Russia’s Use of Naturalized Citizens in Conflict with Ukraine: A Human Rights Concern and Ethical Dilemma

During the Petersburg Lawyers’ Forum, Alexander Bastrykin, head of the Russian Investigative Committee, announced that over 30,000 migrants who had received Russian citizenship and refused to register for military service had been discovered. Out of this group, around 10,000 men were sent to the conflict zone in Ukraine. Most of these naturalized citizens were assigned tasks like digging trenches and constructing fortifications. Bastrykin emphasized the physical strength required for such duties.

Reports in the Russian media revealed that authorities had been conducting raids on companies that employed migrant workers, particularly those from post-Soviet states in Central Asia. Many migrants who already held Russian passports were being forcibly recruited into the military, while others were promised an easier path to citizenship if they joined the conflict in Ukraine. This recruitment strategy was adopted following a partial mobilization of 700,000 Russian soldiers in the fall of 2022.

Bastrykin also suggested that forcing naturalized citizens to join the military could lead to a significant number of migrants leaving Russia. He viewed this as a positive outcome as it would reduce the burden on resources and help make up for military losses without having to launch further waves of mobilization. The Kremlin’s decision to utilize naturalized citizens in the conflict was controversial and sparked concerns about its impact on both the migrant population and ongoing hostilities in Ukraine.

It is worth noting that this approach has been criticized by human rights groups who argue that it violates international laws on forced conscription and discrimination against minorities. They have called on Russia to respect its legal obligations and end this practice immediately.

In conclusion, Russia’s decision to utilize naturalized citizens in its conflict with Ukraine has raised several ethical concerns and has sparked controversy both domestically and internationally. While some see it as a necessary step to address military losses, others view it as a violation of human rights and international law.