There’s some good news coming out of Ukraine, but it’s news with a worrisome psychological aspect. The good news is that “the biggest de-escalation since 2022” is happening in Ukraine now, according to David Arakhamia, head of President Zelensky’s party in Ukraine’s parliament. He was referring to the ceasefire that will allow residents of occupied Oleshky to leave their town and then choose whether to relocate to Russia or within Ukraine. The ceasefire extends until November 1.
For the approximately 2,000 residents of Oleshky, a town in the war zone near Kherson, this means a chance to escape hunger and shelling. Since late spring, the town has been cut off from food deliveries, and the only food that comes is delivered by drones. The roads were heavily mined, and people trying to leave faced death by either landmines or shelling. The humanitarian crisis was acute, and by some accounts, people have resorted to eating grass.
However, as part of the ceasefire agreement, evacuees will first be taken to occupied Crimea or Russia. In the mind of Ukrainian-born American psychotherapist Viktor Dlugunovych, their being sent to Russian-controlled territory is highly problematic.
Russia may say that the departures from Oleshky will be voluntary and residents will be able to choose their destination. However, as Dlugunovych points out, judging from past experience, the ability of the Ukrainians in Russian territory to choose freely is a concern. There’s also the motivation Russia may have to create a propaganda victory by manipulating the evacuees.
Earlier Transfers Are Revealing
Previous experience with Russians and Ukrainians who’ve been held in captivity provides a reason to look closely at what happens after an initial move to safety. Dlugunovych’s interest is particularly in Ukrainian children and their ability to choose. He doesn’t know firsthand what has been happening in occupied Oleshky since the Russians captured the town in 2022, but as a member of the American-Ukrainian community, he has more than average knowledge of what has happened to Ukrainian children in areas under Russian occupation.
When Agreement Is a Survival Strategy
His concern is, “Children are not small adults. Making sound decisions is absolutely impossible because, anatomically and biologically, when a young mind is threatened, the child will reflexively resort to seeking safety above all. If safety depends on agreeing with Russians, the child will, as a matter of course, agree.”
In occupied areas, at least in previously liberated areas, the inhabitants were cut off from Ukrainian information. The occupiers often told the residents, when they were cut off from information about the outside world, that Russia had already won the war, and that it was Ukraine who had started it.
Added to the problem of disinformation, there’s another factor children are up against. Children, when living under conditions of prolonged stress, will, according to Dlugunovych, experience arrested emotional, intellectual, and social development. “These are signs and symptoms of complex PTSD. If Oreshky is typical of other occupied areas, children will have been forced to speak the Russian language, forced to listen to the Russian National Anthem in school each morning, salute the Russian flag, and be punished if they spoke to each other in Ukrainian.”
He goes on to add, “The complexity of this kind of trauma is immeasurable. You cannot expect children affected by complex PTSD to make wise decisions.”
In his professional experience, the more extreme the propaganda claims, the more they get repeated, and with repetition they may become believed. He cites this example: “A Russian state-television report alleged that Ukrainian soldiers crucified a 3-year-old boy. In the story told on Channel One, the boy and his mother were supposedly targeted because the mother’s husband fought with pro-Russian separatists. The alleged public execution was presented as punishment for that connection and a way to terrorize people who supported the separatists.”
The story was extensively debunked, but according to Dlugunovych, enough Russians believed it that it measurably increased the enlistment rolls in the Russian army.
Listening to Children, Without Pressure
When neutral authorities are judging a child’s preference for where he or she lives, listening to them in a pressure-free environment is essential. The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires children’s views to receive due weight according to age and maturity, while making their best interests a primary consideration. UN guidance says those views must be expressed without manipulation, undue influence, or pressure. In Dlugunovych’s mind, the big question is, can these views be expressed when the families are physically in Russia or Russian-occupied territory?
In the case of the Oleshky ceasefire, any de-escalation is welcome. However, the as-yet unanswered question is: Will families, and especially their children, be able to freely choose where they will live, when they are in Russia or occupied territories?
In response to these kinds of concerns, the Washington-based US-Ukraine Foundation asks for the following:
- No interviews under occupation. No child is asked to choose while under Russian physical or informational control. Any such answer has no evidential weight.
- An independent humanitarian envoy. Appointed by neither party, with guaranteed, unaccompanied access to the children. The team includes child trauma clinicians, Ukrainian-speaking interviewers, and child-protection officers from a neutral body such as the ICRC or UNICEF.
- Safe passage to a neutral location. Children travel with independent escorts to a safe third location, not to Russia or a Russian-controlled area.
- A stabilization and information period. Several weeks of trauma-informed care, accurate information about family and options, and supervised contact with parents or relatives where possible.
- Family tracing first. Where a parent or legal guardian is identified, reunification with that family is the default.
- Non-leading interviews. Wishes are ascertained only after stabilization, using evidence-based methods such as the NICHD Protocol (Lamb et al., 2007). Interviews take place out of sight and hearing of anyone linked to the detaining authority.
- Independent best-interests determination. A panel weighs the child’s views alongside family ties, identity, safety, and long-term well-being. Decisions can be reviewed if the child’s views change.
- No media, cameras, or public statements. Children’s answers must never become propaganda for either side.
The current ceasefire offers the people of Oleshky a desperately needed chance to escape starvation and shelling. But will it lead to lasting freedom? For children especially, a choice made in fear, isolation, or dependence on those controlling their lives cannot be taken at face value.
