The Choice to Stay: Women in Wartime Ukraine
Why do people stay behind during a war even though they could leave? A new study of Ukrainian women shows that staying is often not a last resort, but a conscious decision—one with implications for policy and reconstruction.
Large-scale displacement is one of the most visible consequences of any war. It therefore attracts considerable attention from policymakers, international organisations, and researchers. Yet in many conflicts, those who flee represent a smaller part of the affected population. Instead, many more people remain in areas exposed to violence, insecurity, and disruption. Despite their numbers, those who stay are much less studied, a gap often described as mobility bias.
Why do people stay during wartime? Is their decision driven by limited resources? Have they underestimated the risks? Or is it a deliberate choice? And under what circumstances would they eventually decide to leave? Researchers still have too few and, most importantly, unrepresentative answers to these questions. But these answers are critical to understand when a large new wave of displacement might occur. Similarly, without this knowledge, efforts to address the needs of those who stay are neither systematic nor efficient.
More than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, millions of Ukrainians remain in the country despite continuing attacks, damaged infrastructure, and economic uncertainty. While military-age men are restricted in crossing the border, women have more freedom to choose whether to do so. In January 2025, the Institute for Behavioral Studies at American University Kyiv, together with the Center for Economic Strategy, surveyed 2,018 women aged 18–60 living in Ukraine to learn more about their motivations and intentions. Understanding why many women stay matters for humanitarian policy, social protection, and future reconstruction.
Choosing or being forced to stay?
The survey results challenge the assumption that people in war zones remain because they cannot leave. Of the women surveyed, 79 per cent said it was important for them to stay in Ukraine. When asked about their future plans, 72 per cent said they were not considering a long-term move abroad.
Older, married, and higher-income respondents, as well as those without prior experience of displacement, reported the strongest intention to stay. Younger and lower-income respondents, and those who had already spent time abroad, were more likely to consider leaving again, mainly in search of better living standards and security.
Several expected predictors mattered less than is often assumed. Women with children were not more likely to think about moving abroad than women without children. The same applied to unemployed women, internally displaced women, and women whose homes had been destroyed or were under occupation. These experiences are serious, but they do not automatically translate into plans for international migration.
Motivations to stay
The most common reason for staying in Ukraine was family: 91 per cent of respondents said they had remained because they wanted to be with relatives and people they were close to. Almost as many, 88 per cent, said they had stayed because Ukraine was their country. Housing also mattered: 72 per cent mentioned having a place to live as a reason not to leave. Fewer respondents stayed because they had a good job or could achieve a better standard of living in Ukraine than abroad.
These answers show that staying is neither purely economic nor purely emotional. The decision to remain is based on having a life that still has structure: family ties, belonging, housing, routines, work, and a future in Ukraine. This is why two-thirds of respondents agreed with the statement ‘I just don’t want to go anywhere.’ For many, staying is not the absence of a plan. It is the plan.
Nor does staying mean that women underestimate the dangers involved. Only 39 per cent of those surveyed thought that staying in Ukraine was relatively safe. Most respondents knew that the risks were serious. Their choice cannot be reduced to misinformation or denial.
Conditions for leaving
The study was conducted during an ongoing war. As a result, people might want to stay in the country now, but changes in their situation – security, living conditions, work, and so on – might force them to flee in the future. When asked directly, 15 per cent of respondents said they had been actively considering leaving. Previous studies on labour migration suggest that the number of potential migrants can be roughly divided by 10 to approximate actual migrants. This implies that no large wave of displacement from Ukraine should be expected, even under the worst-case military scenario.
To verify this finding, we applied an experimental design and asked what kinds of deterioration would make women leave their homes. We tested six factors: worsening security, loss of housing, loss of income, long power and heating cuts, a political crisis or reduced international aid, and the departure of friends.
A deteriorating security situation was by far the biggest trigger. But only a major escalation, such as the threat of occupation, would make women substantially more likely to go abroad. Severe power and heating cuts, a political crisis, and a sharp decline in international aid would also increase respondents’ likelihood of moving abroad, but these factors were almost twice as weak as direct security threats.
A loss of housing and a complete loss of income mattered too, but they more often pushed women towards moving elsewhere within Ukraine rather than abroad. This is consistent with what happened in winter 2026, when those who stayed experienced prolonged disruptions in heating, electricity, and water supplies caused by bombing of civilian infrastructure, but no large displacement was observed.
Social connections matter too, but to a smaller degree. Respondents would be more likely to leave Ukraine if most of their friends left their hometown or the country, although this was the least important factor among the six that we tested.
Altogether, the future of displacement from Ukraine will depend less on gradual changes in attitudes than on major events. Only if the security situation deteriorates sharply are women likely to consider leaving. As long as life in Ukraine continues, many will choose to stay.
For the Ukrainian government and international organisations, the key lesson is that support should not only be designed around evacuation, displacement, or return. It should also focus on supporting people who choose to stay. If staying is an active choice for many women, policies should help make that choice sustainable.
Natalia Zaika is a deputy director at the Institute for Behavioral Studies at American University Kyiv. She was a fellow at the Ukraine Research Network@ZOiS, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space.
Dr Volodymyr Vakhitov is an economist and the director of the Institute for Behavioral Studies at American University Kyiv. He is a fellow at the Ukraine Research Network@ZOiS, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space.
Dr Hanna Vakhitova is a policy economist and a professor at Kyiv School of Economics.