Find opportunities that are right for you to continue your education outside your home country.
© 2025 Freedom Degree
Freedom Degree, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. © 2025 | Powered by Strapi
Find opportunities that are right for you to continue your education outside your home country.
© 2025 Freedom Degree
Freedom Degree, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. © 2025 | Powered by Strapi
Apr 06, 2025
Dmitry Dubrovsky discusses why this is important and the challenges faced by Russian scientists who have emigrated abroad.
Russian scientific and educational initiatives overseas are organized under the "Eastern European Academic Alliance. " Sociologist and historian Dmitry Dubrovsky, who works at Charles University in Prague and teaches at the Free University, is one of the initiators of this organization. He explains the need for such an organization, its objectives, and its primary mission.
First and foremost, the idea originated some time ago but evolved in two distinct directions. One aspect of the idea involves the formation of an organisation with personal membership. It should be the broadest possible organisation, with Russian-speaking academy representatives drawn from those who left Russia after the outbreak of the war or earlier.
Another idea is to interact with different European institutions. Many people in academia have realised that we are moving in similar directions and must align our positions. The Russian academic community has nothing to divide, unlike the political community, which finds it difficult to unite. In general, we require an association to establish goals and objectives, to have our representation, and to keep track of where and how we are moving.
It was quickly apparent that the word 'Russian' in the name of this organisation stressed everyone, including Europeans. That is why we have changed the name to the "Eastern European Academic Alliance," as suggested by Science at Risk colleagues who are now supporting us. It is not yet clear how the alliance's work will be organised. We have a name and a specific set of project participants that are unlikely to increase significantly; rather, they will decrease depending on how we will survive in the current conditions. We're talking about a few dozen organisations that we hope to include in the association's circle. These organisations cover almost all Russian-language educational, research, and supportive projects in Europe and, to a lesser extent, Eurasia.
So far, we have only met in person once, in Berlin. We want to have regular meetings and maintain a common Telegram channel. This is the start. The next step is considering the coalition members' common interests and moving accordingly. This project requires mutual interest to succeed.
Yes, it's more of a network, a traditional umbrella organisation, with most participants speaking ex officio. They do not speak for themselves, but for the organisation, project, or association they represent. This complicates matters because it is not a personal position a specific individual holds but rather that they represent their organisation to another.
The tasks are obvious. The first step is to develop a common policy and communicate with national governments and European institutions, such as when Russian scientists face unreasonable restrictions on their work in Europe. These restrictions can appear completely unjustified, even impoper. It is necessary to engage in dialogue with national governments and academies, each with their own set of considerations and concerns, but there are currently no representatives to speak with. If there is a body that can speak collectively, it will be beneficial.
The second task is regularly lobbying for our community's interests in the European Union and the Council of Europe. There is already some interest, though goals and objectives are sometimes interpreted differently. I would like us to serve as a channel for such communication while offering our expert services and participating in educational and research activities. We have significant expert potential that can be effectively used.
The third task is to support our colleagues, to help us all stand on our own two feet and establish institutional roots in Europe. There are numerous issues here, as Europe does not have Russian as a language of science and education. At the same time, we cannot conclude that the Russian language is not in demand; there are still programs and projects on Russian studies; we must consider various scenarios for our organisations with varying needs: some require assistance in establishing themselves in a new location (such as FLAS), some are online, and some employ other strategies. We must determine how to assist projects with varying goals, how to find partners and consultants, and how to develop international relations.
We cannot claim that there are many such cases. There aren't many of us, so there can't be mass cases in principle, as all violations of academic freedom.
There are a few more of us than there were after the October Revolution in the 20th century, possibly twice or three times as many, but the situation is fundamentally different. A colleague from Iran at the Scholars at Risk conference in Vilnius in June this year aptly summarised the main difference. She stated that when people flee an authoritarian country, they are simply viewed as refugees. However, when scholars flee Iran or Russia, they are perceived as 'Iranian or Russian scholars.' Emotionally, this is understandable, but in practice, it generates what I prefer to call 'epistemic injustice.' People come with varying scientific achievements, but simply having a Russian passport already discriminates against them by a certain percentage. This seriously disrupts work. Furthermore, cooperation with Russians is 'not recommended in some places.'
The most depressing thing is that there are almost no clearly defined rules. The EU makes broad recommendations, which are interpreted ambiguously by national ministries and academies. There are several issues mixed in here. There are elements of a boycott, such as in Estonia, where Russian citizens are not admitted to universities. There are other types of sanctions, such as a ban on the aggressor state's technology dissemination. However, university education does not disseminate technology, rather it is based on open source materials. Nonetheless, some universities, such as those in the Czech Republic, prohibit Russian and Belarus students from studying specific subjects, citing sanctions.
This leads to absurd situations. I met a student in Prague who had studied physics for four years, but unfortunately, his studies ended in the spring of 2022. He was denied a diploma because he studied laser physics, which his supervisor believed violated the sanctions regime and supported an aggressor state. Despite having a physics qualification, this man now has to retrain as a medic.
Such stories, I repeat, are not mass stories, but academic life is always made up of individual cases, and there are many more than we realise. These are subtle but painful situations, such as blocking access to conferences, research, or positions. The problem is that we arrived (in Europe) with a different skill set and found ourselves in a highly competitive environment. Academia is very competitive, and even local specialists struggle to find work. We are not in the first or second row of this competition, but rather near the end of the queue. Furthermore, we are identified as Russian citizens, which raises red flags for many European bureaucrats, so applications for jobs or internships are sometimes rejected outright. I believe this is not 'Russophobia per se,' but rather the reassurance of certain officials who operate based on 'just in case.'
Exactly. Bureaucratic inertia is caused by the logic of general sanctions imposed by individual national governments, such as the Czech Republic. This is directly contrary to the principles of academic freedom. For example, we established a master's program at Charles University, where recognised foreign agents and 'undesirables' who fled the regime teach. However, the Czech Republic does not issue visas to our students from Russia, which is absurd. Twenty visas per year cannot jeopardise the country's security. Why will a spy student enroll in the master's program in Russian Studies? What interesting things can you gain there? Such stories have a negative impact: those who have already left prefer to keep a low profile, while those who are about to leave (Russia) decide to stay, fearing additional difficulties abroad. European colleagues sometimes accuse scientists who remain in Russia of 'collaborationism,' demanding that they leave without providing genuine opportunities to do so. One German professor bluntly told me that 'all Russians should go back to their Putin.' This is absurd and cruel logic.
Thus, there is a situation of academic refugee precariat, in which people of sound minds and memories, often not young, who are already established as academics in their home countries must constantly fight for visa extensions and their survival. Most of these are people on short-term contracts, with families and understandable human needs. However, we are all in a situation where our planning horizon is one year, give or take. That is why we must unite, stick together, and form networks of solidarity, one of which should be our Academic Alliance.
I have an example from my current experience, which I encountered when I was applying for master's programs. I found a government funding program in Ireland, but it was accompanied by a note that citizens of Russia or Belarus can not apply.
Yes, this is a common scenario. Academic refugee support programs frequently exclude Russia and Belarus from their list of countries. Masaryk supported Russian scientists fleeing the Bolsheviks in Czechoslovakia as part of the 'Russian Action' a century ago. Support of this kind is still available, but it is limited and frequently requires proof of political persecution. People fleeing the war without direct political pressure fall outside of these schemes. They are told, 'You haven't proven that you opposed the war; why don't you post anti-war messages on social media?.' However, if they had actively opposed the war, they might already be in prison. As a result, only a few people have access to the aid system. The mere fact that an academic has left the aggressor country is sufficient reason for assistance. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.
I'd say it's gotten easier in some ways, not because the situation has improved but because many people have already adjusted to the system. They have concluded that some countries and academic institutions are not worth contacting. If there was an increase in rejections in 2022, when people from Finland or Sweden received responses such as 'you are a Russian citizen, your country is an aggressor, goodbye, come back when you are no longer aggressors,' people have simply stopped applying to such countries and institutions. We have no idea what's going on there because requests are no longer being received.
On the other hand, the paperwork situation has clearly gotten worse for representatives of STEM sciences. There are more opportunities in STEM because many Russian scientists in these fields have excellent qualifications, and private companies in Europe are interested in hiring them. But another issue has emerged: security clearance. In Sweden, for example, a scientist enters a competition and is offered a job, after which he is subjected to security checks based on his citizenship. Whether he works on butterflies, theoretical physics, or any other utterly harmless research topic, the check is the same.
This procedure can take a year to a year and a half, so companies withdraw their offers because they can't wait long and will simply hire another candidate. The irony is that, again, there is no 'Russophobia' here; rather the state has implemented a separate security regime for citizens of several countries, including Russians, and security services are overburdened and unable to conduct quick checks. There is a similar situation with visa issuance in the United Kingdom, where I've been waiting for three months due to similar procedures. This emphasises an important point: many problems encountered by Russian scientists abroad are related to their Russian citizenship rather than their scientific activity. The situation improves significantly when a person obtains a new passport (for example, an Israeli one). Most Russian scientists do not have such privileges, and their status as Russian citizens creates obstacles for them.
One of our most important tasks is establishing communication with those who have remained in Russia. These contacts are necessary because many ties and friendships remain. Because the Internet has not yet been declared illegal (in Russia), such communication is possible and necessary. Frankly speaking, people who live in Europe and show contempt for those who have left - 'walking around in a white coat' - are a terrible nuisance. Such people do not consider their privileges and declare that all those left behind are "Putin's accomplices." This is an abhorrent position, and no one in our organization supports it.
Matters are more complicated because those who have left are treated differently in Russia. For example, I've faced accusations that I 'left to make a fortune out of other people's misfortunes' (apparently referring to my work collecting and analysing materials on academic freedom violations in Russia). But that was my choice, and I don't believe that those who left are automatically good and those who stayed are bad. Everyone has reasons for staying or leaving, and everyone is doing their best given their circumstances. Our mission is to support those who have left because only a few of us are left - between three and five thousand, according to my calculations. In Russia alone, 130 thousand researchers have registered on the ORCID portal. We (abroad) do not and will not shape the image of Russian higher education; our colleagues in Russia do so. But we can assist with connections, projects, and support. This is one of our primary tasks.
Of course, the Russian political regime is attempting to make such communication as difficult as possible by imposing various criminal sanctions on educational and research institutions. For example, more than half of the faculty at the Svobodniy are 'foreign agents.' The regime aims to deny scholars and students the opportunity to pursue an independent and free education abroad. People who take Svobodniy courses, including music theory, often use pseudonyms and hide their faces for fear of persecution. Our task is to find safe ways to continue academic interactions.
We discussed this with our colleagues. Such work should be done, but not under the alliance's banner, as this would quickly lead to us being labeled 'undesirable' by Russia. I believe the alliance will be declared undesirable sooner or later, but violations will be monitored separately most likely. In any case, we are using our connections and resources to gather and analyse data on academic rights violations in Russia. We are currently working on such projects in collaboration with the media T-invariant. As previously discussed, it is also critical to develop common approaches to addressing European academic freedom issues.
So far, there are more desires than strict plans, but regular meetings and planning will occur at the end of March/beginning of April. The first goal is to create a unified online directory of Russian academic organisations abroad containing all relevant information about us. The second dream is to hold a large conference of Russian academic groups, similar to the one in Prague a century ago. Still, visa restrictions prevent this from happening in Prague today. The third goal is to create a platform for regular communication where we can develop joint policies with our European colleagues and interact with national governments, the Council of Europe, and the European Union.
I always emphasise that nothing we are discussing is comparable to the tragedy of Ukrainian scientists and, more broadly, all Ukrainians who have suffered as a result of Russian aggression. However, I believe it is pragmatically foolish and ethically problematic to exclude Russian scientists from scientific dialogue because of their Russian citizenship.