Something interesting I guess most people don't know, the pro-ukrainian mobilisations in Poland (I can only speak about Poland) is amazing. My FB wall is full of people providing their apartments for free, giving jobs etc. There is over 100 cars long queue at a border willing to transport Ukrainians escaping war where they want. They can travel by train for free in Poland.
Now not so good tidbit. Just few months ago we had a lot of people lured into Belarus by Lukashenko trying to come to Europe. Poland treated them really really poorly. Catching them after crossing border and pushing them back. The society was split among pro-refugees and anti. The political parties almost all focused on "protecting our border".
I was afraid that this natalist sentiment might repeat, even though Ukrainians are one of the closest people to Poland. I am very happy to note I haven't heard anyone speaking against refugees from Ukraine, not on twitter not on facebook not by far-right parties, altough I am sure some people are silent about their opinions.
I think the key difference, more so than racism, was context. The Middle Eastern refugees got there as an attempt to undermine Poland and the EU. They were transported there by Belarus explicitly as part of a geopolitical game.
You treat an attack very differently.
If Poland let the refugees in, I expect Belarus would pull more stunts like this. It was no good for anyone.
There is some mild tension with Ukrainians coming to Poland as low-cost labor, but at the end of the day, it's the same culture. Or at least it was before Poland started to Westernize its culture. Honestly, I think the right solution here is to reform the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine really ought to be one country. If Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, or Moldova want to join in, the more the merrier. Belarus and Russia, when they're ready.
Estonia, by the way, is the odd man out. It has the least cultural or ethnic connection; much less than you'd expect. But I think it'd be a happy marriage. It's a compatible kind of diversity, where each side brings something complementary rather than conflicting and both sides benefit.
Also one difference is that The Ukrainians only let children and women leave the country. Men 18-60 are not allowed to leave. So the people coming over are truly vulnerable.
No, that's not a difference. Poland has been preparing to welcome Ukrainians long before the invasion started. It had opened up its borders and had logistic ready to receive them as soon as Russia invaded.
All of this happened before Ukraine closed its borders to fighting-age men.
It’s not about “letting them in”, it’s about protecting the border without breaking the law. Poland chose to do illegal pushback instead, effectively killing some two dozen random civilians.
There is a subtle difference between cutting border fence and going through border checkpoint. During Belarus crisis those who went for asylum request were considered. Those who hid in forest did not. Some were not granted asylum as they came from stable country. Simple as that.
Poland has ties to Ukraine (especially western part) stretching for more than a thousand years. Recent decades the relationship was quite positive. It is almost same people.
Poland has bitter painful recent memory of aggression from Soviet Union just recently. Now there is a real risk obliteration of whole Ukraine, who just recently got independence after hundreds of years of invasion.
> Now not so good tidbit. Just few months ago we had a lot of people lured into Belarus by Lukashenko trying to come to Europe. Poland treated them really really poorly.
Those people were from the middle east, pakistan, afghanistan and so on no? A big difference when it's your neighbor in need.
>Those people were from the middle east, pakistan, afghanistan and so on no? A big difference when it's your neighbor.
There are many people from the Middle East living, studying and working in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechia, etc. without any issues. One for them is my dentist and another in engaged to one of my cousins and is studying medicine to become a doctor.
The big difference is they came here legally and with money, studies, jobs or skills to support themselves, so the locals only have an issues with the illegal economic chancers trying to game the asylum and welfare systems, and nothing against people from the Middle East.
Those welfare migrants usually end up in countries like Sweden or Germany anyway, where whatever is left of the middle class taxpayer, is "happy" to give away half their income to support them indefinitely, with the wishful thinking that they will eventually contribute to their economy, pension system, and reverse the declining birthrates. At least they were right about the latter.
Also slightly different because in the Middle East, it's the Poles (and other pearl-clutching Europeans) that are over there arming and training the rebels, sending "peace keeping" forces, overthrowing governments and trying to partition their countries. It's not exactly a breakaway from the normal Western hypocrisy to see that they don't treat refugees from those countries well.
What the Poles see when they look at Ukranians are the same thing that most of the anglosphere sees -- fair skinned Caucasians. That's why "everyone" cares and why this relatively uneventful situation is getting this amount of news coverage.
That's why "everyone" cares and why this relatively uneventful situation is getting this amount of news coverage
You must know very little of history, to think coverage is only due to race.
Show me another country with the same nuclear arsenal, or with the military might, invading countries this large, in a location which has started two world wars.
> You must know very little of history, to think coverage is only due to race.
Exclusively due to race.
> Show me another country with the same nuclear arsenal, or with the military might, invading countries this large, in a location which has started two world wars
Might as well say "show me another country also named Ukraine." How about Syria? Where Poland, specifically, sent its forces to train separatist rebel groups and had an airforce positioned to support the rebel offensives? Help me understand the difference, considering when refugees from Syria get to Poland they're rounded up, beaten up and expelled.
> Playing the race card is... weak.
Calling it weak helps skirt around the cognitive dissonance at seeing two tragedies, exactly the same barring ethnicity, and fabricating scenarios that justify one and disregard the other. The same people who are fascinated with what's happening in Ukraine are the same ones who had "Je suis Charlie" over their Facebook profile photos in 2015. They see fair skinned Europeans in crisis and their opinions change dramatically. This is an extension of missing white woman syndrome[0] and part of the training the Western world receives as children to disregard the suffering of non-anglophone and non-Europeans.
You're missing the whole point. The conflicts are not even remotely the same.
If Poland invade the Ukraine, most people wouldn't be 1/10th as interested.
It is almost like you have no grasp of the history of NATO, the USSR, two world wars, nuclear weapons, and the power to deploy military might.
Can rebels in Syria destroy the entire planet with nukes? Can a conflict in Syria cause all NATO nations to be pulled into mutual defense agreements?
Quite literally, this single act of Russia's could have the potential result of turning entire planet into ash, or dragging 100 countries to war, or seeing a new empire carved out.
And I haven't even discussed China's role in all of this, current and future.
This invasion, this single act, could result in billions dying.
It's almost as if you don't comprehend that Syria is a theatre that contains both the US and Russia who both have nukes. Ukraine does not have nukes. In Ukraine, there is only Russia and Ukranians. In Syria, we have at least Turkey, the US and Russia all engaged in direct combat with at least a dozen NATO countries having troops stationed there.
The rebels in Syria can't destroy the planet with nukes... and neither can the rebels in Ukraine. The conflict in Syria has a higher likelihood of pulling in NATO members considering NATO is already in Syria, with Russia, the US and Turkey all engaging in direct combat there.
> Quite literally, this single act of Russia's could have the potential result of turning entire planet into ash, or dragging 100 countries to war, or seeing a new empire carved out.
Except none of that is true. You know, because Ukraine is not a part of NATO and there are literally no NATO forces in Ukraine?
It's funny how you seem to ignore that NATO nations are already engaged in war with Russia's proxies in Syria -- in some cases seeing direct confrontation -- but somehow Ukraine is the one that matters. But it's not about race.
> This invasion, this single act, could result in billions dying.
The single act being invading a country filled with fair skinned Caucasians, you mean.
> But sure, it's all just about race.
Considering the pearl clutchers happily armed the rebels in Syria and supported its partition, and are now crying doom and gloom when Russia does the same in Ukraine, then it is about race.
Let me know when the Polaks on the far right start kicking up a stink about the European refugees about to enter the country and you'll hopefully start to see it's all about ethnicity.
Adding some more context.
The Ukrainian refugees are fellow Slavic people and
the refugees from last time were mostly Muslims from the Middle East... and that the Far-Right tends to be racist.
While the fact that Ukrainians belong to the same ethnicity as Poles definitely makes a difference in how people react, another fact that counts is that the Middle Eastern refugees did not get to Poland directly from a war zone, and they did not intend to seek asylum in Poland, they were flown into a peaceful country, Belarus, and were seeking to reach the richer countries of Europe like Germany, Sweden and the UK... Poland was just their second transit country after Belarus. I think that even discounting race, this is a big difference that we cannot simply forget about.
"Several academics have critiqued the use of cultural racism to describe prejudices and discrimination on the basis of cultural difference. Those who reserve the term racism for biological racism for instance do not believe that cultural racism is a useful or appropriate concept."
> There is over 100 cars long queue at a border willing to transport Ukrainians escaping war where they want. They can travel by train for free in Poland.
That's fantastic. A person I know is in Ukraine (currently at the border with Poland, AFAIK) and he reports multiple-kilometer long queues of people on foot trying to cross the border. It sounds like they'll need all the help they can get.
Same in Romania, the boarders are jammed with romanian citizens providing aid, shelter and transport. I am actually amazed, there is so much help that charities are overwhelmed. People are taking ukrainians in their homes.
Same. While polish society is hugely racist towards refugees from Middle East, largely because of a government’s massive hate campaign from a few years ago, it seems polish nationalists failed to achieve the same against Ukrainians - probably thanks to the fact that many Ukrainians already live and Poland, so people can see for themselves there is no reason to hate them.
Maybe it's time to stop cultivating this hatred. Otherwise, you’ll have to keep hating other nations. It's a road to hatred hell - many countries and nations in Europe had conflicts.
Separate a regime from a nation. I don't know any Russian (I’m Russian in Spain) who would have any negativity to the Poles. Maybe it would be better to stop the hatred from another side as well.
Nationalistic flamewar is not welcome here. No more of this, please. I'm sure you have good reasons for feeling the way you do, but that doesn't make it ok to post destructively to this forum.
> Also, if you read the history of your country (and nation), you’ll see that one of your neighbors was occupying your country for a much, much longer time - maybe you’ll find another target to hate ;)
That is the thing you do not get - when you read about it in history books, it is not the same as experience something yourself. When it is your life that is being damaged, it hurts... and hurt people are not objective. People generalize. Read your own comment - you read one unpleasant comment from one guy on the internet and you are already generalizing it to Czechs you met in Prague. How would you react if someone did this[1] to someone you know?
I did not say that I hate you. I was just trying to explain to you why many people might. They do not want to hate (it is not pleasant). They did not choose to "cultivate hatred" as you say. They were hurt and hatred is natural reaction to trauma. Instead of blaming them, the victims, blame those who hurt them.
In addition to not posting flamewar comments as I asked you upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30481406), please do not cross into personal attack as you did here. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
I got carried away. I apologize to both you and EugeneOZ. However, could you please point out what personal attack you mean, @dang? I am asking genuinely to learn. I see now that I did not argue in a constructive way and I am sorry about it but I honestly did not intend to personally attack EugeneOZ. I was not saying that I hate him or anything like that, he is clearly not responsible for what is going on in Ukraine. I was trying to re-frame what he perceives as hatred and explain it as people being hurt, something they do not necesarily control.
EugeneOZ, to put it absolutely clearly, I know you bear no personal responsibility, you do not deserve hatred, and if you understood it that way, there was misunderstanding caused by me and I sincerely apologize.
Please do not take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Also, please do not cross into personal attack.
I was advocating for arming Belarus rebels from Poland, and Lithuania.
If we had free Belarus by today, this war wouldn't have happened.
Without constant pressure on the capital, Ukrainian military would have easy time doing a general offensive on southern direction, or maybe even reaching Rostov, and Volgograd.
It was very appaling to see Polish government initially agreeing to sneak in weapons bought by volunteers, and then detaining it on the border.
I think most people (mistakenly) would consider me "against Ukraine". I am American and against US military involvement in the conflict. I am for humanitarian support for Ukraine and against military aid.
I think the war is awful, and wish it weren't happening, but think the sooner it is over, the better for everyone involved.
I think that Russia has real concerns about eastward expansion of NATO, and NATO should stop expanding in the region.
As an aside, an interesting concept of the book 1984 was that people could be prevented from thinking against the state by removing the concepts themselves from the language.
One could conceivably be unable to develop a rational full perspective on events of any kind if they are never made aware of a subset of information.
> One could conceivably be unable to develop a rational full perspective on events of any kind if they are never made aware of a subset of information.
This is true but very uninteresting (of course if you're denied crucial information you can't build a holistic view). What's more interesting is: is it actually the case that information is being systemically and totally suppressed, for which there seems to be little evidence.
It also seems like you're trying to use this trivial truth to stealthily support an anti-ukraine position.
You are inferring that which I am not implying. I clearly said this was aside the parent and grandparent posts, as it was not in line with the original intent or content.
You're using HN guideline wording ("uninteresting") seemingly in preparation to flag my comment if I step outside of your box. And your final sentence can have a chilling effect on intellectual conversation.
If this is a "trivial truth" then why do so many people fail to grasp the connections between the work of fiction and the modern realities? Your world view perhaps takes it as a given, but people should be afforded the opportunity to reach realization well after the point that you yourself achieved it.
I was pointing it out because not everyone is aware that this is possible, and it hopefully creates an interesting perspective for someone on an otherwise flamebait comment. It's past the point of usefulness now, however, as the other post has been rightfully flagged.
edit:
To go a bit further, my original comment does feel a bit off-topic on reflection. That is, of course, why these sorts of posts should simply be flagged and just move on. I should've avoided trying to dredge up some interesting conversation.
Additionally, I feel like your post would've been more interesting and encouraging of conversation had you simply stuck with the question "what evidence is there that this is occurring NOW though?"
I personally have no evidence this is happening, but the conversation would at that point be open to a third party contributing evidence if there were any.
Your comment is very vague; I know the views of both sides. When Putin decided to start the war, the arguments of anti-Ukrainians automatically lost their weight. You cannot fight using the argument of the Alley of Angels[0] if you kill civilians. Putin has already lost that part of his war.
I have a friend who is "against Ukraine" so I asked them to explain to me because this is unthinkable for me, especially at this point. He said that Ukrainians were shelling Russian civilians since 2014. And this is true to a point - there have been a few cases of civilian casualties admitted by Ukraine (and of course there was a lot more by the Russian thugs). The point is, none of this would have happened if Putin hadn't decided to incite the war in Donbas.
Now, the mother of my friend lived there in Donbas in 2014. Since Russians took over the territory, at some point Ukrainians became unable to maintain the infrastructure, they effectively lost this land. But my friend had a lot of spite against the Ukrainian government for not providing basic amenities there anymore. Also no longer sending money like pension to people there. Which is debatable: since Russians took over the responsibility, why should Ukrainians be involved? But I understand the tragedy of individual people, without water, electricity and money, with constant fear of being shelled by either side and no refuge anywhere.
So this is how at least some Russians living in Ukraine see the situation. Maybe today a bit less, but still.
>The point is, none of this would have happened if Putin hadn't decided to incite the war in Donbas.
It would have been put down quickly without putin's help but the sentiment there was very real. It's among the most pro-russian areas of the whole ukraine and yanukovych was popular. Only a minority of people there were likely to be happy about the lurch towards Europe signified by the Maidan.
It has close industrial, commercial and cultural ties to Russia.
In a reverse scenario I could well see Lviv revolting.
Yes, that was also a bit surprised to me when I visited Crimea and discovered that practically all people Russians. Speaking only Russian, knowing only some words in Ukrainian, but only watching Russian TV, reading Russian papers, having most writings everywhere in Russian (or both languages) and feeling Russian. But none of them had any negative feelings toward Ukrainians (at that time), they were getting along in a normal way.
Then I went to Kiyv and and asked someone for directions in broken Russian. He said, "Why are you speaking Russian? We're in Ukraine, you can speak English for example". At this point I realized in the West of Ukraine there were already some tensions regarding the coexistence of these two groups.
I experienced a lot of good things both from Russians and Ukrainians and it breaks my heart to see how Putin is sending these poor guys from conscription and sends them as fodder meat. I hope there is at least one sane person around Putin and they do what others had been trying to do in such a situation[0] - but this time successfully.
Portugal has a large and extremely well integrated Ukrainian community.
Ukrainians constitute the second-largest foreign community residing in Portugal.
And we have nothing but respect for them. Some 15 years ago, one of the plumbers who renovated our house was Ukranian. He came over here with a college degree in economics and no compunction about doing hard work.
He kept in touch with my in-laws, eventually started his own business and has since brought his family over. Last we heard one of his kids graduated from college here.
Portugal has had a really amazing experience with both Ukranian and Moldovan immigrant communities, the general sentiment is that they work hard and are generally extremely well qualified/experienced.
But not to take away from the solidarity which is indeed genuine. Portugal also has an extremely low birth rate problem and needs tax payers fast in order to prevent state pension funds' collapse in the next decades. So there is also a secondary motive here to attract families to Portugal.
The problem I see in Portugal is that doing business is expensive. Also, their internal market has very low disposable income, with high taxes thus low savings. And they seem to go doubling down on it, unless you're a rich foreigner.
Ukraine-to-Portugal migration is just displacement of low-birth rate white people from one place to another.
If you get only young immigrants, it does help you, to the detriment of their place of origin, which is left with an older population. A lot of people who migrate for economic reasons and such are young or younger. 65-year-olds don't often get up and emigrate somewhere. But I don't suspect that's the case under war time evacuation though.
Portugal is such an awesome country. I love going there and wouldn't mind staying there a bit longer at some point.
More countries should do this; Germany and my home country the Netherlands in particular. I live in Berlin currently as a foreigner (perfect place for that). Lots of people from all over eastern Europe live here, lots of companies here outsource all over eastern Europe, lots of people that I know either come from or have friends/family from the Ukraine. Also, about 200k people of Russian origin live here that chose to move here after the wall fell. And I assume quite a few Ukranians.
I remember meeting refugees from the former Yugoslavia in the nineties. I think 25 years later, a lot of those people did pretty well. I actually visited Bosnia for work last summer and met a guy that went to school in Munich. Likewise a lot of Syrian refugees that ended up in Germany seem to be doing OK. Quite a few ended up here in Berlin. In times of war, people are generally grateful if you accommodate them; even if it isn't always with open arms.
It's usually the smart, free thinkers that need to flee. Incidentally those are also people likely to find a way to make it in life; start businesses; or otherwise be generally successful.
The US is full of such people that emigrated there after various wars in the last century. Now is not a time to be xenophobic about this sort of thing.
There's pros and cons to that.
Some of the cons could be (not always, but definitely sometimes) the creation of parallel societies, high unemployment and crime rate and a possible decline of the welfare state (due to people not wanting to pay a lot of taxes to support people who are less "like them").
Success depends a lot on the host society, on the immigrants themselves and the values they grew up with and a whole bunch of other factors. And in general in times of economic hardships (which we are very fast heading into) it's hard to assimilate immigrants.
Also we need to talk about volume and skills - the current Ukrianian diaspora in the EU is highly skilled, young and relatively small. What happens when you inject millions more (Ukraine has a population of 40+ million) including the elderly and the unskilled? It's a different ballgame.
I think the best we can hope for is for the situation there to relax and for the poor Ukranians to be able to live peacefully in their home country. For most people - living in a foreign country is hard and not a blessing.
If the US can be an example for anything, it would be precisely why no welfare hurts its population. So, no, decline of the welfare state should never be seen as a good thing.
The Netherlands (my birth country as well) should indeed do this but basically every other country has more and cheaper space to house them. I worked with people (100s) from the UA for the last 30 years and I think this is good for the EU even outside war.
It’s horrible to consider this angle, but this could turn out to be a blessing for many European countries. There is a massive shortage of labour in large parts of Europe. There are large, well integrated Ukrainian minorities already in many European countries and many Ukrainians are well educated (esp. in the much needed STEM fields). So not to put Portugal down but it is certainly to some point self serving and I could actually see competition between Euro countries for those people in the medium term.
Even skilled immigration depresses wages of skilled workers. There's an analysis from the Dutch government Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis on this, which shows essentially this, which can be found in English translation on https://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/download/....
One thing that I think is neglected even in this study however, is that bringing in even a very productive person increases things like housing competition, and even just bringing in a few people can cause prices to balloon, just as a tiny shortage can cause prices to balloon.
It would therefore almost certainly be better to have Ukraine functioning and for Europe to trade with an ever more integrated and ever more well-functioning Ukraine.
Letting these people in isn't something is good for the economy, it's a matter of protecting people from war-- i.e. they're refugees.
> It would therefore almost certainly be better to have Ukraine functioning and for Europe
Indeed, it sound crazy to me for Europe to be able to successfully absorb 40+ million Ukraianians. And even if the guy is only talking about absorbing the young and skilled, it's just gonna hurt those in the Ukraine who will be left behind.
"Well-integrated" isn't quite right. Slavic minorities are treated horribly by most Western Europeans (and Americans too). Historically, you'd go West, make money, and come back. Or if your country was bad enough, you'd go West, accept mistreatment, and stay.
They're well-integrated in the sense of "keeping your head down and not causing any trouble." If you cause trouble, you're liable to be deported, lose your job, or have other consequences.
Tolerance for foreigners has gone down in the past two decades by quite a lot. There's a perception the current culture wars have helped, but for most immigrants, they've done the opposite.
> "Well-integrated" isn't quite right. Slavic minorities are treated horribly by most Western Europeans (and Americans too). Historically, you'd go West, make money, and come back. Or if your country was bad enough, you'd go West, accept mistreatment, and stay.
That does not ring true at all. I am one of the slavic minority who lived in UK for 2,5 years and I do not remember a single instance of being treated poorly for being slavic. And I have not heard anything like that from any of my friends (and I believe I would know - people talk about these things). Sure, I went West, made some money and returned to my country. But not because I was treated poorly - many people have this plan from the beginning: you go to UK, improve your English, gain a lot of experience, make money and use those to jumpstart your career after you return.
“Slavs” is a European term. I worked with a bunch of Eastern Europeans in Canada and everyone is like “oh, that’s the former communist countries”.
The reputation of “slavs” in Europe does not carry to the Americas. They’re just “europeans” to us.
I used to chuckle s bit when Europeans would say “oh im from the Lorraine region” or “my ancestors were from Prussia”. I’m like “mother f’er nobody gives a shit, here you’re just white”.
I live in "the Americas." The discrimination isn't based on an abstract ethnicity. If you say you're Ukrainian, Russian, or Belarussian, no one will care. The discrimination is based on culture, communication style, accents, and a slew of other things.
Next time you're watching your favorite TV show, have a look at the person with the Slavic accent, and see what stereotype they play.
Are they the evil villain? The awkward nerdy pervert? The village crazy?
Pay attention for a few months. In my experience, 100% of the portrayals are based on stereotypes. Those stereotypes show up in schools, workplaces, and courts.
Maybe, just maybe the Russian accent, but Yakov Smirnoff was universally loved, so it’s not like Eastern European = evil.
I would agree that in general “foreign accent” had certain connotations, but I would challenge any average North American to identify a Russian vs Polish vs Yugoslavian accent.
And maybe my take is because I’m from a part of North American that was pretty much settled by Eastern Europeans? I mean they were most of the farmers back in the early 1900’s.
No, it's not Eastern European == evil. The most common connotation is creepy and socially awkward. Evil comes up too, but it's a runner-up. It's never /normal/, though. When was the last time you saw a normal person on TV, who just happened to be Eastern European?
The SNL episode this weekend, talking about Ukraine, went with the Eastern European prostitute stereotype.
It's worth thinking about what Yakov Smirnoff was loved for. The black actors in minstrel show were often beloved too. So was Aunt Jemima.
CBS just called us "relatively civilized" and "relatively European." Everyone picked up on the anti-Muslim racism, but few noticed that Eastern Europeans took a middle rung. More human than the Middle East, but less human than Europe.
Excellent news; I live in PT and already offered my house to UA friends but they were worried how to stay here longer term. There we go. Unfortunately most of my former colleagues cannot leave; they are men under 60 so they have to stay; the families that got out are looking for space.
During the 2015 crisis only 1.3 million people requested asylum. I think many many more people will come this time. This will lead to severe housing shortages, building activity causing stress, shortage of jobs, etc ,etc.
War refugees won't need a visa. EU will take them without visa - because there will be so many - they get asylum. Poland already has several 10k refugees. But there will be a million or more. Germany took more than 700000 refugees from Syria, last time. We will see similar numbers of refugees coming from the Ukraine.
It's Putin's war. He is destroying lives. He is a war criminal.
A war criminal that the EU keeps funding by continuing to buy gas. It used to be illegal to fund terrorist organizations but Germans and other EU countries dependent on Russian gas keep funding a terrorist country.
I would rather be cold than see Russians at the end of my street.
That is a bit of a broad generalization. The baltic countries, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Austria and Germany are the main dependents on Russian gas, most of the EU27 are not energy dependent on Russia.
Lots of countries are buying oil or gas from Russia. Including the Ukraine and the USA. The USA imports around 22 million barrels oil per month from Russia.
Hmm I don't get this question... Why do the same for Angola, if Angola is in a completely different situation, plus it has it's own relationship with Portugal?
There are plenty of protocols between Portugal and Angola, including visas, access to education, etc.
Do you realize that by asking that question, you're undermining the situation in Ukraine, right?
Angola standards of living improved remarkably in the last few years, has oil reserves as big as Saudi Arabia. Oil production from Angola has increased so significantly that Angola now is China's biggest supplier of oil.
Angola was a Portuguese colonial possession, and the question is if this sort of warm welcome was ever extended to those people of Angola who were under distress, who experienced subjugation under Portuguese rule itself.
What is happening in Ukraine, Portugal is not complicit in anyway. But in Angola and other places where Portuguese complicity was involved were such warm gestures and measures so forthcoming is the question.
Angola was a colonial possession back when Portugal was a dictatorship. Obviously, the people that were in power back then were not very nice. Once the old regime was overthrown, one of the first things that was done was ending the colonial wars. Still, I'm not sure how this is relevant right now?
The point here is that the Portuguese government (the current one, not the one in power during the dictatorship which ended over 40 years ago, and which you seem to be confused about) has done a good thing, and for that they deserve praise.
Yeah yeah. What forces Putin throws against the Ukraine he always had at his disposal in Russia, and he wouldn't hesitate to open fire on unarmed civilians.
So far stopping giving us visas is quite like how European countries were turning away jews fleeing the Nazi Germany. Jews should have stayed and 'disrupted the regime internally'.
Why? Nazi Germany and Putin's Russia are both fascist states. They both invaded neighboring countries. They both suppressed the opposition. They both assassinate political leaders of the opposing countries. If you think that there is a difference that Putin didn't exterminate millions, then give our guy some time, he's just getting started.
You have to keep in mind that these are human beings, who generally grew up in relative poverty (around 1/10th of the income of the average westerner), are fed constant Russian propaganda on TV, and by many recent reports, thought they were doing military drills until within days notice they were suddenly sent across the border with sugar-coated justifications (there's on outbreak of Nazis, go save the Ukrainian people and Donbas from them).
I haven't dug especially deep on this, but I thought what was actually happening here is that visas are no longer being processed in kyiv or further east (due to consulate staff have been evacuated). However they are still being processed in e.g lviv (or in, say, poland).
I think you're right. Looking at the Home Office website it appears that they have clarified the wording compared to what was quoted in the Independent article. The quoted text in the article was:
> "Ukrainian nationals in Ukraine (who aren’t immediate family members of British nationals normally living in Ukraine, or where the British national is living in the UK), are currently unable to make visa applications to visit, work, study or join family in the UK.”
The Home Office site[0] now says:
> "Ukrainian nationals in Ukraine (who aren’t immediate family members of British nationals normally living in Ukraine, or where the British national is living in the UK), are currently unable to make visa applications to visit, work, study or join family in the UK through a VAC in Ukraine. If you are able to safely travel, you can apply through a VAC in one of the nearby countries."
Which of course is in line with the reality of the consulate being closed in Kyiv.
I'm not familiar with this article yet but the British home office's political purpose to Tory governments is to antagonize immigrants and similar acts to appease hardline (racist, I won't mince my words) elements of British society. Priti Patel is taking this particularly seriously, so as a result of her own incompetence and fascistic tendencies, we might do something really quite stupid.
There's geopolitics to play here, so I expect the UK will take on Ukrainians regardless of domestic pandering (Eastern European migration is not seen positively by many British people).
>Eastern European migration is not seen positively by many British people
Which is incredibly ironic.
I love how Jimmy Carr put it: "These damn Romanians and Bulgarians, coming over here, stealing the jobs of our Poles." LOL
Or that British TV show 'Benefits Street' or something like that, where the only house on the street who's inhabitants were not on welfare and actually had jobs, was full of Romanians.
We have a rotten political system (and political class), but many cannot fathom their surrounding and thus we end up blaming immigrants and the poor as per usual.
In this context, they are. Not every facet of society has caught up to idealized equity. There is compulsory military service for Ukrainian men, and it should be fair to say that those without military training are objectively more vulnerable during a conflict.
You're welcome to play armchair general, but it's becoming obvious that you don't have much military experience.
> the men involved are not vulnerable to harm [...]?
That's not what I said. I'll restate my thought more plainly: in any kinetic conflict, you are more vulnerable without military training. Full stop.
Again, service is compulsory for men in Ukraine. So, generally speaking, yes - a 50 year old man with a few years of military experience will be more capable in a conflict than a 20 year old woman with no military experience whatsoever. The ability to shoot, move, and communicate - under extreme pressure, and hopefully coordinated with others - is not something you can muster up on-the-fly.
Are there exceptions to that? I'm sure of it. But we should try not to argue a position which hinges largely on outliers.
> I bet there are loads of "vulnerable" women who have stayed to fight.
You should feel welcome to find and provide data to support your assertion.
Anyone in a war zone is vulnerable - woman or man, child or elder. Training helps makes it less so, but it's never zero.
Recognizing that most of an army is comprised of men is not automatically sexist; clearly the Ukrainian military doesn't prohibit women from joining.
Encouraging people with no military background or ability to leave a conflict zone is not sexist, neither is it ageist or ableist. It is purely a matter of survival.
On that note, I'm going to take some breaths and be thankful for the privilege to argue about nuance on the internet.
True, but I feel it has more to do with foreign women historically being considered assets while men, liabilities. Vast majority of ME migrants are men.
And Portugal should cancel Abramovich citizenship, who is one of the closest to Putin oligarchs. My guess is at the time when he applied for citizenship he knew about what was going to happen, at least in general. Now as a citizen of EU member state he is exempt from yesterday's EU sanctions and probably any future sanctions. I'm afraid EU will not be able to impose personalized sections on him while he has this citizenship.
The party which forms the current UK government has received significant investment from wealthy Russian individuals. I do not trust them to make credible changes in this regard. Instead I expect them to punish regular Russian citizens who wish to visit or do business in the UK, and who cannot avail of the privilege afforded to those with significant wealth.
Absolutely not. Citizenship isn't a piece of candy to give out or take away.
Under no circumstances can or should it be removed. Even being able to give it up of ones own initiative is a morally repugnant, if necessary, compromise.
It is quite interesting that two people very close to Putin, Press Secretary Peskov and Abramovich, both have daughters that went on social media decrying the war. The way Sergei speaks to the public here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-u8EoWcI in front of Putin is pretty damning too. Already a Duma member has denounced the war. It's looking more and more like Putin has basically gone rogue mad and even his inner circle is showing immense cracks of support for this insanity.
Also in insanely damning excerpt from that conversion with Putin and Sergei:
Sergei: "I support the proposal about entry of Donetsk and Luhansk into Russian Federation."
Putin: "We are not talking about that. We are not discussing that. We're talking about recognizing their independence or not. Yes or no?"
Sergei: "Yes. I support the proposal to recognize their independence."
Also both Donetsk and Luhansk leaders became members of Putin's United Russia political party in 2021. Just in case anyone had any doubts about Russian's intentions for independent states.
Now not so good tidbit. Just few months ago we had a lot of people lured into Belarus by Lukashenko trying to come to Europe. Poland treated them really really poorly. Catching them after crossing border and pushing them back. The society was split among pro-refugees and anti. The political parties almost all focused on "protecting our border".
I was afraid that this natalist sentiment might repeat, even though Ukrainians are one of the closest people to Poland. I am very happy to note I haven't heard anyone speaking against refugees from Ukraine, not on twitter not on facebook not by far-right parties, altough I am sure some people are silent about their opinions.