Thread by @DumoulinME

I did not want to participate in the discussion about #visaban for Russians, but simple slogans do not always make for smart policies. 🧵:

1/ There is a moral beauty to the argument – do not allow Russians to enjoy vacations in Europe while Ukrainians are dying. Coming to Europe is not a human right, and it should not be allowed to nationals of a country which invaded its neighbor and commits massive war crimes.

2/ Getting a visa is definitely not a human right; every state defines its own visa-policy and the criteria according to which it delivers visas. Without adopting a visa-ban, EU member states have the possibility to be more restrictive in their visa-policies in Russia.

3/ Russian citizens have various reasons to visit the EU. Not all of them come to enjoy summer vacation on the French riviera and even less so to conduct GRU special operations. There are people visiting relatives, artists, academics, students, who all have legitimate reasons...

...to visit Europe. Not all of them intend to leave Russia for good and ask for asylum and they shouldn’t be forced to make such a choice. The EU should not enter a logic of “with us or against us”.

4/ The question of collective responsibility is a tricky one. Again, I understand the logic of those who say: they do not object to the regime, therefore they bear responsibility for its acts.

But it hurts my beliefs, as a European committed to individual rights, to subscribe to a presumption of collective guilt for nationals of any particular country, just because they are nationals of this country.

5/ This argument also ignores the nature of the Russian regime, how little space it leaves for expressing dissent and what consequences people face for expressing dissent.

Russia is not a bigger Ukraine where people would be too lazy or intrinsically authoritarian to bring down their government. It has a different political trajectory,for which the West actually also bears some responsibility:

Had we been more principled when Yeltsin let shoot at the Supreme council in 1993, or when he got reelected in dubious conditions in 1996, Russia would be in a different (not necessarily better) situation now.

6/ Let us look at the expected effects of a visa-ban. The possibility to travel is supposedly part of the advantages that Russians associate with the “social contract” of the Russian regime. Depriving them of that possibility would reduce the support to the regime. 3 objections:

a/ Not all Russians enjoy the possibility to travel. Actually only a small minority does (28% of the population had a passport to travel abroad in 2021). And these are not the people the army is recruiting to fight in Ukraine.

b/ Barring people from travelling to the EU will not mean isolating them. Russians will basically travel to other places and be exposed to other ideas and values, thus probably drifting even further away from Europe.

c/ The ban on Russians travelling to the EU will feed the regime’s narrative about the “collective West’s” alleged Russophobia. The fact that this is the dominant narrative anyway doesn’t mean we should voluntarily provide grist for its mill.

The regime would welcome this decision, all the more so as it would also confirm its narrative about recent “emigrees” as a fifth column of the West, while at the same time making their situation more fragile in the West (not all of them enjoy residency permits or asylum).

7/ A visa-ban will not accelerate a Russian defeat, nor will it contribute to a Ukrainian victory. Implementing it would be useless, if not counterproductive. Let us not be the ones building walls but rather stay true to our values of openness and individual freedom.