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.
So it appears the offensive was "war gamed" with the US, and shrunk in size.
Washington (CNN)In the buildup to the current Ukrainian counteroffensive, the US urged Kyiv to keep the operation limited in both its objectives and its geography to avoid getting overextended and bogged down on multiple fronts, multiple US and western officials and Ukrainian sources tell CNN.
Those discussions involved engaging in "war-gaming" with Kyiv, the sources said -- analytical exercises that were intended to help the Ukrainian forces understand what force levels they would need to muster to be successful in different scenarios.
The Ukrainians were initially considering a broader counteroffensive, but narrowed their mission to the south, in the Kherson region, in recent weeks, US and Ukrainian officials said.
Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told CNN that "the United States has routine military-to-military dialogue at multiple levels with Ukraine. We will not comment on the specifics of those engagements. Generally speaking, we provide the Ukrainians with information to help them better understand the threats they face and defend their country against Russian aggression. Ultimately, the Ukrainians are making the final decisions for their operations."
Officials say they believe there is now increased parity between the Ukrainian and Russian militaries. But western officials have been hesitant to label the nascent Ukrainian operation -- which appeared to begin on Monday in the southern province of Kherson -- a true "counteroffensive."
How successful Ukraine is likely to be in regaining lost territory remains an open question, sources familiar with the latest intelligence tell CNN. Ukrainian officials have already said this offensive will likely be a slow operation, and punishingly cold winter weather is coming and then an early spring mud, both of which could force pauses in the fighting.
Still, there is a distinct feeling amongst Ukraine's US and western advisers that the Ukrainian military is on much more even footing with Russia than was believed even just a few short months ago, multiple officials told CNN. Russia still maintains superior numbers in overall manpower and massed artillery.
But Ukrainian capabilities, bolstered by sophisticated western arms and training, have closed an important gap, officials say -- particularly the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, that Ukraine has been using to launch attacks behind Russian front lines in recent months.
"It shows you what the sustained training and weapons provision can do when the force is highly motivated and capable in its employment," a senior NATO official told CNN.
Another US military source put it more bluntly: Ukraine has made up for Russia's advantage in sheer volume of fire with its "competence."
On September 01 2022 03:50 Sermokala wrote: Unless they plan on building a giant wall it would benefit the west greatly. The one's with training and education would flee the country just as they did before and in every other instance.
And condemn all the remaining poor f***ers to live in a dictatorship with nuclear weapons because that has worked so well in the past?
On September 01 2022 03:50 Sermokala wrote: Unless they plan on building a giant wall it would benefit the west greatly. The one's with training and education would flee the country just as they did before and in every other instance.
And condemn all the remaining poor f***ers to live in a dictatorship with nuclear weapons because that has worked so well in the past?
What is your suggestion that helps end Putins reign and helps to end the war?
I have no suggestions. I am no expert on Russian culture and politics. But I am pretty sure it is a stupid idea to repeat things that didn't work the last few times it was tried.
Ukraine now has fire control over the Kakhovskyi and Antonivskyi bridges, earlier it was being reported but not verified, that Russian columns were being hit on all sides on the other side of the river when trying to cross.
Even if emigration from Russia is still allowed, I don't see a reason why Russian tourists should be banned even if they're apolitical. Imagine you were born in Russia and you're against the war, what do you do? Go out and protest near Kremlin? Yeah, right, how many were arrested in February and March? If I was Russian, I'll be the first to admit in this thread that I'd NOT have protested but I'd have probably emigrated. Putin's circle is still too strong in Russia and any individual revolt is absolutely useless. You act like you never heard about Navalny, Nemtsov, etc and they even have a huge network of people that support them. Well, Navalny nowadays since Nemtsov is dead.
Revolt only makes sense if it's en masse and it takes hundreds of thousands for that, if not over a million protesters to show up for consecutive days and not just once. Basically, public unrest has to be so high that government can't afford to arrest them all. I don't think tourist ban can achieve that. If you're a tourist and you get 2 options: A) go to France, go back to Russia to protest and be arrested or 2) stay in Russia and live without much travel, I don't think many of you'd choose A. You'd probably choose to emigrate tho. I'm probably more anti-Kremlin than some of you here, but let's be realistic about ban's goals please.
So, as I said, you want to show these people that grass is greener on the other side. You can't beat Kremlin propaganda overnight. It'll happen slowly. The more Russians see the west from inside by visiting places and by getting to know that people there are actually good, that anti-NATO rhetoric is all lies and people treat them well, the faster they'll start the change from inside Russia. And it won't be a few days or a few months to achieve.
Edit: One of reasons USSR collapsed is because of freedom. People saw that the west brings democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to be whoever you want to be. By banning people it is the exact opposite, you're basically showing them something that resembles Kremlin's tools not democracy.
On September 01 2022 03:50 Sermokala wrote: Unless they plan on building a giant wall it would benefit the west greatly. The one's with training and education would flee the country just as they did before and in every other instance.
And condemn all the remaining poor f***ers to live in a dictatorship with nuclear weapons because that has worked so well in the past?
What is your suggestion that helps end Putins reign and helps to end the war?
I have no suggestions. I am no expert on Russian culture and politics. But I am pretty sure it is a stupid idea to repeat things that didn't work the last few times it was tried.
What 5 times were tourist visas suspended after a country invaded another?
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.
Won't dive too deeply, but I'll try to give one example with sources to back it up, which would be Cyprus. According to World Tourist Organization (go to the Arrivals page in presentation and link below and pick "Cyprus") https://www.unwto.org/tourism-data/country-profile-inbound-tourism Average inbound numbers in 2017-2019 were around 4 millions, then 1 million in 2020 and 2 million in 2021 (no data for 2022 yet). Then, according to Wikipedia page (referencing Cyprus government site), in 2017-2019 around 800 thousand of them were Russians (or 20%, pretty substantual number). So if we divide it by 2, it would be 400 thousand for 2021 (Russia didn't impose any heavy COVID travel restrictions, so I don't think the percentage of Russian tourists dropped compared to other countries). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Cyprus Spending of Russian tourists per 1 departure, again, according to World Tourist Organization, is around 800 dollars (I may be mistaken, but I believe it doesn't include flight cost, otherwise the figure would be too low). Again, pick "Expenditure", pick Russia as a country https://www.unwto.org/tourism-data/country-profile-outbound-tourism But people who were there say, that Cyprus is quite expensive country, so I would probably round it up to 1000 dollars on average. So we have 400 thousand people a year, who spend 1000 dollars on average. It would be 400 million dollars. Now, I don't know the taxation system of Cyprus. In Russia we have 20% tax imbedded into most of the goods and some services directly, then almost 40% tax imbedded in the salary of legally employed workers, plus around 15-20% on revenue for companies and entrepreneurs, plus other taxes (on property, for example). I guess it's safe to assume, that at least 30% of the money spent by tourists end up in government (or municipal, again, can't say about distribution) budget, which would be 120 million dollars. While I was writing this, found this article. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220731-cyprus-tourism-rebounds-despite-sanctions-hit-russia-plunge And the following quote support my calculations "The tourism ministry says fewer Russian visitors could mean some $600 million in potential lost earnings." To say, how much is this for Cyprus economy - overall Cyprus GDP is 27,7 billion, so 600 million would be 2% GDP loss off the bat. That's very substantual, especially considering Cyprus still trying to recover from the COVID (they have 400 million budget deficit as of 2021). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cyprus So it's very clear why they are against the ban.
On September 01 2022 06:55 SC-Shield wrote: Even if immigration from Russia is still allowed, I don't see a reason why Russian tourists should be banned even if they're apolitical. Imagine you were born in Russia and you're against the war, what do you do? Go out and protest near Kremlin? Yeah, right, how many were arrested in February and March? If I was Russian, I'll be the first to admit in this thread that I'd NOT have protested but I'd have probably emigrated. Putin's circle is still too strong in Russia and any individual revolt is absolutely useless. You act like you never heard about Navalny, Nemtsov, etc and they even have a huge network of people that support them. Well, Navalny nowadays since Nemtsov is dead.
Revolt only makes sense if it's en masse and it takes hundreds of thousands for that, if not over a million protesters to show up for consecutive days and not just once. Basically, public unrest has to be so high that government can't afford to arrest them all. I don't think tourist ban can achieve that. If you're a tourist and you get 2 options: A) go to France, go back to Russia to protest and be arrested or 2) stay in Russia and live without much travel, I don't think many of you'd choose A. You'd probably choose to emigrate tho. I'm probably more anti-Kremlin than some of you here, but let's be realistic about ban's goals please.
So, as I said, you want to show these people that grass is greener on the other side. You can't beat Kremlin propaganda overnight. It'll happen slowly. The more Russians see the west from inside by visiting places and by getting to know that people there are actually good, that anti-NATO rhetoric is all lies and people treat them well, the faster they'll start the change from inside Russia. And it won't be a few days or a few months to achieve.
Edit: One of reasons USSR collapsed is because of freedom. People saw that the west brings democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to be whoever you want to be. By banning people it is the exact opposite, you're basically showing them something that resembles Kremlin's tools not democracy.
Rare occasion that I agree with you on every point. First of all, Russian opposition has no leadership. After Navalny was jailed, there is no figure pro-western people may rally to. Actually, if in 2011, after Bolotnaya Square protests opposition consolidated behind a single leader, and worked together, we probably could have much stronger opposition and pro-Western block here. Instead opposition leaders went into internal squabble, divided the movement, and started to lose popular support. Well, and repressions didn't help either. So anyway, if you want to take actions against government, you basically act alone. To force something like Arab Spring uprisings, you need similar trigger, which would be lack of basic goods and services. And Russia has both at the moment. Also it's only Europe who is trying to impose the ban. Other countries are happy to welcome the increased flow of Russian tourists. One of my friends went to Georgia couple of days ago (who didn't impose any bans on tourism even despite 08.08.08 war and its consequences), other is going to Sri Lanka, third one is saving for Thailand. So EU is mostly shooting itself in the leg with this economy-wise, and gaining little politically.
On September 01 2022 03:50 Sermokala wrote: Unless they plan on building a giant wall it would benefit the west greatly. The one's with training and education would flee the country just as they did before and in every other instance.
And condemn all the remaining poor f***ers to live in a dictatorship with nuclear weapons because that has worked so well in the past?
What is your suggestion that helps end Putins reign and helps to end the war?
I have no suggestions. I am no expert on Russian culture and politics. But I am pretty sure it is a stupid idea to repeat things that didn't work the last few times it was tried.
What 5 times were tourist visas suspended after a country invaded another?
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.
Won't dive too deeply, but I'll try to give one example with sources to back it up, which would be Cyprus. According to World Tourist Organization (go to the Arrivals page in presentation and link below and pick "Cyprus") https://www.unwto.org/tourism-data/country-profile-inbound-tourism Average inbound numbers in 2017-2019 were around 4 millions, then 1 million in 2020 and 2 million in 2021 (no data for 2022 yet). Then, according to Wikipedia page (referencing Cyprus government site), in 2017-2019 around 800 thousand of them were Russians (or 20%, pretty substantual number). So if we divide it by 2, it would be 400 thousand for 2021 (Russia didn't impose any heavy COVID travel restrictions, so I don't think the percentage of Russian tourists dropped compared to other countries). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Cyprus Spending of Russian tourists per 1 departure, again, according to World Tourist Organization, is around 800 dollars (I may be mistaken, but I believe it doesn't include flight cost, otherwise the figure would be too low). Again, pick "Expenditure", pick Russia as a country https://www.unwto.org/tourism-data/country-profile-outbound-tourism But people who were there say, that Cyprus is quite expensive country, so I would probably round it up to 1000 dollars on average. So we have 400 thousand people a year, who spend 1000 dollars on average. It would be 400 million dollars. Now, I don't know the taxation system of Cyprus. In Russia we have 20% tax imbedded into most of the goods and some services directly, then almost 40% tax imbedded in the salary of legally employed workers, plus around 15-20% on revenue for companies and entrepreneurs, plus other taxes (on property, for example). I guess it's safe to assume, that at least 30% of the money spent by tourists end up in government (or municipal, again, can't say about distribution) budget, which would be 120 million dollars. While I was writing this, found this article. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220731-cyprus-tourism-rebounds-despite-sanctions-hit-russia-plunge And the following quote support my calculations "The tourism ministry says fewer Russian visitors could mean some $600 million in potential lost earnings." To say, how much is this for Cyprus economy - overall Cyprus GDP is 27,7 billion, so 600 million would be 2% GDP loss off the bat. That's very substantual, especially considering Cyprus still trying to recover from the COVID (they have 400 million budget deficit as of 2021). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cyprus So it's very clear why they are against the ban.
I was coming at it from an angle of not being sure if the tourism does provide that much money for the countries supporting ukraine, as in indirectly helping to fun ukraines war effort. Going by your numbers, it looks like it is indeed an argument worth of consideration and not just a theoretical one. Thank you for that.
And I agree, its easy to see why countries such as cyprus with a have a large tourism industry are against a ban.
So EU is mostly shooting itself in the leg with this economy-wise, and gaining little politically.
I think the often mentioned security concerns have to be considered as well, though the ban on short notice visas might be enough for that as it gives more time to vet applications.
On September 01 2022 06:55 SC-Shield wrote: Even if emigration from Russia is still allowed, I don't see a reason why Russian tourists should be banned even if they're apolitical. Imagine you were born in Russia and you're against the war, what do you do? Go out and protest near Kremlin? Yeah, right, how many were arrested in February and March? If I was Russian, I'll be the first to admit in this thread that I'd NOT have protested but I'd have probably emigrated. Putin's circle is still too strong in Russia and any individual revolt is absolutely useless. You act like you never heard about Navalny, Nemtsov, etc and they even have a huge network of people that support them. Well, Navalny nowadays since Nemtsov is dead.
Revolt only makes sense if it's en masse and it takes hundreds of thousands for that, if not over a million protesters to show up for consecutive days and not just once. Basically, public unrest has to be so high that government can't afford to arrest them all. I don't think tourist ban can achieve that. If you're a tourist and you get 2 options: A) go to France, go back to Russia to protest and be arrested or 2) stay in Russia and live without much travel, I don't think many of you'd choose A. You'd probably choose to emigrate tho. I'm probably more anti-Kremlin than some of you here, but let's be realistic about ban's goals please.
So, as I said, you want to show these people that grass is greener on the other side. You can't beat Kremlin propaganda overnight. It'll happen slowly. The more Russians see the west from inside by visiting places and by getting to know that people there are actually good, that anti-NATO rhetoric is all lies and people treat them well, the faster they'll start the change from inside Russia. And it won't be a few days or a few months to achieve.
Edit: One of reasons USSR collapsed is because of freedom. People saw that the west brings democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to be whoever you want to be. By banning people it is the exact opposite, you're basically showing them something that resembles Kremlin's tools not democracy.
You're from Bulgaria, don't you remember what it was like 35 years ago? A visa ban doesn't even register as a comparative restriction for anyone living in an oppressive regime.
I'm not saying you should protest per se, but you should work against the government. Refuse jobs for them, stop going along with the day-to-day BS. And start preparation for when the time comes to overthrow the government. This means that you need to build a network and acquire skills. Will you be sanctioned for this, yes. You won't have a nice cushy life. But the alternative is not life, it's contributing to the kind of atrocities your children will read about in history books. This is the crux of what's wrong with Russia, too many people believe that they cannot enact change. Yes, it's hard. Yes, it's painful. And, yes, it will take time. But it's the only way.
This has very little to do with the visa ban. Nobody seems to be addressing the actual reason for it: 3 border countries are under immense strain. This is not a philosophical discussion. It's a real and immediate security issue, and EU citizens near the border can no longer go to work or see their families. Because there's a horde of Russian tourists jammed into a couple of small border crossings.
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?
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."
I sometimes think, that some Europeans/Americans think that we are country of three-leg doghead people or something (no offence). I gave some numbers regarding salaries and living costs in Russia few weeks ago. Most of my friends earn around 1000$ or more (it's me being lazy ass, but even I went up to 850$ this month by taking 2nd part-time job). There are a lot of people who earn less (average salary of shop cashier here is around 500$), but also a lot of those who earn more, even here, in Arkhangelsk (my former colleague went to work as lawyer to another bank with a salary of around 1300$). Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Nizhniy Novgorod, Novosibirsk etc. have much more high-paying jobs, hence the migration there. Now, utility services for one-room apartment would be 50-100$, depending on the time of the year. Rent - 250-300, if you don't live in your own apartment or pay mortgage (and mortgage numbers would probably be around those numbers for 1-room apartment). Spending for food and other day-by-day stuff - you can do for 300-350$ a month combined. So even if you live alone and in rented apartment, with 1000$ salary you still have around 250-300$ a month. Even if you save around 100$ (cause you need to buy other stuff, like clothes, electronics, hang out with friends etc.), you get 1200$ a year. That's pretty enough to spend 7-10 days on vacation in Europe (not in every country of course, but in Eastern of Southern - easily). All figures for Arkhangelsk though, every region has it differently, but we are somewhere in the middle in terms of wealth per capita throughout Russia.
Also by cutting out those, who want to visit Europe, you are mostly hitting your own pro-western base of support in Russia, who is mostly are not fond of Putin anyway. You are just most likely to turn them off from pro-western position. And as SC-Shield pointed out, if you believe that inability to visit Europe make people to go on barricades, I think you are mistaken.
From moral standpoint your sentiment is understandable. I only wish that Europe wouldn't be so selective in this practice (I'm mostly referring to the Gulf monarchies waging war in Yemen, while their oligarchs buy whole football clubs in Europe).
Rather than a travel ban, why not implement a tax on Russian tourists when they obtain their travel visa? All proceeds go to a defense of Ukraine fund.
That way Russian tourists would actually be contributing to an anti-Putin cause. It would force Putin to be the one to stop vacations… or let his own people fund the killing of Putin’s invaders in Ukraine.
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.
Well, border control is problem of the Baltic states, while other EU countries need these Russians to fund their economy, so disagreement between EU countries on the matter is pretty understandable. Though it's easier to put agents through border as tourists, on that I'll agree.
1. You (and Simberto in his reply to me) say how Russians should think. I say how a lot of them (not all, but a lot) would think. Also, as I said in reply to Simberto, those who visit EU are mostly Western-oriented, so you mostly shooting at your own support base. Putin electorate mostly travel through Russia, or visit Turkey/Egypt/Abkhazia mostly (where tourism is cheaper and there is a lot of services especially for the Russian tourists, so they don't have to know even English language). I understand the sentiment, but I don't believe it would work as well as you believe. Also, again with "Soviet = Russian". If you want to talk about repression structures: First commander of the Red Army - Latvian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukums_Vācietis First head of security police - Polish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky First head of GULAG - Latvian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teodors_Eihmans But yeah, put everything on Russians, it's easy now.
2. I wonder from which funds they would subsidize this? I gave numbers on Cyprus above. Italy is struggling with energy crisis https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/italians-await-winter-with-fear-amid-soaring-prices/2657009 EU could simply adopt a law that makes all revenues their governments they get from Russians spending their money to Ukraine (may be hard to apply, but considereing many stories from Russian tourists that they were denied service when their country of origin became known, origins of payments are quite easy to track). Even if it's 5 billion $, with 30% tax (and I think that taxes in EU are much higher than that), it would be 1,5 billion $ a month. Which in course of 6 months is a bit less than financial aid provided by all of the US. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ Also you should double the number that Russians won't bring, since governements would have to subsidize the losses.
3. It was policy for much more than 3 decades, it's just Soviet Union didn't allow people out before, unlike Russia. And it actually worked with USSR (or helped at least). As for who is able to afford travelling abroad - gave numbers in reply to Simberto. Though if even resident of our direct neighbour believe that nobody in Russia besides the priveleged elite is able to afford vacation in Europe, I guess I waste my time explaining.
So, judging by your conclusion, you mostly want to sacrifice the well-being of other countries dependant on tourism for the sake of your country travel convinience and security. Perfectly understandable, but not too much of a moral high ground.
Also if you believe that every pro-war channel, news report and info outlet in the internet is manned by FSB... well, you are mistaken.
Edit: on the overall matters - reports are coming in about huge AFU movements and massive AFRF artillery bombardments in Kharkiv area this night. Some rough Russian OSINT estimations yesterday assumed 5 AFU regular battalion groups accompanied by around 10 TDF battalion groups supported by few dozen tanks (mostly Polish) are assembling on the Balaklea-Izyum part of the front. On Soledar front local DPR troops report that their opponents were rotated, now they are facing more trained and determined UA troops.
Or a probing attack? Russia has redirected a lot of resources into Kherson. Rather than smacking straight into a large build up of troops, maybe they are looking for a weakness elsewhere?
I have an issue with continuously sending weapons to a war we don't fight ourselves in, before having used the full extent of possible sanctions, because we don't want to hurt our lord and saviour, the economy, too much. My country being the prime example.
I support sending more weapons too, anything that ends this war, but there's so much more that could be done: Full travel ban, asset forfeiture, hard embargos, deport all Russian diplomats (peace talks with Putin aren't possible anyway, as politicians said multiple times).
Here's a report about the Russian tourists traveling into Europe via Finland (Schengen), leaving their cars in Finland before flying on: + Show Spoiler +
Those are not your average Russians and as was pointed out are the people who profit from the Putin regime the most.
EPT
