By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, issued a provocative threat to Schengen countries, stating Russian soldiers could enter without visas, referencing historical invasions of 1812 and 1945. This statement, made on Russia’s Defender of the Fatherland Day and the eve of the anniversary of the Ukraine invasion, directly responded to EU High Representative Kaja Kallas’s efforts to restrict former Russian servicemen from entering the Schengen area. Medvedev’s rhetoric, which often includes personal insults towards EU and US officials, has frequently targeted European nations with invasion and nuclear threats since February 2022.
Read the original article here
A recent assertion from a senior Russian official suggests that Russian soldiers do not require visas to enter European countries. This statement, delivered with a degree of bravado, seems to imply a certain inevitability or perhaps a justification for such an action, though the precise context and intended audience remain open to interpretation. The underlying sentiment appears to be that the usual bureaucratic hurdles associated with international travel are somehow irrelevant when it comes to military personnel undertaking what are euphemistically termed “operations.”
This perspective seems to sidestep the established norms of international law and diplomacy, which mandate that individuals, regardless of their profession, must adhere to the entry requirements of sovereign nations. The idea that a soldier, by virtue of their uniform, is exempt from visa regulations is a departure from standard practice and is likely to be met with considerable skepticism and concern by European governments. The notion of an unhindered military ingress into European territories is, understandably, a sensitive subject.
Further contemplation of this claim raises questions about the implied purpose of such unhindered entry. If the intention is not one of peaceful diplomatic engagement, then the statement carries a distinctly unsettling undertone. It’s akin to suggesting that an invading force wouldn’t need to go through the front door with proper documentation; they would simply bypass such formalities. This, of course, is precisely what a hostile military action entails. The notion of needing “customs forms to return home in coffins” appears to be a grimly humorous, yet pointed, counter-argument that highlights the potential consequences of such an approach.
The idea that Russian soldiers could enter European countries without visas is met with a strong counter-narrative that calls for immediate and decisive action. Many voices advocate for a complete ban on all Russians entering the EU until the current conflict is resolved, and there’s a parallel suggestion that the children of Russian officials residing in Western countries should be repatriated. This reflects a deep-seated frustration with what is perceived as hypocrisy, with Russian officials allegedly denigrating Western culture while simultaneously allowing their families to benefit from it. The proposed solution of a “return to sender” aisle for such individuals is a stark illustration of this sentiment.
The practicalities of implementing such a policy, or even just tracking individuals, are also brought up. Some believe that intelligence agencies from Ukraine and other affected nations should be actively compiling and disseminating lists of individuals deemed problematic. This proactive approach aims to preempt potential security threats. The recurring theme of Medvedev’s pronouncements, often characterized as outrageous, is also noted. There’s a sense that his threats have become so frequent and extreme that they have transitioned from being genuinely alarming to almost absurd, losing their impact as they become routine.
The question of why any Russians are permitted to enter the EU at all, given the current geopolitical climate, is a recurring one. The argument is that they represent a “guaranteed security threat.” This sentiment fuels the desire for stricter border controls and a more cautious approach to admitting Russian nationals. The imagery of “penguin capes and Temu vests” suggests a dismissive view of potential visitors, implying a lack of seriousness or even a mocking tone towards those who might attempt to enter.
There’s also a pointed observation that the official might be incorrect, despite the perception that Russian officials are rarely wrong. This sarcastic remark suggests a cynical view of official pronouncements, implying that they are not always based on reality. The idea that visas are unnecessary because documents are forged or recruitment happens internationally adds another layer of complexity, pointing to potential circumvention of existing rules. The stark reality of the battlefield, where “paperwork” is replaced by the grim necessity of body bags for those who don’t survive, is a powerful counterpoint to the bureaucratic language of visas.
The analogy of rockets not needing a visa to enter Russian airspace is a pointed remark that flips the logic, highlighting that weapons of war operate outside such conventional restrictions. The label “Court jester” for the official in question suggests a loss of respect and a view that their pronouncements are more for entertainment than serious policy. The idea of being “greeted by a bullet” underscores the hostile reception that might await any military personnel attempting an unauthorized entry. Similarly, the concept of body bags not needing visas to return to Russia highlights the ultimate, and unavoidable, transport of deceased soldiers.
The recurring mention of alcohol, particularly vodka, in relation to the official’s statements, suggests a perception that these pronouncements are fueled by intoxication rather than sober policy consideration. The comparison to Ukrainian drones entering Russian airspace without visas is another example of turning the original statement on its head, illustrating that unauthorized entry by military means is a one-way street, often resulting in significant destruction. The suggestion that Russian propagandists should also be denied Schengen visas and encouraged to vacation in less desirable locations like North Korea reflects a desire to isolate and discredit those who promote the Kremlin’s narrative.
The notion of entering “in handcuffs” implies that the only legitimate way for certain Russians to enter European countries would be as apprehended criminals. The assertion that the official is “right” about soldiers not needing visas is immediately qualified by the understanding that this applies to an invasion, prompting the question of whether invasion is the implicit intent. The idea that they are “busy fertilizing the ground in Ukraine” offers a grim perspective on the current fate of many Russian soldiers, suggesting that their entry into Europe is unlikely given their current deployment. The term “special operation visas” is a sarcastic jab at the official language used to describe the conflict.
The anecdote about a Russian at a visa counter being asked about their “occupation” and responding “No, just visiting” perfectly encapsulates the kind of deceptive pretexts that might be employed. However, the immediate rejoinder that they would “technically be shot on sight and would not remain long” brings the reality of an unauthorized military presence back into sharp focus. The question of whether Russia has enough soldiers to spare for such an endeavor adds a pragmatic layer to the discussion. The comparison to Swiss soldiers accidentally walking into Liechtenstein, while seemingly minor, highlights the seriousness with which border breaches are treated at the official level, suggesting that any unauthorized military entry would be met with far more severe repercussions. The final statement, likening the lack of a visa to not needing a key to break into a house, powerfully conveys the idea that an invasion negates the need for conventional entry protocols.