Friend, Foe, Migrant

Prague, August 12, Free Eurasia – Starting in late August 2025, a new ban on labor migrants will take effect in St. Petersburg: foreign nationals working under work permits will no longer be allowed to work as couriers, including food delivery. The decree by Governor Alexander Beglov, published on August 11, supplements an earlier ban introduced in July prohibiting migrants from working in the taxi industry.

The St. Petersburg measure is part of a broader federal trend. As of early 2025, restrictions on employing migrants were in place in more than 47 regions of Russia.

The question of why such a policy is being pursued against migrants, who are an important part of Russian society, remains central.

A Terrorist Attack as a Convenient Pretext

Following the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall in Moscow in March 2024 — which, according to law enforcement, was carried out by individuals from Central Asia — fear and xenophobia toward migrants, especially citizens of Tajikistan, sharply increased in Russian society.

Experts say the incident became a catalyst for anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant sentiment, actively fueled by the media and politicians.

Amid economic difficulties, mobilization, and general social tension, migrants have become an easy target for redirecting public frustration — a strategy political scientists call “shifting the blame.” Far-right and anti-immigrant groups have gained more influence, promoting the slogan “Russia for Russians” and exploiting deep-rooted racism toward people from Central Asia. The paradox, experts note, is that the Russian economy — particularly construction, housing and utilities, and services — depends heavily on cheap labor from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, while rising discrimination only increases the risk of labor shortages and economic losses.

Analysts also point to the role of government and religious rhetoric, which, by invoking threats to “Russian civilization,” amplifies fears and prejudices. The result is an anti-immigrant hysteria, a mix of psychological pressure, economic instability, and deliberate manipulation of public sentiment.

The Ukrainian Factor

In the context of the war with Ukraine, political strategists are using the image of the “enemy within” — embodied by migrants — as a tool to consolidate society and distract it from domestic problems.

Against the backdrop of the protracted conflict in Ukraine, sanctions, and the declining standard of living, the authorities have an interest in creating a simple, emotionally charged target for public resentment that is not directly linked to the front. Migrants in this scheme are a vulnerable group: they are visibly distinct, culturally different, lack political representation, and cannot effectively defend their rights.

The “dangerous migrant” narrative frames them not only as a source of crime or terrorism but also as potential “enemy agents” capable of destabilizing the home front. It is no coincidence that, during the investigation into the Crocus City Hall attack, law enforcement claimed to have found alleged links between the attackers and Ukrainian intelligence services.

This approach reinforces a “fortress under siege” mentality, mobilizes nationalist sentiment, and at the same time reduces the risk of open discontent with the authorities, as public attention is shifted from real economic and social problems to the “fight” against a visibly different group.

In the media, this manifests as intensified reporting on crimes involving migrants, official statements about the need to “protect Russian citizens,” and legislative initiatives to tighten migration controls. Thus, the image of the migrant as an enemy becomes part of a broader wartime propaganda effort aimed at maintaining public loyalty during a prolonged conflict.

In Russian public discourse, the figure of the migrant increasingly straddles the line between “one of us” and “the other.” On one hand, a migrant is a necessary worker without whom entire sectors of the economy could not function — building, cleaning, servicing, delivering. On the other, in times of war, political mobilization, and economic crisis, he becomes a convenient “outsider” for fostering national unity in the face of an external threat.

This duality allows the authorities to use migrants both as a resource and as a symbol of danger.

Free Eurasia