Social Cohesion in Ukrainian Society: challenges and barriers for vulnerable groups

Methodology

The report presents the findings of the qualitative study about the strengthening of social cohesion and the engagement into social life of five key groups of Ukrainian society who presently are facing social exclusion the most. These groups are the Ukrainian people staying abroad, internally displaced persons, veterans and their families, people with disabilities, and the Russian-speaking Ukrainians. To compare the status of these groups with the overall situation in society, a reference group was also included, which allowed for a clearer understanding of the inclusion levels of each group.

The first part of the qualitative research was conducting interviews with representatives of the expert community. To collect expert assessments, the team of analysts from the OPORA Civil Network conducted 19 in-depth interviews with specialists working with the above-mentioned groups. These interviews, which took place from March 23 to April 11, 2025, helped to detail methodological recommendations for further focus groups, as well as identify systemic barriers to the participation of each group in public life and propose recommendations for overcoming them.

The second part of the qualitative research involved 18 focus group discussions that took place between April 11 and April 17, 2025. The participants in these groups were direct carriers of the experience and helped to crystallize and make more concrete the key barriers to active participation in social and political life. At this stage, respondents also provided suggestions on how to reduce the impact of barriers and promote greater social inclusion of their respective groups.

All stages of the research, such as developing the methodology, interview and focus group guidelines, coding the results, drafting the report, and formulating recommendations based on the analysis, were carried out by analysts from the OPORA Civil Network.

UKRAINIANS ABROAD

Social Exclusion of a Group

Assessment of the Group’s Social Exclusion

Researchers who study the problems and challenges faced by Ukrainians abroad generally agree that this category of people has been excluded from the social and political life of Ukraine. Most experts agree that after leaving Ukraine, Ukrainians often find themselves isolated from Ukrainian society. Usually, they either maintain ties only with their fellow citizens abroad or gradually integrate into the local community, establishing communication with residents of the host country.

At the same time, experts point to several key scenarios for Ukrainians after the relocation. The first scenario is about almost complete isolation, when people limit their communication to their family circle. Experts describe them as being in a kind of "frozen state" that is difficult to escape from. They usually do not attend events or meetings organized by Ukrainian communities abroad. Experts estimate that the share of such Ukrainians is about 20% to 25%. Some researchers emphasize that representatives of the older generation most often find themselves in a state of social isolation. This is due to both age restrictions and low mobility or living in remote locations.

The second scenario also involves certain isolation, but in a somewhat wider social circle of acquaintances from before the move or those whom the person met abroad, including local residents. According to experts, these people "live, work, and communicate with a small circle of fellow Ukrainians, have some contacts, but live to provide for their lives here and now, and are not interested in what is happening around them." According to experts, the share of such people is approximately 60%.

The third scenario involves active participation in social and political life, openness to communication with Ukrainian and local communities in the country of residence, as well as with the community in Ukraine. The share of active Ukrainians abroad, according to experts, is in the range of 15% to 20%.

Many Ukrainians abroad try to maintain ties with Ukraine, mostly through communication with family and friends back home. Keeping in touch with Ukraine largely depends on personal motivation. Experts determine that they have not recorded any cases where the initiative to keep in touch by Ukrainians abroad was rejected by their circle in Ukraine.

Some experts say that, along with the exclusion of Ukrainians abroad from socio-political life in Ukraine, they are seeing an increase in cohesion and interest in the work of Ukrainian organizations within the host countries. In particular, they emphasize that many Ukrainian citizens participate in events organized by Ukrainian organizations abroad and establish ties with Ukrainians who have been living in these countries for a long time.

The key reason for exclusion, according to experts, is the distance and difference in experience between those who stayed in Ukraine and those who left. Ukrainians abroad are more likely to communicate with those who have experienced similar challenges and problems. This difference in experience also results in a disengagement from the Ukrainian information and social agenda. According to experts, Ukrainians abroad are increasingly focusing on everyday issues, such as work, children, adaptation, and give less attention to events in Ukraine. This statement has been confirmed by the participants of the focus groups. According to them, Ukrainians who stayed in Ukraine often do not understand the difficulties their fellow citizens abroad are facing, which contributes to the prejudices and stereotypes.

Often, this misunderstanding is mutual: focus group participants say that they themselves often find it difficult to understand the situation, experiences, and daily lives of their fellow citizens living and working in Ukraine under recurrent Russian shelling. Some experts also emphasized that when talking to relatives and friends who stayed in Ukraine, Ukrainians abroad often avoid “potentially polarizing topics (the ceasefire, elections, Biden, Trump, etc.).” Instead, they choose “safer topics for conversation: everyday life, health, and lifestyle.” Explaining how the feeling of exclusion from life in Ukraine is shaped, focus group respondents mainly referred to personal experiences of rude or disrespectful treatment by their compatriots or even in their contacts with central or local authorities. 

According to the expert community, in the interaction between Ukrainians abroad and those who stayed in Ukraine, there is a growing difference in views and perceptions of socially important topics. In particular, experts found differences in attitudes toward mobilization, foreign aid, etc. They emphasize that returning to Ukraine should be a gradual process that involves not only physical return but also careful entry into the context and experiences of society, with an understanding of its needs, tensions and expectations.

The issue of mental health is closely related to the problem of inclusion. Many participants in the focus groups said that after the full-scale invasion, they experienced depressive disorders, increased anxiety, and emotional exhaustion. For some, the deterioration of their psychological state was one of the main reasons for leaving the country. Respondents also shared that it is especially difficult to experience the loss of loved ones in Ukraine without being able to say goodbye to them in person or be with them in difficult moments, which only increases the feeling of pain, guilt, and distance from home.

Experts also found that a certain "peak" in the activity of Ukrainians abroad has probably been reached: those who see their future in Ukraine and want to get involved in socio-political life have already done so. In addition, a significant share of IDPs had low civic skills before moving, so they do not realize the impact of socio-political processes on their lives even after moving.

The policy of the host country also plays a significant role in facilitating or hindering social inclusion. For example, Lithuania creates a favorable environment for Ukrainians to engage in public life due to the availability of an appropriate legislative framework and a focus on creating opportunities for self-fulfillment. In contrast, in the northern European countries, in particular Norway, a social support model prevails, which, according to experts, is less likely to encourage Ukrainians to actively participate in social and political life.

Unlike the experts, when assessing their own experience of social exclusion, focus group participants much more often emphasized the lack of full inclusion in the life of the host country rather than the break with Ukrainian society. Some respondents said they keep staying in the information field of Ukraine al the time, which makes it difficult for them to "switch" to life in the host country. They feel excluded from the life of the host society. At the same time, they are far away enough from Ukraine to feel fully included in its social and political life.

Speaking about the consequences of social exclusion, experts emphasize that in the short term, the isolation and separation of Ukrainians abroad from the social and political life of Ukraine will lead to the fact that they will rely less and less on the help of Ukrainian state institutions and NGOs. Instead, they will seek help from international organizations or organizations from other countries. In particular, experts refer to cases where Ukrainians in Germany seek humanitarian assistance from Russian organizations.

When it comes to the long-term consequences of the social exclusion of Ukrainians abroad, experts emphasize deprivation and demotivation of people to return to Ukraine. According to experts, with no active effort from the Ukrainian state, over time, Ukrainians abroad will be increasingly losing touch with Ukraine and eventually assimilate into the societies of their host countries.

According to experts, counteracting the social exclusion of Ukrainians abroad should take place both at the individual level and at the level of the government, and Ukrainian organizations working with communities in other countries. In the context of personal counteraction to exclusion, experts say that Ukrainians who want to maintain ties with Ukraine and participate in social and political life are looking for opportunities to get involved on their own, following the activities of civic initiatives and joining them. According to experts, such people remain on the Ukrainian agenda. Finally, the experts emphasize that measures to counteract the social exclusion of Ukrainians abroad should be implemented with the involvement of active local communities, such as Ukrainian organizations and associations that already work with the diaspora.

Bias Against the Group

When describing a bias against Ukrainians abroad, experts most often mentioned the idea that the relocees allegedly betrayed their country because they left in the most difficult times, despite all the circumstances that forced them to seek refuge abroad (such as the occupation of their hometown or village or significant deterioration in health due to stress).

Another widespread bias against Ukrainians abroad that experts point out is the underestimation of their contribution to the common cause, including the stereotype that Ukrainians abroad lead an easy life and do not contribute to supporting Ukraine.

Such statements in public space and in personal communication devaluate financial and advocacy support abroad, volunteering, organizing various support events, and many other ways of supporting the country from a distance, which contributes to a sense of deprivation and social exclusion, and makes people feel unwanted. This has been confirmed by respondents during the focus groups. Therefore, experts emphasize the need for wider information about diaspora support in the Ukrainian media.

In addition, female focus group participants who have a partner in Ukraine have faced accusations that they have divided their families by their decision to leave. Male IDPs are generally more skeptical because of doubts about the legality of their border crossing. Some respondents also emphasized a more prejudiced attitude towards those who left from supposedly "safer" places – in fact, from any town or village in Ukraine, except for the frontline or occupied territories. 

At the same time, bias can also be seen within the community of Ukrainians staying out of the country. Some respondents said they feel judged or devalued by other Ukrainians living in different countries. In particular, due to the perception that it is easier to settle in another country, better living conditions or higher social benefits. In addition, the respondents talked about cases when they faced prejudice from the so-called "old diaspora," i.e., Ukrainians who had left for other countries before the full-scale invasion. At the same time, they also mention the prejudiced attitude of the local population, in particular employers (probably due to previous experience with migrants from Eastern Europe).

Focus group participants suggested that the reasons for this prejudice could be in the lack of personal experience of relocation, and hence the devaluation of any difficulties associated with relocation due to a lack of understanding of the process. Some also mentioned possible envy due to better living conditions, as well as the fact that due to their physical distance from the hostilities, they can more objectively assess the socio-political situation, unlike their compatriots in Ukraine, which also provokes misunderstandings and deteriorating attitudes. Some participants suggested that the interference of the external information, such as the influence of Russian propaganda on the Ukrainian media space, could also be a source of bias.

Experts also emphasize that the consequence of such prejudice and stigmatization is that Ukrainians abroad have fears about whether they would be able to integrate into Ukrainian social life upon their return to Ukraine. Some experts expect that Ukrainians abroad will face prejudice and barriers to receiving services, even in public institutions.

At the same time, some experts said that they had not encountered any prejudice or stigmatization of Ukrainians who stayed in Ukraine against their fellow citizens living abroad.

Speaking about ways to overcome prejudice, focus group participants voiced a request to encourage dialogue between different groups of Ukrainian society. Respondents believe that frank communication and exchange of experiences will help to form a more realistic view of the challenges and opportunities of life on both sides of the Ukrainian border, which, in turn, will allow people to make more informed decisions about returning to Ukraine or emigrating.

Another way to overcome bias, suggested by respondents, is to run awareness campaigns, both large-scale activities initiated by the government and NGOs, and on an individual level. In particular, Ukrainians abroad suggested that the state should change its information policy towards its citizens outside the country, with a focus on highlighting the reasons for their departure, their proactive position and support for Ukraine. Some participants also suggested smaller-scale initiatives, such as the creation of books depicting the lives of Ukrainians abroad. Some respondents additionally emphasized the importance of information hygiene as a tool to counteract prejudice.

Engagement of Ukrainians Abroad With Other People

Both experts and focus group participants said that prejudice and stereotypes are most noticeable during everyday interactions between Ukrainians abroad and other people, representatives of host communities, government agencies, or even other Ukrainians. Such seemingly routine contacts often become a source of tension, misunderstanding or stigmatization, which increases the sense of social exclusion among Ukrainians abroad.

Barriers to Economic Participation

According to the expert community, the key economic barrier for Ukrainians abroad is employment. Experts say that most Ukrainians who have gone abroad cannot find a job that matches their qualifications and provides decent pay. They also talk about a loss of professional identity and a certain self-identity crisis, as very few people who used to have a business or a highly skilled and well-paid job in Ukraine can find a job of the same level abroad.

Some of the main reasons that complicate the employment of Ukrainians in host countries are the language barrier, lack of letters of recommendation, difficulties with nostrification of Ukrainian diplomas, and other bureaucratic obstacles. Focus group respondents said that, regardless of their qualifications and experience in Ukraine, they had to accept the lowest-paid jobs, such as cleaning, mainly because of the language barrier. In addition, in some countries, employment can lead to the loss of social benefits, which, combined with the low wages for most available jobs, makes employment economically unprofitable.

Focus group respondents also added that even if there is work for them available, employers often agree to hire migrants for only 0.5 or 0.75 of a full-time job, which is not enough to ensure a decent living standards. Because of local legislation and often because of their own beliefs, employers prefer to hire local people, especially in small towns or villages where jobs are generally scarce. Single mothers and fathers face particular difficulties: due to strict legal requirements for childcare, they are unable to go to work.

According to experts, the situation preconditions low living standards for most Ukrainians abroad; they live on their savings, and are demotivated because they realize that they will likely not be able to "create the same social capital, [social] elevator and earn money." Focus group participants said that the inability to actualize their professional capacity or find any work makes them feel economically vulnerable and uncertain about the future.

Some experts also say that those who did find work eventually felt like the "middle class," where salaries can cover basic needs and allow for travel and development, unlike they used to have in Ukraine.

Some respondents try to seek for alternative ways to find employment, including starting their own businesses. However, most of them face a number of obstacles: starting a business requires initial investment, which Ukrainians abroad usually do not have. In addition, in a number of European countries, starting a business is complicated by bureaucratic requirements and restrictions related to the legal status of temporary protection. Some respondents also considered the possibility of remote work in Ukrainian companies but said that "not all managers of enterprises or organizations in Ukraine support people working remotely."

In addition to the existing barriers to employment in host countries, experts also mention potential difficulties with employment for Ukrainians returning from abroad to Ukraine. They emphasize that many businesses that used to operate before the full-scale invasion had to cease operations due to the occupation or the destruction of infrastructure, which limits employment opportunities in Ukraine. Given the lack of savings among most Ukrainians living abroad, as well as the fear of starting their own business, experts predict a low standard of living for these people even after they return to Ukraine.

Another economic barrier some experts mentioned is dependence on social benefits. According to experts, for many Ukrainians abroad, social benefits and housing are still the necessary financial foundation that allows them to at least partially cover their basic needs. These are often people who have left the occupied territories and do not have their own property to return to in Ukraine. Other experts emphasize that such a critical situation exists only in some European countries (including Norway, Denmark, and Germany), while in most other countries Ukrainians are mostly financially self-sufficient.

Among other economic barriers, the expert community also mentioned housing problems that Ukrainians face abroad. According to the interviewed experts, in some countries, Ukrainians find it difficult to find rental housing, as its cost can reach 60% of their income. However, the experts also noted another challenge: the lack of housing in Ukraine for those Ukrainians abroad who want to return.

Focus group participants also reported difficulties with housing. In particular, respondents said that housing provided free of charge by local communities is often of poor quality or involves living with strangers from different countries. In addition, some respondents reported a lack of security and stability in housing. For example, in a number of cases in Germany, Ukrainians can live in refugee homes only until they are employed; after that, they are obliged to rent their own housing, spending most of their earnings on it. Some respondents also experienced sudden eviction due to the termination of funding from local authorities.

Economic activity is also an important way to stay connected to Ukraine. According to experts, many Ukrainians abroad deliberately continue to work remotely in Ukraine for this very purpose. However, the biggest obstacle to full participation in Ukraine's economic life is restrictions that lead to double taxation. According to the experts, this situation demotivates Ukrainians abroad to engage in economic activities in Ukraine, or forces them to look for alternative ways to resolve the tax situation.

At the same time, experts also mention that many Ukrainians who went abroad because of the full-scale invasion were unemployed (children, pensioners, etc.). As of now, there are no tools for them to stay in the economic life of Ukraine, except for charitable transfers for the needs of vulnerable groups or the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Barriers to Political Participation

Barriers to the participation of Ukrainians abroad in the political life of Ukraine was a topic that was mostly raised by experts, while focus group participants did not actually mention this aspect during the discussions. This may indicate that political participation is perceived as less accessible or less relevant to the daily lives of Ukrainian citizens abroad. In addition, the actual absence of mechanisms to influence Ukraine's political processes from abroad, as well as insufficient awareness of possible instruments of participation, may reduce motivation for political activity.

Expert Interviews

One of the most frequently mentioned barriers to political participation by experts is the practical impossibility for most Ukrainians abroad to participate in elections in Ukraine. First of all, this refers to restrictions on active political participation, in particular, the inability to run for office due to the residency requirement. Experts emphasize that some displaced persons abroad have gained experience in systematic volunteer work, international advocacy, and other activities, so they may have political ambitions in Ukraine that they cannot realize because of this restriction. Experts view the current restrictions on active suffrage for Ukrainians abroad as discriminatory.

In addition, experts point to limitations in the passive political participation of Ukrainians abroad, i.e., the ability to vote in elections. According to them, the current electoral infrastructure outside of Ukraine is not ready to ensure the participation of a large number of citizens in the electoral process. Some respondents emphasize that even before the full-scale invasion, some polling stations in embassies could not cope with the large number of voters. At the same time, alternative voting formats, including online voting, are mostly criticized by experts at due to the low level of trust in technical support and possible risks to the transparency and security of the electoral process. The experts also emphasize that the election process also involves a number of preparatory measures, including updating the voter lists, ensuring the possibility of changing the electoral address, and an information campaign about the voting process outside Ukraine.

In addition to the limited access to the electoral process, experts also talk about the existence of barriers that complicate the participation of Ukrainians abroad in civic activity in Ukraine. In particular, we can see that Ukrainians who have left the country are currently effectively deprived of the opportunity to participate in political life at the local level in their home communities. Ways for Ukrainians abroad to engage in civic activity remain extremely limited: volunteering, financial support for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and participation in rallies in their host countries.

Some experts express concern about the potential for civic engagement of Ukrainians returning from abroad: in their opinion, civic participation in Ukraine remains limited due to the authorities' lack of openness to interaction with society and insufficient attention to public demands. Experts emphasize that Ukrainians returning from abroad may not have relevant civic participation skills because they did not have the need or opportunity to engage in social and political life while abroad.

At the same time, experts recognize that Ukrainians abroad often have a fragmented or distorted view of the real state of affairs in the country. An additional factor is the lack of active political life in the public space of Ukraine, which creates the impression of political uniformity and the absence of opposition. According to experts, this detachment from the Ukrainian context is another barrier to the participation of Ukrainians abroad in Ukrainian political life.

Barriers to Participation in Social Life

Similarly to political participation, the topic of barriers to the involvement of Ukrainians abroad in social life (both in Ukraine and in host countries) was mostly raised by experts. Focus group participants rarely focused on this aspect, which, as in the case of political participation, may indicate that this topic is inaccessible or secondary in terms of adaptation to the new environment.

Speaking about the barriers to the full engagement of Ukrainians abroad in the social life of Ukraine, experts emphasized that, unlike political participation, social activity is significantly complicated by physical distance. People are unable to participate in events, activities, or initiatives that take place directly in Ukraine and are often limited to financial support from abroad. At the same time, experts point out that there is also a certain misunderstanding within the community of Ukrainians abroad about what exactly is considered social participation. In particular, it is not always clear whether it is passive consumption of content, such as listening to Ukrainian intellectuals, or participation in online projects, or volunteering in the host country in favor of Ukraine, or other forms of interaction. Due to the lack of a clear understanding of possible forms of engagement, many Ukrainians abroad may feel unsure about their involvement in Ukrainian social life.

Another barrier to the participation of Ukrainians abroad in Ukrainian public life that experts often pointed to is the loss of social capital. According to them, many of those who left Ukraine had well-established networks of contacts, social recognition, and a sense of belonging within Ukrainian society. After moving abroad, these social resources are often reset to zero: people find themselves in a new environment without connections, without speaking the language, and with a limited understanding of their rights. As a result, according to experts, Ukrainians abroad may lose their sense of identity and agency, which depresses and reduces their motivation to participate in any social processes, both in the host country and in Ukraine.

Experts also mentioned other factors that may hinder the active participation of Ukrainians abroad in social life. In the context of interaction with Ukrainian society, one of these barriers is the fear of conflict: according to experts, Ukrainians abroad, like those who stayed in Ukraine, seek to maintain acceptance by others and therefore often avoid raising potentially conflictogenic topics in public space - even if these topics are important for public discussion. In the context of participation in the social life of the host country, experts pointed to barriers related to cultural differences.

At the same time, experts also pointed to the emergence of a language barrier not only in the host country but also in Ukraine, mainly for children. Children who stay abroad for a long time gradually lose their Ukrainian language skills due to the lack of a Ukrainian-speaking environment. A related problem that arises, among other things, from the lack of Ukrainian language practice is the blurring of identity, especially among young people who are more likely to assimilate in the host country.

According to the experts, problems in close relationships, particularly in the family, are also a big challenge for the Ukrainian community abroad. Experts emphasize that a long period of living at a distance leads to the breakdown of family relationships and a large number of divorces.

Experts also drew attention to the formats of participation in the social life of Ukraine that are already available to Ukrainians abroad. In particular, they talked about the activities of numerous civil society organizations in different European countries, both representatives of the so-called "old diaspora" and newly created initiatives that emerged after the full-scale invasion began. According to experts, these organizations work not only with current requests but also try to prevent future challenges. Experts also mentioned opportunities for volunteering and participating in rallies in support of Ukraine, which help to increase the visibility of the Ukrainian community abroad. At the same time, many experts say that over the past year and a half, the number of Ukrainians participating in these events has significantly decreased.

Media Coverage of Ukrainians Abroad

Speaking about the coverage of Ukrainians abroad in the Ukrainian information space, experts mostly agreed that this topic is currently virtually ignored by Ukrainian media. Both traditional media and influential bloggers hardly ever address the topic of Ukrainians living abroad and do not cover the problems Ukrainians face abroad. Among the few references in the media, two types of stories prevail: either stories about the extraordinary achievements of Ukrainians abroad or, conversely, tragic incidents (e.g., violence). This approach is one-sided and does not reflect the full experience of Ukrainian emigration.

At the same time, some experts highlight positive changes in the coverage of Ukrainians abroad. In particular, experts report cases of systematic cooperation between Ukrainian journalists and representatives of Ukrainian NGOs abroad. Such cooperation, in particular, concerns the coverage of large-scale events, actions and initiatives aimed at supporting Ukraine.

There is a demand among Ukrainians abroad for wider and more systematic coverage of their lives by Ukrainian media. It is especially important to showcase the activities of local Ukrainian organizations that organize meetings and events in support of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In addition, emphasized the need to tell the stories of Ukrainians who have succeeded abroad while maintaining close ties with Ukraine, which, according to experts, will support and motivate Ukrainians abroad.

Experts generally speak of significant difficulties with access to objective and high-quality information among Ukrainians both in Ukraine and abroad. In particular, the National Telethon was criticized, as it is rarely watched abroad due to distrust of this platform. Instead, most members of the diaspora rely on independent media or Telegram channels as their main source of news. This increases the risk of exposure to disinformation, emotional manipulation, and conspiracy theories because of the much lower diversity of information sources than among Ukrainians in Ukraine.

The Idea of Cohesive Society

Describing the experiences of Ukrainians abroad, experts talked about uniting around addressing common problems by organizing around Ukrainian communities or volunteer communities. At the same time, not everyone has a desire to unite and be active. In fact, only some Ukrainians who found themselves abroad were able to rethink their role in society and find new ways to engage in public life. In some cases, abrupt changes in life circumstances and relocation gave triggers for personal change: people felt the need to make up for the experience they could not fulfil in Ukraine and became involved in volunteer or community-building activities.

Experts also share the experience of their own projects aimed, among other things, at strengthening social cohesion between Ukrainians abroad and Ukrainians in Ukraine. For example, representatives of the expert community cite examples of retreats organized by Ukrainians abroad for vulnerable groups, including women from frontline areas or military widows.

When describing what a truly cohesive society looks like, focus group respondents mostly referred to the first months of the full-scale invasion. At that time, Ukrainians showed an unprecedented level of unity, when strangers helped each other, jointly organized logistics, humanitarian support, and information campaigns. However, over time, the sense of cohesion gradually decreased due to adaptation to new conditions, growing domestic challenges, etc.

Focus group participants emphasize that Ukrainian communities abroad demonstrate a high level of solidarity and unity. In particular, they describe numerous examples of volunteerism, regular meetings, cultural initiatives, charity collections, and domestic mutual assistance that have become part of everyday life in many communities. Participants emphasize that cohesion remains, although they acknowledge that in some communities, the intensity of activism has weakened, while in others it has been maintained or even strengthened through new initiatives.

They also mention age differences. According to their observations, middle-aged people (mostly 35-50 years old) are the most active in organizing around volunteer, humanitarian, psychological, and cultural initiatives. On the other hand, younger Ukrainians are less likely to get involved in such communities. They are more likely to integrate into the local environment through work or study and less likely to seek support from diaspora communities.

Vision of the Future

To a question about the vision of the future, respondents mostly raised their concerns claiming a high risk of losing Ukrainian youth who have moved abroad, and Ukraine and the EU will have to compete for a young and mobile population that can integrate into new societies.

On the other hand, most focus group participants emphasized that their stay abroad was temporary, despite the potential difficulties of adaptation upon returning to Ukraine and the uncertain future. This view is based not only on a sense of patriotism, but also on personal plans: participation in reconstruction, returning to work, and resuming their usual way of life. However, some participants admit that the realities of the war, security risks, and the lack of a clear vision of Ukraine's future impact their decision to stay abroad longer.

Despite their plans to return after the war, participants also shared concerns about the future, both in Ukraine and in their host countries. Uncertainty about the timing of the end of the war, the lack of clear security guarantees in Ukraine, and the spread of disinformation about the possible expulsion of Ukrainians from EU countries make people feel unstable and vulnerable.

Assessment of Public Policy And Coperation With the State

In most cases, experts provide a negative assessment of the current attempts of the Ukrainian state to deal with the problems of Ukrainians abroad. In particular, they describe the state's approaches as prescriptive, formal, and failing to take into account the real context of people's lives outside Ukraine. The interviewees criticized the communication from the newly created Ministry of National Unity of Ukraine as focused on control, pressure, and coercion to return rather than support, dialogue, and inclusiveness in decision-making. According to experts, such a policy on the part of the state, on the contrary, motivates people to avoid returning to Ukraine.

Focus group participants widely expressed skepticism and distrust of the government's statements and voiced fears that under the guise of support and integration, the state is only pressuring the diaspora to return to Ukraine. As part of the reasoning, they mentioned the lack of real actions to create decent living conditions after returning to Ukraine, such as housing assistance, employment support, or reskilling opportunities, etc. The development of the Unity Hubs was often called a waste during the war. In addition, temporary protection in Europe does not allow people to fully establish their lives, while respondents feel that Ukraine does not provide potential returnees with clear prospects or guarantees, including housing or security.

They criticized the lack of transparent mechanisms for engaging Ukrainians abroad in decision-making or policy-making processes. According to the experts, the state should create clear, transparent and accessible mechanisms for involving Ukrainians abroad in the development of public policies, including through remote vacancies, etc.

The government's initiative to restrict access to consular services for Ukrainian men of military age abroad was sharply criticized. This policy, according to experts, contributes to a negative attitude toward Ukraine, creates an atmosphere of fear, legal uncertainty and distrust in the state.

The experts also gave a negative assessment of the state's cultural policy. In particular, the respondents noted that the Ukrainian Institute (UI), which is a key institution of Ukrainian cultural diplomacy, actually functions thanks to enthusiasm and partner support, rather than stable state funding. Despite its unsystematic work, the UI and the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation have developed good practices of communicating about Ukraine abroad: lectures in foreign languages, educational videos, and other formats that help explain the history and current context of Ukraine to foreign audiences.  Experts emphasized that culture should remain a priority, even in times of war, as it is a key tool for countering Russian propaganda.

According to representatives of the expert community, over the past few years, there has been a gradual improvement in communication with Ukrainians abroad. In particular, the appointment of Mariana Betsa as Special Ambassador for Diaspora Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2022 was positively assessed. Representatives of organizations of Ukrainians abroad had the opportunity to communicate directly with the ambassador and join the discussion of the draft strategy for the global Ukrainian community, which was being developed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

During the interviews, the experts repeatedly emphasized the need for fundamental changes in state policy toward Ukrainians abroad. Participants emphasized the importance of creating a sustainable and stable connection between Ukrainians who stayed in Ukraine and those who live abroad. According to the experts, this "bridge" between the communities should not be an additional area of work, but a vision, the basis of state policy towards Ukrainians abroad.

Experts also emphasized that engaging Ukrainians abroad is impossible without an unambiguous formulation of the state position: who are Ukrainians abroad, what is their place in the national community, what does the state expect from them and what is it ready to offer them. There was a demand for a new narrative that would recognize all Ukrainians, regardless of their country of residence, as an integral part of Ukrainian society. It was also emphasized that state communication should be context-sensitive: recognizing the contribution of Ukrainians abroad, but not minimizing the challenges of those who stayed in Ukraine.

Experts also expressed hope for a more active role of the Ministry of National Unity of Ukraine in creating joint initiatives that would unite Ukrainians in Ukraine and abroad. It is not only about communication or symbolic gestures, but also about specific projects: joint cultural events, public discussions, international flash mobs, exchanges, educational and tourist programs, startups, or initiatives to remind the world about the war in Ukraine. Such a format of cooperation could not only support the sense of belonging of Ukrainians abroad, but also intensify their participation in the processes of rebuilding and promoting narratives about Ukraine and developing national capacity. Experts said that many of them have the experience, knowledge, and willingness to get involved, and that the key to this is a request and openness from the state.

At the same time, both experts and focus group participants said that they had little knowledge of the state's future plans for Ukrainians abroad. Even after the creation of the Ministry of National Unity of Ukraine, experts who are mostly actively involved in civic activities abroad said that they initiate meetings with representatives of government agencies to hear about their vision and plans for cooperation. At the same time, they noted that such an initiative mostly comes from the bottom, from civil society organizations, not from the state itself.

Focus Groups With Ukrainians Abroad

There was also a widespread opinion among focus group participants that the state of Ukraine should not help its citizens abroad with adaptation or household arrangements. For the most part, respondents do not expect any assistance from the state. Instead, they see it as their duty to help Ukraine. This position is motivated by several key lines:

• They left for countries that already provide the necessary protection and basic conditions for living, studying or working.
• Ukraine is at war, and all resources should be directed to victory, recovery and assistance to those who remain in the country.
• They often feel able to help Ukraine, not the other way around – by transferring money, things, working with volunteers or philanthropists, supporting the military and IDPs, even if they live only on social benefits.

Recommendations

• The first and key recommendation of the expert community is to establish systematic cooperation between the Ukrainian state, governments of other countries, the European Union, and Ukrainian NGOs abroad. Among other things, the experts suggest:
• Conduct a mapping of Ukrainian organizations abroad and determine the basis for cooperation. It is recommended to conduct a comprehensive study of Ukrainian organizations and initiatives and assess their structure, activities and potential to avoid duplication of activities. The principles of cooperation between various organizations and the state should be clearly formulated, as well as who can be involved in cooperation.
• Promote the development of horizontal partnerships between Ukrainian communities and communities in the countries where Ukrainians live. People with experience of living abroad can become "guides of European integration" for their communities, facilitate the exchange of experience and best practices, establish humanitarian cooperation, educational initiatives, joint projects, and be ambassadors of cooperation between European and their native Ukrainian cities and towns.
• Introduce systematic bilateral communication between the Ministry of National Unity of Ukraine and Ukrainian organizations abroad. It is advisable to create online formats for regular interaction, both permanent and thematic, and to facilitate networking of Ukrainian activists abroad who have extensive experience in international advocacy with relevant official structures in Ukraine. It is also worthwhile to create a permanent feedback channel for citizens - where anyone could submit an appeal, proposal or report on the problems faced by Ukrainians abroad.
• Advocate for increased donor support from diaspora organizations from the European Union. It is recommended that the state and the civil society sector advocate with the EU to expand financial support for Ukrainian diaspora organizations. This includes both funding for current activities and institutional development - the creation of sustainable structures that can work to support Ukrainians abroad in the long term.
• Promote the creation of sustainable institutional structures for Ukrainian diaspora organizations. It is recommended to support the institutional development of Ukrainian organizations abroad through financial and organizational mechanisms for professionalization, creation of infrastructure to engage less active diaspora members through educational, social and cultural spaces, strengthening the capacity of these structures as centers of cohesion that help preserve Ukrainian identity and counteract assimilation.
• Promote horizontal interaction between civil society in Ukraine and Ukrainian initiatives abroad. This involves creating platforms for cross-sectoral exchange - in education, culture, inclusion, veteran policy, social entrepreneurship, etc. The Ministry of National Unity of Ukraine should play a coordinating role in this.
• Harmonize the state policy on the integration of Ukrainians abroad. It is recommended that the Ukrainian state clearly communicate its position on the integration of temporarily displaced citizens in host countries. Such a position should recognize the need to support the adaptation of Ukrainians abroad, even while waiting for their return after the war. It is important that intergovernmental agreements (e.g., on visa status or social benefits) do not impede the integration of Ukrainians into local society, but instead help them maintain a decent standard of living, maintain ties with Ukraine, and trust in the state.
• Create tools that will facilitate the financial involvement of Ukrainians abroad in the development and restoration of Ukraine. It is recommended to develop mechanisms that would simplify and encourage the financial participation of Ukrainians abroad in the country's reconstruction. In particular, this includes: creating transparent and accessible tools for investing in real estate, entrepreneurship, educational and social projects in Ukraine, as well as introducing special programs or funds aimed at the diaspora and the long-term involvement of Ukrainians abroad in Ukraine's economic development.

The next recommendation of the expert community is to change Ukraine's information policy. In particular, experts suggest the following:

• Building a national inclusive narrative. It is recommended that state communications consistently support the inclusive narrative that all Ukrainians – regardless of their place of residence - are part of Ukrainian society. Avoiding the rhetoric of opposition ("those who stayed" vs. "those who left") should be a basic principle in statements by political leaders and media coverage.
• Prevent splits between those who stayed in Ukraine and those who left. It is recommended to develop programs of public dialogue and information campaigns aimed at overcoming prejudice and restoring mutual trust between different parts of Ukrainian society. It is important to communicate that the contribution to victory can take many forms, from participation in combat to volunteering, advocacy or other forms of support from abroad, and to symbolically recognize the contribution of Ukrainians abroad.
• Emphasize the value of the experience of Ukrainians abroad for postwar development. The state should promote the realization of the potential of Ukrainians who have acquired new knowledge, vision and practices abroad, which are an important resource for the country's recovery. This will help strengthen the motivation to return and engage in transformations in Ukraine.
• Create a secure communication platform for Ukrainians abroad and in Ukraine. It is recommended to initiate the creation of an open but moderated digital platform for communication between Ukrainians in different countries, with the possibility of dividing them into clusters (topics, regions, areas of activity). Such a platform should be built on common values and transparent principles of participation, taking into account security aspects. This will allow for sustainable horizontal communication, exchange of experience, and unification for the implementation of certain initiatives. The creation of an online platform should be accompanied by offline events: in particular, it is proposed to hold annual forums for Ukrainian organizations focused on working with Ukrainians abroad.
• Research the sources of public opinion in Ukraine regarding Ukrainians abroad. It is recommended that a study be conducted to analyze how media, social networks, or public statements influence the image of Ukrainians abroad in Ukrainian society. This will allow us to understand how prejudices and stereotypes are spread and how inclusive communications should be constructed at the level of public policy, media, and civil society.
• Create systematic dialog practices between Ukrainians abroad and in Ukraine. It is recommended to expand the formats of communication between Ukrainians in Ukraine and abroad, in particular through the organization of events, meetings and public discussions. Currently, there is a lack of platforms where Ukrainians from different contexts can meet, share experiences, establish personal connections, and build mutual trust.
• Develop educational initiatives to change public perceptions and encourage civic participation among Ukrainians abroad. It is recommended to implement long-term information campaigns, emphasizing that participation in the life of the country (including political participation, including voting in elections) is a shared responsibility of all citizens, regardless of their place of residence. Initiatives can include both public discussions and thematic events for different audiences, from young people to older generations. In particular, it is recommended to use formats popular among Ukrainians abroad (such as children's parties, cultural events, local meetings) as platforms for soft education.

One of the key challenges highlighted by the expert community is preserving the national identity of Ukrainians, especially the younger generation growing up abroad. In this regard, experts suggest:

• Develop a state policy for preserving Ukrainian identity abroad. It is recommended that the state recognize the long-term nature of the presence of Ukrainians abroad and develop a separate policy for preserving Ukrainian identity, language and culture. Such a policy should cover youth and children, who integrate most quickly into new environments but require special attention to maintain their connection to Ukraine.
• Support educational and cultural initiatives aimed at children and youth. The state should financially, methodologically, and informationally support the development of Ukrainian language Sunday schools, clubs, and educational programs in Ukrainian, including online formats. In addition, it is necessary to develop a strategy for the reintegration of children into the educational system of Ukraine. It is also recommended to create accessible tools for parents, such as online courses for preschoolers, as well as high-quality Ukrainian-language multimedia content, including fairy tales, cartoons, etc.
• Strengthen the role of the Ukrainian Institute and cultural diplomacy. It is necessary to significantly expand support for cultural institutions, including the Ukrainian Institute, which are important for expanding the influence of Ukraine's soft power abroad. This includes both increased funding and a strategic rethinking of their role in shaping Ukraine's cultural presence in the international environment.

Experts also emphasized that in order to restore and maintain sustainable communication with Ukrainians abroad, it is necessary to develop various tools for their involvement in the social and political life of Ukraine. This includes participation in political processes, inclusion in civic initiatives, interaction with state institutions, and representation of Ukraine's interests at the international level.

The solutions proposed by the experts include the following:

• Update the electoral legislation to take into account the rights of Ukrainians who are abroad or returning from abroad. It is recommended that Ukraine's electoral legislation be amended to ensure equal opportunities for participation in the political process, including the right to run for office for citizens who have spent a long time abroad. This will help attract new leaders with experience of living abroad, increase the representativeness of the government, and restore trust in state institutions. In addition, it is necessary to provide voting infrastructure for those citizens who will not return to Ukraine after the end of hostilities.
• Develop sustainable mechanisms for engaging Ukrainians abroad in policy-making through regular consultations, surveys, and institutional feedback channels. In order for the policy on Ukrainians abroad to be relevant and effective, the state should regularly involve Ukrainians abroad in the development of these decisions. This means creating effective mechanisms for soliciting public opinion, both through periodic online polls and through advisory councils, focus groups, or representative platforms. This will help to take into account the real needs of different groups, reduce feelings of alienation, and promote greater involvement in Ukrainian public life.
• Given the significant number of Ukrainians who have integrated into the life of other countries after the full-scale invasion and are likely to remain there for a long time, experts emphasize the importance of revising approaches to citizenship. The experts recommend:
• Develop legal and intergovernmental mechanisms to introduce the institution of dual citizenship as a tool to preserve the ties of Ukrainians abroad with Ukraine. The introduction of dual citizenship mechanisms would allow Ukrainians abroad to maintain legal, economic, and symbolic ties with Ukraine without losing rights and opportunities in their countries of residence. This is especially relevant for those who own property or business in Ukraine, want to maintain economic participation or return periodically.

Ultimately, the expert community agrees that the Ukrainian state should not only maintain contact with Ukrainians abroad, but also actively encourage their return to Ukraine after the war is over. Among other things, they suggest:

• Introduce open competitions to engage Ukrainians abroad in public administration. It is recommended to involve Ukrainians abroad in positions in the Ministry of National Unity or other institutions working with the diaspora. This will create horizontal ties of trust and show the state's readiness for equal dialog.
• Provide social guarantees and transparent conditions for the return of Ukrainians from abroad, avoiding inequality between those who stayed and those who left. The return policy should be based on social justice and trust. All incentives for return should be transparent and targeted - for example, preferential conditions for purchasing housing or starting a business - and should not create conflicts between different groups of Ukrainians.
• Develop a state housing program for Ukrainians abroad who have lost their homes because of the war and want to return to Ukraine. Ukraine needs to create a clear and transparent mechanism for providing housing for citizens who have nowhere to return to due to destruction or loss of property. This includes residents of completely destroyed cities and towns, as well as people who invested in real estate before the war but whose construction was not completed.
• Formulate a strategy to support the economic reintegration of Ukrainians planning to return: government programs to stimulate employment, including the development of online employment for Ukrainians abroad, support for entrepreneurship, preferential mortgage lending, or compensation for housing rent, could become motivational factors.
• Develop policies for the return and support of Ukrainians abroad, taking into account the needs of specific target audiences. Instead of attempting to create a one-size-fits-all approach, the state should identify key groups of Ukrainians abroad (e.g., young mothers with children, students, the elderly, military families, etc.) and develop a separate set of support tools for each of them. The decision to return is often made not individually, but as a family, so it is important to take into account the opinions of different individuals in these groups and offer them specific and achievable conditions for facilitated return, including security, housing, access to social infrastructure, and opportunities for children.
• Develop employment programs for young people who have been educated abroad. After the end of the war, the state policy should provide mechanisms for involving the younger generation of Ukrainians who have been educated abroad in the process of rebuilding the country. This includes creating conditions that will allow young people to implement their knowledge and experience in the Ukrainian labor market, including in the Ukrainian offices of international companies and organizations, priority or targeted employment programs, the development of innovative projects involving young professionals, and support for entrepreneurship, etc.
• Invest in children's infrastructure and adaptation of the younger generation growing up abroad. It is necessary to invest in the creation of modern, accessible and high-quality infrastructure for children's development - clubs, sports clubs, swimming pools, cultural and educational centers. At the same time, it is important to realize that children who grow up abroad will return with different social and cultural attitudes. Reintegration policies should take these differences into account and facilitate a smooth transition into the new Ukrainian environment.

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Social Exclusion of the Group

Assessment of the Group’s Social Exclusion

Expert Interviews

According to experts, a significant number of people with disabilities in Ukraine remain isolated from public life. According to the experts, only about 40% were able to go beyond their usual social circle, while the majority continue to interact mainly within their group, seeking support and understanding from those with similar experiences. Some experts, while confirming the existence of such a "vicious circle," do not consider it a critical problem.

At the same time, there has been a gradual expansion of social contacts in recent years: more and more people with disabilities are moving beyond their "bubble." According to experts, this is facilitated by both objective obstacles, such as the lack of infrastructure for wheelchair users, and subjective factors, such as lack of confidence in their abilities and capabilities.

One of the key reasons for the social exclusion of people with disabilities is the focus of public policy on the medical model of disability. This approach considers a person with a disability primarily as an object of care and medical assistance, rather than as a full participant in public life. Instead, according to experts, the state should move to implementing a social model of disability. This approach involves creating an inclusive physical and social space, equal access to education, work, services, and civic engagement. Experts say that despite the fact that Ukraine has declared a move away from the medical model at the legislative level, in practice its principles still determine most management decisions.

According to experts, the medical model of disability creates a false reasoning of social support. It promotes an institutional approach that isolates people with disabilities in closed institutions, boarding schools, and specialized facilities, instead of investing in accessible infrastructure for a comfortable and self-sufficient life outside of medical institutions. Focus group participants mostly expressed frustration with government policy and specified that the state ignores their needs.

This perception of disability lowers expectations of the person. Instead of encouraging them to make independent decisions, study, work, and participate in public life, the system creates a pattern of dependency. As a result, a person with a disability is deprived of opportunities to develop and integrate into society, which, in the long run, leads to the loss of his or her status as an active member of society. This assessment is also confirmed by the participants of the focus groups, most of whom confirmed a constant feeling of uselessness and invisibility both for the state and in society.

According to experts, an important reason for the social exclusion of people with disabilities is the provision of social and administrative services. Often, state or municipal institutions have separate specialists who provide services to people with disabilities. Instead, inclusiveness implies that every employee should have basic training to provide services to all citizens, including people with disabilities, so this approach is called segregation. Instead, specialization and involvement of individual specialists is appropriate and necessary at the level of policy-making, where deep expertise and focus on the specific needs of a particular target group are required.

Experts emphasize that one of the main reasons for the social exclusion of people with disabilities is stereotypes and prejudice in society. Due to the widespread perception of disability as a disease rather than as a matter of rights and equal opportunities, people with disabilities are often considered incapacitated, incompetent, or problematic. If people do not have personal experience with them, this further reinforces stereotypes and leads to reluctance to include them in joint activities, which only increases isolation and invisibility of people with disabilities in society.

Experts also consider objective limitations related to physical condition to be one of the reasons for the social exclusion of people with disabilities. In some cases, people with disabilities need more time to complete tasks or acquire new skills, which makes it difficult to create mixed groups that include people with and without disabilities.

According to experts, the family is a key factor that determines the ability of a person with a disability to adapt to independent living and be fully included in society. Family members need special knowledge and skills to build proper communication and interaction with a person with a disability. If a person with a disability has not been involved in joint activities since childhood, has not developed skills and been taught to take care of themselves, this often leads to an inability to adapt to independent living, a lack of personal interests, and a narrowing of the circle of friends and family.

The devaluation of opportunities and potential for development by loved ones due to disability, which often occurs due to their own fear and ignorance of how to care for loved ones with disabilities, often leads to the formation of self-doubt, an inferiority complex and learned helplessness, which has a systemic impact on all areas of a person's life. It is noteworthy that focus group participants often used stigmatizing vocabulary such as "disabled/crippled/burden" in reference to themselves, which indicates an internalized image of "uselessness." According to the experts, they still often hear similar statements about themselves, and the "us-them" divide is still often present in the public imagination, which is reflected in the language: people with disabilities may be spoken about in the third person even in their presence, which further emphasizes social distance and exclusion.

Also, in the context of discussing media coverage of people with disabilities, some respondents said that there is no point in increasing their representation in the media, because "no one [among people without disabilities] would be interested in it."

In cases where the disability was acquired, experts emphasize the importance of adapting the living space to restore the person's self-sufficiency as much as possible. Otherwise, in combination with the low level of accessibility of public infrastructure, this significantly limits the opportunities for establishing new social contacts and inclusion in public life.

Experts emphasize that in cases where a person with a disability grows up in an institutionalized setting rather than in a family, the system creates social isolation and limits the social ties of people with disabilities to other residents of the institution. As a result, after leaving the institution, people with disabilities often have poor communication skills, which makes it difficult for them to integrate into society. According to experts, home schooling has a similar impact: when the educational process is organized at home, a person does not acquire the skills to interact in a team.

Experts point out that the level of social activity of people with disabilities largely depends on the area where they live. In particular, rural residents tend to have fewer opportunities to participate in public life compared to those who live in regional centers.  At the same time, respondents of different demographic profiles mostly described their experience of interaction with others as negative and unpleasant. In particular, respondents shared cases of ridicule or jokes about them, which, in the opinion of the authors of the jokes, could be perceived as innocent or friendly banter. At the same time, for people with disabilities, such situations are often painful and perceived as humiliation or ridicule, which only increases their sense of exclusion and unequal treatment by society.

Experts pay special attention to the role of the church in shaping attitudes toward disability. In a number of cases, clergymen broadcast interpretations according to which disability is perceived as "punishment from above." Such religious narratives, according to experts, contribute to the spread of prejudice and can further exacerbate the social isolation of people with disabilities in communities.

Experts also say that the age at which a disability was acquired  plays an important role in the social exclusion of people with disabilities. If it happened at an older age, people are usually more open in communication and more active in social life than those who were born with a disability or acquired it in childhood.  

Experts emphasize that segregation is especially noticeable in relation to veterans who have suffered mental disorders as a result of combat operations, as they are often perceived as a danger.

According to the experts, one of the ways to overcome social exclusion is the active life position of people with disabilities. Participants in expert interviews cited numerous examples of people with disabilities who consciously sought to organize their lives independently, engage in social processes and realize their own goals.  Experts emphasize that in such cases, integration into public life occurs not as a result of systemic changes or the creation of an inclusive environment, but due to the persistence and efforts of people with disabilities to overcome barriers. During the focus groups, respondents of different demographic profiles shared that they mostly felt indifference from others in public places when they had to overcome the obstacles of an inaccessible environment, which reinforced the feeling of being useless to this society (for example, respondents who use a wheelchair or have prostheses).

Experts emphasize the need to revise the state information policy and the need to form an inclusive discourse that recognizes people with disabilities as full participants in society, and to strengthen educational initiatives for a wider audience, including the development of ethical communication with people with different experiences or needs.

In general, according to experts, an important condition for social inclusion is a combination of personal autonomy of people with disabilities and the responsibility of society to remove external barriers. According to one of the experts, the key to independent living is primarily a person's personal desire for independence. However, even with such skills, physical barriers in the infrastructure remain a significant threat. Thus, ensuring inclusion requires efforts on the part of both the individual and the state - the latter should be responsible for creating a safe, accessible environment in which people with disabilities can fully realize their potential and talents.

Bias Against the Group

Focus group participants emphasized the high level of distrust on the part of others if the causes or manifestations of their disability are not visually visible. According to them, society often associates disability exclusively with a wheelchair or a cane. If a health condition has no external signs, many people simply do not believe that a person has a disability. This creates situations where respondents have to prove their right to benefits or support, explain their condition over and over again, or hear doubts about its reality. Their situation is further complicated by corrupt practices of fabricating disabilities to avoid service in the Armed Forces, which leads to distrust of the entire group. At the same time, experts emphasized the difficulties faced by people with neurosensitivity, mental and intellectual disabilities, who can often be perceived as a danger.

Speaking about widespread prejudices and stereotypes about people with disabilities, experts identify two dominant images that are formed in society: heroification and dramatization. In the first case, people with disabilities are portrayed as extraordinary heroes who "overcome the insurmountable", causing admiration and emotional idealization. In the second case, they are portrayed as helpless, unhappy, and dependent, which automatically evokes pity and the need for care.

Experts emphasize that both of these approaches are harmful. In the case of glorification, society is often disappointed when it discovers that people with disabilities are ordinary, imperfect, living people. Dramatization, on the other hand, leads to the fact that such people are perceived solely as objects. The worst part, according to experts, is that behind these extremes, society does not see the need for real equal interaction and perception of people with disabilities as full-fledged citizens. In this context, focus group participants also said that this often makes people perceive disability as something so extraordinary that it can never happen to them or their loved ones, and therefore they are less sensitive to this issue.

Some experts also say that the full-scale war has partially changed public attitudes toward people with disabilities, primarily due to the emergence of a large number of veterans with combat-related injuries. In their opinion, in the public perception, disabilities related to military experience are more respected and sympathetic than other forms of disability.

According to the focus group participants, they most often face prejudice and stigmatization in medical facilities. Respondents emphasized that in many cases, doctors do not show respect or interest in helping patients, especially when it comes to people with disabilities or chronic diseases. Healthcare professionals often tend to exaggerate the impact of the cause of the disability on the patient's condition and are less attentive to finding the real causes of the patient's symptoms and eliminating them. Respondents emphasized that they have repeatedly encountered bullying and the use of stigmatizing language. According to them, such incidents leave a particularly painful mark: after visiting a doctor, many focus group participants felt humiliated and offended.

Speaking about the sources of common stereotypes, experts mostly point to the entrenchment of the aforementioned medical and charitable models of disability in Ukrainian society. According to them, these approaches still dominate the rhetoric of government agencies, the media, and even the communications of many grant and charitable programs. At the same time, focus group participants more often mentioned upbringing as a source of stereotypes, namely the lack of diversity around children and ignoring this topic in the family.

Experts emphasize that prejudice against people with disabilities is widespread, including in the field of education. Stereotypes about the limited potential of students with disabilities still dominate there, which leads to either underestimation or underestimation of their capabilities. According to the respondents, this sometimes manifests itself in the practice of "automatic" grades or low requirements for students in schools or universities, despite their real abilities and talents in learning. In addition, focus group participants also emphasized the challenge of bullying in educational institutions by other students or students, and sometimes even teachers. At the same time, the lack of inclusion for children with disabilities becomes another factor in the rejection of these children in society when they grow up, as children without disabilities have less opportunity to interact and form friendships with children who are different from them.

Employment is another important area where numerous stereotypes and prejudices are manifested. Experts talk about various forms of discrimination, from excessive "care" when an employer creates unnecessary conditions without asking about real needs to rejections due to prejudice against a person's physical abilities or competencies.

At the same time, many focus group participants reported that they did not experience prejudice or discrimination in their daily lives. On the contrary, some respondents emphasized that others often treated them with respect, understanding, and willingness to interact, even though they were in the minority in the sample.

Despite this widespread discriminatory experience, focus group respondents emphasize the need to create more opportunities for interaction between people with and without disabilities. In the case of this study group, this cannot be achieved without the active role of the state, as the lack of inclusion in public space and the national priority to create a barrier-free environment significantly complicates the contacts of people with disabilities with others, especially if they use a wheelchair.

Respondents also believe that changing educational and awareness-raising policies is an important step in overcoming stereotypes. The respondents emphasize that the state should invest more actively in the development of an inclusive school curriculum that would foster respect for diversity in children from childhood and teach them to see others as full-fledged members of society. In addition, respondents believe it is important to engage culture: more people with disabilities should appear in films and other media to gradually break down stereotypes.

Barriers to Economic Participation

The first and foremost barrier to the full participation of people with disabilities in economic life is education. According to experts, today people with disabilities are effectively deprived of the opportunity to receive a full, high-quality secondary or higher education. Among the key reasons is the lack of career guidance that would help identify a person's individual potential, abilities, and needs. At the same time, the aforementioned bullying and rejection by peers and teachers become barriers at the school stage, which undermines self-confidence and reduces motivation for further professional development. In addition, respondents emphasized the limited physical accessibility of Ukrainian universities, which significantly complicates the possibility of socialization and offline education.

At the same time, focus group participants emphasized that it was the loss of educational opportunities that had the greatest impact on their employment opportunities, namely the lack of an inclusive approach in educational institutions. Certain skills are often more difficult or time-consuming to acquire in certain health conditions, or the learning process itself has to be different, but teachers or lecturers rarely have the appropriate training to do so, or even the desire to tailor an individualized approach to students with disabilities depending on their condition.

The logical consequence of limited access to quality education is problems with employment. Even in cases where people with disabilities obtain higher education and a profession, they often fail to find a job in their specialty. In some cases, this is due to the exaggerated family care mentioned above - when people from such families enter society, they often expect the same "special" treatment because of their disability as they do at home and have difficulty adapting to the lack of the same attention. Focus group participants also emphasized the significant difficulties in finding a job: even if they managed to find a job that they wanted, could and were able to do, they often had to face employer bias.

In the context of barriers to employment, experts often mentioned the lack of adaptability of workplaces. According to experts, a comfortable workplace includes not only a comfortable desk in the office, but also the ability to get to the workplace, compliance with barrier-free workspace standards, etc. However, experts emphasize that employers often cannot provide this accessibility because the building and infrastructure nearby are not an area that they can equip to meet the needs of their employees. Experts also mentioned a government program that provides employers with compensation for hiring a person with a disability. However, according to experts, the program is not very effective due to low compensation.

A separate problem is the approach to preparing the team to interact with people with disabilities and the lack of inclusive recruitment. Experts say that formal training in communication ethics usually does not ensure that colleagues are actually ready to cooperate fully. Such an approach is often limited to superficial instructions without changing the attitudes or behavioral patterns of employees. This creates tension in the team and additional psychological barriers for people with disabilities in the workplace. At the same time, employers themselves are rarely ready to be flexible and adapt their requirements to people with disabilities (for example, if an employee with a disability is physically unable to work full time, they can hire two part-time employees).

At the same time, focus group participants pointed to uneven approaches to the employment of persons with disabilities by different employers: according to them, small businesses are more likely to formalize the employment of such employees, while state-owned enterprises, on the contrary, try to avoid hiring people with disabilities. Some respondents also reported that they were asked to sign a written consent to refuse an adapted workplace, and only then did they agree to employ them.

In the context of the full inclusion of people with disabilities in economic life, the issue of social security cannot be ignored. Experts emphasize that the overwhelming majority of people with disabilities in Ukraine live in a state of deep poverty: more than 70% of them cannot meet even their basic daily needs. The main reasons for this situation are the insufficient level of state support, limited social benefits, and lack of opportunities for professional self-fulfillment. Key causes listed in this case were about the insufficient level of government support, limited social payments, and lack of opportunities for professional actualization. Participants of focus groups underscored that social benefit payment  were extremely low and could not suffice for basic needs. Some respondents labeled the payments as “mockery”, especially with regard to high prices for medication and health care services that are often life-saving.

In addition, experts also say that even state institutions dealing with social security are often physically inaccessible, which is why people with disabilities often cannot even apply to state authorities for their own documents or benefits on their own. However, some focus group participants spoke positively about the quotas, and some of them said that it was only because of the quotas that they were able to find a job.

Focus group participants also said that the current pension calculation system often forces people to make economically disadvantageous decisions in the face of high medical costs. In particular, they said that in the event of employment, the state stops paying social benefits, so it becomes impossible for many to find a part-time job to improve their situation. Respondents also consider it unfair that when retiring due to age, people have to choose between a disability pension and a seniority pension. If they choose the seniority pension, they lose benefits, including discounts on medicines.

In addition to indirect factors affecting the ability to realize one's potential in economic life, there are shortcomings in the functioning of the healthcare system. First, focus group participants often said that the quality of healthcare services is often low, making it difficult for them to maintain their health at a level sufficient to stay productive. Therefore, they often have to resort to private clinics, even though their services are too expensive for their personal budgets. Respondents also faced the problem that it is often difficult for them to understand what services they can receive free of charge, and even after overcoming these difficulties, they are required to pay “charitable contributions” in order to receive the necessary free service.

Focus group participants expressed particular concern about access to rehabilitation services, which are critical for maintaining or improving health. Respondents said that even in cases where rehabilitation is officially provided, it is difficult to obtain in practice, particularly due to corruption in this area.

Some focus group participants also reported critical situations related to the inability to pay for utilities. Due to limited financial resources, people with disabilities often accumulate debts, resulting in service providers cutting off their electricity, water, or heating.

Barriers to Political Participation

Expert interviews

The first and most critical problem identified by experts when discussing the participation of people with disabilities in political life is the actual lack of physical access to the electoral process. According to them, in order for a person with a disability to vote, they must be able to leave the house and get to the polling station, but buildings and infrastructure are not always equipped to meet the needs of people with disabilities. Besides, the polling stations themselves are not adapted for people with disabilities - they often lack ramps, tactile elements and trained staff, which are necessary to ensure the full participation of people with different types of disabilities.

At the same time, experts mostly have an extremely negative attitude towards the practice of voting at home: according to them, the lists for such voting are short, so the process itself does not guarantee the principle of secrecy. Other respondents are more positive about the idea of voting at home, but are outraged that they were put on the voting list at home without their consent, simply because they have a disability.

In addition to challenges related to the physical inaccessibility of polling stations, experts also pointed to serious information barriers that make it difficult for people with disabilities to participate in the electoral process. According to them, the election campaigns of various candidates and parties hardly take into account the needs of this group: the official websites of political parties are mostly not adapted for people with visual impairments, campaign videos are rarely accompanied by sign language interpretation, and subtitles often contain complex terminology that cannot be translated into sign language.

Experts also drew attention to problems with the accessibility of information distributed both at polling stations and during the election campaign. In particular, it was mentioned that ballots are often printed in small print and their forms change from election to election, which creates additional difficulties for people with visual impairments. This can lead to misinterpretation of the content and, consequently, to voting errors. In addition, according to experts, the information materials accompanying the election process are often overly complex: they contain specialized terminology and long sentences that make it difficult to understand. As a result, some people with disabilities tend to avoid participating in elections, feeling that these processes are not designed for them.

Experts also emphasized that one of the significant obstacles to the full participation of persons with disabilities in the political life of Ukraine is the existing barriers to active political participation. Although the law does not provide for any restrictions on the candidacy of persons with disabilities, in practice, political parties rarely include such people on their lists. Some experts also shared their experience of participating in local elections  and claimed that even holding meetings with voters is inaccessible for the lack of barrier-free infrastructure. In addition, participation in the work of election commissions and engaging in election observation are complicated or impossible because the polling station facilities have not been adapted to the needs of people with disabilities.

In addition, experts said that even if people with disabilities are successfully elected to local governments or the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, most administrative buildings remain unadapted to their needs, which effectively makes it impossible for them to fully participate in the political process.

As to the issues related to access to civic engagement, experts often highlighted infrastructural constraints, but also emphasized the need for the public sector and civil society organizations to adapt their approaches to working with people with disabilities to ensure their full participation.

Another barrier to civic engagement, according to experts, is the restricted perception of the capacity of people with disabilities to civic engagement. Often, their participation in public life is automatically linked to disability aspects only, regardless of the topic they raise. As a result, it downgrades the initiatives that are related to the community broader interests.

Moreover, experts said that in Ukraine, NGOs usually have performed an important role in introducing and implementing social change, such as in the domain of accessibility, rehabilitation, and protection of rights of people with disabilities. At the same time, NGOs often have to replace the functions of the government in social and legal protection of people with disabilities. The approach is predetermined by the lack of structural public policy, when basic responsibilities remain out of focus of government institutions. 

One of the barriers to participation of people with disabilities in social life is also financial instability of NGOs which preconditions their dependance on grants. Consequently, NGOs have to follow the priorities and requirements of grantors rather than the actual needs of people with disabilities. The constraints affect the capacity of the civic sector of protecting people with disabilities outside the framework of approved programs, such as in cases when rapid or emergency response is required, especially when it is outside the scope of approved projects.

Media Coverage of People With Disabilities

Expert interviews

Experts also mentioned that the focus of media on the topic of disability would often be attached to the International Day of People With Disabilities (December 3) and is short-lived. Throughout the rest of the year, the topics are hardly ever in focus. 

During the interviews, experts pointed to the insufficient coverage in most Ukrainian media of topics related to the lives and rights of people with disabilities. According to them, this situation may indicate either a lack of understanding of the importance of covering these topics or a desire to avoid them, creating the illusion that there are no problems in society. This was also confirmed by the focus group participants,

Experts also mentioned the limited representation of people with disabilities in the media, especially in local communities. They said that often only those people with disabilities who live in big cities and are already recognizable appear in public discourse. At the same time, the needs, problems, and achievements of residents of small towns and villages are ignored. According to experts, this creates a gap between the perception of disability in the media and the real living conditions of many people with disabilities in Ukraine. People from remote communities often do not feel part of this narrative and do not see their own stories or problems reflected in the media. At the same time, this narrows society's understanding of the diversity of experiences and limits the understanding of barriers at the local level.

Experts also say that, for the most part, media coverage of people with disabilities remains superficial and stereotypical. Most news stories are based either on the heroification of people with disabilities or on excessive sympathy for their situation. Experts say that such stories often become a pretext for exploiting the topic of disability to increase viewer attention. At the same time, structural problems and barriers remain in the shadows. In addition, participants of focus groups underlined that media also fuel the stereotype that disability shall be always attached to a wheelchair or crutches. People with other types of health issues than the motor challenges are mostly invisibile in the media space. 

Overall, experts also expressed an opinion that mass media activities directly affect the generation of biased ideas and stereotypes about people with disabilities in society. According to some experts, mass media are a key source sharing such attitudes and stereorypes described in herein. Among other things, the media enhance this by using stygmatizing vocabulary about people with disabilities.

At the same time, experts also highlighted some positive aspects in the work of Ukrainian media. For instance, experts claim that the used of improper terms about people with disabilities mostly occurs on the level of local media. The availability of guidelines about correct communication on the government level has been also assessed in a positive light. Moreover, experts approve of large-scale media projects involving people with disabilities.

Assessment of Public Policy And Cooperation With the State

Focus groups with people with disabilities

When sharing their experiences, participants of the focus groups mentioned different people helping and supporting them in their journey. Respondents emphasized that signs of solidarity, such as active engagement of health care professionals in the process of accompanying patients in the disability application process, kind and humane treatment by public transport staff. All of this plays an important role in building an inclusive environment. Despite the structural issues, such cases of support and assistance indicate the capacity to the gradual construction of cohesion and mutual understanding.

During the focus groups, respondents also underlined that people with disabilities shall voice out their challenges more, defend their rights and enhance their capacity. The participants emphasized that the initiative coming from people with disabilities and their consolidation around their shared problems are instrumental to solutions. Otherwise, any change would be difficult to achieve. 

At the same time, respondents said that consolidation and acceptance of people with disabilites are not just a personal matter but also the task of the government since it needs to act as glue in public attitudes. In the context of growing challenges related to war consequnces, respondents additionally emphasized the need for the state to engage and introduce a structural support to all citizens with disabilities.

Duting the interview, experts expressed ambivalent opinions about the performance of the state in ensuring the rights and decent living standards for people with disabilities: the government’s performance was praised and criticized for different aspects of their work. 

In their negative assessments, experts said that despite the officially declared line of supporting social well-being, support to people with disabilities has not been sufficient throught all stages of their lives. Although we can trace certain progress in achieving barrier-free objectives, it does not usually go beyond declarations. For instance, some experts underlined that presently, the efforts of the state in the area of barrier-free spaces mostly focus on data collection and analysis. On the other hand, the need remains for actual change and performance indicators. Participants of focus groups mostly expressed negative opinions.

Experts also mentioned controversies in public policy of deinstutionalization. For instance, they talked about adopting the laws that contradict the avenues for inclusive environment and imply the functioning of closed institutions hosting children and adults together. Experts underscored that the practice goes against international standards and calls for revision. 

Moreover, experts said that on the national level, a large number of legal acts and regulations have been drafted and adopted to cover as many as possible focus areas related to the provision of rights and needs of people with disabilities. In particular, they mentioned certain progress in regulating employment issues for people with disabilities. The adoption of the framework draft law 5344Д and enshrining some key concepts therein (such as smart adjustment) build a basis for further development and implementation of the respective policies. Besides, positive assessment was given to initiatives inreasing the liability of employers for discrimination cases and empowering people with disabilities to be provided with the explanation in case a job is denied. The update of the National Barrier-Free Srategy was mentioned, too, since performance indicators have been additionally included. Experts highighted that the introduction of indicators into action plans helps increase accountability of authorities. The reform of the state construction standards was positively assessed. In particualr, they mentioned a dedicated standard on inclusion (В.2.2.40). In experts views, it will further improve accessibility to new public spaces and facilities in the future.

Nonetheless, experts highlight that certain positive change is mostly noticeable on the national level, whereas local level is lagging behind. Experts said that many public officials on teh grounds are still rather pasive, sinc ethey have been holding the positions for many years, or even decades, and are using  some outdated approaches to problem-solving.

During the interviews, most experts said they had had experince working together with the public authorities in adopting or implementing certain policies to improve living conditions for people with disabilities. However, experts are mostly negative about that cooperation. 

Among other things, experts also said that their experience of working together with public authorities could have resembled the exploitation of resources of the civil society sector by public authorities. Respondents emphasized that civic sector cannot perform free of charge the functions that the state must deliver, such as in ensuring barrier-free spaces and supporting local self-governments. In their view, public authorities and NGOs shall develop partner-based relations, with the appropriate financial and institutional support from the authorities.

The experience of experts also indicates the presence of barriers in the interaction with public authorities. Experts said that a barrier to the efficient implementation of barrier-free policy is the interagency cooperation flaw. However, in most cases, each structural unit of a public authority opoerates within their competences and often tend to not go beyond the limits. Another barrier listed by experts is the lacking political will and fragmentation in the implementation of solutions. Even with general support from the managment, cooperation would often be handled “manually” when the ongoing direct orders from the management are required. This approach is not fruitful for the implementation of barrier-free solutions since it is based on one-time initiatives rather than on the well-established communication system.

On the national level, such as for the work of the Verkhopvna Rada and its dedicated committees, experts talked about restricted access to information about the sessions, specifically during the martial law. As a result, critical initiatives may be passed with no people with disabilities or NGOs represented. Moreover, participants highlighted the practice of introducing amendments to draft laws related to people with disabilities with no prior discussions. It may seriously modify the text and contradict the interests of people with disabilities. In addition, respondents mentioned issues in communication with the Ministry of Health Care. according to them, the Ministry has not opened to welcome requests.

Besides, experts speak of the negative experience of cooperation with local authorities. Experts underscored that although local self-governments are defined as platforms for local initiatives, they do not always provide for involvement of citizens, such as representatives of people with disabilities. Legislative mechanisms for the participation are not clearly defined. Therefore, it restricts the possibility to impact the drafting and implementation of decisions pertaining to their needs. At the same time, some participants of the focus groups provided positive examples of how local government can significantly impact the respect for rights of people with disabilities. In particular, respondents shared that after the respective resolution of Kharkiv city government, the situation with accessibility of public transport has largely improved. Carriers do not refuse access to people with disabilities, while tickets have been cacncelled for them.

At the same time, there was also some positive feedback about cooperation of civil society and the authorities. Experts say that the success of the cooperation of civil society and public authorities largely depends on equal partner relations. For example, they mention a case of fruitful cooperation with the Ministry for the Development of Communities and Territories, when they managed to jointly draft and implement a series of key documents, such as the updated State Construction Standard DBN В.2.2-40. Beyond that, speak positively about their work with the Ministry of Social Policy. They praise the recurring coordination meetings and how they took into account opinions of various NGOs when drafting the by-laws.

Awareness of state programs among participants of focus groups is often fragmented. In particular, the participants mentioned the existence of laws that guarantee the right to the free of charge ride in city transport, state programs for medication provision, quotas on employing people with disabilities, etc. However, respondents also said that the information on the programs is often incomplete or confusing for many.

Recommendations

During the interviews and focus groups, representatives of the expert community and people with experience offered a number of recommendations to help overcome barriers and ensure equal participation of people with disabilities in social, economic, and cultural life. The recommendations are structured into four main topical units: (1) building inclusive spaces and engagement in public life; (2) addressing specific challenges and problems; (3) public policy and reforms; and (4) information policy and education. Each unit contains clear and specific proposals that can serve as a basis for developing programs and initiatives at the national and local levels.

Building inclusive spaces and engaging in public life:

• Promote deinstitutionalization and the development of inclusive spaces in communities. To provide opportunities for people with disabilities to live among other members of society. The deinstitutionalization strategy implementation shall be prioritized in public policy orineted at respec to to human rights and the creation of accessible environment that meets individual needs.
• Ensure full implementation of the National Strategy for a Barrier-Free Environment in Ukraine 2030. In particular:
  • Adopt regional plans that provide for the modernization of social infrastructure in accordance with the principles of universal design;
  • Upgrade the transport system, including inter-city connections;
  • Establish systematic monitoring and control of compliance with accessibility standards with the involvement of civil society organizations;
  • Provide incentives for businesses, including tax breaks and grants for the creation of accessible spaces;
  • Standardize the implementation of accessibility features in accordance with international standards.
• Promote barrier-free provision of public services. Train professionals to work with people with disabilities, taking into account the principles of inclusive communication and specific needs. This will eliminate hidden segregation, increase sensitivity, and ensure equal access to services.
• Develop mechanisms for community-based supervision. Engage social workers or representatives of authorities to help people with disabilities access services, also remotely. It will facilitate participation in the community lifeand the improvement of the quality of services

Addressing specific challenges and issues

Education:

• Introduce individualized approaches to the organization of educational process and taking exams for people with disabilities. The existing rules for independent assessment should be reviewed to ensure that they take into account not only formal parameters (time, audience), but also other needs: reduction of sensory overload, alternative forms of testing, the possibility of assistance, etc. A mechanism for assessing individual needs should be developed and a system for flexible adaptation of learning and examination conditions should be introduced.
• Integrate structural educational and awareness-raising components into school and preschool curricula. The educational process should include regular classes aimed at fostering respect for human dignity, diversity, human rights, and inclusion, as well as introducing comprehensive policies to prevent bullying and foster a culture of respect for people with disabilities, in particular through the involvement of teachers and parents. Such work should begin at the preschool level, taking into account the age characteristics of children, in order to lay the foundations for a tolerant and just society.

Employment:

• Support employers in implementing inclusive culture principles in the workplace. The state can play a role as a partner by providing methodological assistance, information resources, and encouraging the exchange of best practices. This will reduce prejudice against people with disabilities and promote their equal participation in professional life.
• Promote the adaptation of workplaces to the individual needs of employees with disabilities. The state should create regulatory conditions and support mechanisms for employers who implement the necessary changes in the working environment, including adapting work schedules, providing technical aids, or adapting workplaces to the capabilities of employees. It is also important to ensure access to advice, examples of successful practices, and sources of funding, including grants or local programs.
• Promote the introduction of individualized support in the workplace. It is necessary to develop a system of support for people with disabilities in their professional activities, career counseling, and support. Such support should take into account the individual needs and characteristics of each person and be closely linked to the team and work processes. An individual approach makes it possible to adapt working conditions and increase the level of involvement of persons with disabilities in the work environment.
• Develop a system of incentives for employers. Alongside quotas, financial incentives should be used more actively: benefits, compensation for workplace adaptation costs, grants for inclusive practices. This approach will create conditions for the voluntary and sustainable involvement of people with disabilities.
• Strengthen mechanisms to protect workers with disabilities in cases of non-compliance with accessibility and safety conditions at work. Procedures for responding to complaints need to be improved, effective monitoring of labor rights compliance ensured, and workers' awareness of protection options raised. Particular attention should be paid to establishing independent monitoring mechanisms for working conditions.

Social services:

• Improve the social services system in line with the real needs of persons with disabilities. Identify these needs in cooperation with local communities, ensure standardization and funding, including support services during employment and in everyday life.
• Introduce support services in medical facilities. Organize assistance with navigation, coordination of appointments, and information support for people arriving from other settlements.
• Improve the system for receiving and processing complaints in healthcare facilities. Inclusive formats for submitting complaints should be introduced—verbal, video, through trusted persons—taking into account the needs of persons with disabilities. At the same time, clear procedures for responding to and taking responsibility for reviewing such complaints should be ensured. It is advisable to create functional support centers — for example, an institution of a patient rights ombudsman at the facility — to record complaints and assist patients in situations of rights violations.
• Promote the reduction of financial barriers to access to regular medical services and medicines for persons with disabilities, including through the introduction of a preferential or compensatory mechanism.

Public policy and reforms:

• Ensure the transition from integration to inclusion by revising standards, performance indicators, and evaluation mechanisms for public programs. This involves adapting the environment, services, and procedures to the needs of persons with disabilities, rather than the other way around, and should become a cross-sectoral principle in the planning, financing, and implementation of public policies.
• Reform the disability assessment and service provision system. Complete the reform to introduce the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and implement a comprehensive biopsychosocial approach that takes into account not only physical limitations but also the context of a person's life.
• Ensure proper implementation of government programs and decisions at the local level through training, mentoring, and capacity building for staff responsible for policy implementation in communities.
• Strengthen accountability mechanisms for violations of the rights of persons with disabilities and violations of accessibility and non-discrimination standards. Improve complaint response mechanisms, enhance monitoring and ensure legal support for victims.
• Ensure digital accessibility of public services, including the adaptation of websites and mobile applications to the needs of people with visual, hearing, or motor impairments.

Information policy and awareness raising:

• Ensure information accessibility in public and socially important areas. Implement accessible information standards in public services, education, employment, and civic participation. Formats should include text, audio, video with subtitles, and be adapted to the needs of people with disabilities, etc.
• Improve educational programs for media professionals. Integrate themes of disability representation and diversity to shape ethical standards of communication and an inclusive media culture.
• Support awareness campaigns about the lives of people with disabilities. Create an inclusive information environment through modern formats (storytelling, social media), focusing on everyday experiences rather than just achievements or challenges.
• Promote the development of inclusive media standards through partnerships with journalism associations and educational institutions. The state can support the development of ethical approaches to covering disability issues, including by updating professional standards, creating thematic guidelines, and raising awareness among media professionals about diversity representation. Particular attention should be paid to supporting editorial offices that shape an inclusive agenda by systematically covering the experiences of vulnerable groups in the public sphere.

 

INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS

Social Inclusion of the Group

Collective identity

According to the experts surveyed, the identity of IDPs crystallized against the backdrop of a shared traumatic experience of war-induced migration, which tended to strengthen the local identity of their home community/region rather than form a new identity as internally displaced persons. Focus group participants confirmed this observation by experts.

The views of experts on the integration of IDPs into host communities varied. While some experts supported the implementation of measures aimed at integrating IDPs into host communities, others saw this as a threat to the local identity of IDPs, which is tied to their communities of origin. During the interviews, experts who themselves had experience of displacement expressed support for restricting integration measures in host communities. The greatest fear was provoked by the integration of children into host communities, as this was perceived as a prerequisite for the complete disappearance of the local identity of the communities they had left, which are currently under occupation.

Assessment of social exclusion of the group

The social exclusion of respondents can develop both through the attitude of those around them in the new community and by the internal desire of the displaced persons themselves to isolate themselves.  The experts surveyed said that sometimes, as the share of IDPs grows, the host community feels that local traditions and rules are under threat. At the same time, according to the experts surveyed, attitudes toward IDPs who left in 2022 and later have improved compared to 2014.

At the same time, at the individual level, the key prerequisite for self-isolation among IDPs is a sense of difference in experience. The experience of displacement and living in frontline or occupied territories can create mistrust towards others who have not had similar experiences due to fear of misunderstanding, lack of empathy, etc. This view was confirmed by some focus group participants. One expert also noted that some IDP integration programs may have the opposite effect, contributing to the isolation of IDPs within their own group, as they are aimed exclusively at IDPs rather than a mixed audience and encourage closer social ties between them.

The focus group participants mainly concentrated on negative impressions of state policy. They often emphasized the feeling of being “abandoned to the whims of fate,” left to deal with their problems “on their own.” According to participants, this feeling was exacerbated by the ambiguous situation with political representation and lack of representation in the media. Some respondents, as well as one of the experts interviewed, perceived the restructuring of the Ministry for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories into the Ministry of National Unity as a signal from the state that its priorities had shifted from supporting IDPs to supporting Ukrainians abroad. IDPs surveyed also felt that the media had lost interest in them.

The initial reaction of the focus groups was to deny any prejudice against IDPs. However, during the discussion, respondents began to report cases of discrimination that they or their acquaintances had encountered. In some cases, respondents continued to insist that there was no prejudice even after sharing with the group instances of discrimination they had experienced when looking for work or housing. 

Despite improvements in the situation of this group, IDPs still face prejudice and stigmatization. According to the experts interviewed, this is most common in western Ukraine. Here, IDPs may encounter stigmatization of residents of eastern regions as a whole, manifested in the prejudice that most easterners have pro-Russian views. As a result of these prejudices, which are also one of the systemic elements of Russian information influence among the Ukrainian population aimed at radicalizing conflicts and shifting responsibility for the crime of aggression, some focus group participants were even accused of being the reason why the war started in the first place.

Experts emphasize that the source of prejudice against IDPs is often found with representatives of state or local authorities and the media, sincde they create a negative image of IDPs. The discourse they fuel creates false expectations among the local population, which can provoke conflicts between IDPs and locals. On the other hand, excessive concern for IDPs on the part of local authorities or international organizations can become another point of tension in poorer communities, as it can create inequality in access to social services between locals and IDPs.

Focus group participants most often mentioned discrimination when looking for housing and work. Although respondents were reluctant to talk in detail about their experiences of discrimination, the main focus of these mentions was on feelings of resentment towards fellow citizens.

Respondents linked this to what they perceived as indifference on the part of the state and attempts by fellow citizens to “profit from their misfortune.” The latter had a stronger psychological impact on them, as it was from their fellow citizens that they expected support.

At the same time, the experts interviewed caution that not all cases of refusal to provide goods or services encountered by IDPs are due to prejudice against them because of their origin. Often, cases such as unjustified refusals to rent housing or hire employees are linked to broader problems in these areas that other categories of the population also face.

Cohesion of Ukrainian Society

After relocation, focus group participants have been receiving the most support from family and friends, other internally displaced persons, the civil society sector, international donors, and residents of host communities. None of the respondents mentioned state institutions or individual authorities as sources of support.

During the focus groups, moderators did not ask direct questions that would probe for divisions between different social groups in society. Despite this, during the discussion, respondents regularly referred to two types of contrasts: the state and the people, and the east and west of the country.

Slightly less frequently, respondents contrasted the poor and the rich, particularly by contrasting business owners and employees. All of these contrasts were based on mistrust and a sense of injustice in the distribution of responsibilities and benefits during a full-scale war. In the view of some respondents, despite differences between different parts of the country, the population should unite to oppose the state authorities that violate citizens' rights. However, when asked directly by the moderators how society should be united, the respondents did not have a clearly formulated framework that they were willing to share with the group, except for references to the unity of society and the state at the beginning of the full-scale invasion and their sacrifice.

Barriers to Economic Participation

According to the experts surveyed, the main obstacles to the economic life of IDPs in host communities are problems with access to housing, the labor market, and education. All these obstacles lead to a worse financial situation for IDPs compared to locals, which exacerbates their marginalization in their new place of residence and may even push them to return home to the occupied territories.

Ukraine has a number of state programs aimed at improving IDPs' access to housing, but experts note their low effectiveness due to a lack of funding and a lack of a systematic approach. For example, under the “Shelter” program, compensation to homeowners who rent their homes to IDPs is often delayed, so homeowners may demand additional payments from tenants.

The housing subsidy program is significantly limited in its application. According to one expert, fewer than 100 people made use of this program due to landlords' unwillingness to come out of the shadows and sign official lease agreements, as well as difficulties with taxation. In addition, receiving such a subsidy excludes the right to other state assistance, which reduces its attractiveness for IDPs. According to one of the experts interviewed, preferential lending programs such as “Affordable Housing” or 3% mortgage loans have the potential to solve the problem, but their funding is significantly limited.

In contrast, in the context of housing, focus group participants mainly mentioned renting rather than buying a home. Respondents resumed the topic on their own throughout the discussion, even when talking about other issues.

When renting housing, respondents and their acquaintances faced challenges at all stages, from finding housing to paying rent. The latter was the subject of the most complaints. Although some IDPs were aware of the possibility of partial compensation from the state for the cost of renting housing, none were able to take advantage of this service due to landlords' refusal to sign a rental agreement.

Respondents who were able to find free housing through their social networks talked about increased emotional tension and frequent conflicts with roommates when they were forced to share housing with relatives or friends. Those who were able to settle in the homes of relatives who had left the country reported feelings of anxiety due to constant uncertainty about their housing situation. One of the specific problems for IDPs is the double burden of paying utility bills due to the need to pay, at least partially, for utilities in their communities of origin.

Those IDPs who are unable to rent or purchase housing on their own and have to use temporary compact accommodation, such as shelters or hostels, suffer poor living conditions. The experts surveyed have repeatedly encountered cases where premises allocated by the local community for IDPs to live in were later repurposed by the same community. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that, according to experts, such housing often becomes a place of long-term residence for IDPs.

Among the obstacles to active employment for IDPs, experts highlight the specific characteristics of the regions and communities from which the displaced persons came: residents of mono-industry regions or cities face difficulties in finding jobs that match their experience and skills. The vast majority of them have worked at the same enterprise for most of their lives, which makes it difficult to adapt to the conditions of a diverse labor market. State employment centers have reskilling and job search assistance programs, but they enjoy a low level of trust. Focus group participants also confirmed the widespread difficulties in adapting to the labor market of the host community.

Specific problems IDPs faced when seeking for job include bias employers have and a reluctance to take risks when starting their own businesses as a result of previous negative experiences of losing businesses during the war. According to some experts, ensuring stable access to housing could have a positive impact on the specific barriers to labor market access faced by IDPs.

Existing legislative restrictions do not allow internally displaced persons who are sole entrepreneurs to pay taxes to their communities of origin. According to the experts surveyed, many displaced entrepreneurs want to pay taxes to their home communities, supporting them financially and preserving their regional identity even after relocation. Discussions with respondents during focus groups confirmed that respondents who wish to return to their communities of origin would like to pay their taxes there at a present moment. Meanwhile, respondents who wish to stay in their host communities prefer to pay taxes where they live.

One of the factors that hinders IDPs' access to the labor market, according to the experts surveyed, is the access of internally displaced children to full-time education. Due to psychological unpreparedness, long queues to educational institutions, and fear of bullying in an already established group, displaced children sometimes choose to continue distance learning at the educational institutions they attended before moving. As a result, children lose opportunities for socialization, and parents who are forced to look after their children lose their competitive edge when looking for work and their financial situation worsens.

According to some experts, one of the obstacles to active economic life is the exaggerated expectations of some IDPs regarding the level and duration of state assistance and their dependence on social assistance, which reduces their willingness to enter the labor market and creates a sense of resentment when the level of social assistance is reduced. At the same time, other experts surveyed reported a significant deterioration in the financial situation of IDPs, against the backdrop of a reduction in the categories of IDPs eligible for cash assistance. In their opinion, it is worth considering expanding the categories of IDPs eligible for cash assistance and increasing the amounts of these payments.

The reduction in payments was also complained about in focus groups. Focus group participants emphasized the high need for social assistance due to difficulties in the labor market—there are no jobs or they are low-paid, so various sources of income must be accumulated to meet basic needs. Like the experts surveyed, respondents indicated that they were aware of cases of people returning to the occupied territories precisely because of a lack of housing and the inability to support themselves financially.

At the same time, the dynamics of communication in focus groups with IDPs revealed a significant problem with IDPs' awareness of their rights and the social services they can count on. On average, there was only one well-informed participant per focus group.

Bureaucratic barriers

According to experts, current legislation sometimes fails to take into account the specific situation of internally displaced persons and creates significant administrative barriers, in particular requirements for drawing up reports on destroyed housing. This makes it difficult to seek assistance even in cases of obvious destruction and creates a sense of injustice and indifference on the part of the state among IDPs, as the population of the government-controlled territories, where there is no fighting, does not face similar restrictions.

Focus group participants also mentioned the need to travel to occupied or frontline territories to obtain a number of social services, including compensation for destroyed housing.

Barriers to Political Participation

According to the experts surveyed, internally displaced persons currently face no barriers to political participation at either the national or local levels. Compared to the situation of internally displaced persons from the “first wave”, legislative barriers to voting in local elections in host communities have disappeared and the local population's attitude towards the political activity of IDPs has improved. Some experts said that the experience of displacement can, on the contrary, become an impetus for civic engagement, as for some people it is their first meaningful experience of direct and frequent contact with the state.

Barriers to the Participation in Social Life

The main concerns of experts and internally displaced persons regarding barriers to social interaction among displaced persons relate to younger generations. Perceptions of hostility among the local population, which are widespread among some IDPs, especially those who have moved far from their communities of origin, prevent children from attending school in person. According to experts, distance learning limits the socialization of displaced children and, by reducing opportunities for interaction, creates barriers to their integration into host communities.

Media Coverage of IDPs

The experts surveyed speak of a decline in media attention to internally displaced persons and their problems. According to the expert community, the media focus mainly on “success stories,” such as business relocation or starting a business after displacement, or on depicting the grief of displaced persons. This leaves no room for people who are only planning to relocate, as they do not see themselves in these stories. Experts point out that the media should focus more on IDPs as a politically and socially active community, provide more information about opportunities immediately after relocation, and avoid excessive heroization or portrayal of the disadvantaged. The same trend was mentioned by focus group participants.

Participants also spoke of media coverage of evacuations, which, in their opinion, negatively portrays people in frontline areas who are not ready to leave their communities.

Respondents' requests for media coverage of IDPs can be divided into those aimed at IDPs themselves and residents of occupied or frontline territories, as well as the wider public. For their own consumption, IDPs would like to see more information in the media about opportunities and pathways for IDPs after resettlement, including job vacancies open to IDPs and social programs, as well as examples of ordinary people who have managed to rebuild their lives without excessive “success stories.” Such information is critically important for those who are torn between the fear of not adapting to a new place and the fear of being injured or killed in a combat zone. In order to change public opinion about IDPs and combat prejudice among respondents, there is a demand for materials in which IDPs themselves talk about their experiences and problems. Focus group participants were convinced that this would help develop empathy towards IDPs and inform the authorities about the problems in their lives that need to be addressed.

Assessment of Public Policy And Cooperation With the State

Experts mostly gave a negative assessment of the current state policy on supporting IDPs, pointing out shortcomings in some government programs and decisions. A common shortcoming of most of the state programs mentioned by experts was insufficient and unsystematic funding and poor communication with IDPs regarding their ability to participate in these programs. For example, the municipal nanny program, which was positively assessed by experts, covers only 2,000 households nationwide, which is extremely low. 

The coordination of the evacuation of people from frontline areas and the shifting of responsibility for this to civil society organizations is also viewed negatively. The communication campaign during the evacuation of people from frontline areas did not provide adequate information to displaced persons about their next steps and stigmatized those who refused to evacuate. 

A number of state programmes and initiatives gave the experts surveyed a feeling of exploitation by the state. In addition to the aforementioned evacuation programme, the “Resilience Centres” programme also gave rise to a feeling of insufficient involvement on the part of the state.

The creation of IDP Councils received mixed reviews from the experts surveyed. Despite positive feedback on the initial idea of creating such councils, experts were disappointed with their practical implementation. They spoke of the coercive nature of the creation of such councils at the level of individual communities, the lack of initiative of their members, and the inability of the councils to have a real impact on the decisions of local self-government bodies.

Cooperation between the civil society sector and local and central authorities was described by experts as situational and dependent on the willingness of specific individuals to cooperate under the influence of external factors. As a result, institutional memory and systematic work were lost with each change of leadership. Based on their own experience of interacting with central government bodies, the experts surveyed had conflicting conclusions about their openness or closedness, as the willingness of central government officials to cooperate depended on personal connections.

At the level of central government, experts drew attention to the unwillingness of the Verkhovna Rada's temporary special commission on the protection of IDPs' rights to consider specific issues aimed at improving IDPs' access to housing, such as expanding IDPs' opportunities to use the “e-Reconstruction” program. Experts were positive about their current cooperation with the Ministry of Community and Territorial Development, while their feedback on cooperation with the Ministry of Social Policy was more negative. At the local government level, experts highlighted repeated attempts to take credit for the achievements of the civil society sector and to inflate their own performance indicators. However, there are communities that are open to systematic, close cooperation with the public sector on an equal footing.

Focus group participants also expressed predominantly negative views on the quality of state support for IDPs. However, this criticism was not specific and was expressed in disappointment with and distrust of the state. The few positive assessments of state support concerned the local level and were also general in nature, which may indicate both low awareness among respondents and a low level of social support from the state in their lives. A small proportion of focus group respondents were prepared to justify the lack of active assistance from the state for themselves and other participants by citing the war and the resulting economic downturn.

Recommendations

• Develop, with the involvement of IDPs, a comprehensive state policy that would define a common vision for the involvement of IDPs in public life and contain clear and measurable criteria for the integration of internally displaced persons into host communities
• Strengthen control and sanctions for stigmatizing actions and statements by representatives of authorities towards IDPs
• Establish, with the involvement of IDP associations, an advisory body to the President on the reintegration of temporarily occupied territories
• Ensure that IDPs in host communities have access to the cultural heritage and assets of their communities of origin in order to preserve the local identity of the community of origin, in particular through the creation of relevant manuals and interactive programs

• Implement programs aimed at promoting experience exchange and mutual support between IDPs and the local population of host communities through the creation of spaces for interaction

• Expand IDPs' access to social programs that are currently focused on socially vulnerable groups in host communities. For example, provide free public transportation, free meals in educational institutions, etc.
• Modernize retraining and training programs at employment centers, with the involvement of key stakeholders, in line with labor market needs

• Exemption from payment for services provided by gas, heat, and water distribution networks in communities of origin

• Encouraging private businesses to employ internally displaced persons by introducing quotas and incentives for their fulfillment
• Implement effective retraining and training programs in line with related and in-demand professions in host communities

• Make it easier for IDP children to get spots in kindergartens and schools where they live in host communities after displacement, as they have fewer chances than local kids who are already on the waiting list

• Providing the opportunity to redirect taxes paid by sole proprietors to their communities of origin

• Improving the system for informing IDPs about their rights and opportunities, in particular through the creation of specialized support centers that would accompany IDPs from displacement to return to their communities of origin

• Implement measures to update data on the number of IDPs in terms of various socio-demographic characteristics, communities of residence, and their individual needs
• Provide financial support to all categories of IDPs, but in different proportions according to their needs and ability to support themselves.

 

RUSSIAN-SPEAKING UKRAINIANS

Social Exclusion of the Group

Assessment of the Group’s Social Exclusion

Assessing the overall exclusion of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, experts said that Ukrainian society is quite tolerant of the use of Russian. Although experts spoke of a certain sensitivity to Russian due to the ongoing war with the Russian Federation, in the vast majority of cases, the issue of language use does not provoke serious conflicts within society.

Experts working in the field of language policy and human rights also said that in the questionnaire surveys they conducted in 2022–2023, some respondents anonymously reported cases of discrimination or bias based on language issues. However, when researchers attempted to contact respondents to conduct in-depth interviews, most of those surveyed refused to provide details about these cases, so no practical evidence of such discrimination could be gathered.

At the same time, some focus group participants reported cases of exclusion. For example, respondents shared that they feel uncomfortable when they have to constantly communicate in Ukrainian at work. At the same time, Russian is often seen as their everyday language, so they said they'd feel more comfortable doing their jobs in Russian. They also mentioned that they don't like the social pressure around Russian. According to them, the current situation with language policy does not encourage, but rather reinforces alienation and reduces interest in learning or using the Ukrainian language.

Bias Against Russian-Speaking Ukrainians

When discussing bias against Russian-speaking Ukrainians, most experts and focus group participants agreed that there was no discrimination or prejudice in everyday life: according to them, they had never experienced any conflicts due to the use of Russian, even in areas of public administration or social services, where Ukrainian is the official language. They say that mutual understanding prevails in everyday communication with other people, and there is even a willingness to switch from Ukrainian to Russian if necessary for the sake of the interlocutor. Respondents emphasize that this situation is typical for most regions of Ukraine.

Experts also emphasize that one could speak of an intolerant atmosphere toward the Russian language if there were widespread cases of physical violence or other forms of discrimination against Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine. However, there are virtually no reports of such cases, which leads to the conclusion that “the Russian language is de facto tolerated.” Also, according to experts, among the language conflicts that did emerge in the public sphere, most were caused by the aggressive reaction of Russian-speaking citizens to requests to switch to Ukrainian in public spaces.

At the same time, some respondents still indicate that they sometimes noticed manifestations of prejudice due to their use of the Russian language. Most often, these were isolated comments or even attempts to “provoke” conflict. The most common prejudice mentioned by focus group participants is that the use of Russian is automatically associated with a pro-Russian position or sympathy for Russia. Respondents say that this does not actually correspond to their views: in particular, the use of Russian does not prevent them from actively supporting the Armed Forces of Ukraine. However, respondents emphasize that even if such situations did occur, they were usually everyday incidents (in shops, on public transport) rather than systemic problems.

At the same time, according to respondents, they usually do not encounter difficulties in obtaining goods and services even when speaking Russian—all services are provided in full. Only one respondent shared an incident when he was denied service because he spoke Russian. Respondents also emphasized that they had not experienced prejudice or discrimination when contacting government agencies.

Focus group participants also indicate that the most prejudice and stigmatization against Russian-speaking Ukrainians is observed on social media. Experts emphasize that various disputes on different topics arise from time to time on social media, and language is “only one factor, and far from the main one, contributing to this.” However, such cases are often accompanied by harassment and obscene language directed at Russian-speaking Ukrainians, even if their opinion is constructive. Respondents also said that while there are fewer cases of prejudice in everyday life, on social media it is a systemic problem.

Respondents also describe how they respond to instances of stigmatization. Some people describe how they try to avoid conflict in such situations or switch to Ukrainian to avoid provoking further arguments or aggression.  Also, to avoid conflict, Russian-speaking Ukrainians are forced to choose when and where to speak Russian and when it is better to switch to Ukrainian or remain silent. Respondents acknowledge that in such cases, the main thing is to control one's behavior and emotions, avoid escalating disputes, and seek understanding. However, the overall conclusion is rather pessimistic: people acknowledge that the social atmosphere has become more tense.

According to many respondents, the emergence of prejudices and conflicts over the Russian language is largely due to historical reasons. In particular, respondents recalled that during the Soviet era, Russian had a special status as the “language of the titular nation,” while Ukrainian was often marginalized, which left a mark in many regions. Participants shared memories that in the eastern regions of Ukraine during the Soviet era, learning Ukrainian was optional and even discouraged by local party leaders. Respondents also spoke about the western regions of Ukraine: the Russian occupation of these territories was often accompanied by cruel treatment of the local population, which, according to those surveyed, led to a categorical rejection of the Russian language in these regions.

In addition, respondents suggested that another reason for prejudice against the Russian language is the reaction of Ukrainian society to the trauma of war. Due to the full-scale war, everything Russian (language, culture) is automatically associated with a threat in Ukrainian society. Some respondents also linked the emergence of such prejudices to the fact that many people lost their friends or relatives in the war or experienced the occupation. According to those surveyed, this contributes to increased tension and aggression in society. In addition, according to those surveyed, information manipulation, particularly by the Russian Federation, which is interested in weakening Ukraine, also has an additional impact.

A small number of respondents also believe that the cause of prejudice is attempts by the Ukrainian authorities to deliberately exacerbate conflicts on the basis of language in order to divert public attention from other problems in the country.

Focus group participants revealed a perception that internal tensions and prejudices also exist within the Russian-speaking community itself. Some condemn those who consciously or publicly insist on using Russian or demonstrate an attachment to Russian culture, particularly by listening to Russian music. Such cases are seen as provocative or inappropriate, especially in public spaces. At the same time, some respondents admit that although they consume Russian-language content, they consider it unacceptable given the war.

Respondents said that Russian-speaking citizens also have prejudices against other groups in Ukrainian society. In particular, they mentioned the perception of Ukrainian-speaking citizens as nationalists and “Banderites.” There were also prejudices against those who speak “surzhyk” (a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian): according to respondents, this is a shameful phenomenon and a distortion and disrespect for both languages. Experts also mentioned that until 2022, they had repeatedly recorded cases of prejudice and insults from Russian-speaking citizens towards Ukrainian speakers. After the start of the full-scale invasion, according to experts, this became less noticeable, but some respondents shared that they had seen such situations in their environment.

Some respondents also emphasized that attitudes toward Russian speakers vary significantly across different regions of Ukraine. They said that in cities where Russian is historically more widespread (Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa), they had not experienced significant pressure on Russian speakers. However, in western Ukraine, where Ukrainian is traditionally spoken, the use of Russian is more strongly associated with Russian aggression. This leads to prejudice and hostility towards Russian-speaking fellow citizens.

Interactions of Russian-Speaking Ukrainians With Other People

When discussing the interaction between Russian-speaking citizens and other members of Ukrainian society, experts say that Russian speakers often adapt to the language used to communicate with them. Russian-speaking Ukrainians themselves agreed with the experts and said that they do so to avoid conflict and negative reactions from their Ukrainian-speaking fellow citizens. In particular, in small towns and villages where the Ukrainian-speaking environment prevails, speaking Russian may be perceived as inappropriate or provocative, especially in the context of war and significant losses. At the same time, both experienced individuals and experts said that Russian-speaking citizens usually remain loyal to their language when communicating with their close circle, citing habit and long-standing language practice. They see this approach to communication as a way to avoid tension in society and, at the same time, as a sign of personal flexibility.

At the same time, some respondents also shared that their use of Russian in everyday life did not provoke any negative reactions from other citizens or state authorities. They emphasized that even in state institutions, employees were friendly, sometimes even switching to Russian or demonstrating understanding and support. Respondents also said that, in general, others treated them with tolerance and friendliness, although there were cases of minor ironic remarks. However, such cases are rare, do not escalate into open conflict, and usually remain at the level of everyday jokes or light teasing.

However, despite the generally tolerant environment, most Russian-speaking citizens surveyed occasionally reported instances of negative attitudes toward them from other citizens. Some respondents reported feelings of insult and unfair pressure, citing psychological discomfort in switching to Ukrainian and poor conversational skills. In particular, there is a growing perception that “the Russian Federation's troops took our homes away from us, and now our compatriots are taking away our linguistic home.” For some respondents, this insult is a reason to refuse to switch to Ukrainian on principle, “after these language thugs started harassing us.”

The experts and Russian-speaking Ukrainians we talked to also mentioned that sometimes there are cases of aggression from some activists. They mentioned these so-called informal “language patrols” that keep an eye on how Ukrainian is used in public services and demand that the law is followed. Some respondents said that such initiatives are often accompanied by provocative actions and filming, which, in their opinion, only increases tension and does not contribute to constructive dialogue. At the same time, most respondents emphasized that aggression in such cases is more often caused by the behavior of individuals rather than a sign of systemic pressure.

Some respondents said that although society generally tries to avoid language disputes, in everyday life they encountered manifestations of judgment for using Russian. Such cases occurred in public places such as shops, hairdressers, transport, and also during personal conversations. Respondents reported comments from strangers, sometimes harsh or derogatory. They also shared that they felt resentment from others even before they had expressed their opinion about their use of Russian.

Some participants in the discussions emphasized that in everyday communication they feel superiority from other citizens, which manifests itself through negative reactions (sideways glances, remarks, etc.) to the use of the Russian language. Respondents explained that this creates discomfort and forces them to constantly adapt to others, even when it is not always convenient or natural. Respondents interpreted this reaction as a manifestation of trauma from the war.

Experts and focus group participants also said that there are often differences in views between Russian-speaking citizens and other groups in society. In particular, they emphasized that cultural preferences are often the source of different positions and disputes. For example, according to the respondents, the topic of listening to Russian music is not only a matter of personal preference, but also part of a broader discussion about supporting or condemning Russian culture during wartime.

Barriers to Economic Participation

Both experts and focus group participants largely agree that Russian-speaking citizens do not generally face barriers to their full participation in economic life. In particular, some experts cited examples of Ukrainian oligarchs who are predominantly Russian-speaking and this has not prevented them from gaining economic advantage over others.

On the topic of employment, experts said that the first obstacles for Russian-speaking citizens appeared in 2019, when new legislation was passed establishing Ukrainian as the language of service in Ukraine. For the most part, Ukrainian employers complied with these requirements, forcing Russian-speaking citizens to learn Ukrainian for work. Respondents also shared that language requirements are increasingly being extended to prestigious professions. However, it was discussed that the private sector remains less regulated than the public sector, which allows many Russian-speaking citizens to fully realize their potential in business without the need to know Ukrainian at a high level. At the same time, some experts believe that the part of the population that is fundamentally unwilling to learn Ukrainian may eventually find itself among economically marginalized groups, but they clarified  that these processes are not yet underway.

In the field of education, respondents generally believe that Russian-speaking citizens mostly do not face any barriers. According to experts, the vast majority of modern Russian-speaking citizens know Ukrainian at least at a basic level, as most of them learned it in school. As for the deeper level of language proficiency required for higher education, experts believe that modern technologies, in particular the development of artificial intelligence, are levelling out these difficulties for Russian-speaking citizens. At the same time, some focus group participants reported cases where children were punished for using Russian during school breaks, but this was not their personal experience, and other respondents did not confirm this.

Barriers to Political Participation

With regard to political participation, most experts also agree that there are currently no barriers preventing Russian-speaking citizens from participating fully.

According to experts, any political actions, such as voting in elections, writing petitions, and other forms of political participation, do not contain any specific barriers for Russian-speaking citizens. Experts emphasize that writing petitions, registering political parties, and distributing political propaganda, in particular, must be done in Ukrainian, but this requirement applies to all linguistic minorities in Ukraine. Some respondents also said that some Ukrainian politicians currently communicate in Russian, so they do not see this as a restriction for Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine.

At the same time, some experts said that there is a risk of partial self-exclusion of Russian-speaking citizens from the political process due to the linguistic and cultural narratives that dominate the pre-election rhetoric. In particular, the experience of the 2014 elections shows that a significant part of the population in southern and eastern Ukraine did not participate in the voting at that time, as they did not see any potential representatives of their group among the candidates. However, experts do not expect this group to be completely excluded from political competition, as the leading political forces, according to them, will seek to avoid open confrontation and reduce the emphasis on linguistic and cultural differences. Experts also acknowledge that the presence of candidates promoting ideas of linguistic pluralism, multiculturalism, or less focus on national symbols could become a factor in mobilizing such voters. However, this is not expected to be a decisive trend, as most Russian-speaking citizens are more likely to integrate into support for mainstream politicians and parties, where language and culture will take a back seat to other priorities.

Barriers to the Participation In Social Life

Experts said that some Russian-speaking citizens may occasionally encounter obstacles to participating in social life. In particular, some experts said that the Russian language often becomes a barrier to the social integration of migrants who arrive in an environment where Ukrainian is spoken. People who are accustomed to communicating in Russian may feel alienated in Ukrainian-speaking communities and find themselves in conflict situations. At the same time, according to experts, such cases are not widespread: many Ukrainian-speaking communities are friendly towards IDPs, tolerating their Russian language use in view of the difficult experiences of IDPs.

However, experts also emphasized that there are reverse processes: in certain elite circles of Ukrainian society, Russian-speaking can be associated with success, which means that access to such environments remains quite limited for Ukrainian speakers. However, according to experts, this phenomenon characterizes a very limited segment of Ukrainian society and is unlikely to spread. At the same time, respondents emphasized the importance of local specifics—for example, in small Ukrainian villages, there is often no prejudice against migrants or Russian speakers, while in large cities, competition for social status can deepen barriers.

Among focus group participants, the most common theme was that most Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians reject Russian culture rather than the language itself. In particular, respondents mentioned negative attitudes toward Russian writers, musicians, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has close ties to the Russian Orthodox Church. Some Russian-speaking respondents said that these cultural symbols and values are important to them, and therefore they find it emotionally uncomfortable that they are rejected by Ukrainian society as a result of Russia's armed aggression.

Media Coverage of Russian-Speaking Ukrainians

Respondents were somewhat divided on the media coverage of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Some of those surveyed generally assessed the media's work positively: according to them, the media now mostly refrain from emphasizing language differences and try not to create additional tension by avoiding the stigmatization of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. The stigmatisation of so-called language activism — people who persistently promote the Ukrainian language in public spaces — has also disappeared. Overall, according to experts, the media recognise the legitimacy of demands for the expansion of the Ukrainian language without alienating the Russian-speaking audience and avoiding conflict.

At the same time, experts say that there are still cases of pressure and prejudice against Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the media. In particular, there are cases where Russian-speaking citizens are portrayed as somewhat inadequate. In other cases, experts spoke of the stereotypical portrayal of Russian-speaking Ukrainians as marginalised groups. However, experts claim that this is a very small part of the public discourse.

Experts also reported that they observe a certain segregation of Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the information space. In particular, they say that TikTok and YouTube mainly offer content in Russian, even if it is a Ukrainian product. At the same time, traditional media, such as television and radio, are mainly in Ukrainian.

Cohesion of Ukrainian Society

Focus group participants emphasized that before the full-scale invasion, their perception of Ukrainian society's cohesion was higher. They recalled their own experiences traveling to other regions of the country, where communicating mainly in Russian did not cause any tension or conflict. In their opinion, it was precisely this state of society, in which the language issue did not become a source of conflict, that was an example of cohesion and understanding between citizens.

Respondents emphasize that Ukrainian society now needs to unite against a common enemy. They stress that there are many Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In view of this, the respondents say that there is no need to divide people now and that it is necessary to focus on the idea that “everything is for the front, everything is for victory.” At the same time, respondents see the state as playing a key role in this process: according to those surveyed, the Ukrainian authorities need to encourage people to unite around solving the country's problems (in particular, they mentioned referendums as a tool). On the other hand, the state's attitude toward Russian-speaking Ukrainians is currently viewed negatively, and respondents emphasize that it is an obstacle to social unity.

Vision of the Future

In attempting to predict the potential status of the Ukrainian and Russian languages in Ukraine, experts say that Ukrainian is likely to continue to play an increasingly important role in society. This is indicated by the results of studies conducted by experts. In particular, they show that after the start of the full-scale invasion, support for some aspects of nationalist ideology (such as approval of the activities of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army) has declined somewhat. At the same time, there are no signs of such a decline in the language issue: on the contrary, experts note a further increase in the use of the Ukrainian language and the willingness of society to actively support its spread. According to experts, the greatest development and change in linguistic identities is taking place among internally displaced persons. Some experts claim that this factor could potentially become decisive in the further Ukrainization of the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine.

At the same time, experts are considering a hypothetical scenario in which a leader emerges who would question the current state policy of supporting the Ukrainian language and instead promote the idea of bilingualism. However, there are currently no signs or preconditions for such a radical change: the majority of society does not consider voting for such a candidate. However, according to experts, much will depend on how and under what conditions the war ends. If the war ends in an extremely unfavorable way for Ukraine, this could lay the groundwork for the formation of a so-called “Weimar syndrome” in society, which could potentially affect language policy and support for national identity.

Focus group participants also have many fears about how attitudes toward Russian-speaking citizens may change in the future. Some respondents expressed concern that the return of soldiers from the front and their post-traumatic experiences of war will only increase tensions in society. They link these sentiments to the risk of increased conflict and misunderstanding in the public sphere.

There are also predictions about the possible introduction of stricter mechanisms to control the use of the Ukrainian language, even in the private sphere, including fines. At the same time, there is skepticism about the effectiveness of such radical steps: respondents say that even if the authorities introduce such sanctions, this will not change the fundamental attitude toward the language, but will only “break the will” of those who are not ready or unable to quickly integrate into the Ukrainian-speaking space.

Assessment of Public Policy And Cooperation With the State

When discussing state policy, most experts positively assess public policy in the field of language regulation, while only a minority of focus group participants view state policy with approval and positivity. According to experts, although Ukraine's state language policy was introduced late, it established an important principle: Ukrainian is the main language in all public spheres, including customer service. This approach is based on the belief that formal equality between Russian and Ukrainian would preserve the dominance of Russian, which had historically prevailed. In view of this, the Ukrainian language needs additional legislative protection to overcome post-colonial dynamics.

At the same time, according to experts, the state is demonstrating a balanced approach: the mandatory use of Ukrainian in public practices is combined with the absence of restrictions on other languages in the private sphere or by mutual agreement. In addition, experts compared Ukrainian language policy with European practices and noted that in European Union countries, there is generally no widespread use of minority languages in the public sphere. Participants pointed out that in EU countries, the principle prevails that the language of public communication is the official or regional language, while other languages can be used mainly in private or online spaces.

Thus, the Ukrainian approach to language regulation complies with European standards. According to experts, it is also worth noting that the state is not currently exerting excessive pressure in the language sphere, although the first drafts of the law contained attempts at excessive regulation (in particular, complaints about minor errors in the document). However, the law has been softened and there is no significant pressure in practice. Focus group participants, on the other hand, said that during the war, the state should encourage the transition to Ukrainian and positively assessed the fact that there are currently many opportunities to learn Ukrainian.

At the same time, experts also have comments and negative assessments regarding certain aspects of state language policy. In particular, experts emphasized that, despite significant international interest in the Ukrainian language, the Ukrainian state continues to demonstrate weakness in creating the necessary infrastructure and support for teaching Ukrainian as a foreign language. Respondents emphasize that there is currently a lack of coordination between key government agencies and a reluctance to take responsibility, which ultimately leads to the testing and teaching of Ukrainian to foreigners being organized by foreign companies without the involvement of the Ukrainian state. Some experts also believe that there is currently no comprehensive state policy that sets clear requirements for the language integration of migrants who obtain a residence permit in Ukraine. Although there is an exam for obtaining citizenship, there are no requirements for those who obtain temporary or permanent residence permits. This creates a situation where migrants can choose the easier option for them — Russian — given the better resources available for learning it, instead of integrating into Ukrainian society through the Ukrainian language.

Experts also highlighted another important shortcoming of state policy: the lack of clear and systematic communication that the Ukrainian language is not only a symbol of national identity, but also a necessary part of the full realization of the rights of Ukrainian-speaking citizens. The state currently focuses its rhetoric mainly on the fact that language is a weapon in the fight against the aggressor and a sign of belonging to the Ukrainian nation. However, this is not accompanied by an explanation that the Ukrainian language in the public sphere is also an integral element of equal access to services and respect for the Ukrainian-speaking community, which has been a minority for years. According to experts, this imbalance in communication creates misunderstanding among citizens as to why providing services in Ukrainian is a matter of respecting the rights of the buyer and not a violation of the rights of the Russian-speaking seller, which is critical for restoring linguistic justice.

In addition, experts are critical of the fact that, despite the state's calls for a transition to Ukrainian, this transition is not backed up by specific tools or resources that would help to achieve it. As a result, there is a situation where the requirement to transition exists, but there is no understanding among ordinary citizens of how to implement it.

Recommendations

Public policy:

• Ensure effective exercise of the constitutional rights of all citizens. It is recommended to strengthen the effectiveness of the existing legal framework and ensure the functioning of the judicial system based on the principles of equal access to justice, guarantees of impartiality of judges, ensuring proper consideration of citizens' appeals, etc. Transparent and effective mechanisms for responding to cases of violence or harassment should be introduced.
• Ensure consistent implementation of existing language legislation in all public spheres, including in the activities of state bodies, even in regions facing a difficult security situation. This requires systematic monitoring of compliance with language legislation, awareness building with public officials on the importance of the official language in public services, and, in cases of plain refusal to comply, the application of appropriate measures.
• Integrate language policy into a broader social, economic, and cultural policy framework that takes into account the needs of Russian-speaking citizens and internally displaced persons. The state should create conditions for Russian-speaking citizens to feel cared for and respected by the state, while emphasizing the educational aspect of explaining the language issue and the systematic suppression of the Ukrainian language in Ukraine, both historically and since independence.

• Study and borrow the experience of other countries in preserving historical memory. It is recommended to study and adapt foreign experience in preserving and promoting cultural heritage.
• Promote the creation of high-quality pro-Ukrainian cultural products. It is recommended to strengthen requirements for the creation and financing of films, theater performances, music, and other cultural products to ensure a positive representation of Ukrainian culture.
• Use cultural policy as a means of encouraging a gradual transition to the Ukrainian language. Such measures should include concerts, public events, and information and awareness campaigns. This will encourage citizens to use Ukrainian in everyday life and strengthen its natural spread.
• Promote the creation of cultural projects (books, publications, or video interviews) that tell the stories of successful language transition by well-known Ukrainian figures. Such a project aims to show that the transition to Ukrainian is possible and achievable, even if it was difficult at first. It should include stories about difficulties and successes, experiences of language transformation, as well as inspiring examples of people who have gone down this path. Such a resource could be a powerful motivator for those who are still hesitant or just beginning the process of transitioning to Ukrainian.

• Develop language adaptation programs for Ukrainian citizens returning from abroad. This involves creating individualized learning plans for children in schools, additional language courses, and psychological support for a smooth transition.
• Adapt educational programs to take into account the impact that Russian culture and language have had on Ukrainian society. In the long term, it is proposed to introduce the study of the role of the Russian language in Ukrainian culture into the school curriculum, with an emphasis on the colonial dimension of this language and culture, in order to ensure awareness of the historical context.

• Avoid excessive emphasis on the language issue in public and political discourse. It is recommended not to focus excessive attention on language differences and not to escalate language differences.
• Create a comprehensive language transition support program that includes the opportunity to learn Ukrainian.
• Develop and implement a comprehensive state program for teaching Ukrainian as a foreign language. The program should include the creation of modern textbooks and teaching materials, language models that allow for practicing communication and correcting mistakes. It is also important to develop a system for certifying proficiency in Ukrainian as a second language for different groups (including foreigners).

VETERANS AND MILITARY FAMILIES

Social Exclusion of the Group

Collective Identity

Differences in how traumatic experiences were lived through had a different impact on the formation of the respondents' collective identity and its strength. Some focus group participants did not mention their military service or participation in the war during their introductions, focusing instead on their current civilian professions, or they talked about the consequences of participating in the war without mentioning their military service. This category of participants avoided identifying themselves by their group affiliation, instead using past tense verbs such as “served” and “did my duty.” Not all of these participants were discharged from service; some underwent rehabilitation or were transferred to rear positions. Some of those who were discharged from service presented themselves during the focus groups as military personnel, while others presented themselves as veterans, which indicates the strength of their identity as military personnel or veterans among these participants. Among the families of military personnel and veterans who participated in the focus groups, there was also a gradation in the strength of their group identity depending on the closeness of their relationships and involvement in social life. For example, one participant, who cares for her husband who was seriously wounded in the war, combined her own personality with that of her husband in conversation, speaking about his experience as their shared experience.

Assessment of the Group’s Social Exclusion

According to experts, the social exclusion of veterans, military personnel, and their families is a multidimensional and nonlinear phenomenon shaped by changes in identity, war experiences, psychological adaptation to civilian life, and the nature of interactions with the environment. One of the main causes of exclusion is a transformation of worldview: veterans see themselves, their relationships, and society differently compared to their worldview before service, which leads to a narrowing of their circle of communication and self-isolation. Also, as experts say, peaceful life is often perceived as disorienting, and civil society as alien or incomprehensible. Thus, although the actions of those around them influence the social exclusion of the group, the main subject remains the group itself, which seeks to distance itself from others. Overall, experts did not assess the group's desire to distance itself as a critical problem, noting the importance of cohesion among group members and viewing this as a necessary stage of resocialization.

To overcome exclusion, as the interviewees emphasize, a combination of respect and equal integration is necessary. Veterans do not need to be heroified, but they want to be treated humanely, without condescension. Safe spaces where military experience is acknowledged but not stigmatized are important. Such communities can be supportive but must remain open to wider groups in society.

Among focus group participants, there was a widespread sense of alienation from Ukrainian society and indifference among the civilian population to the lives and problems of the military. This feeling was fuelled by previous negative experiences of being denied help and support from civilians, both personally and through the media. Participants recalled cases of military personnel being denied services because of their appearance, which had previously been reported in the media, and shared personal stories of prejudice against them. Most of the personal stories that participants used to confirm their beliefs about the isolation of military personnel and veterans concerned everyday situations in which they were denied legal privileges in public spaces or treated unethically, demonstrating disrespect for the contribution of the military. Respondents cited examples such as being refused a seat on public transport, being refused priority in queues at various institutions, especially hospitals, and being refused free travel on public transport. Discussions about the experiences of participants when they or their relatives were denied assistance and support were one of the most sensitive topics for respondents, which was given a lot of time in each of the focus groups with veterans and their families.

At the same time, respondents explained the negative or indifferent attitude of part of the population towards military personnel and veterans by a lack of understanding and empathy due to the absence of experience of war similar to that of military personnel and their families. Social exclusion was most acute among military personnel and veterans who did not have family support, as old social ties from civilian life were often lost during service, and new ones acquired during service were inaccessible due to physical distance.

Military personnel and veterans found a sense of security and support mainly within their families and among their comrades. The relatives of military personnel also sought new social circles among other families of military personnel and veterans who had similar experiences and could therefore understand their problems. In some cases, this led to the breakdown of old social ties. Participants reported that communicating with old acquaintances who had no experience of active involvement in the war or did not have relatives in the military caused them irritation, as they felt that the mundane nature of their problems belittled the problems they were facing – the fear of losing a loved one and prolonged separation.

Bias Against the Group

According to experts, prejudice against veterans, military personnel, and their families is part of a broader problem—a low culture of communication in Ukrainian society. Experts say that people without personal experience of interacting with military personnel are prone to prejudice. At the same time, military personnel and veterans themselves do not always have the resources to explain their experiences, which makes dialogue impossible. The situation is particularly sensitive for female veterans, who face double discrimination — both on the basis of gender and as military personnel. Their experiences are often ignored, and if a woman has or plans to have children, motherhood is seen as incompatible with military service.

Experts cite the influence of information and psychological operations (IPO) aimed at discrediting the image of military personnel as another challenge. The spread of stories about violence or arbitrariness on the part of the military creates fear or distrust of people in uniform in society, which is detrimental to both communication and the process of resocialization of veterans after their return from war.

Focus group participants mentioned isolated cases of help and support from outsiders, including neighbors or strangers, but they paid much more attention to discussing the negative attitudes of those around them toward the military and veterans. Only two participants from all focus groups who belong to families of veterans and military personnel reported that they had not encountered prejudice because of their group affiliation.

Of all cases of refusal of goods and services shared by focus group participants, the vast majority were related to refusal of preferential transportation. Cases of refusal to provide assistance mainly concerned refusals to give up places in healthcare facilities and, less frequently, refusals to give up seats on public transport. Participants also included cases where the people around them couldn't tell if they were military, which might show how sensitive people are to showing respect for the military in society. Requests to confirm their status with documents were perceived negatively by respondents, as it called into question their membership in the group. 

Some of the experiences of discrimination and prejudice shared by respondents were related to everyday interactions with acquaintances outside the group. According to the respondents themselves, not all of these statements were intended to humiliate the military, but they had that effect because they were perceived by the respondents as creating a negative image of the military, undermining their heroism and altruistic self-sacrifice for the state. Such statements included condemnation of the decision to mobilize or accusations against the families of military personnel for “letting them go to war,” assumptions about selfish motives for mobilization, or assessment of the grounds for dismissal from service as an attempt to evade the army.

Of all the groups studied, military personnel, veterans, and their family members are the most radical in their response to stigmatization and prejudice. This is partly due to the discrepancy between the respect they feel they deserve and the actual treatment they receive. Focus group participants reacted to all instances of stigmatization of their group that they encountered. The range of reactions varied from comments to, often, direct aggression and a desire to resort to physical violence.

Among the sharply negative reactions, focus group participants paid a lot of attention to fear and distrust towards them coming from those around them. They saw the spread of perceptions about the mental instability and dangerousness coming from people who had survived the war as a prerequisite for this attitude toward veterans discharged from service. Fear and distrust of military personnel in uniform, in their opinion, was caused by negative attitudes toward representatives of territorial recruitment centers (TRCs).

They blamed them for being biased against all military people. As a result, the focus group participants had a lot of preconceived ideas and negative feelings toward the TRC, even wanting to separate them from the rest of the military. Most participants portrayed TRC staff as corrupt, high-ranking officials who did not understand or share the problems of “ordinary” soldiers. In this regard, respondents drew parallels between TRC representatives and other authorities, such as MPs, heads of state institutions, and the president, contrasting them with the “common people.”

Participants see another source of biased and disrespectful attitudes toward military personnel and their families in the lack of similar experiences of war among other people, which could have helped them understand and empathize with the problems faced by military personnel, veterans, and their families. Participants also attributed responsibility for the spread of discriminatory attitudes toward their group in society to government officials and politicians. In their opinion, the authorities serve as a model in normalizing negative attitudes toward the military.

Cohesion of Ukrainian Society

Focus group participants received most of their support and assistance from family, volunteers, and other group members. Communication and maintaining close ties between military personnel, veterans, and military family members with other families helped participants find the emotional and psychological support they needed, gain understanding, receive assistance in protecting the rights of the group, and obtain state assistance. Female respondents who are relatives of military personnel and veterans said that since they cannot always tell whether someone is a military person in everyday communication, they have become more patient when communicating with strangers and have begun to resort to self-censorship more often.

Respondents reflected extensively on the need to unite the Ukrainian nation for survival, victory in the war, and de-occupation of territories. Participants viewed the unification process as a grassroots initiative and often referred to the state of society at the beginning of the full-scale invasion as something to which everyone should strive to return. At the local level, participants sought to unite within their groups to help each other and protect their rights. Although respondents expected the authorities to make special efforts to overcome selfish intentions, during the focus groups they kept contrasting those in power, impersonated by the state or wealthy individuals, with the “ordinary people.”

The contrast between the state and the people, the rich and the poor among focus group participants was based on a sense of unfair distribution of resources and burdens in society. There was widespread distrust of government officials and the state among participants, which raised concerns about continued state support for the group after the war.

Barriers to Economic Participation

Experts say that veterans, military personnel, and their families face systemic barriers to economic integration. The most common challenge is the devaluation of veterans' professional experience. The vast majority of jobs available to them are manual labor, while people with higher education and specialized skills are left without suitable offers. This leads to a loss of motivation and unrealized potential.

Another barrier is the low level of adaptation of the labor market to the real needs of veterans. According to the experts surveyed, the system of retraining, grants, and skills upgrading formally exists, but its effectiveness is limited. Veterans, especially after receiving significantly higher incomes during their service, are often unwilling to accept lower-paying jobs. In addition, a large share of veterans do not use social services due to difficulties in accessing them or mistrust of the system — there are even reports of veterans refusing benefits due to bureaucratic difficulties.

The issue of social justice in the context of monetary compensation remains complex. Conflicts arise among the families of the deceased over differences in the amounts of payments made at different times, which also points to the need for a more transparent and unified policy.

According to experts, financial illiteracy is another barrier that is relevant not only for veterans but also for Ukrainians in general. The inability to plan expenses, a lack of basic understanding of financial instruments, and fear of seeking services complicate integration into economic life after service.

According to focus group participants, the situation with financial support for military personnel who have been transferred to rear units due to injuries or deteriorating health but have not been discharged from service is particularly problematic. Although the state provides such military personnel with everything they need, their minimal financial support puts their families in an extremely difficult financial situation and they risk falling below the poverty line.

The issue of employment was more relevant for veteran respondents who had been discharged from service. Depending on the type of activity prior to mobilization, respondents were concerned either about the possibility of finding a job given their perceptions of prejudice among employers towards military personnel and their mental readiness to work in a team, or about reviving a business that had declined while the respondent was serving in the military. One of the common problems mentioned by participants is significant bureaucratic obstacles to obtaining state support. Although participants were generally informed about their rights and opportunities for social support from the state, the procedures for applying for assistance, payments, benefits, and documents were extremely complicated and exhausting for respondents. Participants described them as humiliating and degrading. In particular, receiving payments in connection with the death of a soldier required proving the circumstances of death, such as the presence of protective equipment, which was traumatic for the families of the deceased soldiers.

Barriers to Health Care and Rehabilitation

According to experts, one of the key barriers is a low-quality and inconsistent rehabilitation in medical facilities. Veterans often face indifferent and unprofessional attitudes, both in civilian and military hospitals. These circumstances cause the feeling of isolation, loss of dignity and trust to the system.

Experts pay particular attention to barriers related to mental health. Combat experience is often accompanied by distress and cognitive impairment, which complicates the acquisition of new knowledge and adaptation to civilian life. These factors require additional support and a flexible approach from educational and human resources institutions.

Experts also mention the phenomenon of “learned helplessness” among some veterans, particularly those with disabilities. Due to their prolonged stay in a system that does not provide opportunities for independence, they develop a deep conviction that they are incapable of acting without outside help.

Respondents repeatedly encountered negative attitudes and indifference from public officials and hospital staff, which made it difficult for them to receive high quality medical care. Healthcare facilities are the public facilities that military personnel and veterans use most often. That is why participants devoted a significant portion of their focus group discussions to them. The difficulties encountered by respondents in healthcare facilities can be divided into challenges during the medical and social expert commission (MSEC) process and challenges during the provision of medical services. At the same time, poor service quality is characteristic of both types of challenges. During the MSEC process, participants encountered underestimation of disability groups or their assignment for only a short period, which, according to the participants, did not correspond to their actual physical condition and was caused by the desire of MSEC employees to receive bribes.

Respondents' access to medical services was limited by the unavailability of high-quality and timely free prosthetics and rehabilitation in public health facilities. In cases where respondents were able to receive free examinations, they were still forced to pay for medication out of their own pockets. In addition, participants faced rude treatment from medical staff and administrators. Both of these factors prompted them to either refuse treatment or seek private medical facilities, which respondents did not always have the financial means to do.

Although participants only mentioned psychological support in the context of helping military personnel overcome alcohol addiction after returning home and providing psychological rehabilitation for military children, the psychological state of participants during focus groups indicates a need to expand psychological assistance and rehabilitation programs to cover a larger number of military personnel veterans, and their families suffering from depression and PTSD.

Barriers to Political Participation

According to the experts surveyed, the main political barriers faced by military personnel and veterans are insufficient political awareness and a lack of skills for effective interaction with the institutional system. Many veterans who became active after 2014 had not had any previous experience in politics. Their motivation was based on determination and a sense of injustice, but their actions were often emotional and did not lead to systemic change.

An additional challenge is the tendency of political parties to use the veteran theme as a tool to increase their own legitimacy. According to experts, veterans are eagerly included in electoral lists as symbols of patriotism, but their actual participation in policy-making or decision-making processes is not always guaranteed. This creates a risk of manipulation and devaluation of the veterans themselves. At the same time, the lack of political or administrative experience, combined with high expectations for quick results, can lead to disappointment and withdrawal from active participation.

Barriers to the Participation in Social Life

Experts identify one of the key challenges for social interaction between military personnel and veterans with people outside the group as the indiscriminate glorification of the image of the military, which takes place in public discourse. Although such rhetoric can have a mobilizing effect, it also generates dangerous expectations, both among the civilian population and among veterans themselves. According to respondents, this sometimes leads to behavioural distortions: some veterans believe that their combat experience gives them the moral right to dictate to others how to live or what to do, expecting preferential treatment or unconditional support.

Another sensitive but systemic barrier is the problem of domestic violence in veteran families. Experts emphasize that this topic remains taboo even within the group. Attempts to talk openly about it often provoke a negative reaction from the veterans themselves, as they are perceived as an attack on their “heroic” image.

Media Coverage 

Ukrainian media play an important role in shaping public perceptions of the military, veterans, and their families. According to experts, negative narratives about veterans have long dominated the media, shaping the image of this group as “problematic.” Although there has been a positive trend in the coverage of these topics in recent years, certain challenges remain, related to stereotyping, lack of thematic diversity, and inconsistency in focus.

Assessment of Public Policy And Cooperation With the State

According to most of the experts surveyed, state policy in the area of work with military personnel, veterans, and their families is fragmented, institutionally weak, and lacks a systematic approach. At the central policy level, experts point to the lack of coordination between different branches of government, problems with funding for support programs, and the weak capacity of local communities to respond to the needs of veterans' families. Promised state funding for social services often does not arrive or is delayed, and local specialists lack adequate training and information support. The lack of coordination between state and private initiatives further complicates the situation.

Among existing state programs, initiatives aimed at supporting veteran businesses, employment, and providing rehabilitation services received positive or moderately positive feedback from experts. Experts have welcomed the introduction of veterans' offices in medical facilities based on the “single window” principle. They also mentioned the electronic voting for the rector of the Lviv Land Forces Academy, which is an example of involving veterans and cadets in public decision-making.

Much of the criticism from experts was directed at the Ministry of Veterans Affairs, which is considered a weak, ineffective, and bureaucratic institution. According to many respondents, the ministry is not fulfilling its main function. It lacks openness to cooperation with civil society, as well as strategic vision and real management capacity. A number of responses expressed nostalgia for the Veterans Service, which, although smaller in scale, demonstrated greater openness, responsiveness, and effectiveness. According to experts, the ministry does not act as an arbitrator or coordinator between key ministries responsible for health, education, employment, and rehabilitation, leading to policy fragmentation, duplication of functions, and conflicts of authority.

In addition to institutional weakness, experts point to deep managerial incompetence in this area. According to them, the government in general, and the relevant ministries in particular, demonstrate a low level of strategic planning, a lack of process management skills, and an inability to form working groups and maintain the continuity of reforms in the event of a change of officials. Agreements with civil society organizations often become invalid after the next rotation of personnel, and the new leadership starts the process from scratch, ignoring previous achievements.

Significant barriers to the implementation of effective policies in the field of support for veterans remain the imperfect regulatory framework and the lack of effective mechanisms for implementing adopted decisions. Of particular concern is the situation of inequality in access to compensation and services between veterans of different periods of the war—in particular, combatants from 2014 and 2022 receive different levels of benefits, which creates social tension and a sense of injustice.

Despite general criticism of the authorities at the national level, experts noted positive examples at the local level. Some large companies are beginning to implement specialised adaptation programmes that simplify job requirements, redesign workplaces or create new positions in line with the physical condition of employees after injuries. In addition, digital employment services that develop specific functional solutions for veterans play an important role in this process.

Some focus group participants had experience receiving state benefits and participating in support programs, such as discounts on utilities, vouchers for training, and free recreation for children of military personnel. Participants were aware of some programs, such as “Veteran Sports,” but were not interested in participating in them. The social support program for veterans was seen by participants as an opportunity to balance the uneven involvement of veterans in reintegration at the community level, so they are looking forward to its quick and full implementation. Respondents gave a positive assessment of the digitization of some social services provided by the state, as well as the possibility of receiving some services centrally at the Administrative Service Centers.

Although participants acknowledge certain efforts on the part of the state, they consider them insufficient. There is a perception that the effectiveness of state structures is, unfortunately, inferior to the assistance provided by volunteers, through whom it is often easier to achieve results or obtain what is needed. However, it should be noted that participants showed a certain understanding of the inadequacy and inefficiency of state assistance due to the political and economic conditions in which the country finds itself.

Despite the participants' partial awareness of their opportunities to receive social support from the state and of state programs to support military personnel, veterans, and their families, the participants generally assessed the state's efforts to inform military personnel, veterans, and their families about the support programs available to them as negative. Respondents shared that their main source of information about state support was either independent, lengthy internet searches or acquaintances who had already gone through the process of searching for information and were willing to share their experiences. 

During the discussion of possible ways to improve the situation of the group, participants repeatedly proposed measures that have already been implemented and are in effect at the state level. In particular, participants proposed introducing free psychological assistance for military personnel and veterans, providing military personnel with free food rations, and paying benefits to families in the event of the death of a soldier, which indicates both a lack of awareness among members of the group and low coverage by these social programs.

Much of the criticism in the focus groups was directed at the Ministry of Veterans Affairs. Respondents described it as an ineffective, closed structure and emphasized the lack of information about its activities. One of the indicators that the ministry does not represent their interests was the fact that it is headed by people who are not war veterans and therefore, in the opinion of the respondents, cannot understand the problems of veterans and their families sufficiently to solve them. Several respondents who had direct experience, or through acquaintances, of contacting the ministry did not receive assistance in resolving their problems.

Access to social support, as well as the assessment of state support for military personnel, veterans, and their families, varied depending on the support respondents received at the local level. Some respondents came from communities that provide a wide range of support to military personnel, veterans, and their families. In particular, local programmes addressed specific problems previously reported by respondents, such as free travel on public transport without conflict, other programmes providing free access to various goods and services, the introduction of programmes aimed at promoting respect for veterans and military personnel, and the provision of additional financial payments. A municipal program in Mykolaiv offering free driving lessons and driver's licenses received positive feedback in focus groups.

Another part of the respondents, whose communities were less active in helping the military, veterans, and their families, tended to rate state support worse and felt unfairly treated depending on their community.

Some respondents place their hopes for improved state support for the military, veterans, and their families on the arrival in power of military personnel and veterans who are more aware of the group's problems and will be able to wage war more effectively against the Russian Federation. However, most would be satisfied if the current state leadership listened more to the group and took responsibility for improving its situation.

Recommendations

To create a supportive social and cultural environment:

• Integrate national and patriotic education into school curricula, inviting veterans in lessons and extracurricular activities, to instill in children respect for military service and develop a culture of empathy
• Conduct training on non-violent communication and inclusiveness for medical, social, and administrative service workers to standardize courteous and responsive service for all citizens
• Encourage the exchange of experience between communities that have implemented effective programs to assist military personnel, veterans, and their families, and communities where support programs are lacking or receive negative feedback from the main beneficiaries
• Transfer the issue of memorialization to the Ministry of Veterans Affairs. Form new traditions of public commemoration of military personnel. Commemorative dates should include meetings, public events, and volunteer activities. At the same time, according to respondents, the state should ban entertainment events on such days and monitor compliance with this ban
• Introduce a nationwide educational strategy, in the form of a dialogue, aimed at improving public understanding of the importance of military service and its impact on the lives of those returning from the front. Participants, in particular, suggest that veterans be invited more often to schools or public institutions to talk about their contribution to the defense of their homeland.

For the development of social and medical services and infrastructure:

• Scale up the best rehabilitation models, attracting donor funds and competitive salaries for professionals to ensure quality treatment of physical and traumatic brain injuries.
• Introduce a single case management system for each veteran: one responsible consultant accompanies the patient from the medical facility to social services, transferring data and coordinating all stages of support.
• Create a single state portal for military personnel, veterans, and their families, which would contain, in an accessible format, all information on possible state benefits and programs and the procedure for obtaining them. Information about such a portal should be disseminated through communication channels accessible to military personnel and veterans.
• Improve the accessibility and quality of medical care for military personnel and veterans. Respondents highlighted prosthetics, physical and psychological rehabilitation as priority areas.
• Introduce free couples and family therapy for military personnel, veterans, and their partners
• Create a single hotline for complaints from military personnel, veterans, and their families about poor-quality state assistance, benefits, and the implementation of state support programs. Provide for sanctions for the provision of poor-quality assistance to military personnel and veterans.
• Create unified community support centers that would provide centralized assistance to veterans, military personnel, and their families, advising them on possible support programs and procedures for obtaining state assistance.

To support economic and professional reintegration:

• Start state grant programs and subsidies for short-term retraining courses that will enable veterans to quickly acquire relevant skills and return to the labor market.
• Introduce mentoring and internal career programs for veterans in companies of all sizes, establishing them as an element of corporate social responsibility rather than merely a tax incentive.

To strengthen interagency coordination and management capacity:

• Re-establish a compact Veterans Service within the relevant ministry, which will perform only a coordinating function between all government and civil society actors.
• Introduce uniform framework standards and performance indicators for all reintegration programs, with appropriate monitoring and public reporting mechanisms.
• Improve the accuracy of statistical data collection on the number of military personnel and veterans by place of residence and key socio-demographic indicators. Use this data to conduct research on the problems and needs of military personnel, veterans, and their families.