Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

From Kevin Rothrock's telegram:

'"A thoughtful essay in Holod Media’s new English-language edition by human rights activist Almut Rochowanski where she argues against calls in Europe to ban tourist visas for Russians. In her own experience helping people flee the country, she says tourist and business visas were vital to getting Russians abroad safely or at all. “Humanitarian visas” are apparently nearly impossible to get without “tenacious allies with political connections” — in other words, the most vulnerable groups are pretty much fucked.

The tourist-visa application process itself, of course, is designed to keep out Russians who might want to stay in Europe. The whole point is to allow visitors to come, spend their money, and then leave. In other words, folks who can’t prove gainful employment, bank accounts, property, etc. are already discriminated against. In the context of political flight, this especially disadvantages applicants from the North Caucasus (particularly women).

Besides these logistical insights, Rochowanski also challenges advocacy that would base visa policymaking on what “offends” the public. Acknowledging the outrage people experience at the idea of Putin’s constituents lounging on foreign beaches, she argues that Europe’s increasingly xenophobic, prejudiced, right-wing ideologies are the context in which we ought to see the visa-ban campaign against Russians. Even if you’re unmoved by the fact that tourist visas are a lifeline to people fleeing Russia, Rochowanski says, Russians nevertheless “have a right not to be discriminated against and to due process.” That’s true, she adds, even though tourist visas themselves are not a right (they’re the product of evidence- and law-based decisions).

Ultimately, Europe simply has to stomach the “awkwardness” of remaining open to Russians during the Ukraine war: “It’s better than the alternative.”"
 
From Kevin Rothrock's telegram:

'"A thoughtful essay in Holod Media’s new English-language edition by human rights activist Almut Rochowanski where she argues against calls in Europe to ban tourist visas for Russians. In her own experience helping people flee the country, she says tourist and business visas were vital to getting Russians abroad safely or at all. “Humanitarian visas” are apparently nearly impossible to get without “tenacious allies with political connections” — in other words, the most vulnerable groups are pretty much fucked.

The tourist-visa application process itself, of course, is designed to keep out Russians who might want to stay in Europe. The whole point is to allow visitors to come, spend their money, and then leave. In other words, folks who can’t prove gainful employment, bank accounts, property, etc. are already discriminated against. In the context of political flight, this especially disadvantages applicants from the North Caucasus (particularly women).

Besides these logistical insights, Rochowanski also challenges advocacy that would base visa policymaking on what “offends” the public. Acknowledging the outrage people experience at the idea of Putin’s constituents lounging on foreign beaches, she argues that Europe’s increasingly xenophobic, prejudiced, right-wing ideologies are the context in which we ought to see the visa-ban campaign against Russians. Even if you’re unmoved by the fact that tourist visas are a lifeline to people fleeing Russia, Rochowanski says, Russians nevertheless “have a right not to be discriminated against and to due process.” That’s true, she adds, even though tourist visas themselves are not a right (they’re the product of evidence- and law-based decisions).

Ultimately, Europe simply has to stomach the “awkwardness” of remaining open to Russians during the Ukraine war: “It’s better than the alternative.”"


Whilst I agree with Rochowanski about the important role of tourist visas, is it really the case that "Europe’s increasingly xenophobic, prejudiced, right-wing ideologies are the context in which we ought to see the visa-ban campaign against Russians" ?

As I understand it the impetus for this is mainly with Scandinavian states European States and those in the East that border onto Russia such as Estonia. Hungary which is normally the bete noir of xenophobic prejudiced right wing ideology is actually against it . The Portuguese press btw feel that the EU won't ban but will offer a compromise where the price of the visas are raised and the process will take longer. A solution that seeks to compromise with EU membership more than tackling the issue one way or another.
 
Another Russian war critic, Lukoil chairman Ravil Maganov, has died following a mysterious 'fall' from a window


Flung himself out of the window after being overcome by grief at Gorbachev's death, I expect. That, or he was consumed by remorse at having opposed the special military operation.
 
In the day of the triffids, they eye surgeon at the start of the book hoys himself out of a hospital window. Dangerous places them hospitals
 
Last edited:
Another Russian war critic, Lukoil chairman Ravil Maganov, has died following a mysterious 'fall' from a window



The Accidental Death of an Oligarch.

Accidental but not particularly exceptional.



Given the amount of grief he's caused the Kremlin and the piles of Russian cash he has received, I hope Johnson will start taking more interest in his personal security and that if his family than he has in the past.

I'm sure that for the FSB he would make the most exquisite of excellent cadavers.

2186.jpg
 
Last edited:
From Kevin Rothrock's telegram:

'"A thoughtful essay in Holod Media’s new English-language edition by human rights activist Almut Rochowanski where she argues against calls in Europe to ban tourist visas for Russians. In her own experience helping people flee the country, she says tourist and business visas were vital to getting Russians abroad safely or at all. “Humanitarian visas” are apparently nearly impossible to get without “tenacious allies with political connections” — in other words, the most vulnerable groups are pretty much fucked.

The tourist-visa application process itself, of course, is designed to keep out Russians who might want to stay in Europe. The whole point is to allow visitors to come, spend their money, and then leave. In other words, folks who can’t prove gainful employment, bank accounts, property, etc. are already discriminated against. In the context of political flight, this especially disadvantages applicants from the North Caucasus (particularly women).

Besides these logistical insights, Rochowanski also challenges advocacy that would base visa policymaking on what “offends” the public. Acknowledging the outrage people experience at the idea of Putin’s constituents lounging on foreign beaches, she argues that Europe’s increasingly xenophobic, prejudiced, right-wing ideologies are the context in which we ought to see the visa-ban campaign against Russians. Even if you’re unmoved by the fact that tourist visas are a lifeline to people fleeing Russia, Rochowanski says, Russians nevertheless “have a right not to be discriminated against and to due process.” That’s true, she adds, even though tourist visas themselves are not a right (they’re the product of evidence- and law-based decisions).

Ultimately, Europe simply has to stomach the “awkwardness” of remaining open to Russians during the Ukraine war: “It’s better than the alternative.”"

BTW, the EU has decided not to ban visas for Belarusians.
 
From Kevin Rothrock's telegram:

'"A thoughtful essay in Holod Media’s new English-language edition by human rights activist Almut Rochowanski where she argues against calls in Europe to ban tourist visas for Russians. In her own experience helping people flee the country, she says tourist and business visas were vital to getting Russians abroad safely or at all. “Humanitarian visas” are apparently nearly impossible to get without “tenacious allies with political connections” — in other words, the most vulnerable groups are pretty much fucked.

The tourist-visa application process itself, of course, is designed to keep out Russians who might want to stay in Europe. The whole point is to allow visitors to come, spend their money, and then leave. In other words, folks who can’t prove gainful employment, bank accounts, property, etc. are already discriminated against. In the context of political flight, this especially disadvantages applicants from the North Caucasus (particularly women).

Besides these logistical insights, Rochowanski also challenges advocacy that would base visa policymaking on what “offends” the public. Acknowledging the outrage people experience at the idea of Putin’s constituents lounging on foreign beaches, she argues that Europe’s increasingly xenophobic, prejudiced, right-wing ideologies are the context in which we ought to see the visa-ban campaign against Russians. Even if you’re unmoved by the fact that tourist visas are a lifeline to people fleeing Russia, Rochowanski says, Russians nevertheless “have a right not to be discriminated against and to due process.” That’s true, she adds, even though tourist visas themselves are not a right (they’re the product of evidence- and law-based decisions).

Ultimately, Europe simply has to stomach the “awkwardness” of remaining open to Russians during the Ukraine war: “It’s better than the alternative.”"

I don't know if I agree or not.

I understand the specific desire not to choke off the ability of refugees to escape from places like Chechnya, but in reality, wouldn't most of those be crossing the land border into Georgia anyway? Perhaps more could be done there, and firm agreement to take people onwards into other parts of Europe if they can't or don't want to stay in Georgia.

There are so many countries which produce millions of refugees, and they don't have the luxury of slipping serendipitously into Europe just because the visa system has been left open for richer fellow nationals who want to relax on the French Riviera. I think it's a weak argument to suggest that on this basis, the Russians should just keep coming at will.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine’s first lady, Olena Zelenska, has said in a BBC interview that while the economic impact of the war in Ukraine is tough on its allies, Britons “count pennies” while Ukrainians “count casualties”.
 
Ukraine’s first lady, Olena Zelenska, has said in a BBC interview that while the economic impact of the war in Ukraine is tough on its allies, Britons “count pennies” while Ukrainians “count casualties”.
With a government like the one we have you have to look after the pennies and pray the pounds will take care of themselves
 
Ukraine’s first lady, Olena Zelenska, has said in a BBC interview that while the economic impact of the war in Ukraine is tough on its allies, Britons “count pennies” while Ukrainians “count casualties”.
Whilst she may well believe the economic impact on allies to be true and it is, in part so it is in fact a misleading narrative. The economic woes being experienced particularly here in the UK have a whole host of other, larger reasons, greed and Brexit being on the list.
 
Certainly she has a point. However how does it go down in Europe for the Ukrainian President’s wife to utter such a statement from a gilded stateroom?
What point is that? The point that you have interpreted through your solipsistic lens? I think her emphasis is on the casualties of her own country, not the economics of a different one. It’s you that is only choosing to hear the latter part.
 
What point is that? The point that you have interpreted through your solipsistic lens? I think her emphasis is on the casualties of the own country, not the economics of a different one. It’s you that is only choosing to hear the latter part.
I hear the whole thing. But my question remains.
 
Certainly she has a point. However how does it go down in Europe for the Ukrainian President’s wife to utter such a statement from a gilded stateroom?
Perhaps some people are more able to see beyond the statecraft and appreciate the message.

It probably helps if they're not coming to it with a preconceived notion that the Russian position is, per se, a valid one.
 
I hear the whole thing. But my question remains.
Very well I would imagine. I would think that about 85% of Europeans would think to themselves 'She's got a point there, thank god we aren't facing an invasion by a brutal kleptocratic dictatorship with no regard for human rights and it feels bad the Ukrainians are taking the brunt of the violence and death whilst we are just struggling economically."
 
Back
Top Bottom