Czech Republic: Institutional Political Agitation and Incitement of Interethnic Hostility Against Ukrainians

Continue reading

Tomio Okamura is a Czech politician and leader of the Freedom and Direct Democracy party (SPD) - said:

"Dear ladies and gentlemen, I have a hot update for you. 

Our government is intensively negotiating in the European Union about the possibility of ending the so-called temporary protection in the Czech Republic for all Ukrainian men of productive age. Because, as you know, the granting of the so-called temporary protection for Ukrainians is a regulation from Brussels.

I would most like to end all of it immediately, for all Ukrainians, because they regularly go to Ukraine on vacation anyway, but Brussels does not want to allow us to do that, so even if we ended it, all Ukrainians would remain here because under EU rules they are allowed to stay here.

We therefore really must intensively strive for the end of the war in Ukraine, because that would automatically end the so-called temporary protection for all Ukrainians in the Czech Republic and they would have to return home or they would have to apply for a standard residence permit. And here there is already room for our Czech government so that we can stop it.

So we are fighting, within about two months it should hopefully become clearer whether we will succeed in pushing through at least the ending of temporary protection for Ukrainian men of productive age.

We therefore must obtain the support of the other states of the European Union, that is difficult to obtain according to the current information I have, but we are simply fighting because there are already too many Ukrainians here and we must do something about it.

By the way, this month we are already submitting a new so-called foreigner law, because we will significantly tighten the conditions for the stay of foreigners in the Czech Republic, including the so-called temporary protections for Ukrainians, but the goal must be for those temporary protections simply to end."

When people in frontline areas of Ukraine prefer to die in their own homes from a direct bomb strike rather than attempt evacuation because they are convinced they will, with overwhelming probability, be kidnapped and unlawfully mobilized at the very first checkpoint during an attempt to evacuate, while civilians who do manage to flee face heavily militarized borders with the European Union, fortified with barbed wire, surveillance systems, camera traps, drones, night-vision devices, thermal imaging systems, trenches, and movement-control infrastructure financed by the same Czech Republic whose politicians now advocate terminating protection for Ukrainians — without enforceable human rights safeguards and under conditions associated with the institutionalized enslavement and colonization of a people.

And while the same Czech Republic voluntarily finances and helps sustain the same repressive state apparatus, coercive structures, and systemic conditions from which Ukrainians are fleeing, simultaneously advocates terminating their protection, refuses to recognize them as refugees, and instead places them under temporary protection mechanisms that avoid full refugee-status procedures capable of formally documenting witness testimony concerning the conditions they are escaping from — while also avoiding collection of ethnic-origin data and recognition of Ukrainians as a protected sovereign people possessing collective rights, self-determination claims, and national subjectivity under international law — thereby contributing to conditions associated with forced assimilation, destruction of collective continuity, concealment of allegations involving coercion, repression, war crimes, and other potential international crimes, statements like those made by this Czech politician are no longer merely political rhetoric, but effectively participation in maintaining the same closed cycle of coercion and conditions associated with the partial or complete destruction of a people, as well as violations of:

1. § 355 of the Czech Criminal Code— public defamation, collective humiliation, and hostile stigmatization of Ukrainians as a national group. Statements claiming that Ukrainians “regularly go on vacation to Ukraine anyway” constitute false and manipulative generalizations used to portray Ukrainians as abusing temporary protection and therefore undeserving of legal safeguards.

Such rhetoric deliberately creates a misleading public image of Ukrainian refugees, despite the fact that Ukrainian men face the risk of unlawful mobilization, coercion, and return into a state operating under officially declared derogations from fundamental human rights obligations. In practice, the overwhelming majority of returns are carried out by women, while Ukrainian men remain under direct threat of forced mobilization and severe restrictions on freedom of movement.

By spreading such narratives, the speech promotes public hostility, collective suspicion, and discriminatory targeting of Ukrainians on the basis of nationality, sex, and citizenship.

2. § 356 of the Czech Criminal Code — incitement to hatred and restriction of rights and freedoms of a group of persons. The speech openly advocates the collective deprivation of temporary protection specifically against Ukrainians, and in particular Ukrainian men, solely on the basis of nationality, sex, and citizenship status.

The deliberate targeting of Ukrainian men is especially severe because it promotes their forced return into a state that has officially notified the Council of Europe and the United Nations of derogations from parts of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Such derogations constitute formal declarations by a state that it is not fully complying with part of its international human rights obligations and legal guarantees normally required under international law.

By advocating the removal of protection specifically against Ukrainians under these conditions, the rhetoric politically legitimizes exposing a protected national group to unlawful mobilization, coercive state practices, severe restrictions on freedom of movement, and the absence of effective legal guarantees and enforceable human rights protections ordinarily required under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Such rhetoric therefore goes beyond political criticism and functions as public agitation for discriminatory deprivation of rights and legal safeguards against a protected national population.

3. § 352 of the Czech Criminal Code — intimidation and creation of fear against a protected group of inhabitants. The speech openly promotes the removal of legal protection from Ukrainians and specifically targets Ukrainian men for forced return into conditions of coercive state control, unlawful mobilization, restrictions on freedom of movement, and institutional pressure.

By publicly demanding the deprivation of protection from an entire national group while portraying Ukrainians as an excessive and unwanted population, the rhetoric creates a direct atmosphere of fear, insecurity, and collective targeting among Ukrainians residing in the Czech Republic.

The speech sends a clear political message that Ukrainians may be collectively stripped of safety, legal stability, and protection solely because they are Ukrainians, thereby legitimizing discriminatory pressure, collective intimidation, and hostile treatment against a protected national population.

4. Discrimination and creation of a hostile environment toward Ukrainians in employment and social integration — by publicly portraying Ukrainians as an excessive and undesirable population whose legal protection should be terminated, the speech creates fear, instability, and uncertainty surrounding the legal status of Ukrainians residing in the Czech Republic.

Such rhetoric directly affects employers, businesses, landlords, and institutions, discouraging long-term employment, investment, housing opportunities, and social integration for Ukrainians due to fears that Ukrainian workers may lose protection status, be forcibly removed, or become legally unstable at any moment.

As a result, the speech contributes to the creation of a hostile and discriminatory environment in which Ukrainians face indirect exclusion from employment opportunities, economic stability, and equal participation in public life solely on the basis of nationality, citizenship status, and political targeting.

5. Czech Constitutional Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms — direct violation of the constitutional principles of equality, equal human dignity, and non-discrimination. The speech explicitly targets Ukrainians as a national group and openly advocates unequal treatment, deprivation of legal protection, and restriction of rights on the basis of nationality, sex, and citizenship status.

Unlike national minorities with Ukrainian citizenship residing in Ukraine, whose members may relocate to states of ethnic origin and obtain residence rights, legal protection, or citizenship through ethnic descent mechanisms, ethnic Ukrainians have no comparable external national protection framework. As a result, policies aimed at removing protection specifically from Ukrainians disproportionately expose ethnic Ukrainians to legal vulnerability, forced return, coercive state pressure, and loss of effective collective protection.

Under these conditions, rhetoric advocating collective removal and deprivation of protection against Ukrainians functions not merely as migration policy, but as political legitimization of discriminatory pressure directed at a population lacking alternative national protection mechanisms outside Ukraine, indicates signs of deliberate ethnic cleansing.

6. European Convention on Human Rights — public hate speech and political incitement directed against Ukrainians as a protected national group. The speech promotes discriminatory termination of protection specifically against Ukrainians and Ukrainian men, portraying them as an excessive and undesirable population that must be “dealt with” through institutional restrictions, deprivation of protection, and political pressure aimed at reducing their legal stability and security.

Such rhetoric directly threatens and undermines protections guaranteed under:

• Article 3 — prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment; concerns include exposure to coercive mobilization practices, fear associated with evacuation, detention risks, and conditions arising under the continuing derogation regime;
  
  
• Article 5 — right to liberty and security; concerns relate to expanded emergency detention powers, arbitrary restrictions, coercive state practices, and risks connected to mobilization enforcement;
  
  
• Article 6 — right to a fair trial; concerns include weakened judicial guarantees, emergency procedural measures, and limitations affecting effective legal protection during martial law;
  
  
• Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life; concerns include interference with family unity, expanded search powers, surveillance measures, forced displacement pressures, and restrictions affecting normal civilian life;
  
  
• Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; concerns relate to pressure on religious institutions, state actions affecting churches, restrictions involving the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, searches of monasteries and religious premises, and broader interference in religious life during martial law;
  
  
• Article 10 — freedom of expression; concerns include wartime censorship, restrictions on media activity, blocking of online materials related to mobilization practices, suppression of criticism of state institutions, and pressure against dissenting viewpoints;
  
  
• Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association; concerns include restrictions on demonstrations, protests, political activity, associations, and limitations affecting organizations considered politically or ideologically undesirable;
  
  
• Article 13 — right to an effective remedy; concerns relate to limitations on access to effective judicial review and remedies during the derogation regime;
  
  
• Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination; critics argue that differentiated collective rights frameworks and selective protection mechanisms create unequal treatment affecting ethnic Ukrainians as a national group;
  
  
• Protocol No. 4, Article 2 — freedom of movement and the right to leave any country; concerns include exit bans for men of mobilization age, movement restrictions under martial law, and practical obstacles affecting evacuation and departure from dangerous areas;
  
  
• Protocol No. 7, Article 1 — procedural safeguards relating to expulsion; concerns arise where termination of protection may expose Ukrainians to removal into conditions of derogation, weakened legal guarantees, and coercive state practices.

The speech therefore goes beyond migration policy and functions as institutional political agitation aimed at legitimizing discriminatory pressure, legal insecurity, hostile treatment, deprivation of protection, collective intimidation, and systemic targeting of Ukrainians on the basis of nationality, sex, and citizenship status.

Combined with continued financial, logistical, and political support for Ukrainian state structures without enforceable human rights and collective peoples’ rights conditions, while simultaneously advocating reduction or termination of protection for Ukrainians abroad, such policies may be interpreted as contributing to coercive displacement pressures, institutional hostility, collective intimidation, and systemic vulnerability affecting Ukrainians as a national group.

7. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — public hate speech and institutional political agitation directed against Ukrainians as a national group during an ongoing nationwide derogation regime affecting fundamental civil and political rights.

The speech promotes the deprivation of protection specifically against Ukrainians and especially Ukrainian men, portraying them as an excessive and undesirable population whose legal protection should be restricted or terminated. Such rhetoric publicly legitimizes hostility, collective targeting, intimidation, legal insecurity, and forced vulnerability on the basis of nationality, sex, and citizenship status.

Such rhetoric directly threatens protections guaranteed under:

• Article 1 — right of peoples to self-determination; the right of peoples to self-determination is recognized as a fundamental principle of international law and protected under Article 1 of the Covenant. Critics argue that legislative frameworks concerning collective rights and indigenous status create asymmetrical systems of recognition, while proposals such as Draft Law No. 15103 concerning ethnic Ukrainians have been criticized for excluding equivalent mechanisms of collective representation and self-determination;
  
  
• Article 2(3) — right to an effective remedy; concerns relate to derogation measures limiting effective judicial review and access to remedies during martial law;
• Article 9 — right to liberty and security of person; concerns include reports of coercive mobilization practices, detention risks, expanded emergency powers, and fear associated with evacuation and movement during mobilization operations;
  
  
• Article 12 — freedom of movement; restrictions include exit bans for men of mobilization age, movement limitations under martial law, and restrictions connected to military control measures;
  
  
• Article 14 — right to a fair trial; concerns relate to emergency procedural rules, weakened procedural safeguards, and limitations affecting access to effective judicial protection during the derogation regime;
  
  
• Article 17 — protection of private and family life; concerns include expanded search powers, surveillance measures, interference with private life, and emergency powers exercised under martial law provisions;
  
  
• Article 18 — freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; concerns relate to state actions affecting religious institutions, including measures targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, pressure on clergy, searches of churches and monasteries, and broader state interference in religious life during martial law;
  
  
• Article 19 — freedom of expression; concerns include wartime censorship measures, restrictions on media activity, blocking of online materials related to mobilization practices, suppression of criticism of state institutions, and pressure against dissenting political or religious viewpoints;
  
  
• Article 21 — right of peaceful assembly; martial law measures have enabled broad restrictions on demonstrations, protests, and public gatherings throughout the country;
  
  
• Article 22 — freedom of association; critics point to restrictions affecting organizations and associations considered politically or ideologically undesirable under wartime security policies;
  
  
• Article 25 — right to participate in public affairs; critics argue that prolonged martial law and emergency governance weaken democratic participation and political accountability mechanisms;
  
  
• Article 26 — equal protection before the law and prohibition of discrimination; critics argue that the combination of laws concerning indigenous peoples, minorities, and collective rights frameworks creates differentiated legal regimes in which some recognized groups receive broader collective protections and representation mechanisms than ethnic Ukrainians, raising concerns regarding equality before the law and non-discrimination principles.

Under conditions where fundamental civil and political guarantees remain suspended or weakened under the nationwide derogation regime, such rhetoric cannot be separated from its foreseeable consequences. It politically legitimizes exposing Ukrainians to coercive state practices, unlawful mobilization risks, forced vulnerability, legal insecurity, weakened judicial protections, suppression of civil liberties, restrictions on religious freedom, censorship, and systemic absence of effective protection mechanisms.

The rhetoric also contributes to an atmosphere in which Ukrainians may fear evacuation, movement, or seeking protection abroad due to risks associated with detention, coercive mobilization, loss of legal stability, or forced return into conditions of nationwide derogation and systemic restrictions on fundamental rights.

Combined with continued financial, logistical, and political support for Ukrainian state structures without enforceable human rights and collective peoples’ rights conditions, while simultaneously advocating reduction or termination of protection for Ukrainians abroad, such policies may be interpreted as contributing to coercive displacement pressures, institutional hostility, collective intimidation, and systemic vulnerability affecting Ukrainians as a national group.

Critics further argue that this approach shifts the legal framework from protection of a sovereign people possessing collective rights, historical continuity, land-related rights, and self-determination, toward a reduced model treating Ukrainians merely as individual citizens without effective collective subjectivity or internationally protected national representation.

8. International criminal law framework — public political facilitation of persecution directed against Ukrainians as a national group under conditions of continuing nationwide derogation from fundamental rights guarantees.

The rhetoric promotes collective targeting of Ukrainians, and especially Ukrainian men, through calls for deprivation or termination of protection, portraying Ukrainians as an excessive and undesirable population whose legal stability and protection mechanisms should be reduced through institutional measures.

When viewed together with coercive mobilization practices, restrictions on movement, weakened judicial guarantees, censorship measures, pressure on religious institutions, differentiated collective rights frameworks, and continuing derogation from core civil and political protections, such rhetoric may indicate signs associated with persecution, degrading treatment, forced vulnerability, and systematic hostile treatment directed against a protected national group.

Particular concern is raised regarding:

• forced vulnerability created through reduction or termination of protection mechanisms;
  
  
• exposure of civilians to coercive state practices during the derogation regime;
  
  
• pressure contributing to displacement, fear of evacuation, or fear of movement;
  
  
• erosion of effective collective protection mechanisms affecting ethnic Ukrainians;
  
  
• assimilatory pressure associated with disputes over collective subjectivity, representation, and self-determination;
  
  
• public rhetoric normalizing hostility toward Ukrainians as a national population.

Tthe cumulative effect of derogation measures, coercive displacement pressures, deprivation of effective collective protection, assimilatory pressure, and public rhetoric targeting Ukrainians as an undesirable national population may raise serious concerns under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and international prohibitions on inhuman or degrading treatment.

Particular reference is made to Article II of the Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as certain acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such, including:

• Article II(b) — causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  
  
• Article II(c) — deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

The systematic public hostility, coercive pressure, deprivation of protection mechanisms, forced vulnerability, prolonged exposure to fear, legal insecurity, and conditions associated with displacement and forced assimilation may raise concerns under these provisions when directed against a protected national group.

Reference is also made to Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention concerning complicity in genocide, as well as Article 7 of the Rome Statute relating to persecution, forcible transfer, and other inhumane acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.

The constant public rhetoric portraying Ukrainians as an excessive or undesirable population whose protection should be restricted or terminated may contribute to severe psychological pressure, intimidation, degrading treatment, and sustained fear affecting the targeted population, potentially raising concerns under international standards prohibiting inhuman or degrading treatment.

Within this interpretation, continued political, financial, and logistical support for state structures operating under derogation measures without enforceable human rights and collective peoples’ rights conditions, while simultaneously advocating reduction of protection for Ukrainians abroad, may be viewed as contributing to conditions associated with forced displacement pressures, institutional hostility, erosion of effective collective protection, and risks affecting the long-term continuity and security of Ukrainians as a protected national group.

9. Complicity in forced assimilatory pressure against Ukrainians as a national group — advocacy for reducing or terminating protection for Ukrainians contributes to returning people into a legal and political environment characterized by continuing derogation measures, coercive mobilization practices, weakened collective protections, restrictions on civil and political rights, and unresolved disputes concerning collective national subjectivity.

Article 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine establishes that land, natural resources, and other collective assets belong to “the people,” while Article 5 defines “the people” as the bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of power. At the same time, Ukrainian legislation remains the subject of ongoing disputes regarding collective legal recognition mechanisms for ethnic Ukrainians, collective representation, and realization of self-determination rights comparable to those granted within other collective rights frameworks.

Under these conditions, coercive mobilization practices create a situation in which individuals may be compelled to serve, fight, assume military obligations, and swear allegiance in the name of a sovereign collective entity from which they allegedly lack effective collective legal subjectivity and representation.

The situation becomes especially serious in territories falling under Russian control, where Ukrainians may face pressure connected to citizenship status, political reassignment, identity erosion, and long-term assimilatory processes. In such circumstances, unresolved disputes regarding collective subjectivity and recognition mechanisms may affect questions of representation, reparations, victim status, and protection of Ukrainians as a national group under international law.

Combined with continued political, financial, and logistical support for state structures without enforceable human rights and collective peoples’ rights conditions, while simultaneously advocating reduction or termination of protection for Ukrainians abroad, such policies contribute to institutional hostility, forced vulnerability, coercive displacement pressures, and erosion of effective collective protection mechanisms affecting Ukrainians as a national group.

10. Political participation in interethnic conflict and severeand civil war conditions — the selective targeting of Ukrainians, and especially Ukrainian men, for deprivation or termination of temporary protection constitutes political support for discriminatory measures directed against a specific national group during ongoing conflicts surrounding collective rights, national identity, mobilization practices, effective legal subjectivity, and alleged interethnic conflict, and institutionalized inequality between national and ethnic groups within Ukraine, where recognized indigenous peoples receive collective rights, representation mechanisms, and legal recognition connected to sovereignty, land, and natural resources, national minorities receive separate protected legal status frameworks, while ethnic Ukrainians remain without explicit collective legal recognition mechanisms, rights of representation, or equivalent self-determination protections.

The legislative controversies surrounding Draft Law No. 15103, which proposes recognition of ethnic Ukrainians as a “titular indigenous people” without equivalent mechanisms of independent collective representation and political subjectivity, together with Draft Law No. 15223 proposing inclusion of the Gagauz among the officially recognized indigenous peoples of Ukraine, demonstrate the existence of deep disputes concerning collective rights, legal subjectivity, political representation, self-determination, and access to collective protection mechanisms inside Ukraine.

The rhetoric contributes to collective intimidation, institutional hostility, and severe internal tensions associated with coercive mobilization enforcement, violent confrontations involving mobilization structures, unequal legal status between ethnic and national groups, and institutionalized disparities in collective rights frameworks, where recognized indigenous peoples receive collective representation, self-determination mechanisms, and legal protections connected to sovereignty, land, and natural resources, while ethnic Ukrainians remain at the center of continuing disputes concerning collective legal recognition, representation, and effective collective subjectivity.

Under such conditions, the combination of coercive state practices, derogation measures, unequal collective rights regimes, pressure affecting religious institutions, censorship, forced displacement pressures, and unresolved disputes over national subjectivity creates conditions associated with severe intergroup confrontation, assimilatory pressure, erosion of collective identity, and destabilization of equal protection guarantees for Ukrainians as a national group.

11. Facilitation of forced displacement into conditions associated with internal civil conflict — advocating the termination of protection for Ukrainians and their return into a state operating under nationwide derogations from fundamental human rights obligations, coercive enforcement practices, violent confrontations involving mobilization structures, severe restrictions on movement, and unresolved disputes concerning collective national subjectivity constitutes political support for forced displacement into conditions many Ukrainians perceive as resembling an undeclared internal civil conflict.

The involvement of police structures, security services, mobilization authorities, checkpoints, surveillance systems, drones, thermal imaging systems, barbed-wire fortifications, and extensive movement-control infrastructure concentrated along Ukraine’s western borders as evidence that preventing civilians from leaving the country has become a major state priority even outside active combat zones.

Under such conditions, Ukrainians report fear not only of bombardment and active hostilities, but also of detention, coercive mobilization, violent enforcement practices, and loss of legal autonomy. Some civilians reportedly prefer to remain in frontline areas under risk of direct strikes rather than attempt evacuation because they believe they will, with overwhelming probability, be coercively mobilized at checkpoints.

Ukrainians in territories under Russian control are also facing pressure to accept Russian citizenship in order to preserve access to housing, employment, property rights, documentation, movement, and basic civil existence. Critics argue that such citizenship conversion frequently occurs not as a genuinely free political choice, but under conditions of coercive dependency, legal vulnerability, survival pressure, and absence of effective collective national protection mechanisms for ethnic Ukrainians.

Combined with ongoing disputes concerning collective legal recognition, representation, and self-determination of ethnic Ukrainians under Ukrainian law, such conditions may contribute to forced assimilatory pressure, erosion of collective identity, weakening of continuity as a national group, and reduction of effective mechanisms through which Ukrainians can assert collective rights, sovereignty claims, reparations claims, and protected national status under international law.

12. Support for collective deprivation of national subjectivity —  the rhetoric legitimizes the return of Ukrainians into a legal and political system in which ethnic Ukrainians remain without explicit collective legal recognition mechanisms equivalent to those granted within other collective rights frameworks under Ukrainian law.  Under normal democratic conditions a titular majority may be represented through general state institutions without requiring separate collective structures. However, under conditions of martial law, interethnic conflict,  foreign occupations, external denial of Ukrainian identity, nationwide derogation from fundamental rights guarantees, and severe disputes concerning collective subjectivity and representation, the absence of explicit mechanisms of collective representation and self-determination for ethnic Ukrainians creates conditions of political vulnerability, instititialized forced assimilatory, elimitating rights of sovereignty claims, replacement of collective continuity, and loss of effective protection as a distinct national group.

While the Czech politician repeats rhetoric resembling that of Nazi Germany and the “Final Solution” toward Ukrainians, similar to how the Nazis treated Jews, Ukrainians are already trying to guess which European country will create the first concentration camp for Ukrainians, where they will allegedly be taken under “humanitarian programs,” with supposedly “fair” military medical commissions (VLK) responsible for determining fitness for military service, and so-called humanitarian missions.

And this is precisely why many Ukrainians increasingly view the entire temporary protection system as a political fraud from the very beginning rather than a genuine humanitarian protection mechanism.

Because the war has not ended, and because the Ukrainian state apparatus continues to be associated with the murdering of civilians, violent abductions, coercive mobilization practices, arbitrary detention, severe restrictions on freedom of movement, persecution connected to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, searches of churches and monasteries, suppression of political opposition, closure of political parties and television channels, censorship, politically motivated prosecutions, and continuing derogations from fundamental human rights obligations, there is no honest humanitarian explanation for why protection is now being deliberately weakened while the underlying dangers themselves continue to exist.

Instead, increasingly brutal legal, economic, and social conditions are being deliberately created to make the continued presence of Ukrainians abroad psychologically unbearable, legally unstable, economically impossible, and socially hostile — in order to force people into leaving and returning under circumstances where any notion of genuinely free and voluntary choice no longer exists, while what is being imposed increasingly resembles not humanitarian protection, but a regime of intimidation, controlled isolation, permanent insecurity, exhaustion, and institutional pressure designed to break people psychologically until they “voluntarily” leave.

Ineed, this system functions as indirect coercion: weaken protections, increase instability, intensify hostility, tighten migration rules, reduce legal certainty, publicly stigmatize Ukrainians as an excessive and unwanted population, and eventually force people back into the same coercive environment from which they originally fled.

At the same time, the same European states continue financing, supporting, and politically sustaining the same state structures, coercive systems, and conditions existing under martial law that people are attempting to escape — while former president Volodymyr Zelensky, now effectively functioning as a hostage-taking terrorist ruler sustained through external democratic financing and emergency powers, refused to introduce a formal legal state of war that would have activated the full international humanitarian and refugee protection mechanisms ordinarily applicable to civilians fleeing armed conflict.

Under such circumstances, many Ukrainians increasingly fear that European policy is no longer aimed at protection at all, but at managing, exhausting, and eventually pushing Ukrainians back into conditions that may facilitate forced assimilation, loss of collective continuity, erosion of national identity, and long-term absorption into Russian-controlled political and demographic space through war, displacement, coercion, and institutional pressure.

And this is precisely why growing anti-Ukrainian rhetoric, tightening migration measures, and political calls for reducing protection are perceived by many Ukrainians not as ordinary migration policy, but as participation in a broader system of pressure contributing to the destruction, fragmentation, and forced displacement of Ukrainians as a national group.

Under § 368 of the Czech Criminal Code (Neoznámení trestného činu), the intentional concealment of severe crimes constitutes a distinct domestic offense. 

By maintaining hundreds of thousands of fleeing Ukrainians within a non-investigative legal vacuum and blocking standard asylum procedures that mandate formal interviews, host institutions effectively suppress crucial eyewitness evidence concerning alleged war crimes, violations of fundamental human rights, and violations of the collective rights and protected status of Ukrainians as a people under international law.

Deliberately blocking administrative avenues to document these testimonies creates an institutional mechanism of forced silence, stripping this policy of any genuine humanitarian character.

In this context, merely hosting refugees does not absolve a state of accountability; even the Russian Federation has absorbed millions of displaced Ukrainians while remaining the defined aggressor. 

Consequently, sustaining a restrictive framework that silences witnesses while supporting the apparatus executing these actions mirrors the same logic of structural coercion, shifting the policy into direct complicity in the concealment of potential international crimes.

Under these conditions, talk about equality, democracy, human rights, and humanitarian protection increasingly appears deeply cynical to many Ukrainians.

We sincerely hope that the Czech people themselves will never one day experience what Ukrainians are experiencing today.