A visa ban would harm the Kremlin and bring the war in Ukraine to a close faster
Source - Daily Telegraph - 24/08/22
It's one of the biggest issues dividing European leaders — whether a blanket ban on EU visas for Russian tourists should be imposed as retribution for Moscow’s war against Ukraine.
Russian cars parked in Helsinki airport as Finland has become a hub for tourists flying into Europe CREDIT: ALESSANDRO RAMPAZZO/AFP
Differences of opinion have cast a shadow over the eurozone project since the beginning, but Russia’s invasion has repeatedly laid bare just how fragile consensus is on virtually any issue of major economic and political importance.
A call for all Russian travellers to be prevented from entering Europe promises to prompt one of the most explosive rows yet, splitting the bloc almost entirely into two clear sub-regions as the Continent is forced to wrestle with some of the more difficult moral questions that the war has served up.
It is perhaps no surprise that those backing a ban — Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic — have lived in the shadow of Russian imperialism for decades either by virtue of shared land borders or being part of the old Soviet empire. They understand too well the threat that Putin poses to European security and the potential for retribution against Ukraine’s geographically closest allies.
Nor is it a shock that Germany was among the first to voice its opposition. After years of cosying up to the Kremlin, Berlin’s persistent foot-dragging on sanctions has continually undermined Western attempts to blunt Vladimir Putin’s deranged imperialist project.
Likewise, it is telling that among those that were quick to join the “no” camp are countries such as Portugal and Greece, whose economies are heavily reliant on tourism, or, like Cyprus, whose economy and banking system is propped up by questionable Russian money.
Yet, it would be a travesty if national self-interest was allowed to undermine efforts to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression. Targeting ordinary Russian citizens may seem like an unfair escalation of the West’s sanctions regime but it could prove to be among the most powerful and effective weapons that can be deployed against Putin, provoking first disquiet, then protest and eventually perhaps unrest.
The subject of a ban has even risked undermining the resolve of the Ukrainian Government. While President Volodymyr Zelensky is a vocal proponent of preventing Russians from holidaying in the EU, Oleksiy Arestovych, one of his closest military advisers and allies, was quick to voice his concerns about such a heavy-handed move.
Arestovych later sought to clarify his comments, saying that they were his personal view and that he officially supported the administration’s position, but it was too late — it was the first real glimpse of fissures in Ukraine’s previously united front.
Yet, most opponents seem largely to be hiding behind the practical challenges of shutting Russians out, rather than addressing the justification for doing it, or indeed the potential effectiveness of a ban — which is to say it has the potential to turn public opinion against Putin, forcing him into a humiliating retreat.
Arestovych claimed it would be “technically very difficult” to determine “whether someone supports or doesn’t support Putin”, but that’s missing the point.
The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has also expressed concerns for what it would mean for those Russians who have fled “because they are disagreeing with the Russian regime.” But as Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, was quick to point out, Kyiv is not proposing a ban on “those few Russians who may need an asylum or humanitarian entry”.
This is about undermining public support for the war because without it, Russia’s occupation becomes much harder to sustain. It is why talk of a ban has provoked such an angry rebuke from the Kremlin.
In a country with such a fearsome and effective propaganda machine, it is difficult to gauge the extent to which the Russian population backs the invasion.
However, a survey conducted in late May by Russia’s only remaining independent pollster, the Levada Center, indicated that more than three quarters were in favour, a figure that had increased slightly from the previous month. While younger Russians were less enthusiastic, 60pc of 18-24 year old respondents still expressed approval.
The prospects for any sort of meaningful backlash therefore seem slim at best unless Russian citizens can be persuaded that they now live in a pariah state, which means isolation from the rest of the world.
Not for the first time, Zelensky put it best: which is that ordinary Russians — even those living outside Russia — bear a collective responsibility for the war and the loss of Ukraine’s land. “Whichever kind of Russian… make them go to Russia,” Zelensky told The Washington Post.
Of course some Russians may not support the invasion but by burying their heads in the sand and ignoring what is happening on Russia’s doorstep, they too are part of the problem.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has also grasped the nettle, calling European tourism “a privilege, not a human right”.
Indeed. Opponents of a ban should ask themselves this: when 7m Ukrainians have been forced to flee their homes, and thousands of others have been killed or maimed, is it right that Russian tourists are still free to enjoy the world-class art museums of Tuscany or the pine-clad hills of Provence?
Comments
Post a Comment