On April 29, 2025, the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs (HIIA) held a roundtable discussion titled, “What Kind of Ukraine Will Europe Inherit?” in Hungarian. The panelists included Attila Demkó, Head of the Strategic Foresight Program of the John Lukacs Institute, Mihály Debreceni, MTVA correspondent, and Péter Siklósi, HIIA Senior Research Fellow. The discussion was moderated by HIIA Senior Research Fellow Sándor Seremet.
The experts started the discussion by debating what state the Ukrainian state and society are likely to be in after the end of the war.
Péter Siklósi emphasized that the peace process is not a single event, but a longer negotiation process, where a ceasefire along the front lines is the most likely scenario. Ukraine’s accession to NATO has been effectively taken off the agenda, but it is important for the country to have the right to maintain a strong army, even if its financing is questionable. The US is expected to become more deeply embedded in Ukraine’s future economically, for example through investments in mineral resources or strategic infrastructure. Ukraine’s accession to the EU, however, would be more of a political gesture than a practical solution.
Attila Demkó pointed out that the war in Ukraine pits two armies against each other that have learned to fight each other using certain techniques, but these are not the latest ones. Drones are playing a decisive role now, but the technological direction of the war may change. There will be no real peace in Ukraine after the war either, as the Ukrainian people have become extremely distrustful of the Russians. The mental and physical condition of returning soldiers and the lack of integration will generate further serious social tensions. This is not an accusation against Ukrainians; every country affected by war faces this struggle. Europe will have a huge responsibility to help bring these conditions to a livable level.
Mihály Debreceni emphasized that Ukrainian society is under constant pressure from the state and war propaganda. The conditions of conscription, the situation of soldiers, and rampant corruption in the army are seriously undermining internal stability. In addition, the reintegration of demobilized soldiers into society is a serious problem in Ukraine. The “re-screening” system is practically non-existent: soldiers returning from the front often do not receive adequate support, pensions, or rehabilitation, which in the long term can lead to mental breakdowns, domestic violence, and social divisions.
Moving on to European narratives on the Russian-Ukrainian war and the question of Ukraine’s accession to the EU, Péter Siklósi explained that, in his opinion, Western support policy is extremely cynical, behind statements such as “we will help Ukraine as long as necessary” there are in fact low-cost gestures serving political ends. Western countries typically contribute to Ukraine’s military with support that is negligible compared to their own budgets, often in the form of weapons that would otherwise be scrapped, while trying to weaken Russia through Ukrainian bloodshed. At the same time, Ukrainians arriving in the West as refugees, who are typically well-educated and easily integrated, represent a solution to demographic and labor shortages for some countries.
Attila Demkó also emphasized that although Ukraine must indeed be supported, it is crucial how this is done. He suggested that Ukraine’s accession to the EU – if it happens in the near future – could even exacerbate the country’s situation. With the free movement of labor, Ukrainians could easily leave their country en masse in search of a better life. This would not only jeopardize the country’s reconstruction, but also further deepen the demographic crisis, which is already critical, with a birth rate lower than that of South Korea. Ukraine can therefore only emerge from the war in a losing position: even in the best-case scenario, it will need to make serious compromises, rely on continuous external support, and undergo a long-term stabilization process. The possibility of a “new Marshall Plan” has been mentioned, but it should be borne in mind that reconstruction projects of this magnitude take decades to pay off.
Mihály Debreceni also pointed out that the current internal social conditions in Ukraine are further hindering the country’s recovery. Part of the population has been hiding from conscription for years, has become unemployed, lives in isolation, and carries a heavy psychological burden. Due to the multitude of border closures and checkpoints, people live in an extremely closed environment – even crossing into the neighboring village is difficult, especially in Transcarpathia. The feeling of confinement and hopelessness increases the risk of social unrest.
In summary, Europe is inheriting a Ukraine that is physically and socially extremely weakened and deeply scarred by war. However, the outlook for the future is not entirely hopeless: if a sustainable ceasefire can be achieved, it could bring the country back to normal life. However, the desire for revenge, whether for external or internal political reasons, could seriously hinder the healing process. As Mihály Debreceni emphasized, the primary task will be to pacify Ukraine so that its armed past does not become a permanent feature of society. And although the losses are heavy, the example of the Hungarian community in Transcarpathia shows that there are local structures capable of survival and preservation even under the most difficult circumstances – and this gives reason for hope for a more stable Ukraine in the future.