Going to be pretty awkward when Ukrainian refugees in the west are going to start fleeing to Russia and Belarus
Going to be pretty awkward when Ukrainian refugees in the west are going to start fleeing to Russia and Belarus
You're viewing a single thread.
Here is a not so nice thought: These people are not (necessarily) refugees.
I mean that, as defined by the 1967 protocol1 (which is mostly just the 1951 conventions2 definition, but without the time limitation). Therefore the right to non-refoulment (i.e. not returning a person to their prior country) does not apply to them. The EU has a lesser definition "subsidiary protection"3 which these people
domight[?] qualify for (as it includeswar"serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict"), but as far as I can read, the directive does not define any rights for these people. So the exact things a person under subsidiary protection is afforded is up to the individual country. I am probably missing some "laws", but otherwise there is, legally as far as these "laws" go, nothing wrong, with‒e.g.‒Germany (assuming German law doesn't define non-refoulment for S.P.) returning Ukrainians to Ukraine.
1 https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280048bb8&clang=_en
2 https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028003002e&clang=_en
3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011L0095Definition as modified by the 1967 protocol:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it
And that means that it's going to be very easy for western governments to start deporting them back to Ukraine. Given that there are a lot of political tensions in Europe over the issue, it's going to be a really easy choice once Ukraine starts trying to recall these people.
Accepting these people would be a really smart move on the part of Russia. It would show that Russia is fighting the regime in Ukraine as opposed to the people, and it would be incredibly demoralizing for people who got conscripted into Ukrainian army.
Accepting these people would be a really smart move on the part of Russia. It would show that Russia is fighting the regime in Ukraine as opposed to the people, and it would be incredibly demoralizing for people who got conscripted into Ukrainian army.
Yeah it would be an absolute PR coup for Russia. It would almost certainly turn into more surrenders and defections from Ukrainian units once word filters down to the front about how family members of Ukrainian conscripts have been settled in Russia and the feral orks aren't eating their skulls or whatever.
Yeah it would be an absolute PR coup for Russia.
Which is why it won't be done lmao. Russian government is pretty shit at this kind of PR. Plus there would be a concern over SBU fucks sneaking in, AFAIK already were cases.
Plus, given how Russian government treats Russian "immigrants" from former republics (as in, Russian nationals who were living in USSR and wanted to "repatriate" after 1991). Let's just say I wouldn't get my hopes up
The solution, like it is to a lot of problems, is to export to China.
China has a massive security apparatus that frankly has been underused ever since they eviscerated CIA presence in the country.
Also, China could use some young people to even out the demographics a bit, particularly young people who haven't been culturally conditioned to not have too many children.
Exporting people from a completely different cultural background, with no knowledge of the local language, to somewhere that already has intense population density? Not sure it's a good idea, chief