Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Central and Eastern European Migration Review
Received: 24 June 2023, Accepted: 28 June 2023
Vol. 12, No. 1, 2023, pp. 115–126
doi: 10.54667/ceemr.2023.16
* DAAD Visiting Professor, Faculty of Cultural Studies European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany. Address for
correspondence: mikheieva@ucu.edu.ua.
** Centre of Migration Research, University of Warsaw, Poland. Address for correspondence: m.jaroszewicz@uw.edu.pl.
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.
SPECIAL SECTION TWO
Editorial Introduction: Migration
Dynamics, Trajectories and Policies in
the Context of Russian Full-Scale
Aggression against Ukraine
Oksana Mikheieva* , Marta Jaroszewicz**
This short introduction presents the context and background information to the CEEMR special section
analysing the migration dynamics, trajectories, everyday reality and policies in the context of Russian full-scale
aggression against Ukraine. The special section contains the first group of articles dealing with the
unprecedented migration consequences of military aggression against Ukraine, including air strikes on many
Ukrainian cities, the use of indiscriminate weapons, killing and deportations as well as the economic
consequences of protracted armed conflict. The intensity of the migration movement should also be explained
by the quick opening by neighbouring countries of their borders to the incoming refugees. The exceptionality of
the situation and high uncertainty about further developments led us to conclude that this special section should
not follow any prior conceptual background but should be open to different perspectives and approaches in
studying migration from/in/to Ukraine.
Keywords: Ukraine, Russian aggression, forced migration, migration policies
116 O. Mikheieva, M. Jaroszewicz
Setting the scene
This short introduction presents the context and background information to the CEEMR special section
analysing the migration dynamics, trajectories, everyday reality and policies in the context of Russian full-scale
aggression against Ukraine. The special section contains the first group of articles dealing with the
unprecedented migration consequences of military aggression against Ukraine, including air strikes on many
Ukrainian cities, the use of indiscriminate weapons, killing and deportations as well as the economic
consequences of protracted armed conflict. The intensity of the migration movement should also be explained
by the quick opening by neighbouring countries of their borders to the incoming refugees. The exceptionality
of the situation and high uncertainty about further developments led us to conclude that this special section
should not follow any prior conceptual background but should be open to different perspectives and approaches
in studying migration from/in/to Ukraine.
It should be emphasised that Russian military intervention had already started back in 2014; although it did
not cover the whole territory of Ukraine, it had a predominant influence on the migration patterns of
Ukrainians. The beginning of the Russian aggression in 2014 had a series of direct and indirect consequences
that affected the migration intentions of the population. In most cases, Ukrainian citizens who migrated to EU
countries from the temporarily occupied territories between 2014 and 2021 did not receive refugee status, as
most of the territory of Ukraine remained under the control of the Ukrainian government. As a result, the
majority of those who left the occupied territories at that time chose mixed migration strategies, including legal
and illegal employment, marriage and educational migration.
Russian aggression in this period also affected labour migration from Ukraine in general, in particular with
regard to its distribution among destination countries. Between 2014 and 2016, Ukrainians started travelling
for a variety of reasons to the West more often. For example, according to the data from a representative survey
conducted in Poland among Ukrainian labour migrants who left between 1991 and 2019, 77.3 per cent of the
participants said that they first went to work in Poland in 2015 and later (Mikheieva and Susak 2019: 10).
From 1991 to 2011, quite low rates of migration from Ukraine to Poland were recorded (a total of 10.5 per
cent of respondents indicated that they had left in that period). Between 2012 and 2014, a revival of migration
flows was noticeable (with 12.2 per cent of respondents leaving at that time). At the same time, there was also
a change in the direction of the migration flows. From 2014, there was a decrease in the flow of labour migrants
to Russia and an increase in the flow to EU member states and, above all, to Poland (Malynovska 2020). The
internal geography of labour migration from Ukraine has also started to change. While, before 2014, the main
contributors of labour migrants to Europe were the western regions of Ukraine, after that date almost all regions
of the country gradually started to be included in the ‘western’ vector of labour migration. In 2021, 1.57 million
Ukrainian citizens received permits to stay in the EU, making them the third largest group of citizens
representing non-EU countries (Eurostat 2022).
The onset of full-scale aggression created a radically new situation. In February 2022, Europe received the
largest number of refugees since the Second World War. As a result of the war in Ukraine, the number of all
refugees living in the EU increased by 20 per cent (European Commission 2023). Millions of Ukrainians
crossed the country’s state border in the early days of the war in search of aid and asylum. In response to the
scale and intensity of the refugee crisis and for the first time in its history, the European Union activated the
Temporary Protection Directive ((TPD), which created a framework for managing massive refugee flows. TPD
was adopted in 2001 as a lesson learnt from the Balkan wars, yet was not activated until the Russian full-scale
invasion (European Commission 2022).
According to UNHCR (2023) data, as of 1 July 2023, some 6,302,600 refugees from Ukraine were recorded
globally (the figure recorded in Europe was 5,949,500 while, beyond Europe, it was 353,100). The main
Central and Eastern European Migration Review 117
countries hosting the largest number of refugees from Ukraine as of 31 May 2023 were Germany (1,111,590
or 28 per cent of the total), Poland (991,375; 25 per cent) and the Czech Republic (340,090; 8 per cent)
(Eurostat 2023a).
Ukrainian forced migration in conditions of war: problems and challenges of research
The beginning of Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022 led to an
intensification of research on the forced migration of Ukrainians – both academic and practical – which focused
on rapid implementation and practical response. The intensification of research interest in the number of texts
related to the study of war-affected societies is important. However, at this stage of studying the Ukrainian
situation, we see the prevalence of empirical over theoretical research and the conceptualisation of problems,
which generally creates an oversaturation of details and facts with an insufficient level of understanding and
assessment of what is happening.
The situation when assessing the scale of forced migration of Ukrainians due to the war is complicated by
the fact that many statistics on both the population of Ukraine and the number of migrants are approximate,
incomplete and estimated. This applies to both statistical estimates of the population as a whole and of internal
and external migration. The last census in Ukraine was conducted in 2001. Accordingly, data on the number
of people in the country are approximate, vary due to the use of different methodologies and refer to different
geographical areas (e.g. related to the inclusion or exclusion from counts and estimates of the territories
occupied in 2014).
Similar problems arise when calculating the number of labour migrants due to the existence of different
models of labour migration (permanent, return, border, circular, etc.), to the partial preservation of its irregular
nature and to different methods of calculation. As a result, there is a significant discrepancy between the data
from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, the National Bank of Ukraine and the International Monetary
Fund on the number of labour migrants (Sushko, Kulczycka and Minicz 2019: 5). The same applies to internal
forced migration after the start of Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2014.
Refugee and internal migration statistics are also processual in nature. The war continues while its duration,
the scale of its consequences and the outcome remain in question. All this forms a situation with a high level
of uncertainty. As a result, most of the surveys among Ukrainian forced migrants conducted in Europe today
do not answer the question about the future of this migration, the prospects of people’s return or their
integration into the local communities of the European host countries. The granting of protection in the EU is
temporary and there are no clear guidelines for future decisions in this regard. On the other hand, the situation
in Ukraine remains problematic. Ukrainian forced migrants associate their return to the country primarily with
the end of the war. However, immediately after their security-related needs, they voice expectations related to
the economy – adequate salaries and higher standards of living in Ukraine. An important factor is also the
restoration and availability of an infrastructure necessary for life (Vyshlinsky, Mykhailyshyna, Samoiliuk and
Tomilina 2023). This configuration of expectations, in the context of an ongoing full-scale war, either
questions the reality of return or postpones the decision indefinitely.
Extremely problematic and important for an in-depth understanding of the situation with forced migration
is the issue of the migration of Ukrainians to the Russian Federation after the beginning of the full-scale
invasion. The forced passportisation of residents of the occupied territories and forced migrants from Ukraine,
filtration practices, the restriction of the right to movement for people living in the territories occupied after
2022 and the forced displacement (deportations) to the territory of the Russian Federation of vulnerable
categories of the population – primarily older people and children – all raise questions about the assessment of
the scale of forced migration from Ukraine to the Russian Federation. How can we divide those Ukrainian
118 O. Mikheieva, M. Jaroszewicz
citizens who voluntarily chose this migration and those who became victims of the aggressor’s actions and
ended up in Russian captivity, in filtration camps or deported? A separate research issue may be the legal status
of forced migrants from Ukraine to the Russian Federation. Who are they from the point of view of
international law? Which state is responsible for them? Can the aggressor state be responsible for the citizens
of the state that was attacked?
Another important issue is the policies of different European host countries concerning Ukrainian refugees.
Despite the existence of a common European space and common directives regulating the status of Ukrainian
migrants in Europe, the situation in each individual country has its own specifics. For example, we can see this
difference of approach in the top three countries – Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic – in terms of the
number of Ukrainian refugees accepted. The German government is committed to providing temporary refuge-
seekers with a social package, including financial help for housing, health insurance, language courses and
monthly payments; this generally creates conditions for the gradual soft integration of Ukrainian refugees into
both local communities and the labour market. Poland and the Czech Republic do not have the same social
packages for refugees as Germany but the migration from Ukraine in the context of a full-scale war relies
heavily on the experience of previous migration, extensive local government and civil society support, the
Ukrainian community in Poland and the cultural and linguistic proximity of the population of the two countries,
which provides Ukrainians with faster integration and entry into the labour market. Also, as a recent Centre of
Migration Research of University of Warsaw (CMR UW) survey demonstrated, the vicinity of the Ukrainian
territory and extensive migration networks make it easier for the refugees to combine life in Poland with
distance work and other transnational activities (Górny and Kaczmarczyk 2023). The difference in contexts at
the level of individual European countries and their administrative parts makes the nuanced processes related
to the everyday life of forced migrants an important research issue.
The peculiarity of post-2022 external forced migration from Ukraine is its high intensity and simultaneity.
According to UNHCR data, from 24 February 2022 to 9 May 2023, some 21,496,802 people crossed the border
out of Ukraine and 12,724,350 people crossed the border in the opposite direction. These statistics show the
increased mobility of the Ukrainian population due to full-scale Russian invasion but do not show the real
scale of forced external migration, as they contain information, among other things, on the movement of the
same people to and from Ukraine. However, the dynamics of these crossings show that the largest outflow of
people from Ukraine occurred in the first few months of the war. Thereafter, the intensity of border crossings
remained more or less constant, comparable to the pre-war level (CReAM 2023). The same dynamics is
confirmed by the figures for Germany, where 68 per cent of Ukrainian immigrants arrived in the first three
months after the beginning of the full-scale aggression by the Russian Federation (Federal Statistical Office of
Germany 2023). Overall, about 18 per cent of the Ukrainian population moved to Europe during the full-scale
Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Another important feature of Ukrainian forced external migration is its socio-demographic parameters. In
contrast to other waves of refugees, Ukrainian migration consists primarily of women and children. The
education factor also plays an important role. The majority of Ukrainians forced to migrate to the EU (66 per
cent) have higher education. This significantly exceeds the overall figures for Ukraine (29 per cent) and the
EU (33 per cent) (Federal Statistical Office of Germany 2023). The mass transition, as a result of forced
migration, to low-skilled jobs with a general lowering of the usual standards of living has already created and
will continue to create additional tensions in the host communities. Another important problem in the future
will be the issue of the mental health of forced migrants. The trauma of war, forced displacement, difficult
migration experiences and constant exposure to information flows of the ongoing war are factors that
significantly affect the moral and psychological state of forced migrants. Mental reaction to trauma often has
a delayed character and, accordingly, is one of the problems facing the future of both Ukraine and the EU.
Central and Eastern European Migration Review 119
Understanding these complexities in the study of Ukrainian forced migrations in war conditions is important
both for researchers seeking to make a deep and multidimensional assessment of what is happening and for
making informed political and managerial decisions.
The migration and mobility of Ukrainians: short state-of-the-art
One can distinguish several main topics related to migration from/in Ukraine in the existing studies. This short
review should not, however, be treated as fully fledged state-of-the-art but, rather, as a contextual background
to the presentation of the articles in this special section.
A strand of literature that looks at the process of transforming Ukraine into a net immigration country,
together with the forms, trajectories and narratives about labour migration, can be distinguished. Temporary
labour migration (Pirozhkov, Malynovska and Homra 2003) – which converted from ‘local mobility’ – or
different forms of transborder activities, including petty trade, began to be researched in the late 1990s and the
early 2000s. As such, the Ukrainian case was not an exception from other post-communist Eastern and Central
European countries (Vakhitova and Fihel 2020). One aspect of the relevant literature was dealing with the
qualitative assessment of the phenomenon, taking into consideration the scarcity of statistical data (Prokhorov,
Yablonskyy, Piontikivska, Ruda and Hamaniuk 2018). Other researchers were looking at the policies,
migration networks, migrant anchoring and legal and other conditions in the receiving countries and, finally,
the settlement practices of Ukrainian migrants (inter alia, Fedyuk and Kindler 2016; Fonseca, Pereira and
Esteves 2014; Górny, Grzymała-Kazłowska, Kępińska, Fihel and Piekut 2007; Grzymała-Kazłowska 2020).
In particular, literature focusing on Ukrainian migrants in the EU depending on their legal status and contesting
the simple contradiction between legal and irregular migration, access to healthcare, education and social
security in the context of the EU laws and policy practices, can shed some light on current discussions of the
legal status of Ukrainians in the EU (see the article by Łysienia in this section).
The second strand of literature is the studies on the Ukrainian diaspora and transnationalism. However,
traditionally perceived as looking at the forms of cultivation of national language and culture, diaspora studies
have situated research on Ukrainian migration in the realm of politics as well as civic and political activity
(Dunin-Wąsowicz and Fomina 2019; Lapshyna 2019; Solari 2018).
Last, but not least, an important strand of literature written after 2014 looks at the mobility consequences
of the Russian occupation of Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine, studying both the security and the political
context of external migration as well as a certain ‘invisibility’ of forced displacement (Drbohlav and
Jaroszewicz 2016; Sasse 2020). Finally, there are many extensive in-depth studies looking at internal
displacement through the prism of social cohesion, national identity, geopolitical struggles, civil society
activism or individual adaptation strategies (Bulakh 2020; Kuznetsova and Mikheieva 2020; Rimpiläinen
2020). The article by Steblyna (in this volume) contributes further to this strand of literature.
We can conclude that Ukraine as a country, represented by the existence of large historic diaspora(s), forced
displacement and territorial changes after the Second World War, extensive labour immigration and also
hosting emigrants, has received significant attention from migration scholars. In its volume and the diversity
of its topics, the existing research cannot, however, be compared to those studying classic emigration countries.
Another crucial challenge impeding the development of scholarship is the insufficient knowledge of
publications in English about research written in other languages, particularly Ukrainian. An important issue
that also hampers research is the lack of basic demographic data stemming from the fact that the last national
census in Ukraine was conducted only in 2001 (see the second section of the introduction and also the article
by Pozniak in this volume). At this stage of the study of Ukrainian forced migration, this set of problems results
in the prevalence of qualitative over quantitative research. Also, as underlined by Fedyuk and Kindler (2016),
120 O. Mikheieva, M. Jaroszewicz
despite the fact that Ukrainians constitute one of the most numerous immigrant groups in the EU member
states, their presence often went unnoticed among other Eastern and Central European migrant communities.
Finally – and this also a task that this special section attempts to address – is an insufficient understanding of
what the 2014 and 2022 Russian aggression meant for migration dynamics and a tendency to keep studying
post-2014 mobility solely through the prism of labour migration.
Introducing the papers
This special section contains the first group of articles submitted in response to the CEEMR call for papers on
the consequences, trajectories, policies, discourses on war and displacement, emergency practices and other
aspects pertaining to the migration resulting from the Russian illegal aggression against Ukraine. All kinds of
migration happening in the aftermath or in the context of the Russian aggression on the Ukrainian territory
after 24 February 2022 remain within the scope of the current special section. Both the CEEMR editors and
the special-section guest editors purposely did not specify any topics for possible contributions, leaving to the
authors the choice of topics, theories and methods. At an epistemological level, however, the special section’s
purpose was to give voice to Ukrainian and other researchers from – or those studying migration from/to/within
– Central and Eastern Europe. The result reflected the perception that, particularly in times of war and conflict,
those who personally experience the war and/or forced migration or present a closer perspective on the ongoing
atrocities, should be heard first. Secondly, there is ample evidence that scholars from the region are under-
represented in social-science research – including migration studies – and thus more rarely participate in
knowledge production at both a general level and a regional one (Dvell and Lapshyna 2022; Mälksoo 2022;
Vorbrugg and Bluwstein 2022). This argument was not made only to point to the numeric unrepresentativeness
of Eastern and Central European scholars but also to emphasise that many topics and perspectives could have
gone untouched or unnoticed due to such a narrow generalist, rather than context-sensitive, knowledge
production. Possible biases deriving from these knowledge gaps should be taken seriously in current debates
about the Russian war against Ukraine (Artiukh 2022; Khromeychuk 2022; Mälksoo 2022), Ukraine’s future
and the consequences for migration and mobility in Europe.
Despite such a broad range of topics, disciplines (political science, law, sociology, demography) and
methods used by the authors of the articles in this special section, several topics appear repeatedly and are
touched upon by almost all the authors. These include:
the different forms of struggle during the process of forced mobility and immobility caused by the armed
conflict and related insecurities and emergency governance in times of war (at different levels – pan-national,
state, societal and, finally, individual);
the narratives, discourses and stereotypes that accompany Russian aggression against Ukraine and the
related migratory movements;
the time, temporality and uncertainty in forced migration caused by the military aggression and methods
of coping with this uncertainty; and
rights versus obligations in times of war at different levels – the right to leave the country or to remain
there and obligations towards the homeland experienced by migrants.
The first article, by Nataliia Steblyna, was written before the full-scale invasion of 24 February 2022 yet
it tackles the topic of internal displacement in Ukraine after the Russian illegal occupation of Crimea and the
start of the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine in Winter/Spring 2014. In 2015, the Ukrainian authorities
reported approximately 1.5 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) which represented one of the largest
displacement crises after the Second World War (UNHCR 2015). The literature pertaining to migration
trajectories, the adaptation of IDPs to their new places of residence and the policies adopted towards them is
Central and Eastern European Migration Review 121
fairly abundant (Bulakh 2020; Ivashchenko-Stadnik 2017; Jaroszewicz and Grzymski 2023; Kuznetsova and
Mikheieva 2020; Rimpiläinen 2020; Sasse 2020), yet Steblyna’s article offers a rarely adopted research
perspective that looks at the social and political attitudes towards IDPs via the lens of the local press and local
communities. With the application of a rigorous frame analysis of the local content of online media services
in Kharkiv and Dnipro in 2015–2018, the author offers a typology of the narratives pertaining to IDPs – created
or replicated by the local media – and how they evolved over time. Steblyna differentiates between four main
frames: ‘generalisation’ (speaking of IDPs as an essentialised group, a mass), ‘victim’, ‘help-receiver’, and ‘threat’.
A very valuable contribution by Steblyna is bringing time into her research, showing how less-favourable narratives
of IDPs appeared over the years marked with prolonged military activities and related socio-economic
consequences. By linking the existing literature on internal displacement in different geographical contexts
– where IDPs are often portrayed as helpless victims – with the case of Ukraine experiencing the first phase of
the conflict with Russia, the author also voices clear normative postulates calling for greater responsibility by
local media in introducing migrants to new communities and fighting against biased narratives.
The second article, by Oleksii Pozniak, ‘The Situation of Forced Migrants from Ukraine in Europe after
Russian Military Aggression and Problems of Migration Policy of Ukraine in New Conditions’, was prepared
in the first few months after the full-scale Russian aggression. The author, a demographer and researcher at
the National Academy of Science of Ukraine, sought any possible data that could help to analyse the migration
dynamics resulting from the external aggression but also put the data possessed in the wider context of the
different types of migration movement of the inhabitants of Ukraine after 1991. Being mainly a quantitative
researcher in a war situation where representative surveys cannot be conducted, Pozniak attempts to base his
assessment on different auxiliary sources. These include data on the border crossings obtained from the State
Border Guard Service of Ukraine (where possible compared against the data of the counterpart institutions of
the destination countries and international organisations) as well as in-depth expert semi-structured interviews
conducted between July and September 2022. In a somewhat rigorous demographic manner, Pozniak looks at
the migration transformation which Ukraine is undergoing, both demographic and social, including the
dynamics of attitudes of Ukrainian society towards those who have left the country. He studies the ongoing
immigration through the prism of temporality but also the rights and obligations as seen within Ukrainian
society. He concludes with recommendations for the Ukrainian government by positing that the impact of
a full-scale war on the future demographic situation in Ukraine will be reflected primarily in migration losses;
he thus calls for an active migration policy that encompass both maintaining relations with Ukrainians abroad
and easing immigration for selected categories of foreigners – for instance, foreign students.
The next article, by Maja Łysienia, touches upon different aspects pertaining to the policies and ‘solidarity’
practices of Poland as being the first country of entry for the majority of war refugees and still being one of
the leading countries in hosting forced migrants from Ukraine. As such, her article adds to the growing
literature studying the narratives and practices that followed activation by the EU of the temporary protection
directive. This TPD allowed people fleeing Ukraine to enter, reside and obtain rights in the EU territory without
hindrance, while also granting Ukrainian migrants solely with a temporary status and differentiating between
Ukraine’s citizens and third-country nationals (Carrera and Ineli Ciger 2023; Klaus 2022; Motte-Baumvol,
Mont’Alverne and Braga Guimarães 2022). Maja Łysienia studies the compatibility between Polish and EU
law, in particular the similarities and differences between the temporary protection directive and the new law
that Poland adopted to offer rights to Ukrainian nationals and their family members. The originality of
Łysienia’s research lies in the detailed legal analysis that assesses possible legal discrepancies across several
dimensions, including: eligibility for temporary protection, residence permits, accommodation, family
reunification, returns and measures after temporary protection ends and remedies. Her general conclusion is
that the Polish law on temporary protection does not fully follow the temporary protection directive and lists
122 O. Mikheieva, M. Jaroszewicz
here the cases of non-Ukrainian children and dependent family members of Ukrainian nationals, Ukrainian
nationals and their spouses who entered Poland in an irregular manner as persons excluded from the protection
offered by the Polish legislation.
Conclusions and avenues for further research
Several quite straightforward and a few less-obvious conclusions that also encourage further exploration are
forthcoming from this special section. One conclusion is that the ongoing full-scale Russian aggression puts
the lives of millions of Ukrainians at direct risk of falling victim to military hostilities; it also means that they
are in constant need of making decisions on their mobility/immobility based on their individual security
calculations. Another important feature of the continuing atrocities is the high level of uncertainty as to when
and how the war will end and when forced migrants will be able to rejoin their family members from whom
they were obliged to separate. In such circumstances, the cognitive and physical barriers to the analytical
comprehension of the Ukrainian experience of war and forced emigration are quite straightforward and result
in the predominance of empirical exploration over theoretical understanding of the problems. Secondly, the
necessity and importance of theoretical generalisations is directly conditioned not only by their heuristic
potential but also by their practical value. The conceptual understanding of the problems is very important for
an adequate and timely response to the challenges provoked by Russian aggression and full-scale war.
What is clear, however, at both epistemological and empirical-analysis levels, is that Russian aggression
against Ukraine shed a light on some severe blindspots in migration and refugee research – resulting, among
other things, from the insufficient presence of Eastern and Central European migration researchers in global
knowledge production. To cure this problem, more and more-diversified research on Ukrainian migration is
needed; however, researchers directly experiencing the war and its consequences should also be given the
opportunity to make their voices heard. At the same time, the problem of giving voice raises a number of
additional questions. To what extent can people who find themselves in a situation of direct threat to their lives
and are forced to deal with issues of daily survival be expected to produce scientific knowledge that meets
international standards and deadlines or perform highly intellectual work on a volunteer basis as part of their
professional activities in peace time? Is there a real demand for local expertise or are Ukrainian experts
perceived primarily as carriers of personal traumatic experiences that they can share with others? Also what is
lacking is the research revealing postcolonial legacies in studying Eastern Europe and also examining
migration from Ukraine from a long historical perspective, including the context of geopolitical and national
identity struggles. The migration of Ukrainians is not only a story of labour migration.
All the articles in this special section clearly demonstrate that forced migration is a research area within
which contemporary Ukrainian migration should be conceptualised. Perhaps one of the most striking blind
spots was the refusal, perhaps unconscious, by some academics, media and analytical institutions in 2014 to
see the beginning of the war in Russia’s actions towards Ukraine and in bringing refugee migration from
Ukraine. Also, in many cases, we are not dealing with ‘pure forms’ but with hybrid trajectories of forced
migration – when people start their journey with an IDP status, then continue as asylum-seekers before
becoming labour migrants. The same hybrid trajectories can be observed now in the context of a full-scale
Russian invasion, described, inter alia, by Pozniak in this section. Another issue is the trajectories of internal
displacement and the policies of both the central government and local communities in adapting newly arriving
co-inhabitants. In her contribution, Steblyna proposes a detailed in-depth analysis of biased narratives that may
accompany internal displacement. What is still hampered by the absence of data and the inability to gather any
on Russia are studies on the deportations and the ‘voluntary’ migration of Ukrainian citizens to Russia.
Central and Eastern European Migration Review 123
Among the more detailed avenues for further research one could raise the issue of the assessment of the
scale of forced migration (see Pozniak’s article in this section). Today there are many sources of statistical
information on the number of people who were forced to flee the war, both inside and outside the country.
However, the data from the different sources vary significantly. A number of migrant practices and strategies
also remain essentially invisible to statistical records. For example, the statistical recording of IDPs in Ukraine
after 2014 is complicated by the fact that some people preferred to avoid registering and obtaining official
status due to specific perceptions of IDPs in society, stigmatising practices and restrictions on political rights.
Today the situation with IDPs has changed drastically. It has become much easier to obtain status and
assistance from the state. However, even in this case, there is the problem of taking into account the scale of
internal forced migration, primarily because of its procedural nature – people leave the war zones and return
home whenever possible. Accordingly, in this case, the more important parameter for assessing the scale of
migration is not the number of people who moved but the duration of their stay away from home. All this
raises a number of questions for researchers on how to describe the situation of internal forced migration in
statistical parameters. What criteria for assessing the situation are really informative? How can the scale of
forced migration be estimated, given the high level of avoidance of official registration or floating data in
a context where people’s forced mobility is processual in nature?
In assessing the scale and forms of forced migration in the context of a full-scale invasion, there are also
many aspects that are important for understanding the situation. At the initial stage, some Ukrainians crossed
the EU border on the basis of the visa-free regime, which gives Ukrainians the right to stay in the EU for 90
days in any 180-day period. This allowed some Ukrainian emigrants to stay in the EU legally but without any
additional registration. Often people relied on the help of relatives, acquaintances and professional and
spontaneous volunteers. Despite the existence of common policies towards Ukrainian forced migrants, the
domestic context of each country has its own specificities and shapes the different everyday practices and
strategies of migrants from Ukraine. At the policy level, a detailed and in-depth understanding of these
experiences acquires particular weight for subsequent management steps to be taken in the context of
competition for labour and for finding balanced solutions between the policy of integrating Ukrainian migrants
into the labour markets of host countries and Ukraine’s desire to bring its citizens back.
Ukrainian migration is a European and, in a sense, an EU phenomenon. Firstly, Ukrainian nationals
constitute one of the largest foreign-nationals group in the EU member states. Secondly, since 2017, Ukrainian
holders of biometric passports have been exempt from the visa obligation for short-term stay in the Schengen
zone. Hence, many Ukrainians had personal experience in crossing the Schengen border which proved crucial
when they decided to escape. Thirdly, Ukraine is also a multi-national and quite diverse society and many
Ukrainian residents of different citizenships have also left the country as a result of war. In this context, much
more research is needed to study the complex and fluctuating responses of the EU member states to forced
migration from Ukraine and to de-centre this research by also examining the role of local communities, the
Ukrainian diaspora and the civil society. Maja Łysienia’s article in this section shows how, in practice, the
implementation of the EU temporary protection legislation into the national legislation looks like.
Note
1. Before the full-scale invasion, the Ukrainian government estimated the Ukrainian population
(excluding the occupied territories of the Crimean Peninsula and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk
Oblasts) at 37.3 million people (Ukrainska Pravda 2020). These data were obtained using the following
methods: collecting anonymous information from mobile operators about the number of users and
their location; collecting data from registers of children (Civil Registry Office) and pensioners
124 O. Mikheieva, M. Jaroszewicz
(Pension Fund); and ‘calibrating’ sociological surveys, i.e., clarifying how many sim cards there are
on average per Ukrainian in different groups. The data only allowed us to estimate the approximate
number of people but are not really a census. According to the State Statistics Service, as of 1 February
2022, the population of the country was 41,167,300 people, excluding the occupied Crimea
(Derzhavna Sluzhba Statystyky Ukrainy 2021). The difference in the figures is also due to the fact that
the State Statistics Service data include the population in the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk
occupied in 2014. According to Eurostat, the population of Ukraine as of 1 January 2022 was
40,997,689 people (Eurostat 2023b). Eurostat’s calculations are based on data on the resident
population of a country or, if this information is not available, on data on legal and registered residents.
The long-term absence of a population census in Ukraine already makes it difficult to assess the scale
of the demographic consequences of the war and forced migration (both internal and external) and is
a future-oriented problem.
ORCID IDs
Oksana Mikhaieva https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3789-2415
Marta Jaroszewicz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7521-6779
References
Artiukh V. (2022). US-Plaining is Not Enough. To the Western Left, on Your and Our Mistakes. https://commo
ns.com.ua/en/us-plaining-not-enough-on-your-and-our-mistakes/ (accessed 28 June 2023).
Bulakh T. (2020). Entangled in Social Safety Nets: Administrative Responses to and Lived Experiences of
Internally Displaced Persons. Europe-Asia Studies 72(3): 455–480.
Carrera S., Ineli Ciger M. (eds) (2023). EU Responses to the Large-Scale Refugee Displacement from Ukraine:
An Analysis on the Temporary Protection Directive and Its Implications for the Future EU Asylum Policy.
Firenze: European University Institute, Migration Policy Centre.
CReAM (2023). Current Migration Flows from Ukraine. CReAM Research Team: Last Updated 15 February
2023. https://cream-migration.org/ukraine-detail.htm?article=3573 (accessed 28 June 2023).
Derzhavna Sluzhba Statystyky Ukrainy (2021). Naselennia (1990–2021). https://ukrstat.gov.ua/ (accessed 28
June 2023).
Drbohlav D., Jaroszewicz M. (eds) (2016). Ukrainian Migration in Time of Crisis: Forced and Labor Mobility.
Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Science.
Dunin-Wąsowicz R., Fomina J. (2019). The Euromaidan Moment: The Making of the Ukrainian Diasporic
Civil Society in Poland, in: O. Oleinikova, J. Bayeh (eds), Democracy, Diaspora, Territory. Europe and
Cross-Border Politics, pp. 91–111. London: Routledge.
Dvell F., Lapshyna I. (2022). On War in Ukraine, Double Standards and the Epistemological Ignoring of the
Global East. International Migration 60(4): 209–212.
European Commission (2022). Statistics on Migration to Europe: Overall Figures of Immigrants in European
Society. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-
way-life/statistics-migration-europe_en#european-statistics-on-migration-and-asylum (accessed 28 June 2023).
European Commission (2023). Migration Management: Welcoming Refugees from Ukraine. https://home-
affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/migration-management/migration-management-welco
ming-refugees-ukraine_en (accessed 28 June 2023).
Central and Eastern European Migration Review 125
Eurostat (2022). Ukrainian Citizens in the EU. Eurostat Statistics Explained. Ukrainian Citizens in the EU.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Ukrainian_citizens_in_the_EU#Ukrainia
n_citizens_authorised_to_stay_in_the_EU (accessed 28 June 2023).
Eurostat (2023a). 31 May 2023: Over 4 Million – Temporary Protection in the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20230707-1 (accessed 28 June 2023).
Eurostat (2023b). Data Browser. Population on 1 January. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/TP
S00001/bookmark/table?lang=en&bookmarkId=6ef61f16-dadc-42b1-a6ce-3ddfda4727e8 (accessed 28 June
2023).
Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2023). Press Release No. NO10 of 16 February 2023. https://www.desta
tis.de/EN/Press/2023/02/PE23_N010_12411.html (accessed 28 June 2023).
Fedyuk O., Kindler M. (2016). Migrations of Ukrainians to the European Union: Background and Key Issues,
in: O. Fedyuk, M. Kindler (eds), Ukrainian Migration to the European Union. Lessons from Migration
Studies, pp. 1–14. Cham: Springer, IMISCOE Research Series.
Fonseca M.L., Pereira S., Esteves A. (2014). Migration of Ukrainian Nationals to Portugal: Changing Flows
and the Critical Role of Social Networks. Central and Eastern European Migration Review 3(1): 115–130.
Grzymała-Kazłowska A. (2020). Rethinking Settlement and Integration. Migrants Anchoring in an Age of
Insecurity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Górny A. Kaczmarczyk P. (2023). Between Ukraine and Poland. Ukrainian Migrants in Poland During the
War. CMR Spotlight 2(48). Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Centre of Migration Research.
Górny A., Grzymała-Kazłowska A., Kępińska E., Fihel A., Piekut A. (2007). Od Zbiorowości do Społeczności.
Rola Migrantów Osiedleńczych w Tworzeniu się Społeczności Imigranckich w Polsce. Warsaw: University
of Warsaw, Centre of Migration Research, CMR Working Papers 27, 85.
Ivashchenko-Stadnik K. (2017). The Social Challenge of Internal Displacement in Ukraine: The Host
Community’s Perspective, in: A. Pikulicka-Wilczewska, G. Uehling (eds), Migration and the Ukraine
Crisis: A Two-Country Perspective, pp. 25–48. Bristol: E-International Relations.
Jaroszewicz M., Grzymski J. (2023). Securitization in the Shadow of Armed Conflict: The Internal Othering
and Electoral Rights of IDPs in Ukraine. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 56(1): 1–22.
Khromeychuk O. (2022). Where is Ukraine? How a Western Outlook Perpetuates Myths about Europe’s
Largest Country. RSA Journal 168(2): 26–31.
Klaus W. (ed.) (2022). Ustawa o Pomocy Obywatelom Ukrainy w Związku z Konfliktem Zbrojnym na
Terytorium Tego Państwa. Komentarz. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.
Kuznetsova I., Mikheieva O. (2020). Forced Displacement from Ukraine`s War-Torn Territories:
Intersectionality and Power Geometry. Nationalities Papers 48(4): 690–706.
Lapshyna I. (2019). Do Diasporas Matter? The Growing Role of the Ukrainian Diaspora in the UK and Poland
in the Development of the Homeland in Times of War. Central and Eastern European Migration Review
8(1): 51–73.
Mälksoo M. (2022). The Postcolonial Moment in Russia’s War Against Ukraine. Journal of Genocide
Research, 11 May, doi: 10.1080/14623528.2022.2074947.
Malynovska O. (2020). Mizhnarodna Mihratsiia Naselennia Ukrainy za Roky Nezalezhnosti, in: M. Denysenko,
S. Strotstsa, M. Lait (eds), Mihratsiia z Novykh Nezalezhnykh Derzhav. Suspilstva ta Politychni Poriadky
v Perekhidnyi Period, pp. 169–185. Cham: Springer.
Mikheieva O., Susak V. (eds) (2019). Vykliki Suczasnoi Migracii: Ukrainska Wspilnota w Polszczi:
Analitichnii Zwit. Lviv: Ukrainian Catholic University and KolirPro.
Motte-Baumvol J., Mont’Alverne T., Braga Guimarães G. (2022). Extending Social Protection for Migrants
Under the European Union’s Temporary Protection Directive: Lessons from the War in Ukraine. Oxford
126 O. Mikheieva, M. Jaroszewicz
University Comparative Law Forum 2. https://ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk/extending-social-protection-for-migrants-
under-the-european-unions-temporary-protection-directive-lessons-from-the-war-in-ukraine/ (accessed 28 June
2023).
Pirozhkov S., Malynovska O., Homra A. (2003). Labor Migration of the Population of Ukraine: Socio-Economic
Aspects. Kyiv: International Organization for Migration.
Prokhorov B., Yablonskyy D., Piontikivska I., Ruda Y., Hamaniuk O. (2018). How Many Ukrainians Have
Departed and What to Do about This? Kyiv: Centre for Economic Strategy.
Rimpiläinen E. (2020). Victims, Villains or Geopolitical Tools? Representations of Donbas Displacement in
Ukrainian and Russian Government Media. Europe-Asia Studies 72(3): 481–504.
Sasse G. (2020). War and Displacement: The Case of Ukraine. Europe-Asia Studies 72(3): 347–353.
Solari C. (2018). On the Shoulders of Grandmothers. Gender, Migration and Post-Soviet Nation-State
Building. New York, London: Routledge.
Sushko I., Kulczycka K., Minicz R. (2019). Mity i Fakty pro Ukrainsku Trudovu Migraciiu do Krain
Wyszehradu: Dovidinik. Geneva: Europe Without Borders Project.
Ukrainska Pravda (2020). V Ukraini Zhyve 37,3 Miliona Osib – Otsinka Uriadu. https://www.pravda.com.ua/
news/2020/01/23/7238191/ (accessed 28 June 2023).
UNHCR (2023). Ukraine Refugee Situation. Operation Data Portal. https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine
(accessed 28 June 2023).
UNHCR (2015). Ukraine Situation. UNHCR Operational Update. 8 September–6 October 2015.
https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/Update%20on%20Ukraine%20Situation%208SEPT-6OCT15.pdf
(accessed 28 June 2023).
Ukrainska Pravda (2020). V Ukraini Zhyve 37,3 Miliona Osib – Otsinka Uriadu. https://www.pravda.com.ua/
news/2020/01/23/7238191/ (accessed 26 June 2023).
Vakhitova H., Fihel A. (2020). International Migration from Ukraine: Will Trends Increase or Go into
Reverse? Central and Eastern European Migration Review 9(2): 125–141.
Vorbrugg A., Bluwstein J. (2022). Making Sense of (the Russian War in) Ukraine: On the Politics of
Knowledge and Expertise. Political Geography 98: 102700.
Vyshlinsky H., Mykhailyshyna D., Samoiliuk M., Tomilina M. (2023). Ukrainian Refugees: Who Are They,
Where Did They Come From and How to Return Them? Centre for Economic Strategy.
https://ces.org.ua/en/ukrainian-refugees-who-are-they-where-did-they-come-from-and-how-to-return-them/
(accessed 28 June 2023).
How to cite this article: Mikheieva O., Jaroszewicz M. (2023). Editorial Introduction: Migration
Dynamics, Trajectories and Policies in the Context of Russian Full-Scale Aggression against Ukraine.
Central and Eastern European Migration Review 12(1): 115–126.
