They came back. But are they really home?

Ukrainian children deported to Russia: facing the challenge of rebuilding their lives

Can we really say that a child has “come home” when they have found their family but have not yet found their bearings? This question seems essential to me.

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, more than 20,500 Ukrainian children are reported to have been deported or illegally transferred to Russia or to occupied territories. Just over 2,100 have, to date, reportedly been brought back to Ukraine.

Behind these figures, we must never forget one thing: these are not administrative files but children.

Children who had a bedroom, a school, friends, grandparents, a language, habits and a family history.

In a matter of days or weeks, their environment changed: their name, their language, their history and their understanding of their own country.

We talk a great deal about the children's return. And rightly so, but I believe we must now ask another question:

What happens inside a child's mind once they have returned?

Physical return may only be the first step, because the war can continue inside a child's mind.

We must be cautious with the “Stockholm syndrome”

When a child returns from Russia and continues to speak Russian, seems to defend certain people they met there, or repeats some of the messages they heard during their stay, there is a temptation to say that this is “Stockholm syndrome”.

Personally, I believe we must be extremely cautious with this expression because “Stockholm syndrome” is not a recognized psychiatric diagnosis. Applying this label too quickly to a child may prevent us from understanding what they actually experienced.

A child is not a miniature adult. They depend on adults to eat, sleep, be protected and understand what is dangerous and what is not.

Imagine a child separated from their parents, placed in a new environment and surrounded by adults on whom their safety entirely depends, and ask ourselves what they can do.

They can resist, but they can also adapt; they can learn the rules, repeat what is expected of them, seek acceptance, and also grow closer to those on whom their safety depends.

This does not necessarily mean that they deeply accept everything they are told, because it can also be a survival strategy.

That is why I prefer to speak of trauma-adaptation mechanisms and psychological survival strategies rather than immediately applying a medical label.

When we change a child's environment, we can also change their history

This is probably one of the most disturbing aspects of the situation. Documented practices concerning Ukrainian children include changes of identity, the granting of Russian citizenship, placement in Russian families or institutions, and indoctrination or militarization programs. This is therefore not simply a matter of moving a child from one place to another, but potentially of changing the elements that shape their identity:

·      Their first name.

·      Their language.

·      Their family history.

·      Their relationship with their country.

·      Their personal narrative.

The real danger is not only geopolitical

We talk a great deal about borders, defense, intelligence, disinformation and security, but there is another border: an inner border, that of the human being. We must therefore try to answer these questions:

·      What becomes of a child when part of their history has been imposed on them?

·      What happens when they have to live with two contradictory narratives?

·     What do they feel when they are reunited with a mother they have not seen for months or years?

But also, what happens when their family asks them: “Tell me what happened.”

They may speak, but they may also remain silent. They may be happy to have returned and, at the same time, miss certain people they met during their stay. They may love their parents and resent them. They may want to return to Ukraine while continuing to think through references learned in Russia. They may even feel ashamed of some things they said or did in order to adapt.

All these emotions can exist at the same time, and this is precisely where we need to change our perspective. We should not ask the child to choose immediately between two worlds; we must help them rebuild their own.

Return is not an arrival but a process

This is a fundamental distinction. Finding a child is obviously the priority, but after the return, other questions begin.

·      Where will they live?

·      With whom?

·      In what psychological state?

·      Can they return to school?

·      How are they sleeping?

·      Do they still speak Ukrainian?

·      How do they react when they hear people talking about Russia?

·      How do they react when they are reunited with their parents?

·      Are they afraid?

·      Are they aggressive?

·      Do they withdraw into themselves?

·      Are they able to play?

And above all: who will continue to support them six months, one year, two years after their return?

We sometimes have an overly administrative view of return. After finding the child, we verify their identity, they are handed back to their family, and the file is closed.

We forget that, psychologically, their story is only just beginning

A traumatized child may need several months or several years to regain a sense of security. Not all children will react in the same way; some will need psychological support, others medical care. Some will need to return to stable schooling, while others will primarily need family support.

But for a certain period, all of them will simply need to regain the right to be children: to play, to laugh, to create and, above all, to trust.

A European study highlights the scale of the problem

We must not talk about trauma in the abstract. A study published in March 2026 in BMJ Global Health, entitled Mental health of Ukrainian children and youth during the Russian-Ukrainian war: a scoping review, analyzed scientific research on the mental health of Ukrainian children and young people during the period 2014–2024. It examines, in particular, mental health problems, traumatic events, as well as risk and protective factors. This study does not specifically concern children who returned from Russia, but it reminds us of something essential: war places considerable psychological pressure on Ukrainian children, and their mental health must be considered an integral component of reconstruction.

We must therefore avoid one mistake: believing that bringing the children back is enough to repair the consequences of war.

What if we thought about reconstruction differently?

Of course, medicine, psychiatry and psychotherapy are essential, but I also believe we need to broaden our perspective, and this is where integrative health can play a role.

Looking at a child as a whole means taking into account their body, sleep, nutrition, emotions, relationships, environment, physical activity, creativity and sense of belonging. This obviously does not mean abandoning scientific medicine, but rather bringing several areas of expertise together around the same child.

For a child who has experienced war, this can be decisive, because how can we rebuild someone simply by asking them to recount their trauma?

The child needs to regain a rhythm: sleeping, eating properly, moving, playing, laughing, trusting an adult, returning to school, finding friends—and then, perhaps, they can begin to talk.

Art can become a language when words are no longer enough

This is where art therapy seems particularly valuable to me. A child may not want to speak, may not know how to speak, may not have the words, but they can draw, paint, sculpt, dance, listen to music, or create a story.

Art can then become another language.

A child who has experienced war may need a doctor, a child psychiatrist, a psychologist, an educator, a teacher, a social worker and family support. Art therapy replaces none of these professionals; it complements the team. This complementarity is precisely what I find interesting:

·      The doctor treats.

·      The psychologist supports the child through the trauma.

·      The child psychiatrist intervenes when necessary.

·      The teacher helps the child find their way back to learning.

·      And art therapy can offer another space for expression. A space in which the child is not required to immediately recount what they have experienced. They can simply create and sometimes, what cannot be said emerges in another form.

The experience of Hibuki Therapy

A study published in September 2025 in the European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation examined Hibuki Therapy, an intervention designed to support Ukrainian children facing war trauma. The study, conducted with 400 Ukrainian children between September 2022 and March 2023, combines psychodynamic principles and art therapy techniques. This experience is interesting because it starts from a simple reality: a child does not always have an adult's words to describe their trauma. Play, objects, drawing and creative activities can then provide entry points for emotional expression.

Europe is beginning to look in this direction

On February 13, 2026, WHO Europe and the European Union announced their intention to strengthen the integration of arts and culture into health systems, particularly within the Health Resilience in the Eastern Partnership programme, in which Ukraine participates.

BOX 1: Four European proposals for using art as a tool for reconstruction

     1. Create European arts-based reconstruction workshops

In centers welcoming children returning from war zones, Europe could fund spaces dedicated to creative activities: painting, drawing, music, theater, dance, writing, photography, sculpture or digital arts.

    2. Train art therapists specialized in war trauma

Europe could support training combining art therapy, child psychology, an understanding of trauma, child protection and neuroscience.

   3. Create a European research program on art and child trauma

Europe could fund research comparing different forms of mediation: painting, music, theater, dance, writing or digital creation. The question researchers will need to ask is: what works, for which child, at what point, and for how long?

    4. Create a European “Arts and Childhood Resilience” program

Europe could go further and create networks connecting artists, art therapists, psychologists, doctors, teachers and researchers. Workshops could be developed in schools, care centers and facilities welcoming displaced children or children returning from war zones.

Bring the children home, then give them back their future

The first battle is the battle for return; the second is the battle for reconstruction.

This second battle will be far less visible. It will not necessarily make the headlines or produce photographs of reunions, but it will be decisive.

A child does not rebuild themselves simply by talking about what they experienced. They also rebuild themselves when they discover that they can still create something: an image, a song, a story, a friendship, a project, a future.

I believe Europe must now change scale. It cannot only fund the return; it must also fund what comes after the return.

Europe must accept the idea that rebuilding a child who has experienced war cannot be measured in a few weeks but may take years.

BOX 2: Four recommendations to ensure that Europe does not leave these children alone after their return

   1. Guarantee individual support for several years

Every returning child should be able to benefit from a personalized pathway rather than standardized care. Support should be able to continue for several years, with the possibility of returning to professionals when new difficulties arise.

  2. Create a genuine “European return pathway”

The return should not stop at the Ukrainian border. Europe could establish a common framework to coordinate healthcare, child protection, education, psychological support and family support.

The objective would be simple: no longer leave each child dependent on the chance of where they return.

  3. Give these children a genuine opportunity to catch up at school

A child who has lost months or years of schooling should not be considered a “behind” student because they have lived through an exceptional situation. Europe should support individualized catch-up programs, as well as language learning and gradual reintegration into normal school life.

   4. Create a European observatory for the reconstruction of children affected by war

Europe has data on displaced children, returns and protection needs, but it must go further.

It should be possible to monitor, over several years, children's paths of recovery: mental health, schooling, family relationships, social integration, artistic expression, difficulties encountered and solutions that work.

A responsibility that goes beyond Ukraine

The question of Ukrainian children returning from Russia does not concern Ukraine alone.

It concerns all of us because what is unfolding around these children raises much broader questions

·      What does a society do when a child returns from a war?

·      Are we capable only of giving them back their family, or are we also capable of giving them back their future?

We must continue to search for children who are still separated from their families. We must continue to document what happened to them, but we must also prepare now for the next step: What do we do with them when they return?

Bringing a child home is an obligation. Helping them become themselves again is a responsibility.