ISU Statement on Russia's war against Ukraine - Participation in international competitions of Skaters and Officials from Russia and Belarus

[nlloyd]

How many will even remember or care that the US was hoarding vaccines during the pandemic?

Which side of history will the US fall on in this case?

The wrong side, in my opinion. But the failure of US ethics in this and other international policies, doesn't mean those in the US, or the West, have to forgo their right to weigh in on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Their failure to have weighed in on other conflicts -- or to have actively participated in them in ethically dubious ways -- doesn't invalidate their right to weigh in on this one. It also doesn't mitigate the need to scrutinize their motives or the measures they take in this situation.

 

[airgelaal]

If a person has a toothache, then he must be persuaded to go to the dentist. Yes, it will be unpleasant and painful, but it will solve the problem. When he has a toothache, he terrorizes everyone around him. Just giving him painkillers will only make things worse. He won't stop terrorizing everyone because he enjoyed doing it. But the pain will intensify. By allowing neutral athletes, the world is giving russia a painkiller. Great solution to a problem.

 

[Nadya]

The wrong side, in my opinion. But the failure of US ethics in this and other international policies, doesn't mean those in the US, or the West, have to forgo their right to weigh in on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Their failure to have weighed in on other conflicts -- or to have actively participated in them in ethically dubious ways -- doesn't invalidate their right to weigh in on this one. It also doesn't mitigate the need to scrutinize their motives or the measures they take in this situation.

Anyone has a right to weigh in on anything. Even habitual invaders of other countries, when they declare other countries wrong and criminal for invading still other countries. Of course, this has as much credibility as a child molester extolling the virtue of unmolested childhood. But no one really HAS to look credible you know.

 

[Nadya]

So you agree with Nadya that, at least since Bush, the saying that "if you are not for them, you are against them" is intrinsically oppressive? I use it in relation to Ukrainians subject to Russian aggression. I don't see it as oppressive.



Ethics are not the prerogative of the West. In many cases the West has proven itself morally bankrupt and has pursued highly dubious ethics. One has only to look at the US involvement in Iraq. The power that the West has accrued (and which has accrued to Russia and China also) has the capacity to corrupt and the ethics of the powerful should always be under scrutiny. Those in the global south, former colonies of the West, and oppressed populations within western countries are holding the West to account ethically. Their position as current or formerly oppressed peoples, give them an ethical advantage, in my opinion. Even atrocities long overlooked or under-emphasized, such as the Armenian genocide, or the Rwandan one, or the atrocities related to the Bangladesh War of Independence that you cite, will come to the fore with time, and the West will be held to account for its role in relation to them.

The Armenian genocide is more than a hundred years old. It's not particularly well known and the consequences of it have not been mitigated. Turkey has never been held to account, nor have they suffered any consequences for slaughtering a million+ Armenians. Of course, we can wait another hundred years to see if things get better. If this is your timeline for a sharpened moral focus on the Ukrainian war, then clearly, none of us will be around to see it.

It is pretty clear that the US will never be held to account for the havoc it wreaked on Iraq, Syria or Libya. I don't think another hundred or two years will make a difference.

In short, I consider your belief in the curative value of time on global optics to be misguided.

 

[Sylvia]

International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) news via insidethegames.biz's tweet earlier today:

#ValentinaRodionenko, the head coach of @Olympic_Russia #gymnastics team, claims "we don’t expect anything good from July either" after [FIG] postponed decision on whether to re-admit #Russia to international competition:

International Gymnastics Federation postpones decision on re-admitting Russia

A decision on whether athletes from Russia and Belarus will be re-admitted to competition has been postponed by the International Gymnastics Federatio...

www.insidethegames.biz

The Ukrainian Gymnastics Federation had already filed a case last month at the Court of Arbitration for Sport to "prevent the decisions of the International Gymnastics Federation on the return of Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete as part of the qualification for the Olympic Games 2024 and the suspension of the memberships in the International Gymnastics for the Russian Gymnastics Federation and the Belarusian Gymnastics Federation," a spokeswoman for the national governing body told insidethegames.
The decision to postpone any decision is still a surprise, though.

 

[On My Own]

Their failure to have weighed in on other conflicts -- or to have actively participated in them in ethically dubious ways -- doesn't invalidate their right to weigh in on this one.

I never said they didn't have the right to say and do whatever they want. What I do assert, however, is that the failure to have weighed in on other conflicts, does invalidate their and others' opinions about morality, ethics, and phrases like "you're either with us or against us", and their criticisms of others' neutrality, especially of those in less privileged countries than the ones out West. They look after themselves; they don't care one bit about anyone else unless it directly concerns them. They've done nothing in repentance for any of their actions. It's not our problem if they're feeling bad that now some of us want to do that as well.

I say write whatever you want in your history books. Who really cares? If the West has proved anything, it's that books can be burnt, right?

 

[Sylvia]

I don't know how long decisions take to be published by CAS - have yet to see any updates on this May 2nd hearing:

In case this wasn't posted earlier in this thread... from the List of Hearings published by CAS on March 28 April 27: https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/news-detail/article/list-of-hearings-4.html
"02.05.23 [May 2, 2023]
CAS 2022/A/8733 Russian Skating Union, Figure Skating Federation of Russia, Semen Elistratov, Angelika Golikova, Evgenia Tarasova & Vladimir Morozov v. International Skating Union (ISU)"

 

[On My Own]

The Armenian genocide is more than a hundred years old. It's not particularly well known and the consequences of it have not been mitigated.

And that's the thing. The thing that got amplified is what some - the West - wanted. It's happened again now, with the same people. "There are lesser peoples and there are lesser dictators"...

Or, of course, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Easy to point at the Soviet Union and say it befriended Nazi Germany for some. Much less easy to point at Japan's human experimentation on the Soviets and the Chinese, or how the US covered it up for the same.

 

[Bird]

And that's the thing. The thing that got amplified is what some - the West - wanted. It's happened again now, with the same people. "There are lesser peoples and there are lesser dictators"...

Or, of course, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Easy to point at the Soviet Union and say it befriended Nazi Germany for some. Much less easy to point at Japan's human experimentation on the Soviets and the Chinese, or how the US covered it up for the same.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/opinions/china-wwii-forgotten-ally-rana-mitter/index.html

Someone wrote a history text a few years ago about China’s role in winning WWII and the cost it came at.
I hope the other things you mentioned are talked about regularly too.
But like you, I also support Ukraine and don’t want Russian athletes to compete as neutral when they can’t really be neutral even if they wanted to. Peace protesters in Russia were being conscripted and sent to the front lines.
Until they can be publicly for peace without being prosecuted, they would just be symbolically representing the war whether they wanted to or not.

Edited to add this as well:

Murdered Warriors: The Chasselay Massacre, June 1940 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

German troops invading France in the spring of 1940 committed widespread atrocities, especially against Black African colonial troops. One of the worst massacres took place at the town of Chasselay on June 20.

www.nationalww2museum.org

 

[MacMadame]

The wrong side, in my opinion. But the failure of US ethics in this and other international policies, doesn't mean those in the US, or the West, have to forgo their right to weigh in on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Their failure to have weighed in on other conflicts -- or to have actively participated in them in ethically dubious ways -- doesn't invalidate their right to weigh in on this one. It also doesn't mitigate the need to scrutinize their motives or the measures they take in this situation.

It's a form of whataboutism, IMO. It reminds me of being in PI and taking a stand against something and the response from some people is "why didn't you take a stand against this other thing then, you hypocrite!"

Not only do two wrongs, not make a right, but if we say you can't hold a country accountable for its actions because you didn't hold them accountable in the past, that means no country can be held accountable because, at this point in history, every country had had a time where they didn't do the right thing and weren't universally called out for it. I mean pretty much all countries had slavery just for starters.

Given that history started to be written down in the 4th millennium BC, that's a lot of chances to do the wrong thing and have it recorded.

 

[On My Own]

I never said they didn't have the right to say and do whatever they want.

And it is only whether or not the West has a right to question others' neutrality - or rather the validity of those questions - that I take issue with, bringing up their own silence on many things, or dubious involvement in others. And I do assert the arm-twisting using history and "with us or against us" is oppressive - and how the West has much more power to do this in an international context than many like to acknowledge. Do what you like, but don't cry about how others are also doing what they like, especially when you're well-known playground bullies.

As in,

The notion of "neutrality" is a red herring. There is no such thing in a war; to be neutral is to support the aggressor.

No. Unless you want to say the West were supporting Erdogan and Aliyev, which I doubt anyone here would. Or that Americans supported the mass rape of Bangladeshis, which I doubt anyone here would.

And this with elected leaders, not dictators. You elected leaders for yourself first, okay, others did too. You know it full well. Have the same standards for everyone, or, simply, give up the right to assert things like these to others, because in the latter case, you have a very limp leg to stand on because of your unseemly privileges.

But I'm sure some will find a way to imply the other is simply acting in bad faith of course, to avoid any accountability as per usual, and retain their nonexistent moral high ground.

Also,

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Contextualization:

Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. In international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood and deserves to be recognized as such.

You will notice this applies to countries like India. And it is this context I apply to my assertions about the third world versus the first world.

ETA: Oh, also, in case it wasn't clear, I also take issue with whether or not the West has the clarity of vision to come up with what is "right" or "wrong" when it has failed at doing so properly many times. Who's to say joining them is the "right" thing or that they're doing the "right" thing apart from the West and its supporters themselves?

It's like the "God is good" argument. No one's seen if God exists or knows they are good, but we know God exists and is good, because some holy scripture said so, and it's written by God or one of their messengers. Okay then.

 

[Nadya]

It's a form of whataboutism, IMO. It reminds me of being in PI and taking a stand against something and the response from some people is "why didn't you take a stand against this other thing then, you hypocrite!"

Well it's not quite that, you know. It's more like "why are you criticizing me for the same things in which you engage with wild abandon, at a much greater scale and cost?"

 

[nlloyd]

Well it's not quite that, you know. It's more like "why are you criticizing me for the same things in which you engage with wild abandon, at a much greater scale and cost?"

Right, so we all just let Ukraine continue to be violated by Russia because the West doesn't have the moral standing to oppose it. How convenient (for Russia).

 

[nlloyd]

The Armenian genocide is more than a hundred years old. It's not particularly well known and the consequences of it have not been mitigated. Turkey has never been held to account, nor have they suffered any consequences for slaughtering a million+ Armenians. Of course, we can wait another hundred years to see if things get better. If this is your timeline for a sharpened moral focus on the Ukrainian war, then clearly, none of us will be around to see it.

It is pretty clear that the US will never be held to account for the havoc it wreaked on Iraq, Syria or Libya. I don't think another hundred or two years will make a difference.

In short, I consider your belief in the curative value of time on global optics to be misguided.

You are misrepresenting my argument by taking it out of context. The starting point for the argument was that history will bear out the fact that the Russians have been aggressors in this war on Ukraine and their actions unethical. I am not presenting history as a "cure" for anything. I'm simply noting that over time, ethically problematic situations (the holocaust, apartheid, the US invasion of Iraq), become clearer. Today, in South Africa, you will find very few people who will admit to supporting apartheid. At the time, by far the majority of white South Africans did.

 

[Bird]

And it is only whether or not the West has a right to question others' neutrality - or rather the validity of those questions - that I take issue with, bringing up their own silence on many things, or dubious involvement in others. And I do assert the arm-twisting using history and "with us or against us" is oppressive - and how the West has much more power to do this in an international context than many like to acknowledge. Do what you like, but don't cry about how others are also doing what they like, especially when you're well-known playground bullies.

As in,



No. Unless you want to say the West were supporting Erdogan and Aliyev, which I doubt anyone here would. Or that Americans supported the mass rape of Bangladeshis, which I doubt anyone here would.

And this with elected leaders, not dictators. You elected leaders for yourself first, okay, others did too. You know it full well. Have the same standards for everyone, or, simply, give up the right to assert things like these to others, because in the latter case, you have a very limp leg to stand on because of your unseemly privileges.

But I'm sure some will find a way to imply the other is simply acting in bad faith of course, to avoid any accountability as per usual, and retain their nonexistent moral high ground.

Also,

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Contextualization:



You will notice this applies to countries like India. And it is this context I apply to my assertions about the third world versus the first world.

ETA: Oh, also, in case it wasn't clear, I also take issue with whether or not the West has the clarity of vision to come up with what is "right" or "wrong" when it has failed at doing so properly many times. Who's to say joining them is the "right" thing or that they're doing the "right" thing apart from the West and its supporters themselves?

It's like the "God is good" argument. No one's seen if God exists or knows they are good, but we know God exists and is good, because some holy scripture said so, and it's written by God or one of their messengers. Okay then.

An atheist would reverse “God is good” to say “good is God” meaning acts of goodness are an atheistic religion. But in supporting Ukraine, you would simply not be supporting making a first move towards violence, right? Regardless of whether someone supported Putin at some earlier point before the war, the provocation of violence is always wrong, and any dispute should have been settled with diplomacy. Otherwise the cost of war comes to the poorest people, who get drafted and fight wars but have no control over whether they get waged. People with power could negotiate somehow if they chose to, I think. And Putin showed no compassion towards people in Russia who were peace protestors; they got sent to the front lines. A person acting with ethics wouldn’t have done that.

I feel like on some of the issues you mentioned, there’s not a lot of education or media discussion going on here about them, and there definitely could and should be more.

Edited to add:

Hundreds rally in SoCal for Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day | abc7.com

Hundreds%20in%20Southern%20California%20attended%20rallies%20Monday%20to%20commemorate%20the%20108th%20anniversary%20of%20the%20Armenian%20Genocide.

abc7.com

‘We lay like corpses. Then the raping began’: 52 years on, Bangladesh’s rape camp survivors speak out | Global development | The Guardian

In 1971, the Pakistan army began a brutal crackdown against Bengalis in which hundreds of thousands of women were detained and repeatedly brutalised. Only now are their stories beginning to be told

amp.theguardian.com

Azerbaijan: The veneer of democracy is peeling off Baku’s authoritarian political structure

Extended parliamentary vacancies mean 380,000 citizens have no representation.

eurasianet.org

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/12/1175250666/turkey-elections-erdogan-kilicdaroglu

 

[Hedwig]

Our justice minister proposed again not to issue any visas for Russian athletes in Germany in the case that they are again allowed to participate in sports events.
I am all behind that.

 

[Dobre]

International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) news via insidethegames.biz's tweet earlier today:

#ValentinaRodionenko, the head coach of @Olympic_Russia #gymnastics team, claims "we don’t expect anything good from July either" after [FIG] postponed decision on whether to re-admit #Russia to international competition:

One would think Russian rhythmic coaches/athletes would be the absolute antithesis of neutral.

 

[MacMadame]

Well it's not quite that, you know. It's more like "why are you criticizing me for the same things in which you engage with wild abandon, at a much greater scale and cost?"

You've been running around invading countries and/or sneaking around in them trying to overthrow their governments behind the scenes? You're a very busy bee.

Seriously, invading sovereign nations is wrong regardless of who is doing it. Bottom line.

 

[On My Own]

But in supporting Ukraine, you would simply not be supporting making a first move towards violence, right? Regardless of whether someone supported Putin at some earlier point before the war, the provocation of violence is always wrong, and any dispute should have been settled with diplomacy. Otherwise the cost of war comes to the poorest people, who get drafted and fight wars but have no control over whether they get waged. People with power could negotiate somehow if they chose to, I think.

Again, my issue isn't "acknowledge that provocation of violence is wrong", or "acknowledge that rape is wrong", or "acknowledge that genocide is wrong". War isn't just this much, and not joining the war-front and dictating a neutral stance for yourself isn't subject to one of the two sides' morals, which in this case, for me, don't exist in the first place when it comes to acts of aggression or defense.

I don't see why this has to come to Putin when I never said he wasn't a problem. The issue is putting the onus onto the ones expressing neutrality.

Otherwise the cost of war comes to the poorest people, who get drafted and fight wars but have no control over whether they get waged.

This applies to many, and it would do some good if they applied this standard to all the world, not just themselves.

People with power could negotiate somehow if they chose to, I think.

And now comes this. I've said it before in a different way and I'll say it again, it is very unlikely the West has taken no missteps in this war, and didn't do anything to provoke Putin. What different policies might have resulted in a different outcome, we will never know, but it's funny to see people forgetting that war has two sides, and negotiation is from both sides, and policy is from both sides.

But go further and look at it this way. It might be foolish to play counterfactuals, but it was the West that was supposed to be the rational side opposing Putin. Viewing it in this context, then, both-siderism exists to a much less extent here, when one is known to be a criminal, and in that case the onus WOULD be to the countries trying to maintain the "liberal world order" and "free world" to act much more rationally and outmanoeuvre this person.

If a cop team destroys half the city and says it was to protect the people from a terrorist, what was achieved exactly? This was a question similar to the one my mother and I asked ourselves after we watched Man of Steel.

I just hope they learn from this experience, but I doubt they will, and it's scary.

 

[VGThuy]

It’s like saying, “You owned slaves before (or still do), so why can’t I?” Pointing out hypocrisy is important but the solution isn’t what you think it is because it doesn’t really make what you’re doing acceptable… it just points out that there are other actors. So, okay, you found yourself doing the same thing others are/were doing… except you’re not because there’s a totally different reaction to what you’re doing for a reason. Whether or not you’re a victim of global movements against you…too bad/so sad, you’re still committing crimes against humanity and weren’t smart enough to commit one that most people could ignore. And usually, it’s due to behaving in such a way for years/decades to no longer be afforded grace.

And “whataboutism” usually fails because the alleged hypocrisies are usually falsely equating situations that seem equivalent on a superficial level but are actually quite different.

 

[Bird]

Again, my issue isn't "acknowledge that provocation of violence is wrong", or "acknowledge that rape is wrong", or "acknowledge that genocide is wrong". War isn't just this much, and not joining the war-front and dictating a neutral stance for yourself isn't subject to one of the two sides' morals, which in this case, for me, don't exist in the first place when it comes to acts of aggression or defense.

I don't see why this has to come to Putin when I never said he wasn't a problem. The issue is putting the onus onto the ones expressing neutrality.



This applies to many, and it would do some good if they applied this standard to all the world, not just themselves.



And now comes this. I've said it before in a different way and I'll say it again, it is very unlikely the West has taken no missteps in this war, and didn't do anything to provoke Putin. What different policies might have resulted in a different outcome, we will never know, but it's funny to see people forgetting that war has two sides, and negotiation is from both sides, and policy is from both sides.

But go further and look at it this way. It might be foolish to play counterfactuals, but it was the West that was supposed to be the rational side opposing Putin. Viewing it in this context, then, both-siderism exists to a much less extent here, when one is known to be a criminal, and in that case the onus WOULD be to the countries trying to maintain the "liberal world order" and "free world" to act much more rationally and outmanoeuvre this person.

If a cop team destroys half the city and says it was to protect the people from a terrorist, what was achieved exactly? This was a question similar to the one my mother and I asked ourselves after we watched Man of Steel.

I just hope they learn from this experience, but I doubt they will, and it's scary.

I don’t blame the countries expressing neutrality. I personally would not want to live in an authoritarian country of any type, including many countries in Europe that have shifted to the far right.

Analysis: How the far right is surging in Europe

Voters in Europe have veered to the far right. The latest example: In Italy, Giorgia Meloni's Brothers of Italy political party is described in CNN's report as "the most far-right government since the fascist era of Benito Mussolini."

amp.cnn.com

I see it as a growing trend, that often is accompanied by racism, sexism, and general attacks on human rights.

I do not know how it might be prevented but I agree there should be ways to try to promote human rights that don’t involve war.

I think there should not be hate attacks that are disguised as politics. Far right media is full of this.

Issues of fact (like specific studies and numbers and ideas) shouldn’t get conservative/liberal labels though, but should just be discussed unemotionally so that no one’s legitimate data is only seen by one side.

 

[cholla]

RT propaganda to say Aliev and Trusova have nothing to do with the war? And state is not government? Ioc used to accept state is not government.

Really Caseyedwards are you naturally that dumb and ignorant or did you have some kind of obnoxious training? If you are trying to elevate idiocy to an art, keep it coming, you're almost there. It's really a good thing for you ridicule never killed anyone

 

[caseyedwards]

Really Caseyedwards are you naturally that dumb and ignorant or did you have some kind of obnoxious training? If you are trying to elevate idiocy to an art, keep it coming, you're almost there. It's really a good thing for you ridicule never killed anyone

Thank you it’s really great and wonderful. Go trusova and aliev!! I agree

 

[Nadya]

You've been running around invading countries and/or sneaking around in them trying to overthrow their governments behind the scenes? You're a very busy bee.

Seriously, invading sovereign nations is wrong regardless of who is doing it. Bottom line.

I wish I could! There are a handful of governments I'd like to see gone!

 

[Nadya]

It’s like saying, “You owned slaves before (or still do), so why can’t I?” Pointing out hypocrisy is important but the solution isn’t what you think it is because it doesn’t really make what you’re doing acceptable… it just points out that there are other actors. So, okay, you found yourself doing the same thing others are/were doing… except you’re not because there’s a totally different reaction to what you’re doing for a reason. Whether or not you’re a victim of global movements against you…too bad/so sad, you’re still committing crimes against humanity and weren’t smart enough to commit one that most people could ignore. And usually, it’s due to behaving in such a way for years/decades to no longer be afforded grace.

And “whataboutism” usually fails because the alleged hypocrisies are usually falsely equating situations that seem equivalent on a superficial level but are actually quite different.

LOL no. It's usually because of two things, singly or in combination:

- you're a "rulemaking" country, so whatever you do goes as there isn't anything anyone in the world can do to stop you

- your victims are the type the world doesn't care about; I mean what's a million dead Arabs, really? I'm not breaking a state secret that some people's pain comes with a premium, and some people's pain comes with a discount.

 

[On My Own]

"Whether or not you’re a victim of global movements against you…too bad/so sad, you’re still committing crimes against humanity and weren’t smart enough to commit one that most people could ignore. And usually, it’s due to behaving in such a way for years/decades to no longer be afforded grace."

I mean... What else can really be said. Apart from how leaders of the "free world" shouldn't be the leaders and are certainly not leading a free world.

But at least we know Turkey is committing a crime most people can ignore. And nobody cares about Bangladeshis getting raped. So on and so forth.

 

[MacMadame]

Well it's not quite that, you know. It's more like "why are you criticizing me for the same things in which you engage with wild abandon, at a much greater scale and cost?"

IOW whataboutism -- what about all that stuff you engage in?

 

[VGThuy]

"Whether or not you’re a victim of global movements against you…too bad/so sad, you’re still committing crimes against humanity and weren’t smart enough to commit one that most people could ignore. And usually, it’s due to behaving in such a way for years/decades to no longer be afforded grace."

I mean... What else can really be said. Apart from how leaders of the "free world" shouldn't be the leaders and are certainly not leading a free world.

But at least we know Turkey is committing a crime most people can ignore. And nobody cares about Bangladeshis getting raped. So on and so forth.

It’s just a sign that this is how far we’ve evolved. It is illogical what things we decide to finally act on and what we’re currently tolerating, but that’s an illustration of people’s time, attention, and resources going where they can. Like I said, Russia was given tons of grace with its aggression before the straw broke the camel’s back, rightly or wrongly. I said they were stupid because as you have illustrated, the world’s leaders and people in general tolerate and ignore a lot, so once you stop being tolerated and ignored, then you really messed up.

Russia being a more dominant actor in interfering with the Western World’s interest (the ones who are responding) also plays a part, and the heads of those governments can probably provide a list of well-argued reasons why they’re acting in this case and not other cases as no two situations are exactly alike. Whether those distinctions are enough is a matter of opinion.

That is not to say we shouldn’t do better. We should and can do better but let’s not excuse every human rights abuse just because we’re falling short on condemning serious actions elsewhere. Focusing solely on people who are actually acting and resisting aggression for not being nearly good enough is an important criticism but that in of itself should not serve as a solution; in other words, that other countries taking a stand are falling short is the final answer to the problem that just means we should just allow countries to do whatever it wants to other countries so we can watch their figure skaters.

The above is a strange solution from people who argue That there are abuses going on. Wouldn’t the actual solution be that we need to include more regimes on the ban list and/or question whether we should have international competition if everybody is committing atrocities that are worth commenting. The “allow Russians to compete” are just saying let’s not do anything at all and we know who that position is serving… and it isn’t humanitarian interests whatsoever.

 

[Bird]

It’s just a sign that this is how far we’ve evolved. It is illogical what things we decide to finally act on and what we’re currently tolerating, but that’s an illustration of people’s time, attention, and resources going where they can. Like I said, Russia was given tons of grace with its aggression before the straw broke the camel’s back, rightly or wrongly. I said they were stupid because as you have illustrated, the world’s leaders and people in general tolerate and ignore a lot, so once you stop being tolerated and ignored, then you really messed up.

Russia being a more dominant actor in interfering with the Western World’s interest (the ones who are responding) also plays a part, and the heads of those governments can probably provide a list of well-argued reasons why they’re acting in this case and not other cases as no two situations are exactly alike. Whether those distinctions are enough is a matter of opinion.

That is not to say we shouldn’t do better. We should and can do better but let’s not excuse every human rights abuse just because we’re falling short on condemning serious actions elsewhere. Focusing solely on people who are actually acting and resisting aggression for not being nearly good enough is an important criticism but that in of itself should not serve as a solution; in other words, that other countries taking a stand are falling short is the final answer to the problem that just means we should just allow countries to do whatever it wants to other countries so we can watch their figure skaters.

The above is a strange solution from people who argue That there are abuses going on. Wouldn’t the actual solution be that we need to include more regimes on the ban list and/or question whether we should have international competition if everybody is committing atrocities that are worth commenting. The “allow Russians to compete” are just saying let’s not do anything at all and we know who that position is serving… and it isn’t humanitarian interests whatsoever.

Well, I agree with you, and On My Own also said he doesn’t think Russian athletes should compete; he was talking about blaming neutral countries like China and India for not taking a stand against Russia. I thought he had a good point, if you see things from a stance that non-white countries have to fight white supremacist ideology and that some people are hoping that Russia attacks China and looking for an excuse to make that happen.

Whether that would happen and why I don’t know but even here on the board I’ve seen a post saying someone hoped Russia would control China (post 519 on the presidential politics 2024 thread by Casey Edwards; edited to describe it more fairly.)

Also there’s the risk of loss of life in China and Taiwan if the Russia and Ukraine situation also happens there. Which, clearly, without supporting an authoritarian government like China and Russia have, there’s no doubt that wars lead to massive loss of life.

I don’t see an easy solution but I understand the neutrality. Trump was looking for an excuse to attack China, even by calling hurricanes an act of war. And then to have people on the right somehow be pro Russia but anti-China, it seems like a tricky situation with racism involved.

Trump Kept Asking if China Was Shooting Us With a 'Hurricane Gun'

Tump, the then-leader of the free world, also inquired whether the U.S. could bomb China in retaliation for the alleged hurricane attack

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Sylvia]

A reply to @Bird's post above is in this thread in the PI subforum: https://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/threads/the-war-thread.110584/#post-6434042
Maybe this conversation can continue there? (you have to have a registered account to post in PI)

ETA:

Emotional video from Ukrainian figure skaters

Beverley Smith (Canadian sports journalist who used to write for the Globe and Mail) has shared the Ukrainian athletes' video: https://twitter.com/BevSmithWrites/status/1657000736109080579