After four years of full-scale war, the number of veterans transitioning back to civilian life is steadily growing. And, while public discourse emphasizes gratitude and respect for those who served, questions are being asked about the best way to reintegrate them and reduce the risks of marginalization, isolation, and long-term social exclusion.
The challenge is not unique to Ukraine. In the US and other post-conflict societies, veteran reintegration has long been understood as a core social policy issue rather than a narrow welfare concern. How Ukraine responds will not only shape the well-being of veterans, but also broader social cohesion, labor market stability, and trust in state institutions.
New data from Portrait of a Veteran 2025, a joint study conducted by Rating Group and the Ukrainian Veterans Fund under the Ministry for Veterans Affairs, provides a candid insight into veterans’ assessment of postwar life. Based on interviews with 240 veterans, the findings reveal not panic or resentment, but sober awareness of structural vulnerabilities.
The most frequently cited risks relate to psychological and social stability. Some 84% of respondents identified psycho-emotional instability as a likely challenge, while 79% pointed to alcohol or substance abuse. More than three-quarters fear a lack of understanding from society, and a similar proportion anticipate difficulties related to physical health and access to medical care.
Employment remains a central concern: 73% expect problems finding work, and 72% highlight the absence of inclusive spaces and adapted workplaces for people with disabilities. Family tensions are also prominent, with 71% expecting conflicts at home after demobilization.
Importantly, veterans link these personal struggles to broader society. 60% believe military experience is poor preparation for civilian life, while 58% cite bureaucratic obstacles in accessing social benefits.
More than half associate reintegration failures with increased risks of involvement in crime, and nearly half mention suicide as a possible outcome. These perceptions reflect a clear understanding among veterans that weak institutions and fragmented policies can turn individual vulnerabilities into systemic problems.
When asked to evaluate how well their needs are currently met, veterans describe a support system that functions unevenly. Easily administered benefits, such as discounted public transportation, receive relatively high marks, but core reintegration needs receive only moderate or low scores. Medical care and physical rehabilitation, for example, average 3.3 out of 5, and employment support 3.2, while psychological assistance scores just above 3.
Housing provision and legal support are rated lowest of all, underscoring persistent gaps in areas critical to long-term stability.
Half of veterans identify material support as their most urgent need, followed closely by medical assistance. Roughly a quarter cite psychological support and housing, while legal assistance remains a significant concern for one in five respondents.
Only one in 10 veterans say they currently require no support at all, and most report using at least some state-provided benefits, particularly utility subsidies, free transportation, medical services, and pensions.
While a slim majority consider government veteran programs effective, a large minority openly question their impact. By contrast, non-governmental organizations — civil society groups, charities, and volunteer networks — are viewed far more favorably.
Three-quarters of respondents consider NGO-led veteran programs effective, suggesting that flexibility, responsiveness, and proximity to veterans’ real needs often matter more than formal institutional design.
Employment is perhaps the most critical test of successful reintegration. Separate research conducted by the Ukrainian Veterans Fund, together with the employment platform robota.ua, shows more than 57% of veterans face barriers when seeking civilian jobs.
The most common obstacles include wages that fail to meet basic needs, physical health limitations, psychological strain, and direct discrimination. These same factors frequently contribute to job loss after initial employment, reinforcing cycles of instability rather than facilitating sustainable reintegration.
Veterans have clear ideas of what would help. The most frequently cited measures include retraining and reskilling programs, job quotas, formal recognition of military service as work experience, and integrated support packages combining education, psychological assistance, and job placements.
In other words, veterans want institutional mechanisms that translate their skills and experience into civilian economic participation, and experience in other countries offers useful reference points.
In the US, for example, programs such as the GI Bill, the Veterans Educational Assistance Program, and the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service treat reintegration as a long-term process rather than a one-time intervention. Education funding, modular job training, employer engagement, and legal protections against workplace discrimination are combined into a coherent system.
While Ukrainians recognize these programs are far from perfect, they reflect an understanding that veteran reintegration can succeed when education, employment, healthcare, and rights protection are addressed together rather than in isolation.
And elements of this approach are beginning to emerge in Ukraine. Some large employers, such as Kernel and DTEK, have started experimenting with comprehensive reintegration models that begin not at demobilization, but at mobilization.
These corporate initiatives preserve jobs during service, maintain medical coverage, provide health and rehabilitation packages, offer retraining opportunities, and adapt workplaces for employees with disabilities. While such programs cannot substitute for state policy, they highlight the benefits of early planning and institutional continuity.
The data points to a policy challenge that cuts across healthcare, employment, education, housing, and anti-discrimination frameworks. Ukraine’s response will shape not only the future of its veterans, but also public trust in institutions and the inclusiveness of the postwar social contract.
The question is not whether Ukraine can afford to invest in veterans’ reintegration, it is whether the country can afford the long-term social and political costs of failing to do so.
Kateryna Odarchenko is a political consultant, a partner of the SIC Group Ukraine, and president of the PolitA Institute for Democracy and Development. A specialist practicing in the field of political communication and projects, she has practical experience in the implementation of all-Ukrainian political campaigns and party-building projects.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
War Without End
Russia’s Shadow Warfare
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA’s flagship event.
