# The EU Finally Shuts Its Doors to Russian War Veterans

> It took more than four years of war for the European Union to finally cross this symbolic threshold: banning entry into its

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Column
- Published: 2026-07-05
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/l-ue-ferme-enfin-ses-portes-aux-veterans-russes-de-la-guerre-en-ukraine

## Introduction: a border that finally becomes a principle

### A legal turning point Brussels is owning

It took more than four years of war for the **European Union** to finally cross this symbolic threshold: banning entry into its territory to anyone who has worn a Russian uniform since the start of the invasion of **Ukraine**. **European Commission** president **Ursula von der Leyen** put it bluntly on June 9: **"For the first time, we are proposing to ban entry into the European Union for anyone who has served in the Russian armed forces since the start of the war."** The measure sits at the heart of the **21st sanctions package** against **Moscow**, a package that also targets banks, cryptocurrency platforms, and Russia's shadow oil fleet.

The principle is stark, almost brutal in its simplicity: **Europe stays closed to anyone who took part in the invasion of Ukraine**. Coming from the continent's top executive, that sentence marks a break from years of purely economic or diplomatic sanctions. For the first time, combatant status itself becomes grounds for exclusion from European territory, a logic previously reserved for former members of terrorist groups like **Islamic State**.

### A demand pushed for months by Eastern Europe

This ban did not come out of nowhere. It answers months of steady pressure from a coalition of **Northern and Eastern European** countries led by **Estonia**. Estonian Prime Minister **Kristen Michal** made the case with a striking line to **Euronews**: **"Do you want these individuals living near you? No. That's why they must be banned for life from the Schengen area."** Tallinn had already banned roughly **1,300 Russian combatants** before the measure was even discussed at the European level.

In early June, a coalition of **eleven countries** had demanded tighter visa rules for Russian tourists, alarmed by the steady rise in arrivals from **Moscow** despite the war. High Representative **Kaja Kallas** took up the fight herself, writing unambiguously that **"Europe's door must not remain open to (former) Russian combatants."**

*I'll say it with the conviction that this measure was long overdue: you cannot claim to support Ukraine while letting its executioners sip coffee on a terrace in Nice or Milan once the fatigues come off. This principle, however late, restores a moral coherence that had been sorely missing from European migration policy toward Russia.*

## The 21st sanctions package: a sprawling architecture

### An arsenal that goes well beyond visas

The entry ban for veterans is only one element, however symbolically weighty, of a far larger sanctions package. According to figures released by **Brussels**, this 21st round of measures targets roughly **170 individuals and entities**, including nearly **90 additional Russian banks**, which would push the total past **100 sanctioned institutions** out of the **213 Russian financial institutions** tied to the international system. The package also proposes restrictions on **eleven cryptocurrency platforms** that help **Russia** dodge Western sanctions, including in third countries.

Notably, the text also introduces the first sanctions targeting Russia's fishing industry, with a full ban on cod and restrictions on other species. On the energy front, the **Commission** proposes freezing the oil price cap adjustment mechanism until **January 2027**, a decision justified by the price spike that followed the closure of the **Strait of Hormuz** during the American-Israeli war against **Iran**.

### An already-quantified impact on the Kremlin's war economy

**Kaja Kallas** put a striking figure to the press: all EU sanctions currently in force have cost the **Kremlin** roughly **$1.5 trillion** since the conflict began. The new package, she said, is set to target **80 additional entities and individuals** tied to Russia's war effort. **Von der Leyen** summed up the philosophy behind this new salvo in one line: **"Our sanctions continue to have a significant impact, deeply affecting the economic foundations that sustain Russia's military operations."**

The package also adds restrictions on imports of Russian metals, minerals, and auto parts, worth an estimated **60 million euros**, rounding out an already sprawling framework that touches nearly every strategic sector of the Russian economy.

*What strikes me about this package isn't just its scale but its strategic coherence: each sanction, taken alone, seems almost trivial, but four years of accumulation has drawn a formidably effective economic vise. That $1.5 trillion figure, if Kallas is to be believed, should silence anyone still claiming Western sanctions are merely cosmetic.*

## The surprise resistance from Paris and Rome

### Two capitals hitting the brakes in the name of law

But European unanimity, the sine qua non for adopting sanctions, is running into an unexpected obstacle: **France** and **Italy**. According to reporting from **Bloomberg** confirmed by **Euronews**, the two capitals are citing legal and technical concerns over the practical application of the ban, rather than opposition on principle. They argue that the appropriate legal basis lies in visa policy, a competence shared between the **EU** and member states, rather than in a sanctions mechanism under common foreign policy.

It's worth noting these are two of the European countries receiving the highest number of visa applications from **Russia**. A detail that hasn't escaped any European diplomat following this file closely, and one that fuels suspicion about the real motives behind this display of caution.

### Fear of a knock-on effect touching 1.3 million Russians

Russian outlet **RT** relayed concerns voiced in **Paris** and **Rome** that the measure, if poorly calibrated, could turn into a blanket ban affecting up to **1.3 million people**, including conscripts who never directly took part in combat. The technical challenge is real: how could each member state verify, case by case, whether a Russian visa applicant has served in the military since **February 2022**, absent a reliable centralized database?

Asked about the feasibility of the system, **Kaja Kallas** gave an answer disarming in its candor: **"I'm not an expert, but experts say it's possible."** A statement that, however reassuring it aims to be, mostly betrays the scale of the technical groundwork still to be built before any real implementation.

*I understand the legal caution from Paris and Rome, but I refuse to see it as anything other than a rather short-sighted diplomatic calculation. If you claim to defend Ukraine, you cannot simultaneously worry about tourist traffic from Russia into your airports. There comes a point where legal rigor starts to look a lot like bad faith.*

## The technical solutions under study in Brussels

### The Schengen Information System, backbone of the mechanism

Facing these objections, the **European Commission** is working through several concrete options. The first would modify the **Schengen Information System** (**SIS**), the border-management database consulted in real time by authorities across the **thirty participating countries**. This system could incorporate alerts based on shared intelligence, mirroring the mechanism already used for veterans of the 1990s Yugoslav wars, a historical precedent showing this type of mechanism is nothing new operationally.

The second option would require Russian applicants to explicitly declare their military service on any **Schengen** visa application, opening the door to individual review with tighter checks in cases of suspected false declarations. A more administratively burdensome approach, but one that puts responsibility directly on the applicant rather than relying solely on sometimes-incomplete databases.

### A tight timeline before mid-July

Member states are aiming to adopt the full package before **mid-July 2026**, a deadline driven by the need to avoid automatic review of existing sanctions measures. That timeline leaves little room to settle the legal disagreements between **Paris**, **Rome**, and the rest of the Union, even as the matter still has to be debated in the **Council of the European Union** before formal adoption by the **twenty-seven**.

This race against the clock illustrates a rarely discussed reality of how Europe works: the sanctions machinery, despite its apparent automaticity in headlines, remains subject to byzantine negotiations where every legal comma can delay by weeks a measure announced with great fanfare.

*This race against the calendar perfectly illustrates the European machine: announce with a fanfare, then negotiate in the shadows for weeks over technical details that can change everything. Let's hope mid-July doesn't turn into yet another deadline pushed back indefinitely.*

## A precedent redefining the doctrine of individual sanctions

### From status to conduct: a legal paradigm shift

What makes this measure singular isn't just its practical reach, necessarily limited since few rank-and-file Russian soldiers have the financial means to travel to **Europe**. It lies above all in its unprecedented legal architecture: for the first time, belonging to a professional category, military service, becomes in itself grounds for individual sanction, independent of any proof of a specific war crime committed by the targeted person.

This shift from **status to collective exclusion** introduces case law potentially heavy with consequences for the future of international sanctions law. European legal scholars, cited by several outlets, are already questioning the risks of challenges before European courts, particularly on grounds of proportionality and individual presumption of innocence.

### The relative weight of a largely symbolic measure

Honesty demands acknowledging that, in practice, the share of Russian tourist arrivals affected by this ban is likely to remain marginal. Massive front-line losses and the socio-economic profile of rank-and-file soldiers make an influx of wealthy Russian veterans seeking to visit the **Louvre** or the **Colosseum** unlikely. But the argument of symbolic reach should not be waved away: the message sent to **Moscow** matters as much as the measure's concrete application.

The **Kremlin**, through its state media, has already called the proposal **"paranoid,"** a label that, ironically, confirms the irritation the initiative has stirred on the Russian side.

*That the practical reach is limited takes nothing away from the value of the symbol: in matters of moral deterrence, principles sometimes count more than enforcement statistics. And the fact that Moscow is gritting its teeth says a lot about the measure's psychological effectiveness.*

## Extending the sanctions logic across 21 accumulated packages

### A methodical escalation since 2022

This 21st package didn't appear out of thin air: it's part of a methodical escalation that began in February **2022**. Each round of sanctions has added another brick to an increasingly restrictive edifice for the Russian economy, from **SWIFT** bans on major banks to restrictions on sensitive technologies, to the closure of European airspace to Russian carriers. This accumulation, often seen as laborious by impatient commentators, produces over time a considerable cumulative effect on Russia's productive and financial apparatus.

European leaders also took a further step on **June 19**, agreeing for the first time to extend the entire sanctions package for **twelve months** rather than the traditional six-month renewals. **Von der Leyen** hailed the decision as a signal of **"sustained pressure"** on **Moscow**, ending the periodic uncertainty that forced the **EU** to revalidate its measures every six months.

### A strategic coherence increasingly on display

This twelve-month extension changes the psychological calculus for **Moscow**: gone is the hope of a gradual easing negotiated at each six-month deadline. The message sent is one of European determination settling in for the long haul, matched to a war that itself drags on with no rapid resolution in sight. This regulatory stability also gives Western companies more visibility as they adapt their business practices to a sanctions framework now less subject to frequent adjustment.

The coherence between the veteran ban and this twelve-month extension traces a clear political line: the **European Union** is no longer just punishing sporadically, it's building a long-term architecture meant to durably isolate **Russia** for as long as the war in **Ukraine** continues.

*Shifting to sanctions automatically renewed over twelve months rather than six is, to my mind, the real strategic turning point of this European spring: we're finally leaving the logic of a renewable reprieve for one of structural isolation. That's exactly the firmness Europe needs against Putin.*

## The driving role of the Baltic and Nordic countries

### Geographic proximity that sharpens vigilance

It's hardly surprising that the countries closest to the Russian border have most consistently pushed for an entry ban on veterans. **Estonia**, **Latvia**, and **Lithuania** have lived under a direct existential threat since **2022**, shaping a political culture far less forgiving toward **Moscow** than the one seen in capitals in southern Europe, geographically distant from the front.

This Baltic discipline, already documented in the past on NATO defense spending, shows up here on the migration front with the same intransigence. **Tallinn** didn't wait for European consensus to act unilaterally against the **1,300 Russian veterans** already banned from its territory, a head start that served as a model and a spur for the entire bloc.

### A gradual snowball effect on hesitant capitals

The **European Council** had already written this issue into its official conclusions as far back as the **March** summit, tasking the **Commission** with assessing concrete implementation arrangements, without prejudice to national competence over visas. This incremental process, typical of the European method, allowed a proposal initially championed by a minority of countries to gradually mature into an accepted pillar of the 21st sanctions package.

The dynamic seen here illustrates a well-known mechanic of European chancelleries: a strong national initiative, pursued consistently, often ends up positively infecting the entire bloc, even when some members drag their feet at first.

*There's a clear geopolitical lesson in this sequence: it's always the countries most exposed to the Russian threat that lead the way, while capitals further from the front waffle in the name of legal subtleties. History will record that resolve came from Tallinn, not Paris.*

## The diplomatic fallout expected from Russia

### An already well-rehearsed rhetoric of denunciation

On **Moscow's** side, the reaction hardly surprised observers used to **Kremlin** talking points. The measure was labeled **"paranoid"** by Russian state media, reprising the now-classic rhetoric of presenting every new Western sanction as further proof of irrational hostility toward **Russia**, rather than as a proportionate response to the initial military aggression of **February 2022**.

This Russian messaging is aimed above all at a domestic audience, seeking to convert international pressure into nationalist fuel rather than an incentive to change foreign policy. A well-documented propaganda mechanism that in no way undermines the cumulative economic effectiveness of Western sanctions.

### A diplomatic impact beyond the migration question alone

Beyond the symbolism, this entry ban could further weaken Russian influence networks in **Europe**, complicating travel for figures with any connection, however indirect, to the **Kremlin's** military apparatus. It fits into a broader strategy of individual sanctions aimed at isolating not just the Russian economy, but its human and relational ecosystem with the **West**.

This human dimension of sanctions, often underrated compared to spectacular financial measures, nonetheless produces long-term structural effects on Russia's ability to maintain informal bridges with European societies, an issue that extends well beyond the war's strict budgetary framework.

*I remain convinced that this human dimension of sanctions, less spectacular than billions frozen in banks, will over time prove just as structurally damaging to Putin's Russia's isolation. We too often underestimate the power of migratory symbolism.*

## The legislative steps ahead to watch

### The mandatory passage through the Council of the European Union

The text proposed by the **Commission** must now clear the crucial hurdle of the **Council of the European Union**, where the **twenty-seven** member states will have to resolve the legal friction points raised by **Paris** and **Rome**. The unanimity required for any decision under common foreign policy gives each capital a blocking power disproportionate to its size, an institutional feature that explains the recurring slowness of Europe's decision-making process on sanctions.

Discussions should focus on clarifying the measure's exact legal basis, between sanctions logic and visa policy, a technical debate that could determine the legal soundness of the ban against any potential challenges before the **Court of Justice of the European Union**.

### A credibility test for European unity against Russia

Beyond the technical aspects, this case is a revealing political test of European cohesion in the face of the war in **Ukraine**. If **Paris** and **Rome** managed to gut the measure in the name of legal concerns, the signal sent to **Moscow** would flatly contradict the tough talk these same capitals display elsewhere on other files of support for **Kyiv**.

The outcome of these negotiations, expected before **mid-July**, will say a great deal about the **European Union's** ability to turn its declarations of principle into concretely applied measures, without excessive dilution through internal wrangling.

*Here's the real stake of the coming weeks: turning a strong statement of principle into a legally solid, effectively enforced measure. If Europe fails at this stage, it will send a signal of weakness far more damaging than the initial absence of this ban.*

## The broader context of Western military support for Ukraine

### A sanction added to an unprecedented defense effort

This migratory ban fits into a context of unprecedented Western mobilization since the end of the **Cold War**. European defense spending has surged spectacularly over the past two years, driven by sustained pressure from **Washington**, including under the administration of U.S. President **Donald Trump**, whose insistence on burden-sharing within **NATO** has, on this specific front, produced concrete, measurable results.

This rearmament dynamic, combined with an ongoing tightening of economic and now migratory sanctions, draws an increasingly coherent overall Western posture against Russian aggression, where every instrument of pressure, whether military, financial, or symbolic, reinforces the others in a logic of systemic isolation.

### Deterrence built on the coherence of the signals sent

It is precisely this overall coherence that gives the veteran ban its real strength: it does not work in isolation, but as one more link in a chain of deterrence that includes European rearmament, massive financial support for **Ukraine**, and continued economic pressure on **Moscow**. A weak link, such as a too-timid enforcement of the migratory ban, would undermine the credibility of this entire deterrent architecture.

The stakes go far beyond the visa question: it's about showing **Russia**, but also Western allies themselves, that the **European Union** can hold a firm and coherent line over time, without yielding to technical dilution or diplomatic fatigue after more than four years of conflict.

*Here's where I fully join the pro-West doctrine: every signal of firmness counts, and their patient accumulation, more than the spectacular effect of any single measure, will eventually convince Moscow that the Western fatigue predicted for four years won't happen.*

## The structural limits of a still-incomplete measure

### The persistent absence of a reliable pan-European database

It would be dishonest to close this case without highlighting its obvious structural limits. At this stage, the **European Union** still lacks a centralized, reliable database precisely listing individuals who have served in the Russian armed forces since **2022**. Intelligence shared between national services remains fragmented, and case-by-case verification, floated as a fallback solution, will require considerable administrative resources to become truly operational.

This technical gap partly explains the caution of **Paris** and **Rome**: without a reliable tool, the risk of errors, arbitrary discrimination, or, conversely, massive circumvention through forged documents remains real. The system's solidity will therefore largely depend on the technical investments made by the **twenty-seven** in the months following its formal adoption.

### A measure that does not exhaust the demand for justice for Ukraine

Finally, it's worth recalling with clear eyes that this ban, however symbolically powerful, is no substitute for the international justice mechanisms needed to document and prosecute crimes committed during this war. It is a complementary tool, not a substitute, for the individual criminal accountability of those who violate international humanitarian law in **Ukraine**.

It is this combination of administrative sanctions, economic pressure, and international criminal justice that, taken together, forms the only credible Western strategy for keeping the pressure on **Moscow** until a negotiated outcome that respects Ukrainian sovereignty is reached.

*I would rather be honest than incantatory: this measure has gaping holes in its technical implementation, and pretending otherwise would be lying to readers. But acknowledging its limits should never be an excuse for inaction, quite the opposite.*

## The symbolic weight against the cynicism of the long haul

### What this measure says about Europe's evolving view of the war

Four years after the start of the full-scale invasion, this entry ban reveals a profound shift in Europe's view of the nature of the conflict. We have moved from an approach focused exclusively on sanctioning the Russian state economically to a logic that now includes the individual accountability of those who took up arms against **Ukraine**, regardless of their rank or exact role on the ground.

This shift reflects an acknowledged weariness with the idea that the war could end with a simple return to diplomatic and migratory normalcy, as if nothing had happened. **Europe**, through this measure, instead asserts that participation in this war of aggression will carry lasting personal consequences, well beyond the mere end of fighting.

### A lesson for the future of hybrid conflicts

This precedent could inspire other European responses to future conflicts involving powers hostile to the **West**, whether **China**, **Iran**, or **North Korea**. The logic of **"combatant status as grounds for exclusion"** constitutes a new legal tool, one whose application to **Russia** will necessarily serve as a full-scale test for possible future use in other geopolitical contexts.

Perhaps that, at bottom, is the most lasting lesson of this case: beyond the Russian scenario, the **European Union** is equipping itself with a legal instrument whose reach will extend far beyond the war in **Ukraine** alone.

*This is why this case deserves attention well beyond its immediate news cycle: it sets a precedent that could, tomorrow, apply to other regimes hostile to our democracies. Europe is finally equipping itself with a doctrine, not just a one-off reaction.*

## The reaction of Ukrainian civil society to this measure

### Relief tinged with cautious skepticism

In **Kyiv**, the news was met with a mix of relief and cautious skepticism. Voices from Ukrainian civil society welcome a signal finally consistent with Western rhetoric on the individual responsibility of combatants, while noting that tens of thousands of Russian soldiers have already, since 2022, crossed European borders for tourism, work, or family reasons, without any systematic check on their military past.

This skepticism is not bad faith: it reflects a legitimate weariness with Western announcements that, too often in the past, have run into bureaucratic obstacles before producing any concrete effect on the ground. Ukrainians, on the front line for more than four years, have learned to distinguish symbol from genuinely operational measure.

### A strong demand for robust verification mechanisms

Several Ukrainian human rights organizations are now calling for the **European Union** to build shared, interoperable databases across the twenty-seven member states, a sine qua non condition for an entry ban to stop being wishful thinking and become a genuinely enforceable system at border crossings.

Without such a verification mechanism, these organizations warn, there is a real risk that the measure remains largely theoretical, applied unevenly by country and by border post, which would considerably limit its deterrent reach against **Moscow**.

*This Ukrainian skepticism should remind us of a truth too often forgotten in Brussels: a sanction that cannot be verified on the ground is nothing but a statement of intent. Europe must now prove, through concrete means, that this 21st package is not merely a communications exercise.*

## What this sequence reveals about the EU's strategic maturity

### A Union learning to combine firmness with legal caution

This sequence, from **von der Leyen's** spectacular announcement to the legal braking from **Paris** and **Rome**, actually illustrates a form of institutional maturity too often overlooked by hurried commentators. The **European Union** does not function like a unitary state capable of lightning decisions; it moves through laborious consensus, where every legal friction, however frustrating, also serves as a safeguard against arbitrariness and excess.

This slowness, often mocked, has its virtues too: it ensures that the measures finally adopted better withstand legal challenges and enjoy stronger democratic legitimacy than decisions made in haste. It's a fragile balance, but it's also the hallmark of a **Europe** that refuses to sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of immediate efficiency.

### A signal sent well beyond European borders

Finally, once adopted, this ban will send a signal that extends well beyond the European framework. It will remind every power tempted by military aggression that the Western international community now has innovative legal tools to hold combatants individually accountable, not just the states that employ them. A deterrence message whose symbolic reach could, over time, weigh more heavily than current migration statistics suggest.

It remains to be seen whether this ambition will keep its promises once confronted with the bureaucratic realities of the **Council of the European Union** and the persistent reluctance of certain southern capitals.

*I would like to believe that this European institutional slowness, so often criticized, will here produce a solid and lasting result rather than a diluted compromise. History will judge whether Brussels managed to turn a strong symbol into genuinely applied policy.*

## Conclusion: firmness has a price, inaction would have cost more

*At the end of this case, one conviction remains: better a slow but coherent Europe than a fast but incoherent one. The real test begins the day the first Russian veteran shows up at a Union border.*

### A necessary, if imperfect, step

At the end of this case, one thing is clear: this entry ban for Russian veterans of the war in **Ukraine** is a necessary step, even if it remains technically imperfect and legally contested by two European heavyweights. It reflects a profound shift in Western sanctions doctrine, moving from strict economic punishment of the Russian state to the individual accountability of those who directly took part in the aggression.

The tight timeline before **mid-July** will tell whether this initial ambition survives intact through negotiations at the **Council of the European Union**, or whether it will be diluted by reluctance from **Paris** and **Rome**. Either way, the signal sent to **Moscow** will already have produced its psychological effect, regardless of the final outcome of the technical negotiations.

### Europe facing its own test of coherence

This case, ultimately, goes beyond the migration question alone: it tests the **European Union's** ability to turn its declarations of principle into genuinely applied policies, without yielding to bureaucratic dilution or diplomatic fatigue after more than four years of war. It is this test of coherence, more than the exact number of Russian veterans concretely barred from entering **Europe**, that will determine this measure's credibility in the months ahead.

One thing remains certain: the principle is now set, and it will be hard for anyone to walk it back without publicly owning a retreat in the face of **Moscow**.

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- Analysis of the Russian veteran ban and Franco-Italian reluctance — June 29, 2026

- Official statement from President von der Leyen on the 21st sanctions package — European External Action Service

- The Guardian, announcement of the entry ban for Russian soldiers — June 9, 2026

- Reuters, details of the 21st sanctions package targeting Russian banks — June 9, 2026

### Secondary sources

- European Pravda, tracking adoption of the sanctions package — June 17, 2026

- Izvestia, Russian reaction to the ban announcement — June 2026

- Euronews, France and Italy oppose the proposed ban — June 26, 2026

- RT, coverage of French and Italian reservations about the measure — June 26, 2026

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/l-ue-ferme-enfin-ses-portes-aux-veterans-russes-de-la-guerre-en-ukraine