Finland wants the European Union to stop issuing tourist visas to Russians until Moscow ends its war against Ukraine. Finland’s Foreign Ministry says Schengen countries issued close to 500,000 tourist visas to Russians in 2025. Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen declares that “Russian citizens should not be issued tourist visas,” adding, “The same must finally happen at the EU level.” Her argument is that Russians should not enjoy European freedoms while their country attacks Ukrainian homes. But who, exactly, is being held accountable here? The person applying for a holiday visa did not necessarily order the invasion, support it, or possess any means of stopping it.
I question the logic of making someone’s freedom to travel conditional upon a decision made in the Kremlin. What is an ordinary Russian supposed to do to satisfy that condition? Walk into Putin’s office and demand that he withdraw the army? Europe describes Russia as an authoritarian state and then treats its citizens as though they personally control its foreign policy. You cannot have it both ways. If political power is concentrated and opposition is repressed, the responsibility of the individual must be judged by what that individual has actually done.
The people with money have more options. Russian businessmen Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, for example, hold multiple nationalities and have challenged sanctions through European courts. That does not mean wealthy Russians are untouched by sanctions; many have faced asset freezes and travel restrictions. It means a billionaire’s position is very different from that of someone with one passport, a salary, and no team of international lawyers. A blanket nationality restriction is easiest to apply to the person least equipped to contest it.
As for espionage, does anyone seriously believe Russian intelligence depends entirely on Russians arriving with tourist visas and their real identities neatly printed in their passports? Documented cases show intelligence officers operating under commercial and diplomatic cover, as well as covert agents using false identities. Travel restrictions can complicate some operations, but they cannot replace counterintelligence. The Kremlin can recruit people already abroad or use intermediaries. Keeping out an ordinary visitor does not establish that a professional operative has been stopped.
There is also a consequence Europe seems unwilling to consider. Closing ordinary contact can strengthen the Kremlin’s claim that the West despises Russians themselves. A person who might otherwise discover that Europeans distinguish between a government and its citizens instead encounters a policy telling him that his passport is sufficient reason for exclusion. That outcome would serve propaganda far better than diplomacy. If the objective is to weaken hostility between societies, treating an entire nationality as suspect deserves considerably more scrutiny.
In truth, Russians already feel the hostilities from Europe. The arrogance is believing that another restriction on ordinary people constitutes a meaningful blow against rulers who remain in office. Finland is promoting the hatred of Russian people. The distinction between the Kremlin and the Russian citizen disappears.
Once an entire nationality is treated as suspect, people find it easier to dismiss the suffering of its ordinary citizens and harder to imagine any future reconciliation. Demonizing the population makes it politically easier to maintain confrontation. The rulers remain insulated while ordinary people learn to distrust one another. Europe should ask whether closing those human connections weakens the Kremlin or merely gives it another reason to tell Russians that the West hates them.