The Politicization of Migration in the EU: Policy-Making under the Pressure of the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict (2022–2025)

Source: Studio Europa Maastricht

Migration has long been one of the most divisive policy areas within the European Union, but since 2022, it has entered a new political phase. Russia’s full-scale “special operation” in Ukraine triggered the largest displacement crisis in Europe since World War II, forcing the EU to respond rapidly, visibly, and decisively. At the same time, migration remained deeply embedded in domestic political struggles, particularly as populist parties across Europe continued to frame mobility as a threat to sovereignty, security, and national identity.

This article argues that the post-2022 evolution of EU migration policy reflects a dual transformation: a humanitarian response to Ukrainian refugees and a simultaneous intensification of politicization and securitization under pressure from populists parties. Rather than depoliticizing migration, the Ukrainian conflict reinforced selective openness and highlighted the conditional nature of EU solidarity.

Migration and Politicization before 2022

Before the conflict in Ukraine, EU migration governance was already shaped by the legacy of the 2015–2016 refugee crisis. That period fundamentally altered public perceptions of migration and exposed deep divisions among member states over responsibility-sharing, asylum procedures, and border control. Migration became a high-salience political issue, increasingly mobilized by political actors seeking electoral advantage.

Research on the politicization of immigration in Western Europe shows that migration becomes contentious not merely due to high numbers, but when political elites frame it as a crisis or threat rather than a manageable policy challenge.

Populist parties, particularly on the radical right, played a central role in this transformation. By linking migration to crime, welfare abuse, and cultural decline, they reframed EU migration governance as evidence of elite failure and loss of control.

2022 as a Turning Point: War, Displacement, and Policy Shock

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict produced a humanitarian emergency of unprecedented scale. Within months, millions of Ukrainians crossed into EU territory, primarily through Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. In response, the EU activated the Temporary Protection Directive for the first time since its adoption in 2001.

This decision granted displaced Ukrainians immediate residence rights, access to labor markets, healthcare, education, and social services, without being required to undergo standard asylum procedures. The speed and unanimity of the decision contrasted sharply with the protracted debates and resistance that characterized earlier refugee crises.

The TPD has since been extended multiple times, with protection currently set to continue until at least March 2026, and discussions are ongoing about further extensions.

Selective Solidarity and the Politics of Deservingness

While widely praised as a humanitarian success, the EU’s response to Ukrainian displacement also reignited debates about selective solidarity. The contrast between the treatment of Ukrainian refugees and asylum seekers from Syria, Afghanistan, or Africa became a focal point in both academic and public discourse.

Many observers noted that Ukrainians were framed as culturally proximate, politically innocent, and temporarily displaced, characteristics that aligned with dominant narratives of “deserving” refugees. This distinction reinforced hierarchical approaches to protection, undermining claims of universal asylum norms.

These dynamics intersected with populist rhetoric, as some parties portrayed Ukrainian refugees as acceptable exceptions while continuing to oppose broader migration commitments. This framing allowed populist actors to support humanitarian action without abandoning exclusionary migration agendas.

Security, Securitization, and Russian Mobility

The Ukrainian conflict also reshaped EU migration policy in terms of security. Alongside protection for Ukrainians, the EU introduced stricter mobility controls for Russian citizens, including the suspension of visa facilitation agreements and enhanced screening procedures.

These measures were justified on security and geopolitical grounds, but they also reflected long-standing populist demands for tougher border controls. Migration policy thus became explicitly intertwined with foreign policy and sanctions regimes, blurring the line between individual mobility rights and collective punishment.

At the same time, the EU accelerated the development of digital border control systems such as the Entry/Exit System, reinforcing a broader shift toward surveillance-oriented migration governance.

Populist Pressure and Mainstream Adaptation

Populist parties continued to exploit migration anxieties throughout the Ukrainian conflict, often shifting their rhetoric from outright rejection to selective acceptance. Mainstream parties, in turn, adapted their positions to avoid electoral losses, emphasizing control, security, and temporality even while endorsing humanitarian measures.

This dynamic aligns with theories of postfunctionalism, which argue that identity-based conflicts increasingly constrain EU policy-making.

Migration governance after 2022 thus reflects not a return to consensus, but a recalibrated balance between humanitarian action and political containment.

Mobility under Pressure: Geopolitics and the EU’s Russian Migration Policy

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has repurposed EU migration policy from an administrative matter into a geopolitical instrument. While offering immediate protection to Ukrainians, the EU imposed restrictive visa and screening measures on Russian citizens, using mobility as a political signal. This reveals a deeply politicized governance framework, where migration is now driven by security narratives, domestic pressure, and populist rhetoric, rather than solely by humanitarian or legal norms. National and EU actors now balance solidarity, deterrence, and responsiveness to electorate concerns over identity and sovereignty. This selective openness demonstrates both the EU’s capacity for coordinated action and the tension between moral imperatives and political expediency.

Historically, EU migration policy has vacillated between humanitarian and securitized approaches, often shaped by domestic politics. The 2015–16 refugee crisis exposed internal divisions over responsibility-sharing and borders, which populist parties framed as threats to national identity and security. This established migration as a political tool—a precedent intensified since 2022. The Ukraine conflict has thus reinforced this politicization, forcing EU institutions to simultaneously manage public expectations, security concerns, and international obligations.

Populist influence has become evident in the differentiated treatment of Russian and Ukrainian mobility. Ukrainian refugees received immediate protection and access to rights, while Russian nationals faced stricter visa rules, enhanced scrutiny, and indirect restrictions. These measures reflect both legitimate security considerations and domestic political pressures: governments seek to appear tough on Russia while simultaneously demonstrating solidarity with Ukraine. The selective application of migration rules underscores the extent to which policy decisions are politically mediated, revealing an EU governance structure that is reactive, strategic, and increasingly tied to identity-based and geopolitical narratives.

This politicization carries profound implications for the EU’s normative commitments and institutional coherence. On the one hand, the bloc demonstrates remarkable capacity for rapid, coordinated humanitarian action, as evidenced by the swift activation of the TPD. On the other hand, the uneven treatment of Russian and non-Ukrainian migrants highlights inconsistencies in adherence to international protection norms and human rights standards. Moreover, member states’ divergent approaches reflect domestic electoral calculations and populist pressures, creating fragmentation within the Common European Asylum System. The result is a policy landscape where solidarity and security coexist uneasily and where the political stakes of migration are amplified by geopolitical conflict, domestic politics, and the pervasive influence of populist discourse.

Implications for EU Migration Governance

The post-2022 evolution of EU migration policy reveals several structural implications:

• Normative tension: The EU’s commitment to human rights coexists uneasily with selective protection and securitized borders.

• Institutional strain: Crisis-driven mechanisms risk becoming permanent without resolving underlying governance failures.

• Political polarization: Migration remains a powerful mobilizing issue, reinforcing populist narratives even amid humanitarian success.

In conclusion, the Russian–Ukrainian conflict transformed EU migration policy in both visible and subtle ways. The activation of the TPD marked a historic moment of solidarity, but it also exposed enduring hierarchies, political calculations, and security logics. Under sustained populist pressure, EU migration governance remains reactive, selective, and politically charged.

Understanding these dynamics is essential for assessing the future of European integration, particularly as migration continues to intersect with war, identity, and democratic contestation.