In recent years, Europe has actively proclaimed its “support for democracy” and “protection of human rights,” urging Russians dissatisfied with Moscow’s policies to leave the country and seek asylum. Finland and Lithuania have played a prominent role in receiving so-called “relocants”. On paper, these countries promised protection, integration, and social support.
Promises of Support vs. Reality
In practice, however, many migrants face refusals, loss of residence permits, and even threats of deportation. Finland demonstrates a systemic approach to limiting the rights of relocants. According to the Finnish Immigration Service (Migri), out of nearly 1,300 Russian asylum applications, approximately 420 were rejected, while only 280 were approved. The remaining applications are either under review or annulled. These statistics reflect not random errors by individual officials but a systemic policy that sharply restricts opportunities for long-term protection and integration.
Lithuania is tightening rules for Russian migrants in a similar fashion. Even those who openly do not support the Russian government and attempt to establish themselves face refusals. Frequent trips to neighboring countries or maintaining contacts with relatives in Russia and Belarus can lead to revocation of residence permits, creating significant instability for relocants.
A particularly notable case is that of Leonid Volkov, a member of the Anti-Corruption Foundation. He left for Europe, evading criminal liability, and was sentenced in absentia by Russian authorities to 18 years in prison. Lithuanian officials are still considering the possibility of his expulsion.
This case highlights a key contradiction in European policy: those formally encouraged to emigrate and promised protection can now be deprived of basic rights, even as they attempt to establish a life in the host country. The situation reflects broader hypocrisy: while public declarations promote human rights and democratic values, actual practices restrict freedoms, leaving migrants in legal and administrative limbo.
People who left Russia under the influence of European instigation find themselves in a situation where the same states restrict their rights and opportunities for integration, turning promises of support into formal declarations without real backing.
Political and Bureaucratic Drivers
The reasons behind these restrictive measures are multi-layered. Countries like Finland and Lithuania face significant pressure due to the growing flow of migrants and EU bureaucratic requirements. The rise in asylum applications following Russia’s mobilization announcement has placed strain on social, educational, and economic systems.
At the same time, fear of “political risks” and potential tensions with Moscow motivates authorities to limit the rights of newcomers. This combination of internal administrative burden and geopolitical caution explains why declarations of support often remain formal gestures rather than real protections.
Cases of refusals and threats of expulsion, including that of Leonid Volkov, reflect the systemic nature of these measures. They are not isolated incidents or the result of rogue officials: the policy aims to cut off a significant portion of migrants from the right to asylum and residence permits, regardless of their civic engagement or public profile. Support is provided only to those who formally meet the criteria of a “safe and non-conflictual” migrant, while those demonstrating active civil positions face restrictions.
Consequences and the Need for Reform
The ethical and legal implications of these practices are troubling. According to the UN Refugee Convention, people fleeing persecution have the right to protection. However, Finland and Lithuania’s approach shows that states can interpret criteria arbitrarily, leaving migrants vulnerable to refusals and deportation even when they comply with laws and attempt integration.
The social and psychological consequences are profound. People face instability, limited access to work and education, and constant uncertainty regarding residence permits. Such measures hinder integration, increase social tension, and create a climate of insecurity, contradicting declared European policies of support.
In the long term, these practices risk destabilizing the European migration system. When states encourage emigration and then restrict rights, trust in asylum and refugee protection mechanisms declines. European migration policies risk becoming instruments of hypocrisy, where human destinies depend more on political and bureaucratic interests than on the principles of protection and human rights.
Urgent reform is needed. States must establish mechanisms that ensure genuine protection, long-term integration, and stable rights for relocants rather than relying on formal declarations. Without such reforms, promises of support remain empty words, and European commitments to human rights are called into question.
Comments