Russians have abducted more than 20,570 Ukrainian children, according to current estimates. Between 80 percent and 90 percent of them remain under Russian control, while at least 2,117 children have been successfully repatriated. The “price” of these processes is high. Beyond the financial costs, it often results in renewed trauma for the children and their family members under pressure from Russian authorities. And the Kremlin often exploits any returns as signs of goodwill in seeking to evade accountability.
The issue of Ukrainian children under Russian control is often discussed in relation to the need to secure their return. Yet return alone, while imperative, is not sufficient. The international community and Ukrainian authorities must simultaneously address three interconnected dimensions: identification and repatriation (the return element), reintegration and long-term recovery, and accountability. Furthermore, estimates of abductions – in the form of coerced deportations or adoptions, for example, whether within Ukrainian territory controlled by Russia or to Russian territory – account for only a small share of the approximately 1.6 million children who reside in the occupied territories and also are subjected to the forcible imposition of Russian citizenship, cultural assimilation, militarization, and other violations.
The upcoming high-level Summit of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children on May 11 in Brussels is a chance to take stock of tracing, return, reintegration, and justice efforts and to highlight the key areas that need more coordinated action. (A preparatory meeting will be held April 30 in Kyiv with the participation of NGOs and experts.)
Data First: Without Records, There Is No Policy
One of the most urgent challenges concerns the systematic identification and tracking of children forcibly taken by Russian authorities. This includes records of births and deaths, legal status, displacement, deliberate alteration of identity, and more. A coherent approach to data must address several questions:
- How do different Ukrainian registries interact with one another, such as the Unified State Demographic Registry, administered by the State Migration Service of Ukraine; the Registry of Information on Children Deported or Forcibly Displaced in Connection with the Armed Aggression of the Russian Federation Against Ukraine, administered by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine; and the Unified Registry of Persons Missing in Special Circumstances, administered by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine?
- What is the purpose of data collection, and is the collected information systematically categorized: For example, are the possibilities of repatriating children the same for a child returning from occupation to their biological family, as for a child with three or more siblings returning to a foster family, or a child who was abducted as an infant and whose personal data was altered?
- How is the data protected, processed and accessed?
- How do the registries and the data they collect correlate with ongoing efforts to track and return children?
For at least four years, Ukrainian and international non-governmental initiatives have documented unique data on abducted Ukrainian children, ranging from hundreds to more than 35,000 identified profiles. How well-coordinated are these efforts, and does the use of advanced software, satellite imagery, and open-source intelligence (OSINT) have a direct impact on the number of children being returned and on the dynamics of how that occurs?
Coordinated data systems are crucial not only to the immediate issues of securing returns, but also for longer-term, strategic policy decisions. As just one example, as time passes, many children will reach adulthood, creating additional legal and political complexities that need to be anticipated.
The Difficult Conversation About Return
Policy discussions rightly focus on how children can be returned. As of early April 2026, 83 children have been repatriated through Qatar’s mediation, 26 through the work of U.S. First Lady Melania Trump, and more than 2,000 through Ukrainian NGOs and state authorities via the Bring Kids Back UA initiative of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Yet decision-makers must also confront a difficult question: what happens when children cannot be returned quickly or at all? Addressing this reality does not weaken advocacy for repatriation; rather, it strengthens long-term policy planning.
Access to information is critical. The right to know one’s origin and family history is widely recognized as a fundamental right. A centralized mechanism enabling survivors to find their families and potentially reunite with them years later should become a priority. Obtaining an extract, an official document confirming both the fact of forcible displacement and the inclusion of a child in a registry, is currently more difficult from the Registry of Information on Children Deported or Forcibly Displaced than from other registries. The extract also does not provide a complete picture of the events that have occurred related to the affected child. A registry extract generally contains key personal data about the affected child that is necessary for the restoration and protection of their rights. However, unlike the Unified Registry of Persons Missing in Special Circumstances, there is no electronic portal for obtaining the extract from the Registry of Information on Children Deported or Forcibly Displaced, nor any child-friendly guidance explaining how to do so. Orphaned children, whose legal representatives are the directors of boarding or educational institutions, are in an especially vulnerable position, being dependent on the will of an adult who may be responsible for the care of multiple children at once.
Historical precedents show that building a central name index of survivors, supported by comprehensive documentation and privacy provisions, can later serve both tracing and accountability – and ultimately to protect the rights of children to know their origins and personal histories. In the future, it should be open to full public scrutiny.
Reintegration Requires Long-Term Investment
For returned children, psychosocial adaptation and reintegration are complex and resource-intensive processes. The trauma experienced by these children differs significantly from other wartime harms and has unique manifestations, collectively referred to as “lost connection syndrome.” Effective recovery will require specialized professionals, long-term psychosocial care, and dedicated infrastructure. But, children have limited resources and autonomy to independently secure the psychosocial support they need, in part due to the significant number of legal and regulatory acts adopting different approaches to governing children’s access to such care. For instance, if a returned child’s legal representative is a grandmother who associates any form of psychological support with Soviet-era practices of punitive psychiatry or with a perception that her grandchildren are mentally ill, she may refuse or directly prohibit the child from seeing a psychologist.
Key questions about all of this remain unanswered: How long will recovery take? How much will it cost? Who has calculated these needs, or who should do so in the future?
Psychosocial adaptation programs may vary in content and approach, but they must be properly certified and meet professional standards. The logistics of delivering reintegration services must remain consistent. Children and families should not face a fragmented system in which access to support depends on geography, institutional capacity, cost, or administrative complexity. International experience suggests that systematic research and evaluation of reintegration programs are essential to identifying which approaches are effective and cost-efficient. While the evidence base is gradually expanding, there is still insufficient information on which interventions best reduce the risk of further harm to the children who return and which approaches support sustainable recovery.
It is important to avoid ghettoization of returned children and youth. This applies both to care centers and to the provision of social and educational services. Education plays a particularly critical role: many returned children and youth face significant educational gaps and adaptation challenges. Failures in reintegration push some to choose online learning or disengage from the education system altogether. Programs for vocational training and employment for these youth have not yet been developed. The educational losses have enormous implications for the present and the future. The loss of human capital development will lead to significant productivity declines, affecting children’s future income as well as generating broader economic losses at the national level.
Another critical issue is the lack of a unified coordination mechanism for international assistance. Donors, including members of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, have made important commitments in recent years, but insufficient baseline data and weak monitoring systems make it difficult to assess how much funding has actually been spent and where. Creating a single coordination hub for international support would allow policymakers and donors to see clearly which projects receive funding and where gaps remain. In turn, potential recipients will be able to plan their activities, avoiding duplication of efforts.
Beyond Humanitarian Policy: A Security and Demographic Issue
Under the national project “Youth and Children,” the Russian Federation plans to allocate nearly 1.8 trillion rubles (USD 22.5 billion) from the federal budget for 2026–2028. These funds are primarily directed at indoctrinating children — including Ukrainian children in occupied territories — to turn them into Russian patriots prepared both physically and mentally to fight for Russian imperial interests.
Already, the Russian government touts membership of more than 344,000 Ukrainian children in the occupied territory taking part in the “Movement of the First,” a Soviet-era, state-sponsored youth organization for children and young adults ages 6 to 25 that Russian President Vladimir Putin revived and that has become the largest such Russian youth organization. It is part of a broader system of state-sponsored indoctrination. About 44,000 Ukrainian children are members of the “Yunarmiya,” a state-controlled militarized youth organization that encourages aggression, cultivates hostile narratives, and prepares children for potential future participation in armed conflicts. And tens of thousands of children have undergone re-education across a network of at least 175 camps in Russia, Belarus, and occupied territories.
The long-term implications of these Russian policies extend beyond humanitarian concerns. The fate of these children will influence national and regional security, demographic trends, and economic development. In security terms, Russian authorities clearly are preparing children, including in the occupied Ukrainian territories, to fight or otherwise support armed conflict on the side of Russia. This at a time when European countries already are experiencing Russia’s hybrid attacks, and as European authorities and experts warn that Russia may have the capacity to pose an even more serious military threat to Europe as early as 2027. For example, as the children are further exposed to militarized environments and recruited into armed formations or state-controlled youth structures such as the above, society in Russian-controlled areas may become further militarized and unstable.
From a demographic and economic perspective, the long-term consequences of the fate of these children have direct implications for Ukraine’s already constrained human capital needs for recovery and reconstruction. With each passing day, these children risk being further disconnected from their country of origin and effectively lost to its demographic and social fabric. If and when they return, they will require sustained and adequately resourced reintegration support in order to enable their full recovery and meaningful participation in society.
At a minimum, these rapidly unfolding dynamics require proper academic assessments of such impact, for the consideration of policymakers in Ukraine and among its supporters going forward.
The Ukraine peace talks also should be expanded to address matters directly affecting Ukrainian children under Russian control, in line with the U.N. Security Council’s ongoing agenda to consider issues related to children and armed conflict. Key issues for the wellbeing of these children include:
- Guarantees of non-discrimination, including based on citizenship and national identity.
- Continued access to Ukrainian education, at least online.
- Immediate halt of initiatives aimed at the militarization, political indoctrination, and cultural assimilation of Ukrainian children.
- Establishment of humanitarian corridors that enable family contact and repatriation.
Accountability and the Restoration of Rights
Finally, policies must address justice and accountability. Despite political statements, this area has not yet become a priority. At present, the number of legal claims submitted to international bodies related to violations against Ukrainian children remains critically low.
For example, only 11 claims have been received by the Register of Damage for Ukraine under Category A 2.8 (forcible transfer or deportation of children). The register is part of the international compensation mechanism established to record and document claims for damage, loss, or injury caused by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, serving as a foundational step toward future reparations. The low number of claims in the aforementioned category does not reflect the scale of violations, but rather points to a systemic gap in support for survivors and their legal representatives. Difficulties in collecting and structuring evidence, limited assistance in obtaining extracts from the Registry of Information on Children Deported or Forcibly Displaced in Connection with the Armed Aggression of the Russian Federation Against Ukraine, and insufficient guidance on the relevance and procedures of engaging with compensation mechanisms all significantly hinder access to justice.
U.N. treaty bodies also report an unexpectedly small number of individual communications — counted in mere dozens — submitted on behalf of affected children. The treaty organizations can examine individual complaints alleging violations of core human rights treaties, make authoritative findings on state responsibility and, where violations are established, indicate appropriate forms of reparation for survivors.
Sanctions policies also require better coordination. The Regional Center for Human Rights, founded in Crimea and located in Kyiv since the original 2014 Russian invasion, estimates that 267 individuals and 68 legal entities have been involved in the abduction and re-education of Ukrainian children. The center (where I’m based) has determined that only 5 percent of those individuals or entities appear simultaneously on the sanctions lists of Ukraine, the United States, Canada, the U.K., the EU, Switzerland, and Japan. These loopholes limit the effectiveness of sanctions, which in some cases remain the only available tool for responding to international crimes. The confiscation and repurposing of frozen Russian assets in the West for reparations to affected children remains a pressing issue.
Conversely, one avenue for accountability is being severely hampered by sanctions. On March 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants against Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, in connection with the unlawful deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children. Since then, the geopolitical environment in which the Court operates has become significantly more complex, as the Trump administration has restored sanctions against an array of Court officials, generating far-reaching operational consequences that risk paralyzing ongoing investigations, despite the determination of Court personnel to push on with their work. Even before then, the Court’s budget was under strain. The ICC Prosecutor, too, is under investigation over allegations of sexual misconduct. And last July, the U.S. State Department’s Legal Advisor hinted at potentially broader sanctions against the Court.
At the same time, the ICC has stated that its proceedings would not automatically stop in the context of any possible amnesty agreements that could form part of a future peace process for Ukraine. The Court has therefore signaled that accountability for core international crimes may continue even if broader political “compromises” are reached.
Restoring justice for Ukrainian children affected by Russian crimes is critical for their psychosocial wellbeing and reintegration. In occupied territories, Russia consistently refuses to apply international humanitarian law as is its obligation as the occupying power. Some violations have become so widespread and systematic – such as, in the case of children, the denial of appropriate education — that they amount to an “administrative practice,” indicating a deliberate state policy rather than sporadic incidents and potentially giving rise to both state responsibility and individual criminal liability under international law. Without the restoration of Ukraine’s effective control over its sovereign territories, such violations cannot be meaningfully addressed. For many affected children, the only realistic pathway to the restoration of their rights is the return from Russian control.
In Ukraine, children who are repatriated receive a one-time payment of 50,000 hryvnia (about US $1,140), assistance with reissuing identity documents, and support with enrollment in educational institutions. At the same time, support to these children and their legal representatives in bringing claims before international courts and quasi-judicial mechanisms remains largely dependent on the initiative of non-governmental organizations.
The lack of state-led initiatives to fully leverage the spectrum of international mechanisms, combined with limited partner support, prevents the transformation of a patchwork system into a holistic framework that would weave together all elements of tracing, return, reintegration, and justice, for the benefit of the Ukrainian children abducted by or otherwise suffering under Russia’s control. All of those elements are essential to restoring peace in Ukraine, and all are connected – and must be treated as such.
– Kateryna Rashevska, Published courtesy of Just Security.
