>Are any countries accepting refuges from Russia that seek asylum?
This is an important topic. Some EU countries like Czechia are even blocking visas for Russian citizens now and I think this will be a trend in other EU countries.
AFAIK, since Russia is the aggressor here and is (on paper) a democratic country (but not really), then its citizens are not considered yet victims of the war, and are most likely not falling under the rules of refugee status, unless they can clearly prove that the Russian government is a threat to their life, which would be a bit difficult (like if you're in political opposition to Putin).
I honestly don't envy the Russian people now. They're forced into a conflict they don't want to be in, and are suffering the consequences.
CNN finds that twice as many Russians believe it would be right for Moscow to use military force to prevent Kyiv from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as say it would be wrong.
One out of every two Russians (50%) says it would be right, while only a quarter (25%) say it would be wrong. The other quarter (25%) are unsure, according to the survey.
But the poll also found that more Russians think it would be wrong than right to use military force “to reunite Russia and Ukraine” – two countries with a long and complicated history of being intertwined.
It’s a close call, but 43% of Russians said use of military force against Ukraine to join it to Russia would be wrong, while 36% said it would be right. (The rest of the respondents said they didn’t know if it would be right or wrong.)
I was recently chatting with an old coworker. Their mother is still in Russia. The mother watches state run TV and listens to state run news.
She doesn't really believe this is happening because the news says otherwise. She may believe there is some fighting but not that Russia is the aggressor.
Obviously this is one relayed experience but it's important to keep propaganda machines in mind when talking about volumes of support.
Spending effort on convincing their family and friends that the state propaganda is not to be trusted is probably the best middle-term investment a Russian can make right now.
Have tried it with my parents, unfortunately, they eat all this crap from Putin's TV. People who are brainwashed can't really be talked into reason. Politics start and end wars, but a person can break ties with his family irreversible because of those in-family political discussions.
Note that convincing them that they're wrong is less important and much harder to do than convincing them that new things they may see in state media may be wrong. It's about instilling doubt, not about arguing with your parents about politics. The propaganda is most likely going to go into scary territories now, so any doubt will be helpful.
Tell them things that will scare them. Anything that will scare them. How much they will personally come to suffer because of the the sanctions of Russia because of the war in Ukraine. How Russia is not able to import anything. How poor they will become.
These polls paint a somewhat different picture. I'm not claiming that they're more accurate than yours. Just that it's difficult to understand the situation as an outsider. Sample size is at least 1600 people and was done by the independent Levada Center.
> Who do you think initiated the aggravation of the situation in eastern Ukraine?:
50%: U.S., NATO countries
> In the event of an outbreak of hostilities in eastern Ukraine, should Russia engage in armed conflict on the side of the DPR/LPR? (percent of respondents)
Exactly split down the middle, 14% said it's difficult to answer.
> How, in your opinion, would the attitudes of Russians change toward Vladimir Putin in the event of a full-scale war with Ukraine? (percent of respondents)
8% net bias towards thinking that it would make him less popular.
> Do you think Russia needs to improve relations with the U.S. and other Western countries? (one response allowed)
>> Who do you think initiated the aggravation of the situation in eastern Ukraine?:
> 50%: U.S., NATO countries
What would have been somewhat encouraging would have been if the other 50% were like 45-49% "Russia" and 1-4% "Undecided" or "Other". Turns out, though, that:
> 16% think that Ukraine was the initiator. Meanwhile, only 4% named Russia
So, either they are pretty much deluded nationalists, or Putin's state-media brainwashing has been overwhelmingly successful.
(Any particular reason you left that bit out of your comment?)
Keep also in mind their view (whether self determined or propagandized) is that joining NATO means joining a coalition that may want to attack Russia. So the actual question in their mind is somewhat similar to ours — is it right to use preemptive military action, if the alternative is a bigger war down the line? It’s not an easy question to answer.
> They're forced into a conflict they don't want to be in, and are suffering the consequences.
Ukrainians are also forced into a conflict they don't want. Unfortunately, it's up to both the Ukrainians and Russians to do something about it, not Ukrainians alone.
The Ukrainians clearly made their decision. Now it's up to the Russian people to make theirs.
The Euromaidan also started with normal civilians. It seems they just didn't accept no for an answer. Later they indeed threatened to involve the reserve army since they were on their side. But the army was not required.
>> Now it's up to the Russian people to make theirs.
> There's nothing we can realistically do.
Then you get to collectively carry the responsibility for that "inability"; for, by not rising up as one against the dictatorship, passively allowing it to continue. That's what was seen as appropriate for the nation you fought in your Great Patriotic War, so why shouldn't it be appropriate for yours?
Many awful dictators have been toppled by civilian revolts. Waiting for the military to get involved is not at all required.
When enough citizens revolt there will be a point where police forces realize that they are on the wrong side, either for moral or self preservation reasons. Once they start refusing to defend the dictator, that dictator's power is done.
Oh well, that's too bad. I guess it'll stay that way until the Sun swallows the Earth.
It's an incredibly difficult thing to do, and it can't come from the outside. Russians have to collectively decide that they don't accept the situation anymore, and that they're prepared to pay the price with their blood. They did in 1918, and I wish I could support them to do it again.
Of course it's easier said than done. And yet I'm not claiming that it's easy, quite the opposite.
> Ukraine was also a non-democratic country, until the people decided otherwise
That's not true. The President of Ukraine who was overthrown in 2014 (Yanukovych) was democratically elected in 2010 in an election that international observers called fair, truly competitive, and an impressive display of democracy.[1]
That President was supported mostly by the people of eastern Ukraine and opposed by the people of western Ukraine.
Democracy is first and foremost about peaceful transfer of power after elections. Anything on top of that is luxury. The only alternative is a series of civil wars.
This is an important topic. Some EU countries like Czechia are even blocking visas for Russian citizens now and I think this will be a trend in other EU countries.
AFAIK, since Russia is the aggressor here and is (on paper) a democratic country (but not really), then its citizens are not considered yet victims of the war, and are most likely not falling under the rules of refugee status, unless they can clearly prove that the Russian government is a threat to their life, which would be a bit difficult (like if you're in political opposition to Putin).
I honestly don't envy the Russian people now. They're forced into a conflict they don't want to be in, and are suffering the consequences.