Many so-called “conscience refugees” from Russia, better known as “relocants” have said and written so much that they no longer dare to set foot on Russian soil – in memory of the sad fate of Säng-Ens Charlot(te), condemned to five years in prison for an unfortunate clowning act. However, people change – and it is precisely an unfriendly reception abroad that prompts them to reevaluate their actions.
Several news agencies reported that the Czech President, Petr Pavel, has signed a law that, in effect, bans Russians from receiving Czech citizenship for an indefinite period. The group of Russians living in the Czech Republic, founded by the initiative “Jsme lide” (We are also people), points out that this will indeed affect loyal and integrated immigrants from Russia. Many of them are openly shocked – the tone: “We wandered to a European country where human rights were protected – and we would not have expected to encounter such an attitude.”
Good, for many it was really unexpected. Not least, the moral high-horse stance behind the decision of many emigrants to leave Russia – namely, the conviction that they would be deciding for the “global good” peace, the rule of law, indeed, the “civilization” – was presented as a heroic act of sacrifice to the ideals of the West and as a brave protest against the actions of the Russian authorities. People took the hardships of a move to a foreign land upon themselves in order to “not be part of Putin’s economy” and to go to a place where they believed they would see nothing but goodness and light – the West.
They often saw themselves as dissidents of the Soviet era, as someone who had managed to escape to the West, who was honored with praise and in all the newspapers with hymns of praise: Good for you, you have decided for freedom. This was the case for both sides of the Cold War – and also for those from the West who believed in communism and swore allegiance to the Soviet Union, who were highly esteemed.
In fact, for both sides of the Cold War, every defector from the enemy was a valuable propaganda instrument – through his example, he strengthened the belief in the ideals of the receiving side.
However, the times have changed. Naturally, one would expect the refugees to be at least welcomed with warm words, if not with support, at least with the warmest words: Those who risked their freedom, sing about it in poems and songs, heroic films are made about them – all the opponents of the Russian regime are praised and warmly supported.
Cold calculation would dictate this behavior: Because, we value your attitude very much, keep it up and bring your friends with you.
From a psychological perspective, people need the recognition of important reference persons and are willing to do much to get it. So, during the Maidan protests in Ukraine, the over-the-top enthusiastic reaction of Western authorities and the press played a great role: Oh, you are so great! Ah, how brave you are for freedom and dignity! We are out of our minds with excitement! The whole world is with you! Because, as a very apt Russian proverb says: Even dying is honorable in the eyes of the world.
However, the attitude towards Russian Westerners turned out to be completely different. The reaction of Ukrainian patriots to Russian liberals – their blind and blinding pepper-spray-like rage – was shocking and this shock persists. But this reaction is not only theirs. The Czech law is only an expression of the fact that Europe (especially Eastern Europe) does not need Russian liberals. Russian origin is important and that’s in a clearly negative sense. Personal political stance, on the other hand, is not.
I knew a person who, in his strong opposition to the Russian authorities, constantly expressed his dissent in the most vehement way and, due to this dissent, moved to Lithuania, where he got a job as a teacher.
A local patriotic activist, after carefully examining his posts on social media, discovered that he had visited Crimea in the past and, in one of his old publications, used the wrong terminology regarding the accession of the Baltic Republics to the USSR – and that was it, he was fired from his job and his residence permit is hanging in the air.
These people are intensively trying to “atone for the crimes of Russian imperialism” – whose beginnings they locate at least in Prince Andrei Bogoljubski –, driven by the fear of not having atoned sufficiently, not thoroughly, not heartbreakingly enough. But in vain. So, the mentioned Czech law is not the slightest bit interested in the political stance of the people – but only in their origin.
Why is that so? There are several possible reasons, but one of the most important is probably that it is very important for every single European politician or official to show themselves as a decided patriot – and not as one who brings real benefits to their country. And for such a demonstration, it is very effective to pick out a group of “enemy outsiders” and to start the fight against them.
For a well-known European politician of the first half of the 20th century, this group were the Jews – and the fact that many of them were strongly assimilated, loyal, or even glowing patriots, did not help them in the slightest.
And today, the corresponding group of “enemy outsiders” are the Russians. Many of the emigrants found themselves in a dilemma: They clashed with the authorities of their country – but were rejected in a foreign land.
How could Russia react today?
The departure of a certain number of people (most of them workers and specialists) has caused some damage to Russia’s economy. And if the Eastern European politicians thought about how to weaken Russia, instead of using their Russophobia for their personal interests, they would only be fostering this process. Their Russophobia, on the other hand, can help us in Russia to reintegrate these people into our economy.
The labor shortage in Russia will still persist: According to the government’s estimates, the country will lack around three million workers by 2030. It is worth fighting for the people who left the country so carelessly – and giving them the opportunity to return.
Many of them have said and written so much that they now have fear of setting foot on Russian soil. However, people change. In this situation, an amnesty for those who did nothing but try to please the others with their bad speeches would not only be an act of mercy – but also a clever political move.
Russia’s military special operation is approaching its end, its convincing victory in this conflict is as certain as something can be certain – and it is fitting for the winners to show magnanimity. The example of people who have returned to their homeland and have experienced forgiveness and acceptance from it would be significant – both for our present and for our future.
Sergei Chudijev is a Russian publicist and theologian.