Thread by @kamilkazani

The visa issue may be complicated.

1. I think security concerns of Finland and even more so, Baltics, are legitimate. Let's be honest, Russia never really recognised independence of the latter. Furthermore, Baltic nations are very much dehumanised in the Russian public discourse

https://twitter.com/IlvesToomas/status/1556679782867374080

This sermon may be very illustrative. "Misfortunate" Ukraine is described more as a misled little sister who must be disciplined, reformed and put back in line. The priest's stance on Baltics is much harsher:

"What happens with Baltics, you can imagine yourself" tells he

2. Saying all of this, I see a certain contradiction between the moral logic and the pragmatic logic in the visa/residence permit policy. I also see a strong bias towards the former

3. There's probably a good reason for immediate neighbours to restrict all visits/immigration from Russia under whatever pretext. Regarding the outer world, a more nuanced policy might be more efficient from the pragmatic standpoint

4. I don't agree with the idea of this war being "Putin's war". The war has a lot of genuine, popular support. Claiming that it is just a crime of evil Putin which the rest of the nation bears no responsibility for is just false. Many criticise Putin for not being hard enough

5. I also agree that Russian people in general refuse to assume any responsibility for what's happening. No matter their political stance, they'll be shocked and furious to learn they now have to suffer any discomfort as a result of Russia's invasion

6. I will also argue that keeping the pretence of everything going as usual is very important for Kremlin. It doesn't care much about Russia, but it very much cares about Moscow. *Any* discomfort for the citizens of Moscow is a big blow on Kremlin

wsj.com/articles/in-ru…

7. For that reason I can not really solidarise with those who are upset about restricted opportunities for tourism, etc. Kremlin (and Russia in general) want to keep business as usual, but I don't see a single reason why the outer world should abide with that

8. Nevertheless, I find it *crucially* important to keep the door open to those who want to leave one way. CRUCIALLY important. The idea about the discontent ones staying home and overthrowing Putin is delusional. That's just not gonna happen

9. Why? Because it is an idealistically motivated collective action of gigantic scale. If you really believe Russian people could do that for whatever reason you don't know Russia at all. They can't and they won't. It's an extremely pragmatic and individualistic nation

10. What I found puzzling about the Western self perception is that oblivious focus on individualism. I think that importance of individualism in how Western democracies function is somewhat exaggerated. While the community and the ability for collective action are underrated

11. Russia is way more individualistic that any Western country I'm aware of. Independent communities and the ability for collective action are uprooted here very thoroughly. It won't be much of exaggeration to say that Russians have almost zero capacity for collective action

12. That explains the power of the Russian state. It uprooted all other institutions, communities, organizations that have capacity for collective action. Just uproot *all* communities, clubs, associations, regionalism and you will be shocked at how powerful the state becomes

13. After the war Russians will need a full scale rehabilitation to regain the self-reliance and capacity for collective action on smaller level. Which can't be done under the power of Kremlin whoever sits there. And this is *the* main motivation for the future decolonisation

14. Now however, the only move almost all (somewhat discontent) Russians can do - and by can I mean that these specifics individuals rather than abstract heroes - is to vote by legs. To leave. And in a quickly ageing + depopulating country that undermines Russian war efforts

15. That's why it is very important to keep the door open. And I don't mean necessarily the door to the West. I mean the door to *somewhere*. Emigration to Argentina is already a big thing in Russia. I recently saw a discussion how to buy a Paraguayan passport in a group chat

16. Some leave with cash and assets. They're usually doing well. Some leave with almost no money and often return soon. Very common story. Others leave with zero cash and stay. They sometimes end up in desperate situations, like those 18 year olds who escaped mobilization

17. I won't advocate for making immigration to the West easier for Russians. But I strongly advocate for keeping one way door to *somewhere* open. Argentina is a great example. Not many will leave ofc. But they are usually young in a quickly ageing and depopulating country

18. I find the decision to disable Visa and Mastercard abroad but keep them functional in Russia counter efficient. That literally forces people to stay in. I would prefer it being the other way around to be honest

19. In addition to that, I would advocate for making emigration for any male of draft able age as easy as possible. There are not so many of them left

20. To sum up. I think that allowing tourism, etc. helps Kremlin to keep the illusion of business as usual. So yes, if you allow tourism you support the war. On the other hand, I find it very important to keep the one way door out to those who want to leave

21. And yes, I think that not working out an option of an easy surrender with a small cash handout and a subsequent green corridor to literally whichever visa free countries for the Russian soldiers in Ukraine back in March was a big mistake