OT: Wimbledon to bar Russians and Belarusians from competing
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
“In the circumstances of such unjustified and unprecedented military aggression, it would be unacceptable for the Russian regime to derive any benefits from the involvement of Russian or Belarusian players with The Championships.”
I get that organizations are trying to make a moral statement with actions like these, but still...
Now, should the NHL decide to bar Russians from participating in the Stanley Cup playoffs...
In this case, the source of the comment is less important. I included it as a fact not a moral position. For me the sentiment is the same had it been said by one of my neighbors or the check out person at the grocery store.
When confronted with such an enormous and horrific situation, it is easy to be overwhelmed and shrink into doing nothing. Yet, the little bits individuals can do, make a difference not only for the people of Ukraine but for the individual doing the action as well.
I heard a story about a lady in my neighborhood who knew how to make Borscht. She wanted to make a few pots and then sell it in bowls and donate all the money to organizations to help Ukraine. She went to the local grocery stores and explained what she was doing and two stores donated all of the ingredients needed for her to do the something she could do.
If that's ethics or morals. Fine. It's true I am guided by my Christian values and principles but that is not the only reason someone could help and do something.
I read your message to indicate that the injustice for the Russian born tennis players being negatively impacted simply because they were born Russian is not fair and therefore Wimbledon should not have made the choice. My comment was that Wimbledon did the thing they could do. Could they have done something else? Sure. Would it have had the impact it seems to already have had? Maybe not. If that was the case, I did feel your comment did err towards the contrarian side.
I think the reasons are valid. Maybe this is one more piece which rallies the Russian public towards Putin. No one can currently tell. The answer to that is probably going to be measured over a longer span of time and how the sanctions and economic impacts are handled going forward depending on what happens with the war. There are too many variables currently to rely on existing contexts which do not directly align with the situation currently taking place.
Just to be clear, my intention is not to be a contrarian. I just don't see the response of the Russian government as an indication of this policy's impact. Their response was predictable: lashing out.
I see where you are coming from and that's fair. We both agree that something needs to be done but disagree about what needs to be done and/or what the consequences of these types of policies will be.
The people of Russia will suffer first and foremost, if there are to be any changes that will come from within. The other option is WW3. Change will not come from Putin suddenly have a lightning bolt of enlightenment or allow freedom of speech where the citizen can decide. The irreparable damage has been done in Ukraine and there is no exit strategy now for Putin.
The people of Russia will suffer first and foremost, if there are to be any changes that will come from within.
Yes. And my point is that this has the potential to drive them into the arms of Putin, not away from him. That is not the basis for an effective policy. Do you disagree?
The other option is WW3.
So either punish the Russian people or fight WW3? Those are the only options? I absolutely disagree with this assessment. Keep arming the Ukrainians, help them to make further military actions costly to Russia, then give the Russians a face-saving exit. Sort the rest out later.
Unfortunately, the biggest thing that will turn the Russian people against the war is sending their troops home in body bags. See Russia vs. Afghanistan. (I say unfortunately because the vast majority of them are just puppets who don't know any better.)
"...then give the Russians a face-saving exit."
And so what is a face-saving exit? I mean, if Putin is to save face right now, he's keeping some part of Ukraine. And that is something the people of Ukraine are fighting with their lives to prevent. There is no such thing as a face-saving exit any more. That ship sailed away and sank - it ain't coming back.
The only way Putin leaves is when Zelensky, and his government, are gone. And then he'll leave 'peacekeeping' troops behind for years.
The reality is that Russia is probably going to end up keeping some part of Ukraine. The question is how much. Recognition of Russian control of Crimea? A deal that Ukraine will not join NATO? These are all bad options for Ukraine right now and would probably be unacceptable to them. Hell, they might not be acceptable to Putin right now. But how bad will these options be 1, 2, 3 ... n years from now for either side?
In the end, none of this is a sustainable policy for Russia. But Putin won't just leave without any gains/guarantees. Like I said, though, if you can make continued fighting costly enough for him, then what is required of for a 'face-saving' exit will be lowered. Even dictators aren't immune to the costs of sons and husbands coming home in body bags. But that takes time.
Troops are already coming home in body bags. 8 of the top 20 field generals have been killed in combat so far, as reported from multiple sources. The Russian leaders/Putin don't give a hoot about their average citizenry, who has little or choice and never have. Their soldiers, who have no choice, are expendable pawns, as long as the propagandized objective is attained/believed.
Russian casualties in Ukraine now outnumber those of the Afghanistan war. The difference is that Gorbachev knew it was better to cut losses and quit. Unfortunately the world isn't dealing with him now.
If NATO arms the Ukrainian Army with planes and more weaponry, who then DEFEAT the Russian army, I agree that might be the best of all outcomes, but it could escalate into a much more encompassing war, maybe not quite WW3, depending on what China and other countries do.
Gorbachev was certainly important, but I think you downplay the role that popular mobilization can have. During the Soviet times, no one believed the shit the government was telling them and the government knew it. And the government didn't care if the people believed as long as they didn't make any trouble. There was basically an implicit agreement that neither side would upset this equilibrium. The people kept quiet while the government do its stupid shit as long as they were allowed to go about their lives the best they could. But when soldiers started coming home maimed, dead, shell-shocked, this equilibrium was upset. People did not stay quiet anymore. Gorbachev did what he did because he knew that staying on the same path was unsustainable. He did not intend to end communism in Russia, and even said this himself.
At some point, people are going to start wondering why their sons and husbands are dying. Then they start seeking information from outside media sources.
There is also another thing that Putin needs to worry about, and that is the military. The more embarrassing this becomes for the Russian military, the more the military might start to question Putin's wisdom. He could start to see some major internal factions growing from within his regime, which is never a good thing for a dictator.
The thing that I worry about most, is will that lunatic - putin - use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. If he does, Lord help us all not being dragged into WW3, and all because of 1 fucking asshole!!! Hopefully the army in Russia will not follow his orders to launch such things.
We may be closer to that than we realize.
Seriously think about it. Putin was sitting on top of Russia gathering up all of Russia’s wealth with his Oligarch buddies. Nobody inside or outside of Russia gives a fuck or can do anything about it.
So he invades Ukraine? That’s just stupid as shit and probably insane.
He going to forever be a pariah. Desperate and paranoid. He is going to turn Russia more into N Korea not China…isolated and poor.
He may just say fuck it.
That’s the problem with dictators. They crush all dissent and surround themselves with unqualified yes men who wouldn’t dare disagree or bring bad news. He thought they would go in there, roll over the country and suddenly have expanded territory and more access to the sea and the world wouldn’t blink basically what they did in Crimea x100
unfortunately by purging anyone good, he was left with only people telling him how strong he was and how well he rebuilt Russian power. The rumor is Putin doesn’t realize just how bad it’s going as he is high on his own supply
Apparently they don’t want to give Putin a PR opportunity with a photo of a member of the royal family congratulating a Russian for winning Wimbledon. They also don’t want a negative PR situation for the royal family.
I say they should let anybody play who will agree to denounce Putin in their acceptance speech. (Yes of course that wont happen).
Yeah, that's what I want to hear from the leader of an organized religion - how to behave morally. Organized religions (mostly the largest ones in the world) lead the way in hate, bigotry, and exclusion.
You can downvote him, but if you are really being honest with yourself, 1VaBlue1 is right...
That's silly. If we disagree with him, by definition we're lying or self-deceived?
I'm not religious at all, but the great majority of human beings are. Therefore their institutions -- including churches -- generally reflect their prejudices, fear, etc. But religions also channel their best instincts, including hospitals and schools and various charitable initiatives. To *only* focus on the manifestations of human failure without at least conceding the benefits is ... well, I guess I won't say "not being honest." :-)
Besides. Yes, people who are religious have (sometimes awful) opinions, and unfortunately tend to cloak those opinions in religion. Still. There's no Catholic or Russian Orthodox army invading Ukraine right now. It's the Russian army, not the church's. Suggesting that religion is to blame for what's happening in Ukraine is a mistake, seems to me.
I'll blame nationalism and tribalism. Some people like to cloak their militancy in religion, to try and find some moral (spiritual) justification for it, but don't buy it. I don't think the Sermon on the Mount has much to do with this evil.
Very often the religion and the state are basically the same thing, especially in nationalistic countries. Pre communism Russia, Catholicism and pick your empire, Islam and Iran, etc.
His comment was the leader of organized religions, which to me is referring to the people, not religion itself.
I don't think he was saying that religion was to blame for Ukraine (unless you count cult of personality as a type of pseudo-religion), but rather he didn't see the merits of listening to someone's pastor moralize about it given the checkered past of those acting in the name of religion. I think it was meant to be a dark humor comment.
As such, I don't think religion has anything to do with what Putin is doing right now.
But, think about what people have done throughout history in the name of religion - there are pages, and pages, and pages, in text of wars, and battles, and persecutions done in the name of religion. The ironic part is that most all religions believe there is a higher being greater than oneself that is responsible for creation, etc., but people will fight to the death at whose god is the "correct" one.
Maybe they are all referring in their own interpretation of the same entity? Yes I believe in God, I just don't happen to think my belief is better or worse than anyone else's belief (or non-belief).
I tend to follow the MGoBlog rules, but I'll pose this thought and question to you since it is less about religion and more about society...
It is true that throughout history, various representations of religious leaders and their followers have done horrific things. Things which do not align with Christian teaching and beliefs.
This is because the church is made up of people. People who are not perfect. The same people who are interwoven into society. Church members are politicians, corporate employees, small business employees, unemployed, old, young, middle aged, male, female, LQBTQ, all races, all nationalities, all everything.
Is it right to condemn every country, company, or organization for the immoral hate filled, bigoted actions any of their members have taken at some point in history?
Anyone who knows a bit about history understands that humans are not inherently good. Humans have been fighting and doing terrible things to each other for as long as they have existed. The idea that people behave that way because of religion is a product of a belief system (an anti-religion belief system), not facts. Ironically, the anti-religion belief system functions as a quasi-religion for true believers.
April 20th, 2022 at 11:17 PM ^
Whoever negged me, thanks for proving my point.
April 20th, 2022 at 12:05 PM ^
Any Russian that does not denounce Putin and his war crimes should not allowed to participate in civilized society.
And I understand what that does to family and loved ones back in Russia.
Autocratic regimes must understand the additional cost for war and war crimes on a sovereign nation without cause or consensus.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-oligarch-lambasts-countrys-massacre-124450317.html
Yes, 100 times over. At some point Russians in leadership positions who still have some sanity left will finally realize how destructive this war is and will be on Russian society for years to come. Then they'll do what should have been done years ago before it ever came down to this - remove this murderer from his stolen office and get rid of him.
Putin is certainly a cold-blooded murderer. Anyone who advanced to his level in the KGB had to have demonstrated that unequivocally. Also, his enemies have disappeared regularly since he entered politics. That, however, means that it will not be easy for anyone to overthrow him.
April 20th, 2022 at 12:09 PM ^
Russian players, and even their Belarusian toadies, should ABSOLUTELY(!) be able to play in Wimbledon...so long as they answer the basic question:
April 20th, 2022 at 12:15 PM ^
I get not wanting to punish the athletes who have no real control over government decisions, but at the same time the Russian government is involved in an unprovoked decimation of another country so if this draws even more attention to that ongoing crisis and put some (slight) public pressure on the Russian leaders that's not the worst outcome.
April 20th, 2022 at 12:18 PM ^
I don't get this holier than thou attitude. This war is no less justifiable than America/UK's invasion of Iraq that left 200,000 civilians dead.
April 20th, 2022 at 12:40 PM ^
In hindsight, suffering world political/social consequences for the invasions ,and the deaths of thousands of civilians, in Iraq and Vietnam would have been justified. No holier than thou. Just do the right thing when you can and yeah the US hasn't always made the best choices. That's why we vote and use our freedom of speech.
April 20th, 2022 at 12:53 PM ^
The difference is the US isn't held to the same standard. What consequences did the USA face as a result of the invasion? Nothing other some lost good will. Russia is a pariah state right now. The world was equally disgusted by the events that took place in Iraq. The difference is no country can challenge or hold America accountable through economic sanctions. I will give you the point about voting. For American voters, the appetite for military action is very low after Iraq.
Let's say purely for the sake of argument that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the equivalent in every meaningful way with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That doesn't mean that the world should throw up its hands now. If avoiding inconsistency was the world's primary duty, no one could do anything in response to bad actions. But we shouldn't consider ourselves stuck with the poor behavior (or inaction) of the past.
Lancer:
I find your points hard to answer. Should American Tennis players have been banned from Wimbledon during the Vietnam War? Vietnam was unconscionable. The cost for Vietnamese and Americans was incalculable. Same for Iraq.
I don't know the answer. But I do think it is hard to criticize the choice made by the tournament.
April 21st, 2022 at 12:03 PM ^
Vietnam was unconsciable? Hardly. From a fundamental perspective, it was absolutely *no* different than the Korean War: a democratic ally nation (albeit with a flawed and somewhat autocratic government) was attacked by a communist-led neighbor to the north under the guise of "re-uniting" the nation's. The democratic governments appealed to western nations for military assistance and and received it (with the US being the largest player). The fighting was brutal and took massive tolls on the civilian populations... as well as being convoluted with mixed civilian loyalties and inevitable (and unjustifiable) atrocities committed by both sides.
The major difference in the result was that the Allies in the Korean War was able to force a stalemate early and ultimately end the conflict before public opinion turned. Vietnam did not end as such. A severe oversimplification of course, but the premise is valid.
Don't think China can significantly influence the US economically? Topic for another board.
Americans had a very low appetite for war before WW2, got "dragged into it", and became a model for the world with the Arsenal of Democracy, creating a post war thriving middle class, and rebuilding and feeding many countries with the Marshall Plan. Not a perfect country but one that garnered the respect of most of the free world.
One good thing about the current Ukrainian situation is with Finland and Sweden hopefully joining NATO, most of the European free world will be cooperating and united in their actions. Don't have the same hope for Africa and the Middle East now.
One can realize America messed up horribly with the war in Iraq, and at the same time can see what is happening in Ukraine and realize we must do what we can to learn from history and try to limit this suffering going forward. People grow and evolve over time, and learn from past mistakes, so get rid of this bullshit where no one can criticize anything cause we all have flaws.
Comparing the two is like comparing Apples and Oranges.
And that statement is not support for either.
Ridiculous ignorant comparison, congrats!
Lancer, first I'm generally dovish when it comes to U.S. military actions. I did not support the 2003 Iraq Invasion. However, I think it's a false equivalency comparing US/Iraq with Russia/Ukraine.
Russia, a brutal dictatorship, invaded and is attempting to dislodge a democratically elected government without provocation. The USA, a democratically elected government, invaded and dislodged a brutal dictatorship which had been levied with severe sanctions for attack a neighboring country without provocation.
Although war was not the correct remedy, the dictatorships continued non-compliance with controls they agreed upon created 'justification'. There was no violation of agreed upon terms committed by Ukraine that created any justification for Russian agression.
That and we had a coalition of elected governments that also supported the action publicly to the world and he was given several chances to adhere to the agreement.
Indiscriminate targeting of civilians, woman and children, mass rape, use of banned weaponry. The world calling on Putin and leadership as war criminals.
You may approve of the war but that’s a bullshit comparison.
April 20th, 2022 at 10:59 PM ^
People who say that the US invasion of Iraq was the equivalent of the Russian invasion of Ukraine are willfully ignorant or followers of a quasi-religion belief system that prevents them from making rational evaluations of reality.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was perpetrated by the murderous, brutal dictator of a huge country with the second most powerful military in the world against a much smaller and weaker neighbor that was no threat to them or any other country. The objective of the invasion was to take control of the country, destroy the elected government, and put Ukraine under the control of the brutal dictator.
The US invasion of Iraq was a response to Iraq's brutal and murderous invasion of its smaller neighbor and the attempt to put it under the control of Iraq's dictator. The US was a country with a democratically elected government that authorized the invasion. The invasion was also authorized by most of the UN's members. The objective was to throw out the invaders who were brutalizing the people of Kuwait, force Iraq to allow democratic elections and give up its weapons of mass destruction. The war ended with a cease fire in which Saddam Hussien agreed to those terms. After he failed to comply with the terms of his agreement the war was continued, Hussein was overthrown, and democratic elections were initiated.
April 20th, 2022 at 12:18 PM ^
Russian government is angry. I'm for it.
Government spokesman Dmitry Peskov was responding to a question concerning the barring of Russian and Belarusian players from the tournament which was reported by The New York Times, before AELTC officially made its statement.
"Making athletes victims of some kind of political prejudices, intrigues, hostile actions towards our country, is unacceptable. One can only express regret here," Peskov told a conference call with reporters.
"Considering that Russia is after all a very strong tennis country, our tennis players are in the top lines of the world ranking, the competition itself will suffer from their removal.
"I would like to wish the guys to do everything in order not to lose shape and not lose their world tennis class."
April 20th, 2022 at 12:30 PM ^
It's always tough when sports get tangled in unconscionable political actions, but this is the right decision. There is precedence, remember South Africa and apartheid.
I think Russians will eventually be banned from the NHL if the war continues.
The US government supported South African Apartheid...
April 20th, 2022 at 11:00 PM ^
That is not true.
April 20th, 2022 at 11:03 PM ^
It kind of is. I wouldn't say we supported it. But we tolerated Apartheid because we wanted Uranium and minerals from South Africa. And also because they were fighting commies.
April 21st, 2022 at 12:08 PM ^
The US also supported a brutal Soviet dictator in the goal of stopping a brutal Nazi dictator. Sometimes one must choose the lesser of two evils... and it can be difficult to know which that is. (And ideologues may say "choose neither", but that may not be practical at times).
April 21st, 2022 at 12:17 PM ^
What's your point? I was simply replying to the person who categorically stated that we did not support Apartheid.
And what was the greater evil (greater than Apartheid, that is) that we were dealing with in South Africa?
My point is that allies are often flawed, but that does not mean they should necessarily be shunned for those flaws (good modern examples: Saudi Arabia & Israel).
As far as the South African example during Apartheid, the greater threat was the Cold War dynamic. For its flaws (the obvious racism, among others), the South African government of the Cold War era was still pro-western, pro-democracy, and was an ally against dangerous threats. As a curious artifact of that history, the current South African government (rooted in the ANC and the revolutionaries) still maintain a strong affinity for the Soviet Union & Russia due to their support back then... to the point that the current government refuses to even condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine (despite being an even more representative and stable democracy than the previous government).
International relations and national histories are complex and one should never base an assessment of those by any single policy.
April 20th, 2022 at 12:40 PM ^
It's unfortunate, but I think the purpose is to deny Russia propaganda opportunities; but also for the physical safety of Russian/Belarusian athletes (and fans); and to avoid putting such athletes in positions of being asked to make statements which could either as being in support of Putin in the war, or if they speak against it, putting themselves or their families at risk.
Agreed. Things like this are also intended to force the Russian media to explain why. It signals to the Russian people that things are not okay, this is not business as usual, that something very wrong is happening that the entire world is not with them.
Of course the propaganda machine will take its usual victim stance and some will buy it, but you've got to keep at it and make their media explain something that for many people will be hard to believe.
Yep exactly. Everyone in Russia looking forward to watching their sports idols win some games on TV is all of the sudden going to be asking questions.
Putin bases a lot of his propaganda on Russia's athletic success on the world stage. Its why they were so motivated to have a massive state sponsored doping program in the first place, and why you see things like Putin scoring goals in fake hockey games.
April 20th, 2022 at 12:45 PM ^
As a Georgian-American I am obviously incredibly biased. If the actions of Russia and its supporters have made it so that Ukrainians cannot safely compete, then it’s appropriate that Russians and supporters are also not competing. It’s not a punishment, it’s a forced gesture of solidarity with victims of the war.