The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
More on Offering Asylum to Russian Soldiers Who Surrender in Ukraine
The idea has gained additional adherents, and there are various proposals on how to implement it.

Last week, I wrote a post making the case for granting refuge to Russian soldiers who surrender in Ukraine, an idea first advanced by Duke economist Timur Kuran. Since then, the proposal has gained additional adherents. Time has an article on the subject:
As world leaders attempt to isolate and punish Russia with sanctions and trade bans for its invasion of Ukraine, a handful of American academics are pushing a more unconventional idea: the United States and Europe should offer refuge to Russian soldiers who defect and surrender.
Peter Schuck, a former Yale Law School professor, and Ilya Somin, a George Mason University's Anontin Scalia Law School, each published op-eds on the subject—in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, respectively—and Timur Kuran, an economist at Duke University tweeted the idea on Feb. 26. "Don't assume Russian soldiers and officers like what they are doing," he wrote. "Some…must be willing to break ranks, if only they have options. Let [European Union] and NATO countries offer asylum to Russian military defectors."
Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research institution, says it's an idea countries should consider. "Countries should certainly offer safe harbor to Russians who run afoul of the Russian government and have protection needs," she says….
The Time article also notes some ways the proposal could be implemented:
Somin suggests that Russian defectors could utilize the U.S.'s humanitarian parole program, which offers temporary protections from deportation for people on humanitarian grounds—a quick fix considering the state of the U.S.'s refugee system. Nearly all of the Afghans who resettled in the U.S. since the withdrawal last summer are in the country under humanitarian parole.
It's also possible, although not likely, that Congress could act to welcome Russian military defectors. "This is the sort of thing that is just common sense. It's not a left wing idea or a right wing idea," Kuran tells TIME.
In his Wall Street Journal article, referenced by Time, Peter Schuck outlines some advantages of the plan, explaining that even a relatively small number of defections could potentially make a significant difference:
Such a scheme is likely to be effective because even a few initial defections can have a cascading effect, especially if other troops fear that the offer may be time-limited. The scheme would entail no risk to NATO forces (quite the contrary) and cost the NATO countries essentially nothing, particularly if the defectors are spread among them. In the U.S., the idea should have bipartisan political support; it both exploits the "soft power" that liberals claim America has forfeited and advances U.S. foreign-policy interests.
Meanwhile, the proposal has also been backed by economist Bryan Caplan (who suggests some improvements), Canadian political commentator Scott Gilmore (I discussed his ideas here), and David Frum, among others. Legal scholar Tom Dannenbaum argues that surrendering Russian soldiers are entitled to asylum under international refugee law, because of the illegal nature of Russia's war of aggression.
Historian Paul Matzko, another supporter, notes the successful historical precedent of American efforts to incentivize defections by Hessian German troops hired by the British during the Revolutionary War:
For all the Hessians who died on American battlefields, nearly as many remained behind under kinder circumstances. Many Hessians who arrived in this lush, free land quickly realized they were fighting for the wrong side. Approximately 3,000 Hessians deserted during the course of the war, fully a tenth of the entire force.
That was in part the result of a policy choice, one of the earliest actions of the new Continental Congress. In August 1776, Congress commissioned agents of German ancestry to go and pass out handbills near Hessian encampments on Staten Island, offering them clemency if they deserted. More than a few absconded to the already established German immigrant settlements in Pennsylvania and the mid-Atlantic states. That led to growing frustration among the German princes in the old country as they struggled to find capable replacements in order to avoid defaulting on their mercenary contracts. It was a brilliant strategic decision. Whether dead on the battlefield in White Plains, New York, or alive and farming a field in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, it meant one fewer Hessian soldier in the fight for American independence.
As the Time article notes, so far support for the idea is largely limited to academics and political commentators. It has not yet been adopted by the US government or any of its allies. But, hopefully, they might yet come round to it. The sooner the better. As I and others explained to Time, it's a cheap and easy way to degrade the Russian military, at little, if any cost ourselves.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Do you have a way to make sure you aren't granting asylum to the soldiers in Mauripol who are trying to level the city right now? What about the one's looting and shooting civilians in the woods?
Not sure that matters as much as making the higher-ups nervous and reducing how much further damage they do. If necessary, that can be investigated later.
Putin's mistress, and their 4 children are in Switzerland. A team should visit them, and invite them to live at an undisclosed location in the Ukraine. Let Putin wonder with every rocket fired.
Hey, Ilya. Your proposal will have minimal impact. How about your legal analysis that concludes that Putin can be hunted by drone, by the world every hour and killed for a reward of $100 million? Do you think that would be more effective?
I'd think those are the ones that we want to make a better moral choices and defect. The point is to give people a better choice than they are given in Russia.
We want the war to stop quickly and humiliate the aggressors.
It will take a lot more than some desertion to stop the war quickly. Russia has troops to spare and far more materiel. If they have any effect at all, desertions would more likely prolong the war.
These are exactly the sort of people the proposal would want to grant asylum to.
One thing I like about this idea is how frickin' nervous it would make the Russian leaders regarding any future adventures. Drop millions of leaflets all over, every day. Some will be scooped up and taken home, and if not used immediately, maybe later once "normal" relations have returned, and remembered the next time Putin or his successor gets frisky.
Same for China. Skipping direct military intervention, the recoil against participation in modern trade, and cutting off the oligarchs, should give any nation pause.
Oh the leaflets will be "Used" all right, just not in the Sense that You Mean (HT A Chiguhr)
Sounds like a great idea. Have them sign a surrender document asserting their intention to defect. If it turns out later someone is a war criminal or a spy, they get prosecuted. Plenty of precedent for that.
Good policy idea.
"[S]upport for the idea is largely limited to academics and political commentators" who fail to consider Purchasing Power Parity. A moderate monthly salary in Russia is $6,000 in terms of the purchasing power of current US dollars... and, due to the effects of the "Biden Bump," the purchasing power of each Russian citizen is actually growing at a rate HIGHER than that of each American citizen.
The Biden Bump includes the effect of 8% inflation, plus the effect of increasing taxes, plus the effect of wildly increased federal deficit spending, plus the effect on American citizens of sanctions against Russian citizens. Note that sales taxes and other percentage-based taxes clandestinely compounds the effects of inflation: a 4% tax on (an inflated) $1.08 is a higher tax than a 4% tax on (an uninflated) $1.00.
I don't think the Hessians are good examples. They had no ties to either country they were fighting for and mostly defected after becoming POWs and getting a taste of American life. Russian soldiers, however, certainly have ties to one side and often to the other. Most of them aren't at great risk (shelling cities and shooting civilians is pretty safe) and aren't worried about returning home to a land still recovering from the Thirty Years War and recently ravaged by the Seven Years War.
So say "Ivan Tuleeve" is captured, treated as a prisoner of war, and makes a claim. (I'm assuming that there will be some restrictions on the policy, and that you're not just opening the doors of the heartland to anyone who (1) attempted to kill others for the glory of Russia and (2) was extremely unsuccessful in doing so.) Ivan is disqualified due to any number of considerations. What happens to I.T. when he returns to his small Moscow apartment?
The policy also seems vaguely unethical, because it capitalizes on the fact that the person is being held as a prisoner of war by a country facing an existential challenge. The same offer wouldn't get much interest, I suspect, if you were to extend it to any member of the Russian army sitting safely at home.
Finally, you're not taking anyone off of the battlefield. They're already hors de combat for the rest of the game.
Just my $0.02. Incidentally, there's a fascinating symposium over at a West Point law site on the evolving situation vis a vis the jus ad bellum, jus in bello, what you will: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/category/ukraine-russia-symposium/
(No affiliation. Just noticed it while Googling.)
Mr. D.
PS: Volokh continues to put itself on the wrong side of the Third Geneva Convention with the Twitter screen-cap. Seems to cater to the curiosity of the public, risks humiliation. Plus I'm pretty sure the prisoners haven't signed any stock-photo likeness releases.
Descriptions I have seen specifically say deserters, and that may not include POWs.
(Reply is below in an accidentally-created new thread.)
Mr. D.
"you're not taking anyone off of the battlefield."
The idea is to get soldiers to desert. Existing POWs get asylum and that encourages more soldiers to take themselves off the battlefield.
"Volokh continues to put itself on the wrong side of the Third Geneva Convention"
The professor is not a contacting party to the Third [or any] Geneva Convention. Its not child porn, republishing the photos is not a war crime
"Volokh continues to put itself on the wrong side of the Third Geneva Convention"
Here is a whole bunch more violations for you!
All well and good on paper. In practice, imagine Russia showing the consequence by broadcasting the firing squad execution of the deserters families, while naming American politicians who caused that result.
" imagine Russia showing the consequence by broadcasting the firing squad execution of the deserters families,"
That will surely win worldwide sympathy fro Putin.
Just look how unpopular ISIS was until the beheading videos, and how their popularity soared afterwards!
More importantly, it won't win him support at home. Publicly executing deserters, as traitors to the motherland, maybe. But their families?
It works. It's Russian.
<i?Just look how unpopular ISIS was until the beheading videos, and how their popularity soared afterwards!
Now imagine how they would have been respected if only they had an air force.
Remember Russia's concern for international opinion in Chechnya? They had no trouble romping and stomping all over military, militias, civilians, etc. That is Putin's way. It's one thing to risk one's own life, but to risk the life of your family in a fight against a foe that will wipe out your entire family raises the bar pretty high.
Some commenters here seem to think we're dealing with Sweden.
This is Russia.
They solve problems by killing people.
Works. When's the last time Sadaam/Bin Laden caused any problems?
They didn't have nuclear weapons.
I'm not an expert (or even reasonably well-informed) on the law of war, but I doubt that a member of an invading army can desert and go over to the defenders' side without being protected as a prisoner of war. They're uniformed members of the armed forces in an international armed conflict. It's not like renouncing a conspiracy. Or perhaps I'm wrong.
Mr. D.
"The thrust of common Article 7 is that the acts or statements of protected persons may not be interpreted as a renunciation of their protected status, nor construed as a reason to rescind that status. For example, if at some point during captivity – other than at the time of general repatriation – a prisoner of war expresses a wish not to be repatriated, that real or purported severance of ties or allegiance does not affect a person’s status as a prisoner of war. Moreover, persons who express a desire to desert at some point during captivity remain prisoners of war until their release and repatriation. In short, common Article 7 entails that no effect may be given by the Detaining Power to any real or purported renunciation of rights."
(International Committee of the Red Cross 2020 commentary to Third Geneva Convention, Article 7)
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=EC74BE41FA8B49D7C12585840046DD0F#_Toc42432172
Mr. D.
Let's see:
"Art 7. Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be."
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/1595a804df7efd6bc125641400640d89/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument
Ooh, check these out:
"Art 15. The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health."
and
"Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody."
So, a non-waivable right to maintenance and medical attention, even if transferred to another country?
Here is a more difficult one - maybe someone can parse it to comply with the proposal in the post:
"Upon the outbreak of hostilities, each Party to the conflict shall notify the adverse Party of the laws and regulations allowing or forbidding its own nationals to accept liberty on parole or promise. Prisoners of war who are paroled or who have given their promise in conformity with the laws and regulations so notified, are bound on their personal honour scrupulously to fulfil, both towards the Power on which they depend and towards the Power which has captured them, the engagements of their paroles or promises. In such cases, the Power on which they depend is bound neither to require nor to accept from them any service incompatible with the parole or promise given."
Superpower with Megalomaniac "Decider" invades weaker Country, I've seen this movie allready...
Frank "Roosha can't invade a Sovereign Nation!, only the US can invade Sovereign Nations!"