Since Russia invaded Ukraine, Georgia’s capital has become one of the most interesting places on Earth. Much of Russia’s cultural and intellectual elite — artists, writers, journalists, actors, directors, philosophers and professors — has poured in.
Enter a cafe, and you inevitably hear Russian and recognize someone you know. Cozy, picturesque Tbilisi is small, with everything in easy sight. There are countless Ukrainian national flags with slogans expressing support for the country, and there are messages scrawled on the fences and walls of houses: “Fuck Putin,” “Fuck Russia” or “Russian warship, go fuck yourself.”
That last epithet — the response of Ukrainian border guards on Snake Island in the Black Sea to a Russian surrender demand at the beginning of the war — quickly became a slogan of resistance.
Illustration: Tania Chou
The problem is that all Russians are now being condemned as supporters of Russian President Vladimir Putin, as though they were on that warship.
I flew to Tbilisi with my children and husband, who was the editor-in-chief of Dozhd, a independent Russian television channel that closed after the last window for freedom of speech in the country slammed shut. Even after the Russian government declared the channel a “foreign agent” in August last year, my husband and I were still allowed to work, because Putin considered it necessary to maintain a facade of democracy.
However, the invasion ended that. Despite persecution of the opposition and journalists, corrupt courts and authoritarianism, Russia before Feb. 24 gave many liberals some space to breathe and even speak out, but now Russians could be imprisoned for up to 15 years for speaking or sharing the truth about the war. That was a final warning.
After our move, which I still dare not call emigration, the realization began to hit. Putin has destroyed not only the lives of millions of Ukrainians, but ours, too. Moreover, he has achieved something previously unimaginable: The civilized world, with its values of humanism and respect for every individual, responded to the invasion of Ukraine by convicting all Russians. We are all responsiblefor the crimes of Putin’s government. We are all to blame.
In Tbilisi, a colleague from Dozhd entered a taxi and greeted the driver in Russian. A short conversation in English ensued:
“Russian?”
“Yes.”
“Goodbye.”
Likewise, when I was recently a guest on a Georgian youth television talk show, one of the teenage hosts told me that Russians arriving in Georgia would do well to go to Freedom Square in the center of Tbilisi and loudly proclaim support for Ukraine.
“I, for one, would not serve Russians in a cafe until they spoke about their attitude toward Putin,” she said.
With a lump in my throat, I muttered about human rights and democracy, that there is no such thing as “all Russians,” and that we do not represent Putin, but the discussion did not move on.
How did the West come to reject a whole nation? Blocking or, to use a fashionable term, “canceling” 145 million Russians is a simple way out of the current situation.
What Putin is doing in Ukraine is a tragedy. Every day we see heartbreaking images of razed Ukrainian cities, dead bodies lying in the middle of shattered streets, and wounded children missing arms and legs. When I read that Russian forces had killed a three-month-old girl and her mother in Odesa, I was filled with impotent rage. Those responsible must be held accountable.
The independent pollsters at the Levada Center have reported that 83 percent of Russians approve of Putin’s actions.
Of course they do, the indignant Western layman says. Russians have imperialism and bloodlust in their genes, and they like dictators. After all, they chose Putin. So, let them pay, too. Deny Russians visas. Freeze their bank accounts. Prevent them from attending prestigious universities. Banish them from theaters. Exclude them from Wimbledon. Let Russia become like North Korea. Let us forget that the place exists.
However, it is impossible to believe opinion polls conducted under a dictatorship, even when they are carried out honestly and competently. Intimidated people do not answer questions truthfully. We do not know how many Russians actually support Putin. What we do know is that in his 22 years in power, he has destroyed the possibility of choice by imprisoning or exiling his rivals and turning elections into a farce.
Perhaps recent history can point the way to a more nuanced Western response to the Russian people.
In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. That war was much shorter — it lasted only five days — and resulted in Russia occupying 20 percent of Georgia’s territory.
Then-French president Nicolas Sarkozy mediated the ceasefire talks. Although Russia did not fulfill its obligations under the subsequent agreement, France was not even offended and the other Western democracies quickly forgot the episode.
It is useful to recall the subsequent actions of then-Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili. Despite being one of Putin’s most uncompromising critics — he once famously called the diminutive Russian leader “Lilliputin” — Saakashvili abolished Georgia’s visa regime for Russians three-and-a-half years after the war.
“We will never close the border for Russian businessmen and tourists, because where business is active, there is no place for tank tracks,” he said.
Although Georgia and Russia still have no formal diplomatic relations, Saakashvili’s decision means that tens of thousands of Russians have today found refuge in a country bombed by Russian aircraft 14 years ago.
However, for many Georgians, the trauma of that aggression and occupation has not been overcome. They are experiencing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as a second war against them, which partly explains anti-Russian sentiment here.
Let us hope that the West can adopt a less emotional approach and reject the perverse logic of collective guilt. Instead of canceling all Russians, including those whose opposition to Putin has forced them to flee their homeland, Western officials should complete the task of targeting the resources, reputations and opportunities of those who really are responsible for this disaster.
Ekaterina Kotrikadze is a correspondent and anchor at the recently closed independent Russian television channel Dozhd.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young