Russian figure skating news & updates in 2022

[aka_gerbil]

This is probably more a thought for PI since it actually has not much to do with skating, but I have wondered if it had instead been China invading Taiwan if we would have seen the same severity in sanctions given how dependent the US (and elsewhere) is on China for cheap manufactured goods.

 

[PRlady]

Skating is Eurocentric. Unlike soccer it doesn’t have stars from the global South because (d’uh) ice to skate on is hard to create and maintain there. So of course a Euro country invading another one is going to reverberate much more than two Middle Eastern countries with no ISU history!

Again, if the US did to Canada, or even if Australia did to New Zealand, or hopefully if China does to Taiwan, what Russia is doing to Ukraine, the reaction would be commensurate.

Also, too damn bad that Russia needs western banking devices it can’t control to make its dependent economy work. Live by the Mastercard, die by the Mastercard. Maybe if they spent more time building a free and thriving economy instead of a corrupt kleptocracy, they wouldn’t be so easy to sanction.

 

[clairecloutier]

This is probably more a thought for PI since it actually has not much to do with skating, but I have wondered if it had instead been China invading Taiwan if we would have seen the same severity in sanctions given how dependent the US (and elsewhere) is on China for cheap manufactured goods.

We can't turn back time, obviously, but I would hope that if China invaded Taiwan now, we'd see the same severity of sanctions against them.

 

[soogar]

LMAO wow. Yes, millions of us were considered unamerican. But so what? That didn't stop us from condemning fellow Americans for being pro-war, criticizing propaganda, and continuing to protest in the streets and shut down blocks. Where were you?

Yeah, when it was trendy to protest . Maybe there were one or two protests in NY, but no one was protesting anywhere else and certainly not where I was.

 

[skatfan]

Why should anyone make a joint statement? They are Russian athletes and there are different views in Russia. I remember clearly how people in the US were gung ho about going into Iraq, and a person couldn't say anything against the war because they would be considered un-American.

I was against the war in Iraq and even attended a couple rallies. It was clear that the Bush Administration was using 9-11 to invade.

 

[Wyliefan]

Yeah, when it was trendy to protest .

The conventional time to protest a war is while the war is taking place, no?

 

[rfisher]

So let me get this straight: any news about Russian skaters is going to result in multiple pages about how awful they are regardless of what the news is. Good to know.

 

[bladesofgorey]

Yeah, when it was trendy to protest . Maybe there were one or two protests in NY, but no one was protesting anywhere else and certainly not where I was.

Tell me in a few words that you weren't paying attention/didn't care/supported the war in Iraq at the time. ^^^

Protests against the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

So let me get this straight: any news about Russian skaters is going to result in multiple pages about how awful they are regardless of what the news is. Good to know.

It will for the ones actively praising Putin.

 

[Nadya]

Skating is Eurocentric. Unlike soccer it doesn’t have stars from the global South because (d’uh) ice to skate on is hard to create and maintain there. So of course a Euro country invading another one is going to reverberate much more than two Middle Eastern countries with no ISU history!

Again, if the US did to Canada, or even if Australia did to New Zealand, or hopefully if China does to Taiwan, what Russia is doing to Ukraine, the reaction would be commensurate.

Also, too damn bad that Russia needs western banking devices it can’t control to make its dependent economy work. Live by the Mastercard, die by the Mastercard. Maybe if they spent more time building a free and thriving economy instead of a corrupt kleptocracy, they wouldn’t be so easy to sanction.

You've just introduced two new annexes to the rules: a) the invader and the invaded have to share a border, and b) both have to be in Europe. Point a) is compulsory, point b) is strongly preferred but not compulsory.

 

[Nadya]

UAE might be an ISU member, but not a Member, and the ISU does make the distinction. Similarly, they're not very much concerned about instability in countries in South America or Southeast Asia where they have members, but where none are Members.

The ISU cares about European Feds' countries, to an extent, especially with such a concentration of delegates, although South Africa got swept into a worldwide movement condemning apartheid, the big two in North America, and the four major Federations north-central countries in Asia. Australia gets consideration here and there (when they remember) probably for being part of the Commonwealth.

Ah yes, it's all about member vs. Member.

 

[Nadya]

You’re right. If UAE had skaters who were actually actively competing at ISU events they should be similarly banned. But since the UAE has all of two listed athletes, neither of whom has competed in an ISU event since 2020, it’s a moot point. Keep stomping your feet though.

Symbolic action have meaning too, and if ISU cared to, it could have done SOMETHING. It doesn't.

 

[ChelleC]

Yeah, when it was trendy to protest . Maybe there were one or two protests in NY, but no one was protesting anywhere else and certainly not where I was.

I'm in Kentucky, was in Kentucky then there were protests on college campuses then. I was a student then and remember several members of the history department faculty being involved.

 

[aka_gerbil]

I do agree with the idea that if the ISU is going to have these rules, then they should be applied to all feds. It should not matter if it’s not a big important fed or even if they don’t have any active participants going to competitions. If you’re going to have a rule, apply it to everyone, even if it’s just symbolic in the end.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

I think we already had this conversation in the beginning of the war, and personally I thought (and... well... probably still think) banning Russians and Belorussians would be wrong, not because of the ethical reasons, but of the legal ones. It is impossible to define why Russian war in Ukraine is a reason to ban the athletes, and any other war that was, is or will be - not. There's a valid point of creating a space zone for the Ukrainians, but I don't recall such zone being created for anyone else in the past either.

So the conclusion seems to be pretty obvious: ISU (and IOC) defines what bothers it and what does not based on a very Eurocentric and white point of view that basically says "we can't live our lives by the war schedule of people in the regions that never stopped fighting, but we expect the important wealthy people who run this thing to live in peace". That is undoubtedly hypocritical, but being a hypocrite is still better than being a genocidal aggressor, so there's that.

 

[Hedwig]

As long as it is applied universally and not selectively, I'm all good.

I sort of agree. But it will be difficult. Not all conflicts are clear cut and the aggressor easy to see and often there is guilt on both sides.

It is good that these kind of sanctions started but we will have many cases in the future where people will not agree if there should be sanctions and to what party.

So not looking forward to these discussions

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

I do agree with the idea that if the ISU is going to have these rules, then they should be applied to all feds. It should not matter if it’s not a big important fed or even if they don’t have any active participants going to competitions. If you’re going to have a rule, apply it to everyone, even if it’s just symbolic in the end.

However, this I am absolutely opposing.

I prefer ISU to be hypocritical rather than taking a political stand and entering an endless loop of who's the aggressor and who's the victim. Normally these things strongly depend on the point of view of the looking, and we'd have sport stopping even pretending to be above politics. No one should want it.

Who is banned should be made on case by case basis, and preferably answering the definition of "almost never".

And P.S. I think banning USA for the Iraq war would actually be a pretty strong case. Unlike any other conflict I have on the top of my head.

ETA: ah but there's also the role the sport plays in that particular country, and how much it is state sponsored and state used for propaganda purposes... brrrrrrrr..... In short, it's impossible to find a well defined algorithm. And I'm kind of fine with it.

 

[BlueRidge]

Was trying to quote @Andrey but it didn't work... Question, the US is currently engaged in drone warfare in multiple sovereign nations to my knowledge, should its athletes be banned now? Not just for Andrey, for all those who want a fair policy here.

My opinion all this discussion is vanity. People are dying and pressure on Putin may help push towards an end to it.

 

[aka_gerbil]

Was trying to quote @Andrey but it didn't work... Question, the US is currently engaged in drone warfare in multiple sovereign nations to my knowledge, should its athletes be banned now? Not just for Andrey, for all those who want a fair policy here.

My opinion all this discussion is vanity. People are dying and pressure on Putin may help push towards an end to it.

I personally know refugees from one of those countries, and given their description of the destruction and the havoc it has caused, yes. Just the latest acts in a long, long history of the US doing horrible things.

 

[Tesla]

Yeah, when it was trendy to protest . Maybe there were one or two protests in NY, but no one was protesting anywhere else and certainly not where I was.

The Dixie Chicks were vilified for protesting the Iraq War.
Dixie Chicks controversy

 

[BlueRidge]

I personally know refugees from one of those countries, and given their description of the destruction and the havoc it has caused, yes. Just the latest acts in a long, long history of the US doing horrible things.

Okay, and are you going to organize for this?

How about a petition to the ISU Congress?

 

[PRlady]

You've just introduced two new annexes to the rules: a) the invader and the invaded have to share a border, and b) both have to be in Europe. Point a) is compulsory, point b) is strongly preferred but not compulsory.

Ah, Comms people. Two examples above have no land border, none are European, and nowhere is adjacent required. Being a country or countries that actually counts, legally and in terms of significant participation in the sport, does for the ISU.

I have professional respect for your twisty arguments but they are certainly twisty.

 

[aka_gerbil]

Okay, and are you going to organize for this?

How about a petition to the ISU Congress?

I can write letters and organize petitions all day, but I’m 100% sure no one in the ISU is listening to random skating fan who doesn’t even skate recreationally. Quick trip to the circular file….

 

[BlueRidge]

I can write letters and organize petitions all day, but I’m 100% sure no one in the ISU is listening to random skating fan who doesn’t even skate recreationally. Quick trip to the circular file….

EXACTLY.

It simply doesn't make sense to compare what there is a massive impetus for (sanctioning/banning Russia over Ukraine) to things that there is not any impetus for. Even the Uighur situation didn't create an impetus for shutting down the Beijing Olympics.

The world is seldom united to act. For once many countries are acting with regard to Ukraine. Its not going to happen this way again.

Each situation is different. People tried to get enough attention for some pressure over the Beijing Olympics but there wasn't enough pressure on governments. People are engaged in trying to end the US "war on terror" from inside the US but there isn't enough concern.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine had huge implications for a number of countries and so they felt impelled to act. That's a good thing, but it doesn't happen very often.

 

[PRlady]

EXACTLY.

It simply doesn't make sense to compare what there is a massive impetus for (sanctioning/banning Russia over Ukraine) to things that there is not any impetus for. Even the Uighur situation didn't create an impetus for shutting down the Beijing Olympics.

The world is seldom united to act. For once many countries are acting with regard to Ukraine. Its not going to happen this way again.

Each situation is different. People tried to get enough attention for some pressure over the Beijing Olympics but there wasn't enough pressure on governments. People are engaged in trying to end the US "war on terror" from inside the US but there isn't enough concern.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine had huge implications for a number of countries and so they felt impelled to act. That's a good thing, but it doesn't happen very often.

I’d add that Russia recently and explicitly threatened Poland, Moldova, Finland and the Baltics and has invaded Georgia and Chechnya along with Ukraine in the last 20 years. The US not only shows no interest in repeating its Iraq mistake but many argue that that decision meant Obama throwing the Syrians to the wolves. Intentions count.

 

[Trillian]

It is impossible to define why Russian war in Ukraine is a reason to ban the athletes, and any other war that was, is or will be - not.

It’s not impossible to define. It’s complex and there will always be disagreements, but that’s the nature of making policy.

In a situation like this where two ISU member countries are involved, the ISU has no neutral stance available. They either exclude Russia or they exclude Ukraine. I’m sure the ISU would have preferred to do nothing just like they have in the past, but “nothing” doesn’t exist in this situation. They acted because they were forced to act. If that helps define clearer policy for the future, great.

The other reason consequences are being extended to Russian athletes in this situation is because Russian athletes in many sports have no independence from the government and therefore function as direct representatives in a way that athletes from other countries do not. It’s dishonest to pretend that suspending an athlete who has no choice but to support its government’s policies wholeheartedly is the same as suspending an athlete who can openly criticize the head of state on TV during the Olympics without facing any repercussions. The relationship between athletes and the government can and should be considered as these policies are crafted.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

You'd be correct if the world's response to any military invasions over the last hundred years has been to move the offending country athletes' from international competitions. But that has not been the case, and the reaction of global institutions, including the global sports, to this war has been different from other wars. So no, this response could not have been predicted.

Are you seriously asking for examples of OTHER countries that invaded or destabilized other countries over the last few decades? Were you in a coma or just not into news?

You’re deliberately misstating the argument. No one is defending Russia’s actions. People are pointing out that the global institutional response is either completely new, or completely Russia-specific. That it is new is not incorrect. That it is Russia-specific remains to be seen.

You've just introduced two new annexes to the rules: a) the invader and the invaded have to share a border, and b) both have to be in Europe. Point a) is compulsory, point b) is strongly preferred but not compulsory.

Ah yes, it's all about member vs. Member.

I think you fully realize it's impossible to "outdebate" you here because you're obviously right
This move is unprecedented (Apartheid is nothing of the likes, and so is the withdrawal of specific teams).

However. The war itself and the reaction to it is kind of unprecedented as well. I don't recall UN being so unified over ANYTHING. And on the end of the day, we have a very clear aggressor who doesn't even pretend to have a casus belli (for one, they change the objectives and reasons every couple of days). So from the ethical POV this is kind of justified even if no one else has ever been banned.

And another HOWEVER, and here I'm being a bit frivolous with my interpretation of your point, this is not specifically anti-Russian. It is anti obvious aggressor who had broken every single written and unwritten agreement and failed even to justify why. And I do believe, China would have been under similar pressure, at least in sport, had it invaded Taiwan; and I believe USA would have been too, had it invaded Mexico under similar expansionist imperialistic reasoning.

My proof is very simple. Russia has not been really sanctioned neither in 2014, nor in 2008, nor in the 90ies when it meddled in the affairs of every single of its ex-satellites creating such lovely places as Transistria, Abkhazia and Karabakh. Maybe it should have been, but it wasn't, despite giving every possible excuse. It took a full blown war with tanks (what is this, 1935? ), artillery on the cities and bombings from planes, after months of preparations, for the world to react in the severe way it did.

So personally I'm fine with it.

 

[BlueRidge]

I’d add that Russia recently and explicitly threatened Poland, Moldova, Finland and the Baltics and has invaded Georgia and Chechnya along with Ukraine in the last 20 years. The US not only shows no interest in repeating its Iraq mistake but many argue that that decision meant Obama throwing the Syrians to the wolves. Intentions count.

I don't really think its helpful to make comparisons here. I think its better to criticize the US for what it does and not in comparison to Russia and vice versa.

Currently Russia is engaged in a brutal war in Ukraine and many countries have responded to that, not least because they feel themselves threatened by it. That's the reason for the current situation and the extemity of actions including banning figure skaters from international competition.

For me, I am not in favor of making a general policy of banning athletes from international competition due to actions of the government they represent. I support the current ban only because it is part of a real time massive response of many countries to a brutal invasion but I don't think conditioning athletes participation in international competition on the government of their country meeting particular standards is going to in the long run be a tenable proposition.

 

[clairecloutier]

Putin made it very easy for the international community to take action.

He launched an open, non-covert, large-scale attack involving many thousands of soldiers on a sovereign nation that had previously engaged (as a nation) in no armed belligerence toward Russia (as a nation) to provoke said attack. This is not a civil war, but an unprovoked attack of a large country on a smaller country. Furthermore Russia's attack was undertaken with no vetting/discussion in the United Nations and without any allies. And Russia's attack has harmed large numbers of Ukrainian civilians from the outset.

As @BlueRidge said, every situation is different. And this situation is not the same as civil wars in Yemen, Afghanistan, or Syria, "wars" or actions against terrorist entities Islamic State or Al Qaeda, nor is it even the same as the U.S. war on Iraq in 2003, which was undertaken with allies and after presentation of concerns to the UN. Arguments can be made that any military actions in these wars are bad, but none of them offer a direct comparison to Russia/Ukraine.

And as to Russian/Belarusian athletes being excluded by the ISU, @Trillian explained it well. Russian athletes are being excluded because they are more or less direct representatives of the Russian state, fully or very largely funded by the Russian state, which in turn expects their political allegiance and utilizes their success for nationalist political purposes. (This is not the case for any other large national group of skaters except the Chinese.)

 

[airgelaal]

There are basic human needs and basic human rights. War takes away both. While sport is neither the first nor the second. I can't imagine a normal society where people who support the war would be welcomed. Just like people who support, for example, sexual violence are not welcomed. A person can be a brilliant mathematician and also a pedophile. Can his talent be an excuse? Or should we let him rape children? Or is it none of our business?
Of course, Russian skaters have the right to think, speak and do what they think is right. But why should we agree with their behavior, even when it is criminal? Sorry, but knowing about a crime and remaining silent is also a crime. While Vika Sinitsyna rejoices at the meeting with the President, Sasha Nazarova reads about how her hometown is once again heavily bombed by Vika Sinitsyna's compatriots, who were blessed by the President, whom she was so glad to see. Excuse me, how should a normal person react to figure skater Vika Sinitsyna? For example, I feel sick. Just like the sight of Larry Nassar makes me sick.
The question is not in Ukraine and not even in the war. The question is how ready we are to ignore crimes and what message we are showing the world. Will we continue to close our eyes and say that all this does not concern us or will we begin to change?
Russian skaters can't do anything. Are they trying? Why does all their courage end in quads? Why should the whole world suffer because they, as citizens of their country, do not want to change anything? in the end they are citizens of their country, and then athletes. Are they really proud to represent a country whose citizens rape children? But the president also rewarded the rapists. Will Vika Sinitsyna agree to be photographed with the rapists? And why not, the rewards are the same. And how should the world then look at the programs of Vika Sinitsyna? Can you imagine her on the same ice with Sasha Nazarova?