26

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky said earlier in an interview with the Washington Post that Western countries should ban entry to all Russians. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, in turn, called on EU countries to ban the issuance of tourist visas to Russian nationals. According to her, visiting Europe is a privilege and not a human right. The Finnish Foreign Ministry stated that the country could introduce restrictions if a large number of Russians sought to travel to other European countries using visas issued by Finland.

https://tass.com/world/1492645

I found that perplexing, because banning all Russian visas would help Russia as it would force Russia into staying in Russia and help out Russia economically and militarily. So what does Ukraine have to gain from this if such a move would be adopted by Western countries? I am trying to think of all the pros and cons for Ukraine, and I can't think of any pros.

Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
Sayaman
  • 40,192
  • 9
  • 139
  • 290
  • 40
    I wouldn't exactly quote Russian government news agencies if I were trying to direct people to reliable sources. – Obie 2.0 Aug 13 '22 at 22:35
  • 1
    This doesn't seem to be about having the US ban the visas rather a large number of countries do it which will have a different impact then a single country – Joe W Aug 14 '22 at 05:58
  • 2
    It would isolate Russia even more. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Aug 14 '22 at 07:30
  • 2
    @Trilarion Russia or "Russians*? The state or the people? – Roger V. Aug 14 '22 at 08:10
  • 3
    @RogerVadim Probably there is a connection between the state and the people of the state, even in Russia. So both. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Aug 14 '22 at 10:24
  • 1
    @Obie 2.0 This news is also avaible in western media. – convert Aug 14 '22 at 10:49
  • 2
    @Obie2.0 Do you have a source that confirms Zelensky didn’t say this? If yes, please edit the post. If not, please remove your comment. – JonathanReez Aug 14 '22 at 17:32
  • 3
    @JonathanReez - I don't think so. An article is more than a single quote, and news source is more than a single article. People should use sources that direct readers to reliable websites, not propaganda outlets. – Obie 2.0 Aug 14 '22 at 17:38
  • 3
    @Obie2.0 ah, the good old “misinformation” shtick. I’d say the readers of this website are smart enough to figure out which sources are reliable in which contexts. Unfortunately even NPR is extremely biased in some contexts these days. – JonathanReez Aug 14 '22 at 18:14
  • 3
    @JonathanReez It could though be fake coming from TASS. In this case it isn't but why take the risk? If we wanted to be a high quality source of information we would probably not only link to a single source but to multiples for everything. In reality however we are often happy if there is a source given at all. Readers should double check on our content but we could make it easier for them by looking up alternative sources upfront. That would save time and increase the value of the content. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Aug 14 '22 at 20:28
  • 6
    I would not assume that forcing Russians to stay in Russia does help Russia out economically. If you're a Russian exporter or influence agent it's harder to do business when you can't go visit people. It'd also be likely to cut into remittances (Russians working abroad and sending money back to family etc.) which have been worth about two billion US dollars annually in recent years. – GB supports the mod strike Aug 15 '22 at 03:16

8 Answers8

47

Currently the sanctions have much more effect on isolated poor regions and less effect on the more affluent ones.

The more affluent regions exercise a strategy of sanction avoidance known as parallel imports. This allows them to be less inconvenienced by the sanctions while paying a slight premium for imported luxury goods.

The theory is that a tourist visa ban would affect the more affluent communities, which have more clout and influence on the government.

Because studying abroad is seen as a form of extreme privilege in the Russian Federation, a student visa ban is similarly seen a sanction on luxury goods. Cutting off access to this (thought to be) luxury good among the most privileged Russian elites would also be in line with the intent of the sanctions.

If true, it would be an effective additional sanction measure.

eps
  • 2,203
  • 7
  • 22
wrod
  • 9,321
  • 25
  • 64
  • 9
    President Zelinsky was talking about a total ban, not just access to education and tourism. Could you expand the answer, addressing how banning Russian immigrants and asylum seekers would help? – William K Aug 14 '22 at 09:02
  • 6
    Because studying abroad is seen as a form of extreme privilege in the Russian Federation - this statement needs to be supported by statistics on how many Russians studying abroad come from privileged background. I suspect that the numbers are no different from those for their Chinese or Indian counterparts. – Roger V. Aug 14 '22 at 09:49
  • 4
    Currently the sanctions have much more effect on isolated poor regions and less effect on the more affluent ones. This needs some sourcing. Isolated and poor regions bear the brunt of military casualties. But sanctions impact? When Apple exits Russia it somehow affects poor regions more? Where there more Mc Donalds locations in poor regions rather than affluent urban centers? Doesn't compute, please source. Parallel imports is generic, does it apply here? – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Aug 14 '22 at 15:51
  • 4
    Correction, the answer doesn't claim as such that studying abroad is an extreme privilege in Russia, but that it is seen as such by those proposing the sanctions. The answer does not claim this view is accurate or wrong, but could still be improved by providing a source that this point of view is held by proponents of sanctions targeting student visas. – gerrit Aug 15 '22 at 09:42
  • 1
    Yes, planes fly now. Who can afford them, can basically fly to Europe and buy whatever they want. – Stančikas Aug 15 '22 at 14:17
  • @wrod sorry, I don't agree in the least with your analysis. poor regions are poor, but sanctions aren't necessarily making people poorer, right now, as they are taking away access to Western perks: McDonalds, Apple, Visa + Amex, travel (I suspect it is already hard to travel abroad without CC). The elites can bypass those sanctions, as you claim. The middle class? Probably not so much: you either have a store open in your city or you don't. The poor? They probably never had those stores or bought less pricey Western goods to start with. Please back up your assertions with sources. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Aug 15 '22 at 18:49
  • 1
    @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica first of all, McDonalds (just like, for example, IKEA) left, not because of the sanctions, but because it's a terrible for their image to do business in RF right now. This doesn't need proving. It's just bad marketing to be in a country known for committing genocide. For example, when it came out (I think in the 90s) that IBM was supplying Nazi Germany, it was a terrible image for IBM despite the fact that it happened a long time ago. – wrod Aug 16 '22 at 01:33
24

This is because of the opinion that majority of the Russian citizens are not willing to provide any notable opposition to the invasion. The New York Times writes that president Vladimir V. Putin’s approval ratings have reached levels unseen in years. As a result, these citizens are seen as responsible for the actions of their democratically elected government. As with any other punishment, the idea behind is to cause the said "convict" to think once more and longer. That may or may not work as expected.

It is somewhat questionable if the opposition is really not notable or opinion polls published by Russian propaganda are trustworthy even if they fairly represent that the people responded when asked. The collateral damage is recognized even by Volodymyr Zelensky himself who makes statements that citizens seeking political refuge for the reason should retain the possibilities to do so. Novaya Gazeta Europe has a huge article that gives many arguments against the proposal, some questionable but not all. It also has the good explanation for the reasoning behind: citizens of Russian Federation are seen as fully responsible for the actions of their country. Germans have seen the comparable view to them in the past.

This is not very exactly "racism" because it is not by the color shade of the skin. While discrimination by the ethnic origin is seen as unacceptable in Europe, discrimination by the citizenship is actually very widespread. Foreign nationals are ranked by their passports depending on bilateral agreements or sharing some union with the country in question. In media supporting the restrictions, the right to enter the European Union is seen as a privilege that can be taken away without violating fundamental human rights. The claim Дальше начнем высылать всех, кто говорит по-русски? (then we will repress all speaking Russian) as seen in Novaya Gazeta is a total nonsense, as the older half of the population at least in Baltic states is still fluent in this language.

Fligts between Moscow and Europe are now operating again. For people who can afford them, Visa ban would matter a lot.

Stančikas
  • 21,514
  • 1
  • 52
  • 113
  • 4
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia/ supports this as well. Look at the blip up since February. With that level of support, the average member of the public is heavily likely to be complicit in this war, despite valid concerns about the transparency of opinion polls in the country at this point. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Aug 14 '22 at 15:55
  • Also visas can be granted for different reasons. No reason "leave Russia" visas can't be handled differently from "go party in London" visas. Countries already have study, business, pleasure etc visa classifications. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Aug 14 '22 at 15:58
  • 1
    Note that Zelensky's approval ratings have surged even higher than Putin's. In times of war, it's basic survival instinct for people to rally around their leader, right or wrong. Vietnam was a one-off. – Therac Aug 15 '22 at 05:49
  • 6
    "President Vladimir V. Putin’s approval ratings have reached levels unseen in years" - I don't think this data is any more reliable than president Kim Jong Un's approval rating would be. The only agencies truly capable of measuring this are all Russians, or stationed in Russia, therefore cannot be free from the autocracy's will. Even if a completely independent measurement would be carried out, people would be afraid to express their rejection of Putin. This is a statistic one can only measure in a democratic system, which Russia is not. – Neinstein Aug 15 '22 at 14:27
  • @HK-51 "In times of war, it's basic survival instinct for people to rally around their leader, right or wrong." Understandable although one maybe should make a difference between the side that started the war and the side that is kind of defending. It's not like war just happened to Russia and the Russians. Russians should be well aware of that and should know that their support for Putin will be taken as support for the invasion. I would argue that the situations for both countries aren't the same so different reactions might be expected. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Aug 15 '22 at 15:15
  • 2
    @Neinstein it is very easy to find videos of Russians interviewing Russians with a large amount of enthusiastic support for Putin, the war, etc. These are often impromptu, man-on-the-street interviews that would be wasteful to set up as propaganda. While I agree that young people are probably much more opposed to Putin than the older generation, I would not be the least bit surprised if Putin really enjoys, say, 70%+ approval. – Lawnmower Man Aug 15 '22 at 16:29
  • @Trilarion Are Russian persons that voice vocal opposition to Putin placed on a sanction-exemption list? If not, the issue is moot. They're left with a choice between surviving together, at the expense of a former part of their nation, or ending up half a rung about stateless, losing their country as they know it. Russia risks falling apart at older seams, if it fails to hold this one. If I had to face that choice, I'm not sure if my ethics would outweigh my instincts. – Therac Aug 15 '22 at 18:05
  • @HK-51 You mean something like, I hate killing but since my president started it and if I don't support it my country might actually lose the war and get into trouble (as if Russia weren't in deep trouble already) and I might not be able to travel as I like anymore, so I better support my president/country even though deep down I'm actually against the war? Not sure that this would persuade me at all in the case I had to make that choice. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Aug 15 '22 at 18:19
  • 4
    @LawnmowerMan I'm not sure videos like that prove much, for each enthusiastic interview how many where there where the interviewer was brushed off? It's impossible to know. – Peter Green Aug 15 '22 at 19:32
  • 3
    @HK-51 Vietnam is far from a one-off; we can look at the February Revolution in Russia, and the fall from power of Mussolini in 1943. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was worried he'd lose the 1864 election to the Democrats calling for peace. Long, bloody, unproductive wars tend not to be well loved by the populace. – prosfilaes Aug 15 '22 at 19:52
  • 2
    @PeterGreen Niki Proshkin is a good example. He is clearly anti-war, but is careful to never explicitly say so. When he interviews people, he gives stats on how many declined, as well as the number of each kind of response he gets. He has no agenda as far as portraying Russia one way or another. There are tons of other YouTube creators in Russia with a similar agenda: to earn as much revenue as possible, even if that means giving the unvarnished truth. – Lawnmower Man Aug 15 '22 at 23:36
  • @prosfilaes would the current analog of that be people who call for Ukraine to surrender so there will be peace? – Reasonably Against Genocide Aug 16 '22 at 13:53
  • I agree with Neinstein, 20 years, liberals in Russia were singing one song - that elections are faked. And this is proven https://disk.yandex.ru/i/bgGIGT4iWkL0Hg. But now they made up their mind and sing outer song, that Russians are responsible for the elections! – Crantisz Aug 16 '22 at 14:06
  • 2
    While it is true that a lot of Russians support Putin and the war, Russian government is not democratically elected. The elections are rigged. – seed Aug 16 '22 at 23:00
  • 'As a result, these citizens are seen as responsible for the actions of their democratically elected government.' This seems to be the opposite of what every major Western media source has been claiming pre-invasion in regards to the total domination of Russia by oligarchs. And the alleged complete subversion of the democratic system by said oligarchs to the detriment of the common people. – M. Y. Zuo Aug 24 '22 at 16:52
12

I can't find a full transcript, but the part about "whichever kind" was about opposition, not about ethnicity, as WaPo contextualized it.

Some critics have argued that banning all Russians would unfairly impact those who have left their country because they disagree with President Vladimir Putin’s government and his decision to attack Ukraine.

Zelensky said such distinctions don’t matter: “Whichever kind of Russian … make them go to Russia.”

“They’ll understand then,” he said. “They’ll say, ‘This [war] has nothing to do with us. The whole population can’t be held responsible, can it?’ It can. The population picked this government and they’re not fighting it, not arguing with it, not shouting at it.”

“Don’t you want this isolation?” Zelensky added, speaking as if he were addressing Russians directly. “You’re telling the whole world that it must live by your rules. Then go and live there. This is the only way to influence Putin.”

Zelenskyy is clearly upset that Russians (inside Russia) aren't protesting more. He might have a point in the sense that after massive crackdowns in March, protests in Russia are rather muted nowadays. If you want my 2 cents stating the obvious, the West is rather unlikely to give up its asylum policies for opponents who do flee. On the other hand, tourist visas for run-of-the-mill Russian citizens could be more open for Western sanctions. Whether that would be effective in ratcheting up any sort of pressure on Putin... remains to be seen.

For what's worth it, a few days later, in another interview

Zelensky said his proposal did not apply to Russians who needed help for risking their freedom or their lives by resisting Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin’s policies.

So he did seem to realize what I said in my previous para.


It seems a bunch of Eastern European countries (Poland, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic) have indeed stopped issuing tourist visas to Russians. (Confusingly, Finland has issued a lot of tourists visas to Russians recently, but they are also calling for a EU-wide restriction.) On the other hand, Germany is strongly opposed to that measure, and since Schengen visas are valid alongside the whole EU border that has created frictions between said Eastern countries, which are the remaining [direct] entry points for Russians into Schengen, since air travel from Russia was shut down. (That discussion leaves aside more circuitous routes through Turkey, Armenia, or Georgia, etc.) The ideas expressed by Zelensky and some Eastern European capitals (but rejected in Berlin) also find echoes in the US right-wing press, should anyone care. The US State department however has rejected imposing visa restriction on Russians. (Both the US and Germany have also made some attempts to attract the recent outflow of skilled specialists from Russia by tweaking some professional visas.) Russia's government position(s) are somewhat more complicated. They have on one hand ridiculed the visa ban measures as doomed to fail, but on the other hand they also issued travel advisories against going to the UK, for example. Also, the functioning of the US embassy in Russia is severely limited (since last October, seemingly due to disagreements with Russia about local staffing) so for most US visas Russians apparently have to travel to third countries, like the EU ones.

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
  • the West is rather unlikely to give up its asylum policies for opponents who do flee - Could an average Russian get asylum in the US by simply stating that they disagree with the government policies... as was the case in the Soviet times? – Roger V. Aug 14 '22 at 10:52
  • 1
    @RogerVadim: dunno. Back then few could actually flee, so the receiving policies could be made quite magnanimously liberal. If the US nowadays enacted something like the Refugee Relief Act from those days, it would be fairly surprising to me. In any case, even then when such acts were passed, there were caps on the numbers the US would receive. – the gods from engineering Aug 14 '22 at 11:04
  • 1
    @RogerVadim: according to one piece the US apparently took some steps to make it easier for Russian scientists to defect (proposal to simplify visas if working in some specific fields, apparently), but it's not exactly detailed what. As for everyone else, not so much. – the gods from engineering Aug 14 '22 at 11:35
  • 1
    @Fizz There is no need to go that far back in history or to try to make this theoretical. One only need to compare what would happen to a potential asylum seeker from N Korea vs one from China. Surely someone who managed to make their way from N Korea would be be granted an asylum. While anyone from China, requesting an asylum, would probably get much greater scrutiny. – wrod Aug 14 '22 at 14:58
  • 1
    @RogerVadim: FWTF Germany apparently has taken some steps to give Russian journalists and dissidents long-term visas https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220610-germany-relaxes-visa-rules-for-russian-journalists-dissidents – the gods from engineering Aug 14 '22 at 16:09
  • It is kind of hard to protest in Russia when doing so is illegal and will get one sent to jail, or even assassinated if one is high profile. Maybe some people will think "Oh, I couldn't go on a vacation to Spain, I guess I will risk jail to criticize the war," but I doubt it. – Obie 2.0 Aug 14 '22 at 16:53
  • 1
    @Obie2.0 It's not just about taking to the streets and making some noise. Right now, most Russians are fairly okay with the government. The more miserable life in Russia gets, the more people will gradually grow unhappy. Protesting becomes much easier when there's more people doing it; when you get millions in the streets there's no longer enough policemen to do anything about it. – TooTea Aug 15 '22 at 09:04
  • That's the Cuba logic. We saw how that turned out. – Obie 2.0 Aug 15 '22 at 13:40
  • "and they’re not fighting it, not arguing with it, not shouting at it.” - a statement that is false to facts. From the news we get through the censorship, apparently thousands of anti-war protests have been jailed in Russia. There definitely are Russians doing exactly what he claims they aren't doing, even under oppression. – Tom Aug 15 '22 at 15:44
  • @Obie2.0 probably the difference is the bad stuff in Cuba was caused by US government (who tries to pretend the good stuff the Cuba government did was actually bad stuff), while the bad stuff in Russia was caused by Russian government doing actually bad stuff. – Reasonably Against Genocide Aug 17 '22 at 14:44
  • @user253751 - Well, the Cuban government is an authoritarian one-party state with a penchant for suppressing dissent that was governed by the same person for half a century, so that is not precisely good. However, even if we accept your premise, the issue of the effectiveness of sanctions does not depend on whether a government is doing "bad stuff" or "good stuff." I see no reason why Russia could not become entrenched in its policies even in the face of broad sanctions, as did Cuba. – Obie 2.0 Aug 17 '22 at 14:48
  • @Obie2.0 it's not being sanctioned for being an authoritarian one-party state with a penchant for suppressing dissent - USA happily trades with many of those. – Reasonably Against Genocide Aug 17 '22 at 14:56
11

Here are a few things that Ukraine may gain by having Western countries ban all Russian visas:

  • Broaden dissatisfaction in Russia with the Putin's regime in general and with the invasion of Ukraine in particular. In particular, broaden it against the more affluent population that actually used to travel to the West (see the answer from wrod).
  • Russians who are already against the war in Ukraine and Putin's regime get to stay in Russia, where their anti-war and anti-government activities will be more effective than abroad.
  • Many of the Russians who travel to the West stage pro-Russian rallies, harass Ukrainian refugees, and take part in other anti-Ukrainian activities. A visa ban deals effectively with this issue.

REFERENCES:

Russians line up for visas

The goal is to increase the size of the line on the left.
From Ukrainian Memes Forces: https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1559157973599064065


Ukrainian students were attacked by a Russian and a Belarusian in the center of Zurich, Switzerland. The men accused the Ukrainians of oppressing the Russian language, cursed, beat and pushed.

Flash, Twitter, August 15, 2022: https://twitter.com/Flash43191300/status/1559107294612398080


Russian car rally in Berlin

About 900 protesters in a 400-strong motorcade took part in the demonstration on Sunday that culminated in a gathering at the Olympic Stadium [in Berlin, Germany]. Cars were draped in the Russian flag, and one bore the symbol “Z”, meant to signify solidarity with the Russian war. Participants reportedly sang patriotic Russian songs.

Kate Connolly. ‘Motorcade of shame’: outrage over pro-Russia displays at Berlin rally. The Guardian, April 5, 2022: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/05/motorcade-of-shame-outrage-over-pro-russia-displays-at-berlin-rally

Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
6

Ukraine didn't "have Western countries ban visas to Russians", as you put it. Western countries are considering banning visas to Russian citizens at their own volition for several reasons:

  1. Imagine that you have an acquaintance who routinely abuses his family and claims it's their fault for not obeying to him; he gets into fights with his neighbors who want nothing to do with him and just want to live their lives peacefully, and then he blames them; he steals and cheats and lies all the time. Nevertheless, his kids adore him, because in their eyes being a bully is the way to live. How eager would you invite them?

  2. That acquaintance uses his kids to steal other people's property. He sends a bunch of kids to visit a friend or a relative; the kids stay there for a while; and after a while they say to the hosts: "Hey, there are two of you in this house, and there are three of us, so we are the majority. And because we are now a majority you've got to do what we say. And we hereby decided that this house belongs to us now, and you have to leave. And if you won't leave we'll kill you." And now this acquaintance calls you and asks you to let a few of his kids stay in you living room for just a while. Would you agree?

  3. The kids may be bullies to others, but regarding their abusive father they are obedient sheep. They approve all the terrible things he does. Moreover, they benefit directly from his crimes. They sincerely praise him whenever he would steal or rob somebody. They know that their father would keep 80% of the loot, but those of the kids who are quicker than other siblings would get the remaining 20%. The chance for the crumbs is worth the crime for them. And now they are claiming that they have nothing to do with the crimes.

I trust that anybody either understands the relevance by heart or can google "gulag", "Finland winter war", "annexation of Crimea", "Putin approval ratings", etc.

Michael
  • 2,148
  • 1
  • 13
  • 19
5

Here are some more solid references: https://verfassungsblog.de/banning-russians/ (admittedly, the first thing that popped out in Google.)

The step would have mostly propaganda value by hitting hard Russians, while blurring the distinction between Russians (people) and Russia (state, represented by government, responsible for the current policies). It would hit the more pro-western part of the population - those who study abroad or have families living abroad, either since Soviet times or as the result of migration in the last 30 years. It is worth remembering that the Russians who come to work and study in the west are mostly not the children of oligarchs, but rather people seeking better life and opportunities for themselves and their families - i.e., having the same aspirations as the Ukrainian people.

Furthermore, such a move is likely to affect adversely the 30 millions of ethnic Russians who are not Russian citizens (about a quarter of all the Russians.) While not being pro-Russian (especially in Ukraine and other parts if the former Soviet Union) they might feel themselves shunned (think of how Hispanic American voters may favor or dislike a politician depending on the latter's views in the countries their families came from.)

Update: to expand on the last paragraph:
Cuban Americans are American citizens, perhaps even in the second or the third generation. However, they dislike socialist politicians, whom they associate with Castro, while being also sensitive to anything related to immigration policies. This is a fine difference between a government and a people which is obvious to the ethnic group concerned, but is easily lost on others.

Roger V.
  • 20,106
  • 3
  • 39
  • 114
  • Discrimination will be by the passport. Ethnic Russian with Japanese citizenship is will not be affected. – Stančikas Aug 14 '22 at 07:40
  • 1
    @Stančikas well, yes - like Hispanic Americans, who are American citizens, perhaps even in second it third generation. However, they dislike socialist politicians, whom they associate with Castro, while they are also sensitive about immigration policies. This is a difference betweengovernment and people which is obvious to the ethnic group concerned, but is easily lost on others. – Roger V. Aug 14 '22 at 07:51
  • Maybe not "affect adversely" but rather "alienate"? Technically, it will not "affect" them directly by definition; it may affect them, say, if they have relatives in Russia whom they will not be able to invite. If you are talking about feelings ("being sensitive"), it may go both ways: plenty of Russian non-citizens might support "pushing" Russians, just like many immigrants support anti-immigration policies, etc. – Zeus Aug 15 '22 at 01:45
  • @Zeus They can be affected in many ways: directly, if they have families and/or friends in Russia; by people acting out of anti-Russian sentiment; by social pressure on anyone identifying themselves as Russians, and simply by questioning their Russian identity. As an anecdotal example, one can mention children of Russian refugees in the US during the cold war, who stopped speaking their language, because it was unfavorably viewed by their peers. – Roger V. Aug 17 '22 at 12:06
  • @Roger, I don't think it actually works these days, in the 'West' at least. Those (relatively few) who have 'anti-Russian sentiment' (in the ethnic sense) won't be changed by (yet another) formal measure such as visa ban. The situation was very different during the cold war, esp. before the 1980s: ethnic identity was shunned even in migrant countries such as the US or Australia, and people tried not to speak their language in public. This was not specific to Russians. Yet, this did not imply dislike of the people: just 'melting pot' attiatude. But that's another topic. – Zeus Aug 17 '22 at 14:37
  • @Zeus are you talking about the US? Because the sentiment is very ethnic in eastern Europe - some countries have historical grievances against Russians, running back decades or centuries. Note also the indiscriminate use of terms Russia/Russians in this thread (as well as in the media) - do you think it is pleasing to any Russian to read/hear this, even if they are not a Russian citizen and/or Putin sympathizer? – Roger V. Aug 17 '22 at 15:03
  • @Roger, well, let's say I mean "west West": I'm less familiar with Eastern Europe. Those that had "historical grievances" generally had it with Russia as an empire (incl. USSR), which encompassed nearly all ethnic Russians, so their attitudes could be understandable (though hardly justifiable). For others, the attitude is generally towards the country (and indirectly its citizens), not the ethnicity. English lacks the distinction so it may be hard to judge for the outsiders (primarily the Russians themselves), but the context is such, and is not offensive. – Zeus Aug 18 '22 at 01:35
  • @Zeus I agree with what you say. But I think language is important here, and there may be some deliberate misuse of it, exploiting general ignorance about non-Russian Russians (we're talking about some 20-30 millions people here, not counting that often anyone from the former USSR used to be referred to as "Russian" in western countries.) – Roger V. Aug 18 '22 at 06:11
2

I think it is worth understanding President Zelensky's logic to better understand why he wants to ban and deport all "Russians" (I will be using this exact spelling, since it is unclear whether he meant ethnic Russians, or Russian citizens regardless of their ethnicity, including the ethnicities that have been victim of the Soviet and/or Russian regimes or general population in the past).

In the original Washington Post interview, President Zelensky claims that all "Russians" are responsible for the beginning of the war on Ukraine, no matter their political views, personal actions, or other factors ("Whichever kind of Russian … make them go to Russia").

In the same interview, he also claims that all "Russians" picked President Putin as the president. ("The population picked this government.")

Finally, President Zelinsky concludes that if all "Russians" are exiled to Russia and denied access to democratic countries, "they’ll understand then".

President Zelensky did not address or acknowledge the presence of the Russian opposition which is unfortunate, as they are often thought to be the people who have been actively opposing Putin's regime for years at the cost of their freedom and lives.

If you postulate that "Russians" are guilty in starting the war on Ukraine, it should easily follow that "Russians" should be banned from free countries for their complacency in war crimes. Whether or not that presumption is correct, I will leave to the reader's sensibility.

P.S. The same interview had a few factual errors such as the claim that "Russian citizens are still free to apply for a visa to visit the United States" which I will not address as they are beyond the scope of this question.

William K
  • 316
  • 1
  • 7
  • I can't find a full transcript, but the part about "whichever kind" was about opposition, not about ethnicity, as WaPo put it. "Some critics have argued that banning all Russians would unfairly impact those who have left their country because they disagree with President Vladimir Putin’s government and his decision to attack Ukraine.

    Zelensky said such distinctions don’t matter: “Whichever kind of Russian … make them go to Russia.”"

    – the gods from engineering Aug 14 '22 at 09:50
  • 4
    If you want my personal opinion his call is wholly incompatible with Western values nonetheless, but that's besides the point. Zelenskyy does seem to think that forcing the opposition to live in Russia would be beneficial for Ukraine. He says "The whole population can’t be held responsible, can it?’ It can." As we saw from the Navalny case, sending the opposition to Putin's prisons has rather marginal benefits for Ukraine or the West... Zelenskyy indeed seems rather blind to that. – the gods from engineering Aug 14 '22 at 10:02
  • 1
    OTOH he's clearly more upset that Russians aren't protesting more "The population picked this government and they’re not fighting it, not arguing with it, not shouting at it." He might have a point that after massive crackdowns in March, protests in Russia are rather muted nowadays. – the gods from engineering Aug 14 '22 at 10:07
  • 1
    @Fizz well, protests in Kherson are also muted now, despite having been quite wide in the beginning. Unarmed people have no power against armed ones. – Ruslan Aug 14 '22 at 10:50
  • 1
    The interview you mention says "all Russian citizens" so for all confusion if it is about the citizens of Russian Federation or the ethnic Russians probably could be downvoted. – Stančikas Aug 14 '22 at 13:23
  • @Ruslan comparing protesting in Kherson to protesting in SPB or Moscow is ridiculous or outright stupid. In Kherson you have huge problems accessing internet, food and basic necessities. You will be probably shot on the spot or tortured to death if any russian will even suspect you in any support of Ukraine. Do you think the situation in SPB or any city in russia is comparable to it? Realistically what will happen if you will be seen with a Ukrainian flag there? I would guess that taken to a police department and maybe beaten, but not found shot in a head with your hands tied. – Salvador Dali Aug 14 '22 at 22:12
  • 1
    @Salvador Dali Shooting people for being suporting the enemy is not restricted to Russia, Ukraine also shooting people who they think to be iloyal. – convert Aug 15 '22 at 11:06
  • @convert really? Do you have any examples (not from russian propaganda) that ukrainian army killing civilians? I think your imagination someone distorts the situation about killing an active combatant (russian invader) and killing a harmless civilian after torturing them. – Salvador Dali Aug 15 '22 at 20:00
  • @Salvador Dali Shure ukrainian also killing people who they belive to be treators. – convert Aug 15 '22 at 21:08
  • @convert you just reiterated the same stupid comment. This will work on russian TV, but not here. You have not provided any examples. – Salvador Dali Aug 15 '22 at 23:34
  • @Salvador Dali What that have to do with russian TV? Is Amnesti International also russian TV. – convert Aug 16 '22 at 09:36
  • @convert stop being stupid and show the proofs for what you claimed. – Salvador Dali Aug 16 '22 at 19:05
  • @Salvador Dali You should just read the report by Amnesti International abou Ukraine. – convert Aug 16 '22 at 19:28
  • @convert I read it. This is a widely criticized report which claims that Ukrainian army puts civilians in danger by placing military objects in civilian regions. It was widely criticized as the people who wrote it showed zero understanding about war and have not provided any adequate coverage of what happens if Ukraine does not protect civilians. Now that I explained you what was written here, can you stop being stupid and show what you wrongly claimed without any proof. Do not tell me to find something: provide a link to a proof. – Salvador Dali Aug 16 '22 at 22:44
0

We should divide 2 things: Ukraine and Zelensky, while Ukraine has nothing really to gain from such ban, Zelensky profits a lot, as does every politiсian in Ukraine making anti-Russian statements or being able to harm Russia or Russians gains popularity. This statement by Zelensky was targeting domestic audience in the first place.

As already mentioned in the question itself, instead of spending their money in EU Russians would have to do it in their home country and suport its economy. The influence by the West on the Russians would also decrease. The Russian Federation narative about the evil West which hates all russian and punishes them will be strengthened. So in the end Russian government would only profit from such step from the West. By cuting acces to the West Russian media will become the only sorce of information about the West for the Russians. Also if Russia decides to declare mobilization this visa ban will be also hlpful as nobody will be able to leave the country and escape that mobilization.

All people who have influence or even claimed to have influence on Russian politics are already under sanctions including such visa ban, so such ban for all Russians will not afect them any more.

Even Borel, who is defenetly not a friend of Russia calles it not a good idea as can be read in this Bloomberg article. Since Bloomberg article is paywalled, here an alternative sorce.

convert
  • 1
  • 24
  • 115
  • 186
  • The negative sides of the ban, seem, indeed, reasonable. Whoever thinks still a good idea, assumes some positive sides of the ban not covered by this answer but that is, is useful to read. Cannot read the Bloomberg article to say more, it is behind the paywall. – Stančikas Mar 16 '23 at 13:32
  • @Stančikas Added an alternative sorce to Bloomberg. – convert Mar 16 '23 at 13:48