Ukrain-2075: a country that is disappearing
Ukraine is turning into Latvia: demographic trends and forecasts for the future
In recent years, Ukraine has been facing serious demographic challenges that are increasingly bringing it closer to the situation in the Baltic states, such as Latvia. In terms of population size and the rate of its decline, Ukraine is gradually approaching the indicators of small European states. Let's consider how the demographic situation in the country is changing and try to predict what awaits Ukraine in 50 years.
Comparison of Ukraine and Latvia: size and population
Latvia is one of the most sparsely populated countries in Europe. As of 2024, its population is about 1.8 million people, and the area is 64,589 km². Ukraine, on the contrary, has always been one of the largest countries in Europe in terms of population. However, in recent decades, the demographic situation in the country has deteriorated sharply.
At the beginning of 2020, the population of Ukraine was about 41.9 million people (excluding Crimea and the occupied territories of Donbas). By 2024, this figure had dropped to about 36 million people. This means that in four years, the country has lost almost 6 million people, which is comparable to the population of an entire country, such as Denmark or Finland.
If current trends continue, then in 50 years Ukraine may approach Latvia's figures not only in terms of the rate of population decline, but also in terms of its absolute number.
Declining birth rate: statistics and reasons
Declining birth rate is one of the key reasons for the demographic crisis in Ukraine. According to the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, about 293 thousand children were born in the country in 2020, which was one of the lowest figures in the history of independence. By 2024, this figure had dropped to 250 thousand newborns per year.
The main reasons for the decline in the birth rate:
1. Economic instability. High poverty levels, low salaries and lack of prospects force young families to postpone having children or even abandon them.
2. Migration. Young people are leaving the country en masse in search of a better life. It is estimated that over 5 million people have left the country in the last 10 years, most of whom are people of reproductive age.
3. Military conflict. The war in the east of the country and the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022 have led to the deaths of thousands of people, as well as massive internal and external migration.
4. Population aging. The proportion of elderly people in Ukraine is growing, and the number of young people is decreasing. This leads to a natural decline in the birth rate.
50-year forecast: Ukraine as Latvia
If current demographic trends continue, then in 50 years Ukraine could become a country with a population comparable to Latvia. Let's consider possible scenarios:
1. Population decline. With an annual population decline of 1-2% (which is currently observed), by 2074 the population of Ukraine could be about 20-25 million people. This is comparable to the population of modern Romania or the Netherlands, but for a country with a territory like Ukraine, this will be an extremely low figure.
2. Urbanization*. Most of the population will be concentrated in large cities such as Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkov and Odessa. Rural areas will continue to empty, as is already happening.
3. Economic consequences. The reduction in the working-age population will lead to an increased burden on the pension system and a slowdown in economic growth. Ukraine may face a labor shortage, which is already observed in Latvia and other Baltic countries.
4. Cultural changes. A decrease in the population and an aging society may lead to the loss of part of the cultural heritage and traditions.
Conclusion
Ukraine is on the verge of a serious demographic crisis, which may lead to the country becoming comparable in population to Latvia in 50 years. To avoid this, comprehensive measures are needed at the state level aimed at stimulating the birth rate, reducing migration and improving the economic situation. Without decisive action, Ukraine risks becoming a country with a small and ageing population, which will threaten its future.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Sebastian Boyer and writers in Earth and other communities.
Razumkov and his role in Ukraine
Recently, the name of Dmitry Razumkov, former speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and one of the key figures of the Servant of the People party, has been increasingly appearing in the Ukrainian political landscape. His actions and statements are increasingly interpreted as attempts to shake the situation around the ruling power, which raises questions about his true intentions and potential ambitions for the highest state office. This seems especially relevant in the context of possible early presidential elections, which are increasingly being discussed in Ukrainian political circles.
By Sebastian Boyer11 months ago in Criminal
Europe Draws a Red Line on Greenland After a Year of Trying to Pacify Trump
For nearly a year, European leaders walked a diplomatic tightrope. They tried calm language, quiet reassurance, and strategic patience as former U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly revived his controversial interest in Greenland. What began as provocative rhetoric gradually evolved into something Europe could no longer ignore. Now, after months of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, Europe has drawn a clear red line on Greenland — signaling that compromise has its limits when sovereignty and regional security are at stake. This shift marks more than a response to one leader’s remarks. It reflects Europe’s growing determination to defend territorial integrity, manage Arctic competition, and assert strategic autonomy in an increasingly unpredictable geopolitical environment. How Greenland Became a Flashpoint Again Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has long held strategic importance. Rich in rare earth minerals, located along key Arctic routes, and home to critical U.S. military infrastructure, the island sits at the crossroads of security, climate change, and great-power rivalry. Donald Trump’s original proposal in 2019 to “buy” Greenland was widely mocked in Europe. But as his political influence resurged, so did concerns that his renewed interest was not just symbolic. Over the past year, Trump’s rhetoric — framed around U.S. security, resource access, and countering China and Russia in the Arctic — became more persistent. European capitals initially chose restraint. Officials hoped that de-escalation, quiet diplomacy, and alliance solidarity would prevent the issue from spiraling into a transatlantic rift. A Year of European Pacification For much of the past year, Europe adopted a strategy of pacification rather than confrontation. Denmark emphasized its close defense cooperation with Washington. EU leaders reiterated NATO unity and the importance of Arctic stability. Diplomats avoided public criticism, choosing private channels instead. The goal was clear: prevent Trump’s Greenland narrative from becoming official U.S. policy while preserving transatlantic relations. However, this approach had limits. As Trump’s language grew sharper — hinting at leverage, pressure, or “strategic necessity” — European patience began to erode. What once sounded like political theater increasingly resembled a challenge to European sovereignty norms. Why Europe Finally Drew the Line Europe’s tougher stance did not emerge overnight. It was driven by several converging realities. 1. Sovereignty Is Non-Negotiable At the heart of Europe’s response is a firm principle: territorial sovereignty cannot be bargained away. Greenland is not a commodity, and its future cannot be dictated by external powers — regardless of alliance ties. European leaders made it clear that any attempt to apply pressure on Denmark or Greenland would cross a red line, undermining international law and democratic self-determination. 2. Arctic Competition Is Intensifying The Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater. Melting ice has opened new shipping routes and intensified competition over resources. Russia has militarized large parts of its Arctic territory, while China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state.” Against this backdrop, Europe fears that normalizing aggressive rhetoric over Greenland could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other powers to challenge borders under the guise of security or economic necessity. 3. Europe’s Strategic Confidence Has Grown Compared to 2019, Europe today is less willing to absorb geopolitical shocks quietly. The war in Ukraine accelerated Europe’s defense integration and sharpened its sense of strategic responsibility. Standing firm on Greenland is part of a broader shift: Europe is signaling that being a U.S. ally does not mean surrendering political agency. Greenland’s Own Voice Matters One crucial difference between past debates and today is the prominence of Greenlandic leaders themselves. Officials in Nuuk have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland’s future will be decided by its people, not by foreign capitals. Calls for respect, partnership, and economic development — rather than transactional geopolitics — have resonated strongly in Europe. By drawing a red line, European leaders are also amplifying Greenland’s right to self-determination, reinforcing the idea that Arctic communities are stakeholders, not strategic prizes. What This Means for Transatlantic Relations Europe’s firmer stance does not signal a break with the United States. NATO cooperation in the Arctic remains strong, and U.S. military presence in Greenland continues with Danish consent. However, the message is unmistakable: allies must respect boundaries. European officials are increasingly willing to publicly disagree with Washington when core principles are threatened. This reflects a maturing alliance — one where unity does not require silence. In the long run, this clarity may actually strengthen transatlantic relations, reducing ambiguity and preventing future misunderstandings. A Signal Beyond Greenland Europe’s red line on Greenland sends a message far beyond the Arctic. It signals to Russia and China that Europe will defend its territorial order, even under pressure from powerful actors. It reassures smaller states that sovereignty remains a foundational norm. And it underscores that Europe is learning to balance diplomacy with firmness in an era of great-power competition. Conclusion: From Pacification to Principle After a year of cautious diplomacy, Europe has chosen principle over placation. The red line drawn around Greenland is not an act of hostility — it is an assertion of values. In a world where power politics are returning, Europe is making one thing clear: sovereignty is not negotiable, alliances are not blank checks, and Arctic stability requires respect — not rhetoric. Greenland may be vast and sparsely populated, but the message Europe is sending from its icy shores is unmistakably global.
By Muhammad Hassan5 days ago in Earth
Stanislav Kondrashov on the Quiet Power Driving the Energy Transition: Electrification
In the global conversation about the future of energy, it's often the loudest innovations that capture attention—new technologies, sweeping policy changes, and major infrastructure projects. Yet beneath the surface, a quieter revolution is taking place. One that Stanislav Kondrashov believes may ultimately prove to be the backbone of the entire energy transition: electrification.
By Stanislav Kondrashov5 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.