EPTNot a fan of punishing people for their country of origin. At the same time, I do get the logic behind the reasoning, and if it could be showed that dissent is growing as a consequence of banning Russian visas (or that there's a valid security argument to be made) I could see it be justified, but my impression is that this isn't really the case - the Russians most likely to travel probably correlates rather significantly with the Russians who are already more negative toward putin and the war. Thus, the punishing Russians for being Russian argument is the one that remains, and I'm not a fan of that one.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 199
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28669 Posts
Not a fan of punishing people for their country of origin. At the same time, I do get the logic behind the reasoning, and if it could be showed that dissent is growing as a consequence of banning Russian visas (or that there's a valid security argument to be made) I could see it be justified, but my impression is that this isn't really the case - the Russians most likely to travel probably correlates rather significantly with the Russians who are already more negative toward putin and the war. Thus, the punishing Russians for being Russian argument is the one that remains, and I'm not a fan of that one. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Also apparently Germany has caught two spies(?) working in the Economics Office(?). No idea what they were doing or how they were caught as there doesn't appear to be a English translation. In the energy department they were seen obstructing Government directives etc. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11513 Posts
I also think that we should be very open to people wanting to emigrate from Russia, be it as refugees or just normally. Letting Russians have their nice holidays in the EU while their country is currently at war against the basic ideas of our society seems absurd to me. This is not some massive punishment. Just us saying "Hey, while your country is waging an aggressive war, constantly killing people and destroying a country, you don't get to have this luxury." | ||
|
mh_mh
8 Posts
On August 31 2022 21:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think lack of active resistance can really equate support in a country where liberal freedoms are repressed and protesting might land you in jail. In that event, protesting becomes something heroic, not something to be expected. And every Russian soldier who fights in Ukraine is absolved from any responsibility if he says "I only followed orders" or "I didn't know"? On August 31 2022 21:51 Simberto wrote: Just us saying "Hey, while your country is waging an aggressive war, constantly killing people and destroying a country, you don't get to have this luxury." That is what we say, but what will they hear? Russian propaganda will shout "They hate you! We must defend ourselves" | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6931 Posts
Here is a link to a not paywalled version: https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/russische-spionage-verfassungsschutz-prueft-spionageverdacht-im-wirtschaftsministerium/28642708.html (German) So what would you do with Russian tourists? Sit through an 8 hour long anti propaganda movie with cruel pictures when entering EU zone? I'm really torn on this visa issue right now. Both positions are understandable | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On August 31 2022 20:54 Ardias wrote: Banning Russian tourists, while morally understandable (feast among the plague, punish evil Ruskies for the war, etc.), is not a smart move. 1. First of all, since many Russians are apolitical and they do not consider Russian government as "theirs", they don't like the idea that somebody will held them personally responsible for the actions of that government, and they are more likely to retaliate against those, who banned them, rather than against Putin, and to support Kremlin actions even more. And Kremlin will easily use it in propaganda: "See, we told you, they aren't against us, they are against all of you!". 2. Second, tourists spent money, that they earned in Russia, in western countries. The same countries that fund Ukraine. Now these money will go to the countries that do not actively support Ukraine, or do not support it at all (with exception of Turkey), or even worse, they stay in Russia and help fund the Russian war effort. 3. Third, as SC-Shield said, it's hard to show someone, that your grass is greener and how it should be made greener, if you build the fence yourself. I added numbers to your arguments for ease of reference. You, alongside many others in the West, forgot the primary purpose of the ban: this is a major security issue. In the last month and a bit, Estonia has had about a quarter of its population worth of Russians on tourist visas move through it. This disrupts travel and makes it incredibly difficult to do proper vetting at the border (as the two agents caught near the Narva monument I referred to earlier exemplify). But worse yet, actual refugees are not getting the treatment they deserve due to the massive surge at the border. There have been some embarrassing lapses and delays. Currently, Western EU countries are pretending to sanction travel from Russia with the airline ban, as they still invite tourists to spend their money in their countries, while creating problems for three border countries. 1. The Russian government IS "their government". This fake detachment is one of the pillars of authoritarian rule which such a ban is intended to erode. The fact that ordinary Russians aren't resisting their government while it's committing atrocities domestically and abroad is a travesty and nobody among those looking the other way should be comfortable looking in the mirror. This is coming from a family which resisted the previous incarnation of such an authoritarian Russian government in Estonia, suffering deaths, imprisonment (20 years in Kazakhstani copper mines for my grand uncle), economic repression, sanctioned rape, and more over half a century. It's disgusting to think that people see such cruelty and choose to do nothing. So, they shouldn't be allowed to pretend it's not "their government". Otherwise they'll never be free. 2. This is the real reason Italy, France and Cyprus resist the tourist ban. They want the money because their tourism sector is reeling from COVID. Instead, they could just subsidize their tourism sector for the loss in revenue without compromising foreign, defence and EU policy. The actual numbers are so low, though (Russians spend around 20bn abroad annually, and only a part of that is in the EU), that they make no difference in terms of actual support for UA. 3. The reason why the "show them grass is greener on the other side" argument fails is that it's been policy for the last three decades and it hasn't made a difference. Young Russians who have travelled abroad have failed to spread the message, and there certainly isn't a significant new generation rising to resist Putin. As Simberto correctly pointed out, the most likely tourists from RU to EU are the children of chekists and oligarchs (there's overlap). As the primary beneficiaries of Putin's regime, they aren't going to switch sides easily. Source: I received my education with many of them... So, I repeat: some kind of tourist visa ban is required for the sake of the actual border countries. But seeing how every Russian seems to oppose this vehemently, I'm getting the feeling that it would actually have a profound impact on the regime. Because it erodes the fake detachment Russians feel between their government and themselves. Because it shows that you cannot condone atrocities and reap the benefits of respectable society at the same time. There will be real consequences for their actions or the lack of action. P.S. I'm not addressing the Russian perspective on the counter-offensive. It has been shown to be unreliable countless times before (remember how you claimed Pisky village was taken and yet it remains in UA hands several weeks later?), but it's almost certainly released by the FSB as an info-op which is part of the defence. It will contain real facts, but the aim is to harm UA. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On August 31 2022 21:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think lack of active resistance can really equate support in a country where liberal freedoms are repressed and protesting might land you in jail. In that event, protesting becomes something heroic, not something to be expected. I would argue that you can't equate the lack of resistance to support in any political system, no matter how free it is. The worst that automatically follows from that is indifference. There are situations where it is right to punish such indifference (a less abstract example: failure to render assistance to an injured person), but even then the punishment is not justified because lack of resistance is equated to support. It would be because one should be compelled to resist. If someone would want to make the argument, that one should be compelled to resist war good luck with being able to do that while remaining consistent in its application... The argument of tourism getting money out of russia is an interesting one, though I am not sure if its in such a volume that it is worth more than a theoretical argument. It is something I had not thought about until now though, it could be an argument that is practical and would also be much easier to proof than my previous pondering about giving an out from propaganda / repression back in russia. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25353 Posts
On August 31 2022 21:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think lack of active resistance can really equate support in a country where liberal freedoms are repressed and protesting might land you in jail. In that event, protesting becomes something heroic, not something to be expected. Not a fan of punishing people for their country of origin. At the same time, I do get the logic behind the reasoning, and if it could be showed that dissent is growing as a consequence of banning Russian visas (or that there's a valid security argument to be made) I could see it be justified, but my impression is that this isn't really the case - the Russians most likely to travel probably correlates rather significantly with the Russians who are already more negative toward putin and the war. Thus, the punishing Russians for being Russian argument is the one that remains, and I'm not a fan of that one. My main issue is the singling out of Russia in particular on this. My own nation and the US don’t exactly have a great record in the 21st century in this regard, but our respective citizenry haven’t been subject to pariah status, at least not formally! As a general policy I don’t mind it though, it’s easy to be an enthusiastic supporter of wars, or on the fence or nothing to do with me, if it’s at a distance and doesn’t affect oneself. I’d still not want to see Russians who deeply disapprove (or perhaps not even that) be able to emigrate for work. Or visas to visit family outside of Russia be granted. I’m unsure in short. I don’t particularly like the idea of collective punishment, but equally we’re seeing the inevitable consequences of chest-beating nationalism and where that leads. Death, destruction and displacement. Russia itself is tapping into that vein of a collective Russian peoples and state, I can see the logic in treating it thus for the purposes of this conflict, or in not doing so and compartmentalising. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9198 Posts
On August 31 2022 21:51 Simberto wrote: Are the people most likely to travel to the EU not also those who have money, which correlates with the people who profit from the current regime in Russia, and who could potentially put pressure onto Putin? People with decent jobs from cities like Petersburg or Moscow aren't that poor, they should be able to afford yearly vacations in South-Eastern Europe. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On August 31 2022 22:21 Ghanburighan wrote: 3. The reason why the "show them grass is greener on the other side" argument fails is that it's been policy for the last three decades and it hasn't made a difference. Young Russians who have travelled abroad have failed to spread the message, and there certainly isn't a significant new generation rising to resist Putin. As Simberto correctly pointed out, the most likely tourists from RU to EU are the children of chekists and oligarchs (there's overlap). As the primary beneficiaries of Putin's regime, they aren't going to switch sides easily. Source: I received my education with many of them... I will need a source for the claim that most of them are checkists and oligarch kids... One because tourism generally is a numbers game and a few high spenders do not support a broad tourism industry, secondly, because according to this russia is the fourth largest source of outbound tourism in 2015 and under 'The Wealthy World Citizen: the world as an oyster' they claim that the rich and splurging russian tourists are the smallest group. Not sure what to make of their method of looking at social media and internet searches to assign these groups, but it seems scientific and a friend of mine who works as a research fellow in a similar field said that its fine, so take that for what its worth. There could have been a dramatic change to that since the war broke out, but even then, looking at numbers up to 2021 I still find it hard to believe that these are all rich kids, or even that rich kids make up anything close to the majority of those... Also, we have no way of knowing what russian society would be like if they could not have travelled to the west, so claiming it did not change anything would be almost impossible to prove. In counter to that, I am sure that some researcher somewhere will have made the claim that western influence through tourism did have an affect on russian society, but there is only so much reading I can do while on the clock. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On August 31 2022 22:52 Artesimo wrote: I will need a source for the claim that most of them are checkists and oligarch kids... One because tourism generally is a numbers game and a few high spenders do not support a broad tourism industry, secondly, because according to this russia is the fourth largest source of outbound tourism in 2015 and under 'The Wealthy World Citizen: the world as an oyster' they claim that the rich and splurging russian tourists are the smallest group. Not sure what to make of their method of looking at social media and internet searches to assign these groups, but it seems scientific and a friend of mine who works as a research fellow in a similar field said that its fine, so take that for what its worth. There could have been a dramatic change to that since the war broke out, but even then, looking at numbers up to 2021 I still find it hard to believe that these are all rich kids, or even that rich kids make up anything close to the majority of those... Also, we have no way of knowing what russian society would be like if they could not have travelled to the west, so claiming it did not change anything would be almost impossible to prove. In counter to that, I am sure that some researcher somewhere will have made the claim that western influence through tourism did have an affect on russian society, but there is only so much reading I can do while on the clock. Your argument is that Russia could have been worse than a criminal neighbour-invading genocide-committing kleptocracy if we didn't grant them tourist visas. Really?! No, if your policy doesn't show results after decades, you accept that it has failed and try something else. Like with Ostpolitik. It didn't create peaceful relations, it fed a revanchist empire. It needs to be thrown in the trash. If having tourists (note, not students, family, emigrees, refugees etc) didn't change RU in three decades, the policy doesn't work. In fact, it's worse. Putin built his empire on his lackeys and their children being able to enjoy the finer things in life outside of RU. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On August 31 2022 23:18 Ghanburighan wrote: Your argument is that Russia could have been worse than a criminal neighbour-invading genocide-committing kleptocracy if we didn't grant them tourist visas. Really?! No, if your policy doesn't show results after decades, you accept that it has failed and try something else. Like with Ostpolitik. It didn't create peaceful relations, it fed a revanchist empire. It needs to be thrown in the trash. If having tourists (note, not students, family, emigrees, refugees etc) didn't change RU in three decades, the policy doesn't work. In fact, it's worse. Putin built his empire on his lackeys and their children being able to enjoy the finer things in life outside of RU. No, my argument is that you have nothing to back up your claim that it had no influence, and instead of giving me something you decided to go all theatrical. Was it the solution? Obviously not, but something can have a positive influence that gets negated by other effects. As someone from a country that joined nato only 10-ish years after their independence, you should not have much problem thinking about 'what could have been worse'. But nice try strawmanning me. And you conveniently ignored where I presented you with numbers that make your claims regarding russian tourism seem unlikely. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On September 01 2022 00:04 Artesimo wrote: No, my argument is that you have nothing to back up your claim that it had no influence, and instead of giving me something you decided to go all theatrical. Was it the solution? Obviously not, but something can have a positive influence that gets negated by other effects. As someone from a country that joined nato only 10-ish years after their independence, you should not have much problem thinking about 'what could have been worse'. But nice try strawmanning me. And you conveniently ignored where I presented you with numbers that make your claims regarding russian tourism seem unlikely. A straw man argument is an argument where the demagogue posits an argument to critique that their interlocutor did not posit. Case in point, you attributed to me: "it did not change anything" in your first post, and "it had no influence" but what I said was "it hasn't made a difference. Young Russians who have travelled abroad have failed to spread the message, and there certainly isn't a significant new generation rising to resist Putin". These have very different truth conditions. And I'm only committed to defending my own argument. Not your straw man. And unless you can show how tourist visas (and we're really talking about tourist visas while RU is invading UA) have made a difference, I don't think I need to defend the claim that they had no influence. I mean, I made friends with some Russians abroad, that's a positive influence. But it's not something to judge foreign policy on. And I don't care about the numbers. I can concede the point entirely, in fact, if you wish. It was a personal anecdote to illustrate a point. The point stands. There aren't people traveling to the EU and going back with regime change on their minds. Not in sufficient numbers to make a difference in foreign policy. What a tourist visa ban will do, though, is, first and foremost, help the security situation of border countries. And, secondly, force Russians to look in the mirror because now they cannot continue like they always have while tacitly supporting the war and Putin's regime. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4730 Posts
Not to mention security argument - the continued free travel make it much easier for Russian agents and institutions to operate inside our borders. To gather intelligence and exert influence. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On September 01 2022 01:05 Ghanburighan wrote: A straw man argument is an argument where the demagogue posits an argument to critique that their interlocutor did not posit. Case in point, you attributed to me: "it did not change anything" in your first post, and "it had no influence" but what I said was "it hasn't made a difference. Young Russians who have travelled abroad have failed to spread the message, and there certainly isn't a significant new generation rising to resist Putin". These have very different truth conditions. And I'm only committed to defending my own argument. Not your straw man. So on the one hand we got something that carries the same meaning as exactly what you said, except once again you decide to understand it as uncharitable as possible, and on the other hand we have you trying to make it out that my entire argument was 'but it could be worse' when it really was 'this might not be an improvement'. At least to me, 'it did not change anything' carries the same meaning as 'it has not made a difference', but I am happy to agree to disagree on that. And unless you can show how tourist visas (and we're really talking about tourist visas while RU is invading UA) Once again, the theatrics... won't anyone think of the children... ... have made a difference, I don't think I need to defend the claim that they had no influence. I mean, I made friends with some Russians abroad, that's a positive influence. But it's not something to judge foreign policy on. It is not the clear cut as 'tourists visas improved russia' answer that you are asking for, though it should be clear that giving such a detailed answer regarding such a niche question is very unlikely, it does a good job at highlighting chances and risks of tourism when it comes to ideology and politics. The introduction gives on overview over existing work and thus provides a bunch of sources to go deeper if you want to: Memory and the everyday geopolitics of tourism: Reworking post-imperial relations in Russian tourism to the ‘near abroad’ Here are some excerpts that I found particularly relevant: + Show Spoiler + Indeed, as Anne Gorsuch (2011) shows in her fascinating analysis of Soviet tourism, even in highly regulated tourism settings, tourism encounters regularly exceed official discourses and intentions. The Soviet state and its agents screened tourists, instructed them prior to their trip and kept them under surveillance to ensure they returned as patriotic citizens. However, “even as experiences abroad were politically and culturally mediated, individualized reactions persisted” (Gorsuch, 2011,p. 166), often undermining ideological intentions. Although interpretations of the past have been increasingly streamlined and securitised in Russia, control is incomplete and selective. Furthermore, the post-Soviet cities that Russian tourists travel to offer tourist services as part of a diversified capitalist service industry with no or little ideological control over the circulated messages. Dialogic and cosmopolitan modes of remembering were also apparent in Russian tourism. Being asked about their perceptions of local history and heritage, tourists across the case study locations acknowledged their neighbours' suffering under Russian and Soviet rule and the significance of national independence. Asked about the most important time in Tallinn's history, a 68-year old participant from Petrozavodsk, a city in the Northwest of Russia, mentioned Estonian independence in 1991, adding “for us, it may have been a little unusual and difficult, because we thought that it was all one whole, but we understand you in this matter” There were significant variations across the case studies in relation to these alternative modes of remembering: in Kyiv and Tallinn, where local memory politics had more decisively broken with Russian interpretations of the past, tourists were more inclined to acknowledge the significance of independence and the violence inflicted by the Soviet and tsarist regimes. Particularly in Tallinn, diplomatic responses were common among interviewees, whereas tourists in Kyiv more clearly aligned themselves with the Ukrainian national project, praising Ukrainians' “courage and strength to change themselves” Often the choice of residence for Russians who flee an increasingly totalitarian state is dictated by their previous tourist experiences in these countries alongside economic and other considerations. Based on research conducted prior to the war, this article illuminates how ordinary Russians used memories to negotiate the relation to their neighbours and provides indication of how they might orient themselves in the new geopolitical order. Some quotes from the tourist interviews: A 29-year old tourist in Tallinn recounted how a visit to the local history museums had changed his view on Estonian history: I realised that the Baltic countries were a white spot for me, that is, I knew that the Swedes came, then the Germans came, then Russia came, but the fact that they had something of their own was a discovery for me. (..) Estonia is, to some extent, a country with a tragic history. --- Ukraine has slowly come to some kind of independence. It seems to me that this is a good sign, people should have the right to self-determination, how they want to live. In this, it seems to me, there is a certain milestone --- Naturally its not all well and good, you also get quotes like these: Everything that we see around us is built by the infrastructure of the Soviet Union and the people of the Soviet Union. Without it there would be nothing here. If it hadn't been for the Tsar's decision back then, there would have been the Chinese here now. ... China and Turkey were huge, strong civilizations and if they had wanted to seize these lands, they could just come here, and no one could have done anything. And I don't care about the numbers. I can concede the point entirely, in fact, if you wish. It was a personal anecdote to illustrate a point. The point stands. There aren't people traveling to the EU and going back with regime change on their minds. Not in sufficient numbers to make a difference in foreign policy. I was about to thank you for that, but then you make the same point again... you claim its not enough to make a difference in foreign policy when that is exactly what I criticise as being without any proof. And 'it was not enough to cause a regime change' is not good enough for me, it just shows that it alone is not enough. It still can have a positive or mitigating effect. It still can help, which some of the research in the linked article suggests. All the help ukraine is currently receiving is a collection of things that on their own are not enough to make a meaningful change for the most part, but together they just might. What a tourist visa ban will do, though, is, first and foremost, help the security situation of border countries. And, secondly, force Russians to look in the mirror because now they cannot continue like they always have while tacitly supporting the war and Putin's regime. We already had multiple people voice concerns how this can swing either way, it can unite them stronger behind their government just as much as it can make them mad. Overall, this research for me has actually strengthened the case against visa bans, I am not still not fully decided on it, but previously I felt like there might be something worth in keeping them where I now am sure that there is worth, all I am unsure of is if it is enough to warrant the costs and potentially missed chances of putting pressure on the russian regime. | ||
|
mh_mh
8 Posts
On September 01 2022 01:41 Silvanel wrote: People go on vacation to rest and have fun. I go on vacation to foreign countries to learn about the country, people, and culture. If I only want to rest and have fun I stay at home. Do you really think that they don't go on vacation if that vacation is not in the EU? They will travel in Russia or somewhere "friendly" instead and will learn nothing while hearing Russian news every day. They usually return glad and content (unless something went wrong with their holiday). And guess what: content people do not think about regime change. If anything, allowing Russians to go freely on holidays in EU strengthen the regime. It shows to them that it is business as usually and invasion isn't really that important to anyone. After all, it is not affecting them directly, nor it upset Europeans enough to tell them FUCK OFF! That may be your view of the situation, but it is not the only one. I don't know what exactly a travel ban would do but I know one thing. We don't want to start a new iron curtain. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13935 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On September 01 2022 02:34 mh_mh wrote: I go on vacation to foreign countries to learn about the country, people, and culture. If I only want to rest and have fun I stay at home. Do you really think that they don't go on vacation if that vacation is not in the EU? They will travel in Russia or somewhere "friendly" instead and will learn nothing while hearing Russian news every day. That may be your view of the situation, but it is not the only one. I don't know what exactly a travel ban would do but I know one thing. We don't want to start a new iron curtain. That's disgusting. The iron curtain was a repressive regime oppressing its own citizens. This is something I and my family suffered from. We weren't allowed to see our friends and family for decades. A tourist visa ban is nothing like the Iron Curtain. This is like calling random policies the holocaust. It's completely unacceptable. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On September 01 2022 02:07 Artesimo wrote: So on the one hand we got something that carries the same meaning as exactly what you said, except once again you decide to understand it as uncharitable as possible, and on the other hand we have you trying to make it out that my entire argument was 'but it could be worse' when it really was 'this might not be an improvement'. At least to me, 'it did not change anything' carries the same meaning as 'it has not made a difference', but I am happy to agree to disagree on that. This is intellectually dishonest. If you lie to me, you probably lie to yourself. Overall, this research for me has actually strengthened the case against visa bans, I am not still not fully decided on it, but previously I felt like there might be something worth in keeping them where I now am sure that there is worth, all I am unsure of is if it is enough to warrant the costs and potentially missed chances of putting pressure on the russian regime. If you are intellectually dishonest, you end up with bad inferences. Deceive yourself all you want, but I hope you never get anywhere close to FP decision-making. | ||
| ||
