That largely matches what I've heard from many hosts.
They were open and honest that life in the uk was harsh, tough and expensive and that there would be work available but limited to certain things. Yet this often wasn't taken on board by guests or just plainly ignored because they just wanted to come to the uk.
I think quite a few had very unrealistic views of the uk and thats where many problems have arisen. Not necessarily with the hosts themselves who were aware of these issues and explicitly warned that life here could be tough.
In this narrative of hosts being naive and ill informed why are ukrainians infantilised as not having this ability to consider the cultural differences, availability of work and housing too? Its dead interesting to see this thrown at hosts by those who decided not to host. Its almost like confirmation bias to justify why they themselves haven't done more, particularly if they do have the means.
Either the Ukrainians are running for their lives, in which case hosts were right to throw caution to the wind to help or their guests are equally part of this equation about whether coming to the UK was a good idea for them.
Yes Ukrainian refugees are vulnerable and the can be exploited. Yes they face all sorts of barriers and obstacles. But they also have had a lot more opportunities and support than many who have come to the uk for all manner of reasons and have made it work for themselves. Because they are adults and they haven't had the luxury of being able to just stay on benefits living in someone else's house. We are in danger of encouraging hosts to enable dependant behaviour and thats not right either.
Fundamentally people have to be willing to help themselves too or its a breakdown of the unwritten social contract between hosts and guests.
I think guests do have sympathy for single women with young child more than others who have come here and will give a little bit more but even then there are limits to that if alternatives are available but not taken up.
Yes they may be traumatised but the reality is they'd have to get on with things despite the trauma if they'd stayed in Ukraine too. The idea that hosts should somehow take on the economic, emotional and practical strain because of someone else's trauma is privileged fantasy land nonsense that doesn't exist in refugee camps or many areas of the world affected by conflict.
Its harsh and its cold but its also something that we can't do a lot about. That is part of the awfulness of trauma.
A Ukrainian who doesn't get a job, doesn't work towards getting a house and doesn't try and get involved is going to be in a far worse position further down the line than those who do it. A host is almost being negligent in not encouraging it and arguably enabling dependancy isn't in the best interests of their guest.
If the war continues for longer than anticipated, then its going to make it miles harder for those Ukrainians to have a long term future here. The reality is we hope its a short war, but even if its not, its going to be extremely difficult to go back to Ukraine for a while for many because of the housing situation. If you've come here, you need to fully commit to living here for 3 years at this point with how the situation looks in Ukraine. Or just go back and survive as best you can. Those are your choices. You can't expect to live off a host who offered shelter for 6 months for 3 years. Ukrainians need to take that responsibility on. That's not for hosts to continue to plan their guests lives into the medium term emotionally, financially or otherwise in practical terms.
And I think this does mean that some hosts will have to be 'cold hearted' about this when they by nature and the very definition of hosting goes completely counter to their natural deposition.
To use an example: you don't do someone a favour by enabling them to have massive gaps in their CV.