommend that authorities and humanitarian organizations prioritize the following:

  1. Focus resources on logistics, not messaging

Instead of investing in sophisticated communication strategies, dedicate resources to organizing concrete evacuation support: transportation, clear meeting points, advance booking systems, and designated evacuation routes.

  1. Provide specific, actionable information

Every evacuation message should include: exact locations for transportation pickup, specific departure times, contact information for coordination, clear instructions for what evacuees can bring, and confirmation of free transportation.

  1. Target messages strategically

Prioritize delivering evacuation plans to those who have not previously evacuated, women who show higher responsiveness to organized evacuations, and areas where residents lack personal evacuation plans, that is most likely in the lower socio-economic status neighborhoods.

  1. Act on timing

Our research captured a relatively stable period in the conflict. During acute escalations, rapid deployment of evacuation logistics likely matters even more than message optimization.

Implications Beyond Ukraine

While our study focused on Ukraine, approximately 50 active conflicts worldwide threaten civilian populations. Our findings suggest a fundamental shift in how international organizations approach emergency evacuations: from persuasion to facilitation.

The lesson is sobering, but actionable. People facing mortal danger do not need convincing that threats are real. They need practical help escaping them. This insight should reshape how humanitarian organizations allocate resources, how militaries plan for civilian protection, and how governments prepare for crisis scenarios.

Conclusion

Effective evacuation during war is not about finding the perfect words; it is about providing clear paths to safety. Our research suggests that even simple additions of logistical information can meaningfully improve an evacuation message’s perceived effectiveness. In contexts where every percentage point of improved evacuation rates translates to lives saved, focusing on practical evacuation support over persuasive messaging represents both an evidence-based and morally imperative policy choice. For the millions of civilians who may face evacuation decisions in current and future conflicts, the message from our research is clear: authorities must move beyond telling people to leave and start showing them exactly how.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Mapping Ukrainian CSOs in the Nordic-Baltic Region: Areas of Advocacy and Common Challenges

Posted on September 29, 2025 | Policy Brief

Modern cityscape at dusk with illuminated glass tower in central Stockholm, symbolizing innovation and cooperation, related to mapping Ukrainian CSOs.

This policy brief maps Ukrainian civil society organizations (CSOs) active in the Nordic-Baltic region (NB8), based on a 2025 survey and discussions at the Nordic Ukraine Advocacy Summit. It highlights the diverse landscape of advocacy groups, ranging from long-established diaspora organizations to initiatives formed after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The analysis highlights key challenges, such as the lack of coordination mechanisms, uneven access to political platforms, and limited technical capacity. Closer cooperation with policymakers and donors would benefit both sides, utilizing CSOs’ expertise in facilitating better integration of displaced Ukrainians and improving inclusive policymaking. It is important to recognize the role of Ukrainian civil society not only as a facilitator in the immediate support efforts but also as a strategic partner in shaping Europe’s long-term peace architecture.

Introduction

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 caused a massive migration of Ukrainians settling across the EU, including the Nordic-Baltic region. This movement gave rise to a wide range of new initiatives, including advocacy, cultural diplomacy, support for integration, and humanitarian efforts. Alongside long-standing diaspora organisations, these newly formed groups quickly became vital actors mobilizing resources, amplifying Ukraine’s voice internationally, and contributing to host societies. In light of these dynamics, it is worthwhile to understand how these organizations operate and what challenges they face.

To this end, the Nordic Ukraine Forum, with the support of the Swedish Institute, conducted a Survey of Nordic-Baltic Ukrainian Civil Society Organisations 2025: Mapping Areas of Advocacy, Structures, and Common Challenges between March and May 2025 (Zubkovych et al., 2025). This study examined Ukrainian CSOs active in both the Nordic-Baltic region (NB8) and Ukraine, based on a structured survey of 17 organizations (from an initial pool of 42). Notably, the survey focused exclusively on organizations with advocacy for Ukraine as a main activity, excluding smaller initiatives dedicated primarily to humanitarian relief, such as collecting clothes or food. Additionally, the output of the survey has been supplemented by the discussions and outcomes from the Nordic Ukraine Advocacy Summit (NUAS), held in Oslo in June 2025, with 30 participating CSOs. Together, these sources provide a unique empirical overview of the role and activities of Ukrainian advocacy CSOs in the Nordic-Baltic region.

Survey Results

Areas of Advocacy

The survey covers Ukrainian advocacy organisations based in the Nordic-Baltic region, where Sweden-based organisations or initiatives made up over half of the total respondents. The survey represents both long-established diaspora organizations and newer initiatives formed in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. About one-fourth of CSOs were established before 2014 (the earliest in 1997), while the majority were founded after 2022, reflecting the urgent mobilization of diaspora communities during the war.

Surveyed CSOs represent a broad mix of leadership roles, gender, professions, languages, membership sizes, and funding models. Most remain volunteer-driven and rely on short-term or project-based funding. More detailed demographic and organizational profiles can be found in the report by Zubkovych et al., 2025. Survey results show that Ukrainian CSOs in the NB8 focus on a wide range of areas. The most common activities include advocacy for Ukraine’s military support, cultural diplomacy and education, as well as support for displaced Ukrainians and their integration (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Focus areas of Ukrainian CSOs in the Nordic-Baltic region

Source: Zubkovych et al., 2025.

Many organizations also prioritize working with media, countering disinformation, humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and advocacy for Ukraine’s EU integration, followed by legal aid, human rights, and gender issues.

Figure 2 presents the main types of activity through which Ukrainian CSOs pursue their objectives. As shown, Ukrainian CSOs perform their tasks by raising social media awareness (82%) and organizing events in support of Ukraine (82%). Other key activities include demonstrations, media outreach, and direct engagement with policymakers. These findings suggest the need to examine more closely which social media platforms are being used, especially given the increasing risks of disinformation and propaganda.

Figure 2. Types of activities of Ukrainian CSOs in the Nordic-Baltic region

Source: Zubkovych et al., 2025.

Main Challenges

At the same time, the survey reveals the main challenges that Ukrainian CSOs in the Nordic-Baltic region have been facing (Figure 3). In particular, the respondents mentioned the absence of structured coordination mechanisms, which leads to duplication of efforts and uneven visibility.

For instance, while several groups in Sweden and Norway focus on humanitarian aid, their activities often run parallel rather than in partnership. The lack of common platforms or umbrella networks reduces their collective influence and makes it more challenging to articulate shared priorities to governments and donors. Without stronger horizontal coordination, CSOs risk competing rather than complementing one another in their advocacy and support work.

Figure 3. Main challenges for Ukrainian CSOs

Source: Zubkovych et al., 2025.

Funding emerged as one of the most pressing issues in the survey. Most organizations reported reliance on short-term, project-based grants or donations. Many CSOs lack multi-year funding, which makes strategic planning and staff retention almost impossible. This precarious situation often leads to volunteer burnout and creates uncertainty about the future of their programs. Donor practices have unintentionally exacerbated this vulnerability by neglecting the long-term capacity-building needs of diaspora CSOs.

The survey further highlights significant disparities in institutional access. Larger CSOs, particularly those based in capital cities such as Stockholm, Oslo, and Helsinki, enjoy greater visibility and are more likely to receive invitations to political consultations. By contrast, smaller groups in regions often remain excluded from policy-making processes, despite being closer to affected communities. This imbalance risks creating unequal representation, where only a handful of well-resourced organizations shape public debate, while others remain invisible. Respondents from Baltic states also pointed out that while they are engaged in cultural diplomacy and integration activities, they struggle to gain recognition from national ministries or international donors. The result is a fragmented advocacy landscape, where not all voices are equally heard.

Many organizations reported gaps in technical capacity, particularly a lack of specific skills in fundraising, project management, digital communication, lobbying, and public outreach. Additionally, the survey highlighted the dual role that Ukrainian CSOs currently play outside Ukraine. On one hand, they act as advocates for Ukraine internationally, lobbying for sanctions, military aid, and continued political support. On the other hand, they provide practical integration services for displaced Ukrainians, including legal counselling, language courses, housing support, and employment assistance. While both roles are crucial, this dual identity can create tensions. For instance, CSOs in Sweden and Finland reported that resources devoted to advocacy sometimes limited their ability to address integration needs, while groups in Estonia and Latvia noted that local integration demands risk overshadowing their transnational advocacy. Without clearer strategies or additional resources, CSOs may struggle to balance these functions effectively.

Conclusion

The survey of Ukrainian CSOs in the Nordic-Baltic region, combined with insights from NUAS 2025, highlights both their urgent needs and strategic opportunities.

For CSOs, strengthening coordination mechanisms is critical to reduce duplication and amplify their collective influence. Creating cross-border advocacy platforms and thematic working groups would help CSOs to better coordinate their activities, learn from others’ experience, and articulate common priorities. In particular, smaller CSOs would benefit from learning how to adopt effective communication strategies, diversify outreach through multiple platforms, and enhance engagement with local communities and institutional stakeholders.

At the same time, CSOs should invest in internal capacity: skills training in project management, advocacy, and digital communication can improve efficiency and increase funding opportunities. Finally, CSOs should balance their dual roles, such as supporting displaced Ukrainians locally while advocating for Ukraine internationally, by dividing responsibilities and tailoring strategies to avoid role conflict.

In turn, policymakers and donors may benefit from closer cooperation with Ukrainian CSOs. As documented by Anisimova et al.  (2025), Ukrainian CSOs and civil society actors have already stepped in to fill gaps left by the public sector in the Nordic-Baltic countries. They have been facilitating labor market integration by offering mentorship, language support, and professional networks; improving access to information and bridging communication barriers between displaced people, employers, and municipalities. By recognizing and making use of Ukrainian CSOs’ experience, NB8 governments can develop more efficient mechanisms for integrating displaced populations. Furthermore, wider interaction with CSOs – including small local ones, currently underrepresented in the policy dialogue – may help coordinate with local communities and ensure inclusive policy-making processes.

Ultimately, it is important to recognize the role of Ukrainian civil society not only as a facilitator in the immediate support efforts but also as a strategic partner in shaping Europe’s long-term peace architecture.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Liberal Values in Ukraine Days Before the 2022 Invasion

Posted on September 22, 2025 | Policy Brief

Monument in Kyiv at sunrise symbolizing Ukraine liberal values of freedom, democracy, and resilience.

Just weeks before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the European Social Survey completed the 10th round of data collection on public attitudes and beliefs in Ukraine. This policy brief examines regional variation in liberal values such as attitudes toward democracy and the EU, based on that data. While respondents in Eastern Ukraine were more skeptical of democracy and EU integration, they did not consistently reject liberal social values to a greater extent than respondents in other parts of the country. The most striking divide however, lies in institutional trust, which was significantly lower in Eastern Ukraine. This suggests that trust in institutions, which may have been further negatively impacted by prolonged exposure to violence since 2014, underlie the observed regional differences in attitudes towards democracy and the EU. Understanding these differences is vital for policymakers navigating Ukraine’s reform and EU accession process.

Introduction

It has been well documented that values in post-communist countries in Eastern Europe on average, tend to be more authoritarian, more nationalistic, more in favor of state intervention in the economy, and more skeptical towards sexual and ethnic minorities and foreigners than in Western Europe (e.g., Roland 2012). Behind the averages, however, there is substantial variation in values across subgroups of populations. Even before the onset of the full-scale Russian invasion, a discussion on regional Ukrainian differences in relation to democratic values, the wish for EU integration, and similar liberal attitudes existed, both in and outside of the country.

The path towards a closer relationship with Europe and the EU started already in 2014, but since February 2022, Ukraine has politically positioned itself even closer to the EU, and an EU accession process is now underway. However, for a successful reform process in Ukraine, how public opinion is shaped and whether attitudes and values converge towards those of the EU will be important (Olofsgård et al. 2024).

With this in mind, this policy brief provides a descriptive account of public liberal values in Ukraine by analyzing data from the 10th round of the European Social Survey (ESS) conducted just weeks before the full-scale invasion on the 22nd of February 2022. Some of the differences we observe are likely long-standing and related to differences in language preferences and cultural and informational exposure from Russia and the EU, respectively. Yet, given the exposure to instability and conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine since 2014, we also discuss the role that exposure to conflict may have played in explaining several attitudinal dimensions, including satisfaction with democracy, support for liberal social values, attitudes toward Europe and EU integration, as well as levels of trust.

Data

The ESS round 10 data was collected through face-to-face interviews in Ukraine between January 18th, 2022, and February 8th, 2022. The nationally representative survey focuses on public attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and includes questions on opinions on democracy, the EU, and similar topics commonly considered to capture liberal views.

ESS Sample Characteristics

The sample consisted of more women than men (about 59 percent and 41 percent, respectively). While the Ukrainian population is well-educated, most still find it difficult (41 percent) or very difficult (32 percent) to live comfortably on their income. 11.5 percent of the sample was unemployed, while 31 percent were retired. Broken down by location, most average outcomes are similar, albeit with the East displaying somewhat lower levels of education and greater income difficulties (see Figure 1 for an illustration of what oblasts (regions) are included in each geographical unit). Unemployment was, however, substantially higher in the West (about 15 percent), while the share of retirees was lower (26 percent).

Some heterogeneity exists when it comes to belonging to a religious denomination. In the Central and South, around 63 percent state they belong to a church/mosque/synagogue, etc. The East is roughly at par with the national average (70 and 69.5 percent, respectively), while this figure is 82 percent in the Western part of the country. Similarly, there are major differences in the language one most often speaks at home. In the country as a whole, 13.4 percent stated they speak both Ukrainian and Russian at home. In the East, this figure was as high as 27.1 percent, displaying the duality in mother tongue in this part of Ukraine. The corresponding figure for the West was 3.3 percent. On the contrary, 92.4 percent marked that they most often speak only Ukrainian at home in the West, whereas this figure was only 5.2 percent in the East.

Figure 1. Geographical Classification of Ukraine’s Oblasts

Note: The map depicts the ESS coverage at the time of data collection, excluding Crimea and Sevastopol – illegally annexed by Russia since 2014.

Key Variables of Interest

To understand the views on liberal values, ESS responses to questions in the following areas have been considered:

  • I. Merits of democracy: satisfaction with the way democracy works; importance of living in a democratic country.
  • II. Liberal democratic values: agreement with statements such as “gay men and lesbians should be free to live their own lives as they wish”; attitudes towards the merits of obedience, respect for authority, and loyalty towards leaders; attitudes towards immigrants.
  • III. Opinions about Europe and the EU: support for further EU integration; emotional attachment to Europe; vote intention in a hypothetical EU referendum.

Regional Differences

There are some clear regional divides in attitudes toward democracy, liberal values, and EU integration across Ukraine in the weeks leading up to the full-scale Russian invasion. These differences are particularly pronounced between Eastern Ukraine and the Center, South, and West – though not uniformly in the same direction.

Figure 2. Attitudes toward democracy, liberal values, and EU integration across Ukraine

Source: Authors’ creation from ESS.

On democratic commitment, only 37 percent of respondents in the East considered it “extremely important” to live in a democratically governed country. This was about 16 percentage points lower than the national average. When categories were grouped into low, medium, and high importance, the East still trailed the national average by about 10 percentage points (about 67.5 and 75 percent, respectively). Similarly, satisfaction with democracy is the lowest among respondents from the East (about 6 percent compared to a national average, including the East, of 11 percent). Geographical differences are also evident in the responses to the question on whether it is acceptable for a country to have a strong leader above the law. A smaller share rejected this in the East (about 30 percent compared to the national average of 37 percent).

However, the East stood out in the other direction on some core liberal values, as depicted in Figure 2. It had the lowest share disagreeing with LGBT rights (31 percent vs. 40 percent nationally), the weakest support for teaching children obedience (17 percent), and the highest rejection of it (41 percent). Further, only 12 percent in the East agreed that “the country needs most loyalty towards its leaders,” compared to 26 percent nationally. This question could reflect one’s view on the current leadership, warranting some caution in the interpretation. On immigration, however, the East was less liberal: only 19 percent saw immigrants as having a positive impact, versus about 30 percent nationally.

The sharpest regional divide between the East and other regions concerns attitudes toward Europe and EU membership. In a hypothetical referendum, 73 percent of respondents in the East said they would vote to remain outside of the EU, compared to 47 percent in the South, 23 percent in the Central, and just 11 percent in the West. Support for further European unification was also substantially lower in the East, with only about 17 percent in favor of further unification, as compared to the almost 50 percent national average. Similarly, emotional attachment to Europe is substantially lower among respondents from the East, with nearly all respondents stating low or medium attachment only – figures that nearly invert those of respondents from the West of Ukraine.

The Role of Trust

Turning to the measures of trust, the East clearly stands out. Trust in the parliament, the police, political parties, politicians, and the legal system was substantially lower among respondents from the East (in the ranges of 5 to 15 percentage points more respondents answered they had a low level of trust in said institutions than the national average). When asked about trust in the United Nations, the East also stood out with more than 50 percent stating low trust compared to the national average of about 37. The same pattern holds also when asked about the European Parliament – 73 percent compared to the national average of about 44 percent – stated low trust. Respondents from the South also displayed lower levels of trust across all measures, but the deviations from the average are about half as big as the East.

When asked whether people can generally be trusted, or one can’t be too careful, the East did not stand out in this way, underpinning how distrust is strongly directed toward institutions, both national and international.

Conflict Exposure

Figure 3 details the conflict intensity in the last two years leading up to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As can be seen, incidents of violence are concentrated in the Donbass area, including the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. While not marked by similar levels of active conflict, Kharkiv oblast – also part of the East classification – borders areas with high levels of conflict intensity in the Donbass, as well as Russia in the east.

Figure 3. Conflict intensity in Ukraine, by raion

2020

 

2021

Source: Authors’ creation from Armed Conflict and Location Data.

It should be noted that the map also depicts strategic deployments and political unrest, such as demonstrations, explaining the prevalence of “conflict” also in a few other places in Ukraine prior to February 2022. The occurrences of such incidents are, however, far less than those in Luhansk oblast and Donetsk oblast at the time. An important piece of information is that the intensity pattern holds for the time Armed Conflict and Location Data for Ukraine has been available (2018), i.e. individuals situated in the East have been exposed to incidences of violence over a prolonged period of time.

This raises the question whether this exposure to violence may have contributed to increased differences in trust in institutions and support for democracy and the EU beyond what was already there before 2014. The most immediate effect probably comes from selective migration, i.e., that individuals who remain in the eastern regions in early 2022 despite the violence since 2014 may be those who, on average, are more skeptical of the Ukrainian government and its tilt away from the authoritarian Russia and towards the EU. But previous literature and recent studies on Ukraine suggest that there may also be a direct effect coming from exposure to violence on an individual’s attitudes. This relationship has recently been mapped by Obrizan (2025). A key finding is that military solutions are preferred in the segment of the population that has experienced hardship and personal losses since the full-scale invasion in 2022.

More generally, any kind of trust – including the interpersonal one – can be affected by exposure to conflict. The relationship is complicated, and in some instances, violence can cause more pro-social attitudes and behavior. An important distinction, however, is that exposure to violence amplifies the distinctions in attitudes and behavior towards members of in- and out-groups (Olofsgård, 2025). This suggests that conflict may have further increased the differences between the East of Ukraine and the rest of the country, if many residents in the former perceive national and western institutions as being dominated by groups they do not feel strong attachments to.

Further, terror management theory (e.g., Landau et al. 2004) suggests that fear induces support for charismatic and strong leadership. In a context where liberal democracy is not everywhere well enough entrenched, this may tilt over into support for more authoritarian leadership in response to attacks triggering stronger emotions of fear. Furthermore, work by Feldman and Stenner (1997) shows that the impact of perceived societal threat on triggering stronger authoritarian preferences can depend on authoritarian predispositions. The latter is measured by, e.g., looking at attitudes towards child rearing and emphasis on obedience. In the context of the finding above, this would imply that the impact of violence on authoritarian preferences would be weaker in the eastern parts of Ukraine, compared to the rest of the country, a potentially interesting avenue for future research.

Conclusions

The findings in this policy brief nuance simple narratives about regional divides in Ukraine. While dissatisfaction with democracy and skepticism toward the EU are more common in the East, this does not necessarily correspond to a general rejection of liberal social values. In some cases — such as attitudes toward child-rearing, authority, and LGBT rights — respondents from the East even express more liberal views than elsewhere.

Not explicitly discussed in the brief is the topic of mother tongue. The data shows that Russian speakers are less emotionally attached to Europe and less supportive of EU integration. Yet, there is no consistent evidence that Russian speakers are less committed to liberal democratic values overall. The effect of language is difficult to disentangle from geography, particularly given the concentration of Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine.

What does stand out more clearly is that trust and the general view on institutions are substantially lower and more negative in the East. Respondents from the East consistently report lower trust in national and international political institutions. Interestingly, this pattern does not extend to generalized social trust — the East does not differ markedly from the rest of the country. This contrast suggests a more focused skepticism directed at formal institutions, rather than widespread social distrust. One possible explanation, as discussed in Olofsgård (2025), is that when exposed to conflict and violence, interpersonal trust may reflect confidence in one’s in-group, while institutional trust hinges on feeling represented within the broader political system. If respondents from the East perceive themselves as excluded from the national or European in-group, this could explain their lower levels of trust in both domestic and international institutions, and exposure to violence may have further amplified this. While signs of such alienation appear in the data, one should refrain from drawing too strong conclusions from this alone. Another possible explanation is that prolonged exposure to violence has eroded confidence in the government’s ability to protect citizens, and in the effectiveness of EU support, which would turn support away from the EU option preferred by the current government.  Future research on the effects of war exposure should more carefully disentangle the various aspects and forms of trust and how they relate to liberal values in Ukraine. Rebuilding institutional trust remains a key challenge. In this context, instilling peace and decentralizing political power may be essential for increasing trust in the Eastern part of the country, if that helps residents in the East to identify with public institutions. As Ukraine advances on its path toward EU membership, fostering a shared sense of national belonging will be critical in overcoming the narrative of an East–West divide when rebuilding the country.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

The Case for Seizing Russian State Assets

Posted on June 18, 2025 | Policy Brief

Facade of the Central Bank of Russia with Russian flag, symbolizing the debate around seizing Russian state assets to support Ukraine.

This brief examines the legal and economic arguments in the ongoing debate over whether to confiscate Russian state assets frozen in Western democracies and redirect them toward supporting Ukraine’s resilience and reconstruction. It also outlines concrete proposals for how such a measure could be undertaken in compliance with international law and with manageable economic consequences.

At the outset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, substantial Russian state assets held in Western countries were frozen. While not all countries have disclosed precise figures, estimates place the total between $290–330 billion, most of it held within European jurisdictions. These numbers can be put in perspective to the total global support to Ukraine so far, €267 billion according to the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker. A lively discussion has emerged around the legal, economic, and political feasibility of seizing these assets to support Ukraine. As evident, this would constitute a very substantial addition to the support for the country. Thus far, agreement has only been reached on utilizing the returns on the assets to service a $50 billion loan to Ukraine under the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) mechanism. It has been argued that $50 billion should be enough, but Western contributions to the defence of Ukraine have been around €80 billion per year. The ERA is thus only a partial and very short-term financial solution for Ukraine, while a €300 billion fund based on the seizure of the assets would last perhaps 3-5 years. In short, the size of the fund matter and the principal amount is significantly larger than the fund that has been set up based solely on taxing the returns of the frozen assets.

This brief survey’s the main areas of contention and proposes viable pathways forward. It focuses on the legal and economic dimensions, setting aside moral arguments—which are broadly accepted given Russia’s unprovoked aggression and the destruction it has caused. Ultimately, the question is a political one: whether the legal justification and economic trade-offs favour asset seizure over other financing methods.

The Legal Arguments

Opposition to seizure often cites the principle of sovereign immunity. Yet, international law permits exceptions through countermeasures—acts that would otherwise be unlawful but are allowed in response to grave violations by another state. Additionally, asset confiscation may be lawful when enforcing international judgments (other possible legal avenues are for instance explored in Webb (2024), though in the end deemed as less likely to gain traction and legal approval). In both cases, the goal is to induce compliance with international obligations and secure reparations. A further legal basis lies in the doctrine of collective self-defense, which permits states not directly attacked to aid those that are, in response to unlawful aggression (Vlasyuk, 2024).

Critics often note that countermeasures should be temporary and reversible. However, as Vlasyuk (2024) points out, international law qualifies reversibility as being required only “as far as possible.” This implies that in cases of severe violations—where reversible countermeasures have failed—non-reversible actions may be justified. One proposed mechanism ties the frozen assets to future war reparations, allowing permanent transfers only if Russia refuses to comply with a future reparations ruling. Since reparation should go to the victim of Russia’s aggression, it also means that it is Ukraine that has the ultimate claim on the frozen Russian assets. This implies that any decision of confiscation and governance structure for transferring funds to Ukraine should be made with the consent of Ukraine. Put differently; even if the money is in Western financial institutions, there are good reasons to make sure the resources are used according to Ukrainian preferences.

The Economic Arguments

The principal economic concerns surrounding asset seizure are its potential impact on confidence in European capital markets, including risks of capital flight, increased interest rates, and diminished credibility of the euro. There are also fears of reciprocal actions by Russia against remaining Western investments.

These concerns, however, are increasingly overstated. The major shock to financial markets occurred when the assets were first frozen; any anticipated impact should now be fully priced in. Moreover, a viable reserve currency must be supported by convertibility, sound economic governance, and rule of law—features absent in countries like China, Gulf states, or most other emerging economies. The yen and Swiss franc lack either scale or stability. Despite previous sanctions and the 2022 asset freeze, the dollar and euro still account for around 80 percent of global foreign exchange reserves (The International Working Group on Russian Sanctions, 2023). Given the current crisis of confidence in U.S. fiscal governance, the euro remains especially robust.

The extraordinary nature of the situation also diminishes fears of setting a destabilizing precedent. Investors alarmed by this measure may not be long-term assets to Western markets but rather criminal states or individuals that should not be protected by the West’s financial and legal systems. More broadly, it signals to authoritarian regimes that aggressive actions will carry financial consequences. Western firms still operating in Russia have had ample time to disinvest, and those that remain should not constrain public policy.

Importantly, the costs of inaction must be considered. Financing Ukraine through increased public borrowing could raise interest rates across the eurozone and widen yield spreads between fiscally stronger and weaker member states. Seizing Russian assets, by contrast, may be economically safer, more equitable, and legally sound (International Working Group on Russian Sanctions, 2023).

Suggested Approaches

Several proposals aim to facilitate asset transfer in ways consistent with international law and economic stability.

Zelikow (2025) proposes the establishment of a trust fund to lawfully assume custody of frozen assets. This fund—grounded in the legal doctrine of countermeasures—would not represent outright confiscation but a conditional hold. Assets would remain Russia’s property until disbursed to victims of its aggression. A board of trustees would oversee disbursements—for example, servicing ERA loans or financing reconstruction. In this proposal, the fund would broadly define “victims” to include Ukraine and neighbouring states that have borne costs, such as accommodating refugees. This can perhaps help build political support among Western countries for the trust fund, but it has the obvious drawback that it may imply less support to Ukraine. Zelikow (2025) argues that institutions like the Bank of England or World Bank could manage the fund, given past experience with similar arrangements, potentially issuing bonds backed by the assets to accelerate support.

Vlasyuk (2024) proposes a multilateral treaty among coalition states recognizing Russia’s grave breaches of international law. This would provide a unified legal basis for transferring central bank assets to Ukraine via a compensation fund. National legislation would follow—similar to the U.S. REPO Act—tailored narrowly to address such violations. These laws should include safeguards, such as provisions to suspend asset seizure if hostilities end and reparations are paid.

Dixon et al. (2024) propose a “reparation loan” backed by Ukraine’s reparations claims. The EU or G7 would lend to Ukraine, using these claims as collateral. If Russia fails to pay after a ruling by a UN-backed claims commission, the frozen assets could be seized. This approach aligns well with the requirement for reversibility in countermeasures and may also reassure financial markets.

Conclusions

In summary, compelling legal arguments support the transfer or confiscation of Russian state assets under international law. Meanwhile, fears of damaging economic consequences appear increasingly unfounded. Any meaningful support for Ukraine—whether through asset seizure or public borrowing—will carry financial implications. However, using Russian rather than Western taxpayer resources is both morally and politically compelling.

What is now needed is coordinated political will and a practical, legally sound mechanism to operationalize asset transfers. With sound governance, such a step would not only finance Ukraine’s recovery but reinforce the international legal order and deter future aggression. An arrangement that makes sure all resources go to Ukraine—and not toward covering losses incurred by supporting Western countries—should be prioritized.

References

  • Dixon, H., Buchheit, L. C., & Singh, D. (2024). Ukrainian reparation loan: How it would work. The International Working Group on Russian Sanctions.
  • The International Working Group on Russian Sanctions. (2023). Working Group paper #15. Stanford University.
  • Vlasyuk, A. (2024). Legal report on confiscation of Russian state assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine. KSE Institute.
  • Webb, P. (2024). Legal options for confiscation of Russian state assets to support the reconstruction of Ukraine. European Parliament.
  • Zelikow, P. (2025). A fresh look at the Russian assets: A proposal for international resolution of sanctioned accounts (Hoover Institution Essay). Hoover Institution Press.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.