Content uploaded by Jussi Jauhiainen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jussi Jauhiainen on Nov 10, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISBN
Nro 1 72
TURKU 2008
(Eds.)
TURUN YLIOPISTON MAANTIETEEN JA GEOLOGIAN LAITOKSEN JULKAISUJA
PUBLICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY OF UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
MAANTIETEEN JA GEOLOGIAN LAITOS
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
ISBN 978-951-29-9016-0 (printed) ISSN 2489-2319 (printed)
ISBN 978-951-29-9017-7 (Internet) ISSN 2324-0369 (Internet)
Temporary Protected Ukrainians and Other Ukrainians in Estonia, 2022 Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa & Kerly Espenberg
No. 18
18
TURUN YLIOPISTON MAANTIETEEN JA GEOLOGIAN LAITOKSEN JULKAISUJA
PUBLICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
No. 1. Jukka Käyhkö and Tim Horstkotte (Eds.): Reindeer husbandry under global change in the tundra region of
Northern Fennoscandia. 2017.
No. 2. Jukka Käyhkö och Tim Horstkotte (Red.): Den globala förändringens inverkan på rennäringen på norra
Fennoskandiens tundra. 2017.
No. 3. Jukka Käyhkö ja Tim Horstkotte (doaimm.): Boazodoallu globála rievdadusaid siste Davvi-Fennoskandia
duottarguovlluin. 2017.
No. 4. Jukka Käyhkö ja Tim Horstkotte (Toim.): Globaalimuutoksen vaikutus porotalouteen Pohjois-Fennoskandian
tundra-alueilla. 2017.
No. 5. Jussi S. Jauhiainen (Toim.):
Turvapaikka Suomesta? Vuoden 2015 turvapaikanhakijat ja turvapaikkaprosessit
Suomessa. 2017.
No. 6. Jussi S. Jauhiainen: Asylum seekers in Lesvos, Greece, 2016-2017. 2017
No. 7. Jussi S. Jauhiainen: Asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Lampedusa, Italy, 2017. 2017
No. 8. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Katri Gadd & Justus Jokela: Paperittomat Suomessa 2017. 2018.
No. 9. Jussi S. Jauhiainen & Davood Eyvazlu: Urbanization, Refugees and Irregular Migrants in Iran, 2017. 2018.
No. 10. Jussi S. Jauhiainen & Ekaterina Vorobeva: Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Jordan, 2017. 2018.
No. 11. Jussi S. Jauhiainen: Refugees and Migrants in Turkey, 2018. 2018.
No. 12. Tua Nylén, Harri Tolvanen, Anne Erkkilä-Välimäki & Meeli Roose: Guide for cross-border spatial data analysis
in Maritime Spatial Planning. 2019.
No. 13. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Lutz Eichholz & Annette Spellerberg: Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Undocumented
Migrants in Germany, 2019. The Case of Rhineland-Palatinate and Kaiserslautern. 2019.
No. 14. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Davood Eyvazlu & Bahram Salavati Sarcheshmeh: Afghans in Iran: Migration Patterns
and Aspirations. 2020.
No. 15. Jussi S. Jauhiainen & Ekaterina Vorobeva: Asylum Seekers and Migrants in Lesvos, Greece, 2019–2020.
2020.
No. 16. Salla Eilola, Petra Kollanen ja Nora Fagerholm: Vehreyttä ja rentoa oleskelutilaa kaivataan Aninkaisten
konserttitalon kortteliin – Raportti 3D-näkymiä pilotoivan asukaskyselyn tuloksista ja käyttökokemuksesta.
2021.
No 17. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Sanni Huusari & Johanna Junnila: Asylum Seekers and Undocumented Migrants in
Lesvos, Greece, 2020–2022. 2022.
No 18. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa & Kerly Espenberg: Temporary Protected Ukrainians
and Other Ukrainians in Estonia, 2022. 2022.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED
UKRAINIANS AND OTHER
UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa & Kerly Espenberg
Temporary protected Ukrainians and other Ukrainians in
Estonia, 2022
Ajutise kaitse saanud ukrainlased ja teised Ukraina
sõjapõgenikud Eestis 2022. aastal
˄
ʫϮϬϮϮ
˄
ˑ 2022
Tilapäistä suojelua saaneet ukrainalaiset ja muut
ukrainalaiset Virossa vuonna 2022
TEMPORARY PROTECTED
UKRAINIANS AND OTHER
UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA,
2022
Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa &
Kerly Espenberg
Turku 2022
University of Turku
Department of Geography and Geology
Division of Geography
ISBN 978-951-29-9016-0 (printed)
ISBN 978-951-29-9017-7 (Internet)
ISSN 2489-2319 (printed)
ISSN 2324-0369 (E-publication)
Painosalama, Turku, Finland 2022
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................5
1.1 Research project ................................................................................. 5
1.2 Research questions, material and methods ........................................9
1.3 Research highlights ...........................................................................11
2. Temporary protection in the European Union ......................................... 16
2.1 EU member states and policies on asylum-related migrants ............ 19
2.2 Migration in European politics and the media ................................. 21
3. Temporary protected Ukrainians in Europe and Estonia .........................24
3.1 War in Ukraine from February 24th, 2022, and its antecedents ..........24
3.2 War-related migration regarding Ukraine ........................................ 27
3.3 Ukrainians in Estonia ....................................................................... 31
4. Main results ............................................................................................. 45
4.1 Respondents’ background ................................................................46
4.2 Respondents’ journey to Estonia .......................................................54
4.3 Respondents’ accommodation and local environment in Estonia ....64
4.4 Respondents’ social environment, health care and school chil-
dren’s education in Estonia............................................................... 73
4.5 Respondents’ employment in Estonia...............................................95
4.6 Respondents’ migration aspirations and digital mobility in Estonia 107
5. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 119
6. References ..............................................................................................126
7. Temporary protected Ukrainians and other Ukrainians in Estonia,
2022 ....................................................................................................... 130
8. Ajutise kaitse saanud ukrainlased ja teised Ukraina sõjapõgenikud
Eestis 2022.aastal .....................................................................................132
9. Українці зі статусом тимчасово захисту та інші українці в
Естонії, 2022 .......................................................................................... 134
10. Украинцы со статусом временной защиты и другие украинцы в
Эстонии, 2022 год .................................................................................136
11. Tilapäistä suojelua saaneet ukrainalaiset ja muut ukrainalaiset
Virossa vuonna 2022 .............................................................................. 138
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 5
1. Introduction
1.1 Research project
Temporary protected Ukrainians and other Ukrainians in Estonia, 2022 focuses on the
war-related migration of Ukrainians to Estonia and their everyday lives in Esto-
nia in 2022, a few months after the start of the war in Ukraine.
The war started on February 24th, 2022 when Russia attacked Ukraine. Follow-
ing the worries among local populations and calls from the ministries of home
affairs in EU member states, on March 2nd, 2022, the European Commission pro-
posed that the Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 be activated. The
next day, the Council of the European Union unanimously adopted the decision
to invoke this directive and to activate the temporary protection guaranteed un-
der the directive. This directive (the “temporary protection directive”, TPD) sets
the minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass
influx of displaced persons and on measures to promote a balance of efforts be-
tween Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the responsibility
for their protection.
This directive guarantees the right to temporary protection and access to ac-
commodation, employment, health (medical) care, education for children and
social welfare in European Union (EU) member states (see European Commission
2022b) for Ukrainians fleeing the on-going war in Ukraine. As of October 2022,
over four million Ukrainians were registered for Temporary Protection or sim-
ilar national schemes in Europe (UNHCR 2022). Over seven million war-fleeing
Ukrainians were in Europe and millions were internally displaced within Ukraine.
It was agreed that the directive measures would be implemented for Ukrain-
ian citizens and their family members who had left their country on or after the
Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022. As discussed in more detail
in Chapter 2, the TPD is somewhat open to interpretation when it comes to de-
fining who else besides Ukrainian citizens is eligible for temporary protection in
the EU. Among ‘non-Ukrainian citizens’ who could be eligible for protection are
third-country nationals or stateless persons who had to leave their country or
region of origin, or had been evacuated, and had international protection status
in Ukraine when the war began. Besides these refugees with permanent resi-
dence in Ukraine, eligible people could also include third country nationals who
were permanent residents in Ukraine and who could not return safely to their
country of origin; however, the latter were not included (European Commission
2022; Motte-Baumvol et al. 2022) since including them would have meant pro-
tecting a of large number of Russian nationals residing permanently in Ukraine.
Within this context, we had three aims in our research. First, we conducted
research on the physical mobilities of war-fleeing Ukrainians residing in Esto-
6 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
nia in the summer of 2022. These included their migration patterns to Estonia
after the beginning of the war and their future plans to migrate onward to third
countries, return to Ukraine or remain in Estonia.
Second, we analyzed how all aspects of TPD met the needs of Ukrainians in
Estonia. We considered their access to accommodation, employment, health
(medical) care, education for children and social services (see European Com-
mission 2022). To give voice and agency to Ukrainians, we focused on the view-
points of individuals to share their own personal context and situation in Esto-
nia related to the TPD.
Third, we focused conceptually on the temporary protection of people flee-
ing dangerous situations in their country of origin and the related governance of
asylum-related migrants in the EU (see Caponio 2022; Rasche 2022; Motte-Baum-
vol et al. 2022). Many terms, such as refugee, protected individual, migrant, im-
migrant, and more, are used, often mistakenly, to describe these individuals,
including Ukrainians fleeing the war in Ukraine. These aforementioned catego-
ries often inaccurately describe the situations of these individuals or groups and
are regularly used for political purposes in receiving countries. People fleeing
from their home may be labeled by various definitions that change over time,
and these individuals have little say in this labeling (Crawley and Skleparis 2018).
In the case of the EU’s implementation of TPD, some scholars have criticized the
organization for having ‘double standards’ in implementing the directive for
‘Europeans’, such as Ukrainians in 2022, but not for ‘non-Europeans’ in 2015
(Carrera et al. 2022).
By the end of September 2022, more than 100,000 war-related migrants from
Ukraine had come to Estonia since the beginning of the war. Of them, 57,000
had plans to stay in Estonia and the majority would seek temporary protection:
36,000 by that time. This made a rather small share of the millions of Ukrain-
ians who had to leave their homes and Ukraine. Many escaped to neighboring
countries where they waited to see if and when it would be possible to return to
Ukraine. Furthermore, millions of Ukrainians were internally displaced, having
to move within Ukraine to less dangerous areas (UNHCR 2022). Estonia is a small
country in terms of size (45,200 square kilometers) and population (1.3 million
inhabitants). At the time of this study, the share of Ukrainians fleeing war in
Ukraine among the population in Estonia (4.3%) was the highest in the EU.
The exact number of Ukrainians in Estonia is difficult to know since it de-
pends firstly on how Ukrainians are defined: by a person’s citizenship, moth-
er tongue and/or self-proclaimed ethnic belonging. Moreover, there was not a
precise overview of how many Ukrainians left Estonia in the first half of 2022,
making the number of Ukrainians in the country even more difficult to calcu-
late accurately. With these limitation in mind, it is estimated that in July 2022
there were about 90,000–100,000 persons who defined themselves as Ukrainian
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 7
in Estonia; one out of 13 people in Estonia were Ukrainians. Of these individu-
als about 70,000–80,000 were citizens of Ukraine and about 45,000–50,000 had
come to Estonia during the war and remained in the country. According to the
Police and Border Guard Board (2022), of Ukrainian citizens and permanent res-
idents of Ukraine, by the end of September, about 36,000 had received or were
in the process of receiving temporary protection in Estonia and about 2,000 had
withdrawn their temporary protection status. Of Ukrainians, about 1,300 in Es-
tonia had either received or applied for international protection, making 83%
all applications for refugee status. In addition, by late September, about 40,000–
45,000 Ukrainians had transited through Estonia to a third country (Estonian
Social Insurance Board 2022). The details of Ukrainians in Estonia are discussed
more in depth in Section 3.3.
Estonia and its capital Tallinn were not the closest places to reach from
Ukraine. It is 920 kilometers from the western border of Ukraine to the south-
ern border of Estonia, and the two capitals Kyiv and Tallinn are much farther
apart: 1,760 kilometers from each other through Poland, Lithuania and Latvia
and 1,550 kilometers through Russia, when access to the later was possible. The
distance from Kyiv to Tallinn is thus much farther than to the capitals of sever-
al other EU countries such as Warsaw (780 km), Bucharest (910 km), Budapest
(1,120 km), Sofia (1,300 km), Vienna (1,330 km), Berlin (1,350 km), Prague (1,400
km) or Ljubljana (1,600 km).
Although TPD was designed two decades ago, the EU-wide application of the
measure in 2022 makes it a unique and important case. The European Commis-
sion and the European Council invoked the directive very quickly, less than two
weeks after the beginning of the war. The two bodies considered the situation to
be one of a “mass influx” of people from outside the external borders of the EU.
Following this, Ukrainians could flee to EU member states, and, following the
principle of solidarity, member states accepted their temporary protection, and
provided access to elements of basic welfare by balancing efforts and capacity to
host these fleeing individuals (European Commission 2022). Although the polit-
ical decision was unanimous, the implementation of the TPD in the EU requires
action in each member state. In the end, the real action takes place locally in
concrete places where Ukrainians live among the local host population.
Due to the geography and the unique demographic context (discussed fur-
ther below), Estonia is a relevant case for analyzing the implementation of the
TPD. The small size of the country and its population makes it possible to cov-
er the entire country. The large share of Ukrainians in relation to the Estonian
population also suggests that the implementation of the TPD required many re-
sources. Furthermore, being a neighbor of the aggressor state, Russia, Estonia
also makes it possible to analyze different migration patterns of people fleeing
war. In this case, it was possible to include Ukrainians traveling through several
8 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
EU member states to Estonia and those traveling directly from Ukraine through
Russia.
In this study, we pay attention to the processes and practices of implement-
ing the TPD in Estonia and in its municipalities. We also consider the role that
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and people in Estonia play in this pro-
cess. The governance of Ukrainians and the whole TPD process in the EU is con-
nected to national and local policies of integration and adaptation, including
that of Estonia (see Cohesive Estonia Strategy 2030 2022). Sustainable short- and
long-term impacts are difficult to achieve due to the temporary dimension of
protection under the TPD. The temporariness suggests that Ukrainians would
return to Ukraine after a certain time. If this is not the case, new policies and
instruments will need to be implemented to make their residence more per-
manent in the EU member states where they reside. The practices surrounding
TPD then oscillate between hosting, adapting and integrating, depending on the
topics. It is possible that many Ukrainians will remain in EU member states, in-
cluding in Estonia. Those returning to Ukraine will maintain contact with many
people and public and private organizations they encountered in the EU during
their stay.
There is an additional dimension related to language and culture in Esto-
nia’s reception of Ukrainians. Before the beginning of the war, there were about
16,000 Ukrainian citizens registered as living in Estonia, making up 1.2% of the
country’s population (Statistics Estonia 2022). In addition to residents, there
were about the same number of temporary, short-term visitors from Ukraine.
Russian is the mother tongue for some Ukrainians and a large majority of
non-native Russian-speaking Ukrainians understand Russian, including many
of those who arrived in Estonia after the beginning of the war. Because of Esto-
nia’s past in the Soviet Union and the Russian language having been studied in
school, a larger portion of the Estonian population is able to communicate in
Russian compared with other EU countries. According to a survey from 2020,
about 54% of Estonians have the language skills to communicate in Russian to
some degree (Monitoring of Integration in Estonian Society 2022). This makes
many practical aspects of settling in Estonia easier in the beginning as Estonian
is a language that has nothing in common with Ukrainian. However, for many
Ukrainian pupils it is still challenging to follow Estonian-language based educa-
tion, at least in the beginning.
In addition to the large portion of the population being able to communi-
cate in Russian, there is a large native Russian-speaking population in Estonia.
Of the population in Estonia, 27% are native Russian speakers, 24% (more than
315,000) consider themselves to be ethnically Russian and 6% are Russian citizens
(more than 81,000 people). In some areas and urban districts (such as towns in
North-Eastern Estonia or districts in Tallinn), Russian is the dominant language.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 9
By the self-defined ethnicity, Estonians make a half (53%) of the population in
Tallinn and only less than one out of five (18%) in the Ida-Viru (North-Eastern)
county which is on the border with Russia (Statistics Estonia 2022). In particular,
in Narva, Estonia’s third largest city, Russian is the main language and many of its
inhabitants are Russian citizens. Thus, when it comes to language, the commu-
nication between Ukrainians and Russian-speaking Estonians would be linguis-
tically easy. However, such communication can be a sensitive issue and the view-
points on the war in Ukraine may vary among Russian speakers in Estonia. It is
therefore important to study how sharing the same social space between Ukrain-
ians and Russian speakers in Estonia takes place. Ultimately, the straightforward
implementation of the TPD within the different contexts in the EU is much more
complex than the political decision made in March 2022 to utilize the directive.
1.2 Research questions, material and methods
The main questions of the research are as follows:
1. How many and what kinds of Ukrainians came to Estonia after the start of
the war? Who remained in Estonia, and what were their everyday lives like in
Estonia as of July 2022?
2. Based on the viewpoints of temporary protected Ukrainians in Estonia, how
were the requirements of the EU’s “Temporary Protection Directive” met?
3. What were the migration aspirations of Ukrainians in Estonia?
The main empirical material for this research is based on the field research
conducted in different parts of Estonia in June and July 2022. This material was
complemented with information and statistics from international and Estonian
organizations. In 2022, hundreds of newspaper articles about Ukrainians ap-
peared in Estonia, and public authorities and NGOs also published information
about Ukrainians in Estonia. We used these for general information regarding
the developments between February and September 2022. In addition, we had
direct contact with Ukrainians in Estonia in the months leading up to the survey
and analysis which helped to contextualize the results.
The main empirical contribution for this research consists of responses to a
semi-structured survey by 527 Ukrainian citizens fleeing the war who came to
Estonia after the beginning of the war. 500 of the respondents had temporary
protection status and 27 were still waiting for it or remained in Estonia with a
different status. The sample was about 1.1% of adult Ukrainians who had arrived
to and had remained in Estonia after the beginning of the war.
In January 2022, i.e. before the beginning of the war, there were 27,826
self-proclaimed Ukrainians registered as residents in Estonia. These included
a variety of people: citizens of Ukraine (15,934 persons), those having Estonian
10 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
or Russian citizenship but whose mother tongue is Ukrainian (about 500 per-
sons), and self-proclaimed ethnic Ukrainians (about 11,000 persons) who did
not speak Ukrainian as their mother tongue (Russian was usually the mother
tongue for these individuals). Furthermore, in the beginning of 2022, around
16,000 Ukrainians were in Estonia without being registered as residents. The
total number of Ukrainians in Estonia was about 44,000 in the beginning of
2022.
The survey was conducted in Ukrainian and Russian between June 2 and
July 5, 2022 in Estonia (for details, see Section 4.1). The survey consisted of 107
questions and statements, of which 56 were structural, 23 were semi-open and
28 were completely open. The structural questions and statements (answer op-
tions: yes/no; yes/maybe/no; yes, fully/yes, partly/no; I agree/I don’t know/I disa-
gree) were about the respondents’ background (gender, mother tongue, univer-
sity education, employment, etc.) and journey to Estonia, as well as experiences
in Estonia regarding the themes of the TPD (accommodation, employment,
health services, education and social services). The semi-open questions dealt
with more detailed aspects about their journey to Estonia (reason for leaving,
experiences during the journey, etc.) and their everyday lives (personal expe-
riences on various issues, future plans, destinations, etc.) in Estonia. The open
questions dealt with the respondents’ reasons for leaving their country of origin,
their daily activities in Estonia and their broader aspirations and goals.
We carefully considered ethical issues and followed ethical practices in this
research. All Ukrainians responded to the survey anonymously, and they are
not identifiable in the research. We explained the scope and ethical principles
of the research to the survey respondents and reminded them of these princi-
ples at the beginning of the questionnaire. In practice, we approached individ-
ual Ukrainians in areas where they lived and spent their free time. The locations
in different parts of Estonia were selected to gather a representative sample of
the local environments in which Ukrainians lived in Estonia (see Table 1.1). We
decided the number of respondents based on official national statistics regard-
ing Ukrainians’ places of residence in Estonia and additional information from
Ukrainians themselves.
Table 1.1. Distribution of Ukrainian survey respondents by region of Estonia.
Region of Estonia Respondents %
Tallinn 256 49
Põhja-Eesti (Nothern Estonia) 100 19
Kirde-Eesti (Northeastern Estonia) 28 5
Lääne-Eesti (Western Estonia) 63 12
Kesk-Eesti (Central Estonia) 15 3
Lõuna-Eesti (Southern Estonia) 65 12
Total 527 100
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 11
In practice, we approached Ukrainians of at least 18 years of age close to where
they lived or at places where Ukrainians gathered. If the person agreed, then he
or she was provided with a questionnaire to fill out. If necessary, a pen was also
provided. If the person was not willing, he or she was not pressured to partic-
ipate in the survey. Any participant could withdraw from filling out the ques-
tionnaire at any time or leave questions he or she did not want to answer blank.
The survey was conducted in the field by five individuals, one of the authors of
this report and four assistants. When the questionnaire sheet was completed,
usually in 15–20 minutes, the participant returned it. Of all respondents, 115 pre-
ferred to fill the survey sheet electronically. For the latter, we used the program
SurveyMonkey to gather survey answers in an online format.
After collecting the survey sheets, we coded all responses to the individual
survey questions. The answers to semi-open and open questions were translated
into English by proficient and experienced translators. Next, we inserted cod-
ed responses into the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Scientists) database. We
inspected the consistency of the inserted data with systematic checks. Later, we
analyzed the survey data quantitatively with descriptive statistics and cross tables.
This study is the result of a team effort. Cooperation between various actors en-
abled the current report, and we thank everyone who directly or indirectly contrib-
uted to its creation. In particular, we thank Pagulasabi (Estonian Refugee Council)
and Politsei ja Piirivalveamet (Police and Border Guard) in Estonia for their help in
providing information as well as Minni Saapar and Kadri Lees with the help in the
analysis. We are grateful to all respondents who put in effort to complete the ques-
tionnaires. Funding from the University of Turku facilitated the research activities.
1.3 Research highlights
• To provide temporary protection for millions of fleeing Ukrainians, the
Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 (the “Temporary Protection Di-
rective”, TPD) was invoked for the first time in the EU in March 2022.
• In the implementation of the TPD, EU member states such as Estonia agreed
to provide temporary protection for Ukrainians fleeing war in Ukraine and
provide access to accommodation, employment, health care, education for
children, and social services.
• Before the start of the war, there were about 28,000 self-proclaimed ethnic
Ukrainian residents in Estonia; of them, about 16,000 were Ukrainian citizens.
Additionally, about 16,000 unregistered Ukrainian citizens were in Estonia,
and this number had grown in the country due to labor-related immigration.
• As of September 24th, 2022, seven months after the initiation of the war, over
100,000 persons from Ukraine had arrived in Estonia. Of these, 43,000 (43%)
12 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
expressed their intention to transit through Estonia to a third country and
57,000 (57%) to remain in Estonia (Estonian Social Insurance Board 2022).
• As of September 24th, 2022, the proportion of war-fleeing Ukrainians in Es-
tonia per capita was the highest (4.3%) in the EU.
• As of March 19th, more than 20,000 war-fleeing persons from Ukraine had
expressed their aspiration to remain in Estonia; by April 25th, there had been
more than 40,000; by the mid-August, had been more than 50,000.
• According to the Estonian Police and Border Guard, as of September 26th,
35,971 applications for temporary protection had been submitted in Esto-
nia and around 500 new applications were being submitted weekly; about
2,000 persons had withdrawn their temporary protection status; and about
1,500 persons had applied for international protection (of whom 1,247 were
Ukrainian citizens)
• Of the war-fleeing Ukrainians who had registered their residency in Esto-
nia as of September 2022, 72% were women and 28% were men; around 14%
were 0–6 years old, 27% 7–17 years old, 55% 18–64 years old and 5% at least 65
years old.
• As of September 2022, the share of the war-fleeing Ukrainians who had reg-
istered their residency in Estonia aried from 0% to 3.5% in Estonian munic-
ipalities’ population.
• As of September 2022, of 45,000 15–74 years old Ukrainians in Estonia, 23,000
(12,600 men and 10,400 women) were employed (including 8,100 persons
with temporary protection) and 22,000 (7,500 men and 14,500 women) were
not employed (including 16,100 persons with temporary protection), and
5,900 were registered as unemployed.
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection, 30% came
from areas of Ukraine with major active military conflict, 37% from areas
with some active military conflict, and 33% from areas without substantial
military conflict.
• The most common reason to select Estonia as the destination country (for
54% of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection) was hav-
ing family or friends in Estonia (either having them before or during the
migration), followed by having heard positive things about Estonia (25%).
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection, 45% lived in
separate housing, 14% lived in shared apartments or houses, and 29% in col-
lective temporary accommodations; 5% lived alone; 50% of them were ful-
ly and 41% partly satisfied with their current accommodation; 70% lived in
somewhat crowded accommodations (more than one person per bedroom);
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 13
18% had shared bathrooms, but only 4% claimed not to have enough bath-
rooms or amenities.
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection, 80% claimed
to receive benefits (52% regular and 28% some). Among benefits were those
for children, unemployment, accommodation and pension.
• Of 18–64-year-old Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protec-
tion, 27% of were employed full-time and 6% were employed part-time or
self-employed. Of those employed, 41% were fully and 51% were partly satis-
fied with their current employment; of those who mentioned their average
salary, 81% earned less than 1,000 euros per month and 32% were able to save
money from their salary.
• Of 18–64-year-old Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protec-
tion, 51% were employed and looking for a job (52% of men, 51% of women),
and 12% were economically inactive (11% of men, 14% of women).
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection, 29% felt fully
and 57% partly satisfied with their health and 14% were not satisfied. 82% of
those who had used health care services were satisfied with them. The major
reasons for dissatisfaction were difficulty in accessing health care and com-
munication challenges.
• According to Haridussilm (the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research
report portal) (2022), in the spring semester of 2022, 4,716 Ukrainian stu-
dents were enrolled in the school system in Estonia, 40% of whom were in
Tallinn, and they comprised of about 36% of all school-aged Ukrainians in
Estonia. The language of Ukrainians’ schooling in Estonia was Estonian for
79.5% of pupils, Russian for 20% and English for 0.5%.
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents having temporary protection status and
0–6 years old children in Estonia, 41% said that their children went to a kin-
dergarten in Estonia, and of those having 7–17 years old children in Estonia,
49% said their children attended school there; 84% mentioned that it was
easy to find a place in a school for their children and 39% hoped that their
children would continue their education in Estonia in Estonian language
from September 2022 onward.
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection, 80% men-
tioned that they received benefits or financial help such as food, clothing,
medicine, or hygiene products. 79% said that they needed much more mon-
ey to improve their own situation and 42% said that their accommodation
costs were fully or partly paid by the state.
14 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection that had used
health care in Estonia, 81% were satisfied with the service.
• Overall, 92% of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection
felt that they were treated well in their current place of residence, 92% said
that Estonians were friendly toward them, and 75% had friends in Estonia
and 33% had Estonian friends.
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection, 66% aspired
to return to Ukraine, 24% said they might return, and 10% said they would
not return to Ukraine. 2% aspired to migrate from Estonia to a third country.
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents having temporary protection, 12% thought
they would probably live for the rest of their lives in Estonia. This was more
typical among those who had their spouses and children in Estonia, were
employed in a sector matching their skillset, and felt treated well.
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection, in practice
all had a command of Ukrainian and/or Russian: 70% were native Ukrain-
ian speakers and 47% native Russian speakers (28% responded as speaking
both Ukrainian and Russian as native languages). In addition, 6% spoke Eng-
lish well and 22% moderately, and 11% said they had some (usually very little)
command of Estonian. In day-to-day communication in Estonia, 96% used
Russian, 59% Ukrainian, 34% English, and 21% Estonian. Of those employed,
92% used Russian at work.
• Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection, 17% felt un-
comfortable in the presence of Russian speakers in Estonia.
• In practice all (100%) Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protec-
tion had used the Internet in either Ukraine, during the journey to Estonia
and 98% respondents used it in Estonia. For 71%, the use of social media was
important during the journey. Some had become more active Internet and
social media users since arriving in Estonia. They used phone calls and digi-
tal means to be in frequent contact with people remaining in Ukraine.
• Ukrainians in Estonia had been offered protection from the war regardless
their status. The implementation of the TPD facilitated access to accommo-
dation, employment, medical care, education and social service to those
Ukrainians who had asked for and been granted temporary protection status
in Estonia. However, not all services were equally accessible for all Ukraini-
ans in Estonia and not all Ukrainians had enough knowledge of the services
or the possibility of accessing them.
• The relationships between the TPD and national and local integration and
adaptation policies needs to be scrutinized to have coordinated efforts to
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 15
support the everyday lives of Ukrainians in Estonia as well as in all EU mem-
ber states; Ukrainians need to have an active role and agency in the design
and practices of the TPD implementation.
• The national and local implementation of the TPD requires both short and
long-term guidelines as well as partnerships between the international, na-
tional and local levels. It is important to involve local hosting inhabitants
and in particular Ukrainians in this process.
• The short- and long-term impacts of the TPD implementation in individu-
al EU members states, and its connection to and impact on the overall mi-
gration and asylum policies in the EU need to be analyzed in individual EU
member states.
16 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
2. Temporary protection in the European Union
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the war in Ukraine, initiated by Russia
on February 24th, 2022, brought about the EU-wide use of Article 63(2) of the
EC Treaty by the Council Directive 2001/55/EC. On the one hand, it defines the
minimum standard of temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of
displaced persons. On the other, it sets forth measures promoting a balance of
efforts between the EU member states to receive such persons and bear the con-
sequences thereof (Arenas 2005, 435).
The roots of the TPD are in the aftermath of World War II and the 1951 Gene-
va Convention (United Nations 1951). The Geneva Convention became the key
point of reference to delineate who can be defined as a refugee (i.e., a person
needing international protection), and how the procedures of giving protection
should take place. The Geneva Convention is a general framework for defining
a refugee in individual cases. However, many countries hesitated or were not
able to implement this framework quickly in cases of large numbers of people
seeking protection at once.
Prior to the establishment of the TPD as a tool, temporary protection statuses
and stay arrangements had already been codified by the United Nations as sep-
arate measures. These were not to “replace existing international obligations,
in particular the 1951 Refugee convention and/or its 1967 protocol, or regional
refugee instruments, such as when prima facie or more favorable protection is
available” (UNHCR 2012). The current EU directive on temporary protection fol-
lows the same logic. As discussed below, the TPD is a temporary measure that is
not meant to replace efforts toward establishing more sustainable solutions for
individuals fleeing conflicts.
As the key organization dealing with refugees and displaced persons, the UN-
HCR expressed its argument in favor of issuing the TPD in 1992, regarding the
war in Yugoslavia:
[A] flexible system of temporary protection would respond adequately to
the emergency situation and encourage return as the most desirable and
feasible solution. However, whatever mechanism for burden-sharing is
adopted, it must not limit the right to seek asylum. In this – as in other sit-
uations – admission and protection, at least on a temporary basis, should
be given without discrimination to all those who need it. (UNHCR 1992)
In 2001, the EU thus agreed on formulating the TPD and defining the context in
which it could and should be applied. As Article 2(a) of the TPD states:
‘temporary protection’ means a procedure of exceptional character to
provide, in the event of a mass influx or imminent mass influx of displaced
persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of
origin, immediate and temporary protection to such persons, in particu-
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 17
lar if there is also a risk that the asylum system will be unable to process
this influx without adverse effects for its efficient operation, in the inter-
ests of the persons concerned and other persons requesting protection.
The TPD remained dormant in the early 21st century as there were no particular
contexts in which it could have been applied. However, the situation changed
in 2015, when 1.3 million people quickly fled to the EU territory seeking inter-
national protection. These people were allowed to enter the EU territory, but
the asylum system slowed to a halt in many countries. The asylum seekers con-
tinued to arrive in 2016 until the EC made a deal with Turkey that it would more
strongly prevent the departure of migrants from Turkey to Greece. The growth
of arrivals was manifold compared to earlier years. Nevertheless, the TPD was
not invoked.
The result of the situations in 2015 and the early 2016 was that the EU’s asylum
system faced challenges. Many asylum seekers had to wait in the administrative
asylum system for years. This also created an unbalanced burden on EU member
states, mainly depending on their geographical location (i.e., where the asylum
seekers first arrived). The EU member states (and a few other countries) agreed
to follow the principles of the 1990 Dublin Convention to determine which EU
member state would be responsible for examining each application for asylum.
However, not all countries follow the convention properly. There was a failure
to implement financial and administrative burden sharing of processing asylum
applications and caring for asylum seekers receiving or not receiving protection
and rights in the EU. The gap between the EU’s asylum laws and actual asylum
practices of member states widened (Trauner 2016), creating an increasing mis-
match between broader European values, asylum policies and practices (Lave-
neux 2018). Jones et al. (2016) argue that incompleteness is a key feature of EU
agreements and a trigger for further integration; this further complicated the
asylum and integration policies in the EU (see Scipioni 2018).
When the war started on February 24th, 2022, many Ukrainians soon began to
flee Ukraine for neighboring countries, including EU member states. Very soon
the United Nations General Assembly gave the Resolution of 1 March 2022 (A/
RES/ES-11/1). In this resolution the UN used the concept of ‘aggression’ to char-
acterize the initiated conflict between Ukraine and Russia. A few days later, the
EU Council Decision (2022/382) of March 4th, 2022 used the concept of ‘invasion’
regarding the event. This wording by the Council paved the way to acknowledge
that it was possible to consider the existence of a mass influx of displaced per-
sons from Ukraine to the EU member states. The context was suitable for the
implementation of Article 5 of the Directive 2001/55/EC which would introduce
temporary protection far beyond immediate humanitarian needs.
As mentioned above, the European Commission, the European Council, and
the member states had recently had complex experiences with the non-imple-
18 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
mentation of the TPD in 2015 when many people entered the EU at once to seek
protection. Even before 2015, several concrete events indicated that such large-
scale movements could take place. These included the Hungarian displacements
of 1956, the Czech displacements of 1968, the Southeast Asian displacements
in the 1970s, and the (former) Yugoslavian displacements in the 1990s (Arenas
2005, 435–436).
In the TPD, the concept of a mass influx of displaced persons was left open to
interpretation. The directive mentioned a “large number of displaced persons”
and the “scale of the movements” without detailed specification. However, the
TPD was to be a complementary and subsidiary regime of protection in the EU
for exceptional situations (see Arenas 2005, 339–340). As indicated by the de-
cisions of the European Commission on March 2nd, the European Council on
March 3rd, and the consequent invocation of the TPD in the EU member states,
the flight of Ukrainians to EU territory following the initiation of war in Ukraine
qualified as one such exceptional situation of a mass influx of displaced persons
(European Commission 2022).
More concretely, in its current form, the TPD obliges EU member states to
follow the principles of non-refoulement and fair burden-sharing as well as to
provide a standardized set of services to people fleeing in cases of large-scale
displacement (Table 2.1). As the TPD was invoked in 2022, it is important to know
and understand how it was implemented and how the temporariness of pro-
tection fits into larger and longer processes of the European integration and
adaptation of new people into the territory and communities of the EU and its
member states.
Table 2.1. Obligations of the EU member states implementing the TPD.
• a residence permit for the entire duration of the protection (which can last from one year to three
years)
• appropriate information on temporary protection
• guaranteesofaccesstotheasylumprocedure
• access to employment, subject to rules applicable to the profession and to national labor market
policies and general conditions of employment
• access to suitable accommodation or housing
• access to social welfare or means of subsistence if necessary
• access to medical care
• access to education (for persons under 18 years, to the state education system)
• opportunities for families to reunite in certain circumstances
• access to banking services, for instance opening a basic bank account
• freedom to move to another EU country before the issuance of a residence permit
• freedom to move freely in EU countries (other than the EU member state of residence) for 90 days
within a 180-day period after the issuance of a residence permit in the host EU member state
Source: Modified from the European Commission (2022).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 19
2.1 EU member states and policies on asylum-related migrants
Despite a series of so-called ‘refugee crises’ in the EU (Krzyżanowski, et al. 2018),
the implementation of migration-related policies in the EU continues to be
multifaceted. These include multiple levels of governance, namely, internation-
al (including the EU and external partners, see Rygiel et al. 2016 and the United
Nations Global Compact on Refugees), supranational institutional (EU econom-
ic and trade policies), intergovernmental institutional (EU foreign policy and se-
curity), national (EU member states), and regional-local (local governing bodies
and organizations) levels. According to Caponio (2022), less attention has been
paid to local authorities and NGOs than to the upper tiers of the EU’s multilevel
governance of asylum-related policies and practices.
Moreover, heavy politicization and subsequent media coverage of migra-
tion-related issues, in particular since 2015, have muddled the terms used to
describe different groups of migrants to the EU. Common terms include, but
are not limited to, migrant, refugee, asylum seeker, irregular migrant, undocu-
mented migrant, and paperless. Those using these terms often do not know or
pay attention to the differences between such terms, nor to the consequences,
legal responsibilities, and opportunities that can be derived for people of such
statuses in the member states (see Crawley and Skleparis 2018). As discussed in
further detail below, the history of migration to the EU and the tense political
and humanitarian discussions surrounding EU countries’ handling of migration
make the unanimous decision to implement the TPD a unique case.
Compliance with EU policies related to migration, and more specifically to-
ward individuals with refugee, asylum-seeking, and special protection status,
largely depends on member states’ capacity and motivation (i.e. the political
and public wills). However, non-compliance also can be a purposeful practice
to avoid the implementation of unpopular EU policies (Kriegmair et al. 2022).
Compliance depends on enforcement measures, capacity, and motivation.
Where one of these variables is low, the others should be high for compliance to
occur (Schmälter 2018). Moreover, enforcement, capacity, and motivation must
be higher where the issue at hand is broad in scope or contested so that this is-
sue would comply with broader demands. In the case of the EU, the multilevel
governance structure and intergovernmental nature of migration policy make
enforcement measures rather weak at the EU level and dependent on national
capacities and motivation at the member state level (see Caponio 2022). At the
same time, coordinating the interests of the 27 EU member states and their re-
gions, and those of the EU and international institutional levels, make the scope
of migration-related policies broad.
Compliance related to migration refers to member states’ implementation
of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which includes the recently
invoked TPD. The implementation of the CEAS and TPD, which is at the focus
20 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
of this analysis, differs in part due to the diverse capacities and political will of
individual member states. In cases where enforcement is weak and the terms of
compliance are open to interpretation, the capacity and political will of a mem-
ber state again influences how policies are implemented. This refers also to the
case of the TPD.
In the 2020s, the European Commission increased the annual budget by over
200 million euros for asylum policy support in the Asylum, Migration and In-
tegration Fund (AMIF). The budget was 6.6 billion euros from 2014 to 2020 and
increased to 9.9 billion euros from 2021 to 2027 (European Commission 2022).
Nevertheless, the challenges of the temporariness of the TPD and differences in
institutional, economic, and social capacities of EU member states will not be
solved with the increased budget alone.
Even though the EU follows clear, internationally recognized definitions of
which individuals are to be protected under refugee status, asylum procedures,
or temporary protection, the interchangeable and increasingly politicized use of
these defining terms in public debates and in the media influences the public’s
will and support (see Crawley and Skleparis 2018). Moreover, the language of
migration-related policies is open to interpretation in each member state and
their respective publics. For example, the EU member state obligations of the
TPD (see Table 2.1) suggest that implementation includes providing appropriate
information, suitable housing, access to social welfare, medical care, and educa-
tion, and opportunities for families to unite in certain circumstances. However,
what is considered ‘appropriate,’ ‘suitable,’ or ‘accessible’ differs among member
states in the EU.
The way in which differences in interpretations and implementation of the
EU’s migration policies have been growing since 2015 make the unanimous
support for the TPD in 2022 exceptional, at least during its initial decision and
early implementation. It was an important step towards the social protection
of Ukrainians displaced against their will and, in addition to the existing EU hu-
manitarian aid policy, the TPD provides an exhaustive legal framework for such
protection (Motte-Baumvol et al. 2022). While some argue that this implementa-
tion could be seen as a success for common policy making in the EU (see Rasche
2022), we are aware that the swift evocation of the TPD was made within a small
window of opportunity. The EU member states’ motivation was unanimously
high, and the political position of the EC was clear. This was, however, a rapid
reaction to surprising and horrific events. The long-term commitment of the
member states will be seen only in 2023 and later.
As previously noted, temporary protection is not a replacement for refugee
protection and the asylum system. It is, as the name implies, a common, tempo-
rary measure for states to aid individuals fleeing conflict when the number of
these individuals is exceptionally large, and the handling of these individuals af-
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 21
fects the entire EU territory and its administrative-political system. Thus, there
is potential for the TPD to be either a tool for the deeper integration of the EU’s
multilevel policy facilitating on migration, or a temporary delay to the continua-
tion of member states’ diverging implementation of migrant protection policies.
2.2 Migration in European politics and the media
In the last two decades, the emphasis on migration within and to the EU has
shifted significantly. As of 2003, migration was not described as a ‘security
threat’ in either the European Union Global Strategy (EUGS) or the European
Security Strategy; rather, it was considered an issue for ‘home affairs’ (Ceccor-
ulli and Lucarelli 2017). Large-scale migration to the EU (notably from the for-
mer Yugoslavia in 1992) and within the EU (particularly from the new eastern
EU member states after the EU enlargement in 2004 to the older member states)
were treated as demographic and employment challenges and opportunities to
be addressed by the member states. In principle, the free movement of labor is a
tool for successfully balancing demand and supply in the EU-wide labor market.
In 2015, migration was put high on the EU agenda due to what was referred
to globally as the ‘Syrian refugee crisis’ and commonly in Europe as the so-called
‘migration crisis.’ From 2006 to 2014, the number of asylum-related migrants
to the EU was close to 200,000 per year but grew to 1.3 million in 2015 (Eurostat
2016). Asylum-related migration continued at high levels until the implementa-
tion of the EU–Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 which substantially reduced
such migration from Turkey to Greece in the EU (Haferlach and Kurban 2018).
On the one hand, economic growth in the EU is dependent on the migration
of people within and from outside the EU to address declining population in
several EU member states and fill demand for both seasonal jobs and long-term
transformations in the labor market (Paul 2020). The EU’s migration policies
promote migration as an integral tool to foster the common market within the
EU and cooperation with EU partners. The migration policies support student
exchange programs, such as Erasmus, which are domestic and public diploma-
cy policy tools to support idea and value exchange in the region (Van Mol 2018;
Mastenbroek et al. 2022).
On the other hand, diverse EU member states experience changing patterns
of migration differently and have varying capacities and political will to imple-
ment EU policies. Thus, migration had already been on the EU agenda prior to
2015, when it became a very real economic and social challenge in many coun-
tries. Yet, because “enforcement of EU policies can take place at both the do-
mestic and the European level” (Schmälter 2018, 1331), the common EU policies
on refugee rights, asylum procedures, and temporary protection (outlined in
the CEAS) are enforced at multiple levels, often having different configurations
among different EU member states.
22 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Since the 2015 ‘migration crisis,’ individual EU member states have faced
unique challenges in incorporating new EU policies while managing economic
and social policies within their borders. The different narratives that emerged in
relation to these policies, such as “renationalization” (Brekke and Starver 2018),
“security,” “selectivity,” and “global responsivities” or “values” narratives (Cec-
corulli and Lucarelli 2017), continue to influence current debates surrounding
migration from third countries to the EU.In fact, Carrera et al. (2022) criticize
the EU asylum policy for its discriminatory grounds and lack of equal solidarity
regarding European (in this case, Ukrainian) and non-European (in this case,
Afghan, Iraqi, etc.) people fleeing conflicts and war and seeking protection and
asylum.
The diverse reactions among the EU member states to the large-scale asy-
lum-related migration in 2015 created an “acute migration-security nexus”
(Fakhoury 2016), which influenced each level of decision-making in the EU. A
complex combination of policies, practices, and techniques was implemented
to direct, control and regulate the present and future of asylum seekers, undoc-
umented migrants, and other asylum-related migrants as well as their activities
and the organizations involved. This combination became part of the broader
biopolitical and geopolitical orders in the territories with which these migrants
were acquainted inside and outside EU borders. Such context has been referred
to by the term ‘biogeopolitics.’ With the context of this term, various stakehold-
ers develop their preferred geopolitical orders through biopolitical-physical
and discursive governance and (mis)management of asylum-related migrants
within broader geopolitical interests (see Jauhiainen 2020). This applies both to
the EU as a whole as well as to its specific member states that have adopted very
critical tones toward asylum-related migration. From this perspective, it seems
somewhat surprising that in 2022 the EU could invoke the TPD so quickly and
unanimously. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how unanimous solidarity will
be in the longer-term implementation of the TPD.
Despite consistent attempts to establish a common, EU-wide approach to-
ward refugees, asylum seekers, and temporary protection, the implementation
of the EU migration policies remains dependent on state and regional actors. Po-
litical and media discourse at the regional, national, and EU institutional levels
have heightened differences among approaches to migration in the EU (Geor-
giou and Zaborowski 2017). In addition, the politicization of immigration to the
EU and its member states (and specific, often sensational media coverage of that
phenomenon) mean that certain key political parties and individuals influence
the general discussion and public opinion on immigration to the EU. The rise
of right-wing political movements gained support by including anti-immigra-
tion in their platforms, over-simplifying asylum-related migration and creating
stronger borders between endangered ‘us’ and threatening ‘them’ (Lamour and
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 23
Varga 2020). Within the EU, the capacity and political will to address increasing
number of refugees, asylum seekers, and individuals needing temporary pro-
tection depends on the real and perceived economic and social challenges expe-
rienced by the EU member states.
24 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
3. Temporary protected Ukrainians in Europe and Estonia
To assist in understanding the reasons for fleeing, needs and demographic back-
grounds of Ukrainians fleeing from different regions in Ukraine to Estonia in
2022, we provide an overview of the development of the war in Ukraine and
subsequent migration.
3.1 War in Ukraine from February 24th, 2022, and its antecedents
Weeks before Russia initiated the attack on Ukraine in February 2022, large con-
centrations of Russian military troops in areas close to the Russian border with
Ukraine had been observed (Brown 2022). The opinion prevailed that Russia
would not attack Ukraine regardless of the Russian involvement in many wars in
the 21st century, including in Ukraine (Gardner 2022; Yilmaz 2022). Later, some
scholars argued that the war that erupted was a continuation of the Russian an-
nexation of Crimea in 2014 (Heinmüller 2022).
In 2013, the Ukrainian parliament voted in favor of theEU–Ukrainian Associ-
ation Agreement. However, Mr. Viktor Yanukovych, then the pro-Russian pres-
ident of Ukraine, decided not to sign it. Instead, he suggested intensifying rela-
tions between Ukraine and Russia and thebroader Eurasian Economic Union.
This resulted in large-scale protests among the pro-EU population in Ukraine,
and as a result, Yanukovych fled Ukraine on February 22nd, 2014. The next day,
the Ukrainian parliament took several symbolic measures including a proposal
to revoke the 2012 law which established Russian as a legally recognized region-
al language in Ukraine in regions in which the Russian-speaking population
was more than 10 percent of the population (see Tass 2014). Although this pro-
posal was not enacted, it created unrest among pro-Russian stakeholders and
the Russian-speaking population in parts of Ukraine as well as in Russia (Kulyk
2016).
In the end of February 2014, Russian-backed armed forces attacked and con-
quered Crimea. After a disputed referendum in March, Russia entirely annexed
Crimea (Bebler 2014). Shortly thereafter, pro-Russian groups in other, primar-
ily Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine launched protests against the
Ukrainian government. The Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which are part of the
larger, mostly Russian-speaking area of Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, declared
self-determination as the People’s Republic of Donetsk and the People’s Republic
of Luhansk. Then, in April war broke out between pro-Russian separatists and
Ukrainian military forces (Mitrokhin 2015). Armed conflict has continued at dif-
ferent intervals ever since. The particular composition and location of different
ethnic groups in the 2020s in Ukraine, including Russian-speakers, derive from
the tragedies, famine, deportations and relocations of populations during the
Soviet Stalinist era about a century ago (see Ellman 2007).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 25
On February 21st, 2022, Russia officially recognized the People’s Republic of
Donetsk and the People’s Republic of Luhansk as states and openly sent mili-
tary troops to these territories. Russia used the need to protect these areas’ Rus-
sian-speaking population from Ukraine as one excuse to support this action
(Rainsford 2022). By this time, the rhetoric about the Russian Donbas had already
become more widespread in Russia and in areas with many Russian-speakers in
Ukraine.
War in the sovereign territory of Ukraine started in the early morning on
February 24th, 2022. According to official Russian rhetoric, it was not a war
but a targeted “special military operation” (in Russian, специальная военная
операция) (United Nations Security Council 2022; Osborn and Nikolskaya
2022). On the one hand, the war was connected to the broader geopolitical po-
sition of Russia in the post-Soviet world and the recent developments in the
areas bordering Russia. Over the years, Russia has made statements concern-
ing how the dissolution of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical ca-
tastrophe of the century” (NBC News 2005). Many former Soviet republics and
states belonging to the former pro-Soviet Warsaw Pact had become members
of NATO. Since 2008, Ukraine also repeatedly expressed the wish to join NATO
(Makarychev and Yatsuk 2014). On the other hand, the war was related to the
internal politics of Russia as the initiating country, in terms of the manipulation
of its own population and the legitimization of the ruling powers. According to
the Russian domestic narrative, throughout history, ‘good and strong’ Russian
leaders were able to enlarge Russian territory, whereas weak Russian leaders al-
lowed the territory to became smaller. Where Russia had ever been, these areas
were somehow eternally belonging to Russia, at least historically (see President
of Russia 2022). Part of this discourse was the idea that external forces were
threatening the integrity of Russia and oppressing the Russian population in
many areas outside the country. Official justifications were used as rhetoric to
cover many other motives.
On the first day of the war, the Russian military troops invaded Ukraine
by land, sea and air and attacked many parts of Ukraine (BBC News 2022). By
the beginning of March, Russian troops had advanced into several regions in
Ukraine. This and widespread bombardment resulted in the need for millions of
Ukrainians to flee their homes. Yet, the advance of the Russian military became
slower as Ukrainians resisted and fought back.
By the end of March, the occupied territories covered parts of the northern,
eastern and southern oblasts such as Zhytomyrska, Kyivska, Chernihivetska,
Sumska, Kharkivska, Luhanska, Donetska, Zaporizka, Khersonka and Mykolaivs-
ka (Figure 3.1). However, in the following weeks, Russians had to withdraw from
their positions near the capital Kyiv and the northern parts of Ukraine. By the
beginning of June, many Ukrainians started to return to the capital region from
26 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
both abroad and inside Ukraine since Russians had withdrawn from the Zhyto-
myr, Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Sumy oblasts (Figure 3.1).
During the summer of 2022, Russia primarily attacked the parts of Donbas
that were not already held by the separatists. By early August, the Russians had
occupied most of Donbas and continued to occupy large parts of the Black Sea
coastal areas. They launched rather random missile attacks in different parts
of Ukraine (Figure 3.1.). The Ukrainian forces started a strong counter-attack
in September 2022 and the Russian president announced partial mobilization
in Russia in September 21st. There were so-called referenda in the Donetska,
Khersonska, Luhanska and Zaporizka oblasts to join the Russian Federation on
September 28th, and on September 30th, the President of Russia gave a speech
in Moscow to the Russian parliament about the annexation of these oblasts in
Russia. As of October, 2022, when this report was finished, the war in Ukraine
continued. Ukraine made counter-attacks and Russia attacked various sites in
different parts of Ukraine.
Figure 3.1. Military frontlines in Ukraine in the beginning of March, July and September of 2022.
Source: Modified from Neuer Zürcher Zeitung (2022).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 27
3.2 War-related migration regarding Ukraine
The war in Ukraine has had a strong impact on the local population and infra-
structure, and it has resulted in the migration of many Ukrainians abroad as well
as inside Ukraine. In areas directly bombarded and in which direct military con-
frontation has taken place, the population had to flee as quickly as possible. Not
fleeing these areas would have meant facing risks of being wounded or killed.
For various reasons, not all could leave their homes and home region even if
they would have liked to do so. During the early months of the war, several areas
in Ukraine were under siege, causing substantial casualties among the civilian
population (OCHA 2022).
Leaving one’s home due to the war, a person could try to find a safer place
within Ukraine or leave the country. Deciding whether or not to migrate, the
person could not know what would happen in the near or more distant future.
The decision needed to be made on an estimation of the potential risks of re-
maining in Ukraine or a specific region there. In the beginning of the war in
particular, many feared that the Russian military could quickly advance deep
into Ukrainian territory, including to the capital city of Kyiv (Atlantic Council
Military Fellows 2022).
Considering the migration from Ukraine to abroad, there are two major is-
sues. First, on March 4th, the TPD became legally binding in the EU (see Chapter
2.1) and facilitated the reception of the outmigrating Ukrainians in EU member
states. Individual EU citizens, NGOs and member states supported their jour-
neys from the Ukrainian–Polish border and other western borders to different
parts of the EU. Second, due to the imposition of martial law in Ukraine, certain
citizens, specifically male citizens aged 18 to 60 and those in key administrative
positions, were temporarily restricted from leaving Ukraine. These restrictions
were to ensure the defense of the Ukrainian state and to maintain the combat
and mobilization readiness of the Ukrainian armed forces and other military
formations (Mustafa 2022). Exceptions were made, for example, for 18–60 years
old Ukrainian men who had several children who depended on their support.
Therefore, outmigration from Ukraine resulted in specific gender- and age-
based characteristics, i.e., the majority of fleeing Ukrainians were women with
children.
The number of people leaving Ukraine is an estimation based on of-
ficial border crossings. However, people could also leave Ukraine without
being registered by authorities. After early March, the number of Ukraini-
ans in different EU member states was based primarily on estimates. Not all
Ukrainians were immediately registered to receive the status of temporary
protection, and some Ukrainians traveled back and forth from Ukraine in
different stages of the war. For these reasons, it is impossible to know pre-
cisely how many Ukrainians left the country, how many returned, and where
28 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
all emigrating Ukrainians went in the EU, including Estonia, or elsewhere in
Europe.
According to the UNHCR, the EU and Ukrainian statistics, by March 3rd, 2022,
within eight days of the war and one day before the implementation of the TPD,
more than one million Ukrainians had crossed the border into the EU (Figure
3.2), mostly to Poland (Table 3.2). Such a large-scale migration towards the EU
from a non-EU country, a million persons by that time, provoked and supported
the decision to invoke the TPD. This measure consequently facilitated the fur-
ther outmigration from Ukraine to EU member states. A month after the begin-
ning of the war, the number of border crossings from Ukraine to abroad had ris-
en to almost 3.7 million (Figure 3.2) (UNHCR 2022b). In July, Poland, Germany,
and the Czech Republic were the countries hosting the most Ukrainians fleeing
the war besides Russia (Table 3.2). Before the war, there had already been more
than 300,000 Ukrainians living in Poland (Migracje 2022).
The advancement of the Russian military within the Ukrainian territory and
its advance on the capital city of Kyiv and other large cities, such as Kharkiv (see
Fig. 3.1), made many people leave Ukraine. By the end of May, it was estimat-
ed that around 7 million individuals, approximately 5.3 million Ukrainians and
1.7 million non-Ukrainians had crossed the border (Frontex 2022). Ukrainians
were found in all EU member states. The largest numbers were in Poland (est.
3.5 million), Germany (est. 900,000) and the Czech Republic (est. 400,000) (BBC
2022b; UN News 2022). However, by then, more than 2.1 million border cross-
ings had been made into Ukraine since the beginning of the war (UNHCR 2022;
Table 3.1; Figure 3.2). Many of them were people who considered the return to
Ukraine possible and safe, or those who needed to return involuntarily for fam-
ily, work or military reasons. There were also tens of thousands of Ukrainian
and foreign nationals who went to Ukraine to fight in the war or to otherwise
support the civilian population there. Some individuals crossed the border fre-
quently to support Ukrainians in Ukraine.
Following the retreat of the Russian military from its positions near Kyiv
and many northern parts of Ukraine, more border crossings were made into
Ukraine. By the end of July, the number of border crossings into Ukraine had
reached four million since the beginning of the war; almost two million of these
were made in June and July alone (Table 3.1; Figure 3.2; UNHCR 2022). Some
Ukrainians who had received temporary protection status in an EU member
state returned to Ukraine temporarily to take care of necessary matters before
returning to the country that had granted this status.
In the autumn of 2022, Ukrainians continued to flee from Ukraine, espe-
cially from the eastern parts, where active fighting took place (recall Figure
3.1). By mid-September, 4.1 million Ukrainians had registered for temporary
protection status (or a similar status within another administrative catego-
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 29
Table 3.1. Ukrainians’ migration during the war since February 24th, 2022.
March 8th
end of
March
end of May
mid-July
mid-
September
Border crossings leaving Ukraine 2,132,000 4,026,000 6,939,000 9,351,000 13,082,000
Border crossings returning Ukraine 137,000 482,000 2,192,000 3,546,000 6,088,000
Recorded Ukrainian refugees in
Europe 2,011,000 4,019,000 4,713,000 5,818,000 7,400,000
Ukrainians with TPD status or in
similar national protection schemes 1,234,000* 2,928,000 3,654,000 4,070,000
Internally displaced Ukrainians 6,478,000** 7,139,000 7,134,000 6,645,000 6,243,000
*data not available from Germany, Cyprus, Hungary and the Netherlands. **data from March 16th.
Sources: UNHCR (2022a); Eurostat (2022); IOM (2022).
Table 3.2. Ukrainian citizens in 2020 and Ukrainian war-related migrants registered in the EU and other
countries in July 2022.
Ukrainian
citizens, 2020
Ukrainian
war-related
migrants,
mid-July
% of
popu-
lation
%
of all
in EU
Ukrainian
war-related
migrants, mid-
September
%
of pop-
ulation
%
of all
Poland 500,000 1,222,000 3.2 33 1,391,000 3.7 32.9
Germany 80,000 893,000 1.1 24.1 1,003,000 1.2 23.7
Czech Republic 166,000 392,000 3.7 10.6 434,000 4,0 10.3
Italy 223,000 145,000 0.2 3.9 160,000 0.3 3.8
Spain 95,000 126,000 0.3 3.4 143,000 0.3 3.4
France 15,000 92,000 0.1 2.5 101,000 0.2 2.4
Bulgaria 8,000 88,000 1.3 2.4 136,000 2.0 3.2
Romania 2,000 84,000 0.4 2.3 80,000 0.4 1.9
Slovakia 40,000 81,000 1.5 2.2 94,000 1.7 2.2
Austria 10,000 74,000 0.8 2.0 82,000 0.9 1.9
Netherlands 7,500 68,000 0.4 1.8 77,000 0.4 1.8
Lithuania 31,000 58,000 2.1 1.6 65,000 2.5 1.5
Belgium 5,000 51,000 0.4 1.4 56,000 0.5 1.3
Portugal 29,000 47,000 0.5 1.3 50,000 0.5 1.1
Estonia 13,000 45,000 3.4 1.2 55,000 4.1 1.3
Sweden 6,000 41,000 0.4 1.1 47,000 0.5 1.1
Ireland 2,000 41,000 0.8 1.1 47,000 0.9 1.1
Latvia 9,000 34,000 1.8 0.9 40,000 2.2 0.9
Finland 6,000 31,000 0.6 0.8 39,000 0.7 0.9
Denmark 13,000 29,000 0.5 0.8 35,000 0.6 0.8
Hungary 58,000 27,000 0.3 0.7 30,000 0.3 0.7
Greece 19,000 17,000 0.2 0.5 19,000 0.2 0.4
Croatia 2,000 15,000 0.4 0.4 18,000 0.4 0.4
Cyprus 4,000 14,000 1.6 0.4 16,000 1.3 0.4
Slovenia 3,000 7,000 0.3 0.2 8,000 0.4 0.2
Luxembourg 1,000 6,000 0.9 0.2 7,000 1.1 0.2
Malta 1,000 1,000 0.2 0 1,000 0.2 0
EU total 1,347,000 3,702,000 0.8 100 4,234,000 0.9 100
Russia 2,000,000–
3,000,000
1,625,000 1.1 2,692,000 1.8
Turkey 20,000 145,000 0.2 145,000 0.2
United Kingdom 32,000 91,000 0.1 126,000 0.2
Moldova 42,000 85,000 2.1 92,000 2.3
Switzerland 3,000 56,000 0.7 65,000 0.7
Sources: Eurostat (2022); IOM (2021); Turkish Statistical Institute (2022); Office for National Statistics
(2021); UNHCR (2022a); World Bank (2022); Worldometer (2022).
30 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
ry) in the EU. The largest number of these people were in Poland (1.4 million
Ukrainians), Germany (709,000) and the Czech Republic (409,000) (UNHCR
2022c). Over 7.4 million individuals fleeing Ukraine had been registered across
Europe (UNHCR 2022c). Over half (55%) of individuals fleeing the war who
had been registered in the EU had received temporary protection at the time
of this report; this number however, does not include unregistered individ-
uals, which as previously discussed are difficult to accurately account for. By
mid-September, the number of border crossings from Ukraine to abroad had
passed 13.1 million of which 9.8 million were to the neighboring EU member
states. The numbers of border crossings to Ukraine are difficult to estimate.
These account for 5.8 million border crossings from Poland, Romania and Slo-
vakia. However, border crossings to and from Ukraine also include people go-
ing back and forth several times (UNHCR 2022c).
As of mid-July 2022, the time when this empirical research was conduct-
ed in Estonia, about one third (33%) of individual Ukrainians registered as
fleeing to Europe (“refugees” in the simplified terminology in the media)
were registered in Poland, about one fourth (24%) in Germany and nearly one
ninth (11%) in the Czech Republic (Figure 3.3.). Combined, these three coun-
tries hosted more than two thirds (68%) of Ukrainians fleeing the war who
were registered in the EU. The share of Estonia was 1% of all Ukrainians regis-
tered in the EU.
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
Net crossings From Ukraine To Ukraine
Figure 3.2. Border crossings from Ukraine to abroad and from abroad to Ukraine between February
24th and August 9th, 2022. Source: Modified from UNHCR (2022a).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 31
3.3 Ukrainians in Estonia
Understanding the Estonian context is essential to knowing how Ukrainians re-
siding in the country after the beginning of the war in Ukraine in 2022 view their
current situation in Estonia. The large number of Ukrainian people fleeing was
a novel situation in Estonia since the country had had very few migrants, asylum
seekers and refugees prior to 2022.
Since the adoption of the Refugee Act and the ratification of the Geneva Con-
vention in Estonia in 1997, Estonia had received exceptionally few asylum appli-
cations. A total of 1,248 applications had been issued, less than 50 applications
per year on average. Before 2022, the only refugee group with more than 100
persons was Syrians with 196 people. The next largest groups were people from
Ukraine (93 persons), Russia (54), Iraq (41) and Sudan (26). In total, since 1997, in-
ternational or subsidiary protection had been granted to 554 persons, including
those who came to Estonia through the relocation system. This was slightly over
20 people per year. In 2020, 332 people (including their family members) having
international protection lived in Estonia, making 0.03% of the national popula-
tion (Siseministeerium 2021). When compared more broadly with the European
context, these Estonian numbers are very low.
Overall immigration to Estonia has also been low, although in recent years
the level of immigration has been increasing. The number of new residents to
Poland
33%
Germany
24 %
Czech Republic
11 %
Italy
4 %
Spain
3 %
France
4 %
Bulgaria
2 %
Romania
2 %
Slovakia
2 %
Austria
2 %
Other EU member
states
14 %
Figure 3.3. Share of individual war-fleeing Ukrainian registered in the EU member states as of mid-Ju-
ly 2022. Source: Modified from UNHCR (2022).
32 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Estonia rose from just 2,639 people in 2012 to 19,524 people in 2021. However,
many of these individuals were Estonian migrants returning from other EU
member states. For example, 2,790 people arrived from Finland in 2021, and
among them were many Estonians. The next largest country of arrivals prior
to 2022 was Ukraine with 2,525 reported individuals in 2021 (Statistics Estonia
2022).
Despite the very small numbers of asylum seekers and new immigrants, Es-
tonia had worked with integration-related topics consistently since its re-inde-
pendence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Estonia had to discuss and implement
integration policies regarding the large Russian-speaking population who came
to the country during the Soviet occupation.
Prior to Estonia’s joining the EU in 2004, integration policies addressed the
Russian-speaking population. Initially, in 2000–2007, the focus was on integra-
tion through the teaching of the Estonian language. Later, in 2008–2013, broader
social integration, including cultural autonomy, social interaction, civic, legal,
and economic aspects, was supported through interaction between the ethnic
Estonian population and the Russian-speaking and other minority populations.
In 2014–2020, the integration program Strategy of Integration and Social Cohesion in
Estonia 2020 focused on three aspects: native Russian speakers, new immigrants,
and Estonian society. Until then, societal policies were divided between the in-
tegration of Russian-speakers and adaptation of recently arrived immigrants.
The adaptation of newly arrived immigrants and the policy of population activ-
ities were directed until 2020 through the National Defense Development Plan
2015–2020.
The current strategy, in force until 2030, Cohesive Estonia Strategy 2030, is a
joint venture between three ministries in Estonia, namely the Ministry of Cul-
ture, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There
are two foreseen paths: integration is aimed at Russian-speaking populations
already living in Estonia, while adaptation is aimed at newcomers, including
Ukrainians, without knowing how long they will stay in Estonia. The aim is to
make Estonia a more cohesive and inclusive society.
The Cohesive Estonia Strategy 2030 considers Estonia as a nation-state to de-
velop and continue the Estonian nationality, language and culture through the
ages. The strategy aims to enable Estonian people to share constitutional values
and understanding, to value the Estonian language and culture, and to define
Estonian people as members of Estonian society. “Estonian people” refers to
both the people who are permanently or temporarily living in Estonia and peo-
ple living abroad but having ties with Estonia.
In regard to Ukrainians in Estonia in 2022, the Estonian government react-
ed very quickly to the Russian attack on Ukraine and condemned it clearly and
strongly (ERR News 2022). The Estonian media reported intensively and actively
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 33
about the situation in Ukraine. Several public events were launched to support
Ukraine. Many authorities, public figures and ordinary people wore Ukrainian
symbols, and Ukrainian flags were visible around the country. Many NGOs, in-
dividuals and private businesses were also quick to launch campaigns to support
Ukraine and Ukrainians, especially those fleeing war in Ukraine.
From the spring of 2022, access to Ukrainian broadcasting was also facil-
itated as a complimentary service in Estonia, while access to Russian broad-
casting was restricted and several Russian and Belarussian services banned
(including: RTR Planeta, NTV Mir/NTV Mir Baltic, Russia 24, TV Centre Inter-
national (TVCI), and Belarus 24) (ERR 2022). In addition, digital communica-
tion companies provided complimentary access or substantially reduced costs
to call Ukraine from Estonia (Elisa 2022; Tele2 2022; Telia 2022). The overall
atmosphere in Estonia was very supportive toward Ukrainians. Although very
little criticism was openly expressed in relation to public resources to support
Ukrainians and their arrival to Estonia during the first six months of the war,
some concerns were presented on the upper limit of Ukrainians that Estonia
could receive (see Vasli 2022).
Before the beginning of the war, knowledge about Estonia existed among
hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians living in Ukraine, and tens of thousands
of them had direct contacts in Estonia. In the beginning of 2022, of officially
registered residents in Estonia, 27,828 people defined themselves as Ukrainians
(Statistics Estonia 2022). Over the years, tens of thousands of Ukrainians have
worked in Estonia, and many Ukrainians have been in the country as students
or tourists. Furthermore, there were Ukrainians who had lived in Estonia since
the Soviet Union period (Masso et al. 2021). Of these almost 28,000 Ukrainians,
about 12,000 use Ukrainian as their mother tongue (43% of all Ukrainians in Es-
tonia), about 15,000 people (54%) use Russian, and about 600 use Estonian (2%)
(Statistics Estonia 2022). In addition, there were about 16,000 Ukrainians in Es-
tonia as short-time workers, students and tourists who were not formally regis-
tered as residents in Estonia.
The first war-fleeing Ukrainians entered Estonia before March 9th, before the
Estonian Governmental Decree was implemented allowing citizens of Ukraine
and their family members who have fled to Estonia to escape the war and apply
for temporary protection in Estonia. A Ukrainian citizen could apply for tempo-
rary protection if the person had lived in Ukraine until February 24th, 2022, and
then left the country because of the military conflict on or after that date. Tem-
porary protection would be granted for one year following the basic regulations
of the TPD. Besides Ukrainian citizens, temporary protection could be applied to
stateless persons and nationals of third countries other than Ukraine who had
enjoyed international protection or equivalent national protection in Ukraine.
This was also true for these individuals’ family members (a spouse, partner, mi-
34 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
nor unmarried child, other close relatives who lived in the same household and
were dependent on the person) and those of Ukrainians if the family was already
in Estonia before February 24th, 2022.
Despite these specifications about residency prior to the Russian invasion to
Ukraine, the Estonian government decided that all Ukrainian citizens had the
right to stay in Estonia without applying for temporary protection or qualifying
as persons eligible to request temporary protection. The latter included, for ex-
ample, Ukrainians who had already been in Estonia when the war started. For
this, they needed to submit an application to the Police and the Border Guard
Board. They could also ask for international protection in Estonia (Government
of Estonia 2022). After the initial one-year period, Ukrainian citizens and their
family members should, in principle, be able to extend their temporary or inter-
national protection in Estonia if the war in Ukraine were to continue (European
Commission 2022).
After the legalization of Ukrainians’ arrival in March, many individuals,
NGOs and even private enterprises started to organize the transport of Ukraini-
ans from the Ukrainian-Polish border to Estonia (Eesti Pagulasabi 2022). Smaller
and larger vehicles drove this route continuously. There were several commer-
cial bus lines between Poland and Estonia and the use of public transport inside
Estonia was free for Ukrainians immediately after their arrival (Alas 2022). Fur-
thermore, Estonian individuals and families donated clothing, food and other
material support to help Ukrainians in both Ukraine and Estonia. The reception
of Ukrainians had strong political and public support in the country (ERR News
2022b).
The reception of war-fleeing Ukrainians started officially on February 27th,
2022. The threshold of 20,000 war-fleeing Ukrainians (20,264 persons to remain
in the country) in Estonia was reached on March 19th. By that date, 2,821 (13.9%)
had asked for temporary protection and 5,375 (26.5%) were hosted in state-or-
ganized accommodation, including 1,802 minors.
The next threshold of 30,000 war-fleeing Ukrainians (30,255 persons to re-
main in Estonia) in Estonia was passed on April 13th. By that date, 19,893 (65.8%)
had asked for temporary protection, and 5,302 (26.7%) were hosted in state-or-
ganized accommodation, including 1,847 minors. The threshold of 40,000
war-fleeing Ukrainians (40,047 persons to remain in Estonia) in Estonia was
reached on May 25th. By this date, 25,969 (64.8%) had asked for temporary pro-
tection (Figure 3.4) (Politsei ja Piirivalveamet 2022).
In total, by August 1st, 2022, Estonia had received 83,071 Ukrainians flee-
ing war in Ukraine, 34,712 (41.8%) of whom were in transit to another coun-
try. Of all who had arrived, more than one out of four (27.2%; 22,575 persons)
were minors (Sotsiaalkindlustusamet 2022). The weekly number of war-flee-
ing people in transit was rather constant from March to May 2022 at about
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 35
1,500–2,000 people per week. In June and July 2022, the number of weekly ar-
rivals was about 1,000 persons and in September less than 1,000 (Politsei ja
Piirivalveamet 2022; Figure 3.4). By August 10th, 2022, less than 160 days since
the first registered arrival, 50,347 Ukrainians fleeing the war in Ukraine had
reached Estonia and indicated that they would remain in the country. Of all
who had expressed the intention to remain in Estonia, 32,077 (63.7%) had
asked for temporary protection by that date (Vahtla 2022) and as of August 9th
at least 31,512 persons had been registered for temporary protection in Esto-
nia (UNHCR 2022c). As of September 26th, 35,971 applications for temporary
protection had been submitted in Estonia and 1,977 had withdrawn their tem-
porary protection status. The daily border crossings by Ukrainian and Russian
citizens and their net migration in 2022 (until the end of September) are pre-
sented in Figure 3.5. Among the Russian citizens are many of those who have
permanent residence in Estonia.
According to Estonia’s policy, Ukrainian citizens who had been in Estonia
prior to the war could stay temporarily in the country as the war continues in
Ukraine. However, only those who left Ukraine to come to Estonia after February
24th, 2022 and their families were eligible for temporary protection and the spe-
cific support measures that go with it. While it is not obligatory to apply for tem-
porary protection, almost two-thirds of those registered in Estonia have applied
for protection, and all who were eligible received temporary protection (Euro-
pean Commission, 2022d). Of all who had requested temporary protection as of
August 1st, 3,749 (11.9%) were hosted in state-organized accommodation, includ-
ing 1,106 (3.5%) children (Figure 3.4; Politsei ja Piirivalveamet 2022).
By the summer of 2022, there was no precise information about how many
Ukrainians actually lived and resided in Estonia. Those having received resi-
dence permits in Estonia as temporarily protected individuals could leave and
enter Estonia freely without being noticed by the authorities. Temporarily pro-
tected Ukrainians were allowed to stay in any Schengen Member State for 90
days within a period of 180 days (Estonian Police and Border Guard Board 2022),
and they could obviously enter Ukraine. However, temporary protection grant-
ed in Estonia was valid for Estonia only and not in other EU member states.
The implementation of the TPD in Estonia meant that Ukrainian citizens
and their family members would receive a one-year residence permit. Once the
war-fleeing Ukrainians applied for temporary protection, they enjoyed rights
similar to those enjoyed by Estonian residents (Estonian Police and Border
Guard Board 2022). As mentioned in the TPD, they should be provided with ac-
cess to accommodation, employment, health services, and means of subsistence
in Estonia. In addition, temporary protection entitles Ukrainian children and
teenagers to legal guardianship and education (Republic of Estonia Social Insur-
ance Board 2022).
36 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
As for accommodation, the first urgent issue was to provide shelter to every
Ukrainian arriving in Estonia. If a Ukrainian who applied for or received tem-
porary protection needed temporary accommodation, the Social Insurance
Agency placed them in short-term accommodation. As emergency assistance,
the state provided a maximum of 72 hours of accommodation for all war-fleeing
Ukrainians who required it. People without shelter and food were referred di-
rectly to the Social Insurance Board. Longer-term accommodation was only of-
fered to applicants or recipients of temporary or international protection (Eesti
Pagulasabi 2022).
The state guaranteed the accommodation in reception centers for four
months. By the summer of 2022, most Ukrainians had to find their own accom-
modation and employment by other means. Due to their initial arrival during
the tourism industry’s off season, hotels and hostels were used as temporary ac-
commodation sites, including large passenger ships in the port of Tallinn. How-
ever, if Ukrainians wished and were able to, they could also live independently
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8.000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Children Adults
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Non-transit Transit
,
Figure 3.4. War-fleeing Ukrainians in Estonia from March 14th to September 25th, 2022. Source: Mod-
ified from Politsei ja Piirivalveamet (2022).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 37
elsewhere, for example with relatives or friends. As of June 10th, 2022, tempo-
rarily protected Ukrainians were able to apply for a rent allowance. Ukrainians
received compensation of 1,200 euros from the state to initiate rental agree-
ments.
The Estonian state had the right to relocate Ukrainians who requested and
received temporary or international protection if they needed accommodation
provided by the state. The regional distribution of provided accommodation is
dispersed among Estonian counties (Figure 3.6). However, a large share (up to
89% of arriving Ukrainians) did not use the accommodation provided by public
authorities. Ukrainians not using public accommodation either already had con-
Figure 3.5. Border-crossings by Ukrainian citizens and Russian citizens to Estonia in 2022 (until the
end of September, 2022). Source: Modified by Dr. Anto Aasa from Politsei ja Piirivalveamet (2022).
38 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
tacts in Estonia (family members, other relatives, friends or friends of friends)
or found ordinary Estonian families who agreed to accommodate them for a
certain amount of time. Later, many Ukrainians could, and after four months
should, find their way in the housing market themselves. As of July 2022, about
20,000 newly arrived Ukrainians had registered their place of residence in Es-
tonia showing wide distribution throughout the country (Figure 3.7., see Cole
2022). In the end of September, 3,518 persons lived in short-term accommoda-
tions and 24,000 had registered their place of residence in Estonia (Sotsiaalkind-
lustusamet 2022).
Non-profit organizations such as Pagulasabi (The Estonian Refugee Coun-
cil) organized adaptation training and support channels for Ukrainians. Pri-
vate individuals and organizations have actively supported Ukrainians. Private
donations for humanitarian aid in Ukraine from Estonia was 17.9 million euros
as of July 15, 2022, or nearly 14 euros per person in Estonia (Välisministeerium
2022).
Figure 3.6. Regional distribution of housing for temporary protected Ukrainians in Estonia in July
2022. Source: Modified from Sotsiaalamet (2022).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 39
Figure 3.7. Regional distribution of Ukrainians according to their registered residence in Estonia in
July 2022. Source: Modified from Sotsiaalamet (2022).
To support access to employment, Ukrainians with temporary protection were
given the right to work under the same conditions as all residents in Estonia.
Employment protection and rights were the same, and no specific minimum
wage was applied to them. Furthermore, an unemployed Ukrainian with tem-
porary protection and registered with the Unemployment Insurance Fund re-
ceived monthly unemployment benefits of up to 292 euros for up to 9 months.
Unlike Ukrainians with temporary protection in Estonia, those who sought
international protection did not have the right to work before being granted in-
ternational protection (Government of Estonia 2022). Without temporary pro-
tection, Ukrainians had the right to work in Estonia for up to one year. However,
this employment had to be registered with the Police and Border Guard, and the
salary needed to be at least 1,548 euros per month. This employment did not en-
title the worker to benefits or other social allowances such as family allowances,
subsistence allowances, or others (Pagulasabi 2022).
In July 2022, among temporarily protected Ukrainians, the share of unem-
ployed individuals was larger in all age groups compared with those employed
(Figure 3.8). In total, about 6,500 temporarily protected Ukrainians were em-
ployed (Statistics Estonia 2022). Of these, the largest share (23.9%; 1,556 per-
sons) worked in manufacturing, followed by 16.3% (1,061 persons) in wholesale
40 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
and retail trade or repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles, and 15.7% (1,023
persons) in administrative and support service activities (Statistics Estonia
2022).
The situation was substantially different among Ukrainians who had resi-
dence permits in Estonia without temporary protection. Among those with res-
idence permits, in all age groups from 20 to 64 years old, more were employed
compared with those unemployed (Figure 3.8). The number of employed in-
dividuals with residence permits was about 7,800 persons, mostly in manufac-
turing (37.6%; 2,932 persons) (Statistics Estonia 2022). In addition, about 7,000
Ukrainians worked with short-term work permits (Statistics Estonia 2022). Of
these, 24.0% (1,682 persons) were employed in administrative and support ser-
vice activities, 22.1% in manufacturing (1,545 persons) and 17.1% (1,196 persons) in
construction (Statistics Estonia 2022).
In the end of September, 2022, of about 45,000 Ukrainians between 15 and
75 years of age in Estonia, 51% were employed (16% short-term work-permit;
17% resident permit without temporary protection; 18% with temporary pro-
tection) and 49% were not employed (13% resident permit without temporary
protection; 36% with temporary protection). Of those with a residence permit,
57% were employed as were 33% of those with temporary protection (Statistics
Estonia 2022).
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
5– 9
15–19
25–29
35–39
45–49
55–59
65–69
0– 5
10–14
20–24
30–34
40–44
50–54
60–64
70–
5– 9
15–19
25–29
35–39
45–49
55–59
65–69
Temporary protection Residence permit without
temporary protection
Short term work permit
Not employed
Employed
Figure 3.8. Employment of Ukrainians in Estonia in July 2022. Source: Modified from Statistics Estonia
(2022).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 41
Of the employed Ukrainians with temporary protection, about 42% worked
in elementary occupations. This share was manifold when compared with the
overall Estonian labor market. On the contrary, the share of temporarily pro-
tected Ukrainians in managerial or professional positions was very small com-
pared with the average situation in Estonia. Among Ukrainians in Estonia with-
out the status of temporary protection, the share of those employed in crafts and
related trade workers was the highest. It was about three to four-fold compared
with the average in the Estonian labor market. Notable was the proportionally
large share of professionals among Ukrainians with residence permits without
temporary protection (Statistics Estonia 2022; Figure 3.9.).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Share, %
With temporary protection
Residence permit without temporary
protection
Short-term work permit
Labour market total
Professionals
Manager
Technicians and associate professionals
Clerical support workers
Service and sales workers
Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery
Craft and related trade workers
Plant and machine operators, assemblers
Elementary occupations
Unknown
Figure 3.9. Distribution of Ukrainians in Estonia by occupation in July 2022. Source: Statistics Estonia
(2022).
It has been possible for temporarily protected Ukrainians to register as unem-
ployed since March 13th, 2022 in Estonia. The threshold of 1,000 unemployed
individuals was passed on March 29th, that of 2,000 on April 5th, that of 3,000 on
42 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
April 12th, that of 4,000 on May 3rd and that of 5,000 on August 11th. In June–July,
this number continued to be about 4,500 until it started to grow (Figure 3.10;
Eesti töötukassa 2022). By the end of September 2022, the number of temporar-
ily protected Ukrainians registered as unemployed was about 5,700 people. This
made up 12% of all those registered as unemployed in Estonia. Their proportion-
al share was the largest in the Läänemaa (28.1%), Harjumaa (13.8%) and Valgamaa
(13.0%) counties and the lowest in the Hiiumaa (0.8%), Raplamaa (5.2%) and Põl-
vamaa counties (5.5%) (Eesti töötukassa 2022).
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Figure 3.10. Registered unemployed temporary protected Ukrainians in Estonia from March to
mid-September 2022. Source: Modified from Eesti töötukassa (2022).
To provide access to health services, free general medical examinations were
provided in all Estonian regions for all war-fleeing Ukrainians arriving in Esto-
nia. Furthermore, essential medical services were free of charge. Ukrainians had
access to emergency dental care, COVID-19 testing and vaccination, and public
health services. However, to receive full health insurance, Ukrainians with tem-
porary protection needed to work or register as unemployed with the Estoni-
an Unemployment Insurance Fund. Minors with a residence permit, pregnant
women, pensioners, students and university students were considered equal to
insured persons (Republic of Estonia Social Insurance Board 2022).
As many war-fleeing Ukrainians arrived with children, there was a need to
provide these children with access to education. This related to various age
groups starting from the primary to basic, secondary and higher education. Lo-
cal authorities provided places in kindergarten. As basic education is compul-
sory in Estonia, local authorities needed to find places in school for children of
that age. Since secondary and higher education is not compulsory in Estonia,
temporarily protected Ukrainians’ possibilities to access secondary and higher
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 43
education varied. However, some vocational upper secondary schools and uni-
versities provided free access to temporarily protected Ukrainians when they
met other needed requirements.
By the beginning of May 2022, about a third (4,095 in total) of 6–18 years
old Ukrainian children with temporary protection were enrolled in the ed-
ucation system in kindergartens or schools in Estonia. Almost half (46.8%) of
them were in Tallinn and the surrounding Harjumaa county. Of these, 1,045
(25.5%) were enrolled in primary education, 2,748 (67.1%) in basic education,
164 (4.0%) in upper-secondary education and 138 (3.4%) in vocational educa-
tion (Ministry of Education and Research 2022). About 70% were enrolled in
Estonian-language, 20% in Russian-language, almost 10% in language immer-
sion and less than one percent in English-language educational institutions
(Wright 2022; Figure 3.11).
By the end of the school year in 2022, 4,850 Ukrainian students were enrolled
in Estonia, of whom slightly less than half (47.3%) were enrolled in Harjumaa
county. In regard to the language of tuition, 70.6% were enrolled in a school
where instruction was in Estonian, 19.5% in Russian, 9.4% in an immersive Esto-
nian language program and 0.5% in English language educational institutions,
the latter pertaining to only 23 Ukrainians. In Ida-Viru county, 45.0% of enrolled
Ukrainians were studying in Russian, and that share was 28.7% in Harjumaa
county (Haridussilm 2022). In addition, during the summer of 2022 so-called
language and integration camps for children were organized. It was expected
that the joint participation by Ukrainian and Estonian children from 7 to 19 years
old would reach more than 10,000 (Ministry of Education and Research July 1,
2022).
0500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Russian English Estonian Estonian (language immersion)
Figure 3.11. Ukrainians enrolled in the Estonian education system by language of tuition in the end of
the school year 2022. Source: Modified from Haridussilm (2022).
The support for social welfare and means of subsistence for temporarily pro-
tected Ukrainians consisted mostly of counseling and various social allowances.
These included social guarantees for people with disabilities, pensioners, fami-
44 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
lies with small children, and others. For example, in 2022, the family allowance
was 150 euros for the first family member, 120 euros for the second adult mem-
ber and 180 euros for minor children. In order to receive family benefits, a child
of at least one year of age needed to have a residence permit in Estonia. The Esto-
nian Refugee Council paid a one-time school allowance of 50 euros to all school-
age children with temporary or international protection (Pagulasabi 2022).
Of Ukrainians in Estonia with temporary protection, a little under one third
(9,516 persons or 30.2% between the ages of 20 and 64) were eligible for the
previously mentioned unemployment benefits (up to 294 euros for up to nine
months) (Statistics Estonia 2022). The provision of clothing, toiletries and food
aid packages for war-fleeing Ukrainians was organized locally in the munici-
palities in which they lived. Many NGOs and individual Estonians were also in-
volved in this process. In addition, various types of counseling were provided for
Ukrainians to better adapt to everyday life in Estonia.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 45
4. Main results
As discussed in Section 3.3, in principle, as the war continues in Ukraine, all
Ukrainian citizens can remain in Estonia and receive protection from the war
regardless of their status. However, their access to public resources and servic-
es varies. All Ukrainian citizens should register themselves one way or another
with the authorities. In circumstances of irregular migration, it is common that
not all migrants register their arrivals and departures or residency in a receiving
country. Therefore, when considering Ukrainians in Estonia, no one knows in
detail how many Ukrainians resided Estonia in July 2022 or later. In addition,
their administrative statuses and consequent rights change over time. As dis-
cussed earlier (see Chapter 3.3), the share of Ukrainians with temporary protec-
tion increased during 2022. Ukrainians continued to arrive, and the authorities
continued to provide them with temporary protection status. However, there
were also respondents who had been in Estonia for several months but still did
not have temporary protection status.
This report uses only two categories in the main analysis: ‘Temporary pro-
tected’ and ‘No protection’. The former refers to Ukrainians who had applied
for and had received temporary protection status in Estonia. The latter regards
those who applied for temporary protection status in Estonia but had not yet
received the authorities’ decision, those mentioning having a visa or unlimited
residence permit in Estonia, and those who expressed that they had not asked
for protection, visa or residence permit or did not know their status.
In defining where respondents come from in Ukraine, besides using concrete
names of oblasts, the report uses the categories ‘No occupation or conflict area’,
‘Limited occupation or conflict area’ and ‘Major occupation or conflict area’.
Since the situation in Ukraine changed from the beginning months of the war
to the time of this report, these areas referred to the war situation in Ukraine in
July, 2022. No occupation or conflict areas were those in the western Ukraine. In
addition, the former major conflict areas like Kyiv, Chernihivska and Zhytomyr-
ska regions and others later became much safer, so in the summer of 2022 these
were considered as ‘No-conflict areas.’ The ‘major conflict areas’ covered the re-
gions of Eastern and Southern Ukraine that were under continuous occupation
and fighting. The rest of the regions belonged to ‘Limited conflict areas’ in which
occasional fighting took place.
In total, 527 Ukrainian war-related migrants responded to the survey con-
ducted in June and July 2022 in Estonia (for the conduction of survey, see Sec-
tion 1.2). The majority (95%, 500 people) of Ukrainians who took part in the
survey had received the authorities’ decision that granted them temporary pro-
tection in Estonia; the other types of respondents (5%, 27 people) were fewer
(Table 4.1).
46 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.1. Administrative status of Ukrainian survey respondents (%).
Temporary
protection
No temporary
protection
n
Man 94 6 50
Woman 95 5 477
18–29 years old 96 5 88
30–39 years old 96 4 206
40–49 years old 97 4 142
50–64 years old 91 9 66
65– years old 84 16 25
Employed in Estonia 94 6 176
Not employed 95 5 351
March '22 97 4 313
April '22 98 2 124
May '22 84 16 90
No occupation or conflict area 97 4 170
Limited occupation and conflict area 94 6 198
Major occupation and conflict area 94 6 159
Spouse in Estonia 98 3 162
Children (–18) in Estonia 95 5 292
Nuclear family in Estonia 98 2 123
Alone in Estonia 100 0 71
Total 95 5 527
Only children under 18 years old included
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 child
4.1 Respondents’ background
According to the Estonian statistics on Ukrainians in Estonia (see Police and Bor-
der Board Guard 2022), as of August, 2022, there were around 50,000 Ukraini-
ans who had arrived and planned to stay in Estonia after February 24th. Of them,
32,621 had received temporary protection in the country. Based on the regis-
tration of accommodation of temporary protection, this temporary protection
had been given to 14% of individuals 0–6 years old, 27% 7–17 years old, and 60% 18
years and older. A substantial part of 18–64-year-olds were women. Such gender
imbalance is due to the Ukrainian government regulation that men between 18
and 60 years of age were not allowed to leave the country (recall Section 3.2).
Specific exemptions to this rule were made for men who need to support their
families (Mustafa 2022; UNHCR 2022).
Of Ukrainian respondents to the survey, 17% were 18–29 years old, 39% 30–39
years old, 27% 40–49 years old, 13% 50–64 years old, and 5% 65 years or older. Of
respondents, 91% were women, and 9% were men (Table 4.1). The gender divi-
sion varied among age groups. The share of men (4%) was lowest among those
65 years or older and the largest among the respondents 18–29 years old (Ta-
ble 4.1.1). In our sample, of 18–64-year-old respondents, 10% were men and 90%
were women.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 47
The gender and age profiles of respondents were comparable with the pro-
files of all Ukrainians who had been granted temporary protection status in Es-
tonia. In practice, very little differences existed between the respondents having
temporary protection and those without (Table 4.1.1). However, as discussed ear-
lier (see Section 3.3), not all Ukrainians who were granted temporary protection
status in Estonia were still in Estonia in July since they had the right to leave and
return to Estonia and to remain up to 90 days in any of the Schengen agreement
countries (European Commission 2022). Furthermore, as our sample and the
overall situation illustrates, not all Ukrainians who arrived to Estonia after the
beginning of the war had applied for temporary protection status in Estonia.
Overall, the sample of respondents is representative of the overall gender and
age profiles of the war-fleeing Ukrainians present in Estonia as of July 2022.
Table 4.1.1. Demographic background of Ukrainian survey respondents (%).
All Temporarily protected
Man Woman n Man Woman n
18–29 years old 16 84 88 16 85 84
30–39 years old 5 94 206 6 94 198
40–49 years old 11 89 142 10 90 137
50–64 years old 14 86 66 13 87 60
65– years old 4 96 25 5 95 21
Total 10 91 527 9 91 500
Of respondents, 49% were married or cohabited, 23% single, 21% divorced or
separated and 6% widowed. There were a few differences among gender; for in-
stance, proportionally more women were divorced than men (Table 4.1.2). Of
widowed respondents, 23% were younger than 50 years old, and 36% came from
major conflict areas in Ukraine, 26% limited conflict areas and 39% from no-con-
flict areas.
Table 4.1.2. Marital status of Ukrainian survey respondents (%).
Single
Married or
cohabitation Widowed
Divorced or
separated n
Man 40 50 4 6 50
Woman 21 49 6 23 477
Temporary protection 23 50 6 21 500
No temporary protection 19 41 7 33 27
Total 23 49 6 21 527
Geographically, the largest share of respondents was from North-Eastern
Ukraine. Most respondents came from the following oblasts: Donetska (18%),
Kharkivska (12%), Dnipropetrovska (10%) and the Kyivska region (city and oblast)
16%. Of all respondents, 22% were from either the Donetsk or Luhansk oblasts.
Residents from all oblasts of Ukraine fled to Estonia, but very few people (up to
48 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
1%) were from Volynska, Zakarpatska and Chernivetska oblasts and none were
from the annexed Crimea (Figure 4.1.1).
A large share of the respondents who arrived in March had fled from the
city of Kyiv (18%) and the following oblasts: Dnipropetrovska (14%), Kharkivska
(10%), Mykolaivska (9%), Kyivska (8%), Zaporizka (7%) and Odeska (7%). In April
and May 2022, the largest shares of Ukrainian war-related migrants were from
the Donetska (41% in April and 30% in May) and Kharkivska (13% and 19%, respec-
tively) oblasts.
Based on this, many Ukrainians fled to Estonia from regions that were under
attack. When the immediate attack ceased, then substantially fewer people ar-
rived from these oblasts. In addition, initially people also fled Ukraine from ar-
eas without major military conflicts, probably fearing that the war would reach
these areas as well.
Of temporary protected respondents, 30% came from areas experiencing or
having experienced active military conflicts, 37% came from those with limited
military conflicts and 33% from areas not having experienced military conflicts.
Figure 4.1.1. Geographical provenience of respondents in Ukraine.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 49
The education levels of respondents varied (Table 4.1.3). 67% had higher edu-
cational backgrounds (52% had master's or specialist degree, 10% had bache-
lor's degree, 5% had incomplete higher education), 22% had vocational educa-
tion, 9% secondary education and 2% had a basic level of education. In general,
those under 40 years old had higher levels of education than older respond-
ents. However, many among the youngest age group (18–29-year-olds) had
not (yet) completed a university degree. In addition, of those from rural back-
grounds, fewer (45%) had higher education levels compared with respondents
from Kyiv (76%) or regional capitals in Ukraine (73%). Overall, the education
levels of temporary protected respondents did not substantially differ from
other respondents.
Table 4.1.3. Education levels of Ukrainian survey respondents (%).
Basic sec-
ondary
education
Second-
ary edu-
cation
Vocation-
al educa-
tion
Incom-
plete
higher ed-
ucation
University
degree
(bachelor)
Advanced
degree
(master or
specialist) n
Man 6 16 24 8 6 40 50
Woman 2 9 21 5 10 54 477
18–29 years old 3 19 14 9 16 39 88
30–39 years old 2 7 18 4 7 61 206
40–49 years old 3 5 25 5 10 53 142
50–64 years old 2 12 33 3 9 41 66
65– years old 0 8 28 4 8 52 25
Temporary protection 2 9 22 5 10 52 500
No temporary protection 4 7 22 4 7 56 27
March '22 2 9 20 5 7 56 313
April '22 2 8 23 2 15 50 124
May '22 4 12 23 7 11 42 90
Kyiv 0 7 10 7 10 66 59
Regional capital 2 6 13 7 10 63 133
Other town 2 10 27 5 11 46 286
Rural 6 20 29 0 4 41 49
Total 2 9 22 5 10 52 527
All respondents were Ukrainian citizens. However, linguistic and cultural dif-
ferences existed among them. The language skills differed along with demo-
graphic backgrounds (Table 4.1.4). Of respondents, 42% marked Ukrainian as
their only native tongue, 20% marked Russian, and 28% of respondents con-
sidered both Ukrainian and Russian as their native tongue. For temporary pro-
tected migrants this was 43% Ukrainian, 20% Russian and 27% both languages.
Nevertheless, almost all had at least a good command of Ukrainian (94%) and
Russian (91%).
As mentioned, 20% of respondents considered Russian as their mother tongue
instead of only Ukrainian or simultaneously Ukrainian and Russian. Of these ex-
clusively native Russian speakers, 44% came from regions of Ukraine which had
50 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
either been occupied or in conflict with Russia since 2014, namely from Donetsk
(35%) or Luhansk (9%). Nevertheless, we used the notion “Ukrainian” to refer to
all respondents.
English skills varied among respondents. At least some English was known
by 68% of respondents, and 22% had moderate and 6% good English skills (Table
4.1.4). Those less likely to have any English skills were at least 65 years old (84% of
them did not know any English), without higher education (49%), having lived in
the countryside in Ukraine (47%) and having arrived in May (43%). On the con-
trary, the highest share of those claiming to have good English skills was among
young men (18–29 years old, 17%) and those from regional capitals of Ukraine
(11%).
All respondents had recently arrived in Estonia, at most a few months prior to
the survey. Of respondents, 88% mentioned that they had no Estonian language
skills, and 12% claimed to have some (11% little and 1% moderate) command of
Estonian (Table 4.1.4). In general, those who had been in Estonia for more than
a month or two had at least some knowledge of Estonian. Of those with higher
levels of education, 13% had at least some command of Estonian, and of those
employed in Estonia 14% had some command.
Of temporary protected respondents, 70% knew Ukrainian at the level of a
native speaker (and almost 100% as at least moderate level), 47% knew Russian
at the level of a native speaker (and 98% as at least moderate level), 28% knew at
least moderate English and 11% had at least little knowledge of Estonian as of July
2022.
Table 4.1.4. Language skills of Ukrainian survey respondents (%).
Native Good Moderate Low Nothing n
Ukrainian 70 24 6 0 0 527
Russian 48 43 8 1 0 527
English 0 6 22 40 32 527
Estonian 0 0 1 11 88 527
At the time of survey in July 2022, almost all (92%) respondents had at least
some relatives in Ukraine. Of all respondents, 30% had a member of their nu-
clear family in Ukraine (21% spouse and 2% underaged children) and 81% had
members of their extended family there (Table 4.1.5). The largest share among
those not having any family members in Ukraine was among men (22%), those
without temporary protection (19%), those being 50–64-year-olds (17%) and
those from the major conflict areas (16%). Very few (2%) respondents had un-
deraged children in Ukraine, but the majority (58%) had parents or parents-
in-law there.
A large share (94%) of those coming from no-conflict areas in Ukraine had
nuclear family or extended family members in Ukraine. Those from major con-
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 51
flict areas had comparatively fewer (84%) extended family members in Ukraine
(Table 4.1.5).
Of temporary protected respondents, only 8% did not have any relatives in
Ukraine whereas that share was 19% among those without temporary protection
status in Estonia. Many more (33%) of those without temporary protection status
in Estonia had a spouse living in Ukraine compared with those having tempo-
rary protection status (21%).
Table 4.1.5. Ukrainian survey respondents having family in Ukraine (%).
Spouse
Children
0–17
Children
18–
Parents
or
parents-
in-law Siblings
Other
relatives No one n
Man 0 0 8 38 22 46 22 50
Woman 24 2 10 60 35 43 7 477
Temporary protection 21 1 10 58 34 43 8 500
No temporary
protection 33 4 11 52 33 44 19 27
March '22 26 1 9 62 33 46 6 313
April '22 13 1 10 47 34 42 13 124
May '22 19 3 12 60 36 36 11 90
No occupation
or conflict area 29 1 10 63 37 40 6 170
Limited occupation
and conflict area 23 2 10 65 30 44 5 198
Major occupation
and conflict area 11 1 9 43 34 45 16 159
Total 21 2 10 58 34 43 8 527
When it comes to respondents’ having family in Estonia, 73% of respondents had
someone in their nuclear family in Estonia (spouse or children of any ages; 63%
if only underaged children are included), 13% had other than non-nuclear fami-
ly members in Estonia, and 14% did not have any relatives in Estonia (Table 4.1.6).
There was very little gender-based difference in this. The largest share of those
not having family (nuclear or extended) in Estonia was among young adults
(18–29-year-olds, 25%), middle-aged (50–64-year-olds, 21%), those who had ar-
rived recently (in May 2022, 17%), and those from major conflict areas (15%). As
regards having extended family in Estonia, there were very small differences
among those coming from areas without conflicts (82%), with limited conflicts
(84%) or major conflicts (83%).
There were substantial differences in whether someone had family in Es-
tonia based on the respondents’ backgrounds. Of men, 50% had their spouse
in Estonia while 29% of women had their spouse in Estonia. This is related to
nationally imposed restrictions for men younger than 60 years old to leave
Ukraine. Also, 34% of men had parents (their own or their spouse’s) in Estonia
while 11% of women did. The share of war-fleeing Ukrainians having under-
52 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
aged children in Estonia was highest among those who arrived quickly after
the beginning of the war: 61% of respondents arriving in March had underaged
children with them whereas that share was 51% in April and 43% in May 2022.
The temporary protected respondents differed from those without tempo-
rary protection as regard the presence of family in Estonia. All (100%) of those
without temporary protection had family in Estonia while 86% of those with
temporary protection did. In addition, of those without temporary protection,
more (30%) had a brother or sister in Estonia (11% of those with temporary pro-
tection) and fewer had a spouse with them in Estonia (15% and 32%, respective-
ly).
Table 4.1.6. Ukrainian survey respondents having family in Estonia (%).
Spouse
Children
0–17
Children
18–
Parents
or
parents-
in-law Siblings
Other
relatives Alone n
Man 50 38 10 34 14 8 14 50
Woman 29 57 18 11 11 13 13 477
Temporary protection 32 56 16 13 11 12 14 500
No temporary
protection 15 52 33 15 30 22 0 27
March '22 30 61 15 13 14 13 12 313
April '22 32 51 21 15 6 11 15 124
May '22 33 43 19 12 12 13 17 90
No occupation or
conflict area 25 55 16 11 12 12 15 170
Limited occupation
and conflict area 30 59 14 13 14 16 11 198
Major occupation and
conflict area 38 51 22 15 8 9 15 159
Total 31 55 17 13 12 13 14 527
Before coming to Estonia, respondents’ main activities in Ukraine varied (Ta-
ble 4.1.7). In general, 78% had been economically active, i.e. they were em-
ployed in Ukraine, either full-time (62%), part-time (4%) or self-employed (11%).
The share of employed respondents was highest among 50–59-year-olds (88%)
and 40–49-year-olds (87%). Of men, slightly more (82%) had been employed in
Ukraine compared with women (77%). Students were few (2% of all) but made
up 14% of respondents under the age of 30 years old. Few had also been unem-
ployed (3%) or retired (7%). 11% of female respondents mentioned that house-
work had been their main activity but none (0%) of the men did.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 53
Table 4.1.7. Main activity of Ukrainian survey respondents in Ukraine.
Employed Student
Unem-
ployed Retired
House-
work
Perma-
nently
sick or
disabled n
Man 82 12 0 6 0 0 50
Woman 77 1 4 7 11 0 477
18–29 years old 72 14 7 0 8 0 88
30–39 years old 82 0 3 0 15 0 206
40–49 years old 87 0 3 0 9 1 142
50–64 years old 80 0 0 17 2 2 66
65– years old 8 0 0 92 0 0 25
Higher education 82 0 3 6 10 0 326
No higher education 71 6 4 8 10 1 201
Temporary protection 78 2 3 6 10 0 500
No temporary
protection 67 0 11 15 7 0 27
March '22 77 2 5 7 10 0 313
April '22 77 2 2 7 11 1 124
May '22 82 3 1 4 8 1 90
No occupation or
conflict area 75 1 4 8 11 1 170
Limited occupation
and conflict area 81 3 5 3 9 0 198
Major occupation and
conflict area 76 3 1 10 9 1 159
Kyiv 81 2 5 7 0 0 59
Regional capital 77 2 3 11 7 1 133
Other town 78 3 3 5 11 0 286
Rural 78 0 4 4 14 0 49
Total 78 2 3 7 10 0 527
Employed = full-time, part-time or self-employed; Unemployed = unemployed, whether looking for a job
or not; Housework = housework or looking after childern or other family members. The total share of
permanently sick or diasbled was 0.4%. There was also alternative "other, specify", but no one chose it.
In terms of the economic activity background of respondents in Ukraine, three
groups were identified. The first (19% of all) consisted of people who had been outside
the labour market in Ukraine. These were individuals staying at home, those unem-
ployed, and those who were retired or with disabilities. Of them, 12% were employed
in Estonia and 30% were seeking a job; 8% thought that they would be in Estonia in
2025 and 9% thought they would remain in Estonia for the rest of their lives.
The second group (5%) were those who had been temporarily outside of the
labour market in Ukraine but who had had possibilities and intentions to enter
it. These were students (all having at least attended university) and job seekers
(41% with university degree, 52% with secondary education and 7% with lower
education levels). Of them, 22% were employed in Estonia and 56% were seeking
employment; 4% thought that they would be in Estonia in 2025 and 7% thought
they would remain in Estonia for the rest of their lives.
54 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
The third and the clearly largest group (78%) consisted of those who had been
active in the labour market in Ukraine. 70% in this group had higher, 28% sec-
ondary and 2% lower levels of education. 39% in this group were employed in Es-
tonia and 54% were seeking employment; 11% thought they would be in Estonia
in 2025 and 12% thought they would remain in Estonia for the rest of their lives.
4.2 Respondents’ journey to Estonia
As mentioned, the war started on February 24th, 2022 and the first Ukrainians
fleeing the war arrived in Estonia just a few days after that. The western bor-
der of Ukraine is slightly less than 1,000 kilometres from Estonia, and from the
Ukrainian border with Russia, it is about 1,200–1,500 kilometres to Estonia de-
pending on the routes taken. Obviously, the time required to reach Estonia from
Ukraine depended on the logistics available. The developments along the Pol-
ish–Ukrainian border increased the demand for transport, and this demand was
soon met with different services, including transport to Estonia.
In the first weeks, millions of Ukrainians had to escape from Ukraine through
its western borders to Poland, Romania, Moldova and Hungary. Some of those
on the other side of the war front needed to try to escape through Russia. Some
Ukrainians were also forcibly moved to the Russian territory (UNHCR 2022). Lat-
er, people continued forward as they could; however, not all knew where to go
after crossing the border.
Of respondents, 67% crossed the border to Poland, 19% to Russia and 13% to
other countries, including Slovakia (3%), Moldova (3%) and Romania (2%). Of
those who had left Ukraine via Russia, 36% spoke Russian as their native tongue,
30% spoke both Ukrainian and Russian and 91% originated from oblasts border-
ing Russia, including Donetska (65%) and Luhanska (9%).
Respondents mentioned that their intention in leaving Ukraine had been to
move away from the dangers of war and to be safe abroad. When asked where
they had planned to go when leaving Ukraine, some answers included: “Estonia”,
“Poland” or “Did not know where to go, just to leave a dangerous place”. Practi-
cally all (95%) respondents mentioned that they had left Ukraine due to the war
or serious challenges to their security. Typical short responses for the reasons to
have left included: “Because of Russia's war against Ukraine”, “Mariupol, where we
lived, was destroyed. Our apartment burned down. It was impossible to live with-
out a risk to life there. There were no conditions for life: water, food, medicines”,
“Because rockets were exploding outside the windows”, “Occupation, a place of
living is under occupation”, and “To save the lives of my son and daughter”. Only a
few (2%) respondents mentioned other, not directly war-related reasons for leav-
ing Ukraine. These included: “There were no jobs and prospects in my profession,
there was a military threat and a risk that the child will be left without a decent
school”, “Came to work”, “My husband is Estonian, many of his relatives are here”,
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 55
“Visiting relatives/friends”, and “Married in Estonia”. Also, those leaving Ukraine
from areas without or with very few military conflicts mentioned the war as their
most important reason to leave and among them responses such as “War”, “Active
fighting” and “To protect children, have been afraid for them” were common.
All respondents came to Estonia despite the fact that it is geographically much
further away from Ukraine than several other countries. To understand their
reason for selecting Estonia, respondents chose their main reason for choosing
Estonia from a multiple-choice question. In practice, many reasons were con-
nected, but we focus on the main reason based on respondents’ reflection of
their choice during their journey (Table 4.2.1). Of all respondents, 54% respond-
ed that they chose Estonia primarily because of family or friends in Estonia, 24%
had a positive view about Estonia, 6% did so because they had been to Estonia
before, 5% responded that there had been quick and easy transport to Estonia,
3% that it would be easier to adapt in Estonia, 2% for employment possibilities in
Estonia and 7% mentioned other reasons (Table 4.2.1). Before the war, there were
already more than 25,000 Ukrainians in Estonia. Ukrainians had been among
the largest immigration groups to Estonia in recent years and thousands of sea-
sonal labour workers regularly came to Estonia as well (Statistics Estonia 2022).
In addition, selecting Estonia was administratively easy for Ukrainians due to vi-
sa-free access to the Schengen countries, including Estonia (European Commis-
sion 2022b). Transportation logistics were necessary to reach the destination.
As mentioned, having family or friends in Estonia was the most common rea-
son for coming to Estonia. However, for some it meant that they came with their
family or friends to Estonia. This was particularly true for elderly people (64% of
those 65 years or older mentioned this as the main reason for coming to Estonia).
Of Ukrainians from Kyiv, comparatively more (14%) mentioned earlier visits to Es-
tonia as the reason to select Estonia as their destination. Having a generally posi-
tive impression of Estonia was proportionally large among respondents who came
to Estonia later than other respondents (34% of those who arrived in May 2022). In
March and April volunteers coordinated by The Estonian Refugee Council (Eesti
Pagulasabi) organised special transportation for Ukrainian refugees from Poland
to Estonia. Respondents most often mentioning “other reasons” were more fre-
quently those without temporary protection in Estonia (19%).
There were differences among respondents regarding the reasons to select
Estonia (Table 4.2.1). More men (10%) than women (5%) mentioned having been
in Estonia before as their reason for coming to Estonia. More women (55%) than
men (42%) mentioned having had family or friends in Estonia as their main rea-
son. Slightly more (7%) of younger respondents mentioned quick and easy trans-
portation as the main reason compared with older respondents (4–5%).
The reasons differed depending on when the respondents arrived in Estonia.
For those, who came to Estonia in March 2022, i.e. within a few weeks after the
56 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
start of the war, a particularly high share (60%) mentioned family or friends in
Estonia as the most important reason to come to Estonia. Among respondents
who arrived in April, a comparatively high share (11%) responded that they chose
Estonia for transportation reasons, and 34% of those who arrived in May an-
swered that it was the positive view about Estonia that helped them make the
decision to come to Estonia (Table 4.2.1).
There were also differences depending on respondents’ place of residence in
Ukraine directly before they left the country. For those who had lived in major
conflict areas, a comparatively large amount (33%) said that their main reason to
come to Estonia was the positive view about Estonia or that they have family or
friends in Estonia (37%).
Of temporary protected respondents, the reasons for coming to Estonia were
the following: for 54% it was having family or friends in Estonia, for 25% it was
having a positive view about Estonia, for 6% it was having been in Estonia before,
for 5% it was quick and easy transport to Estonia, for 3% easier adaption, for 2%
employment possibilities and for 6% other reasons (Table 4.2.1).
Table 4.2.1. Ukrainian survey respondents’ main reasons to select Estonia as their destination (%).
Family
or
friends
in
Estonia
Quick
and
easy
trans-
porta-
tion
Had
been in
Estonia
before
Positive
view
about
Estonia
Easier
adapta-
tion
Employ-
ment
possibil-
ities Other n
Man 42 8 10 32 0 2 4 50
Woman 55 5 5 23 3 2 7 477
18–29 years old 61 7 2 22 5 2 1 88
30–39 years old 53 5 6 25 2 2 7 206
40–49 years old 50 4 5 26 4 3 9 142
50–64 years old 50 5 11 21 2 3 0 66
65– years old 64 4 4 16 4 0 2 25
Temporary protection 54 5 6 25 3 2 6 500
No temporary
protection
56 4 7 7 0 7 19 27
March '22 60 4 7 20 4 3 3 313
April '22 43 11 5 27 2 2 11 124
May '22 47 2 1 34 0 1 14 90
No occupation or
conflict area
61 4 7 22 1 1 5 170
Limited occupation
and conflict area
62 6 5 18 4 3 4 198
Major occupation and
conflict area
37 5 6 33 5 3 12 159
Kyiv 56 2 14 24 2 0 3 59
Regional capital 62 5 3 17 5 6 3 133
Other urban 50 6 6 26 3 1 9 286
Rural 49 4 4 31 2 0 10 49
Total 54 5 6 24 3 2 7 527
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 57
Of all respondents, 59% agreed that they had selected Estonia as their destination
before leaving Ukraine, 10% were not sure and 31% disagreed (Table 4.2.2). Those
most conscious of having chosen Estonia before leaving Ukraine were those from
Kyiv (71% of respondents from Kyiv). The smallest share was among men (38%)
and those from the major conflict areas (48%). Educational background did not
make much difference in selecting Estonia prior to leaving Ukraine. Overall, the
share of decisive migrants toward Estonia decreased as the war continued (Table
4.2.2). Of those who had arrived in March, 63% had been certain in their selec-
tion of Estonia. This share was 55% among those who had arrived in April and
50% among those who had arrived in May.
Table 4.2.2. Ukrainian survey respondents’ decision of journey to Estonia (%).
Chose to travel to Estonia
before leaving Ukraine
Social media helped the
decision to come to Estonia
Agree
Don't
know Disagree Agree
Don't
know Disagree n
Man 38 12 50 30 14 56 50
Woman 61 10 29 35 19 46 477
18–29 years old 61 14 25 30 21 50 88
30–39 years old 58 10 32 36 17 47 206
40–49 years old 63 8 29 35 18 47 142
50–64 years old 49 12 39 36 21 42 66
65– years old 60 8 32 28 20 52 25
Higher education 58 9 33 33 16 51 326
No higher education 60 12 28 36 22 42 201
Temporary protection 59 10 31 34 19 47 500
No temporary
protection 56 7 37 37 11 52 27
March '22 63 10 27 32 20 48 313
April '22 55 10 36 32 19 48 124
May '22 50 11 39 47 11 42 90
No occupation or
conflict area 66 13 21 32 21 48 170
Limited occupation
and conflict area 61 7 32 32 20 48 198
Major occupation and
conflict area 48 11 40 40 15 46 159
Kyiv 71 17 12 44 15 41 59
Regional capital 65 7 29 34 20 46 133
Other urban 54 11 35 32 19 49 286
Rural 57 6 37 37 16 47 49
Total 59 10 31 34 18 47 527
The survey also considered the role that social media played in respondents’ de-
cision to come to Estonia. Of respondents who had used social media in Ukraine,
34% agreed that social media helped their decision to come to Estonia, 18% did
not know how to answer this and 47% disagreed (Table 4.2.2). The largest share
of those responding that social media helped in their decision to come to Estonia
58 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
was among those who came later in the spring (47% among those who arrived in
May), those from Kyiv (44%) and those from major occupation or conflict areas
(40%). On the contrary, the smallest share agreeing that social media influenced
their decision was among older respondents: 28% of respondents 65 years or
older.
Of temporary protected respondents, 59% agreed that they had selected Es-
tonia as their destination before leaving Ukraine, 10% were not sure and 33%
disagreed that they had selected Estonia before leaving Ukraine. Of them, 34%
agreed that social media had helped their decision to come to Estonia, 19% did
not know how to answer this and 47% disagreed.
Respondents left Ukraine from various locations and had diverse experi-
ences with military actions in their city of residence or journey prior to leaving
Ukraine (see Chapter 3.1). Of respondents, 55% left from oblasts during or after
major war conflicts (namely fighting or bombardment), 25% left oblasts which
had experienced limited war conflicts, and the remaining 20% of respondents
left Ukraine before war-related conflicts entered their region or city in Ukraine.
Of all respondents, 33% had left oblasts which had not experienced significant
war conflicts as of July 2022 and about 61% of respondents originated from areas
in Ukraine that were or had been occupied or attacked by the Russian military
for at least for some time.
Merely crossing the border is not enough to be safe, but one needs to find
shelter, food and other everyday amenities. As discussed in Chapter 3, many
kinds of transport were organized from the Ukrainian–Polish border to Tallinn
and other parts of Estonia. Therefore, on many occasions, those who had crossed
the border could select from available transport opportunities and destinations.
These included private car transport, minivans, complimentary buses and regu-
lar commercial bus connections. However, not all options were available. Some
people just took the first available opportunity regardless what it was and where
it would go.
By car or bus from the Ukrainian–Polish border to the Estonian border usu-
ally took 14–16 hours, depending on traffic and border controls, and from there
to Tallinn 3–4 hours. During the early stages of the war, border controls were
exercised at the borders between Poland and Lithuania, Lithuania and Latvia
and Latvia and Estonia. While many of the organized bus or car transport were
free, a regular bus ticket from close to the Ukrainian–Polish border to Tallinn
cost 80–120 euros per adult.
One could also have taken a train to reach Estonia, but this trip would have
required several changes, and it took much more time and was much more
expensive. In principle, there were also flights from Warsaw to Tallinn. These
were substantially more expensive and to our knowledge, these were not used
by Ukrainians fleeing the war to reach Estonia and seek temporary protection.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 59
The length of respondents’ journeys to Estonia varied (Table 4.2.3). Of all re-
spondents, a small part (19%) arrived in Estonia within a couple of days of leaving
Ukraine. They came to Estonia directly from the border. However, in different
stages, it took hours if not days to be able to cross the Ukrainian–Polish border
despite the rather light bureaucracy at the border (UNHCR 2022). The share of
those arriving more or less directly to Estonia was largest among those with-
out temporary protection (33%), from the city of Kyiv (27% of respondents from
Kyiv) and those who left from no-conflict areas (26%). The share was smallest
among those without higher education (12%) and those from major conflict are-
as (13%). Of those having left Ukraine in March, 21% came to Estonia in two days;
that share was 18% in April and 17% in May. People with higher education were
twice as likely to reach Estonia within two days (24%) compared to those without
higher education (12%).
Of all respondents, 56% arrived within 3–6 days and 75% arrived in less than
one week. A smaller group (13%) took more than two weeks, and even fewer (6%)
took more than a month (Table 4.2.3). Of those taking more than two weeks to
come to Estonia, 66% came through Russia and this was 41% of those who took
Table 4.2.3. Length of Ukrainian survey respondents’ journey to Estonia (in days, %).
–2 3–6 7–14 15–31 32– n
Man 14 43 31 6 6 49
Woman 20 58 10 7 6 473
18–29 years old 21 63 8 6 3 88
30–39 years old 19 57 12 4 7 203
40–49 years old 19 56 11 8 6 140
50–64 years old 23 47 15 11 5 66
65–years old 12 52 16 16 4 25
Higher education 24 54 11 6 6 322
No higher education 12 60 14 9 6 200
Temporary protection 19 57 12 7 5 495
No temporary
protection
33 44 0 0 22 27
March '22 21 67 11 2 0 310
April '22 18 44 16 17 5 122
May '22 17 38 10 9 27 90
No occupation or
conflict area
26 62 8 2 2 168
Limited occupation
and conflict area
18 62 9 3 7 196
Major occupation and
conflict area
13 43 19 17 8 158
Kyiv 27 64 9 0 0 59
Regional capital 21 59 11 2 8 131
Other urban 17 53 14 11 5 283
Rural 18 59 6 8 8 49
Total 19 56 12 7 6 522
60 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
more than a month to get to Estonia. Typical for those who took more than one
month to get to Estonia but did not come through Russia, were those who ar-
rived in May, those without temporary protection, those from some regional
capital in Ukraine and those from limited conflict areas.
Of temporary protected respondents, 19% arrived within 1–2 days of leaving
Ukraine, 57% within 3–6 days (i.e. 76% arrived in less than one week). Those tak-
ing more than two weeks (7%) or more than a month (5%) were few.
Ukrainians’ journeys to Estonia were not without challenges (Table 4.2.4).
In general, the most common challenges were the “difficult way and trans-
portation” that many (41%) respondents mentioned regardless of their back-
grounds. Fewer mentioned other aspects such as “long queues on the border
or waiting for transportation” (9%). However, 9% of respondents mentioned
that they “did not meet any difficulties” or “did find more difficulties than the
situation in Ukraine”. The second and third most common challenges were
the “way through Russia, block-posts, filtration” for 24% of men, 22% of re-
spondents who left the major conflict areas, 17% of those who arrived in April
and 25% of those who spent over two weeks to get to Estonia. “Long queues on
the border, waiting for transportation” was a major obstacle for 12% of oldest
respondents.
Men and women experienced these challenges slightly differently (Table
4.2.4). 42% of women and 30% of men mentioned the “difficult way and trans-
portation”. Meanwhile, substantially more men (24%) than women (6%) men-
tioned the “way through Russia, block-posts, filtration”. Those who arrived in
Estonia within two days most often experienced the "difficult way and trans-
portation" (41%), “long queues on the border, waiting for transportation” (11%),
“uncertainty, how to live in a new place” (8%) and the “way with kids” (8%) as
challenges, but 13% also mentioned that all went well during the journey and
that they had been supported by other people. For those who took more than a
month to come to Estonia, the most common challenges were the "difficult way
and transportation" (33%), “bombing, shelling, to leave the active fighting zone”
(17%) and "uncertainty, how to live in a new place" (13%).
For temporary protected respondents (89% of whom answered this ques-
tion), the three most common answers regarding the journey to Estonia were
the “difficult way and transportation” (41%), “long queues on the border, waiting
for transportation” (9%) and “all was fine” (8%).
Getting information, being able to communicate, and being in contact with
loved ones or friends while fleeing, even for a short journey, are important. Stay-
ing connected is important not only to the migrant, but also to those left behind
in Ukraine, fellow migrants, and those potentially waiting to migrate to Esto-
nia to find and share information about different situations along the journey.
While direct calling might be difficult and costly in different circumstances and
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 61
countries along the journey, and it takes time to inform many people at once,
one may find a possibility to use the Internet and social media to send, receive
and search information, and communicate directly and indirectly with one’s so-
cial networks.
Of respondents, 95% used the Internet during their journey to Estonia and
71% considered that the use of social media was important during their journey.
Of the younger respondents, all (100%) used the Internet during the journey to
Estonia compared with 88% of the oldest (those 65 years and older) respondents.
Likewise, of the younger respondents, more (74% of 18–39-year-olds and 78% of
40–49-year-olds) considered that the use of social media was important during
the journey. Similar differences were found between respondents originating
Table 4.2.4. Most challenging aspects during Ukrainian survey respondents’ journey to Estonia (%).
Most
common
challenge %
2nd most
common
challenge %
3rd most
common
challenge % n
Man Difficult way 30 Way through
Russia
24 Long queues 10 50
Woman Difficult way 42 All was fine 9 Long queues 9 477
18–29 years old Difficult way 46 Long queues 9 Way through
Russia
8 88
30–39 years old Difficult way 41 All was fine 10 Long queues 8 206
40–49 years old Difficult way 42 Long queues 10 Uncertainty 9 142
50–64 years old Difficult way 30 All was fine 12 Way through
Russia
9 66
65– years old Difficult way 40 All was fine 20 Long queues 12 25
Higher education Difficult way 41 Long queues 10 All was fine 8 326
No higher education Difficult way 40 Way through
Russia
10 All was fine 9 201
Temporary protection Difficult way 41 Long queues 9 All was fine 8 500
No temporary
protection
Difficult way 30 All was fine 11 Bombings and
active fighting
11 27
March '22 Difficult way 46 Long queues 11 All was fine 8 313
April '22 Difficult way 36 Way through
Russia
17 All was fine 7 124
May '22 Difficult way 30 Way through
Russia
13 All was fine 12 90
No occupation or
conflict area
Difficult way 41 All was fine 14 Long queues 8 170
Limited occupation or
conflict area
Difficult way 51 Long queues 9 All was fine 7 198
Major occupation or
conflict area
Difficult way 28 Way through
Russia
22 Long queues 9 159
Kyiv Difficult way 42 Uncertainty 10 Leaving home 10 59
Regional capital Difficult way 50 Long queues 13 All was fine 8 133
Other urban Difficult way 39 Way through
Russia
11 All was fine 8 286
Rural Difficult way 29 Way through
Russia
18 All was fine 14 49
Total Difficult way 41 Long queues 9 All was fine 9 527
62 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
from Kyiv and other regional capitals compared with those from rural areas and
those having or not having higher levels of education. The use of the Internet
along the asylum-related journey is more common among migrants with high-
er levels of education (Merisalo and Jauhiainen 2020; Merisalo and Jauhiainen
2021). In principle, there were no major differences in the share of the Internet
users regarding the length of the journey, especially if the gender, age and edu-
cational differences were considered.
The journey to Estonia could have also influenced the Internet usage of mi-
grants along their journey and added value to their transit. While leaving the
immediate risks, every fleeing Ukrainian was in contact with other Ukrainians
who were also fleeing, and these networks helped each other. In some cases,
these networks also included Estonians who helped Ukrainians travel to Estonia.
In general, 33% respondents mentioned that they had made friends during their
journey to Estonia (Table 4.2.5). This share was quite consistent among respond-
ents with different backgrounds. Those under 50 years of age were more likely
to have made friends along their journey (32%) compared with older respond-
ents (25%).
Of temporary protected respondents, 96% used the Internet during their
journey to Estonia and 71% considered that the use of social media was impor-
tant during the journey. In addition, 34% agreed that they had made friends
during the journey to Estonia, 11% did not know if they had and 56% disagreed
that they had.
All respondents of the survey arrived in Estonia during the spring of 2022;
the first arrived in February and the last in the end of June. The mean arrival
was on the April 2nd. By March 1st (less than one week after the start of the war),
2% of respondents had arrived, and by March 9th (two weeks), 19% of respond-
ents had arrived in Estonia. 35% more of the respondents arrived by March 23rd
(a month after the start of the war). Thus, within one month of the beginning
of the war, 54% of respondents had arrived in Estonia. For 26%, it took more
than one month and for 21% at least two months (Table 4.2.6) to come to Esto-
nia.
Women arrived rather regularly in the spring of 2022 but substantially more
men arrived starting from the second month of the war and a majority of them
were from the occupied territories. Of men under 65 years of age (49 individu-
als; 9% of the sample), 41% arrived in March, 41% in April and 18% in May or later.
The arrivals from Kyiv had a different pattern. None (0%) of the respondents
arrived in Estonia within the first week of the war; rather, the largest share (71%)
arrived within one and four weeks, and after that much fewer arrived (Table
4.2.6). As indicated earlier, Kyiv was attacked in the early part of the war and lat-
er there were fewer conflicts in the capital city. Kyiv was also much more distant
from Estonia than other areas in Western Ukraine (since migrants had to first
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 63
travel through Ukraine to Poland or Russia and then north to Estonia), so the
journey took longer (see Chapter 3.1).
Of temporary protected respondents, 2% arrived within a week of the begin-
ning of the war, 17% between one and two weeks, 36% between two and four
weeks, 27% in 1–2 months and 19% more than two months after the start of the
war.
Table 4.2.5. Ukrainian survey respondents’ journey to Estonia (%).
Social media was important
during the journey to Estonia
Making friends during
the journey to Estonia
Agree
Don't
know Disagree Agree
Don't
know Disagree n
Man 66 12 22 16 12 22 50
Woman 72 13 15 72 13 15 477
18–29 years old 74 13 14 30 10 60 88
30–39 years old 74 16 10 36 9 54 206
40–49 years old 78 9 13 35 13 53 142
50–64 years old 53 14 33 29 15 56 66
65– years old 52 16 32 16 4 80 25
Higher education 74 12 14 33 12 55 326
No higher education 68 15 17 33 9 58 201
Temporary protection 71 13 16 34 11 56 500
No temporary
protection
74 15 11 15 15 70 27
March '22 71 14 14 36 11 53 313
April '22 69 14 18 31 10 60 124
May '22 76 8 17 23 12 64 90
No occupation or
conflict area
70 9 21 31 9 59 170
Limited occupation
and conflict area
76 14 10 33 9 58 198
Major occupation and
conflict area
67 16 17 34 15 52 159
Kyiv 75 10 15 32 14 54 59
Regional capital 78 11 13 32 12 56 133
Other urban 71 14 16 35 10 55 286
Rural 57 20 22 27 8 65 49
Arrival in 1–2 days 75 11 14 38 9 54 101
3–6 days 70 14 16 32 11 57 294
7–14 days 67 18 15 25 12 64 61
15–31 days 69 8 22 47 6 47 36
32 days or more 77 10 13 23 20 57 30
Total 71 13 16 33 11 56 527
64 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.2.6. Ukrainian survey respondents’ arrival in Estonia after the beginning of the war (in days, %).
1–6 days
by 1 March
7–14 days
2–9 March
15–30 days
10–24 March
31–60 days
25 March –
23 April
61– days
24 April or
later n
Man 2 10 23 35 29 48
Woman 2 17 36 25 20 474
18–29 years old 3 16 27 31 23 88
30–39 years old 3 17 39 22 20 204
40–49 years old 1 17 34 29 19 141
50–64 years old 0 19 31 23 28 65
65– years old 4 13 42 21 21 24
Higher education 2 18 35 28 19 321
No higher education 3 15 35 22 25 201
Temporary protection 2 17 36 27 19 499
No temporary
protection
4 4 22 4 65 23
March '22 3 28 59 9 0 308
April '22 0 0 0 84 16 124
May '22 0 0 0 0 100 90
Kyiv 0 32 39 19 10 59
Regional capital 1 26 39 18 17 130
Other urban 3 11 32 33 22 285
Rural 0 8 40 13 40 48
Total 2 17 35 26 21 522
4.3 Respondents’ accommodation and local environment in Estonia
Respondents lived in different parts of Estonia. Some lived in the capital city of
Tallinn while others lived in suburban areas, smaller towns, or rural areas. Ukrain-
ians could freely select their municipality and place of residence in Estonia; in or-
der to freely choose, however, there needed to be suitable housing available, and
the individual must be able to pay for it. As a requirement in the TPD implemen-
tation, EU countries are required to provide accommodation for temporary pro-
tected Ukrainians. In Estonia, this means that emergency shelter in the early days
of arrival was provided if needed. Later, different types of housing options were
organized depending on availability. Often this was a room or apartment shared
with other people. After four months, individuals should find a place to stay on
their own and cover the related costs using partial subsidization with specific
state-supported allowances when needed (see Chapter 3.3).
The most important reason for selecting their current place of residence
in Estonia was family and relatives in Estonia for 22% of respondents. Almost
the same share (20%) came to their current place because a state worker, police
or volunteer guided them there. Slightly fewer (16%) mentioned friends or ac-
quaintances in their current place as the reason to select it. Of those who lived
alone in Estonia, the largest share (32%) selected their current place due to hav-
ing friends there (Table 4.3.1).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 65
Those, who came to Estonia in March 2022, had had 2–3 months more to decide
where to live in Estonia compared with those who came to Estonia in May and had
lived in Estonia only a few weeks by the time of survey. Despite this distinction,
the most important reasons for selecting their place of residence within Estonia
differed only slightly among the two groups. For the oldest respondents (at least 65
years old) a significant reason was having been directed by the volunteers or police
and border guard (Table 4.3.1). Among those who had stayed the longest time in Es-
tonia, the most important reasons for selecting the current place of residence were
Table 4.3.1. Most important reasons of Ukrainian survey respondents for selecting their current living
place in Estonia (%).
Most common
reason %
2nd most common
reason %
3rd most common
reason % n
Man Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
24 Family or relatives 16 Friends or
acquaintances
14 50
Woman Family or relatives 22 Forwarded by police
or volunteers
19 Friends or
acquaintances
16 477
18–29 years
old
Family or relatives 24 Friends or
acquaintances
23 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
18 88
30–39 years
old
Family or relatives 21 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
18 Accomodation 15 206
40–49 years
old
Friends or
acquaintances
19 Family or relatives 19 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
19 142
50–64 years
old
Family or relatives 24 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
29 No answer or don't
know
15 66
65– years old Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
36 Family or relatives 28 Accomodation 12 25
Higher
education
Family or relatives 20 Friends or
acquaintances
19 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
17 326
No higher
education
Family or relatives 24 Forwarded by police
or volunteers
11 Accomodation 11 201
Spouse in
Estonia
Family or relatives 25 Accomodation 18 Forwarded by the
police or volunteers
18 162
Children (–18)
in Estonia
Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
21 Family or relatives 20 Friends or
acquaintances
15 292
Nuclear family
in Estonia
Family or relatives 28 Accomodation 20 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
17 123
Alone in
Estonia
Friends or
acquaintances
32 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
20 Accomodation 14 71
Temporary
protection
Family or relatives 21 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
20 Friends or
acquaintances
16 500
No temporary
protection
Family or relatives 37 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
19 Job 15 27
March '22 Family or relatives 25 Accomodation 16 Friends or
acquaintances
16 313
April '22 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
31 Accomodation 17 Friends or
acquaintances
14 124
May '22 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
24 Family or relatives 21 Friends or
acquaintances
19 90
Total Family or relatives 22 Forwarded by police
or voluntereers
20 Friends or
acquaintances
16 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
66 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
based on family and relatives (25%) and among those who had stayed in Estonia the
shortest time, family and relatives were slightly less important in this decision (13%
of those who had arrived in April and 21% of those who had arrived in May).
Every respondent who participated in the survey had accommodation in Es-
tonia. Of respondents, almost half (45%) lived on their own in a separate house
or separate apartment, 11% in shared apartments, 3% in a shared house, 29% in a
hostel or hotel and 11% in other living arrangements (such as the large passenger
ships in the Tallinn harbour). Whereas 58% of Ukrainians from Kyiv lived sepa-
rately and 20% lived in shared accommodation, only 18% and 14% Ukrainians from
rural areas did so. Meanwhile, only 14% of Ukrainians from Kyiv lived in a hotel or
hostel while a much larger percentage of Ukrainians from rural areas (49%) did so.
Ukrainian respondents who had received temporary protection are guaran-
teed the right to accommodation. Clearly more Ukrainians who had received
temporary protection lived in a separate house or apartment (45%) than those
who had not received temporary protection (37%) and clearly fewer lived in a
shared house or apartment (14%) or hotel (29%) than those without temporary
protection (23% and 33% respectively). The share of respondents in provision-
al accommodation declined and the share of respondents living separately in-
creased the longer the individual had been in Estonia (Table 4.3.2).
Of Ukrainian respondents with underaged children (with or without spouse)
in Estonia, 49% lived in a separate accommodation, 7% in shared accommoda-
Table 4.3.2. Accommodation type of Ukrainian survey respondents' current place of living in Estonia (%).
Separate
house or
apartment
Shared
apartment
Shared
house
Hotel or
hostel Other n
Man 32 12 2 30 24 50
Woman 46 11 3 29 10 477
18–29 years old 43 15 2 31 9 88
30–39 years old 49 9 3 31 9 206
40–49 years old 51 11 6 24 9 142
50–64 years old 29 17 0 33 21 66
65– years old 32 12 0 32 24 25
Higher education 48 12 3 26 11 326
No higher education 40 10 3 36 12 201
Temporary protection 45 11 3 29 11 500
No temporary protection 37 19 4 33 7 27
March '22 52 12 4 25 7 313
April '22 39 11 2 36 13 124
May '22 28 10 1 38 23 90
Spouse in Estonia 51 5 3 28 14 162
Children (–18) in Estonia 49 7 3 29 11 292
Nuclear family in Estonia 50 4 3 29 14 123
Alone in Estonia 34 16 1 37 13 71
Total 45 11 3 29 11 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 67
tion, 3% in shared house, 29% in a hostel or hotel and 11% in other accommoda-
tion (Table 4.3.2).
In terms of ease of finding accommodation in Estonia, when respondents sub-
jectively evaluated their experiences, 22% claimed that it was very easy, 38% that
it was rather easy, 26% that it was rather difficult and 14% that it was very difficult
(Table 4.3.3). Those who found it easier to find accommodation were the oldest
respondents (65 years old or older) of whom 32% mentioned it was very easy and
44% that it was easy and 50–64 years old (29% and 35%), and those without tempo-
rary protection (44% and 44%). The largest share of those claiming that it was dif-
ficult to find accommodation was among 40–49-year-olds of whom 16% said it was
very difficult and 32% that it was rather difficult. In general, younger respondents
found it more difficult than older respondents to find accommodation.
Of temporary protected respondents, 21% mentioned that finding accommo-
dation in Estonia was very easy, 38% that it was rather easy, 27% that it was rather
difficult and 14% that it was very difficult. For women it was easier to find accom-
modation than for men as 61% of women found that it was very or rather easy
to find accommodation and only 48% of men did. Of respondents with children
in Estonia, 22% said it was very easy, 38% that it was easy, 27% that it was rather
difficult and 14% that it was difficult. When it comes to time of arrival to Estonia,
there did appear to be some fluctuations in the perceived ease of finding accom-
modation. Whereas 40% of Ukrainians who arrived in Estonia in March found it
rather or very difficult to find accommodation, this percentage increased to 46%
Table 4.3.3. Easiness to find one’s accommodation in Estonia (%).
Very
easy
Rather
easy
Rather
difficult
Very
difficult n
Man 20 28 32 20 50
Woman 22 39 25 13 477
18–29 years old 23 39 22 17 88
30–39 years old 22 40 25 13 206
40–49 years old 17 35 32 16 142
50–64 years old 29 35 23 14 66
65– years old 32 44 16 8 25
Higher education 22 37 26 16 326
No higher education 23 40 26 10 201
Temporary protection 21 38 27 14 500
No temporary protection 44 44 4 7 27
March '22 23 38 24 16 313
April '22 23 32 35 11 124
May '22 20 48 20 12 90
Spouse in Estonia 22 36 29 14 162
Children (–18) in Estonia 22 38 27 14 292
Nuclear family in Estonia 20 37 31 12 123
Alone in Estonia 20 38 28 14 71
Total 22 38 26 14 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
68 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
for those who arrived in April. Of those who arrived in May, 32% found it rather
or very difficult to find accommodation (Table 4.3.3).
Respondents had various options to pay for the costs of accommodation, how-
ever, not all options were possible for everyone. Of the respondents, 29% men-
tioned that the accommodation costs were fully paid by the state; for 14% costs
were partly paid by the state; for 24% by oneself with family or friends; for 28% by
oneself alone; and for 6% by other means (Table 4.3.4). The oldest respondents
were more likely to have received full compensation for accommodation from the
state (48% of those 65 and older) than slightly younger respondents (42% of 50–64
years old). Older respondents also had more time for and experiences with visit-
ing the social insurance and pension funds in Estonia where they received more
information about subsistence. The younger respondents, meanwhile, were busy
either working or searching for work, and had fewer opportunities to be informed.
In July 2022, of those who had arrived in May or later, more (54%) had their ac-
commodations fully paid by the state (33% of those who had arrived in April) com-
pared with those who had arrived earlier (19% of those who had arrived in March).
Since the supplemental payment for accommodation by the state was only meant
to work for a temporary, transitional period (for 3–4 months), many of those who
had arrived earlier were already renting their own accommodation and were eligi-
ble to receive only partial compensation for rent or utilities.
The largest share paying for their accommodation alone or with family and
friends were those who had been in Estonia already 3–4 months (60%) or those who
Table 4.3.4. Accommodation payment for Ukrainian survey respondents in Estonia (%).
Oneself
alone
Oneself
with family
or friends
Fully by
Estonian
state
Partly by
Estonian
state Other n
Man 24 20 44 10 2 50
Woman 28 25 27 14 7 477
18–29 years old 18 38 25 10 9 88
30–39 years old 30 24 25 16 5 206
40–49 years old 36 18 25 16 6 142
50–64 years old 20 23 42 9 6 66
65– years old 16 20 48 8 8 25
Higher education 30 23 23 16 7 326
No higher education 23 26 37 10 4 201
Temporary protection 28 24 28 14 6 500
No temporary protection 26 22 37 7 7 27
March '22 32 28 19 16 5 313
April '22 26 19 33 14 8 124
May '22 14 19 54 3 9 90
Spouse in Estonia 36 21 28 10 6 162
Children (all ages) in Estonia 32 21 27 14 5 361
Nuclear family in Estonia 42 21 25 8 3 123
Alone in Estonia 27 18 37 10 9 71
Total 28 24 29 14 6 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 69
had a spouse in Estonia (57%). It is possible that not all respondents knew exactly
who was contributing to the reimbursement of the costs for their accommodation.
When it comes to temporary protected respondents, accommodation was
paid fully by the state for 28%, partly by the state for 14%, by oneself with family
or friends by 24%, by oneself alone by 28%, and by other means for 6%. In terms
of respondents with children of all ages, 27% had accommodation fully paid by
the state, 14% partly by the state, 21% by oneself with family or friends, 32% by
oneself alone, and 5% by other means. As the time passed, the share of those fully
and partly paid by the state has decreased and those paying for the accommoda-
tion themselves has increased (Table 4.3.4).
The number of people in respondents’ accommodation varied. Of the re-
spondents, 8% lived alone and 92% lived with at least one another person;
of the latter, 99% lived with a spouse and 96% with a child of any age. Of all
respondents, 30% lived with only one person, 45% with 2–3 other people, 14%
with 4–5 other people and 4% in an accommodation with at least seven peo-
ple. The share of those living alone was largest among 50–64-year-olds (17%)
and the lowest among those with spouse or nuclear family in Estonia (1%). The
share of those living in an accommodation with at least four other people was
highest among those without temporary protection (26%) and Ukrainians 40–
49 years old (23%) and lowest was among those being alone in Estonia (10%),
those who had recently (in May) arrived (14%) (Table 4.3.5).
Table 4.3.5. Number of people in Ukrainian survey respondents' accommodation in current place of
living in Estonia (%).
1 person 2 people 3–4 people 5–6 people 7– people n
Man 8 30 44 18 0 50
Woman 8 30 45 14 4 477
18–29 years old 10 35 38 11 6 88
30–39 years old 5 22 57 11 5 206
40–49 years old 6 29 42 21 2 142
50–64 years old 17 42 24 14 3 66
65– years old 8 44 32 16 0 25
Higher education 9 29 45 12 4 326
No higher education 5 30 43 18 3 201
Temporary protection 8 30 44 14 4 500
No temporary protection 4 19 52 22 4 27
March '22 8 30 42 17 4 313
April '22 7 31 48 11 4 124
May '22 7 29 50 10 4 90
Spouse in Estonia 1 19 65 10 5 162
Children (all ages) in Estonia 4 24 52 16 3 361
Nuclear family in Estonia 1 7 76 12 4 123
Alone in Estonia 25 41 24 7 3 71
Total 8 30 45 14 4 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
70 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Of temporary protected respondents, 8% lived alone and 92% lived with
someone else, but only 18% lived with at least four other people. For those with-
out temporary protection, these shares were 4%, 96% and 26%, respectively (Ta-
ble 4.3.5).
The number of bedrooms in respondents’ accommodation varied. Of all re-
spondents, 62% lived in an accommodation with one bedroom, 27% with two
bedrooms, 8% with three bedrooms, 1% with four bedrooms, and 2% with five of
more bedrooms. Among those with children of all ages, 62% had an accommo-
dation with only one bedroom, 29% lived in an accommodation with two bed-
rooms, 8% with three bedrooms and very few (1%) in larger accommodations
(Table 4.3.6).
Of temporary protected respondents, 62% lived in an accommodation with
one bedroom, 27% with two bedrooms, 8% with three bedrooms, 1% with four
bedrooms, and 2% with five of more bedrooms. The respondents without tem-
porary protection tended to live in smaller apartments (Table 4.3.6).
Table 4.3.6. Number of bedrooms in Ukrainian survey respondents’ current place of living in Estonia (%).
1
bedroom
2
bedrooms
3
bedrooms
4
bedrooms
5
bedrooms
n
Man 76 24 0 0 0 50
Woman 61 28 9 1 2 477
18–29 years old 59 28 6 1 6 88
30–39 years old 59 27 11 1 2 206
40–49 years old 61 28 10 1 1 142
50–64 years old 76 23 0 0 2 66
65– years old 68 28 4 0 0 25
Higher education 62 28 7 1 2 326
No higher education 62 26 10 0 2 201
Temporary protection 62 27 8 1 2 500
No temporary protection 59 33 7 0 0 27
March '22 56 33 10 1 2 313
April '22 71 19 6 0 4 124
May '22 72 20 6 1 1 90
Spouse in Estonia 59 29 11 0 1 162
Children (all ages) in Estonia 62 29 8 0 1 361
Nuclear family in Estonia 58 30 12 0 0 123
Alone in Estonia 73 17 3 3 4 71
Total 62 27 8 1 2 527
The density of accommodation can be judged from the number of people per
bedroom. A decent standard for a person escaping war could be one person
per bedroom. When there are more people, the accommodation is considered
crowded, and when there are fewer, the accommodation is spacious. Of house-
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 71
holds (or people sharing the accommodation) with two persons, 80% of did
not meet the standard of density, and this share is even larger for those living
together with 3–4 or 5–6 people (Table 4.3.7). Among temporary protected re-
spondents, the share of crowded accommodation was similar to the that of total
respondents.
Table 4.3.7. Number of bedrooms and people in Ukrainian survey respondents’ current place of living
in Estonia (%).
1
bedroom
2
bedrooms
3
bedrooms
4
bedrooms
5–
bedrooms
n
1 person 90 8 3 0 0 40
2 people 80 17 1 0 2 157
3–4 people 58 32 8 1 1 235
5–6 people 31 45 21 1 1 75
7– people 25 25 25 0 25 20
Total 62 27 8 1 2 527
Another set of measurements regarding the housing quality are whether accom-
modations have a private bathroom, enough toilets and showers for one’s use,
a separate living room, a separate kitchen (i.e. not a shared kitchen), and access
to the Internet.
Of all respondents, 82% responded that they had a private bathroom, 39%
a separate living room, 40% a separate kitchen, 81% access to the Internet (98%
had Internet access via their mobile phone) and 93% agreed that the accom-
modation had enough toilets and showers for one’s use (3% did not know; 4%
disagreed) (Table 4.3.8). These shares were the same for temporary protected
respondents.
Generally, the best amenities were in the current accommodations of
30–39-year-olds, those with a spouse, and among those who had arrived in
March. The most need for improvement was seen in the amenities in the ac-
commodations of older respondents (those 50–64-years-old and older than 65)
(Table 4.3.8). Of respondents with children of all ages in Estonia, 83% answered
that they have a private bathroom, 38% a separate living room, 41% a separate
kitchen, 81% access to the Internet (98% said they have Internet access via their
mobile phone) and 92% agreed that there were enough toilets and showers for
one’s use (3% did not know; 4% disagreed). The basic amenities in respondents’
accommodations did slightly improve the longer a respondent had stayed in
Estonia. This is evident by comparing the living conditions of those who had
arrived earlier (in March) with those who had arrived more recently (in May)
(Table 4.3.8).
72 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.3.8. Facilities in Ukrainian survey respondents’ current accommodation in Estonia (%).
Bathroom
(private)
Living space
(separate)
Kitchen
(separate)
Internet
connection
n
Man 82 36 28 80 50
Woman 82 39 41 81 477
18–29 years old 77 38 34 82 88
30–39 years old 85 41 46 81 206
40–49 years old 83 39 47 82 142
50–64 years old 77 32 23 79 66
65– years old 76 44 16 68 25
Higher education 81 41 43 80 326
No higher education 82 35 35 81 201
Temporary protection 82 38 40 80 500
No temporary protection 78 63 37 89 27
March '22 81 41 45 79 313
April '22 77 34 33 83 124
May '22 91 38 31 83 90
Spouse in Estonia 83 40 43 82 162
Children (all ages) in Estonia 83 38 41 81 361
Nuclear family in Estonia 85 35 44 82 123
Alone in Estonia 80 37 31 82 71
Total 82 39 40 81 527
Respondents also expressed general satisfaction with their current accommo-
dation and the municipality in which they lived in Estonia. Of all respondents,
51% were fully satisfied with accommodation, 40% were partly satisfied and 9%
were not satisfied with it. The largest share of those fully satisfied with their ac-
commodation were among the oldest respondents (65 years or older, 72%), those
without temporary protection (67%) and those living in large towns in Estonia
other than Tallinn (65%). The share of dissatisfied were largest among respond-
ents of at least 50 years old (12%) (Table 4.3.9).
Of temporary protected respondents, 50% were fully, 41% partly and 9% not
satisfied with their current accommodation. Those without temporary protec-
tion were clearly more satisfied with their accommodation as were respondents
living alone in Estonia (Table 4.3.9).
Overall, respondents were slightly more satisfied with their current munici-
pality compared with their current accommodation. Of all respondents, 81% were
fully satisfied with the municipality, 17% partly satisfied and 1% not satisfied. The
largest share of those fully satisfied with the municipality in which they lived was
among those who lived alone (88%) and those who had arrived in May (89%). Very
few were unsatisfied with their current municipality. Not all resp ondents may have
known about their municipality and the services it could provide (Table 4.3.9).
Of temporary protected respondents, 81% were fully, 17% partly and 1% not
satisfied with the municipality in which they lived. In general, the shares of sat-
isfaction and dissatisfaction were rather similar among the rest of respondents
regardless of their status, including respondents with children (Table 4.3.9).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 73
Of those fully satisfied with their accommodation, 88% were fully satisfied with
their municipality. Of those fully satisfied with their municipality, 56% were fully
satisfied with their accommodation. On the contrary, of those not satisfied with
their accommodation, 6% were not satisfied with their municipality and of those not
satisfied with their municipality, 43% were not satisfied with their accommodation.
Table 4.3.9. Ukrainian survey respondents’ satisfaction on current accommodation or municipality in
Estonia (%).
Accommodation Municipality
Fully Partly No Fully Partly No n
Man 46 48 6 78 20 2 50
Woman 51 40 9 82 17 1 477
18–29 years old 49 47 5 82 16 2 88
30–39 years old 52 37 10 77 23 1 206
40–49 years old 46 46 9 87 12 1 142
50–64 years old 49 39 12 83 15 2 66
65– years old 72 16 12 84 16 0 25
Higher education 50 40 10 80 19 1 326
No higher education 52 41 8 84 14 2 201
Temporary protection 50 41 9 81 17 1 500
No temporary
protection
67 30 4 82 19 0 27
March '22 52 38 10 81 18 2 313
April '22 44 46 10 77 22 1 124
May '22 54 40 6 89 10 1 90
Living with spouse 47 43 9 81 19 1 165
Living with children (all
ages)
52 39 10 80 18 1 375
Living with nuclear
family
46 47 7 80 20 1 143
Living alone 63 38 0 88 8 4 24
Tallinn 45 43 11 86 14 0 256
Large town 65 29 6 85 15 0 65
Small town, rural areas 52 40 7 75 22 3 206
Total 51 40 9 81 17 1 527
Living with children/nuclear family = in this case, also children over 18 years old included since there are
no data about the ages of the children the respondent lived with.
4.4 Respondents’ social environment, health care and school
children’s education in Estonia
The local social environment of Ukrainians in Estonia consisted of their family,
relatives, friends and other Ukrainians, and people from other nations, includ-
ing Estonians. Part of that social environment also includes their feelings about
living in Estonia and more specifically the feelings about one’s living place and
social relations in this space. In addition, the survey considered the social en-
vironment via respondents’ perceived material and health conditions, access
74 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
to health care, and connection to the education system for respondents with
children in Estonia. Access to health (medical) care, education for their children
and subsistence for temporary protected individuals are mentioned in the TPD
as provisions the receiving countries and their authorities should take care of
(European Commission 2022).
4.4.1 Respondents’ social environment in Estonia
Respondents lived together in Estonia in various combinations. Of all of them,
5% lived alone (4% of women, 6% of men; 7% of those less than 30 years old and
8% of those 65 years or older), 8% with people other than family or friends, 11%
with friends, 8% with relatives who are not close family, 9% with siblings, 12%
with parents, 31% with a spouse and 71% with a child or children. The largest
share of those living with people other than extended family or friends were
among those alone in Estonia (32%) and those 50–64 (14%) and 65 years or older
(12%). 74% of women and 48% of men lived with a child or children.
The share of those living with a spouse increased over time and the reverse
was true for those living with children (Table 4.4.1). The main flow on refugees
starting from April was from the occupied parts of Ukraine (Donetska, Luhan-
ska, Kharkivska, Khersonska and Zaporizka oblasts). From these areas, women
Table 4.4.1. Ukrainian survey respondents living together with family and other people in Estonia (%).
Spouse
Chil-
dren
Parents
or par-
ents-
in-law
Sib-
lings
Other
rela-
tives Friends
Other
non-re-
la tives Alone n
Man 52 48 32 12 2 8 4 6 50
Woman 29 74 10 9 9 11 8 4 477
18–29 years old 15 27 30 23 14 22 9 7 88
30–39 years old 41 85 11 9 5 8 7 2 206
40–49 years old 35 85 9 6 8 10 4 4 142
50–64 years old 24 59 8 2 11 8 14 12 66
65– years old 8 64 0 4 8 8 12 8 25
Higher education 31 73 11 7 9 10 8 5 326
No higher education 32 68 14 12 8 11 7 4 201
Temporary protection 32 71 12 8 8 11 8 5 500
No temporary
protection
19 78 11 22 11 7 4 4 27
March '22 29 73 13 11 8 10 7 5 313
April '22 34 72 15 6 10 12 7 5 124
May '22 37 63 9 8 8 10 9 4 90
Spouse in Estonia 94 85 6 2 3 3 2 1 162
Children (–18) in Estonia 41 99 8 7 7 8 2 0 292
Nuclear family in
Estonia
94 100 5 2 2 2 1 0 123
Alone in Estonia 7 20 1 3 1 30 32 20 71
Total 31 71 12 9 8 11 8 5 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 75
and men alike could leave only through the Russian Federation, where there
were no limitations to cross the border for men (as was the case in the Ukraini-
an-controlled territory).
To summarize the accommodation-based social environment of individuals
represented in this survey, of temporary protected respondents, 71% lived with
a child or children in Estonia, 32% with a spouse and 5% lived alone, 8% with
people other than friends or family, 12% with parents, 11% with friends, 8% with a
sister or brother, 8% with relatives other than of close family and 5% alone.
Of the respondents, 90% said that Ukrainians lived in their accommodation
and 13% reported having residents of other nationalities: Estonians (8%), Russians
(3%) and other nationalities (2%). These shares were practically the same among
the respondents with temporary protection. The share of Ukrainian respondents
living in an accommodation with Estonians was largest among respondents who
had some skills in Estonian (12%). Russians were present in very few accommoda-
tions, including among those being 30–39-year-olds (4%) (Table 4.4.2).
Language skills are a prerequisite for communicating with other people and
being exposed to people from other nations can improve one’s language skills.
Of those having Estonians in their accommodation, 12% had some command of
Estonian. In contrast only 2% of those living alone had some command of Estoni-
an. However, of those living in accommodations shared with individuals of na-
Table 4.4.2. Presence of nationalities in Ukrainian survey respondents’ accommodation in Estonia (%).
Estonians Ukrainians Russians Other
Living
alone n
Man 8 92 2 0 2 50
Woman 8 89 3 2 6 477
18–29 years old 10 84 3 1 9 88
30–39 years old 7 93 4 3 2 206
40–49 years old 9 89 0 2 6 142
50–64 years old 9 86 3 0 9 66
65– years old 0 96 0 4 4 25
Higher education 8 88 3 2 6 326
No higher education 8 92 3 3 4 201
Temporary protection 8 89 3 2 5 500
No temporary protection 4 93 0 0 4 27
March '22 9 88 3 2 6 313
April '22 7 92 2 2 4 124
May '22 6 91 2 2 4 90
Spouse in Estonia 9 94 2 3 1 162
Children (–18) in Estonia 8 95 2 2 1 292
Nuclear family in Estonia 8 96 1 2 0 123
Alone in Estonia 10 72 4 3 20 71
Russian skills 8 89 3 2 5 478
Estonian skills 12 90 5 5 2 61
English skills 10 83 5 3 8 148
Total 8 90 3 2 5 527
76 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
tionalities other than Ukrainian, Estonian or Russian, very few (3%) had at least
intermediate skills in English.
The longer respondents had been in Estonia, the more likely they shared ac-
commodation with individuals from other nationalities, specifically Estonians.
However, the change in percentage was small: 9% of those who arrived in March
to 6% of those who arrived in May. Ukrainians thus lived in rather homogenous
communities. In the first few weeks and months of the war, Estonians hosted
Ukrainian refugees in their homes. As time went on, and the number of arrivals
increased, Estonian hosts did not keep up with the increase in demand and pri-
vate resources (Table 4.4.2).
Of the respondents, 75% expressed that they had friends in Estonia. The largest
share reporting to have friends in Estonia were those who had arrived in March or
April (78%) and those 30–39 years old (79%). The share of those without friends in Esto-
nia was highest among the oldest respondents (44% of those 65 and older) and among
the recent arrivals (39% of those who had arrived in May). In addition, the share of
those with no friends was larger among men (38%) than women (24%) (Table 4.4.3).
Not having friends at all can cause a substantial decrease in one’s welfare in Estonia.
Of respondents, 65% specified that they had Ukrainian friends in Estonia. In
general, it is easier to make friends from one’s own nationality than with those
from other nations. The largest share of respondents with Ukrainian friends
was highest among 30–39-year-olds (71%) and those who had nuclear family Es-
tonia (70%). On the contrary, of those who responded as not having Ukrainian
friends in Estonia (35% of respondents), the largest share was among the oldest
respondents (65 years or older, 52%). Fewer Ukrainians who speak Russian as
their mother tongue had Ukrainian friends in Estonia (83%) compared to native
Ukrainian speakers (90%).
When it comes to Estonian friends, 33% of all Ukrainian respondents report-
ed that they have Estonian friends in Estonia (Table 4.4.3). The largest shares of
those with Estonian friends were among those with higher education (41%) and
those who were alone in Estonia (39%). In general, the longer individuals had
been in Estonia, the more likely they had Estonian friends. The smallest share of
those having Estonian friends was among those who arrived in May 2022 or later
(14%), those without higher education (20%) and men (22%). 47% of those who
speak Russian as their mother tongue had Estonian friends, 30% of those who
speak Ukrainian as their mother tongue did and 28% of those who consider both
languages as mother tongues did. Of those having Estonian friends, 23% had at
least some command of Estonian; in comparison, only 6% of those not having
any Estonian friends had some command of Estonian.
Only 4% of respondents reported having Russian friends in Estonia. The share
of those with Russian friends was larger among older respondents (12% of re-
spondents 65 years or older and 11% of those 50–64 years old) and those without
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 77
temporary protection (11%) (Table 4.4.3). Of native Russian-speaking respond-
ents 9% and 4% of native Ukrainian-speaking respondents claimed that they had
Russian friends. On the contrary, the largest share of those not having Russian
friends was among those who had arrived in May (100%) and those alone in Esto-
nia (99%). The share of respondents having Russian friends in Estonia remained
low regardless of their length of time in Estonia and only 1% of respondents re-
sponded that they have friends from other nations in Estonia (Table 4.4.3).
Of temporary protected respondents, 75% expressed that they had friends in
Estonia: 66% had Ukrainian, 33% Estonian, 4% Russian and 1% had friends from
other nations.
Of the respondents, 43% shared that they have family or friends in another
European country outside of Estonia and Ukraine. The largest share of these was
among those with English skills (56% of those with English skills had friends out-
side of Estonia or Ukraine), and among younger respondents (50% of 18–29-year-
olds and 48% of 30–39-year-olds). Those with lower English skills also had few-
er friends in a country other than Ukraine or Estonia. Of respondents, 57% did
not have family or friends outside of Estonia and Ukraine. This share was largest
among the oldest respondents: 92% of individuals 65 years or older. The coun-
tries mentioned most often as places where Ukrainian respondents had friends
or family were Poland (22%), Germany (18%) and the Czech Republic (6%) (Table
4.4.4).
Table 4.4.3. Ukrainian survey respondents having friends in Estonia (%).
Estonians Ukrainians Russians Other None n
Man 22 52 6 2 38 50
Woman 34 67 4 1 24 477
18–29 years old 33 67 5 1 23 88
30–39 years old 33 71 2 1 21 206
40–49 years old 33 61 4 1 28 142
50–64 years old 36 62 11 0 27 66
65– years old 24 48 12 0 44 25
Higher education 41 65 6 1 23 326
No higher education 20 65 2 1 29 201
Temporary protection 33 66 4 1 25 500
No temporary protection 33 56 11 0 33 27
March '22 39 68 6 1 22 313
April '22 31 66 4 2 22 124
May '22 14 56 0 0 39 90
Spouse in Estonia 30 66 4 1 23 162
Children (–18) in Estonia 34 68 3 1 22 292
Nuclear family in Estonia 27 70 0 0 20 123
Alone in Estonia 39 62 1 0 27 71
Total 33 65 4 1 25 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
78 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Of those having temporary protection, fewer (43%) had friends outside of
Ukraine and Estonia compared with those without temporary protection (52%).
Being younger and having better English language skills were more telling of
whether a person had family and friends in a foreign country.
Table 4.4.4. Ukrainian survey respondents having family or friends in Europe outside Estonia and
Ukraine (%).
Yes
(%)
Most
common
country %
2nd most
common
country %
3rd most
common
country % n
Men 30 Germany 16 Poland 14 Croatia / France /
Italy / Russia
4 50
Women 45 Poland 23 Germany 18 Czech Republic 7 477
18–29 years old 50 Poland 26 Germany 25 Austria / Czech
Republic / France
/ Italy / No answer-
don't know
5 88
30–39 years old 48 Poland 26 Germany 19 Czech Republic 8 206
40–49 years old 42 Poland 20 Germany 16 Czech Republic 7 142
50–64 years old 36 Poland 18 Germany 14 Russia 9 66
65– years old 8 Poland 8 Denmark /
Italy / United
Kingdom
4 - 25
Higher education 45 Poland 23 Germany 17 Czech Republic
/ Italy
6 326
No higher education 40 Poland 20 Germany 18 Czech Republic 7 201
March '22 46 Poland 25 Germany 17 Czech Republic 8 313
April '22 44 Poland 21 Germany 21 Czech Republic /
Latvia
5 124
May '22 34 Germany 17 Poland 14 Russia 4 90
Spouse in Estonia 46 Poland 22 Germany 18 Czech Republic
/ Italy
6 69
Children (–18) in
Estonia
46 Poland 23 Germany 19 Czech Republic 7 292
Nuclear family in
Estonia
46 Poland 26 Germany 18 Italy 9 123
Alone in Estonia 44 Poland 24 Germany 23 Austria / Czech
Republic /
Lithuania
6 71
Temporary protection 43 Poland 21 Germany 18 Czech Republic 6 500
No temporary
protection
52 Poland 41 Germany 19 Russia 11 27
Russian skills 43 Poland 21 Germany 18 Czech Republic 6 478
English skills 56 Poland 26 Germany 20 Czech Republic 9 148
Total 43 Poland 22 Germany 18 Czech Republic 6 527
Russian/English skills = level of knowledge at least moderate on the scale of nothing - little - moderate
- good - native. Only max 3 mentioned countries per respondent counted. The 2nd most mentioned
country is not the country that most respondents mentioned on the second place but the country that
got most mentions among the 0–3 countries counted for each respondent. Percentages refer to the
share of all the respondents who mentioned having family or friends in this country. Nuclear family in
Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 79
Another aspect of social environment pertains to the practices to be in con-
tact with people in Ukraine. The social environment goes beyond respondents’
immediate physical environment in the way individuals keep in contact with the
people and places that are physically distant. In the case of Ukrainians in Esto-
nia, these contacts are often family members, relatives and friends. Almost all
(98%) respondents were in contact with people in Ukraine. Of all respondents,
73% were in contact with people in Ukraine at least daily, 21% weekly, 4% less of-
ten and only 2% never.
The highest share of those who were in contact ‘at least weekly’ with someone
in Ukraine was seen in respondents who had under-aged children in Ukraine
(100%) or parents in Ukraine (97%). All (100%) respondents used telephone calls
to be in contact with people in Ukraine and many also used social media. The
largest share of those who were not in contact with people in Ukraine was among
50–64-year-olds (5%), men (4%) and those without temporary protection (4%);
however, these numbers were also low (Table 4.4.5).
Of temporary protected respondents, 74% were in contact with people in
Ukraine at least daily, 21% weekly, 4% less often and only 1% never. Of those not
having a spouse, children, parents or a brother or sister in Ukraine, 72% had dai-
Table 4.4.5. Ukrainian survey respondents in Estonia being in contact with people in Ukraine (%).
Many times
a day Daily Weekly Less often Never n
Man 14 44 30 8 4 50
Woman 15 60 20 4 1 477
18–29 years old 22 53 15 9 1 88
30–39 years old 16 64 17 2 2 206
40–49 years old 15 53 29 3 1 142
50–64 years old 11 56 24 5 5 66
65– years old 4 60 24 12 0 25
Higher education 16 61 18 4 1 326
No higher education 14 53 26 5 2 201
Temporary protection 15 59 21 4 1 500
No temporary protection 26 48 15 7 4 27
March '22 17 58 20 3 2 313
April '22 14 56 23 7 1 124
May '22 12 61 20 4 2 90
Spouse in Estonia 10 55 28 5 2 162
Children (–18) in Estonia 16 61 19 3 1 292
Nuclear family in Estonia 9 59 26 5 2 123
Alone in Estonia 20 52 24 1 3 71
Spouse in Ukraine 18 70 8 4 0 113
Children (–18) in Ukraine 13 75 13 0 0 8
Parents in Ukraine 16 62 19 2 1 305
Total 15 58 21 4 2 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
80 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
ly contacts with people in Ukraine; 25% had such contacts weekly, 14% less often
and 9% never.
When it comes to how Ukrainian respondents felt they were treated in Es-
tonia, almost all (92%) of respondents agreed that they were treated well while
7% did not know and only 1% disagreed. All (100%) of the oldest group of re-
spondents (65 years old or older) felt they were treated well in Estonia and
among many groups the share was close to all. 89% of 30–39-year-olds and 90%
of respondents with higher education felt they were treated well in Estonia
(Table 4.4.6).
Of temporary protected respondents, 92% agreed that they were treated well
(7% did not know; 1% disagreed). The share of those feeling treated well was high-
er among those who had arrived later and had spent less time in Estonia: 91% of
Table 4.4.6. Aspects of Ukrainian survey respondents’ everyday lives in Estonia (%).
Not feeling
comfortable with
Russian-speakers in
Estonia
Feeling treated well
in current place in
Estonia
Estonians being
friendly
Agree
Don't
know
Dis-
agree Agree
Don't
know
Dis-
agree Agree
Don't
know
Dis-
agree n
Man 16 6 78 96 4 0 90 8 2 50
Woman 17 29 54 92 7 1 93 7 1 477
18–29 years old 22 28 50 96 5 0 92 7 1 88
30–39 years old 18 23 58 89 9 2 92 7 2 206
40–49 years old 16 30 54 94 6 0 94 6 0 142
50–64 years old 9 32 59 92 6 2 91 8 2 66
65– years old 12 20 68 100 0 0 92 8 0 25
Higher education 18 29 53 90 9 1 90 9 1 326
No higher education 14 24 62 96 4 1 96 4 1 201
Temporary protection 17 27 56 92 7 1 92 7 1 500
No temporary
protection
15 26 59 93 7 0 89 7 4 27
March '22 19 32 50 91 8 1 93 6 0 313
April '22 14 22 65 94 6 1 89 10 2 124
May '22 14 18 68 96 3 1 93 4 2 90
Spouse in Estonia 15 24 61 91 8 1 91 7 1 162
Children (–18) in Estonia 19 27 55 90 9 1 93 6 1 292
Nuclear family in
Estonia
16 26 58 89 10 2 92 7 2 123
Alone in Estonia 20 25 55 92 9 0 92 7 1 71
Native language only
Ukrainian
21 36 43 92 7 1 92 7 1 221
Native language only
Russian
9 15 76 94 6 0 93 7 1 107
Native language both
Ukrainian and Russian
15 22 63 93 6 1 93 6 1 146
Total 17 27 56 92 7 1 92 7 1 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 81
those who had arrived in March, 94% of those who had arrived in April and 96%
of those who had arrived in May 2022. Of respondents with underaged children
in Estonia, 90% agreed that they were treated well (9% did not know; 1% disa-
greed) (Table 4.4.6).
When asked whether they agreed that Estonians are friendly, 92% of respond-
ents agreed while 7% did not know and 1% disagreed. Of people without tempo-
rary protection 89% agreed that Estonians were friendly (Table 4.4.6).
Of temporary protected respondents, 92% also agreed that Estonians were
friendly (7% did not know; 1% disagreed). The share of those who considered that
Estonians were friendly slightly fluctuated depending on when the individual
arrived in Estonia. A larger share of those who arrived in March and May consid-
ered Estonians friendly (93%) than those who arrived in April (89%). Of respond-
ents with children in Estonia, 93% agreed that Estonians were friendly (6% did
not know; 1% disagreed) (Table 4.4.6).
On the other hand, 17% of respondents felt uncomfortable with Russian
speakers in Estonia. The largest share feeling uncomfortable was among the
youngest respondents (18–29-year-olds, 22%), native Ukrainian-speakers (21%)
and those alone in Estonia (20%). Overall, a rather large share (27%) did not know
how to answer to this. Of Russian native-speakers and respondents with 50–64
years of age, 9% felt uncomfortable in the presence of Russian-speakers in Esto-
nia.
Of temporary protected respondents, 17% agreed that they did not feel
comfortable with Russian-speakers in Estonia. (27% did not know; 56% disa-
greed). Of respondents with children, 19% agreed that they did not feel com-
fortable with Russian-speakers in Estonia (27% did not know; 55% disagreed)
(Table 4.4.6).
Financial burden is a common challenge among people fleeing their country
of origin. In the case of this survey, 78% of respondents agreed that they need
much more money to improve their situation in Estonia (17% did not know; 5%
disagreed). The largest share of those who felt they needed much more money
was among respondents who were 40–49 years old (83%) and those who arrived
in April (82%) as well as among those not working, those who were 30–39 years
old, and those without a higher education (all 80%). Of employed respondents,
slightly fewer (74%) agreed that they need much more money. Of respondents
with underaged children in Estonia, 79% agreed that they needed much more
money to improving their situation. The lowest share of those needing much
more money was among the respondents 65 years or older, male respondents
and those without temporary protection (64%, 70% and 70%, respectively) (Table
4.4.7).
Receiving subsidies is one aspect of the implementation of the TPD which
also pertains to Estonia. Of respondents, 51% responded that they received ben-
82 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
efits or financial help regularly, 27% sometimes, and 22% said that they did not
receive financial help or benefits (Table 4.4.7). The support mechanisms and or-
ganizations mentioned most often in providing help were the Estonian state and
government, such as social service and the Estonian Unemployment Insurance
Fund. The respondents may not necessarily have always known who was provid-
ing the help for them. The most common modes of help which were mentioned
were benefits for children, unemployment benefits and support for the cost of
living.
Receiving benefits or financial help regularly was proportionally largest
among those who had nuclear family (90%), underaged children (88%) and/or
a spouse in Estonia (85%). The share of those claiming not to receive such ben-
efits or help was largest among those without temporary protection (70%), the
youngest respondents (18–29 years old, 38%) and those who had arrived most
recently (in May 2022, 38%) (Table 4.4.7). Of those needing much more money,
Table 4.4.7. Ukrainian survey respondents needing and receiving help in Estonia %).
Receiving
benets
Most commonly
received help
Needing much
more money
Regu-
larly
Some-
thing No Agree
Don't
know
Disa-
gree n
Man 38 28 34 For
unemployment
22 70 22 8 50
Woman 52 27 21 For children 39 79 16 5 477
18–29 years old 31 32 38 For children 22 74 17 9 88
30–39 years old 61 23 16 For children 54 80 15 5 206
40–49 years old 54 28 18 For children 42 83 13 4 142
50–64 years old 32 33 35 For
unemployment
21 76 23 2 66
65– years old 72 16 12 Pension 72 64 28 8 25
Higher education 56 24 21 For children 39 77 18 5 326
No higher education 43 31 25 For children 33 80 14 6 201
Temporary protection 52 28 20 For children 37 79 17 5 500
No temporary
protection
30 0 70 For children 22 70 15 15 27
Spouse in Estonia 60 25 15 For children 51 77 18 6 162
Children (–18) in
Estonia
64 24 12 For children 61 79 16 5 292
Nuclear family in
Estonia
64 26 10 For children 64 77 17 6 123
Alone in Estonia 31 34 35 For
unemployment
23 75 17 9 71
March '22 56 24 20 For children 44 77 18 5 313
April '22 52 32 16 For children 31 82 14 5 124
May '22 33 29 38 For children 18 79 14 7 90
Total 51 27 22 For children 37 78 17 5 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least one under 18-year-old child
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 83
50% received some benefits or financial help regularly, 29% sometimes and 22%
did not receive them.
Of temporary protected respondents, 52% mentioned that they receive ben-
efits or financial help regularly, 28% sometimes and 20% did not receive them.
The respondents who had spent more time in Estonia tended to receive benefits
or financial help more regularly. Of those who had arrived in March, 56% said
they receive benefits or financial help regularly. The number of those receiving
regular benefits or financial help decreased among respondents who had ar-
rived in April (52%) or in May (33%). Of respondents with underaged children
in Estonia, 64% responded that they receive benefits or financial help regularly,
24% from time to time and 12% responded that the did not receive them (Table
4.4.7).
Many respondents felt challenges in Estonia for many reasons. When asked
what the greatest challenge in everyday life in Estonia was, 64% of respond-
ents gave open-ended replies. This question was most frequently answered
by those who had a spouse in Ukraine (71%), or those with a higher education
(69%) (Table 4.4.8). Not answering the question, however, does not mean that
one would not have any challenges in one’s life. The most commonly men-
tioned challenge among all who responded to the survey was related to lone-
liness and homesickness (15%) followed closely by language barrier and adap-
tion problems (14%). Other mentioned challenges to everyday life in Estonia
were related to the place of residence and living conditions, work in Estonia,
financial issues, and climate.
Among temporary protected respondents, 64% also answered this question
and expressed the same issues: loneliness and homesickness (15%) followed by
language barrier and adaption problems (14%), and place of residence and
its conditions (9%). Of respondents with underaged children in Estonia, 64%
answered this question. The most common challenge for respondents with
children in Estonia were related to the language barrier and adaption prob-
lems (14%), followed by loneliness and homesickness (13%). Of respondents
with underaged children in Ukraine, only 38% answered this question. The
most commonly mentioned challenge for them was indifference of some so-
cial workers.
Being in a foreign country outside one’s everyday environment as it was for
Ukrainians in Estonia meant being exposed to many new people and things.
Adapting to that environment requires learning and combining the old habits
with the new contexts. This provides an opportunity to learn something useful
and learning is then a part of an innovative process.
When asked if they had learned something useful during their time in Esto-
nia, 39% of respondents expressed that they in fact had (Table 4.4.9). The largest
share of those who answered that they had learned something useful in Estonia
84 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.4.8. Ukrainian survey respondents’ worst aspect of life in Estonia (%).
Answered
(%) Most common worst aspect % 2nd most common worst aspect % 3rd most common worst aspect % n
Man 50 Climate 18 Place of residence and conditions 10 Job / Nostalgia and loneliness 6 50
Woman 65 Nostalgia and loneliness 16 Language barrier and adaptation 15 Place of residence and conditions 9 477
18–29 years old 59 Nostalgia and loneliness 24 Language barrier and adaptation 11 Place of residence and conditions
/ Climate
8 88
30–39 years old 67 Language barrier and adaptation 15 Nostalgia and loneliness 13 Place of residence and conditions 11 206
40–49 years old 62 Language barrier and adaptation 16 Nostalgia and loneliness 13 Job / Place of residence and con-
ditions
9 142
50–64 years old 64 Language barrier and adaptation 12 Climate 11 Job / Financial issue 9 66
65– years old 68 Nostalgia and loneliness 40 Place of residence and conditions 16 Language barrier and adaptation /
Financial issue
8 25
Higher education 69 Nostalgia and loneliness 17 Language barrier and adaptation 13 Climate 10 326
No higher education 44 Language barrier and adaptation 15 Nostalgia and loneliness 12 Place of residence and conditions 8 201
Spouse in Estonia 62 Language barrier and adaptation 14 Nostalgia and loneliness 11 Place of residence and conditions 11 162
Children (–18) in Estonia 64 Language barrier and adaptation 14 Nostalgia and loneliness 13 Place of residence and conditions 10 292
Nuclear family in Estonia 59 Language barrier and adaptation /
Place of residence and conditions
/ Nostalgia and loneliness
11 - - 123
Alone in Estonia 66 Nostalgia and loneliness 17 Climate 14 Language barrier and adaptation 11 71
Spouse in Ukraine 71 Nostalgia and loneliness 27 Language barrier and adaptation 16 Place of residence and conditions 8 113
Children (–18) in Ukraine 38 Indifference of some social work-
ers
100 Place of residence and conditions 25 War and forced migration 13 8
Temporary protection 64 Nostalgia and loneliness 15 Language barrier and adaptation 14 Place of residence and conditions
/ Climate
9 500
No temporary protection 67 Russian aggression, invasion
and propaganda / Nostalgia and
loneliness
15 -Language barrier and adaptation
/ Financial issue / Place of resi-
dence and conditions / Climate
7 27
Employed 65 Nostalgia and loneliness 21 Language barrier and adaptation 11 Climate 10 176
Not employed 63 Language barrier and adaptation 15 Nostalgia and loneliness 13 Place of residence and conditions 10 351
March '22 65 Nostalgia and loneliness 18 Language barrier and adaptation 14 Climate 9 313
April '22 64 Language barrier and adaptation 15 Nostalgia and loneliness 11 Place of residence and conditions
/ Climate
10 124
May '22 60 Place of residence and conditions
/ Nostalgia and loneliness
13 -Language barrier and adaptation 11 90
Total 64 Nostalgia and loneliness 15 Language barrier and adaptation 14 Place of residence and condi-
tions
9 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 85
was among respondents having at least some Estonian language skills (57%). The
fewest to answer to this question were those without temporary protection (15%)
and those 65 years or older (16%).
The most commonly mentioned aspects learned were related to language
skills (17%), by following education (14%). A further 28% of respondents were not
able to specify what they learned. Among those who had been in Estonia for a
longer time, more people had learned something useful (31% of those who ar-
rived in May, 32% of those who arrived in April and 44% of those who had ar-
rived in March 2022). In addition, of those with a higher education, more (41%)
had learned something useful compared with those without a higher education
(35%). The share of those who considered they had learned something useful
was the lowest among those few people who were 65 years or older (16%) and
those without temporary protection (15%) (Table 4.4.9).
Of temporary protected respondents, 40% answered that they had learned
something useful while 60% had not. The most common aspects they had learned
were related to language skills (17%) and educational opportunities (15%). (Table
4.4.9).
Of the respondents, 81% answered the question asking about the best
aspects of their lives in Estonia. However, several respondents wrote only
critical comments showing that there is work to be done in supporting the
well-being and satisfaction for these individuals in Estonia. Nevertheless, the
most active to comment on this question were those alone in Estonia (89%),
those without temporary protection (89%) and elderly people (65 years or
older) (88%).
The first (positive) aspect mentioned was the overwhelming safety and peace-
ful environment for the respondent and children (56%) in Estonia (Table 4.4.10).
This response was the most common among all sub-groups. It was followed by
kindness and the attitude of locals (21%) and Estonia as a modern and attractive
country (9%). Other positive aspects mentioned included having stability and
work, and being together with family in Estonia (Table 4.4.10).
Of temporary protected respondents, in practice the same share (80%) an-
swered this question, the most commonly mentioned positive features of Es-
tonia were much the same: safety (56%), kindness (22%), and modern attractive
country (10%).
86 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.4.9. Ukrainian survey respondents learning something useful in Estonia (%).
All n
Answered
(%) Most common aspect % 2nd most common aspect % 3rd most common aspect % n
Man 50 34 Language skills and new expe-
rience
18 Living standards and conditions 12 Modern, beautiful country, cul-
ture / Educational opportunities
for me and children / Work
opportunities and medical insur-
ance / At home is the best
6 17
Woman 477 39 Language skills and new expe-
rience
17 Educational opportunities for me
and children
15 Work opportunities and medical
insurance
10 187
18–29 years old 88 39 Educational opportunities for me
and children
21 Language skills and new expe-
rience / Work opportunities and
medical insurance
12 34
30–39 years old 206 41 Language skills and new expe-
rience
18 Educational opportunities for me
and children
16 Livings standards and condi-
tions / Work opportunities and
medical insurance
12 84
40–49 years old 142 43 Language skills and new expe-
rience
23 Educational opportunities for me
and children
13 More opportunities to start a
new life in Estonia
12 43
50–64 years old 66 32 Modern, beautiful country, cul-
ture
19 Living standards and conditions 14 Language skills and new experi-
ence / Security, protection, law /
Work opportunities and medical
insurance
10 21
65– years old 25 16 Modern, beautiful country, cul-
ture
25 At home is the best 25 - 4
Higher education 326 41 Language skills and new expe-
rience
19 Educational opportunities for me
and children
16 Work opportunities and medical
insurance
13 134
No higher education 201 35 Language skills and new expe-
rience
13 Living standards and conditions
/ More opportunities to start a
new life in Estonia
11 70
Temporary protection 500 40 Language skills and new expe-
rience
17 Educational opportunities for me
and children
15 Living standards and conditions 11 200
No temporary pro-
tection
27 15 Good attitude people / More
opportunities to start a new life
in Estonia / Language skills and
new experience
25 - - 4
March '22 313 44 Language skills and new expe-
rience
17 Educational opportunities for me
and children
15 Living standards and conditions 9 136
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 87
All n
Answered
(%) Most common aspect % 2nd most common aspect % 3rd most common aspect % n
April '22 124 32 Language skills and new expe-
rience
18 Living standards and conditions
/ Educational opportunities for
me and children / Work opportu-
nities and medical insurance
13 - 40
May '22 90 31 Language skills and new expe-
rience
18 Work opportunities and medical
insurance
18 Living standards and conditions
/ Modern, beautiful country,
culture
14 28
Spouse in Estonia 162 40 Language skills and new expe-
rience
27 Modern, beautiful country, cul-
ture / Educational opportunities
for me and children / Security,
protection, law
9 - 64
Children (–18) in Es-
tonia
292 43 Language skills and new expe-
rience
17 Educational opportunities for me
and children
16 Living standards and conditions
/Modern,beautifulcountry,
culture
8 125
Nuclear family in
Estonia
123 40 Language skills and new expe-
rience
25 Educational opportunities for me
and children
12 Modern, beautiful country, cul-
ture
10 49
Alone in Estonia 71 37 Work opportunities and medical
insurance
27 Living standards and conditions
/ More opportunities to start
a new life in Estonia / Modern,
beuatiful country, culture
15 - 26
Employed 176 41 Language skills and new expe-
rience
21 Educational opportunities for me
and children
14 Livings standards and condi-
tions
11 72
Not employed 351 38 Language skills and new expe-
rience
15 Educational opportunities for me
and children
14 Work opportunities and medical
insurance
11 132
Good or native Rus-
sianskills
478 40 Language skills and new expe-
rience
17 Educational opportunities for me
and children
15 Living standards and conditions 11 191
At least moderate
English skills
148 43 Educational opportunities for me
and children
19 Work opportunities and medical
insurance
17 Language skills and new expe-
rience
13 64
At least basic Esto-
nian skills
61 57 Educational opportunities for me
and children
23 Language skills and new expe-
rience / Work opportunities and
medical insurance
17 - 35
Total 527 39 Language skills and new expe-
rience
17 Educational opportunities for
me and children
14 Living standards and condi-
tions
10 204
Including all who replied "yes" to learning something useful (n = 204) but only counting to the table the mentions of something else than the No answer/Don't know
class (NA/DK = 28% of the 204). Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child.
88 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.4.10. Ukrainian survey respondents’ best aspect of life in Estonia (%).
All n
Answered
(%) Best aspect % 2nd best aspect % 3rd best aspect % n
Man 50 74 Safety and peace for me and the
children
49 Kindness, good attitude 19 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
16 37
Woman 477 82 Safety and peace for me and the
children
57 Kindness, good attitude 21 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
9 389
18–29 years old 88 78 Safety and peace for me and the
children
46 Kindness, good attitude 23 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
13 69
30–39 years old 206 80 Safety and peace for me and the
children
57 Kindness, good attitude 18 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
10 164
40–49 years old 142 82 Safety and peace for me and the
children
58 Kindness, good attitude 21 Climate, beautiful nature 9 117
50–64 years old 66 82 Safety and peace for me and the
children
50 Kindness, good attitude 28 Climate, beautiful nature 11 54
65– years old 25 88 Safety and peace for me and the
children
77 Kindness, good attitude / My
family with me
14 - 22
Higher education 326 83 Safety and peace for me and the
children
55 Kindness, good attitude 22 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
8 272
No higher education 201 77 Safety and peace for me and the
children
57 Kindness, good attitude 20 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
11 154
Temporary protection 500 80 Safety and peace for me and the
children
56 Kindness, good attitude 22 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
10 402
No temporary
protection
27 89 Safety and peace for me and the
children
54 Stability,work/Myfamilywith
me
13 - 24
March '22 313 79 Safety and peace for me and the
children
55 Kindness, good attitude 23 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
9 248
April '22 124 84 Safety and peace for me and the
children
58 Kindness, good attitude 18 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
11 104
May '22 90 82 Safety and peace for me and the
children
57 Kindness, good attitude 19 Climate, beautiful nature 15 74
Spouse in Estonia 162 82 Safety and peace for me and the
children
61 Kindness, good attitude 17 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
8 132
Children (–18) in
Estonia
292 81 Safety and peace for me and the
children
61 Kindness, good attitude 20 Social protection and assistance
from the state
8 236
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 89
All n
Answered
(%) Best aspect % 2nd best aspect % 3rd best aspect % n
Nuclear family in
Estonia
123 79 Safety and peace for me and the
children
64 Kindness, good attitude 17 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport / Social
protection and assistance from
the state
8 97
Alone in Estonia 71 89 Safety and peace for me and the
children
40 Kindness, good attitude 35 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
14 63
Spouse in Ukraine 113 80 Safety and peace for me and the
children
59 Kindness, good attitude 24 Climate, beautiful nature 9 90
Children (–18) in
Ukraine
8 38 Safety and peace for me and
the children / Kindness, good
attitude/Climate,beautiful
nature / Medicine
33 - - 3
Employed 176 81 Safety and peace for me and the
children
52 Kindness, good attitude 20 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
12 143
Not employed 351 81 Safety and peace for me and the
children
58 Kindness, good attitude 22 Climate, beautiful nature 9 283
Good or native
Russian skills
478 82 Safety and peace for me and the
children
55 Kindness, good attitude 21 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
9 392
At least basic English
skills
148 81 Safety and peace for me and the
children
48 Kindness, good attitude 21 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
13 120
At least basic
Estonian skills
61 82 Safety and peace for me and the
children
58 Kindness, good attitude 16 Stability, work / Climate, beautiful
nature / Social protection and
assistance from the state
10 50
Total 527 81 Safety and peace for me and
the children
56 Kindness, good attitude 21 Modern, beautiful country,
culture, transport
9 426
Includingonlythosewhohadmentionedatleastonething(=thosewhosereplywasclassiedasNA/DKexcluded).NuclearfamilyinEstonia=spouseandatleast
1 under 18-year-old child.
90 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
4.4.2 Respondents perception of health and access to health care in Estonia
Health is not only a key concern among populations fleeing war, but it is also a
key aspect protected by countries such as Estonia in implementing TDP for these
populations. When asked how satisfied they were with their own health, 29% of re-
spondents replied that they were fully, 57% partly, and 14% not satisfied with their
own personal health (Table 4.4.11). The largest share of those who were dissatisfied
with their health was among the oldest respondents (65 years and older, 36%) and
those 50–64 years old (26%). Of the oldest respondents, only 4% were fully satisfied
with their health. The largest share of those who were fully satisfied with their
health was among those without temporary protection (52%), those alone in Esto-
nia (44%) and the youngest (18–29-year-old) respondents (40%) (Table 4.4.11).
Of temporary protected respondents, 14% were dissatisfied with their health
while 58% were partly and 28% fully satisfied with it. Among respondents with
children of all ages, 16% were dissatisfied with their own health while 58% were
partly and 27% fully satisfied with it. (Table 4.4.11).
In Estonia, certain health services are complimentary for temporary protect-
ed Ukrainians while for others, individuals either need to be employed or offi-
cially registered with the Unemployment Insurance Fund as unemployed (see
Chapter 3.3). Of respondents, 34% had used free health care and 65% had not
used it. The respondents with highest prevalence of health care use were those
in older age groups: 56% of those 65 years and older. The fewest to have used
health services were those who had arrived most recently to Estonia (21%) and
those alone in Estonia (23%).
Of those who had used the free health care services, 82% were satisfied with
the service and 18% were unsatisfied. The largest share of respondents who were
satisfied were men (92%) and those having a spouse in Estonia (91%). Those un-
satisfied were more often among those in the older age groups: 29% of those at
least 65 years old.
Of those not satisfied with their own health, 64% had used free health care
in Estonia. Of these 61% were satisfied and 39% unsatisfied with the service they
had received. Of all, 66% had not used healthcare services and among them 14%
had not known it was free for temporary protected Ukrainians. Of those who
were partly satisfied with their health (57%), 33% had used free health care in
Estonia, and 80% were satisfied and 20% unsatisfied with their experience. Of
those who were fully satisfied with their health, 23% had used health care in Es-
tonia, and all (100%) of them were satisfied with it.
The share of those who had not known that the health care is free was high-
est among those without temporary protection (19%) and those who had arrived
in May (17%) (Table 4.4.11). This shows that Ukrainians who had arrived more
recently and those outside of temporary protection are at greater risk for not
receiving the health care services that are available to them.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 91
Among temporary protected respondents slightly more (35%) had used and
65% had not used free health care in Estonia. Of the users, 81% were satisfied
and 19% were unsatisfied with the service. Of those with temporary protection
who were unsatisfied or only partly satisfied with one’s health, 39% had used free
health care while 61% had not. The share of those who did not know whether
the health care was free was 9% among temporary protected respondents, i.e.
fewer than among those without temporary protection (19%). Of respondents
with children in Estonia, 37% had used and 63% had not used free health care
in Estonia. At the same time 84% of respondents with children who had used
free health care were satisfied with the health services they had received and 16%
were unsatisfied with them.
4.4.3 Respondents’ children in the education system in Estonia
The TPD indicates that temporary protected individual’s children who are un-
der the age of 18 should have access to education in the countries and places in
which they reside. However, as the school in Estonia is compulsory only until 16
years of age, 17-year-olds were in a different situation.
Table 4.4.11. Ukrainian survey respondents’ health issues in Estonia (%).
Satisfied with one’s
health
Usage of free health
care in Estonia
Fully Partly No
Yes,
satis-
fied
Yes,
unsat-
isfied No
No, didn't
know it was
free n
Man 38 44 18 24 2 66 8 50
Woman 28 59 13 29 7 55 9 477
18–29 years old 40 55 6 22 3 63 13 88
30–39 years old 35 57 8 31 4 55 10 206
40–49 years old 23 61 17 32 6 56 6 142
50–64 years old 23 52 26 18 14 61 8 66
65– years old 4 60 36 40 16 36 8 25
Higher education 29 58 13 30 6 57 7 326
No higher education 29 55 15 26 7 55 12 201
Temporary protection 28 58 14 28 7 57 9 500
No temporary protection 52 44 4 33 0 48 19 27
March '22 27 61 13 33 7 53 6 313
April '22 27 53 19 24 6 60 11 124
May '22 40 50 10 18 3 62 17 90
Spouse in Estonia 29 59 12 31 3 58 8 162
Children (all ages) in Estonia 27 58 16 31 6 54 9 361
Nuclear family in Estonia 28 62 11 30 3 57 10 123
Alone in Estonia 44 47 10 16 7 69 9 71
Total 29 57 14 28 6 56 9 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
92 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
As of the end of August 2022, there were about 50,000 Ukrainians who had
fled from Ukraine since February 24th in Estonia. Based on the registration of ac-
commodation in Estonia, an estimated 14% of those were 0–6-year-olds and 27%
were 7–17-year-olds (Police and Border Guard Board 2022). Based on this, about
13,000 Ukrainians were between the ages of compulsory education.
Of respondents to this survey, 23% have children under the age of seven years
old. Of them, 47% stated that these small children were at home with the re-
spondent during the day, 12% left their children with another family member,
and 42% used an Estonian kindergarten (Table 4.4.12).
The share of those having children at home with them during the day was
largest among young parents (18–29-year-olds, 65%), those without a higher ed-
ucation (59%) and those having a spouse in Estonia (56%). On the other hand,
those using Estonian kindergartens were more common among respondents
without temporary protection (57%) and those having family members oth-
er than a spouse in Estonia (52%). No children were taken care of by a separate
babysitter outside the family (Table 4.4.12).
Of temporary protected respondents with children under the age of seven in
Estonia, 47% had the children at home with themselves, 12% left the child with
another family member during the day and 41% used an Estonian kindergarten.
Of respondents, 49% had school-aged children (7–17 years old). Among those
with school-aged children, 29% of their children attended Estonian school, 23%
attended Estonian school and on-line Ukrainian school at the same time, 31%
Table 4.4.12. Ukrainian survey respondents with under seven years old children in Estonia (%).
Children
at home
Children
in kindergarten
Children
with another
family member n
Man 40 10 50 10
Woman 47 45 8 112
18–29 years old 65 29 6 17
30–39 years old 43 52 5 75
40–49 years old 50 15 35 26
50–64 years old 33 67 0 3
65– years old 0 100 0 1
Higher education 41 48 11 83
No higher education 59 28 13 39
Temporary protection 47 41 12 115
No temporary protection 42 57 0 7
Spouse in Estonia 56 29 15 52
No spouse in Estonia 40 51 9 70
Other family in Estonia 34 54 11 35
Tallinn 49 37 14 49
Other Harjumaa 40 52 8 25
Other Estonia 48 42 10 48
Total 47 42 12 122
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 93
attended on-line Ukrainian school, 2% attended another form of schooling and
15% did not attend school (Table 4.4.13).
The largest share of respondents with children attending Estonian school was
among the youngest (18–29-year-old) parents (44%). Those with children attend-
ing Estonian and on-line Ukrainian school were more often older responders
(33% of 50–64-year-old respondents with school-aged children) or respondents
with a higher education (29%) and those living in Tallinn (27%). Children only at-
tending Ukrainian on-line school was highest among those without temporary
protection (46%). The very few respondents who were over 65 years old and had
children in Estonia also all had them in Ukrainian schools (Table 4.4.13). Since
schooling in Estonia is compulsory until either the age of 17 or middle school
graduation, is not evident if attending school is obligatory for all children be-
longing to this age group as some respondents could have children who had
already graduated from middle school and thus fulfilled their educational re-
quirements.
Of temporary protected respondents, 49% had 7–17-year-old children. Of
these respondents, 30% answered that their children attended Estonian school,
24% Estonian school and online Ukrainian school, 30% on Ukrainian on-line
school, 1% attended some other form of schooling and 15% did not attend school.
Table 4.4.13. Ukrainian survey respondents’ children attending school in Estonia (%).
Estonian
school
Ukrainian
school
(online)
Both Estonian
and Ukrainian
school None Other n
Man 31 23 8 39 0 13
Woman 29 31 24 14 2 244
18–29 years old 44 22 0 22 11 9
30–39 years old 32 32 24 11 2 133
40–49 years old 26 30 24 18 2 104
50–64 years old 11 22 33 33 0 9
65– years old 0 100 0 0 0 2
Higher education 28 31 29 11 1 166
No higher education 32 30 13 22 3 91
Temporary protection 30 30 24 15 1 246
No temporary protection 9 46 9 18 18 11
Spouse in Estonia 28 27 24 19 3 101
No spouse in Estonia 30 33 23 12 1 156
Other family in Estonia 29 31 23 15 2 60
Employed in Estonia 31 35 25 7 2 95
Not employed in Estonia 28 28 22 19 2 162
Tallinn 25 27 27 20 2 109
Other Harjumaa 25 41 14 14 5 56
Other Estonia 37 29 25 9 0 92
Total 29 31 23 15 2 257
94 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Respondents were also asked to comment about their experience of finding kin-
dergartens and schools for their children. Of respondents with children under
the age of seven and using kindergarten, 73% had found it easy to find a place
in a kindergarten for their child and 27% said it was difficult. The rates were the
same for respondents with temporary protection (Table 4.4.14). Respondents
aged 40–49 had found it the easiest to find a space for their child in an Estoni-
an kindergarten. Many (85%) respondents living outside Tallinn and the rest of
Harjumaa found a place in the kindergarten easily. Respectively, the oldest and
youngest respondents and those living in Tallinn found it proportionally more
difficult. More individuals (44%) living in Tallinn found it difficult to find a place
in a kindergarten (Table 4.4.14).
Of respondents with school-aged children, 84% responded that it was easy
to find a place for them in a school in Estonia but 16% said it was difficult (Table
4.4.14). Finding a place in school was found to be more difficult by respondents
living in Tallinn (29% of respondents said so) compared with those living in the
rest of Estonia. Of employed respondents, more (21%) found it difficult to find
a place in school for children compared with those not employed (12%; Table
4.4.14).
Of temporary protected respondents with school-aged children, 84% found
it easy to find a place for them in a school in Estonia and 16% said it was diffi-
cult.
Table 4.4.14. Ukrainian survey respondents’ perception about easiness to find place in kindergarten
and school for their children (%).
Kindergarten School
Easy Not easy n Easy Not easy n
Man 100 0 1 80 20 5
Woman 73 28 51 85 15 130
18–29 years old 60 40 5 100 0 4
30–39 years old 77 23 39 84 16 76
40–49 years old 100 0 5 84 16 51
50–64 years old 0 100 2 75 25 4
65– years old 0 100 1 - - 0
Higher education 71 29 41 83 17 93
No higher education 82 18 11 88 12 42
Temporary protection 73 27 48 84 16 133
No temporary protection 75 25 4 100 0 2
Spouse in Estonia 73 27 15 87 14 52
No spouse in Estonia 73 27 37 83 17 83
Other family in Estonia 74 26 19 77 23 35
Employed in Estonia 80 20 20 79 21 53
Not employed in Estonia 69 31 32 88 12 82
Tallinn 56 44 18 71 29 109
Other Harjumaa 85 15 13 91 9 56
Other Estonia 81 19 21 95 5 92
Total 73 27 52 84 16 135
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 95
By July 2022, it seemed unlikely that the war would stop before September. In
the event that it would be safe for individuals to return to Ukraine, the damaged
infrastructure in Ukraine would still severely impact the possibilities for chil-
dren to attend school in Ukraine in the autumn of 2022. Of respondents with
school-aged children in Estonia who were planning to remain in Estonia at least
until the end of 2022, 57% mentioned that the children would attend school in
Estonia from September 2022 onward, 35% responded that they did not know
and 8% mentioned that their children would not attend Estonian schools. Of
those living in Tallinn, 60% mentioned that the children would attend school
in Estonia from September 2022 onward, 32% did not know and 9% mentioned
that the children would not attend Estonian schools. These shares were 52%, 38%
and 11% for those living elsewhere in Harjumaa and 57%, 36% and 6% elsewhere
in Estonia.
Of temporary protected respondents with school-aged children and planning
to remain in Estonia at least until the end of 2022, 58% mentioned that their chil-
dren would attend school in Estonia from September 2022 onward, 34% did not
know and 8% mentioned that their children will not attend an Estonian school.
Of all respondents with school-aged children, the respondents mentioned
that of their children, 39% would attend Estonian school, 4% Ukrainian on-line
school, 18% both Estonian school and Ukrainian on-line school and 3% other
schools from September 2022. However, the Estonian authorities planned that
from September 2022 the children should select either Estonian or Ukrainian
school if they were to continue with school education in Estonia.
Of those, whose children had attended Estonian school in the spring of 2022,
71% planned to continue in it from September onward, while 3% planned to start
in a Ukrainian on-line school and 4% planned to have their children enrolled
in both Estonian and Ukrainian on-line schools. Of those, whose children had
attended both Estonian school and Ukrainian on-line school, 50% planned to
have their children continue in this way in September, while 28% planned to
have their children continue only in the Estonian school and none planned to
continue only in Ukrainian on-line schooling. Of those whose children had at-
tended Ukrainian on-line school, 11% planned to continue, 13% planned to start
in both Estonian school and Ukrainian on-line school and 24% planned to have
their children attend only Estonian school from September.
4.5 Respondents’ employment in Estonia
Providing access to employment for temporary protected persons is one aspect
of the TPD, which is also relevant in Estonia. Of respondents, 34% were em-
ployed, 48% were unemployed, and the remaining 19% were inactive, i.e. nei-
ther employed nor searching for a job. The largest share of those employed was
among respondents who had arrived in March 2022 (44%) and the youngest re-
96 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
spondents (18–29 years old, 42%). The smallest share of employed respondents
was among those who arrived more recently, in May 2022 (14%) (Table 4.5.1).
Of employed respondents, 78% were employed full-time, 17% part-time and
5% were self-employed. The share of those who were employed full-time was
largest among men (36% of all respondents), 18–29-year-olds (34%) and those
who had arrived in March (34%). Among those employed part-time, the largest
share was among those who had arrived in March (8%) and those with higher
education (7%) (Table 4.5.1).
Wide differences appeared in regard to the gender and age differenc-
es of those employed full-time. Proportionally more working-age (in Estonia
18–64-year-olds) men (37%) were employed compared with women (26%). There
was no difference in those employed full-time among younger (aged 18–39) and
older (aged 40–64) workers. Of working-age men who were unemployed, 8%
were not searching for job and that share was 12% among women.
Of temporary protected respondents, 34% were employed, and 27% were em-
ployed full-time, 6% part-time and 2% were self-employed (Table 4.5.1). Of work-
ing-age men with temporary protection, 33% worked full-time and none were
part-time or self-employed workers. The same numbers for women were 26%,
7% and 2% respectively. Of working-age individuals with temporary protection,
9% of men and 8% of women were inactive (not employed or looking for a job).
Those who had spent more time in Estonia tended to be more actively in-
volved in the labor market. Of those who had arrived in March 2022, 34% were
employed full-time compared with 17% of those who had arrived in April and
12% of those who had arrived in May. Of men who arrived in Estonia in March,
38% were employed full-time. These numbers were 40% for those who had ar-
rived in April and 22% for those who had arrived in May. All employed men were
employed full-time but of employed women, 19% were employed part-time and
6% were self-employed. The share of women who had arrived in March and were
employed full-time was 33%; while 13% of those who arrived in April and 11% of
those in May were employed full time.
The survey did not specify the character of the current employment for re-
spondents. Among all Ukrainians (see also Chapter 3.3), the most common fields
of employment for those receiving temporary protection in Estonia were manu-
facturing (laborers) and service (cleaners and helpers).
In Estonia, there is a shortage in the labor force. Therefore, even prior to
2022, Ukrainians had played a significant part in the Estonian labor force and
contributed to certain economic activities in the country. New arrivals will un-
doubtedly continue to do so. Of respondents to this survey who had found a job
in Estonia, 38% had found it through friends and acquaintances, 32% using so-
cial media, 28% through other people they had met in Estonia, 27% through the
state Unemployment Insurance Fund and 7% through other means (Table 4.5.2).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 97
Finding employment through social media was the largest among men (44%
of them found their current employment this way) and those who earned at
least 1,000 EUR per month (41%). Finding employment through friends and ac-
quaintances was most common among those who did not have temporary pro-
tection (70%), 50–64-year-olds (53%) and 18–29-year-olds (51%). Finding employ-
ment through new people they met in Estonia was most common among those
without temporary protection (40%) and those who arrived in May (39% of them
found it this way). The use of the state Unemployment Insurance Fund led to
employment for 53% of the highest salary earners (Table 4.5.2). There was not
much difference between those who had been in Estonia for a longer time (since
March) compared with those who had arrived more recently (in May).
For temporary protected respondents, it was most common to find employ-
ment through friends and acquaintances (36%), followed by social media (33%),
new people met in Estonia (28%), the state Unemployment Fund (28%) and by
other means (7%).
Almost half of respondents (48%) were not employed in Estonia but actively
looking for an employment. To find a job in Estonia, 84% used the state Unemploy-
ment Insurance Fund, 75% shared that they were using social media, 46% were seek-
ing help from friends and acquaintances, 35% were asking new people they met in
Estonia, and 2% through other means. These options might change over time as
these job seekers experience the best means to search for and find employment in
Estonia. These numbers were the same for temporary protected respondents.
Table 4.5.1. Employment of Ukrainian survey respondents in Estonia (%).
Full-time
employed
Part-time
employed
Self-
employed
Inactive
Searching
for em-
ployment
n
Man 36 0 0 16 48 50
Woman 25 6 2 19 48 477
18–29 years old 34 6 2 18 40 88
30–39 years old 21 7 2 17 53 206
40–49 years old 33 6 1 7 53 142
50–64 years old 24 2 3 21 50 66
65–yearsold 0 0 0 96 1 25
Higher education 23 7 3 18 49 326
No higher education 31 3 1 19 46 201
Temporary protection 26 6 2 18 49 500
No temporary protection 30 4 4 37 26 27
March '22 34 8 2 18 38 313
April '22 17 2 2 22 58 124
May '22 12 2 0 16 70 90
Employed in Ukraine 31 6 2 8 53 410
Not employed in Ukraine 9 5 0 56 29 117
Total 26 6 2 19 48 527
Inactive = Student, unemployed but not looking for a job, retired, pensioner, permanently sick or disabled,
and doing housework/looking after children or members of household or something else
98 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.5.2. Finding of current employment by employed Ukrainian survey respondents in Estonia (%).
Social
media
Friends
and
acquain-
tances
The Fund
(State)
New
people
Other
n
Man 44 44 39 11 0 18
Woman 31 38 25 30 8 158
18–29 years old 22 51 27 24 5 37
30–39 years old 40 29 30 32 8 63
40–49 years old 33 35 26 32 9 57
50–64 years old 26 53 16 16 5 19
Higher education 37 36 29 26 9 106
No higher education 26 41 23 33 4 70
Temporary protection 33 36 28 28 7 166
No temporary protection 20 70 0 40 20 10
March '22 31 40 27 29 8 138
April '22 36 32 32 20 4 25
May '22 39 31 15 39 8 13
–599 EUR 39 33 44 33 6 18
600–999 EUR 32 33 28 33 9 57
1000– EUR 41 41 53 18 12 17
Total 32 38 27 28 7 176
Employment is not only about working but also about being immersed in a so-
cial environment. As a worker meets other people, they also learn more than
just work-related information that can be useful for their everyday lives. Of
respondents who had co-workers, 84% had Estonian, 64% Ukrainian, 22% Rus-
sian and 4% co-workers of other nationalities (Table 4.5.3). Here the concepts
of “Estonian” and “Russian” can be somewhat blurred as Russian speakers from
Estonia can belong to both categories of Estonian and Russian. This is similar to
“Ukrainian” and “Russian” since the respondents themselves can be considered
as Russian speakers from Ukraine and as belong to either category of Ukrainians
or Russians.
Those with a higher education had almost the same shares of Estonian
co-workers (84%) as those without a higher education (83%). The latter had
fewer Russian co-workers (16%) than those with a higher education (26%) (Ta-
ble 4.5.3). The respondents’ native tongue (Ukrainian or Russian) alone did
not play a crucial role in what nationalities they had as co-workers. Of em-
ployed respondents who spoke Russian as their native tongue, 22% had Rus-
sian co-workers and 81% had Estonian co-workers while of those who spoke
Ukrainian as their mother tongue, 24% had Russian and 84% had Estonian
co-workers.
In some jobs, it is essential to communicate while in others, communication
is not such a crucial part of the job. Either way, instructions need to be given in
a language that the employed individual understands. Besides this, the worker
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 99
can communicate with fellow workers or clients using other languages he or she
has knowledge of. The use of language is a mode to share social spaces with peo-
ple using that language.
Of employed respondents, 91% used Russian, 38% English, 31% Ukrainian,
23% Estonian and 2% other languages at work (Table 4.5.4). English was used
more among high salary earners (65% of high salary earners used English) and
younger employees (18–29-year-olds, 60%). Estonian was used more among old-
er employees (those 50 years and older, 37%).
Of temporary protected respondents who were employed, 92% used Rus-
sian, 39% English, 29% Ukrainian, 22% Estonian and 2% other languages at
work. The largest share of employed respondents with temporary protection
using Russian at work was among those earning 600–999 euros per month
(98%), those 18–29-years-old (97%) and those without a higher education
(96%). The proportionally fewest to use Russian at work (82%) were those
who earned the most (at least 1,000 euros per month): of them many (65%)
used English at work. Other frequent English-users among the temporarily
protected were the youngest 18–29-year-old respondents (62%). The largest
relative shares of those temporarily protected employed who used Estoni-
an was among employees with a salary under 600 EUR per month (41%) and
50–64-year-olds (33%).
Table 4.5.3. Employed Ukrainian survey respondents’ co-workers in Estonia (%).
Estonian Ukrainian Russian Other Don't know n
Man 83 72 39 11 6 18
Woman 84 63 20 3 4 158
18–29 years old 89 70 27 5 3 37
30–39 years old 78 59 22 2 6 63
40–49 years old 88 61 16 5 2 57
50–64 years old 79 74 26 5 11 19
Higher education 84 61 26 4 3 106
No higher education 83 67 16 4 7 70
Temporary protection 84 65 21 3 4 166
No temporary protection 70 50 40 20 10 10
March '22 83 64 23 5 4 138
April '22 88 72 12 0 4 25
May '22 85 46 31 0 8 13
–599 EUR 72 67 17 0 11 18
600–999 EUR 88 72 25 5 2 57
1000– EUR 88 65 41 6 6 17
Good or native Russian skills 84 63 23 4 4 160
Good English skills 95 57 29 5 0 21
At least basic Estonian skills 92 48 28 8 4 24
Total 84 64 22 4 2 176
Basic Estonian skills = at least little on the scale of nothing - little - moderate - good. No one over the
age 64 was employed. 12 of the respondents earned 1000 € / month, without them the highest- earning
group would be only 5 respondents.
100 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.5.4. Ukrainian survey respondents’ use of languages at work in Estonia.
Estonian Ukrainian Russian English Other n
Man 17 33 89 39 11 18
Woman 24 30 91 38 1 158
18–29 years old 32 35 95 60 3 37
30–39 years old 16 24 92 32 2 63
40–49 years old 21 35 86 40 2 57
50–64 years old 37 32 95 11 5 19
Higher education 26 31 89 46 1 106
No higher education 20 30 94 26 4 70
Temporary protection 22 29 92 39 2 166
No temporary protection 50 60 80 30 10 10
March '22 24 33 91 40 1 138
April '22 20 24 92 28 4 25
May '22 23 23 92 39 8 13
–599 EUR 39 50 89 44 0 18
600–999 EUR 19 25 98 39 2 57
1000– EUR 18 24 82 65 6 17
Total 23 31 91 38 2 176
As of July 2022, there were many kinds of Ukrainians in Estonia. Some had been
working for a longer time or were students. Others arrived more recently and
had accessed the work force only a few weeks prior to the time of the survey. In
principle, the rules for being employed in Estonia were the same for Ukrainians
with temporary protection as they were for Estonians. In the first quarter, the
median monthly net salary in Estonia was 1,289 euros. This was the highest in
Harju county (where the capital city Tallinn is located) (1,470 euros) and lowest
was in Valga county (in southern Estonia) (1,005 euros). The minimum monthly
salary for full-time job was 654 euros.
Of employed respondents, 52% shared details about their salary in the sur-
vey (Table 4.5.5). Of those having full-time jobs, the average monthly salary
was 808 euros (the median salary was 800 euros): 1,100 euros for men and 752
euros for women. For those with part-time employment, the average monthly
salary was 653 euros (only women worked part-time) and the median salary
was 600 euros. Those who earned more than 1,000 EUR per month included
more often people with higher education (53%) and 30–39-year-olds (41%). Of
low salary earners (less than 600 EUR per month), all (100%) were women and
more often 40–49-years-olds (44%). The average salary for those with higher
levels of education was 801 euros per month. Comparatively, on the average,
those without higher levels of education earned slightly less (763 euros per
month). Those with basic Estonian skills earned an average of 868 euros per
month and those without any Estonian language skills earned slightly less (772
euros per month).
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 101
For temporary protected respondents who were employed, the average sal-
ary was 789 euros per month (for men 1,119 euros and for women 756 euros),
and the median salary was 800 euros per month. In general, the salary level of
respondents living in Estonia without temporary protection was lower among
all groups. Of temporary protected respondents who were employed full-time,
the lowest quartile earned on average 600 euros per month, the mean salary was
517 euros per month, and the highest quartile earned 900 euros per month on
average.
Generally, access to a new labor market happens by converting one’s existing
skills to the contexts of the local market. In the case of Ukrainians in Estonia, this
means that individuals would have similar jobs in Estonia as they had previously
in Ukraine. Depending on the local situation, new individuals (such as newly
arrived Ukrainians in Estonia) can fare better or worse off and have more or
fewer opportunities to improve this situation. In response to the current study,
33% of employed respondents mentioned that their current job in Estonia was
similar to their previous work in Ukraine (Table 4.5.6). This was most common
among the youngest respondents (18–29-year-olds, 46%). Of those with a similar
job, 54% were fully satisfied, 41% partially satisfied, and few (5%) were unsatisfied
with their current job. On the contrary, of those whose job in Estonia was not
similar to their previous job in Ukraine, fewer (30%) were fully satisfied, 58%
were partly satisfied and more (12%) were unsatisfied with their current job in
Estonia.
Table 4.5.5. Ukrainian survey respondents’ salaries per month in Estonia (%).
–599 EUR 600–999 EUR 1000– EUR n
Man 0 56 44 9
Woman 22 63 16 83
18–29 years old 25 50 25 16
30–39 years old 15 65 21 34
40–49 years old 25 63 13 32
50–64 years old 10 70 20 20
Higher education 21 63 16 56
No higher education 17 61 22 36
Temporary protection 19 62 19 89
No temporary protection 33 67 0 3
March '22 24 56 20 71
April '22 0 81 19 16
May '22 20 80 0 5
Good or native Russian skills 18 62 20 87
Good English skills 11 56 33 9
At least basic Estonian skills 23 38 38 13
Total 20 62 19 92
Basic Estonian skills = at least little on the scale of nothing - little - moderate - good. No one over the
age 64 was employed.
102 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Those with temporary protection more often had similar work in Estonia as
they had had in Ukraine (34%) compared with those without temporary pro-
tection (22%). There were, however, small differences in satisfaction with work
based on whether a person had temporary protection. Of those with temporary
protection and having similar work, more (54%) were fully satisfied, while 41%
were partly satisfied and 5% unsatisfied with their current employment. There
was no difference in satisfaction between individuals with or without tempo-
rary protection and a job in Estonia that differs from their previous work in
Ukraine.
Overall, of all employed respondents, 41% mentioned that they were ful-
ly and 51% that they were partly satisfied with their current employment
(Table 4.5.6). The largest share of those who were fully satisfied were among
respondents without high levels of education (50%) and high salary earners
(47%). The largest share of those who were at least partly satisfied with their
jobs were among men (100%) and those without temporary protection (100%).
Of respondents, only 8% shared that they were not satisfied with their employ-
ment. This was most commonly mentioned by low salary earners (17%). The job
satisfaction did not depend on whether one was able to save money from their
salary or not: Of those respondents who were able to save money from their
salary, 53% were fully satisfied 44% partly satisfied and 4% unsatisfied with
their current job in Estonia.
Table 4.5.6. Satisfaction by employed Ukrainian survey respondents in their employment in Estonia
(%).
Satisfied with work
Similar job than in
Ukraine
Saving money
from salary
Fully Partly No Ye s No Ye s No n
Man 39 61 0 11 89 39 61 18
Woman 42 50 8 36 64 32 68 156
18–29 years old 41 57 3 46 54 51 49 37
30–39 years old 41 48 11 33 67 32 68 63
40–49 years old 47 46 7 31 69 20 80 55
50–64 years old 26 68 5 16 84 37 63 19
Higher education 36 56 9 36 64 33 67 104
No higher education 50 44 6 30 70 33 67 70
Temporary protection 41 51 8 34 66 32 68 165
No temporary
protection
44 56 0 22 78 44 56 9
March '22 43 49 8 35 65 31 69 137
April '22 36 60 4 24 76 32 68 25
May '22 33 58 8 33 67 50 50 12
–599 EUR 44 39 17 17 83 28 72 18
600–999 EUR 30 61 9 23 77 21 79 57
1000– EUR 47 47 6 25 75 53 47 17
Total 41 51 8 33 67 33 67 174
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 103
The satisfaction of one’s employment varied among temporary protected
respondents. Of temporary protected respondents who were employed, re-
gardless of whether their work was similar to their previous work in Ukraine,
41% were fully satisfied, 51% partly satisfied and 8% unsatisfied. Satisfaction
with the current job was higher among those who had been in Estonia for a
longer time.
Employment was a necessity for many respondents to earn money and be
able to live a decent life in Estonia. Of employed respondents, 33% mentioned
that they were able to save money from their salary while 67% were not able to
(Table 4.5.6). In general, and as to be expected, a larger share of respondents
earning the highest salary was able to save money compared with the share of
those earning a low salary. This also depended on how many people one needed
to sustain with that salary and what other financial and material support the
respondent could enjoy while earning the salary.
Of employed temporary protected respondents, 32% were able to save money
from their salary. This share was 39% for employed men and 32% for employed
women. Of employed respondents, 11% of those with child/ren and a spouse in
Estonia were able to save money from their salary; this was 26% of those having
children but not spouse in Estonia and 60% of those having a spouse but not
children in Estonia. The latter suggests that both were earning in the household
and that they were rather well off.
The respondents also shared the best and worst aspects in their employment
in Estonia. Of all employed respondents, 87% responded to the questions re-
garding the best aspects in their employment in Estonia (Table 4.5.7). For all, the
most commonly mentioned best aspect was the working environment, attitude,
and colleagues (for 36% of those who were employed). The second-best aspect
mentioned (14%) was working in an occupation similar to the one the respond-
ent had had in Ukraine and enjoying or loving the job. The schedule and possi-
bility to work remotely were also mentioned by 14%.
The responses among employed temporary protected respondents were
rather similar to that of all respondents. Among temporary protected individ-
uals there was a 86% response rate. 36% of the temporarily protected, employed
respondents mentioned also the working environment and attitude, and col-
leagues as the best aspect. This was followed by those who mentioned the work-
ing schedule or the possibility to work remotely (15%).
When it came to the worst aspects in employment, the overall response
rate was 70% of all employed respondents (Table 4.5.8). Of employed re-
spondents, 30% did not actually point out any negative aspects of their cur-
rent place of work and 17% mentioned that nothing was bad. For those 50
years or older (20%) and more highly educated employees (16%), the worst
aspect of their employment in Estonia was that the work was hard or they had
104 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.5.7. Best thing in Ukrainian survey respondents’ job in Estonia (%).
n
Answered
(%) Most often mentioned 2nd most often mentioned 3rd most often mentioned
Man 18 78 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
22 Existence of job, all 17 Schedule, possibility to work re-
motely
17
Woman 158 88 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
37 Match to my occupation, enjoy what
I do
14 Schedule, possibility to work re-
motely
13
18–29 years old 37 95 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
41 Salary 22 Match to my occupation, enjoy
what I do
19
30–39 years old 63 84 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
29 Existence of job, all 16 No answer or don't know 16
40–49 years old 57 84 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
39 Match to my occupation, enjoy what
I do / Schedule, possibility to work
remotely
14 14
50– years old 19 94 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
42 Communication, possibility to be in
community
16 Existence of job, all 16
Higher education 106 87 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
32 Match to my occupation, enjoy what
I do
19 Schedule, possibility to work re-
motely
15
No higher education 70 87 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
41 Existence of job, all 13 No answer or don't know 13
Temporary protection 166 86 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
36 Schedule, possibility to work re-
motely
15 Match to my occupation, enjoy what
I do / No answer or don't know
14
No temporary pro-
tection
10 100 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
40 Existence of job, all 20 Salary / Match to my occupation,
enjoy what I do / Help to Ukraine /
Place or conditions
10
March '22 138 86 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
35 Schedule, possibility to work re-
motely
14 No answer or don't know 14
April '22 25 92 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
44 Match to my occupation, enjoy what
I do
20 Schedule, possibility to work re-
motely
20
May '22 13 83 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
31 Salary 23 No answer or don't know 16
–599 EUR 18 77 No answer or don't know 33 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
28 Schedule, possibility to work re-
motedly
17
600–999 EUR 57 93 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
35 Existence of job, all 18 Match to my occupation, enjoy
what I do / Schedule, possibility to
work remotely
12
1000– EUR 17 100 Work atmosphere, attitude, col-
leagues
30 Schedule, possibility to work re-
motely
30 Match to my occupation, enjoy
what I do
24
Total 176 87 Work atmosphere, attitude,
colleagues
36 Match to my occupation, enjoy
what I do
14 Schedule, possibility to work re-
motely
14
Including only those who were working (n = 176). Respondents had specified 0–2 best aspects, this ranks the most mentioned. Most mentioned just one aspect/
one class of aspects, only 20 told more.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 105
Table 4.5.8. Worst thing in Ukrainian survey respondents’ job in Estonia (%).
n
Answered
(%)
Most often
mentioned % 2nd most often mentioned % 3rd most often mentioned %
Man 18 72 Salary, delay with payment 22 Schedule, long working hours 17 Hard work, too much work 11
Woman 158 70 Nothing bad 18 Hard work, too much work 15 Schedule, long working hours 7
18–29 years old 37 73 Nothing bad Schedule, long working hours 14 Hard work, too much work 8
30–39 years old 63 70 Nothing bad 18 Languageissue/Russians,clients 8 -
40–49 years old 57 70 Nothing bad 18 Hard work, too much work 16 Schedule, long working hours / Not
my occupation or don't like what
I do
7
50– years old 19 63 Hard work, too much work 20 Salary, delay with payment 16 Schedule, long working hours /
Language issue / Nothing bad /
Russians, clients
5
Higher education 106 71 Hard work, too much work 16 Nothing bad 13 Schedule, long working hours 9
No higher education 70 69 Nothing bad 23 Hard work, too much work 13 Salary, delay with payment 7
Temporary protection 166 71 Nothing bad 17 Hard work, too much work 15 Schedule, long working hours 8
No temporary
protection
10 60 Nothing bad 20 Hard work, too much work 10 Salary, delay with payment /
Russians, clients
10
March '22 138 69 Nothing bad 15 Hard work, too much work 15 Schedule, long working hours 8
April '22 25 76 Nothing bad 28 Hard work, too much work / Salary,
delay with payment
16 -
May '22 13 69 Hard work, too much work /
Nothing bad
15 Schedule, long working hours
/ Distance to home / Working
conditions / Salary, delay with
payment / Limited self-realisation
8 -
–599 EUR 18 72 Nothing bad 39 Not my occupation, don't like what
I do
11 Hard work, too much work /
Schedule, long working hours /
Distance to home / Language issue
6
600–999 EUR 57 83 Hard work, too much work 21 Schedule, long working hours 11 Nothing bad 11
1000– EUR 17 77 Schedule, long working hours 30 Language issue 12 Nothing bad 12
Total 176 70 Nothing bad 17 Hard work, too much work 15 Schedule long working hours 8
Includingonlythosewhowereworking(n=176),butcountingonlymentionsofotheraspectsthan"don'tknow"(70%ofthoseemployedgavethem).Respondents
had specified 0–2 worst aspects, this ranks the most mentioned. Most mentioned just one aspect/one class of aspects, only 2 told more.
106 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
too much work. High salaried employees also mentioned the worst part being
the schedule and long working shifts. Overall, the most common complaint
about the current place of work (second to those who could not point out
anything negative) was that the work was too hard or too much (mentioned
by 15% of all employed respondents and 21% of those who named at least one
aspect). Other complaints were related to the work schedule, long working
shifts, salary or delays with payments, distance to home, language issues, Rus-
sian people and clients.
Among employed temporary protected respondents, there was a 71% re-
sponse rate to the question related to dissatisfaction with work. For 17% of all
employed, there was actually nothing bad with their job. The next worse aspects
were also related to the work being hard and too much (15%) and working long
shifts (8%).
To enter the labor market, a newly arrived Ukrainian in Estonia may have
needed to start with the first job opportunity that became possible after their ar-
rival. For some, this could have been a good job in which one wishes to continue
while others may continue searching for better jobs for various reasons.
Of employed respondents, 39% mentioned that they did not want to change
their current employment. The share of those was the highest among those
18–29-year-olds (60%) and those earning a high salary (53%). On the other hand,
the share was lowest among low salary earners (11%).
Of all employed respondents, 58% mentioned that they would like to change
their job in Estonia. Of the multiple-choice selection, the largest share select-
ed that they needed a higher salary (37%), a job that better matched their skills
(12%), a differ profession (7%), a better work environment (2%) and 2% men-
tioned other reasons (Table 4.5.9). The largest share among those who were hop-
ing to change their job due to salary were those who earned less than 600 EUR
per month (72%) and those who had arrived in Estonia in May (50%). The largest
share among those who were hoping to change their job for a better work envi-
ronment was among employees who did not have temporary protection (11%).
Among those seeking a different profession through a job change, the highest
share was among 50–64-year-olds (21%). Finally, among those seeking a job that
better matches their skills, the largest share was among 50–64-year-olds (21%)
and those earning 600–999 EUR per month (19%).
Of temporary protected respondents, 62% mentioned that they would like to
change their job in Estonia. The largest share mentioned that they would like to
earn a higher salary (38%), have a job that better matched their skills (13%), that
they were aiming for a differ profession (7%), to have a better work environment
(2%) or other reasons 2%.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 107
Table 4.5.9. Ukrainian survey respondents’ aim to change job in Estonia.
No, satis-
fied with
current
job
Yes, for
higher
salary
Yes, for
different
profes-
sion
Yes,
for job
matching
skills bet-
ter
Yes, for
a better
working
environ-
ment Other n
Man 44 39 6 6 6 0 18
Woman 39 37 7 13 2 3 156
18–29 years old 60 19 5 5 5 5 37
30–39 years old 40 41 10 8 2 0 63
40–49 years old 29 49 0 18 0 4 55
50–64 years old 26 26 21 21 5 0 19
Higher education 36 38 7 16 2 2 104
No higher education 44 37 7 6 3 3 70
Temporary protection 39 38 7 13 2 2 165
No temporary
protection
44 33 0 0 11 11 9
March '22 39 37 7 15 2 1 137
April '22 40 36 8 4 4 8 25
May '22 33 50 8 0 0 8 12
–599 EUR 11 72 0 11 0 6 18
600–999 EUR 25 47 7 19 0 2 57
1000– EUR 53 24 12 12 0 0 17
Total 39 37 7 12 2 2 174
4.6 Respondents’ migration aspirations and digital mobility in Estonia
Estonia suddenly became the destination for Ukrainians after the war broke out
in the end of February 2022 and it remained the temporary residency as of the
time this report was published for many today. Whether Estonia is to become
more than a temporary residency for those who fled will only be seen with time
and will depend on several factors. This survey attempted to understand the
current aspirations of Ukrainians who fled to Estonia after February 24th. Their
choices depend on an individual’s contextual and subjective decision-making
processes which guide their perceptions and choices regarding destination and
trajectories (Mallett and Hagen-Zanker 2018). Both individual migrants’ aspira-
tions and migration capabilities have an impact on their lives and path of migra-
tion.
Migration trajectories and destinations are both imagined and exercised.
Forced migration rarely takes on a linear format where a person moves from the
origin to the destination, and then potentially back to the origin. Instead, forced
migration is often fragmented and consists of periods with lower and higher mo-
bility. In addition, when it is possible, some migrants can perform circular migra-
tion in-between their country of origin and destination. In the current case, this
means circular migration between Ukraine and Estonia. The geographical desti-
nation of respondents also depends on where they ultimately want to live.
108 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Of respondents, 73% responded to the question about which country they
would most prefer to live in. Of those who responded, the majority (70%) men-
tioned Ukraine as the most preferred country to live in (51% of the survey sam-
ple). Many did not want to leave Ukraine and still hope to be able to return, or
at least they strongly expressed that it is their preferred country of residency. All
respondents had been in Estonia for only a short time and besides Ukraine, Es-
tonia was the second most popular preferred country among respondents (10%).
Of temporary protected respondents, 70% would prefer to live in Ukraine
and 10% in Estonia (Table 4.6.1).
All respondents had left Ukraine after the war started and had a tempo-
rary right to remain in Estonia. Of all respondents, 67% were sure to return to
Ukraine, 23% were uncertain whether they would return, and 10% indicated that
they would not return.
The share of those indicating that they did not plan to return was largest
among men (16%), those without temporary protection (15%), those who had ar-
rived in April (15%), those with a spouse in Estonia (15%) and those with children
in Ukraine (15%). The share of those indicating they would not return or that
they were not sure was 33%. Of them, the largest share was among men (46%),
followed by those who had arrived in April (44%) and those with a spouse in Es-
Table 4.6.1. Ukrainian survey respondents’ most preferred country to live (%).
All n
Answered
(%)
Most
common
country %
2nd most
common
country %
3rd most
common
country % n
Man 50 70 Ukraine 51 United States 11 Canada /
Liechtenstein
/ Spain
6 35
Woman 477 73 Ukraine 72 Estonia 10 United States 3 349
18–29 years old 88 78 Ukraine 68 Canada /
United States
4 Estonia /
France / Italy
3 69
30–39 years old 206 72 Ukraine 73 Estonia 13 Canada 4 149
40–49 years old 142 73 Ukraine 66 Estonia 11 United States 4 103
50–64 years old 66 62 Ukraine 61 Estonia / Italy 7 - 41
65– years old 25 88 Ukraine 96 Estonia 5 - 22
Higher education 326 72 Ukraine 68 Estonia 9 Canada 3 234
No higher education 201 75 Ukraine 73 Estonia 11 United States 4 150
Temporary protection 500 72 Ukraine 70 Estonia 10 United States 4 362
No temporary pro-
tection
27 82 Ukraine 73 Estonia 9 Canada / Par-
aguay / Spain
/ Switzerland
5 22
March '22 313 72 Ukraine 72 Estonia 10 Canada 3 226
April '22 124 75 Ukraine 67 Estonia 7 Canada 5 93
May '22 90 72 Ukraine 69 Estonia 14 United States 5 65
Having friends or
family abroad
228 72 Ukraine 68 Estonia 13 Canada 2 165
Total 527 73 Ukraine 70 Estonia 10 United
States
3 384
Having friends or family abroad = friends or family in Europe somewhere else than in Estonia or Ukraine
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 109
tonia (41%). This is a difficult question to respond to because the possibilities
for individuals to return to Ukraine, to remain in Estonia, or to migrate further
do not depend on the respondent alone. Respondents did not know (as no one
could know) when and how the war will end. Not all knew European policies
(such as temporary protection) and if temporary protection would be extended
in case the war continues for much longer than anticipated (Table 4.6.2).
Of those who planned to return to Ukraine, 95% were in contact with people
in Ukraine at least once a week and 94% missed the landscape of their home re-
gion. Very few (3%) of respondents indicated that they would return very soon,
in the next month (July–August 2022). The share of those planning to return
soon was largest among those without temporary protection (15%). On the other
hand, none (0%) of the respondents aged 65 and up nor of those with a spouse in
Estonia planned to return to Ukraine in the next month.
Some respondents considered that they would return upon certain condi-
tions. 32% said they would return to Ukraine when the situation is safe. This
could mean that they could return to Ukraine even if the war continued but did
not create security challenges for them. However, they would not return before
the end of autumn 2022. The share of respondents indicating they would return
with these conditions was the largest among the oldest age group (64% of people
65 years or older), followed by those whose spouse was left behind in Ukraine
(47%). It was lowest among those who were alone in Estonia (25%).
The third group of those who aimed to return to Ukraine was those who men-
tioned that they would go back when the war is over. These were 32% of all re-
spondents and a larger part of them (39%) were those who had arrived in Estonia
more recently (in May 2022). At the same time, this is a complex answer because it
depends on what is meant by the war. This understanding is influenced by where
a person is from or what their views are. As discussed in Section 3.2, since 2014
there had been an ongoing, geographically concentrated war in the eastern part of
Ukraine. However, until February 2022 this was limited to only that area. While it is
most likely that respondents here considered the end of the war to mean when the
active military confrontation in Ukraine ceases, it is not possible to know for sure.
Temporary protected respondents received a one-year residence permit to stay
in Estonia. In case the war continues into spring of 2023, this right to remain in
Estonia will most likely be extended. Some could also find other ways to legitimize
their right to remain in Estonia and in the EU. Of temporary protected respond-
ents, 10% said that they did not intend to return to Ukraine, 24% thought they might
return to Ukraine and 66% had clear hopes to return to Ukraine: 2% by July–August
2022, 32% when the situation is safe, and a further 32% when the war is over.
In addition to wishing to return to Ukraine or remain in Estonia, respondents
could also share whether they hoped to migrate on to another country from Estonia.
Just as with the previous hopes (to return to Ukraine), the hope to migrate on de-
110 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
pends on factors outside of the respondent’s control or wishes to do so. Of respond-
ents, only 2% had clear aspirations for such on-migration. The highest percentage
of those aspiring for onward migration was among men (4%), those without tem-
porary protection (4%), and those alone in Estonia (4%). Another 17% of all respond-
ents considered the possibility that they might migrate on to a third country from
Estonia. This possibility was more often expressed by men (26%) and the youngest
respondents (25% of 18–29-year-olds).
The most commonly mentioned countries Ukrainian respondents considered as
possible destinations for onward migrate (both definite and possible) were Germany
or Canada (by 9% of all who considered onward migration likely or possible). Can-
ada was the country most sought after for onward migration among those aspiring
for onward migration whose spouses had been left in Ukraine (33%), 40–49-year-
olds (17%), and those alone in Estonia (17%). In general, however, respondents from
many different backgrounds indicated that they were not interested at all in on-mi-
gration, or very few of them indicated such aspirations (Table 4.6.3).
Of temporary protected respondents, only 2% were sure that they wished to
migrate on to another country from Estonia, 17% answered that onward migration
was a possibility, and 82% were not interested in on-migration. The share of those
wishing to migrate on was slightly smaller among those who were not employed in
Estonia (1% definitive; 15% maybe; 84% no) and those who had children in Estonia
(1% definite; 15% maybe; 84% no). The numbers were similar for those who agreed
Table 4.6.2. Ukrainian survey respondents’ plans to return to Ukraine (%).
Yes,
next month
Yes,
when safe
Yes, after
the war Maybe No n
Man 2 28 24 30 16 50
Woman 3 32 33 23 9 477
18–29 years old 6 27 33 27 7 88
30–39 years old 2 31 32 25 11 206
40–49 years old 4 30 35 21 11 142
50–64 years old 2 33 27 26 12 66
65– years old 0 64 32 4 0 25
Higher education 2 30 31 26 10 326
No higher education 4 34 33 18 10 201
Temporary protection 2 32 32 24 10 500
No temporary protection 15 30 30 11 15 27
March '22 3 34 31 21 8 313
April '22 1 26 29 29 15 124
May '22 3 26 39 22 10 90
Spouse in Estonia 0 27 33 26 15 162
Children (all ages) in Estonia 3 30 34 23 11 361
Nuclear family in Estonia 0 25 34 29 12 123
Alone in Estonia 3 25 35 31 6 71
Spouse in Ukraine 4 47 32 14 4 113
Children (all ages) in Ukraine 2 32 33 18 15 55
Total 3 32 32 23 10 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 111
Table 4.6.3. Ukrainian survey respondents’ plans to on-migrate from Estonia to other country than Ukraine (%).
No
May-
be Yes n Most common country % 2nd most common country % 3rd most common country % n
Man 70 26 4 50 Germany 13 EU, South Europe / France
/ Ireland / Italy / Poland /
Portugal / Spain / United States
7 - 15
Woman 83 16 2 477 Canada 11 Germany 9 Poland / Spain 6 82
18–29 years old 73 25 2 88 Canada / France 13 - Italy / Poland / United States 8 24
30–39 years old 83 14 3 206 Germany 17 Spain 11 Canada 6 35
40–49 years old 83 17 0 142 Canada 17 EU, South Europe / Germany /
Italy / Poland / United States
8 - 24
50–64 years old 80 18 2 66 Ireland / Israel 15 - South Asia / Denmark /
Germany
8 13
65– years old 96 4 0 25 Poland 100 - - 1
Higher education 79 19 2 326 Canada 12 Germany 9 Italy / Poland / Spain 6 68
No higher education 86 12 2 201 Germany 10 France / Poland / Spain /
United States
7 - 29
Temporary protection 82 17 2 500 Canada/Germany 10 - Spain 7 92
No temporary
protection
82 15 4 27 EU, South Europe / Ireland /
Poland
20 - - 5
March '22 82 17 2 313 Canada 12 Germany 7 EU, South Europe / Poland /
Spain / United States
5 57
April '22 79 20 1 124 Germany / Spain 12 - Italy 8 26
May '22 84 12 3 90 Germany / Poland 14 - Canada / Finland / United
States
7 14
Spouse in Estonia 81 19 1 162 Italy 10 Israel / Spain / United States 7 - 31
Children (–18) in
Estonia
83 15 1 292 Germany 10 Canada / Poland / Spain /
United States
6 - 49
Nuclear family in Estonia 82 17 1 123 Italy / Spain / United States 9 - - 22
Alone in Estonia 75 21 4 71 Canada/Germany 17 - Spain 11 18
Spouse in Ukraine 92 8 0 113 Canada 33 Poland 22 South Asia / Germany / Ireland
/ Sweden / Turkey / United
States
11 9
Children (–18) in Ukraine 100 0 0 8 - - - 0
Having friends or family
abroad
77 21 3 228 Canada 13 Germany 11 Spain / United States 8 53
Total 82 17 2 527 Canada / Germany 9 - Poland / Spain 6 97
Having friends or family abroad = friends or family in Europe somewhere else than in Estonia or Ukraine
112 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
that Estonians are friendly towards them (2% definite; 16% maybe; 83% no) and
those who agreed that they are treated well in their current place of residence (2%
definite; 17% maybe; 82% no). Among temporary protected respondents, the most
frequently mentioned countries to which they hoped (or considered as possible)
to migrate onward to were also Canada (10%), Germany (10%) and Spain (7%).
Whether or not one aspired to remain in Estonia, return to Ukraine or mi-
grate on to a third country, respondents were invited to estimate where they
would like to be in 2025, three years from the time of completing the survey
(summer 2022). Of respondents, 72% answered this question. A lower response
rate was among men (36% of whom did not respond) and those with (underaged)
children in Ukraine (50% did not answer). While some respondents mentioned
specific countries they hoped to be in by 2025 (Ukraine, 71% of people respond-
ing to this question; Estonia, 14%), others did not indicate a specific country or
location but just mentioned that they would like to be in a safe place, without
war or Russians (4%) or by a warm seaside (3%). Many respondents considered
the large out-migration from Ukraine to be only temporary, and many aimed to
return to Ukraine. However, this depends on the particular situation in Ukraine.
Those rather few who planned to remain in Estonia were more common among
respondents in their 30s or 40s and those who had their spouse in Estonia.
Of all those, who had stated that they aspired to return to Ukraine, 56% an-
swered that by 2025 they would like to be in Ukraine and 5% answered that they
would be in Estonia. Those who initially aspired to return to Ukraine were more
certain that they would return to Ukraine by 2025 than respondents in general.
Of those who considered migrating on to a third country (thus, neither return-
ing to Ukraine or remaining in Estonia), only 32% mentioned that by 2025 they
would like to be in Ukraine and 2% in Estonia. This indicates that for many, the
current aspiration to migrate on to a third country is not only an immediate
wish but a longer-term plan.
Of temporary protected respondents who mentioned a country where they
would be in 2025, 71% aspired that they would be Ukraine and 14% Estonia. This
suggests that a rather small part of the current temporary protected Ukrainians
in Estonia foresee staying in Estonia for a longer time. However, taking into con-
sideration that there were 50,000 Ukrainians fleeing war in Ukraine in Estonia
in the summer of 2022, these numbers would suggest that 7,000 of these indi-
viduals thought they would still be in Estonia in 2025. Despite the predictions of
respondents, it is important to recall that the return to Ukraine depends on the
situation there.
Among all those who came to Estonia in March 2022, the share of those cur-
rently envisioning themselves to be in Ukraine in three years was 73%, and in
Estonia 13%. For those who arrived in April, the shares were 64% (Ukraine) and
15% (Estonia), and for those who arrived in May they were 71% (Ukraine) and 15%
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 113
Table 4.6.4. Ukrainian survey respondents' preferred country of residence in 2025 (%).
All n
Answered
(%) Most common country % 2nd most common country % 3rd most common country % n
Man 50 64 Ukraine 53 Estonia 19 Poland / Portugal / Spain / United
States
3 32
Woman 477 73 Ukraine 72 Estonia 14 Canada 1 348
18–29 years old 88 76 Ukraine 70 Estonia 10 Canada / France / Italy / Latvia /
Portugal
2 67
30–39 years old 206 74 Ukraine 66 Estonia 18 Canada / Maldives / Spain /
United States
1 152
40–49 years old 142 69 Ukraine 76 Estonia 13 Finland / Lithuania / Switzerland /
United States
1 98
50–64 years old 66 75 Ukraine 67 Estonia 9 Norway / Poland / Spain / United
States
2 43
65– years old 25 80 Ukraine 90 Estonia 5 - 20
Higher education 326 72 Ukraine 70 Estonia 13 Canada 1 229
No higher education 201 73 Ukraine 71 Estonia 15 Spain 1 147
Temporary protection 500 72 Ukraine 71 Estonia 14 Canada 1 358
No temporary
protection
27 82 Ukraine 68 Estonia 9 Switzerland / United States 5 22
March '22 313 71 Ukraine 73 Estonia 13 Canada 1 223
April '22 124 74 Ukraine 64 Estonia 15 Spain / United States 2 92
May '22 90 72 Ukraine 71 Estonia 15 Canada / Switzerland 2 65
Spouse in Estonia 162 68 Ukraine 68 Estonia 21 Latvia / Norway / United States 1 110
Children (–18) in Estonia 292 72 Ukraine 71 Estonia 16 United States 1 210
Nuclear family in
Estonia
123 67 Ukraine 72 Estonia 18 Norway / United States 1 82
Alone in Estonia 71 79 Ukraine 66 Estonia 13 Canada 4 56
Spouse in Ukraine 113 80 Ukraine 81 Estonia 10 United States 1 90
Children (–18) in Ukraine 8 50 Ukraine 75 Estonia 25 - 4
Having friends or
family abroad
228 75 Ukraine 66 Estonia 17 Canada / Spain 1 170
Total 527 72 Ukraine 71 Estonia 14 Canada / United States 1 380
Answered = a reply other than no answer or I don't know. Max 2 first mentioned countries included. Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-
old child. Having friends or family abroad = friends or family in European countries elsewhere than in Estonia or Ukraine. A few respondents also replied things like
"in a safe place" or "somewhere near sea". These respondents are included in the answered share, but only mentioned countries are in the table. Many of the 3rd
most often mentioned countries got just one mention
114 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
(Estonia). This suggests that remaining in Estonia for a few months more or less
did not change respondents’ estimation of whether they will remain in Estonia
for a longer time or return to Ukraine (Table 4.6.4).
Respondents did not know how long they would remain in Estonia. Uncer-
tainty about how long the war would continue in Ukraine and lack of clarity
about how their right to remain in Estonia would continue (after the tempo-
rary protection or other measures ended) meant that their residency in Es-
tonia felt temporary for respondents. All of the respondents had arrived in
Estonia from Ukraine only a few months or weeks prior to participating in the
survey. At this time, they did not know how long they would be in their current
accommodation in Estonia, and many had changed their place of residence or
accommodation in Estonia because of temporary character of earlier accom-
modations.
In fact, when respondents were asked if they thought they would remain
in Estonia for the rest of their lives, a small minority (11%) thought they would.
This share was higher among those living outside of the capital city (Tallinn).
Whereas 8% of those living in Tallinn said they would live in Estonia the rest of
their lives, 14% of those living in large towns and 15% of those in the countryside
or small towns said so. However, almost half of respondents (47%) did not know
how to answer to this. Considering that many had just arrived in Estonia and
were only starting their adaptation, not to mention dealing with the emotional
stress of fleeing their home country, it is understandable that there was such a
large amount of uncertainty as it is very difficult to foresee such a long perspec-
tive under these circumstances. Nevertheless, 41% of respondents mentioned
that they would definitely not live in Estonia for the rest of their lives (Table
4.6.5).
Of temporary protected respondents, 12% thought that they might live in Es-
tonia for the rest of their lives, 48% did not know and 41% did not agree with this
statement. Those who had no relatives in Ukraine, had children in an Estonian
school, or lived outside Tallinn more often thought that they would spend the
rest of their lives in Estonia. These numbers suggest that around 5,000–6,000
of the current war-fleeing Ukrainians thought they would remain in Estonia for
the rest of their lives. This obviously depends on the individuals’ circumstances
in Estonia as well as what will happen in Ukraine.
Another broader aspect of the everyday lives of Ukrainians in Estonia
was their nostalgia toward Ukraine, specifically in relation to an individual’s
family, relatives, friends, and former life in Ukraine. Describing an individ-
ual’s home region and ‘landscape’ is multifaceted and can have many layers
and meanings for Ukrainians in Estonia. On the one hand, a landscape can
be something physical such as a natural or urban realm that one is used to
having around them. For Ukrainians in Estonia, their new realm in Estonia
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 115
was rarely similar to that of their home region. On the other hand, land-
scapes can also include individual memories related to a place. For Ukraini-
ans in Estonia, the memories of their home region contain many social and
symbolic aspects which influence one’s physical, temporal and mental envi-
ronments.
Of the respondents who participated in this survey, 90% agreed that they
missed the landscape of their home region. The younger respondents (93% of
30–39-year-olds and 92% of 18–29-year-olds) were among those who responded
more often that they did so as well as those without higher education (92%) and
those not employed in Estonia (92%). Less likely to respond that they missed the
landscape of their home region were those without temporary protection (74%
of them did so) and men (84%). The share of those not knowing how to answer
this (7% of all respondents) was highest among those without temporary pro-
tection (15% did not know), and men (12%). Despite the fact that the question
related to missing one’s home landscape is rather abstract, the shares of those
who agreed that they missed this aspect of Ukraine were very high among all
subgroups.
In addition to depending on feelings of attachment and level of current secu-
rity and safety, the tough decision about whether to migrate or to stay also de-
pended on one’s view toward the future. Of those who participated in this survey
in the summer of 2022, 78% saw their future positively, 21% did not know how to
answer to this, and only 2% did not see their future positively (Table 4.6.5). The
share of those who saw their future positively was highest among those who had
arrived more recently, in May 2022 (86%). The share of people uncertain about
one’s future was largest among older respondents (32% of those 65 years or old-
er) and respondents from major conflict areas (28%).
Those who had arrived earlier, and thus spent more time in Estonia, were less
likely to see their futures positively than those who had arrived more recently.
Of those who had arrived in Estonia in March, 75% saw their future positively
(23% were uncertain). For those who arrived in April, 77% saw their future posi-
tively and 20% were uncertain, and for those who arrived in May 86% saw their
future positively, 14% were uncertain and none (0%) disagreed that they could
see their future positively. It is difficult to know the reason for those having ar-
rived more recently expressing more positivity; this is one trend, however, that
could be followed up on in future studies of temporary protected Ukrainians in
Estonia and other EU countries.
Of temporary protected respondents, 77% saw their future positively, 21% did
not know and 2% disagreed that they could see their future positively. Compar-
atively, of those without temporary protection, 82% saw their future positively
and none of the 27 respondents disagreed that they could see their future pos-
itively. These differences between Ukrainian with and without temporary pro-
116 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
tection status could be investigated further in future studies on Ukrainians re-
ceiving Temporary Protection in Estonia and the EU.
Besides physical mobility, the war-fleeing Ukrainians also exercised digital
mobilities. The Internet and social media are very common tools for various
purposes among people who have had to leave their country of origin due to war
or other security-related reasons. Often these migrants become even more fre-
quent users of the Internet and social media than the hosting population (Jauhi-
ainen and Vorobeva 2020).
Of respondents to this survey, practically all (98%) had used the Internet in
Ukraine at least weekly or more often. All (100%) men and 99% of women who
Table 4.6.5. Migration-related aspects of Ukrainian survey respondents’ everyday lives in Estonia (%).
Probably to live in
Estonia forever
Missing the land-
scape of home region
Seeing own future
positively
Agree
Don't
know
Disa-
gree Agree
Don't
know
Disa-
gree Agree
Don't
know
Disa-
gree n
Man 10 46 44 84 12 4 72 24 4 50
Woman 12 48 41 90 6 4 78 21 1 477
18–29 years old 8 42 50 92 8 0 73 24 3 88
30–39 years old 14 51 35 93 5 2 80 18 2 206
40–49 years old 10 47 44 87 6 7 82 18 1 142
50–64 years old 12 53 35 85 9 6 73 27 0 66
65– years old 8 32 60 88 8 4 68 32 0 25
Higher education 11 49 40 89 6 5 77 21 2 326
No higher education 12 44 44 92 7 2 78 21 1 201
Temporary protection 12 48 41 91 6 3 77 21 2 500
No temporary
protection
7 41 52 74 15 11 82 19 0 27
Spouse in Estonia 12 56 32 91 7 2 78 21 1 162
Children (all ages) in
Estonia
12 49 40 90 6 4 79 20 1 361
Nuclear family in
Estonia
11 58 32 93 6 2 79 20 1 123
Alone in Estonia 14 38 48 89 7 4 79 20 1 71
Employed in Estonia 13 52 35 86 10 4 78 21 1 176
Not employed in
Estonia
11 45 44 92 5 4 77 21 2 351
March '22 10 49 41 89 7 4 75 23 2 313
April '22 15 41 44 94 2 3 77 20 2 124
May '22 12 50 38 87 9 4 86 14 0 90
No occupation or
conictarea
10 51 39 88 7 5 82 17 1 170
Limited occupation
andconictarea
11 46 44 91 7 2 80 19 1 198
Major occupation and
conictarea
14 47 40 90 5 5 68 28 3 159
Total 11 47 41 90 7 4 78 21 2 527
Nuclear family in Estonia = spouse and at least 1 under 18-year-old child.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 117
participated in the survey had used the Internet in Ukraine. Practically all (99%)
respondents reported that they had used social media at least once in a while
when responding to the frequency of their usage.
Among temporary protected respondents, 91% had been daily Internet users,
5% had used it weekly or many times week, 1% less often, and 1% never. Of tem-
porary protected respondents, 91% used social media daily in Ukraine.
In general, the Internet use of respondents remained practically the same
in Estonia compared with their earlier uses in Ukraine (decreased by one per-
centage point). The first-level digital divide (access to the Internet) and the
second-level digital divide (use of the Internet) did not get wider despite their
fleeing from the everyday environment in Ukraine to the temporary protection
in Estonia. Earlier studies on asylum-related migration have showed the nar-
rowing of the digital divides (Merisalo and Jauhiainen 2020). However, this does
not mean that the impact of the Internet and social media uses would be the
same for everyone fleeing from Ukraine. The daily Internet use did increase by
3 percentage points among all respondents in Estonia compared with their use
in Ukraine. However, those claiming to use the Internet many times a day de-
creased by 4 percentage points in Estonia compared with in Ukraine. Besides the
very common use of the Internet, in practice all respondents (99%) used social
media. The frequency of social media uses in Estonia varied among respond-
ents. Of temporary protected respondents, in practice all (99%) used social me-
dia in Estonia, and the share was equal to their social media use in Ukraine.
Respondents used the Internet in Estonia for various purposes related to Esto-
nia, Ukraine and third countries. These were functional uses that had an impact
on respondents, and thus these belonged to the elements of the third-level digi-
tal divide (Merisalo and Jauhiainen 2020). Of temporary protected respondents,
40% used the Internet to learn more about the places to live in Estonia. Of those
unsatisfied with their current municipality, substantially more (71%) used the In-
ternet for this purpose. In addition, 86% of the respondents used the Internet to
learn about work opportunities in Estonia. This share was 83% among employed,
97% among job-seekers and 61% among the rest of respondents. Of those unsat-
isfied with their current job, 92% used the Internet for work-related issues. Fur-
thermore, of temporary protected respondents, 89% used it to learn about their
rights in Estonia. This share was 85% among those not satisfied with their accom-
modation and 92% not satisfied with their job. Of temporary protected respond-
ents, 16% used it to search for information about places to live in Europe. This
share was 19% among those unsatisfied with their current accommodation, 14%
among those unsatisfied with their municipality and 0% among those unsatisfied
with their work. In addition, of these respondents, 98% used it to follow the situ-
ations in Ukraine. This share was 100% among those having a spouse in Ukraine
and 99% among those with definite plans to return to Ukraine (Table 4.6.6).
118 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Table 4.6.6. Ukrainian survey respondents and Internet-using survey respondents searching informa-
tion from the Internet in Estonia (%).
Place to live
in Estonia
One's rights
in Estonia
Work oppor-
tunities
Places to live
elsewhere in
Europe
Situation in
Ukraine n
all
net
users all
net
users all
net
users all
net
users all
net
users all
net
users
Man 48 44 84 84 84 82 26 27 94 93 50 45
Woman 38 39 87 88 86 86 15 16 99 99 477 448
18–29 years
old
38 38 83 83 81 81 24 24 96 96 88 88
30–39 years
old
49 49 91 91 94 94 16 16 99 99 206 197
40–49 years
old
32 33 89 90 89 89 13 14 100 100 142 132
50–64 years
old
33 30 82 83 83 85 18 20 94 94 66 54
65– years old 20 23 72 73 16 18 4 5 100 100 25 22
Higher
education
40 41 90 90 87 87 18 19 98 98 326 313
No higher
education
37 38 83 83 84 84 12 13 98 98 201 180
Temporary
protection
40 40 88 89 86 87 16 16 98 98 500 469
No temporary
protection
22 25 63 63 67 67 22 25 100 100 27 24
March '22 34 34 86 87 84 85 15 15 98 99 313 299
April '22 41 44 91 92 87 88 19 21 96 96 124 112
May '22 53 54 86 84 89 89 17 16 100 100 90 82
Employed 36 36 88 89 83 83 18 18 98 98 176 167
Not employed 41 41 87 87 87 87 15 16 98 98 351 326
Spouse in
Estonia
45 37 89 89 93 92 15 16 99 99 162 153
Children (all
ages) in Estonia
39 40 88 88 86 87 14 15 99 99 361 337
Spouse in
Ukraine
33 34 89 91 79 80 12 12 100 100 113 108
Children (all
ages) in Ukraine
33 33 91 92 78 79 16 17 98 98 55 48
Total 39 40 87 88 85 86 16 17 98 98 527 493
Net user = used the Internet at least sometimes in Ukraine, during the journey, and in Estonia
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 119
5. Conclusions
The research project Temporary Protected Ukrainians and Other Ukrainians in Esto-
nia, 2022, focused on Ukrainians who resided in Estonia after the beginning of
the war in Ukraine initiated by Russia on February 24th, 2022. The aim of the
study was to understand the situation of Ukrainians with temporary protection
or other legal statuses in Estonia half a year after the 2022 Russian invasion.
We conducted research on the number and the types of Ukrainians who ar-
rived and resided in Estonia a few months after the beginning of the war. We
paid special attention to how Ukrainians with and without temporary protec-
tion felt about the practical implementation of the EU’s “Temporary Protection
Directive” (TPD) (Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001); namely, access to
accommodation, employment, health (medical) care, education for their chil-
dren, and general subsistence in Estonia.
We conducted a semi-structured survey in June and July of 2022. It was an-
swered by 527 Ukrainians who had arrived inEstonia after the beginning of the
war. Among the respondents, there were 500 temporary protected Ukrainians
and 27 Ukrainians with other means for residing in Estonia.
On March 2nd, 2022, the European Commission proposed the implementa-
tion of the TPD, and on March 3rd the European Council accepted the proposal.
The directive allowed temporary protection for Ukrainians fleeing to EU mem-
ber states and guaranteed member states would provide these individuals with
provisions to maintain their livelihoods during their period of protection. The
government of Estonia implemented the TPD on March 9th. Ukrainians who had
left Ukraine on or after February 24th and arrived in Estonia could apply for and
receive temporary protection in Estonia for one year, including their family
members. In addition, all Ukrainians who were in Estonia at the beginning of
the war or had moved to Estonia later from somewhere else other than Ukraine
were allowed to remain in Estonia as the war continued. These individuals could
also ask for international protection if they wished.
As of late September, over 100,000 Ukrainians fleeing war in Ukraine had
arrived inEstonia. Of them, about 57,000 had expressed their intention to re-
main in Estonia (Police and Border Guard Board 2022). Although the share of
war-fleeing Ukrainians who had arrived in Estonia was small compared to the
total number in the EU (about 1.9% of all applications in the EU), it was the high-
est in relation to the national population (4.3%) among EU member states (UN-
HCR 2022).
The TPD is an instrument of solidarity that first guarantees that the Ukrain-
ians fleeing war will be protected in the EU from the on-going war. Second, EU
member states receiving Ukrainians will provide access to accommodation,
employment, health care, education for children, and subsistence. These pro-
visions help individuals in their everyday lives while being away from Ukraine.
120 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
The temporary character of the TPD suggests that after a certain period,perhaps
one year, Ukrainians would no longer need protection and could return to their
country of origin. If the war and conflict in Ukraine were to continue, the TPD
includes the possibility to extend the temporary protection. The need for an ex-
tension will only be seen in the spring of 2023. Meanwhile, it is important that
the everyday lives of Ukrainians are maintained, and that the hosting population
remains supportive.
In what follows, we show the key observations regarding the implementation
of TPD for Ukrainians in Estonia. As of July 2022, diverse groups of Ukrainians
resided in Estonia. In addition to variations in the Ukrainians’ demographic, ed-
ucational, and occupational backgrounds, their administrative statuses in Esto-
nia also differed. A large portion of Ukrainians had already received temporary
protection status in March and others later. In addition, there were those whose
protection applications were under consideration but who had not yet received
approval. Some Ukrainians had other types of Estonian residence permits, such
as a visa or labor-related documents, or short-term permission to live in Estonia
which were valid regardless of the war. In some cases, Ukrainians did not intend
to apply for protection status and were without a visa or similar legal permission
to enter and stay in Estonia. However, according to the Estonian government’s
decision, these individuals could also stay in Estonia as the war continued.
As of September 2022, an estimated 75,000–80,000 Ukrainians resided in Esto-
nia, and around 50,000–60,000 of them were those who had arrived from Febru-
ary to September fleeing the war in Ukraine. About 36,000 Ukrainians had applied
for temporary protection in Estonia. In September, around 500 new applications
were being submitted weekly. By that time, about 2,000 individuals had given up
their temporary protection in Estonia. About 1,500 persons had applied for inter-
national protection in Estonia and of them 83% were Ukrainian citizens.
The fact that the Ukrainians receiving temporary protection could move
freely within the Schengen countries made it impossible to know how many
Ukrainians physically resided in Estonia in 2022. The demographic backgrounds
of Ukrainians who had received temporary protection varied. Based on registra-
tions of place of residence in Estonia, about 1,900 persons (9% of all temporar-
ily protected individuals and 14% of those with registered residency) were 0–6
years old, more than 3,500 persons (17% and 27% respectively) were 7–17 years
old. Thus, in total more than 5,400 of the temporary protected persons were
underaged. Furthermore, a large majority of the 18–64-year-olds were women.
Of the 527 Ukrainians who participated in our survey in June–July 2022, 95%
had received temporary protection, 2% were seeking protection, 2% had other
types of residence permits, and 1% were not in the process of receiving protec-
tion or residence permits or they did not know about their status. Regardless
of status, these individuals are all considered as Ukrainians fleeing war because
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 121
they could each face life-threatening situations if they returned to Ukraine. De-
pending on their administrative status in Estonia however, their rights to sub-
sidized accommodation, access to the labor market, health care, education and
many kinds of subsistence offered by the Estonian state differed. In some cases,
state support was fundamental for individuals to maintain their stay in Estonia.
In other cases, individuals did not depend at all on state support. Regardless of
whether they used support services, individuals with formal temporary protec-
tion status were in principle entitled to the various kinds of support required
under the TPD.
Our research indicated that elements of all TPD requirements were addressed
for Ukrainians with temporary protection in Estonia. Other Ukrainians could
also enjoy some of the support in certain cases. For example, the state, NGOs and
the local population provided accommodation formany Ukrainians regardless
of their administrative statuses. However, in the state-organized system, certain
accommodations and related services were only for Ukrainians with temporary
protection status. In terms of access to employment, although all Ukrainians had
the option to enter the labor market, the ease of recruitment depended on an
individual’s administrative status. The extension of health care also depended
on the employment status of Ukrainians in Estonia. Access to formal kindergar-
tens and the education system was possible for many Ukrainians, but this access
was more organized for individuals with temporary protection. To receivestate
subsidies, such as unemployment benefits, it was necessary to be formally reg-
istered inthe system, and only unemployed Ukrainians who were registered as
either residents or individuals with temporary protection were eligible for these
benefits. At the same time, the local population and NGOs provided food, cloth-
ing and essential goods to many Ukrainians.
First, concerning accommodation, 50% of the Ukrainian survey respondents
with temporary protection were fully satisfied and 41% were partly satisfied with
their current accommodation. The rather few (9%) who were unsatisfied with
their current accommodation were typically those who had been in Estonia for
a longer period of time (10% for those who arrived in March or April compared
with 6% who arrived in May), older respondents (12% of those aged 50–64 and
those 65 and older were not satisfied compared with 5–10% of other age groups),
and those who lived specifically in Tallinn (11% compared with 6% of those living
in other large towns and 7% in smaller places in Estonia). The satisfaction with
accommodation was good or rather good even though 70% lived in somewhat
crowded accommodations (40% with two or more persons per bedroom). 4%
claimed not to have enough bathrooms, 40% had a kitchen for one’s own use,
and 80% had the Internet in their accommodations. Overall, of the Ukrainian
survey respondents with temporary protection, 45% lived in a separate house
or apartment, 14% lived in a shared house or apartment, and 29% lived in a ho-
122 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
tel or hostel (usually collective temporary accommodations). For those without
temporary protection, these numbers were 37% (separate accommodation), 23%
(shared accommodation), and 33% (hotel or hostel which was usually temporary
accommodation).
Second, in terms ofemployment, 26% of Ukrainian survey respondents with
temporary protection were employed full time and 8% part time or self-em-
ployed. 41% of them were fully and 51% were partly satisfied with their current
employment, 81% earned less than 1,000 euros per month and 32% were able to
save money from their salary. All employed men were employed full time. Of re-
spondents with temporary protection, 50% were unemployed and looking for a
job and 15% were inactive meaning that they were not employed or looking for a
job in Estonia. According to Statistics Estonia (2022), employed Ukrainians made
up 5% of the active labor force in Estonia. When it comes to benefits received
from the state, 51% of all respondents claimed to receive “regular” benefits, 27%
“some benefits” and 22% “no” benefits. The largest share of those specifying that
they received unemployment benefits were among men (32% of those who re-
ceived benefits in this group), those aged 50–64 years old (33%) and those alone
in Estonia (54%). For all other groups, aside from those aged at least 60–65 years
old who received pension as their main benefit, the main benefit they received
was for children. Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection,
79% agreed that they need more money to live sustainably in Estonia. The most
frequent to claim so were 40–49-year-olds (83%).
Third, when it comes to health care, emergency public health care was free
for every Ukrainian. Broader public health care was provided to employed
Ukrainians just as it is with Estonian citizens and residents. Of Ukrainian survey
respondents with temporary protection, 28% felt fully and 58% partly healthy
(52% and 44% of other respondents, respectively). Those not feeling healthy (14%
of respondents with temporary protection) were typically older or belonged
to the group of individuals who arrived in Estonia in April 2022 (20% were not
satisfied with their health). Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary
protection, 35% had used public health care in Estonia, and of them 18% were
fully and 56% partially satisfied with their health. Older respondents who had
used health services were more likely to have been dissatisfied with these, 41% of
those 50–64 years old and 29% of those at least 65 years old; however, the sample
size was rather small. Overall, 82% of the health care users were satisfied with the
services received.
Fourth, Ukrainian children’s access to education was complex. Ukrainian
children continued to arrive during the spring semester of 2022. As of May
22nd, it was estimated that more than 13,000 Ukrainian minors had arrived
in Estonia. Of these, 4,716 (36%) were enrolled in the Estonian Education In-
formation System (Estonian Ministry of Education 2022b). Of those enrolled,
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 123
around 40% were in Tallinn, and about 70% were in Estonian-language schools,
10% in language immersion courses, 20% in Russian language schools, and a
small fraction (0.5%) in English-language schools (Estonian Ministry of Edu-
cation 2022). Of respondents to this survey with school-aged children (aged
7–17 years), 29% had children enrolled in Estonian schools, 31% in Ukrainian
schools, and 23% had children following both Estonian and Ukrainian cur-
riculum. Of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection having
school-aged children in Estonia, 84% mentioned that it was easy and 16% said it
was not easy to find a place in a school for their children. Of respondents with
children under seven years of age, 42% used kindergarten service in Estonia
and 73% had found it easy to find a place for their child. Proportionally more
Ukrainian children were foreseen to attend classes taught primarily in Estoni-
an. Of respondents who had children enrolled in Estonian-language schools in
the spring of 2022 and who aimed to continue their education in the autumn
of 2022, 71% planned to continue in an Estonian-language school (26% of other
respondents) in September 2022. A large portion of respondents (35%) were
still unsure about where they would enroll their children, 4% planned for their
children to continue only with Ukrainian education, and 18% planned for them
to continue with both Estonian and Ukrainian education, and 39% planned to
have their children enrolled in school in Estonia. However, the possibilities to
follow Ukrainian school education have become more limited in Estonia since
the autumn of 2022.
Fifth, regarding accommodation subsidies, 42% of Ukrainian survey re-
spondents with temporary protection mentioned that the state fully or partly
paid for their accommodation costs, 24% shared costs, and 6% received some
other kind of assistance to finance their accommodation. Overall, as previously
noted, 78% or respondents mentioned that theyneeded much more money to
improve their situation in Estonia.
When it comes to a more general, day to day sense of well-being in Estonia,
92% of Ukrainian survey respondents with temporary protection felt they were
treated well in their current place of residence, 92% said that Estonians were
friendly toward them and 75% had friends in Estonia, including 33% having Es-
tonians friend(s). Of temporarily protected individuals, 66% aspired to return
to Ukraine, 24% said they might return, and 10% said they would not return to
Ukraine. Only very few (2%) wanted to migratefrom Estonia to a third country.
Of the respondents with temporary protection, 12% thought they would proba-
bly live in Estonia for the rest of their lives. Practically all (98%) respondents used
the Internet in Estonia: many times a day (34%), daily (57%), many times a week
(4%), or weekly (2%). Some had become more active Internet and social media
users in Estonia. They used phone calls and digital means to stay in frequent
contact with people remaining in Ukraine.
124 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
The main conclusion of our research is that as of September 2022, Ukrainians
in Estonia had been offered protection from the war regardless their status. This
was crucial for the survival of Ukrainians because they were able to escape from
Ukraine to avoid the risks of being killed or wounded due to Russia’s military ag-
gression. The TPD facilitated the access to accommodation, employment, med-
ical care, education and social service for those Ukrainians, particularly those
who had asked for and been granted temporary protection status in Estonia.
However, not all services were equally accessible for every Ukrainian in Estonia
and not all Ukrainians had enough knowledge of the services or the possibility
to access them.
During 2022, offering Ukrainians many forms of help has been very impor-
tant because their lives have been put in peril. The rapidly invoked TPD became a
general framework for protection in the EU. In addition to this public-sector-led
initiative, local populations and locally oriented organizations, including some
with regional, national and international reaches, contributed positively and
substantially to welcoming Ukrainians and providing them shelter and access to
the local community in Estonia and elsewhere in the EU.
The implementation of the TPD was rather hierarchic, starting from the
top-level of EU politics and moving to the EU member states’ central govern-
ments and administrations and from there to local governments. The TPD was
used to govern Ukrainians and the hosting population. In Estonia as is the case
elsewhere in the EU, more attention needs to be paid to ways that local inhab-
itants, the private sector and especially Ukrainians can be more actively en-
gaged in the design and implementation of TPD (see Jauhiainen and Erbsen
2022). Ukrainians need to be able to express that the member states’ support has
reached them, as well as to express their needs and participate in the design of
the TPD to ensure it is implemented in a way that supports the everyday lives of
Ukrainians wherever they are in the EU.
Furthermore, Ukrainians of many backgrounds with different skill sets and
aspirations exist in various contexts in the EU. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all
model forthe implementation of TPD in the EU or Estonia cannot properly ad-
dress the various needs of a variety of Ukrainians, nor can it bring the best re-
sults for the EU, the hosting state, its local population or Ukrainians there.
The invocation of the TPD was completed very quickly. The initiative saved
the lives of a high number of Ukrainians and prevented some of theunfortunate
situations that resulted from the long administrative processes in 2015, when
more than one million people fled quickly to the EU territory. The TPD is con-
nected to EU asylum and migration policies. Among key issues are the compli-
ance between various political, administrative and territorial actors in the EU,
from the European Commission to the member states (including between the
member states) and the regional–local actors. In addition, the overall role of the
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 125
private sector, NGOs and, more directly, the local inhabitants and the aid recip-
ients needs to be scrutinized. The war-fleeing Ukrainians in the EU should not
be seen as passive aid receivers but as people contributing to the broader ideals,
goals and related practices in the EU.
The TPD is an instrument to facilitate the protection ofUkrainians fleeing
to the EU from war in Ukraine. It was also implemented rather hierarchically
to govern Ukrainians and consequently also the hosting population. In conclu-
sion, Estonia offered protection from the war for all Ukrainians regardless their
statuses. However, not all services were equally accessible for every Ukrainian
in Estonia. In Estonia, as elsewhere in the EU, more attention needs to be paid
tothe ways local inhabitants, the private sector and especially Ukrainians can
engage more actively in the design and implementation of the TPD.
As of September 2022, when this report was finished, the top-level political
administration in the EU and its member states had had time to think about
ways to move forward with the TPD. The next steps towards the end of 2022
and later to the spring of 2023, when the initial temporary protection for many
Ukrainians will expire, remain up for consideration. In the end, Ukrainians will
have to decide whether and when to return to Ukraine, to remain in the EU or
to migrate elsewhere. Many Ukrainians expect to return to Ukraine, depending
on how and when the war there will end. However, a million or more Ukrainians
might remain in the EU, meaning tens of thousands or more will need to survive
in each EU country where they currently reside.
The TPD has affected the everyday lives Ukrainians and, at the same time,
blurred the borders and practices between hosting, adapting and integrating
Ukrainians in the EU. One result of the TPD implementation was that the people
in the EU and Ukraine have become closer and have learned more about each
other. This outcome is good for the future as well because strong ties between
people mean that Ukraine will remain in the heart of Europe.
126 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
6. References
Al as, B. (20 22). Ukraina sõjapõgenikud saavad Ees-
tis tasuta ühistransporti kasutada. Postimees 13
March 2022. https://www.postimees.ee/7475511/
ukraina-sojapogenikud-saavad-eestis-tasu-
ta-uhistransporti-kasutada
Arenas, N. (2005). The concept of ‘mass influx
of displaced people’ in the European direc-
tive establishing the temporary protection
system. European Journal of Migration and
Law 7, 435–450.
Atlantic Council military council (2022). Russia
crisis military assessment: How will Rus-
sia stage the battle of Kyiv? New Atlanticist
9 March 2022. https://www.atlanticcoun-
cil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia-cri-
sis-military-assessment-how-will-russia-
stage-the-battle-of-kyiv/
BBC News (2022). Ukraine conflict: Russian
forces attack from three sides. BBC News
24 February 2022. https://www.bbc.com/
news/world-europe-60503037 Ukraina
BBC News (2022b). How many Ukrainian Ref-
ugees are there and where have they gone?
BBC News 4 July 2022. https://www.bbc.
com/news/world-60555472
Bebler, A. (2014). Freezing a conflict: The Rus-
sian—Ukrainian struggle over Crimea. Israel
90–106.
Brown, D. (2022). Ukraine conflict: Where are
Russia's troops? BBC News 23 February 2022.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-eu-
rope-60158694
Caponio, T. (2022). Making sense of EU recep-
tion policies in the midst of the crisis: The
Partnership for the Inclusion of Migrants
and Refugees as a case of multilevel gov-
ernance policy-making. In Caponio, T. and
Pondo, I. (eds) Coping with Migrants and Ref-
ugees. The Multilevel Governance across the EU.
Routledge, London.
Carrera, S., Ineli Ciger, M., Vosyliute, L. &
Brumat, L. (2022). The EU grants tempo-
rary protection for people fleeing war in
Ukraine: time to rethink unequal solidar-
ity in EU asylum policy. CEPS Policy Insights
09/2022.
Crawley, H. & Skleparis, D. (2018). Refugees,
migrants, neither, both: categorical fet-
ishism and the politics of bounding in Eu-
rope’s ‘migration crisis’. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 44(1), 48–64.
Cohesive Estonia Strategy 2030 (2022). Estoni-
an Ministry of Culture.
Cole, M. (2022). Number of Ukrainian refu-
gees in temporary accommodation falls by
half. ERR News 29 June 2022. https://news.
err.ee/1608643144/number-of-ukraini-
an-refugees-in-temporary-accommoda-
tion-falls-by-half
Eesti Pagulasabi (2022). Information 5 March
2022 https://www.pagulasabi.ee/en/news/
information-050
Eesti töötukassa (2022). Rahvusvahelise kait-
se saajad. https://www.tootukassa.ee/et/
statistika-ja-uuringud/peamised-statistili-
sed-naitajad/rahvusvahelise-kaitse-saajad
Elisa (2022). Elisa avas tasuta kõned ja smisid
Ukraina suunal. 25 February 2022. https://
www.elisa.ee/et/uudised/elisa-avas-tasuta-
koned-ja-smsid-ukraina-suunal
Ellman, M. (2007). Stalin and the Soviet famine
of 1932–1933 revisited. Europe-Asia Studies
59(4), 663–693.
ERR (2022). TTJA keelas viie Vene te-
lekanali edastamise Eesti territoo-
riumil. https://www.err.ee/1608511946/
ttja-keelas-viie-vene-telekanali-edas-
tamise-eesti-territooriumil
ERR News (2022). Estonia condemns Rus-
sia's attack on Ukraine: 'Evil is real'. ERR
News 24 February 2022. https://news.err.
ee/1608510773/estonia-condemns-russia-
s-attack-on-ukraine-evil-is-real
ERR News (2022b). 'Reporteritund': NGOs
working quickly to organize aid to
Ukraine, refugees. ERR News 4 March 2022.
https://news.err.ee/1608519173/reporte-
ritund-ngos-working-quickly-to-organ-
ize-aid-to-ukraine-refugees
Estonian Ministry of Education (2022). More than
four thousand Ukrainian refugee children
and youth are registered in Estonian Schools.
Accessed August 31, 2022.https://www.hm.ee/
en/news/more-four-thousand-ukraini-
an-refugee-children-and-youth-are-regis-
tered-estonian-schools
Estonian Ministry of Education (2022b). Es-
tonia opens Freedom School for Ukrain-
ian war Refugees and Sets Up Educa-
tional Advisory Service. Accessed August
31,, 2022. https://www.hm.ee/en/news/
estonia-opens-freedom-school-ukrain-
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 127
ian-war-refugees-and-sets-education-
al-advisory-service
European Commission (2022). Temporary
protection. https://home-affairs.ec.eu-
ropa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/
common-european-asylum-system/tem-
porary-protection_en
European Commission (2022a). Asylum, Migra-
tion and Integration Fund. https://ec.europa.
eu/info/funding-tenders/find-funding/
eu-funding-programmes/asylum-migra-
tion-and-integration-fund_en
European Commission (2022b). Estonia: Na-
tional and civil action for people arriving from
Ukraine. https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-in-
tegration/news/estonia-national-and-civ-
il-action-people-arriving-ukraine_en
Fakhoury, T. (2016). Securitising migration: The
European Union in the context of the post-
2011 Arab upheavals. The International Spec-
tator 51(4), 67–79.
Frontex (2022). 5.3 Million Ukrainians have
entered EU since the beginning of the
invasion. https://frontex.europa.eu/
media-centre/news/news-release/5-3-
million-ukrainians-have-entered-eu-
since-the-beginning-of-invasion-HbXkUz
Gardner, F. (2022). Ukraine crisis: Five rea-
sons why Putin might not invade. BBC News
21 February 2022. https://www.bbc.com/
news/world-europe-60468264
Georgiou, M. and Zaborowski, R. (2017). Media
Coverage of the “Refugee Crisis”: A Cross-Euro-
pean Perspective. Council of Europe, Luxem-
bourg.
Government of Estonia (2022). Staying in Es-
tonia. https://kriis.ee/en/security-situa-
tion-europe/ukrainian-war-refugees/stay-
ing-estonia
Haferlach, L. and Kurban, D. (2018). Lessons
learnt from the EU‐Turkey refugee agree-
ment in guiding EU migration partnerships
with origin and transit countries. Global
Policy 8(S4), 85–93.
Haridussilm (2022). Ukraina sõjapõgenikud
Eesti haridussüsteemis. (Estonian Ministry
of Education and Research report portal).
https://www.haridussilm.ee/ee/valdkon-
naraportid/ukraina-oppijad-eesti-hari-
duses
Jauhiainen, J. (2020). Biogeopolitics of COV-
ID-19: Asylum-related migrants at the Eu-
ropean Union borderlands. Tijdschift voor
Economishce en Sociale Geografie 111(3), 260–
274.
Jauhiainen, J. and Erbsen, H. (2022). Multi-lev-
el governance in the temporal protection
and integration of Ukrainians within the
European Union: the case of Estonia. Sub-
mitted manuscript.
Jauhiainen, J. and Vorobeva, E. (2020). Asylum
seekers and migrants in Lesvos, Greece,
2019–2020. Publications of the Department of
Geography and Geology at the University of Tur-
ku 15.
Jones, E., Kelemen, R. and Meunier, S. (2016)
‘Failing forward? The Euro crisis and the in-
complete nature of European integration’,
Comparative Political Studies 49(7), 1010–1034.
Kriegmair, L., Rittberger, B., Zangl, B. and
Heinkelma-Wild, T. (2022). Dolce far
niente? Non-compliance and blame avoid-
ance in the EU. West European Politics 45(5),
1153–1174.
Krzyżanowski, M., Triandafyllidou, A. and
Wodak, R. (2018). The mediatization and
the politicization of the “refugee crisis” in
Europe. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies
16(1–2), 1–14.
Kulyk, V. (2016). Language and identity in
Ukraine after Euromaidan. Thesis Elev-
en 136(1), 90–106.
Lamour, C. and Varga, R. (2020). The border
as a resource in right-wing populist dis-
course: Viktor Orbán and the diasporas in
a multi-scalar Europe. Journal of Borderland
Studies 35(3), 335–350.
Laveneux, S. (2018). ‘Failing forward’ towards
which Europe? Organized hypocrisy in the
Common European Asylum System. Journal
of Common Market Studies 56(5), 1195–1212.
Makarychev, A. and Yatsyk, A. (2014). The four
pillars of Russia’s power narrative. The In-
ternational Spectator 49(4), 62–75.
Mallett, R. and Hagen-Zanker, O. (2018). Forced
migration trajectories: an analysis of jour-
ney- and decision-making among Eritrean
and Syrian arrivals to Europe. Migration
and Development 7(3), 341–351.
Masso, J., Roosaar, L. and Karma, K. (2021). Mi-
gration and industrial relations in Estonia.
Country report for the BARMIG project University
of Tartu, Estonia. Tartu. https://phavi.umcs.
pl/at/attachments/2022/0119/140607-bar-
mig-estonia-national-report-31122021.pdf
128 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Mastenbroek, E., Schrama, R. and Martinsen,
D. (2022). The political drivers of informa-
tion exchange: Explaining interactions in
the European Migration Network. Journal of
European Public Policy (online first).
Merisalo, M. and Jauhiainen, J. (2020). Asy-
lum-related migrants’ social media use,
mobility decisions, and resilience. Journal of
Immigrants and Refugee Studies 19(2), 184–198.
Migracje (2022). Maps and statistics of migrants
and Polish migration services. https://migrac-
je.gov.pl
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2022). Humanitari-
an aid to Ukraine. Republic of Estonia Minis-
try of Foreign Affairs. July 15, 2022. https://
vm.ee/en/humanitarian-aid-ukraine
Mitrokhin, N. (2015). Infiltration, instruction,
invasion: Russia’s war in the Donbass. Jour-
nal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society
1.
Monitoring of Integration in Estonian Soci-
ety (Original Title: Eesti ühiskonna lõimumise
monitooring) (2020). SA Poliitikauuringute
Keskus Praxis, Balti Uuringute Instituut,
Tallinna Ülikool, Tartu Ülikool, Turu-uu-
ringute AS.
Motte-Baumvol, J., Mont’Alverne, T. and Bra-
ga Guimarães, G. (2022). Extending social
protection for migrants under the Europe-
an Union’s temporary protection directive:
Lessons from the war in Ukraine.
Mustafa, F. (2022). Explained: Why men
aged 18-60 can’t leave Ukraine. HITC 25
February 2022. https://www.hitc.com/
en-gb/2022/02/25/why-cant-men-leave-
ukraine
NBC News (2005). Putin: Soviet collapse a 'gen-
uine tragedy'. NBC News April 25, 2005.
Neuer Zürcher Zeitung (2022). Interactive map:
How the Ukraine war is developing, day by day.
https://www.nzz.ch/english/interactive-
map-how-the-ukraine-war-is-developing-
day-by-day-ld.168808
OCHA (2022). Ukraine: Civilian casualties as of
24:00 11 July 2022. https://reliefweb.int/
report/ukraine/ukraine-civilian-casu-
alties-2400-11-july-2022
Osborn, A. and Nikolskaya, P. (2022). Russia's
Putin authorises 'special military opera-
tion' against Ukraine. Reuters 24 February
2022. https://www.reuters.com/world/
europe/russias-putin-authorises-mili-
tary-operations-donbass-domestic-me-
dia-2022-02-24
Paul, R. (2020). Europe’s essential workers: Mi-
gration and pandemic politics in Central
and Eastern Europe during COVID-19. Eu-
ropean Policy Analysis 6(2), 238–263.
Politsei- ja piirivalveamet (2022). Tempo-
rary protection for Ukrainian citizens and
their family members. (Estonian Police
and Border Guard Board) https://www.
politsei.ee/en/instructions/informa-
tion-on-the-war-in-ukraine/tempo-
rary-protection-for-ukrainian-citi-
zens-and-their-family-members
President of Russia (2022). Address by the Presi-
dent of the Russian Federation. http://en.krem-
lin.ru/events/president/news/67828
Rainsford, S. (2022). Ukraine crisis: Russia or-
ders troops into rebel-held regions. BBC
Analysis 22 February 2022. https://www.bbc.
com/news/world-europe-60468237
Rasche, L. (2022). Ukraine’s refugee plight. A
paradigm shift for the EU’s asylum policy?
Hertie School Jacques Delors Centre Policy Brief
23 March 2022.
Rygiel, K., Baban, F. and Ilcan, S. (2016). The
Syrian refugee crisis: The EU-Turkey ‘deal’
and temporary protection. Global Social Pol-
icy 16(3), 315–320.
Schmälter, J. (2018). A European response to
non-compliance: The Commission’s en-
forcement efforts and the Common Euro-
pean Asylum System. West European Politics
41(6), 1330–1353.
Scipioni, M. (2018). Failing forward in EU mi-
gration policy? EU integration after the
2015 asylum and migration crisis. Journal of
European Public Policy 25(9), 1357–1375.
Siseministeerium (2021). Tasakaalustame rän-
depoliitikat. https://www.siseministee-
rium.ee/en/node/92
Sotsiaalkindlustusamet (2022). Ukraina sõja-
põgenikud Eestis (Ukrainian War Refugees
in Estonia) https://sotsiaalkindlustusamet.
ee/et/ukraina#ua-stat
Statistics Estonia (2022). Ukrainians in the
Estonian Labour Market 24 July 2022.
https://www.stat.ee/en/find-statistics/
short-term-statistics/ukrainians-estoni-
an-labour-market
Tass (2014). Ukraine’s parliament-appointed
acting president says language law to stay
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 129
effective. Tass News https://tass.com/wor-
ld/721537
Tele2 (2022). Tele2 muudab kõnekaardi kasutuse
hinnakirja Ukraina suunal. 25 February 2022.
https://tele2.ee/uudised/tele2-muud-
ab-konekaardi-kasutuse-hinnakirja-ukrai-
na-suunal
Telia (2022). Telia võrgust tehtavad kõned ja SMS-
id on Ukraina numbritele tasuta. 25 February
2022. https://www.telia.ee/uudised/telia-
vorgust-tehtavad-koned-ja-sms-id-on-
ukraina-numbritele-tasuta
Trauner, F. (2016). Asylum policy: the EU’s ‘cri-
ses’ and the looming policy regime failure.
Journal of European Integration 38(3), 311–325.
UN News (2022). Ukrainian refugees ar-
rive in Poland ‘in a state of distress and
anxiety’. https://news.un.org/en/sto-
ry/2022/05/1119172
UNHCR = United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (1992). Statement of the Unit-
ed Nations High Commissioner for Refu-
gees to the International Meeting on Hu-
manitarian Aid for Victims of the Conflict
in the Former Yugoslavia. Geneva, 29th July
1992.
UNHCR = United Nations High Commis-
sioner for Refugees (2012). Guidelines on
Temporary Protection or Stay Arrangements.
https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/
expert/5304b71c9/guidelines-tempo-
rary-protection-stay-arrangements.html
UNHCR = United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (2022). Ukraine Refugee Situa-
tion. https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/
details/94366
UNHCR = United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (2022b). Ukraine Refugee Situa-
tion. https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/
ukraine
United Nations (1951). Convention related to
the status of refugees. Treaty Series 189, 137.
United Nations Security Council (2022). Rus-
sian Federation Announces ‘Special Mil-
itary Operation’ in Ukraine as Security
Council Meets in Eleventh-Hour Effort to
Avoid Full-Scale Conflict. SC/14803 8974th
meeting (night) 23 February 2022
Vahtla, A. (2022). SKA: Estonia has received
more than 50,000 refugees from Ukraine.
ERR News 11 August 2022. https://news.
err.ee/1608682195/ska-estonia-has-re-
ceived-more-than-50-000-refugees-from-
ukraine
Van Mol, C. (2018). Becoming Europeans: the
relationship between student exchanges
in higher education, European citizenship
and a sense of European identity. Innova-
tion: The European Journal of Social Science Re-
search 31(4), 449–463.
Vasli, K. (2022). Eestis varsti 100 000 ukrains-
last? Siseminister Jaani: peame kõigeks
valmis olema. Delfi 10 March 2022. https://
www.delfi.ee/artikkel/96131509/ees-
tis-varsti-100-000-ukrainlast-siseminister
-jaani-peame-koigeks-valmis-olema
Välisministeerium (2022). Humanitaarabi
Ukrainale. (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of
Estonia) https://www.vm.ee/valismajan-
dus-arengukoostoo/arengukoostoo-ja-hu-
manitaarabi/humanitaarabi-ukrainale
Wright, H. (2022). More than 21,000 Ukraini-
an Refugees have arrived in Estonia so far.
ERR News. 21 March 2022 https://news.
err.ee/1608539080/more-than-21-000-
ukrainian-refugees-have-arrived-in-esto-
nia-so-far
Yilmaz, H. (2022). No, Russia will not invade
Ukraine. Al Jazeera Opinion. 9 February
2022 https://www.aljazeera.com/opin-
ions/2022/2/9/no-russia-will-not-invade-
ukraine
130 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
7. Temporary protected Ukrainians and other Ukrainians in
Estonia, 2022
Jussi S. Jauhiainen (jusaja@utu.fi), Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa & Kerly Espen-
berg
The research project Temporary protected Ukrainians and other Ukrainians in Estonia, 2022,
focused on Ukrainians who resided in Estonia after the beginning of the war Russia ini-
tiated on February 24th, 2022. The task was to find out how Ukrainians in Estonia coped
under temporary protection or other legal statuses half a year after the 2022 Russian
invasion.
We conducted research on the number and the types of Ukrainians who arrived and
resided in Estonia. We paid special attention to the way Ukrainians receiving tempo-
rary protection, as well as other Ukrainians, felt about the practical implementation of
the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (TPD); namely, the access to accommodation,
employment, health (medical) care, education for children, and subsistence in Estonia.
We conducted in June–July of 2022 a semi-structured survey that 527 Ukrainians, who
had arrived in Estonia after the beginning of the war, answered. Among respondents
there were 500 temporary protected Ukrainians and 27 others including those seeking
protection, those with a residence permit in Estonia and other Ukrainians in Estonia.
Following the decisions in the European Commission and the European Council, the
government of Estonia invoked the implementation of the TPD on March 9th. Ukraini-
ans, who had left Ukraine on or after February 24th and arrived in Estonia, could apply
for and receive temporary protection in Estonia for one year, and they and their families
were eligible for related support for their everyday lives. All Ukrainians were allowed to
stay in Estonia as the war in Ukraine continued. In September, there were about 75,000–
80,000 Ukrainians in Estonia.
As of September, about 57,000 of the 100,000 war-fleeing Ukrainians who had arrived
planned to remain in Estonia during the war in Ukraine. Of them, 36,000 had received
temporary protection in the country. In addition, around 43,000 refugees transited
through Estonia. They were but a few (about 1.9%) of all temporary protected Ukrainians
in the EU. The share of Ukrainians having received or seeking protection in Estonia was
the highest in relation to the national population (4.3%) among EU member states.
According to the Police and Border Guard Board (2022), based on the registration
of accommodation in Estonia, of those individuals receiving temporary protection, 14%
were 0–6 years old, 27% 7–17 years old, and 60% 18 years or older. A large majority among
the 18–64-year-olds were women. Since Ukrainians receiving temporary protection
could move freely within the Schengen countries, it was impossible to know how many
actually resided in Estonia in 2022.
The main research conclusion is that as of September 2022, Ukrainians in Estonia
had been offered protection from the war regardless their status. All TPD elements were
provided but not all Ukrainians knew about all services orcould access them. More at-
tention needs to be paid to the ways that local inhabitants, the private sector and es-
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 131
pecially Ukrainians can be more actively engaged in the design and implementation of
TPD.
According to the survey, 92% of temporarily protected Ukrainians felt they were
treated well and 92% said that Estonians were friendly toward them. Of temporarily pro-
tected individuals, 66% aspired for sure to return to Ukraine, 2% wanted to migrate from
Estonia to a third country, and 12% thought they would probably live in Estonia for the
rest of their lives. Practically all (98%) respondents used the Internet. Many became even
more active Internet and social media users in Estonia. They used phone calls and digital
means to stay in frequent contact with people in Ukraine.
Concerning accommodation, 50% of the temporarily protected Ukrainians who re-
sponded to the survey were fully satisfied and 41% were partly satisfied with their current
accommodation. Most temporary protected individuals (45%) lived in a separate house
or apartment, yet a large number of all respondents still lived in somewhat crowded
accommodation and some (4%) expressed that they did not have access to enough bath-
rooms, a separate kitchen (60%), or the Internet (20%) in their accommodation.
In terms of employment, 27% of temporarily protected individuals aged 18–64 years
were employed full-time and 8% were employed part-time or self-employed. Of them,
41% were fully and 51% were partly satisfied with their current employment; 81% earned
less than 1,000 euros per month and 32% were able to save money from their salary.
Of temporarily protected individuals aged 18–64 years, 65% were not employed, and
of those who were not, 78% were searching for a job (51% of all temporarily protected).
Overall, employed Ukrainians made up 5% of the active labor force in Estonia and 12% of
all individuals registered as unemployed in Estonia.
Emergency public health care was free for every Ukrainian. Broader public health
care was provided to employed Ukrainians and those officially unemployed. Of tempo-
rarily protected individuals, 28% felt fully and 58% partly healthy. Of those 35% who had
used health care services, 81% were satisfied with the service they received.
Ukrainian children’s access to education was complex as they arrived in the middle
of the spring semester of 2022. Of temporarily protected parents with children aged 7–17
years 84% mentioned that it was easy to find a place in a school, and 73% of parents with
children aged 0–6 years, and using kindergarten services in Estonia, found it easy to find
a place for their children. Of the 13,000 minors registered in Estonia, 36% were enrolled
in the Estonian Education Information System. The language of instruction was Estoni-
an for 79.5% of pupils, Russian for 19.5% and English for 0.5%. 39% of all respondents with
school-aged children said that their children would continue their education in Estonia
in schools with Estonian as the language of instruction in the autumn of 2022.
Regarding supporting subsidies, 51% of respondents mentioned that they received
‘regular’ support, 27% ‘sometimes’, and 22% ‘no’ benefits. The largest type of benefits was
for children (received by 37%), unemployment, and pension. 79% mentioned needing
much more money to improve their situation.
132 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
8. Ajutise kaitse saanud ukrainlased ja teised Ukraina
sõjapõgenikud Eestis 2022.aastal
Jussi S. Jauhiainen (jusaja@utu.fi), Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa & Kerly
Espenberg
Uuring Temporary protected Ukrainians and other Ukrainians in Estonia, 2022 (Ajutise kait-
se saanud ukrainlased ja teised Ukraina sõjapõgenikud Eestis 2022. aastal) keskendus
ukrainlastele, kes tulid Eestisse pärast seda, kui Venemaa alustas 24. veebruaril 2022.
aastal laiaulatuslikku sõjategevust Ukraina vastu. Uuringu eesmärk oli välja selgitada,
kuidas said ukrainlased Eestis ajutise kaitse all ja muudes staatustes hakkama pool aastat
pärast Venemaa kallaletungi algust.
Me uurisime, kui paljud ja millised Ukraina kodanikud tulid Eestisse elama. Seejuures
pöörasime erilist tähelepanu sellele, kuidas ajutise kaitse saanud ukrainlased ja ka teistes
staatustes ukrainlased hindasid Euroopa Liidu (EL) ajutise kaitse direktiivi rakendamist
Eestis, eelkõige ligipääsu tagamist majutusele, töövõimalustele, tervishoiuteenustele,
laste kooliharidusele ning üldistele elatusvahenditele.
Me viisime läbi 2022.aasta juulis-juulis poolstruktureeritud küsitluse, millele vastas
527 sõja algusest alates Eestisse saabunud ukrainlast. Vastajate seas oli 500 ajutise kaitse
saanud ja 27 kaitset taotlevaid, elamisloa alusel Eestis viibivaid ukrainlasi ning ka muu-
del alustel 2022.aastal Eestis viibivad ukrainlasi.
Lähtudes Euroopa Komisjoni ja Euroopa Ülemkogu otsusest alustas Eesti valitsus
ajutise kaitse direktiivi rakendamist 9. märtsil. Need Ukraina kodanikud, kes lahkusid
Ukrainast 24. veebruaril või pärast seda, said taotleda ajutise kaitse saamist Eestis üheks
aastaks ning neil ja nende pereliikmetel oli õigus saada vastavaid toetusmeetmeid oma
igapäevalu jätkamiseks. Samuti võisid kõik ukrainlased Eestis viibida kuni sõjategevus
kestab. 2022. aasta septembris viibis Eestis umbes 75000–80000 Ukraina kodanikku.
Umbes 57000 Ukraina sõjapõgenikku 100 000-st, kes olid Eestisse saabunud 2022.
aasta septembriks, plaanisid jääda Eestisse nii kauaks kuni sõjategevus kestab. Neist
36000 olid saanud ajutise kaitse Eestis. Lisaks umbes 43000 sõjapõgenikku läbisid Eesti,
et liikuda mõnda teise riiki. Kõikidest EL-is olevatest ajutise kaitsega ukrainlastest oli
neid väike osa (1,9%) Samas oli nende ukrainlaste, kes said või taotlesid ajutist kaitset
Eestis, osakaal Eesti rahvastikust EL-i liikmesriikide seas suuruselt esimene (4,3%).
Politsei- ja Piirivalveameti (2022) andmetel lähtuvalt elukoha registreerim-
isest oli ajutine kaitse saanutest 14% vanuses 0–6 aastat, 27% vanuses 7–17 aas-
tat, ning 60% kes olid 18-aastased või vanemad. Vanuserühmas 18–64 aastat oli
suur osa sõjapõgenikest naised. Kuna ajutise kaitse saanud ukrainlased võivad
Schengeni alas vabalt liikuda, ei ole täpselt teada, kui paljud neist olid jäänud
2022.aastal Eestisse.
Uuringu üheks oluliseks tulemuseks oli, et 2022.aasta septembri seisuga oli Eestis
pakutud kaitset sõja eest põgenenud ukrainlastele sõltumata nende staatusest. Pakuti
kõiki peamisi ajutise kaitse direktiivis mainitud teenuseid, aga kõik ukrainlased ei tead-
nud kõikidest teenustest või ei saanud neile ligipääsu. Rohkem tuleb pöörata tähelepanu
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 133
sellele, kuidas kohalikud elanikud, erasektor ja eriti just ukrainlased ise saaksid ak-
tiivsemalt kaasa lüüa ajutise kaitse direktiivi alusel pakutavate teenuste arendamises ja
rakendamises.
Küsitluse tulemustest selgus, et 92% ajutise kaitse saanud ukrainlastest tundsid, et
neid koheldakse Eestis hästi ning 92% ütlesid, et eestlased suhtuvad neisse sõbralikult.
Ajutise kaitse saanutest 66% plaanisid naasta kindlasti Ukrainasse, 2% liikuda Eestist eda-
si kolmandasse riiki ning 12% arvasid, et nad tõenäoliselt jäävad Eestisse kogu ülejäänud
eluks. Peaaegu kõik (98%) vastajatest kasutasid internetti. Paljud muutusid Eestis varase-
maga võrreldes veel aktiivsemateks interneti ja sotsiaalmeedia kasutajateks. Ukrainasse
jäänutega suheldi tihti telefonitsi ja digitaalseid kanaleid kasutades.
Majutuse osas selgus, et uuringus osalenud ajutise kaitse saanud ukrainlastest 50%
oli oma majutuskohaga täiesti rahul ning 41% osaliselt rahul. Enamus ajutise kaitsega
inimestest (45%) elas eraldi majas või korteris. Siiski elas suur osa vastanutest kitsamates
tingimustes ja mõned tõid välja, et neil polnud oma elamiskohas piisavat ligipääsu van-
nitoale (4%), eraldi köögile (60%) või internetile (20%).
Tööturule ligipääsu osas näitasid andmed, et 27% ajutise kaitse saanud ukrainlastest
vanuses 18–64 aastat töötasid täiskoormusega ja 8% osakoormusega või eraettevõtjana.
Praeguse töökohaga olid neist 41% täiesti rahul ja 51% osaliselt rahul, 81% teenisid alla
1000 euro kuus ja 32% suutsid ka oma palgaga säästusid koguda. Ajutise kaitse saanud
18–64-aastatest vastajatest 65% ei käinud tööl ning neist omakorda 78% otsisid tööd (51%
ajutiselt kaitstud vastajatest). Üldiselt moodustasid ukrainlased 5% Eesti tööjõust ja 12%
ametlikult töötuks registreerunutest Eestis.
Ligipääs erakorralisele arstiabile oli kõigile Eestis viibivatele ukrainlastele tasuta ja
täiendavad tervishoiuteenused olid tagatud töötavatele või ametlikult töötuna arvele
võetud ukrainlastele. Ajutise kaitse saanud isikutest 28% tundis ennast täiesti tervena
ja 58% osaliselt tervena ning 81% tervishoiuteenuste kasutajatest (35% vastajatest) olid
saadud teenustega rahul.
Ukraina laste ligipääs haridusele oli keeruline, kuna saabuti keset 2022.aasta keva-
dist õppeveerandit. Ajutise kaitse saanud vastajatest, kellel olid 7–17-aastased laspsed,
ütles 84%, et koolikohta oli lihtne saada. Lasteaia teenust kasutas Eestis kuni kuueaas-
taste lastega ajutise kaitse saanutest 42%, neist 73% leidsid, et kohta oli kerge leida. Eestis
registreeritud 13000st alaealisest ukrainalasest olid 36% registreeritud Eesti Hariduse
Infosüsteemis. Õppekeel oli eesti keel 79,5% õpilastel, vene keel 19,5% õpilastel ja inglise
keel 0,5% õpilastel. Kõigist kooliealiste lastega vastanutest 39% ütlesid, et nende lapsed
jätkavad 2022.aasta sügisel haridusteed Eestis eesti keeles.
Toetuste kohta mainis 51% ajutise kaitsega inimestest, et nad saavad regulaarset toe-
tust, 27% saab mõningat toetust ja 22% ei saa üldse toetust. Enim saadi hüvitist lapsed
(37% juhtudest), töötu abiraha ja pensionit ja 79% mainis, et nad vajavad oma olukorra
parandamiseks palju rohkem rahalist abi.
134 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
9. Українці зі статусом тимчасово захисту та інші українці в
Естонії, 2022
Юссі С. Яухіайнен (jusaja@utu.fi), Хайді Енн Ебсен, Ольга Лиса & Керлі
Еспенберг
Дослідницький проект «Українці зі статусом тимчасово захисту та інші українці в
Естонії, 2022» був зосереджений на українцях, які проживають в Естонії з початку
війни, розпочатої Росією 24 лютого 2022 року. Завдання полягало у тому, щоб дізнатися,
як влаштувалися в Естонії українці з тимчасовим захистом чи іншими правовими
статусами впродовж півроку після російського вторгнення у 2022 році.
Ми провели дослідження для визначення кількості та типів українців, які прибули
та проживають в Естонії. Ми звернули особливу увагу на те, як українці, які отримують
тимчасовий захист, та інші українці відчули практичне впровадження Директиви ЄС
про тимчасовий захист (ДТЗ); а саме доступ до житла, працевлаштування, медичної
допомоги, освіти для дітей та мінімільних прожиткових гарантій в Естонії.
Ми провели напівструктуроване опитування, в якому взяли участь 527 українців,
які приїхали до Естонії після початку війни. Серед респондентів були українці з тимча-
совим захистом (500), шукачі захисту, ті, хто має посвідку на проживання в Естонії та
інші українці, які перебували в Естонії в червні 2022 року.
З 9 березня, після рішень Європейської комісії та Європейської ради уряд Естонії
розпочав виконання ДТЗ. Українці, які виїхали з України 24 лютого або після цієї дати
та прибули до Естонії, могли подати заяву та отримати тимчасовий захист в Естонії на
один рік, а також мали право на відповідну підтримку у повсякденному житті. Усім
українцям дозволили залишитися в Естонії, оскільки війна в Україні триває. На поча-
ток серпня в Естонії нараховувалося біля 75000–80000 українців.
Станом на початок серпня до Естонії прибуло 57000 / 100000 українців, які втікали
від війни. З них 36000 отримали тимчасовий захист у країні, а 43 000 повідомили, що
були транзитом. Вони складають лише маленьку частину (близько 1.9%) з усіх тимча-
сово захищених українців у ЄС. Окрім того, частка українців, які отримали або шукали
захисту в Естонії, була другою за величиною по відношенню до населення приймаючої
країни (4.3%) серед усіх країн-членів ЄС.
За даними Департаменту поліції та прикордонної охорони (2022), тимчасовий за-
хист в Естонії отримали 14% українців віком від 0 до 6 років, 27% віком від 7 до 17 років
і 60% віком від 18 років. Переважну біьшість споміж 18–64річних становлять жінки.
Через те, що українці з тимчасовим захистом можуть вільно пересуватися країнами
Шенгенської угоди, неможливо визначити, скільки їх насправді проживає на території
Естонії у серпні 2022 року.
Основний висновок дослідження полягає в тому, що станом на серпень 2022 року
українцям в Естонії було запропоновано захист від війни незалежно від їхнього статусу.
Усі елементи ДТЗ були надані, але не всі українці знали про усі послуги або мали до них
доступ. Необхідно приділяти більше уваги способам більш активного залучення місце-
вих жителів, приватного сектору та особливо українців до розробки та реалізації ДТЗ.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 135
Згідно з опитуванням, 92% тимчасово захищених українців відчували, що до них
ставляться добре, і 92% сказали, що естонці ставляться до них доброзичливо. З осіб, які
перебувають під тимчасовим захистом, 66% прагнули повернутися в Україну, 2% хотіли
мігрувати з Естонії до третьої країни, а 12% не проти прожити в Естонії решту життя.
Практично всі (98%) респонденти користувалися Інтернетом. Багато стали активними
користувачами Інтернету та соціальних мереж в Естонії. Вони використовували теле-
фонні дзвінки та цифрові засоби, щоб постійно підтримувати контакт з людьми в Укра-
їні.
Щодо житла, 50% тимчасово захищених українців, які прийнялти участь в опи-
туванні, були повністю задоволені та 41% були частково задоволені своїм поточним
житлом. Більшість респондентів зі статусом тимчасового захисту (45%) проживали в
окремих квартирах чи будинках, достатньо велика кількість респондентів проживали в
дещо перенаселених помешканнях, і багато хто висловив думку, що не мали у своїх по-
мешканнях окремої ванної кімнати (4%), житлового приміщення (60%), окрема власна
кухні (60%) або Інтернету (20%).
Стосовно зайнятості, 27% тимчасово захищених осіб у віці 18–64 років були працев-
лаштованими на повний робочий день, а 8% були працевлаштованими на неповний ро-
бочий день або самозайнятими. 41% були повністю та 51% частково задоволені своєю
поточною роботою; 81% заробляли менше 1000 євро на місяць і 28% змогли відкладати
гроші зі своєї зарплатні. Серед тимчасово захищених осіб віком 18–64 років 65% не
були працевлаштовані, з них 78% шукали роботу. Загалом зайняті українці становлять
5% усієї активної робочої сили Естонії та 12% зареєстрованих безробітних в Естонії -
українці.
Невідкладна державна медична допомога є безкоштовною для кожного українця.
Працюючим українцям та офіційно безробітним було забезпечено ширшу державну
медичну допомогу. Серед осіб, які перебувають під тимчасовим захистом, 28% відчува-
ли себе повністю здоровими і 58% частково. Серед тих, хто користувався медичними
послугами (35% тимчасово захищених та 51% тих, що не мали тимчасово захисту), 81%
задоволені їх наданням.
Доступ українських дітей до освіти був складним, оскільки вони прибули в середині
весняного семестру 2022 року. Серед батьків зі статусом тимчасового захисту 84% тих,
що мають дітей віком 7–17 років, зазначили, що було легко знайти місце в естонській
школі для їхніх дітей; 42% тих, що мають дітей дошкільного віку (0–6 років) корис-
туються послугами дитячих садосків в Естонії, з них 73% досить легко знайшли для
дитини місце у садочку. Зпоміж 13000 неповнолітніх, зареєстрованих в Естонії, 36%
були зараховані до Естонської освітньо-інформаційної системи. Мовою навчання для
79,5% українських учнів була естонська, для 19,5% - російська і англійська для 0,5%. 39%
респондентів, що мають дітей шкільного віку, бажали б, щоб восени 2022 року вони
продовжили навчання в Естонії естонською мовою.
Що стосується соціальної допомоги та субсидій, 51% осіб, які перебувають під тим-
часовим захистом, зазначили, що вони отримували допомогу ‘регулярно’, 27% ‘час від
часу’ та 22% ‘не мали’ допомоги. Найбільш поширеними видами допомоги були: допо-
мога на неповнолітніх дітей (37% отримали її), допомога по безробіттю та пенсії, а 79%
зазначили, що потребують набагато більше грошей для їхньої ситуації.
136 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
10. Украинцы со статусом временной защиты и другие
украинцы в Эстонии, 2022 год
Юсси С. Яухиайнен (jusaja@utu.fi), Хайди Энн Эрбсен, Ольга Лыса & Керли
Эспенберг
Исследовательский проект "Украинцы со статусом временной защиты и другие украинцы
в Эстонии, 2022 год" сфокусирован на украинцах, которые проживают в Эстонии с начала
войны, развязанной Россией 24 февраля 2022 года. Задача проекта состоит в том, чтобы
узнать, как устраивалась в Эстонии жизнь украинцев со статусом временной защиты или
другим правовым статусом в течении полугода после российского вторжения.
Мы провели исследование и определили количество и типы украинцев, которые
прибыли и проживают в Эстонии. Особое внимание было уделено тому, как украинцы,
получившие статус временной защиты, а также украинцы с другими статусами,
почувствовали на себе реализацию Директивы ЕС о временной защите (ДВЗ), а именно
доступ к жилью, трудоустройству, медицинскому обслуживанию, образованию для детей
и минимальным прожиточным гарантиям в Эстонии.
Мы провели полуструктурированный опрос среди 527 украинцев, прибывших в Эстонию
после начала войны. Среди респондентов были украинцы, получившие статус временной
защиты, те, кто ожидают получение стат уса (500), те, у кого есть вид на жительство в Эстонии,
и другие украинцы, которые находились в Эстонии в июне 2022 года.
В соответствии с решением Европейской комиссии и Европейского Совета, 9 марта
2022 года правительство Эстонии объявило о начале реализации ДВЗ. Украинцы, которые
покинули Украину 24 февраля или позднее и прибыли в Эстонию, могли подать заявление
и получить статус временной защиты в Эстонии на один год, а также имели право на
соответствующую поддержку в повседневной жизни. Всем украинцам было разрешено
проживать в Эстонии, поскольку война на Украине продолжается. В начале августа в
Эстонии насчитывалось около 75 000–80 000 украинцев.
По состоянию на начало августа в Эстонию прибыло 57 000 / 100 000 украинцев,
бежавших от войны. Из них, 36000 получили временную защиту в с тране, 43000 сообщили,
что находились в Эстонии транзитом. Они составляют лишь небольшую долю (около 1,9%)
всех украинцев в ЕС. Тем не менее, доля украинцев, получивших или ожидающих статуса
временной защиты в Эстонии, есть второй по величине по отношению к размеру населения
страны (4,3%) среди всех государств-членов ЕС.
По данным Департамента полиции и погранохраны (2022), временная защита была
предоставлена в Эстонии 14% лиц в возрас те от 0 до 6 лет, 27% лицам в возрасте от 7 до 17 лет и 60%
украинцам в возрасте 18 ле т и старше. Среди 18-64-летних большинство составляют женщины.
Так как украинцы, получившие статус временной защиты, могут свободно передвигаться по
странам Шенгенского соглашения, представляется невозможным определить, сколько из них
фактически проживает на территории Эстонии в августе 2022 году.
Основной вывод исследования заключается в том, что по состоянию на август 2022
года украинцам в Эстонии была предложена временная защита независимо от их статуса.
Все виды помощи, упомянутые в ДВЗ, были предоставлены, но не все украинцы знали об
этих услугах или могли получить к ним доступ. Необходимо уделять большее внимания
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 137
тому, как местные жители, частный сектор и особенно украинцы могут принимать более
активное участие в разработке и внедрении ДВЗ.
Согласно опросу, 92% украинцев со статусом временной защиты считают, что к ним
хорошо относятся, а 92% заявили, что эстонцы относятся к ним дружелюбно. Среди всех
респондентов со статусом временной защиты, 66% хотели вернуться в Украину, 2% хотели
мигрировать из Эстонии в другую страну, а 12% думали, что они, вероятно, прожили бы в
Эстонии остаток жизни. Практически все (98%) респонденты пользовались Интернетом.
Многие из них стали активными пользователями Интернета и социальных се тей в Эстонии.
Они использовали телефонные звонки и цифровые средства связи, чтобы поддерживать
частые контакты с людьми в Украине.
Что касается жилья, то 50% украинцев со статусом временной защиты были полностью
удовлетворены своими жилищными условиями, и 41% были частично удовлетворены.
Большинство респондентов со статусом временной защиты (45%) проживали в отдельных
квартирах или домах, достаточно большое количество ре спондентов проживали в относительно
перенаселенных помещениях, и много кто выразил мнение, что у их жилье не было отдельной
ванной комнаты (4%), отдельная собственная кухни (60%) или Интернета (20%).
Касательно трудовой занятости, то 27% украинцев со статусом временной защиты в
возрасте от 18 до 64 лет работали полный рабочий день, а 8% - неполный рабочий день
или являлись самозанятыми. 41% были полностью и 51% частично удовлетворены
своей текущей работой; 81% зарабатывали менее 1 000 евро в месяц, а 32% смогли
делать сбережения со своей зарплаты. Среди украинцев со статусом временной защиты
в возрасте от 18 до 64 лет 65% не были трудоустроены, и из них 78% искали работу. В
целом, занятые украинцы составляют 5% всей активной рабочей силы Эстонии и 12% всех
зарегистрированных безработных в Эстонии - украинцы.
Экстренная государственная медицинская помощь бесплатно предоставляется всем
украинцам. Другие виды гос ударственной медицинской помощи оказываются работающим
и официально безработным украинцам. Среди лиц со статусом временной защиты
28% чувствовали себя полностью здоровыми и 58% частично. Из тех, кто пользовался
медицинскими услугами (35% со статусом временной защиты и 51% респондентов без
временной защиты), 81% частично удовлетворены их качеством.
Доступ украинских детей к образованию был затрудненным, поскольку они прибыли
в середине весеннего семестра 2022 года. Среди родителей со статусом временной
защиты 84% тех, у кого есть детьми 7-17 лет, отметили, что в Эстонии легко нашли место
в школе для своих детей, а также 42% тех, у кого есть дети дошкольного возраста (0-6
лет) использовались услугами детских садов в Эстонии. Из них 73% достаточно легко
нашли место в саду. среди 13000 зарегистрированных в Эстонии несовершеннолетних,
36% были зачислены в Эстонскую информационно-образовательную систему. Языком
обучения для 79,5% учащихся было эстонский, для 19,5% - русский и английский для 0,5%.
39% респондентов с детьми школьного возраста, желали бы, чтоб с осени 2022 года они
продолжили обучение в Эстонии на эстонском языке.
Что касается социальной помощи и субсидий, 51% лиц со временной защитой, указали,
что они получали помощь ‘регулярно’, 27% ‘время от времени’ и 22% ‘не имели’ помощи.
Самыми распрост ранёнными видами помощи были: помощь на несовершеннолетних детей
(37% получили ее), помощь по безработице и пенсия, а 78% отметили, что им необходимо
намного больше средств к существованию.
138 TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
11. Tilapäistä suojelua saaneet ukrainalaiset ja muut
ukrainalaiset Virossa vuonna 2022
Jussi S. Jauhiainen (jusaja@utu.fi), Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa & Kerly Espenberg
Tutkimusprojekti Temporary protected Ukrainians and other Ukrainians in Estonia, 2022 (Tila-
päistä suojelua saaneet ukrainalaiset ja muut ukrainalaiset Virossa vuonna 2022) kohdis-
tui ukrainalaisiin, jotka asuivat Virossa Venäjän 24. helmikuuta 2022 aloittaman sodan
jälkeen. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten tilapäistä suojelua saaneet ukraina-
laiset ja muut ukrainalaiset pärjäsivät Virossa puoli vuotta Venäjän hyökkäyksen jälkeen.
Tutkimme Viroon saapuneiden ja sinne asumaan jääneiden ukrainalaisten määrää ja
tyyppejä. Kiinnitimme erityistä huomiota siihen, miten tilapäistä suojelua saavat ukrai-
nalaiset ja muut ukrainalaiset kokivat EU:n tilapäisen suojelun direktiivin toteuttamisen
käytännössä: mahdollisuuden saada majoitus, töitä, terveydenhuoltoa, lasten koulutus-
ta ja tukea Virossa.
Toteutimme Virossa puolistrukturoidun kyselyn, johon vastasi 527 ukrainalaista, jotp-
ka olivat saapuneet maahan sodan alkamisen jälkeen. Vastaajien joukossa oli niitä, jotka
olivat tilapäisen suojelun piirissä (500) sekä niitä, jotka hakivat tilapäistä suojelua, joilla
oli muutoin oleskelulupa Viroon ja jotka olivat muulla perusteella Virossa kesällä 2022.
Euroopan komission ja Euroopan neuvoston päätösten mukaisesti Viron hallitus päät-
ti tilapäisen suojelun direktiivin soveltamisesta Viroon 9. maaliskuuta 2022 lähtien. Uk-
rainalaisilla, jotka olivat lähteneet Ukrainasta 24. helmikuuta tai sen jälkeen ja saapuneet
Viroon, oli mahdollisuus perheineen hakea sieltä vuodeksi tilapäistä suojelua ja siihen liit-
tyviä tukia. Syyskuussa Virossa oli noin 75 000–80 000 Ukrainan kansalaista. Kaikki ukraii-
nalaiset saivat jäädä Viroon sodan takia.
Syyskuuhun 2022 mennessä Viroon oli saapunut noin 100 000 sotaa paennutta uks-
rainalaista, joista 57 000 aikoi jäädä maahan. Heistä 36 000 oli otettu tilapäiseen suoje-
luun. Lisäksi 43 000 ilmoitti olevansa läpikulkumatkalla. Virossa tilapäisesti suojeltujen
ukrainalaisen osuus oli tuolloin pieni (1,9%) kaikista heistä EU:ssa. Toisaalta suojelun
piirissä olevien ukrainalaisten suhteellinen osuus Viron väestöstä (4,3%) oli EU:n jäsen-
valtioista korkein.
Poliisi- ja rajaviranomaisten ja rekisteröintitietojen mukaan ukrainalaisista Virossa
14% oli 0–6-vuotiaita, 27% oli 7–17-vuotiaita ja 60% vähintään 18-vuotiaita; 18–64-vuoti-
aista useimmat olivat naisia. Tilapäistä suojelua saaneet voivat liikkua vapaasti Schen-
gen-alueella, minkä vuoksi on mahdotonta tietää tarkkaan, kuinka monta heistä asui
Virossa vuonna 2022.
Tutkimuksen päätulos on, että syyskuuhun 2022 mennessä ukrainalaisille oli Virossa
tarjottu suojaa sodalta riippumatta heidän hallinnollisesta asemastaan. Kaikkia tilapäi-
sen suojelun direktiivin palveluita tarjottiin, mutta kaikki ukrainalaiset eivät tietäneet
niistä tai eivät päässeet niiden piiriin. Enemmän huomiota tulee kiinnittää siihen, miten
paikalliset asukkaat, yksityinen sektori ja erityisesti ukrainalaiset itse voivat olla aktiivi-
semmin mukana tilapäisen suojelun suunnittelussa ja toteuttamisessa.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED UKR AINIANS AND OTHER UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022 139
Kyselyvastausten mukaan 92% tilapäistä suojaa Virossa saaneista ukrainalaisista koki
tulevansa kohdelluksi hyvin, ja 92%:n mukaan virolaiset olivat ystävällisiä heitä kohtaan.
Tilapäisesti suojelluista henkilöistä 66% halusi varmasti palata Ukrainaan, 2% muuttaa
Virosta muualle ja 12% ajatteli jäävänsä loppuelämäkseen Viroon. Käytännössä kaikki
(98%) vastanneet käyttivät Internetiä. Monista tuli myös aiempaa aktiivisempia Inter-
netin ja sosiaalisen median käyttäjiä Virossa. He soittivat puheluita Ukrainaan ja olivat
yhteydessä ukrainalaisiin siellä monien digitaalisten välineiden avulla.
Tilapäisesti suojelluista vastanneista 50% oli majoitukseensa täysin ja 41% osittain tyy-
tyväisiä. Useat (45%) asuivat erikseen talossa tai kerrostaloasunnossa, mutta useiden asu-
minen oli jossain määrin ahdasta: osa (4%) ilmoitti, että heillä ei ole riittävästi suihku- ja
wc-tiloja, omaa erillistä keittiötä (60%) tai Internet-yhteyttä (20%) asunnossaan.
Tilapäisesti suojelluista 18–64-vuotiaista vastanneista oli 27% kokopäiväisesti ja 8%
osapäiväisesti töissä tai yrittäjänä. Heistä 41% oli täysin ja 51% osittain tyytyväisiä työteh-
täviinsä; 81% ansaitsi alle 1000 euroa kuussa ja 32% pystyi säästämään palkastaan. Tila-
päisesti suojelluista työikäisistä 65% ei ollut töissä, ja heistä 78% etsi aktiivisesti töitä (51%
tilapäisesti suojelluista työikäisistä). Kaikki ukrainalaiset muodostivat 5% Viron työvoi-
masta ja 12% työttömiksi rekisteröityneistä.
Julkinen ensiapu oli ilmaista kaikille ukrainalaisille Virossa. Laajempaa julkista ter-
veydenhuoltoa tarjottiin työssäkäyville ja työttömiksi rekisteröityneille ukrainalaisille.
Tilapäistä suojelua saavista vastanneista 28% tunsi itsensä täysin ja 58% osittain terveeksi.
Julkista terveydenhuoltoa käyttäneistä (35% tilapäisesti suojelluista ja 52% muista vastan-
neista) 81% oli tyytyväinen saamaansa hoitoon.
Ukrainalaisten lasten koulunkäynti oli monimutkaista, sillä he saapuivat Viroon kes-
kellä kevätlukukautta. Tilapäisesti suojelluista vanhemmista, joilla oli kouluikäisiä (7–17
vuotta) lapsia Virossa, 84% mainitsi, että oli helppoa löytää lapselle koulupaikka Virossa,
ja 73% alle kouluikäisten, päiväkotia käyvien lasten vanhemmista (42% vastaajista) mai-
nitsi, että oli helppoa löytää lapsille paikka hoidossa. Viron 13 000 kouluikäisestä ukrai-
nalaisesta 36% oli rekisteröitynyt koulujärjestelmään Virossa. Pääopetuskielinä olivat
viro (79,5% oppilaista), venäjä (19,5%) ja englanti (0,5%). Kouluikäisten vanhemmista 39%
vastasi, että heidän lapsensa jatkavat koulussa Virossa syksyllä 2022 viron kielellä.
Vastaajista 51% kertoi saavansa jonkinlaista tukea säännöllisesti, 27% joskus ja 22% että
ei saa tukea lainkaan. Tavallisimmin tuet liittyivät asumiseen (42% sai tätä tukea), työttö-
myyteen ja eläkkeisiin. Vastaajista 79% sanoi tarvitsevansa paljon enemmän rahaa tilan-
teensa parantamiseksi Virossa.
ISBN
Nro 1 72
TURKU 2008
(Eds.)
TURUN YLIOPISTON MAANTIETEEN JA GEOLOGIAN LAITOKSEN JULKAISUJA
PUBLICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY OF UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
MAANTIETEEN JA GEOLOGIAN LAITOS
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
ISBN 978-951-29-9016-0 (printed) ISSN 2489-2319 (printed)
ISBN 978-951-29-9017-7 (Internet) ISSN 2324-0369 (Internet)
Temporary Protected Ukrainians and Other Ukrainians in Estonia, 2022 Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa & Kerly Espenberg
No. 18
18
TURUN YLIOPISTON MAANTIETEEN JA GEOLOGIAN LAITOKSEN JULKAISUJA
PUBLICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
No. 1. Jukka Käyhkö and Tim Horstkotte (Eds.): Reindeer husbandry under global change in the tundra region of
Northern Fennoscandia. 2017.
No. 2. Jukka Käyhkö och Tim Horstkotte (Red.): Den globala förändringens inverkan på rennäringen på norra
Fennoskandiens tundra. 2017.
No. 3. Jukka Käyhkö ja Tim Horstkotte (doaimm.): Boazodoallu globála rievdadusaid siste Davvi-Fennoskandia
duottarguovlluin. 2017.
No. 4. Jukka Käyhkö ja Tim Horstkotte (Toim.): Globaalimuutoksen vaikutus porotalouteen Pohjois-Fennoskandian
tundra-alueilla. 2017.
No. 5. Jussi S. Jauhiainen (Toim.):
Turvapaikka Suomesta? Vuoden 2015 turvapaikanhakijat ja turvapaikkaprosessit
Suomessa. 2017.
No. 6. Jussi S. Jauhiainen: Asylum seekers in Lesvos, Greece, 2016-2017. 2017
No. 7. Jussi S. Jauhiainen: Asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Lampedusa, Italy, 2017. 2017
No. 8. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Katri Gadd & Justus Jokela: Paperittomat Suomessa 2017. 2018.
No. 9. Jussi S. Jauhiainen & Davood Eyvazlu: Urbanization, Refugees and Irregular Migrants in Iran, 2017. 2018.
No. 10. Jussi S. Jauhiainen & Ekaterina Vorobeva: Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Jordan, 2017. 2018.
No. 11. Jussi S. Jauhiainen: Refugees and Migrants in Turkey, 2018. 2018.
No. 12. Tua Nylén, Harri Tolvanen, Anne Erkkilä-Välimäki & Meeli Roose: Guide for cross-border spatial data analysis
in Maritime Spatial Planning. 2019.
No. 13. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Lutz Eichholz & Annette Spellerberg: Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Undocumented
Migrants in Germany, 2019. The Case of Rhineland-Palatinate and Kaiserslautern. 2019.
No. 14. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Davood Eyvazlu & Bahram Salavati Sarcheshmeh: Afghans in Iran: Migration Patterns
and Aspirations. 2020.
No. 15. Jussi S. Jauhiainen & Ekaterina Vorobeva: Asylum Seekers and Migrants in Lesvos, Greece, 2019–2020.
2020.
No. 16. Salla Eilola, Petra Kollanen ja Nora Fagerholm: Vehreyttä ja rentoa oleskelutilaa kaivataan Aninkaisten
konserttitalon kortteliin – Raportti 3D-näkymiä pilotoivan asukaskyselyn tuloksista ja käyttökokemuksesta.
2021.
No 17. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Sanni Huusari & Johanna Junnila: Asylum Seekers and Undocumented Migrants in
Lesvos, Greece, 2020–2022. 2022.
No 18. Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa & Kerly Espenberg: Temporary Protected Ukrainians
and Other Ukrainians in Estonia, 2022. 2022.
TEMPORARY PROTECTED
UKRAINIANS AND OTHER
UKRAINIANS IN ESTONIA, 2022
Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Heidi Ann Erbsen, Olha Lysa & Kerly Espenberg
Temporary protected Ukrainians and other Ukrainians in
Estonia, 2022
Ajutise kaitse saanud ukrainlased ja teised Ukraina
sõjapõgenikud Eestis 2022. aastal
˄
ʫϮϬϮϮ
˄
ˑ 2022
Tilapäistä suojelua saaneet ukrainalaiset ja muut
ukrainalaiset Virossa vuonna 2022
