Should Western countries welcome Russian refugees who don't want to fight?

[Julgran]

Most Western countries are far from being as screwed as Russia is right now.

In which ways is Russia screwed..? While the west is burning, Russia is building alliances with the rest of the world, and already have alliances with other powerful nations.

They didn't fight any wars on a scale that would require them to start drafting everyone for the last 50 years or more, and don't seem to be too keen on changing this trend.

This is incorrect, since NATO's modus operandi has always been to sneakingly expand towards the east, which it has been doing, in defiance of previous agreements with Russia, which is the source of the current conflict.

In the last 6 months, NATO made it abundantly clear that it has no interest in directly dragging itself into any of the military conflicts that do not involve it's members, and UN made it abundantly clear that their peace corps exist for small third world countries and when someone who poses a global threat enters the stage they limit their involvement to being gravely concerned.

This is correct, and this is how the UN should approach conflict zones.

And for all the talk about the evil West, Russian government seems pretty satisfied with their idea of fighting the US hegemony by beating down on a small guy that was chosen as a proxy because they can't fight back.

It's the west that made the Ukraine into a proxy war zone. The west has been doing this in many countries, in different ways, ever since World War II ended. You could say the same thing about the Chinese aggressions towards Taiwan, but then you will be required to understand that the current conflict is not limited to the west VS Russia, but it's a west VS the rest of the world kind of conflict.

There was plenty of proxy wars between the eastern block and the collective West in the last century, and none of them resulted in a direct confrontation between the main powers, so why this one should be any different?

Before a real shooting war ensues, there's usually economic warfare and color revolutions, which is what have been taking place throughout the last century. The world would look different today if it wasn't for the west's incessant undermining of foreign powers.

Nuclear war destroying the western civilization is not entirely outside of the realm of possibility - but that prognosis is about as pessimistic as you can get, most people are at least somewhat more positive about the future.

Unfortunately, reality isn't determined by consensus, which means that it doesn't matter how hopeful people are - whatever will happen, will happen, without the people's input.

The world is at a stage now that leaves little else, other than nuclear war, likely. However, this is just how it seems, so I can't pretend to know what will happen, of course.

So not being in Russia, Ukraine, or other countries that are not doing particularly well, such as Afghanistan, Mexico, Yemen or Ethiopia, seems like a hopeful option to people seeking refuge.

I disagree, seing how the west is disintegrating economically, socially and politically.


Those are interesting ideas, though.

Having said all this, you may believe that I'm pro-western or pro-Russia. depending on how you choose to read this. In any case, I see both sides as being evil in their own ways, so I'm taking no sides.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

In which ways is Russia screwed..? While the west is burning, Russia is building alliances with the rest of the world, and already have alliances with other powerful nations.

To put it shortly, the global nuclear war, NATO's intentions, West "burning", Russia getting any allies to fight on it's side etc. are all hypothetical concepts. They might seem very real to you, they might not seem that real to other people. All of this is debatable at best and there is no hard proof.
Russians being sent to war in Ukraine and dying and/or being maimed there, a law that gives insane prison sentences to those who refuse to be drafted, political imprisonments and widespread extreme police brutality in Russia are very much not hypothetical and it is happening right now. It is not a matter of expectations or political opinions, it is current reality, it is already happening.
And now I need a drink.

 

[Julgran]

To put it shortly, the global nuclear war, NATO's intentions, West "burning", Russia getting any allies to fight on it's side etc. are all hypothetical concepts. They might seem very real to you, they might not seem that real to other people. All of this is debatable at best and there is no hard proof.

I don't fully understand why it's debatable whether Russia is screwed, or not. They have the support of the BRICS countries, and also the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. They are actively trading with other nations and are self-sustainable.

Eventually, though, Russia will probably have to contend with China, but we won't need to care, since the west may be long gone by then.

Russians being sent to war in Ukraine and dying and/or being maimed there, a law that gives insane prison sentences to those who refuse to be drafted, political imprisonments and widespread extreme police brutality in Russia are very much not hypothetical and it is happening right now. It is not a matter of expectations or political opinions, it is current reality, it is already happening.

I agreee with this.

And now I need a drink.

Cheers!

 

[jandek]

I drew that conclusion from your post in which you don't seem to care for the long-term consequences of immigration.

However, this thread is mainly about Russian refugees, and seeing how negative the views of western countries is, in the media, those Russians may not be very welcome by the people in the west - we will have to wait and see.

I do wish people would think more the long term consequences of immigration. One of the ironies of "multiculturalism" is that immigrants, over several generations, inevitably lose their respective culture as they become assimilated into their new country, unless that community makes an active decision to self-segregate. However, modern mass media makes true segregation practically impossible. There's often a profound and sometimes painful cultural divide between immigrant parents and their children. The Manichean worldview of Identity politics only exacerbates these tensions. Interestingly, it's a noted feature that Islamic radicalism is more common in 2nd or 3rd generation Muslim immigrants, who struggle to reconcile their Muslim identity with the values of their home country. Fundamentalism is an attractive "solution" to this problem.

 

[Julgran]

I do wish people would think more the long term consequences of immigration. One of the ironies of "multiculturalism" is that immigrants, over several generations, inevitably lose their respective culture as they become assimilated into their new country, unless that community makes an active decision to self-segregate. However, modern mass media makes true segregation practically impossible. There's often a profound and sometimes painful cultural divide between immigrant parents and their children. The Manichean worldview of Identity politics only exacerbates these tensions. Interestingly, it's a noted feature that Islamic radicalism is more common in 2nd or 3rd generation Muslim immigrants, who struggle to reconcile their Muslim identity with the values of their home country. Fundamentalism is an attractive "solution" to this problem.

That could be true, but I'm less concerned about foreign cultures than the actual increase in the amount of human beings - whether they are of the same descent as the recipient country, or something else. I mean, what does it matter if one is Muslim, Christian or something else if there is no living space to receive, or no food to buy...?

 

[jandek]

That could be true, but I'm less concerned about foreign cultures than the actual increase in the amount of human beings - whether they are of the same descent as the recipient country, or something else. I mean, what does it matter if one is Muslim, Christian or something else if there is no living space to receive, or no food to buy...?

Yes, that's a very real concern as well.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

I don't fully understand why it's debatable whether Russia is screwed, or not. They have the support of the BRICS countries, and also the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. They are actively trading with other nations and are self-sustainable.

I got too emotional and expressed my opinion in a not very eloquent way. What I meant by "Most Western countries are far from being as screwed as Russia is right now" is that internal situation in most Western countries is currently a lot better than in Russia.
But I guess that is rather irrelevant, because

I'm less concerned about foreign cultures than the actual increase in the amount of human beings - whether they are of the same descent as the recipient country, or something else. I mean, what does it matter if one is Muslim, Christian or something else if there is no living space to receive, or no food to buy...?

When we get to the bottom of it, the real concern regarding the refugees is always the same. People would rather not have them around because they don't want more humans fighting with them for resources. And at the end of the day they'd rather not think too deeply about what other options those refugees have, the same way they'd rather not think about what their favorite sausage is made of and how it makes it to their table. Which is normal, altruism is limited and we're all concerned with our own livelihood above all else, otherwise humans wouldn't survive as a species.

 

[Chinaski]

There is absolutely no cogent argument that can be made against removing people from a situation of immediate danger to life or limb in the first place imo but some of the positions taken in this thread are absolutely beyond ridicule. People frequently use this website to vent about the degree of cruelty and suffering which exists in the world, how life is a painful and terrifying experience, how people just dgaf and readily turn blind eyes to their agony, and yet on this very same website you'll get people jumping through all manner of verbal hoops, like Julgran has above, to justify their own weird political positions around why X group of people should be thrown under the bus. Embarrassing stuff imo.

 

[waitingforrest]

For me, refugees are refugees no matter where they come from, and I would welcome them at least.
If I turn a blind eye to refugees, who will welcome me if I become a refugee as well?

 

[Julgran]

I got too emotional and expressed my opinion in a not very eloquent way. What I meant by "Most Western countries are far from being as screwed as Russia is right now" is that internal situation in most Western countries is currently a lot better than in Russia.

That's probably true in some sense, but not in others. In this case, we seem to be looking at details, such as a potential coup attempt in Russia - but on the whole, what makes Europe or the USA more sustainable than Russia in the long-run..?

But I guess that is rather irrelevant, because

When we get to the bottom of it, the real concern regarding the refugees is always the same. People would rather not have them around because they don't want more humans fighting with them for resources. And at the end of the day they'd rather not think too deeply about what other options those refugees have, the same way they'd rather not think about what their favorite sausage is made of and how it makes it to their table. Which is normal, altruism is limited and we're all concerned with our own livelihood above all else, otherwise humans wouldn't survive as a species.

This is true.

However, my initial point was that - given the current situation - Europe may not be a safe destination for the Russian refugees, but, instead, become a certain death trap, in which case the refugees would do good in finding another place to build a new life at. That could just be my opinion, and - of course - a refugee has little choice when their country is suddenly embroiled in a war, so they have to leave for whichever country will have them.

For me, refugees are refugees no matter where they come from, and I would welcome them at least.
If I turn a blind eye to refugees, who will welcome me if I become a refugee as well?

One problem with immigration is that, while money can be printed - food and other good cannot, so how would you sustain everyone long-term..? Sure, refugees may only stay for a short while, in which case the refuge situation works as intended, but problems arise when a lot of people migrate and then stay at their destination for longer periods of time. It doesn't matter which country that a person escapes from as a refugee, which means that the problem is mainly that it's one more mouth to feed - and those refugee waves will continue as long as the people support illegal wars of aggression.

There is absolutely no cogent argument that can be made against removing people from a situation of immediate danger to life or limb in the first place imo but some of the positions taken in this thread are absolutely beyond ridicule. People frequently use this website to vent about the degree of cruelty and suffering which exists in the world, how life is a painful and terrifying experience, how people just dgaf and readily turn blind eyes to their agony, and yet on this very same website you'll get people jumping through all manner of verbal hoops, like Julgran has above, to justify their own weird political positions around why X group of people should be thrown under the bus. Embarrassing stuff imo.

You are free to make arguments that are not based on wishful thinking.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

In this case, we seem to be looking at details, such as a potential coup attempt in Russia - but on the whole, what makes Europe or the USA more sustainable than Russia in the long-run..?

The "details" can kill, maim or imprison those people, they can destroy their livelihood, kill their loved ones and traumatize them for life. The "details" objectively exist right now. Nuclear annihilation of the civilization as a whole is a hypothesis and overall I'd say even given the current situation it is rather far fetched. You might call it "wishful thinking", but that is, more or less, an opinion of the vast majority of people. After all, I don't see massive numbers of people in Europe or USA trying to flee to far corners of the world to save themselves from nuclear holocaust. Where a threat is real, everyone knows it.

One problem with immigration is that, while money can be printed - food and other good cannot, so how would you sustain everyone long-term..?

Not only food and other goods can be produced in bigger quantities - they can be (and usually already are) transported from one country to another via international trade. I'm not saying that migration doesn't create economic and logistical issues, but I think it's a bit more nuanced and less urgent than "we're going to run out of food because we can't make more".

 

[Julgran]

The "details" can kill, maim or imprison those people, they can destroy their livelihood, kill their loved ones and traumatize them for life. The "details" objectively exist right now. Nuclear annihilation of the civilization as a whole is a hypothesis and overall I'd say even given the current situation it is rather far fetched. You might call it "wishful thinking", but that is, more or less, an opinion of the vast majority of people. After all, I don't see massive numbers of people in Europe or USA trying to flee to far corners of the world to save themselves from nuclear holocaust. Where a threat is real, everyone knows it.

I was thinking about the looming on-the-ground threats, such as energy and food shortages, and violence. A potential nuclear war is only on the horizon as of yet, and not what I was hinting at.

Since people tend to be comfortable in their circumstances, and are unwilling to take risks, that may prevent them from moving elsehwere in the world. Again, reality is not determined by consensus - meaning that it's smarter to see the potential dangers and act accordinlgy, rather than see what everyone else is doing.

Not only food and other goods can be produced in bigger quantities - they can be (and usually already are) transported from one country to another via international trade. I'm not saying that migration doesn't create economic and logistical issues, but I think it's a bit more nuanced and less urgent than "we're going to run out of food because we can't make more".

I disagree, given how farmers in Europe are practically compensated for not continuing their agricultural work, and the moving of food and goods across Europe may come to a halt if the current conflict escalates - not to mention the lack of fertilizer...

However, this thread concerns the question of whether Russian refugees should have the right to flee to European countries, or not. I see no argument against letting Russians into Europe, but my arguments in this thread have only been that they shouldn't - for their own best interest. As an easy example, you may know that Russia has an exclave in Europe called Kaliningrad. What if all the Russians from the Russian mainland decided to flee to Kaliningrad - that would cause a disaster for everyone living there, and the refugees, as well - so, it would benefit both the refugees themselves, and the people in Kaliningrad, if the Russian refugess find a place to flee to that may not be as affected by the potential coming crises in Europe. Perhaps China or India could take some in, since they are their allies, even though they also have other problems of their own, of course.

 

[jandek]

I realized I lost sight of the topic in my previous post. I was thinking about mass immigration and "multiculturalism" as an ideal in general, rather than the context of the Russia/Ukraine war. Sorry about that.

Are Russian refugees a thing now? I didn't realize this was going on or that the numbers were so large. Personally, I'm inclined to favor temporary aid and accommodation for refugees that have grounds for asylum, provided there is an appropriate vetting process and background check. However, I can understand why ordinary citizens and taxpayers, primarily the working and middle classes, resent having to shoulder an additional burden when they are already struggling to get by. And I know many people are struggling in Europe now. It's also hard to admire the "compassion" of politicians whose policies seem to affect practically everyone but themselves.

I'm uneasy about this idea that relatively well off countries are morally obligated to foot the bill for every failed and war-torn state in the world. Where do we draw the line, or is there no limit? I've read several pieces calling out the west's seemingly arbitrary attitude towards refugees, favoring Ukraine while ignoring other equally suffering parts of the world, and it's a fair criticism if one assumes that we have a universal moral duty.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

However, this thread concerns the question of whether Russian refugees should have the right to flee to European countries, or not. I see no argument against letting Russians into Europe, but my arguments in this thread have only been that they shouldn't - for their own best interest. As an easy example, you may know that Russia has an exclave in Europe called Kaliningrad. What if all the Russians from the Russian mainland decided to flee to Kaliningrad - that would cause a disaster for everyone living there, and the refugees, as well - so, it would benefit both the refugees themselves, and the people in Kaliningrad, if the Russian refugess find a place to flee to that may not be as affected by the potential coming crises in Europe. Perhaps China or India could take some in, since they are their allies, even though they also have other problems of their own, of course.

You seem to be missing a crucial detail here. Namely, that those people are running from their own government. Russian government is not a friend of these people, and it's friends or "allies" are not their friends either, which is why they are probably not going to run to China.

 

[Julgran]

I can understand why ordinary citizens and taxpayers, primarily the working and middle classes, resent having to shoulder an additional burden when they are already struggling to get by.

This is worthy to take into consideration concerning Russian refugess. Since the Russians have been painted as devils in the media, some people in the west will probably see them as free victims of abuse or violence - just see how some Muslims have been treated in the west.

It's also hard to admire the "compassion" of politicians whose policies seem to affect practically everyone but themselves.

It's this fake compassion that's driving this whole disaster, I would say. Politicians seem to only want to earn brownie points from their superiors, all the while the rest of the people - both those who already live in the country, and those fleeing to it - will suffer, since no one seems to take the people/housing/food/energy/survival calculation to its inevitable conclusion.

I'm uneasy about this idea that relatively well off countries are morally obligated to foot the bill for every failed and war-torn state in the world. Where do we draw the line, or is there no limit?

This could become a controversial topic, depending on how you look at world events. One could say that the west has gotten itself into this mess by starting and/or supporting illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East and elsewhere, so why shouldn't the west pay for their transgressions..?

You seem to be missing a crucial detail here. Namely, that those people are running from their own government. Russian government is not a friend of these people, and it's friends or "allies" are not their friends either, which is why they are probably not going to run to China.

Indeed, but if one has the chance, my point is that there may be better countries to flee to, rather than any country within Europe. We seem to disagree about this, so let it be so, then.

 

[Chinaski]

You are free to make arguments that are not based on wishful thinking.

Very very typical of those who churn out thousands of words suggesting keeping people safe from direct physical harm is somehow complicated to behave as if offering refuge to people in harm's way is a childlike naivete, the reality is this is only difficult in any way because people like you exist and your reactionary sensibilities must be pandered to by those who seek office.

It's quite telling that it's often the people who feel themselves under attack in a mythical "culture war", where they find an advert for Gillette shaving products as akin to aerial bombardment and feel compelled to put their weird but apparently very important views on what does and does not constitute rape across in order to combat this woke invasion, who have absolutely zero consideration for those who exist within an actual war zone and are in immediate danger. As always with your sort, it's always your own personal prejudices which must be considered foremostly, everybody else can, and should, fuck off and die. This is fair enough l guess, but it'd be much easier for you to just say this, rather than go through such gymnastics to pretend your guttural, instinctive position of indifference to the suffering of others comes from a position of high-intellect and considered analysis.

 

[Julgran]

Very very typical of those who churn out thousands of words suggesting keeping people safe from direct physical harm is somehow complicated to behave as if offering refuge to people in harm's way is a childlike naivete, the reality is this is only difficult in any way because people like you exist and your reactionary sensibilities must be pandered to by those who seek office.

It's quite telling that it's often the people who feel themselves under attack in a mythical "culture war", where they find an advert for Gillette shaving products as akin to aerial bombardment and feel compelled to put their weird but apparently very important views on what does and does not constitute rape across in order to combat this woke invasion, who have absolutely zero consideration for those who exist within an actual war zone and are in immediate danger. As always with your sort, it's always your own personal prejudices which must be considered foremostly, everybody else can, and should, fuck off and die. This is fair enough l guess, but it'd be much easier for you to just say this, rather than go through such gymnastics to pretend your guttural, instinctive position of indifference to the suffering of others comes from a position of high-intellect and considered analysis.

You don't seem to be interested in world affairs enough to be able to make a rational argumentation, but I'll leave it at that, since this discussion with you is like explaining the world events to a child. I'm sorry, but you really should do some reading before you engage in this kind of a conversation.

 

[Chinaski]

You don't seem to be interested in world affairs enough to be able to make a rational argumentation, but I'll leave it at that, since this discussion with you is like explaining the world events to a child. I'm sorry, but you really should do some reading before you engage in this kind of a conversation.

The typical julgran flex, the veneer of pomposity to mask the weaselling.

Refuge should be offered unequivocally to those caught in conflict whose lives are at imminent risk. All of your positions to counter this, incorporating your alleged superior grasp of world events, are weird 3D chess manoeuvres which have barely been in the oven. It's fine to not give a shit about the plight of others in immediate danger btw, lots of people do it, you're not on your own. I just wish people who do feel that way would stop trying to intellectualise their prejudices and would be more open about it, particularly those who aren't as smart as they think and are quick to express anguish and seek pity when they feel they are personally under very serious and immediate danger, eg from a TV advert.

 

[Julgran]

The typical julgran flex, the veneer of pomposity to mask the weaselling.

Refuge should be offered unequivocally to those caught in conflict whose lives are at imminent risk. All of your positions to counter this, incorporating your alleged superior grasp of world events, are weird 3D chess manoeuvres which have barely been in the oven. It's fine to not give a shit about the plight of others in immediate danger btw, lots of people do it, you're not on your own. I just wish people who do feel that way would stop trying to intellectualise their prejudices and would be more open about it, particularly those who aren't as smart as they think and are quick to express anguish and seek pity when they feel they are personally under very serious and immediate danger, eg from a TV advert.

The difference between you and me is that I do care about the long-term consequences for everyone involved, while you seem to only wish to virtue signal - just like western governments do. I actually live in a so-called "socialist utopia" and can confirm that foreigners aren't treated very well here.

Have you gotten the answers that you were looking for now..?

 

[GrumpyFrog]

The difference between you and me is that I do care about the long-term consequences for everyone involved, while you seem to only wish to virtue signal - just like western governments do. I actually live in a so-called "socialist utopia" and can confirm that foreigners aren't treated very well here.

Have you gotten the answers that you were looking for now..?

I am genuinely wondering what exactly is happening to foreigners in your country that is, in your opinion, worse than what would happen to them in their home country and worse than going off to some forest in Iceland to try to survive of berries which I believe is the alternative that you would suggest.

 

[Chinaski]

The difference between you and me is that I do care about the long-term consequences for everyone involved, while you seem to only wish to virtue signal - just like western governments do. I actually live in a so-called "socialist utopia" and can confirm that foreigners aren't treated very well here.

Have you gotten the answers that you were looking for now..?

At no point in this thread have l made an argument for socialism, personally l would like to think the human impulse to aid those who are in very serious danger would transcend an ideology but alas, one quick skim through the posts of those on the political right on this Empathy Safe Haven suggests otherwise.

Fair play to you on using "virtue signalling" btw, l had that in the sweepstake.

 

[Julgran]

I am genuinely wondering what exactly is happening to foreigners in your country that is, in your opinion, worse than what would happen to them in their home country and worse than going off to some forest in Iceland and try to survive of berries which I believe is the alternative that you would suggest.

Foreigners here are put into concentrated areas of high-rise buildings where they harm or kill each other, and no one cares about them - and they have few paths forwards when it comes to education and jobs, which leaves them with miserable lives and bad or no future prospects.

Yours and my perspective differ in the sense that you seem to believe that living a horrible life is better than being dead. I can definitley accept your opinion, but my argumentation in this thread has also been based on the long-term effects of migration - namely, that it should be avoided by not starting illegal wars of aggression, and to make sure that refugees don't end up in countries that are on a serious - and possibly fatal - decline.

I never mentioned berries, so I'm inferring that you are simply trying to make fun of whatever you perceived as viewpoints of mine that differ from your world view. I made a case for there being more functional countries out there than those within the European Union, that potential Russian refugees may want to consider instead of migrating westwards. Is that an impossible concept to grasp..?

At no point in this thread have l made an argument for socialism, personally l would like to think the human impulse to aid those who are in very serious danger would transcend an ideology but alas, one quick skim through the posts of those on the political right on this Empathy Safe Haven suggests otherwise.

Fair play to you on using "virtue signalling" btw, l had that in the sweepstake.

It's good of you to have opinions

 

[GrumpyFrog]

Yours and my perspective differ in the sense that you seem to believe that living a horrible life is better than being dead.

I do not believe that, otherwise I wouldn't be on a suicide forum. However, I do believe that if another person would prefer to live a life that we might consider horrible to being dead, denying them this option is extremely inhumane.

I made a case for there being more functional countries out there than those within the European Union, that potential Russian refugees may want to consider instead of migrating westwards. Is that an impossible concept to grasp..?

I can imagine a few options if I try really hard, and even that's very debatable. What is a hard for me to grasp is that you seemingly admitted earlier that you understand that refugees usually have little to no choice as for where exactly to go, and yet you seem to continue arguing that they should consider some better options. At this point I am coming to a conclusion that the only actual better option you can suggest is that they all go kill themselves, based on the "being dead is better than a horrible life" argument.

 

[Julgran]

I do not believe that, otherwise I wouldn't be on a suicide forum. However, I do believe that if another person would prefer to live a life that we might consider horrible to being dead, denying them this option is extremely inhumane.

I also think that refugees should be allowed to seek refuge wherever they wish., but here's where you and I are having a difference of opinion. Whereas you feel like it's inhumane to not let people migrate to the west, I believe that it's inhumane to lure people to the west and promise them false hopes, when they probably could have established better lives elsewhere.

I can accept your perspective, but since western governments have been saying the same thing throughout the decades, I no longer believe in it.

I can imagine a few options if I try really hard, and even that's very debatable. What is a hard for me to grasp is that you seemingly admitted earlier that you understand that refugees usually have little to no choice as for where exactly to go, and yet you seem to continue arguing that they should consider some better options. At this point I am coming to a conclusion that the only actual better option you can suggest is that they all go kill themselves, based on the "being dead is better than a horrible life" argument.

Then you don't seem to have seen my other suggestions earlier in this thread, where I suggested that more remote countries may be a better alternative. The point is only that Europe doesn't offer much hope for the future for anyone, so why should Russians flee there..?

 

[Chinaski]

You're confusing emigrating to seek fame and fortune with actually fleeing a real-life warzone. Giving people refugee status promises them nothing but safety, and you're going to have to come up with a better argument against offering this than "I think it is in their own best interests for it to not be offered".

 

[Julgran]

You're confusing emigrating to seek fame and fortune with actually fleeing a real-life warzone. Giving people refugee status promises them nothing but safety, and you're going to have to come up with a better argument against offering this than "I think it is in their own best interests for it to not be offered".

Again, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

I have not been talking about economic migrants in this thread.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

Then you don't seem to have seen my other suggestions earlier in this thread, where I suggested that more remote countries may be a better alternative. The point is only that Europe doesn't offer much hope for the future for anyone, so why should Russians flee there..?

Most Russians lived out their entire lives in the very conditions you describe as miserable and hopeless - in crowded high-rise buildings, with high rates of crime and violence (worsened by police brutality which leads to people avoiding turning to authorities at all costs), with very few options that could be considered a "social lift" and with most people very limited in their education and job prospects if they weren't born into a very priviliged family. They are used to this crap and they would gladly continue to live like that at home if they weren't forced to either go to war or go to jail. For most people it is a better prospect than trying to survive in the wilderness at some remote location with extreme climate, which is the only actual suggestion I've seen you make. And if we look at this realistically, you will understand that "going back to your roots" by moving to the woods is even less hopeful than living in a refugee camp for most people who are not at all prepared for such lifestyle.
Another point to consider is that travelling really far away is expensive, and sometimes logistically impossible, and people fleeing Russia now is in no position to save up some extra money for the trip or wait until there are more options for plane tickets.

 

[Chinaski]

Again, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

I have not been talking about economic migrants in this thread.

And yet you talk of their prospects in another country as if this is relevant when people are literally fleeing for their lives, lives which you consider to be absolutely valueless given your "people are better off dead" rhetoric. You've used a hell of a lot of words on your posts which, when distilled, come down to the usual drivel reactionary pricks use when they lack the courage to simply come out and state that they think the lives of others are worthless.

 

[Julgran]

Most Russians lived out their entire lives in the very conditions you describe as miserable and hopeless - in crowded high-rise buildings, with high rates of crime and violence (worsened by police brutality which leads to people avoiding turning to authorities at all costs), with very few options that could be considered a "social lift" and with most people very limited in their education and job prospects if they weren't born into a very priviliged family. They are used to this crap and they would gladly continue to live like that at home if they weren't forced to either go to war or go to jail. For most people it is a better prospect than trying to survive in the wilderness at some remote location with extreme climate, which is the only actual suggestion I've seen you make.

What I'm "recommending" to potential Russian refugees is also what I would "recommend" to anyone else who would consider moving to a country within the European Union, since the way of life - the way we have known it in the west - is dissipating. Therefore, it's better to move elsewhere.

And if we look at this realistically, you will understand that "going back to your roots" by moving to the woods is even less hopeful than living in a refugee camp for most people who are not at all prepared for such lifestyle.
Another point to consider is that travelling really far away is expensive, and sometimes logistically impossible, and people fleeing Russia now is in no position to save up some extra money for the trip or wait until there are more options for plane tickets.

This is correct, and that's the reason for me saying that the Russian refugees may have no other option than to move to Europe. However, they could also move to Europe as a first step, and then try to move even further away thereafter.

And yet you talk of their prospects in another country as if this is relevant when people are literally fleeing for their lives, lives which you consider to be absolutely valueless given your "people are better off dead" rhetoric. You've used a hell of a lot of words on your posts which, when distilled, come down to the usual drivel reactionary pricks use when they lack the courage to simply come out and state that they think the lives of others are worthless.

You keep repeating the same points. What are you trying to contribute to the discussion with..? It's like you really wish for Europe to be some kind of a role model for the rest of the world, while it's definitely not.

 

[Chinaski]

You keep repeating the same points. What are you trying to contribute to the discussion with..?

Lmao at your repeated use of this weird flex of faux-superiority each fucking time. The points are clear: yes people should be given safety from harm, there are no "longer term impacts" that need to be factored in. The argument that refuge is perhaps not in the best interests of civilians who are collateral in conflict is so unambiguously moronic it can only be put forward by someone who is either unutterably fucking thick or someone making the argument disingenuously in order to mask their guttural or political dislike of foreign types emigrating, in this case it's very possibly both.