At the SPIEF plenary, Vladimir Putin suggested that about half of the Russians who left the country have since returned. His stance toward migrants appeared conciliatory: “There is nothing wrong with it. Let people live and work where they see fit.” Yet he also noted that the process of extradition continues. Maxim Oreshkin, a deputy head in the president’s administration, echoed the idea that “almost half of those who left” came back in the fall of 2022, linking the trend to rising public optimism. Finance Minister Siluanov characterized some as pessimists who had not yet returned, arguing repatriation remains both possible and necessary.
Digitization Minister Maksut Shadayev stated that even the most accessible group of so-called IT professionals has found its way home. He suggested there is no need for a special program to lure this workforce back, though he did not disclose concrete numbers. He noted that by late last year about 100 thousand Russian IT specialists were abroad, roughly a tenth of the total. The Ministry of Defense, however, did not share his optimism and showed little interest in lifting conscription deferments for this group until the defense needs lessen.
Despite that, the Defense Ministry maintains its own sense of optimism. Defense Minister Shoigu recently remarked that there is no need for fresh volunteers for the special military operation, as 114 thousand people have signed contracts with the ministry, averaging about 1,336 new contracts daily, with more than 50,000 applications on record.
Consequently, the contract recruitment mandate introduced at the start of the year — seen as a safer alternative to another wave of partial mobilization — appears to be operating as intended. It seems to have reduced panic and quelled worries among relocation officers and their families, who now perceive a gradual retreat as feasible. Opinions on this shift vary, with some observers treating the development as soothing but not a guarantee against future pressures.
Followers of profile channels on messaging apps show that the initial panic after the mobilization announcement has faded. Many are returning to their homes after nine to ten months away, though not everyone plans to stay permanently. Some intend to resolve paperwork, settle affairs, or prepare for the next stage before deciding on the longer term.
The events of June 24 and the attempted rebellion underscored Russia’s unpredictable nature. Ambitious plans and countermeasures gave way to a mix of cautious bravado and retreat. Wealthier migrants rushed to secure private travel, while others sought available international routes. In places like the UAE, flights opened for a brief window at surprisingly low fares, though the moment passed as quickly as it appeared. Russia demonstrated a willingness to surprise the world, sometimes more than once in a day. Some alarmists postponed departure, while others delayed their return.
Many returnees did so because they could not find suitable work abroad, or because they confused tourism with immigration. Others faced a lack of opportunities or funds to sustain long-term life overseas. The current movement appears more financially selective, with many who left being relatively well-off, and a number of migrants finding the foreign environment challenging to endure. Those who are compelled to leave Moscow for a foreign country often face significant adjustments in social status and daily life, making permanent relocation a difficult decision for many. Some people come back quickly, while others hesitate or plan a more gradual transition. A portion of this group may eventually seek asylum depending on evolving circumstances.
There is little doubt that the Russian state has aimed to acknowledge the departures without inflaming the public. The reality has involved a mix of policy shifts and public messaging that seeks to ease tensions while maintaining control over the narrative. A broad political debate persists about how to handle the return of displaced citizens and how to balance national security concerns with humanitarian considerations.
Recent statements from lawmakers reflect ongoing tension about handling displaced individuals. Some officials have warned about potential foreign influence and called for strict controls, while others retreat from harsher rhetoric and advocate for careful reintegration. The dialogue continues to center on safeguarding national interests while avoiding sweeping punitive measures. The overall tone suggests caution, with an emphasis on order and stability rather than confrontation.
There are no definitive official figures detailing the full scope of departures or the exact number of permanent returnees. Estimates vary widely, especially for those who left during the early phases of mobilization and the subsequent military operations. The lines between tourism and migration remain blurred for many, complicating precise counts. Still, the trend points toward a steady, managed process rather than a sudden, large-scale exodus. This evolving situation requires careful monitoring by policymakers and observers alike, as the behavior of migrants and returnees will influence future policy and public sentiment.
In the broader political arena, authorities continue to frame the situation around loyalty and national identity. Tensions persist between defending the homeland and accommodating the realities of migration. Officials stress the need to prevent the exploitation of refugees and to maintain the integrity of national institutions. The discourse remains charged, with some leaders urging vigilance against potential insiders who might pose security risks, while others stress the importance of humane treatment and orderly procedures. The topic remains a dividing line in public debate, reflecting deeper worries about external influence and internal stability.
The document closes with a cautious reminder that interpretations of these events can vary. The situation remains fluid, and stakeholders should stay attentive as policies evolve and new developments unfold.