Temporary protection for Ukrainians will remain in place until 2028 after receiving the Council’s approval on Wednesday. For many refugees, however, the latest extension is less a solution than another postponement of difficult decisions about their future in Europe, says Pavlo Koshka of the Ukrainian Voices Refugee Committee.
Four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion, millions of Ukrainians are no longer recent arrivals. They have jobs, children in school and lives rooted across the EU. Yet the legal framework underpinning their stay remains, by design, temporary.
As member states approved a one-year extension until 4 March 2028, questions arise about the longer-term future of millions of Ukrainians living across the EU.
In an interview with EU Perspectives, Pavlo Koshka, project manager at the Ukrainian Voices Refugee Committee (UVRC), says Europe must start preparing for what comes next instead of relying on annual extensions.
You might be interested
What is your reaction to the EU’s decision to extend temporary protection until 2028? Do you have any concerns?
We work with newcomers and there are still people coming, around 300-400 people per month. It’s not the same flow as it was in 2022. We don’t have any statistics on how many people apply for temporary protection. I think around half of the people receive temporary protection and the other half do not, for different reasons.
The system works randomly: we had a case, for example, of two brothers with the same passport, the same story and the same documents. One of them received temporary protection, the other did not. This is a big issue, and unfortunately we have no official communication.
“You pay taxes, everything is good, but one day you become a tourist and are told to go back to your motherland.”
— Pavlo Koshka
Frankly speaking, I was happy to hear about the extension, but it’s not the solution for us. It’s just one more year of uncertainty. We’re just postponing the question of what’s going to happen after temporary protection ends. Maybe Europe has no answer for us. I think the EU needs to start thinking about how to deal with Ukrainians because we’re talking about people who have already been living in Europe for four years. They’re already well integrated, they’re applying for work visas. Kids are going to school, people are working, they’re paying taxes and contributing to their host countries.
In Belgium, people aren’t used to such a short-term status. You pay taxes, everything is good, but one day you become a tourist and are told to go back to your motherland. So really, I don’t think it’s the best solution just to postpone the problems that are going to arise.
And I understand that one day we’re going to win and the war is going to end. But it’s also not possible that everybody will go back to Ukraine on the same day, because it depends on the security agreements and peace. If we only have a ceasefire with Russia and Russia keeps some territories in Crimea, this is still not a solution because after one, two or three years Russia could attack again. We already had the Budapest Memorandum. We had a lot of papers promising that we were safe. But in reality, they didn’t work.
To enable returns, Europe must develop shelters of sorts — places similar to those we had here at the beginning of the full-scale invasion — in Ukraine, just to motivate people to go back to their country.
Are you referring to the so-called Unity Hubs and voluntary return programmes?
This is the most difficult question of all, and I want to be honest: no one really knows how it will work. What exists right now is mostly theory. Return depends entirely on what the situation in Ukraine will actually look like – and that is a question with no answer yet.
What kind of peace? Under what conditions? What will be the internationally recognised status of Russian-occupied territories? What security guarantees will exist, if any? These are not abstract geopolitical questions for the people I work with. They are deeply personal ones that determine whether going back means rebuilding a life or walking into unresolved danger. Until those questions have real answers, any “return programme” risks being a framework for something that does not yet have a destination.
“Everybody is saying, ‘Okay, you are Ukrainians, you’re going to come back soon.’ But why are you sending us back? Let us choose.”
— Pavlo Koshka
It’s one of the initiative’s purposes to help people who want to return voluntarily to Ukraine. But it has only just started. They have opened the largest hub in Berlin, and some smaller ones in other countries. But it’s not enough. It’s brand new. I don’t know how it’s going to work because nobody knows.
And you know what my biggest concern is? Everybody is saying, “Okay, you are Ukrainians, you’re going to come back soon.” But why are you sending us back? Let us choose. Because if you’re talking about human rights, the same principle should apply. If people want to stay, they must have the right to stay here.
The extension also reflects Kyiv’s request to exclude newly arriving men who didn’t satisfy their military obligations from temporary protection. What do you make of that?
This conflates two entirely separate things: military obligation under Ukrainian law and refugee protection under international law. Ukrainian men in Europe are not a uniform category. Many left legally. Many have health conditions. Many are sole caregivers. Many were already abroad before February 2022. Removing or threatening their legal status as a way to push them toward return is not a policy, it is pressure disguised as policy.
The new rules are only about newcomers. So the men who are now in Europe are not obliged to go back to Ukraine. But this raises a big question: who is going to verify the documents? For example, yes, every man in Ukraine is obliged to serve in the army. But we have people with disabilities, people who have three kids. So there are a lot of exceptions. It is not clear how the system will deal with people who are not obliged to serve in the army.
“It wasn’t our choice. Everybody wants to live safely in their own country and not have a war. Unfortunately, we have a war.”
— Pavlo Koshka
And for me, it’s really weird. If a person crossed the Ukrainian border, it means that Ukraine allowed these people to leave. So we don’t need to verify that again. I think we need to, how to say, trust the Ukrainian Border Guard Service.
The EU’s approach to migration appears to be changing. It seems that even Ukrainians, who initially enjoyed a special status of sorts in Europe, are beginning to be affected by the same trend affecting other nationalities. Do you see it that way?
Yes, I totally agree with you. People received legal status immediately and could start working right away. So this works better than international protection because the international protection procedure takes years. Maybe for other nationalities, other asylum seekers, we need to do the same because it helps people integrate faster. It’s more efficient. It works well.
But why is the EU doing the opposite, especially with the new EU Pact on Migration? I don’t know why Europe is now so closed to everybody. What changed? It wasn’t our choice. Everybody wants to live safely in their own country and not have a war. Unfortunately, we have a war.
So if Europe doesn’t protect us at the military level, they need to deal with us. I’m hearing a lot of things like, “Ukrainians, you are very lucky. You are privileged refugees here.” Some people are jealous, but I’m saying, “This is not my decision. I don’t want to be above others.” So it’s the EU that launched this system for us. Maybe it should be available to everybody.
For example, if the EU developed some kind of centre for the Palestinian diaspora, that would already be a lot, because they could work with people there, communicate with them and listen to them. But it’s a big question mark why Europe doesn’t see this, and why it has become much more difficult for people to live here.
