Magnificent News: Today's WorldView: As Europe opens it doors to fleeing Ukrainians, Britain adopts a ‘do-it-yourself’ asylum plan

Read online

Developments from Ukraine, global analysis and top reads.

By Anthony Faiola
with Sammy Westfall

Developments from Ukraine

• A woman burst onto the set of Russian state TV's flagship evening news program, chanting "stop the war" and denouncing government "propaganda" — a striking moment of public protest as the Kremlin cracks down on any criticism of its invasion of Ukraine. Human rights group OVD-Info identified the woman as an editor and producer with the broadcaster, and said she has been detained. Before storming the set of Channel One, she recorded a video message, saying "What is going on in Ukraine is a crime."

• At a seven-hour meeting in Rome, National security adviser Jake Sullivan issued a direct warning to his Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, about the potential consequences of any assistance that Beijing might provide Russia. The warning came after reports of Moscow's recent request for military equipment and aid. Both nations have denied the allegation.

• Russia's missile attack on a Ukrainian military base Sunday near the Polish border was launched from long-range bombers flying inside Russian airspace, the Pentagon said, detailing its latest assessment of the strike that killed at least 35 people. The attack has amplified fears in the region, and in the United States, that a miscalculation could drastically widen the war.

• The pregnant mother whose photo showed the tragedy of a maternity hospital bombing in Ukraine dies with her baby. The gripping picture, captured by photographer Evgeniy Maloletka for the Associated Press, encapsulated the war's toll on civilians. Now, the AP reports that the woman and her baby died in horrific conditions in the aftermath of the attack — arriving for surgery with her pelvis crushed and hip detached.

As Europe opens it doors to fleeing Ukrainians, Britain adopts a 'do-it-yourself' asylum plan

Nickoloi and Sergi wave goodbye to their wives and children as they leave on a train to Lviv, Ukraine, and then to Poland at the central train station in Kyiv, Ukraine, on March 7. (Heidi Levine/FTWP)

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine sparked what is now the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II, Fortress Britain has guarded its ramparts. At first, desperate Ukrainians seeking sanctuary in Britain needed a relative there as well as a visa, requiring visits to biometric stations in major European cities. After a hue and cry, online applications arrived, but still, only 4,000 visas were granted as of Monday, even as the continent hosts a legion of 2.8 million refugees and growing.

Enter a new program detailed Monday in which Britain's conservative government has effectively decided to outsource refugee care to the public — offering about $455 per month to local sponsors who take Ukrainians in rent-free. Even now — and unlike the European Union, where Ukrainians were granted free entry — Britain will still require a visa for those running from the Russian siege. A surge of British generosity ensued — with 43,800 sponsors rushing to register within the first five hours. But community-based refugee programs in Britain have been notoriously plagued by bureaucracy and other woes, and the British opposition on Monday decried the government's plan for Ukrainians as a "DIY" asylum program.

The British government said it will do its best to streamline the process now. But speaking to the BBC last week, Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab made one thing clear: The government is not prepared to "just open the door."

The lagging response is underscoring the extent to which Prime Minister Boris Johnson has clung to the anti-immigrant and anti-European sentiments that defined his winning Brexit campaign, which led to Britain's departure from the European Union in 2020. Britons wanted their country back, and that's what the Brexiteers delivered. So even in the face of a historic refugee crisis unfolding across the English Channel, Johnson's reaction has been to keep the Ukrainian exodus into Europe at arm's length from home.

There's evidence to suggest his government's halting response — one that puts vetting and procedure ahead of speedy assistance — is not in step with the British public. Polls show 3 in 4 Britons back refuge for those fleeing war, and about the same number want the government to do more to help those fleeing the Russian invasion.

Some observers see Johnson's foot-dragging as the product of a decade of conservative British politics that can be summed up by a famous quote from his fellow conservative predecessor, Theresa May. In a 2012 interview with the Telegraph, May — then head of Britain's Home Office — vowed to create "a really hostile environment for illegal migration."

The "hostile environment" policy has "influenced the way that everybody in government thinks, from top minsters to the bottom of the border agency," Tony Travers, a British politics expert at the London School of Economics, told me. "But they are suddenly being faced with the public having a completely different view of asylum seeking in this situation, and they are having a very hard time adjusting because they've spent 20 years trying to keep immigrants out."

Johnson's government has widened London's post-Brexit chasm with Europe — particularly with France. As Britain-bound Ukrainians bottlenecked at France's English Channel port city of Calais, allegedly caught in a bureaucratic nightmare to cross the channel, French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin accused the British government of a "lack of humanity."

French President Emmanuel Macron had traded barbs with Johnson over British proposals to turn asylum seekers crossing the English Channel back to France after 27 migrants drowned last November. Last week, Macron bluntly accused Johnson's government of talking big, but doing little to aid Ukrainian refugees.

Speaking of London's move to simplify the visa process for Ukrainians through online applications, Macron told reporters that he welcomed "the British shift, which shows there was a problem, despite what was being said at the time." He added, "Despite all the grand statements … the British government continued to apply current rules that meant they did not welcome Ukrainian refugees who wanted to reach British soil, saying they have to travel hundreds of kilometers in order to apply for a visa."

"It's a glimmer of pragmatism that they're starting to align themselves with their own statements, which is a step in the right direction, although much remains to be done," Macron said.

Britain has said its visa program that allows Ukrainians to join family in Britain could bring in up to 200,000 people — a number that would take more than a year to reach at the current pace of about 400 per day. Citing security, the British government has sought to thoroughly vet applicants — resulting in a process that some have described as "humiliating."

Its new effort, outlined in detail Monday by Housing Secretary Michael Gove, will allow in Ukrainians without family in Britain. Under that program, local volunteers will "nominate" Ukrainians they agree to house for at least six months in exchange for a stipend. Ukrainians will not be officially designated as refugees and will lack certain protections. But they will receive a temporary right to remain and work for three years.

Their numbers will not be officially capped, Gove said. But practically, participation may be limited. As the Guardian reported, a similar British program aimed largely at Syrians was cumbersome and bogged down by bureaucracy, with only about 700 individuals taking part since 2015.

Gove portrayed the request for the British people to open not only their hearts, but their homes, as a national project "to help those fleeing persecution find peace, healing and the prospect of a brighter future." Actor Benedict Cumberbatch has publicly offered to take part in the new Ukraine program. So too did Johnson's transport secretary. Johnson himself, a spokesman suggested, might not — due to "security" challenges.

Britons who already have Ukrainians in mind to sponsor can name them in their applications. But the government said charities, universities and community groups would have a "big role" to play in linking refugees with British sponsors who don't know specific Ukrainians but still want to help.

Nevertheless, doubts remained about how quickly that could happen.

The government "can't seriously be asking Ukrainian families who are fleeing Vladimir Putin, who have left their homes with nothing, to get on to Instagram and advertise themselves in the hope a British family might notice them? Is this genuinely the extent of this scheme?" Lisa Nandy, a senior official from the opposition Labour Party, told parliament.

Gove said Monday that 1,500 people across Britain had signed up in the first hour, a number that snowballed despite complaints on social media that the government website had repeatedly crashed.

But even once the government determines which homes are safe for Ukrainians — and which Ukrainians are safe to enter Britain — more questions abound. What happens, for instance, if British sponsors ask their Ukrainian guests — who will have permission to remain for three years — to leave after the minimum pledge to house them for six months? Who will house them? Where will they go?

"After weeks of dither and delay [the British government's] plan to protect people fleeing the war in Ukraine fails to match the need of the moment and the compassion of the public," Tim Naor Hilton, chief executive of Refugee Action, wrote in a statement. "It is a massive downgrade from the UK's previous support for refugees — and it may even put them at risk."

He added: "Community sponsorship is an important part of any refugee protection system and a wonderful way for people to show their support — but it can only ever be a drop in the ocean of what is needed."

1,000 Words

Oleg Supereka from the Territorial Defense forces of Ukraine shows a bombed office in Kharkiv, Ukraine on March 14. (Wojciech Grzedzinski for The Washington Post)

Viewpoints

30 young Ukrainians tell their war stories

By New York Magazine ● Read more »

Assassinating Putin won't work. It never has for America.

By Stephen Kinzer | Politico Magazine ● Read more »

What the shocking images of Ukraine's dead say about the media — and our biases

By Eugene Robinson | The Washington Post ● Read more »

Live Q&A

Thanks everyone for tuning into our Live Chat on the Russian invasion. We heard from four Post reporters, including two on the ground in Ukraine. Here are some of the highlights:

Q: Why is nobody talking about the Budapest Memorandum and the security "assurances" that were given to Ukraine in 1994 in exchange for handing over its entire nuclear arsenal?

Karoun Demirjian, Pentagon correspondent: What the Ukrainians agreed to was printed in text. Here is that text.

Someday when current events slow down it would be interesting to go back and look at how the Budapest Memorandum came to be thought of as something much more powerful than what it actually is. In it, Ukraine gets guarantees from the US/UK/Russia that its borders will be respected, that nobody will attack it with any weapons, nuclear or otherwise, except in self-defense, and such. (Russia clearly broke those promises when it invaded Ukraine — though it is telling that Putin keeps describing this war to his own people as an act of self-defense.) There's also a promise that if Ukraine is invaded, the parties will take the matter in the U.N. Security Council (of which they are all members) and try to get the U.N. to "provide assistance" to Ukraine.

But there's nothing obligating any of these states to independently come to Ukraine's defense or to rally NATO to come to Ukraine's defense. It's not a mutual defense pact like NATO's founding document is. Nobody was really duped here, as you suggest, because it's all written down — the guarantees and promises just aren't as hefty as people have come to think they are.

Q: I'm a 14-year-old with a huge interest in politics. I have been tuned into the Ukrainian war since the beginning. I'm always the go-to when it comes to questions about politics with my friends. But, I have no idea how to explain the war to politically disinterested 14-year-olds. Or, anyone in general. It's so complicated.

Isabelle Khurshudyan, Moscow correspondent in Ukraine: I think it's great that you're trying to explain this war to your friends, so I'll try to help make it as understandable as possible.

Imagine you have a next-door neighbor. The neighbor's house is really big. Your house isn't as big, but it's charming and you've spent a lot of time working on your garden and you love your house because, well, it's yours. The only downside is the neighbor, who's a bully. Eight years ago, he moved his fence across a patch of your backyard (Crimea) and then said that was his property now. And on top of that, the neighbor gets really mad every time you try to befriend other people in the neighborhood (NATO/the European Union). The neighbor even says your house and your backyard was never really yours — it was actually always just an extension of his. And of course that's nonsense, you say. But because you don't listen to this neighbor and say it's your right to be friends with whoever you want, one day the neighbor attacks your home. He stomps all over your garden, destroying a lot of the flowers. He wants the house for himself now. Other people in the neighborhood banded together to give you some tools to try to defend yourself from this neighbor, but they've decided to cheer you on from afar and stay out of the actual fight. In a way, you're defending not just your house but the whole neighborhood — because if the neighbor can take your property, won't he eventually try to take one of theirs?

Here's another way to explain it, through a Lord of the Rings analogy a Ukrainian battalion commander I embedded with told me:

"If you want to understand Russia and Ukraine, we Ukraine are Gondor. Russia is Mordor — very close and very dangerous. We need Gandalf and several hobbits."

Read the rest of the Live Chat transcript here.

War of Attrition

A family with their two dogs arrive at a damaged bridge as they flee Irpin on March 12. (Heidi Levine for The Washington Post)

IRPIN, Ukraine — The bodies of Russian soldiers were scattered by the wreckage of charred military vehicles and shelled buildings. Twenty feet away, behind tanker trucks, Ukrainian volunteers stood watch, their eyes on a cement mixer about 500 yards away. Behind it were Russian troops on the edges of Bucha, the next town over.

This front line in Irpin, on Kyiv's northwest outskirts, had not moved in two weeks despite the Russian military superiority. That itself was a victory for Cmdr. Casper and his fighters.

"The Russians were trying to push forward," said the short, burly unit leader who did not give his full name for security reasons but goes by a nom de guerre. "But they didn't expect that the Ukrainians were waiting for them."

When Russian forces seized control of a military airport in Hostomel, a few miles north of Irpin, on the first day of the war, many military observers expected a rapid takeover of Kyiv. But more than two weeks later, Russian troops have struggled to advance.

A visit to two active front lines — Irpin and near Brovary, northeast of the capital's center — offered insights into the strategies, tactics and capabilities of Ukrainian forces defending Kyiv as well as apparent Russian tactical errors and miscalculations of Ukraine's resistance.

"The Russians were not ready for unconventional warfare," said Rob Lee, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. "They were not ready for unconventional tactics. They are not sure how to deal with this insurgency, guerilla-warfare-type situation."

To be sure, most military analysts and Western officials still predict that Russian forces will eventually encircle Kyiv and push into the capital, possibly aided by airstrikes. While this could prove true, it's far from clear whether Russian will prevail.

For the Ukrainian forces, this war is one of attrition. They appear to be trying to slow and wear down the Russian military, creating conditions for a stalemate on the outer boundaries of Kyiv. That would buy the Ukrainians time for other pressures on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In interviews, Ukrainian soldiers also said they capitalized on the Russians' own flaws, including using predictable strategies, a lack of knowledge of local terrain and even a surprising unpreparedness for a grinding conflict. Reports have surfaced on social media and on battlefields of Russian soldiers running out of food, water and gas for their vehicles. Some have reportedly surrendered after they got lost or due to low morale. Russian military convoys have slowed down or halted due to mechanical failures.

"Ukraine's main game is a game for time," said Michael Kofman, director of Russian studies at the Center for Naval Analyses. "To try to do something else is going to waste a lot of military potential they have available. Are they in a position to drive Russian forces out of Ukraine? No. Are they in a position to win the war? Yes." — Sudarsan Raghavan