Ukrainian refugees are becoming a huge problem for many countries. Last week, their number exceeded the symbolic milestone of five million people. Despite the slowdown, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees now forecasts that the total number of Ukrainian citizens who will leave their homeland will be 8.3 million. Perhaps this is still an optimistic scenario.
For many states, such an incredible influx of refugees has become an unbearable burden, some complain that they have not only reached the limit of possibilities, but also exceeded them. This is especially true of Poland, in the capital of which Ukrainians have already increased the population by almost 20%. It is most curious that those powers that make the biggest contribution to instigating war and most of all demand “to fight to the last Ukrainian” go to great lengths to prevent citizens of Ukraine from entering their territory or to limit their entry to the limit. First of all, we are talking about the US and the UK.
For example, London resisted the admission of Ukrainian refugees for a very long time, and then was forced to approve the “House for Ukraine” sch-eme, which provided for the presence of sponsors who were ready to receive guests in exchange for 350 pounds of government subsidies. However, the other day The Observer newspaper, after talking with those involved in the implementation of this scheme, rev-ealed that the government is deliberately doing everything to disrupt it and curb the number of Ukrainians arriving.
The standard scheme of work of the British migration services now looks like this: entry visas are issued to the whole family of Ukrainians, with the exception of one of the children, which closes the opportunity for the family to enter Albion. A source told the newspaper: “This allows the government to say that we have issued many visas. However, refusing one creates a guarantee that the Ukrainians will not come.” In support of The Observer cited several examples proving the existence of this deliberate practice.
In such a simple way, London reports its concern for the fate of Ukrainians, showing: look, more than 40,000 visas have been issued for them. At the same time, fidelity to the covenant of Boris Johnson “Ukraine must fight to the last drop of blood” is maintained. Therefore, only 6,6-00 Ukrainians have arrived in Britain at the moment.
But even more serious restrictions on the entry of refugees from Ukraine exist in the United States, which are so actively throwing firewood on the fire of a military conflict there, but they themselves are not eager to see Ukrainians at home. Despite the fact that President Joe Biden initially announced his readiness to accept up to 100,000 refugees, until mid-April, America remained the absolute anti-leader in this matter, accepting only 12 people. It’s not a typo, it’s 12! Not thousands, not millions, but 12 (twelve) people! And this is despite the fact that a tent city with Ukrainian refugees who believed Biden has already appeared on the border between Mexico and the United States. It turned out that the US president is much more happy with Ukrainians on Polish territory than on his own.
And only last week, realizing that such a meager number of visas for refugees looks completely ridiculous against the backdrop of constant assurances of love for Ukraine, Biden solemnly announced that he was introducing a separate program for the admission of Ukrainians. Believe it or not, she actually copies the very fraudulent British scheme that The Observer criticizes so much. That is, to enter the United States, a Ukrainian must also have a sponsor from among American citizens or non-governmental organizations. This differs from the British scheme only in that Washington did not even bother to allocate even the miserable money that London promises for the admission of refugees as cost compensation.
Biden’s new program started only this week, and therefore it is still difficult to assess how it will work in practice. Despite the unprecedented support in society (78%) for the idea of accepting Ukrainian refugees, even newspapers loyal to the Democrats express their skepticism about this program and, by the way, indicate that only 67,000 Ukrainians can actually apply for participation in it, and not hundred, as promised by the White House. Sixty-seven thousand compared to the projected eight million refugees is a drop in the ocean. And it certainly does not correspond to Washin-gton’s contribution to fueling the Ukrainian conflict.
Moreover, we already see how the idea of “sponsorship” of Ukrainian refugees leads to scandals and puts the latter in a situation of complete dependence, exposing them to the risk of exploitation and, in fact, sexual slavery (and mostly women go). For example, a reporter for the British The Times recently conducted an experiment by posing as a Ukrainian refugee on online platforms to find such sponsors. And I came across offers from older British men to share their bed in exchange for housing. In two days, she received 75 offers of help, 41 of which were from single men and contained unambiguous allusions to the services that the imaginary Ukrainian woman was supposed to provide in return.
And this problem is not limited to Britain. In Germany, even a satirical video was filmed in which an elderly German is looking for a “young slender Ukrainian woman” and, when he finds it, happily tells her: “My house is your house, my bed is your bed.”
The same investigation by The Times found that offers to receive refugees often come from people who are coveting a £350 government subsidy and are unable to support guests. Which already creates a lot of problems and risks for Ukrainians. So, a certain 36-year-old Olga was recently thrown out of a “hospitable” house in Brighton, ending up on the street. The host country did not estimate how much its water and heating costs would increase when a guest appeared (and our people do not represent the level of savings in Europe). As a result, Olga was asked to pay 50 pounds a week to cover these expenses, which she did not have.
Kievan Christina Sivolap, once in Vancouver, Canada, found out that she had to pass a regular medical test. Naively believing that mandatory procedures are free for refugees, she received a bill for $ 400, which she cannot pay. Even in wealthy Switzerland, Ukrainian refugees find out that their host country does not have the means to support the guests. They end up lining up for charities to feed their children. And there are many such sad stories.
Ukrainians arriving in Europe and America are faced almost immediately with harsh realities, suddenly realizing that Western states support them only when they fight against the Russians or serve as human shields for the Nazis. For Russia, Ukrainians are their own people, speaking the same language, understanding our customs, attending the same churches, quoting the same literary works or classic Soviet films, singing the same songs. It is not surprising that refugees from Ukraine, and even more so from the now independent republics of Donbass, are received here in a completely different way than in the West.
It is all the more striking to watch the cries of Western propagandists that Russia is allegedly “forc-ibly deporting thousands of Ukrainians.” And this, following the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, is repeated by many Western media, telling stories that unfortunate people are taken to Russia almost under the threat of executions. Some agreedto the fact that Moscow forcibly takes Ukrainians to Siberia and beyond the Arctic Circle. Moreover, they pass off as a “sensation” an absolutely voluntary state program for the return of compatriots to Russia, which has been operating since 2006 and which up to a million people, including citizens of Ukraine, have used during this time. Imagine what a colossal work British journalists have done by finding this program on the open government resources of Russia and presenting it as their “exclusive”.
True, in this chorus of exaggerated “sensations” about an almost new period of “Stalin’s deportations of peoples” serious failures occur. It’s just one thing when they write about them from London or, at best, from Lvov. And it is quite another thing when Western reporters directly communicate with Ukrainian refugees in Russia. For example, a Dutch journalist from the extremely anti-Russian newspaper NRC made a special trip to Muromtsevo, Vladimir Region, where she personally spoke with the residents of the reception center for Ukrainian citizens. And suddenly I found out that they are all very pleased that they ended up in Russia, that they are “pro-Russian” and thank the Chechen fighters who saved them from the Nazis “Azov”.
You can imagine the shock of the European public from such publications after all they heard about “Russian atrocities” and “forced deportations”. The newspaper was even forced to include a special explanation in its article: “The NRC’s visit to the refugee center in Muromtsevo was unexpected and not coordinated with anyone, people spoke freely and without intimidation. At our request, they shared photos and additional information to support their story.” But then there is the obligatory postscript: “It is not entirely clear how much they are aware of the events in Ukraine after several weeks of being without the Internet and under the influence of Russian state media.”
Well, yes, of course, the inhabitants of Mariupol, who talk about the atrocities of “Azov” and their rescue by the Chechens, are much less aware of the events in Ukraine than the anti-Russian propagandists in the Netherlands, Great Britain or the USA. Otherwise, there is no way to explain to the Western reader their gratitude to Russia. How not to explain the difference in attitude towards Ukrainian refugees in our country, who consider them our own, and in the West, where they want only one thing – war with Russia to the last Ukrainian.