2,300 Russians Fired by Nationality at Tech Firm

Fired for holding a Russian passport: 2,300 at one company

Note: A technology company is blamed for firing 2,300 Russian employees overnight suddenly. Without a court ruling, without a file, and without individual cause. Just an accent, a surname, a passport. The figure condenses the twist of the conflict: from sanctioning a state to punishing those born there. The dismissals of Russians by origin—including frozen accounts—have ceased to be read as an isolated case and are beginning to look like policy.

What is happening: blocked accounts and rescinded contracts

The pattern repeats across several countries and sectors. Russian professionals settled outside their country for years have found their accounts blocked and their jobs eliminated simply by virtue of where they were born. Technicians, athletes, artists: tours canceled, contracts rescinded, paychecks that stop arriving. The decisions coincide in time, and it does not seem coincidental: they arrive when sanctions against Russia extend to the civil sphere.

It is necessary to separate two things that the noise mixes. One is sanctioning a state, its companies, or its leaders. Another, very different, is removing employment or assets from a citizen residing thousands of kilometers from the Kremlin and who, in many cases, does not even pay taxes there. Those who support the measures argue that no one is neutral in a country that does not stop its government. Those who criticize them respond that nationality is not an opinion.

The legal objection is easy to formulate and difficult to refute. Confiscating assets or firing someone without a ruling clashes with the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of discrimination by nationality contained in the legal systems of the countries applying these measures. Community law admits exceptions in matters of sanctions, but rarely thought of to punish a peaceful resident.

Why was the same not done to Americans after the invasion of Iraq?

The most repeated comparison is that of double standards. It is argued that the United States invaded Iraq with evidence later revealed to be weak, that the war left a trail of civilian victims—100,000 in the cited count—and that, despite this, no American citizen residing in Europe lost their job or account because of it. The parallel has cracks, and those who wield it know it. But it leaves an uncomfortable question: what makes one nationality suspicious and another not.

The logic lurking beneath is that of collective responsibility: if your state attacks, you pay. It is an ancient principle and has antecedents that do not do justice to those who apply it. Just look at what was done in the Second World War.

The precedent of Japanese Americans

Then there was no talk of suspicious passports, but of camps. All US citizens of Japanese origin were interned, identified by what they were and not by what they had done. German and Japanese residents in democratic countries were also removed from civilian life. Decades later, these internments are studied as a stain, and documentaries denounce them without ambiguity. The reasonable doubt is whether, in thirty years, someone will do the same with this wave of dismissals. The historical material on these episodes is a click away and is cited insistently.

The neighbor who has been here for ten years and would never return to Moscow

Among the figures are people. A Russian couple settled in Spain for a decade lives in antiestéticar that they will be returned to their country. They do not defend the war; on the contrary, they wish that their president were met with the same end as Ceaușescu. This detail dismantles the label: nationality does not vote, does not sign decrees, nor decides invasions. Confusing a passport with a party is a calculation error, and that error is already crushing careers and current accounts.

The 'new unvaccinated' and the double standard in condemnation

A second line of analysis links this episode with that of the unvaccinated, sidelined during the pandemic with a similar mechanism: dismissal, social veto, exclusion. And a contradiction is pointed out: during the wave of Sarracinist attacks, it was repeated that one should not generalize or blame an entire collective. The same reflection demanded then does not appear now. Depending on who the suspect is, the discourse changes. That, at least, is what many voices claim.

---

Sanctioning a citizen for their passport? Today it seems an inevitable decision; in a few years, it will be explained with discomfort in some documentary. The breakdown of how many jobs, in how many sectors, and in how many countries have been lost deserves a review before deciding whose salary is withdrawn for resembling us. The forecast, with reservations: if the criterion is nationality, the list will not stop in Russia.