Section 2. Russians in Europe. The Effects of the Russian and Belarusian Passport Policies on the E.U. Immigrants: A Poll

This section details the study design and parameters. It also breaks down the results of our poll that are the kind of statistics that are essential for accurate analysis. These results attest to the growing need for a positive solution and an effective fast-tracked travel document issuance procedure on the part of the relevant E.U. countries’ authorities.

Our poll aims to scrutinize the effects of the potentially tightened Russian and Belarusian passport policies on the migrants’ legal status across the E.U. The study focuses on the extent of the immigrants’ awareness about the possible legal risks, the modeling of the adaptive strategies, and the assessment of the ptoential integration and naturalization procedures. The results of the poll suggest a considerable degree of uncertainty among the respondents. Seventy-five percent of the participants view a potential ban on the passport extension as a critical instability factor, 40% are eyeing a potential citizenship change or call for international protection, and 50% have already faced tough obstacles while attempting to prolong their legal stay.

1. Goal and Methodology

The study seeks to identify and explore probable re-adaption scenarios for migrants as they may be looking at the embassies and consulates’ refusal to renew their current passports or issue the new ones. The poll examines the target demographic’s behavioral patterns that can affect their legalization strategies as well as the extent of structural and normative discrimination the immigrants have to deal with.

Data collection methodology:

• Format: quantitative poll backed with elements of qualitative analysis
• Duration: February 2025
• Sample size: 1,494 valid questionnaires representative of key social and demographic parameters
• Data collection methods: online polling via specialized migrants’ chats and forums; and selective semi-structured interviews with representatives of various categories of migrants (temporary residents, no status, asylum-seekers) that help substantiate the quantitative data available with qualitative evaluations.

Main Platforms:

• The Kovcheg Project’s chats and forums: a total audience of over 150,000 participants spanning Russian-speaking migrants in Germany (23,400), France (18,200), Spain (12,500), Italy (8,900), Poland (15,600), Portugal (7,300), the Netherlands (6,800), Belgium (5,700), Austria (6,200), the Czech Republic (9,100), Sweden (4,800), Finland (3,600), Denmark (2,900), Lithuania (2,500), Latvia (2,300), Estonia (2,100), etc.
• The Свободные россияне (lit. Free Russians) E.U. Facebook group: a total of more than 41,700 antiwar exiles
• The Пора валить (lit. Time to Flee) Facebook group: a total of 16,000 followers discussing the emigration options
• Extra channels: a link to the questionnaire was also shared through the activists’ Instagram, Threads, and X (former Twitter) accounts, which helped expand the cohort of respondents and reach out to less active social media users.

Data quality control: multi-tiered verification (screening questions, response consistency checks, audio recordings of the interviews)

Sample Commentary:

• A potential social desirability bias.
• The study focusing on migrants with a temporary legal status is arguably its biggest merit, for it is this demographic that is the most vulnerable to potential passport policy change. While the E.U. citizenship or permanent residence permit holders are unlikely to be affected by the possible policy updates, those with a temporary status are facing the actual risk of losing the legal grounds for their stay in Europe.

2. Respondents’ Social and Demographic Profile

Age and Gender Identity:

• Median age: 35 years old
• Gender breakdown: 60% men, 40% women

Location:

• The E.U. countries with the biggest share of Russian-speaking immigrants
• Main locations: Germany (35%), France (20%), Spain (15%), others (30%)

Legal Status:

• Temporary residence permit or national visa (80%)
• Permanent residence permit (10%)
• Applied for a humanitarian visa (5%)
• No legal status (5)

3. Legal Risk Awareness

High extent of awareness of potential restrictions: 78% stated their awareness of potential legal status issues.

Major ways of getting information:

• Independent media (51%)
• International organization (UN, EUAA, etc.) (29%)
• Alternative platforms (Telegram channels, forums) (20%)

Evaluation of potential repercussions:

• 75% deem it critical to their further stay in Europe.
• 20% expect moderate difficulties.
• 5% believe a new policy will not affect their status.

4. Legalization Strategies and Behavioral Adaptation

Most probable scenarios for immigration behaviors:

• Naturalization and citizenship with the country of stay (60%)
• Request for international protection (25%)
• Switch to the shadow economy and no legal status (15%)

Attitude toward repatration:

• Refusal to get back to the country of origin (50%)
• Repatration as a less likely scenario (30%)
• Neutral stance (10%)
• Return to the country of origin if faced with no other options (10%)

5. Socioeconomic Determinants Behind Immigration-Related Decisions

Income level affecting the adaptation strategy:

• Median monthly income: €1,500
• €3,000+ earners: 70% planning citizenship change
• Under €1,000 earners: 40% eyeing asylum as an option

Social environment factors:

• 60% factor in opinions of family and friends when making immigration-related decisions.
• 40% point to discrimination and pressure stemming from their legal status.

6. Administrative Obstacles and Institutional Conditions

Difficulty extending legal status: 50% face serious difficulty trying to get their residence permit extended

Biggest obstacles:

• Bureaucratic hassle and long processing times (45%)
• Insufficient awareness of procedures (35%)
• No valid residence permit (10%)
• Other factors (10%)

7. Aid and Access to Legalization Procedures

Key forms of aid:

• Legal aid attaining the target status (60%)
• Citizenship and residence permit counseling (50%)
• Financial aid and social support (30%)

Alternative legalization avenues:

• Status as a stateless person (20%)
• Temporary protection or humanitarian visa (40%)
• Amnesty and fast-tracked citizenship procedure (40%)

8. Key Findings

1. The Russian-speaking E.U. immigrants exhibit a high extent of future-oriented uncertainty if faced with passport policy change; they fear a high risk of rapidly deteriorating quality of life.
2. Most participants are willing to consider alternative ways of staying in the E.U., including a lack of a legal status. The overwhelming majority rule out a potential return to Russia as an option.
3. Hald of the participants are already experiencing diffuculty trying to get their residence permits extended.
4. Most people are looking for legal assistance, upgraded integration mechanisms, simpler residence permit renewal administrative procedures as well as a sound and updated immigration policy factoring in the challenges of forced immigration and the needs of the Russian-speaking community.