Ukraine / Russian War

[SuperBacon]

1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said:

So they’ve banned every game of football then, not just Russian sides?

Here's hoping! 

[69MeDon]

You know you're the bad guy when the racketeering dickheads at FIFA see you as a liability.

[David]

On 2/28/2022 at 9:10 AM, PunkStep said:

Bit torn on this. I get that it's unfair that the Russian footballers suffer as a consequence, but what's the point in this 'punishment'? Especially if teams still refuse to play them, as is the case.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what the point of this is either? Holding football clubs responsible for the actions of a mentalist in government is a bit off. 

In fact, couldn't this kind of approach actually help bolster Putin's position? A kind of "See? This is what the western world thinks of us Russians" type thing, helping to foster a siege mentality of sorts?

On another note, Britain has a fucking cheek to condemn anyone for invading another country. 

[Factotum]

2 hours ago, David said:

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what the point of this is either? Holding football clubs responsible for the actions of a mentalist in government is a bit off. 

Cultural boycotts can be very effective. Its done to isolate Russia completely. Of course not every Russian sportsperson supports that lunatic and its a shame those players wont be able to play.

Its a non violent way of condemning a countries actions and showing that things will not go on as normal. Rather than 'siege mentality' it can work the other way.

Anyway, expect QUEEN to play Russia next month.

[69MeDon]

Was just thinking that, while it's still incredibly unlikely that this will escalate into a Russian/NATO nuclear war, it's pretty crazy that the chances of a nuclear exchange have risen by at least about 10% (I am bad at maths, FYI) vs four weeks ago.

[David]

1 hour ago, Factotum said:

Cultural boycotts can be very effective. Its done to isolate Russia completely. Of course not every Russian sportsperson supports that lunatic and its a shame those players wont be able to play.

Its a non violent way of condemning a countries actions and showing that things will not go on as normal. Rather than 'siege mentality' it can work the other way.

That may be so, but it's entirely unfair.

Could you imagine having your football team, or even your business held accountable for the actions of the British government? Imagine if the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was considered out of line by the wider international community, and despite you and other regular citizens not being in agreement with the actions of your government or even supportive of your government at all, it was decided to sanction sports teams, business people, freeze bank accounts and so forth.

I can understand and fully agree with sanctions on Putin, his government, contractors who work directly with his government, and individuals attached to the Russian government who may have property elsewhere in the world etc, but I cannot agree with otherwise innocent people being victimised through financial sanctions or even sporting sanctions just based on their nationality. 

That's too heavy-handed for my liking.

[Factotum]

4 minutes ago, David said:

That may be so, but it's entirely unfair.

Its never the people who start these things that suffer the consequences. Unfortunately unfair is the set precedent in this world.

The fact is cultural and sporting institutions give countries legitimacy in the world. Its why you boycott countries like South Africa in 80s. Unfortunately you have to at some point take that stand.

I agree with you, but I cannot see any other choice FIFA or UEFA had in this instance. Sanctions across the board have to fall in line with one another.

[David]

17 minutes ago, Factotum said:

Its never the people who start these things that suffer the consequences. Unfortunately unfair is the set precedent in this world.

That may be so, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. We are quite rightly showing solidarity with the people of Ukraine, but it's worth remembering that the ordinary people of Russia aren't exactly cruising through this situation unaffected. 

The only difference is that much of their suffering and issues are avoidable, and are being caused by governments like ours. 

Nearly 150 million Russian citizens have watched their savings evaporate as the ruble is in free fall, and many of the sanctions are actually cutting the average Russian citizen off from the global financial system.

There's absolutely zero need for that, and while the various world powers could, if they wanted to, approach this situation in a measured manner they've instead decided to use a sledge hammer to do the job.

There's absolutely no way I'd ever look to support or explain those kinds of actions away. Especially when it's governments like ours who are playing a part in these decisions being made.

I saw it said elsewhere that while Russia are waging war on Ukraine, the rest of the world is waging an economic war on regular Russian citizens.

Edited March 1, 2022 by David

[Keith Houchen]

24 minutes ago, Factotum said:

The fact is cultural and sporting institutions give countries legitimacy in the world. Its why you boycott countries like South Africa in 80s. Unfortunately you have to at some point take that stand.

That’s true, but the reason apartheid ended was down to commerce and not a cultural boycott. Paul Simon got a lot of grief for Graceland, in fact he still does, but he argued it’s the artists who suffer boycotts and he wanted to give black South Africans a platform for their art. I can see where Simon comes from, and I unashamed admit to adoring the album, but it is a bit white saviour the way he went about it. 

[Carbomb]

2 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

That’s true, but the reason apartheid ended was down to commerce and not a cultural boycott. Paul Simon got a lot of grief for Graceland, in fact he still does, but he argued it’s the artists who suffer boycotts and he wanted to give black South Africans a platform for their art. I can see where Simon comes from, and I unashamed admit to adoring the album, but it is a bit white saviour the way he went about it. 

Graceland is one of my favourite albums of all time - there isn't a single song on it I don't love. But it's very much a conflicting issue for me. It was truly disappointing to hear that Simon had breached the boycott to make it (I was a kid when I first heard it, so didn't realise how things worked at the time), and, a bit less controversially, The Rhythm of the Saints (which I also adore), and you're right that it's very White Saviour. That said, he does make a good argument. Without him, we might not have got to hear Ladysmith, Miriam Makeba or Hugh Masekela in the mainstream way that we did.

[Factotum]

11 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

That’s true, but the reason apartheid ended was down to commerce and not a cultural boycott.

Oh absolutely. I wasn't trying to say it was the reason, certainly the commerce issue hit way bigger, but it does play a part for sure.

Agreed with Simon, and I do understand people who play those places or what he did with the justification that the people are not the government. But Government's do often play up those things as endorsements. Its a headache to think about it!

 

[BomberPat]

14 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

That’s true, but the reason apartheid ended was down to commerce and not a cultural boycott. Paul Simon got a lot of grief for Graceland, in fact he still does, but he argued it’s the artists who suffer boycotts and he wanted to give black South Africans a platform for their art. I can see where Simon comes from, and I unashamed admit to adoring the album, but it is a bit white saviour the way he went about it. 

The flip side of that coin was Johnny Clegg wasn't able to play anti-Apartheid concerts in the UK because they blanket banned any artist who had taken money to play in South Africa - overlooking the fact that Clegg's band was multi-racial, that they played to multi-racial audiences, sang in both English and Zulu, and had been arrested or had concerts shut down by the South African government multiple times.

It's unfortunate that, when taking a broad strokes approach to things like this, nuance gets lost. I don't know enough about Russian sports teams, venues, promoters, or anything else, to know how connected to the government they might or might not be - and it's on those grounds that any boycott or sanctions should be determined.

[Keith Houchen]

The thing with Simon as well is how he never took a penny for the gigs over there, and paid the musicians 15 times the going rate to make sure they weren’t fucked over. All well intended but then Linda Ronstadt guesting on it after the played Sun City? Nah mate. 
 

Anyway. Whilst we should be doing something about Russia, punishing and harming the working classes of both Russia and Ukraine isn’t it. 
 

EDIT - @BomberPat Great point about Johnny Clegg. Man he was brilliant wasn’t he. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Keith Houchen

[LaGoosh]

1 hour ago, David said:

That may be so, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. We are quite rightly showing solidarity with the people of Ukraine, but it's worth remembering that the ordinary people of Russia aren't exactly cruising through this situation unaffected. 

The only difference is that much of their suffering and issues are avoidable, and are being caused by governments like ours. 

Nearly 150 million Russian citizens have watched their savings evaporate as the ruble is in free fall, and many of the sanctions are actually cutting the average Russian citizen off from the global financial system.

That's pretty much the whole point of economic sanctions. To make the war so unpopular and painful for the people at every level of society that their government's hand is forced. It's intentional, not by accident. It's horrible and deeply immoral...but it's better than war.

[stewdogg]

1 hour ago, David said:

That may be so, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. We are quite rightly showing solidarity with the people of Ukraine, but it's worth remembering that the ordinary people of Russia aren't exactly cruising through this situation unaffected. 

The only difference is that much of their suffering and issues are avoidable, and are being caused by governments like ours. 

Nearly 150 million Russian citizens have watched their savings evaporate as the ruble is in free fall, and many of the sanctions are actually cutting the average Russian citizen off from the global financial system.

There's absolutely zero need for that, and while the various world powers could, if they wanted to, approach this situation in a measured manner they've instead decided to use a sledge hammer to do the job.

There's absolutely no way I'd ever look to support or explain those kinds of actions away. Especially when it's governments like ours who are playing a part in these decisions being made.

I saw it said elsewhere that while Russia are waging war on Ukraine, the rest of the world is waging an economic war on regular Russian citizens.

Maybe some of the 150 million Russian's can start doing something about their lunatic leader. It's not nice, but it's better than NATO stepping foot in that country and setting off WW3 which will include nuclear weapons being fired at other parts of mainland Europe and then subsequently millions of Russians being wiped off the face of the Earth.

I'm interested in what you think would have been a measured response? I guess NATO could say that they're not going to have Ukraine as a member but that is not going to settle Putin down. We can only hit them in the pocket, I guess a measured response would've been to do something 8 years ago when they annexed Crimea but we're past that point now.