Ineos Grenadiers’ Russian pro Pavel Sivakov denounces invasion of Ukraine

BBB wrote:

"...calling on others to distance the actions of President Vladimir Putin from the views of the majority of Russians..."

If I remember correctly, Putin enjoyed short of 70% approval ratings during the invasion force build-up. What exactly did the majority of Russians think was going to happen?

They may have had quite a good idea what might happen if they expressed disapproval.

BBB wrote:

"...calling on others to distance the actions of President Vladimir Putin from the views of the majority of Russians..."

If I remember correctly, Putin enjoyed short of 70% approval ratings during the invasion force build-up. What exactly did the majority of Russians think was going to happen?

Not saying that people have an alternative in mind but doesn't his government / his proteges regularly get 108% of the vote?  I think opinion polls also work differently over there.  I imagine you may have to give your name and address first "to prevent fraud" etc.

It's understandable to be sceptical of most of politically related poll results from Russia but the data comes from a respectable Levada Centre which was in 2016 considered as a "foreign agent" by the Russian Ministry of Justice.

Putin has been enjoying high levels of public support for quite a while. This isn't a dig at the Russians in particular but all the mindless and uncivilised electorate mobs supporting dictators across the world. Whether it's 1939 or 2022, voters enjoying the actual or promised prosperity of their countries while turning a blind eye to the dark side of the regime have blood on their hands.

In a genuine democracy that's a reasonable criticism.

I think Russia stopped being a genuine democracy quite a while ago.

Also consider the propaganda that Russian citizens are exposed too. It's hard not to support Putin when you're constantly told he's the only thing protecting your way of life.

I'll put my hand up and say I supported the Iraq war at the time it started.

I was only a teenager and, in hindsight, hopelessly naive but I believed what the government said and what I read in the papers.

I've since become, thankfully, far more cynical but only because I've been able to access media that exposed the repeated mendacity of political and public figures.

If I'd been fed a diet of nonstop pro government propaganda I'd probably still think Tony Blair was a thoroughly decent guy.

As TB would say - there's a middle way. Or as you point out Russia looks nothing like a democracy, on closer examination. It's all about the system - is there an effective "civil society"?  How do all the parts of the state - courts, press, the military, local government, NGOs, big business - relate to the centre of power?  What are people's expectations?  To what extent can / do people act on their own political views?  Or do they censor these - maybe even in private?  (One of the saddest things I read - in "Tibet, Tibet" - was a quote from a Tibetan woman saying she didn't feel free even in her own head).

I picked Blair when he first got in and part of that was due to youthful optimism (which the incoming Labour party certainly spoke to). However at least as much was to do with getting rid of the previous government - at the time mired in "sleaze" and who were "the nasty party". Elections are lost, after all.

Quote:

If I'd been fed a diet of nonstop pro government propaganda I'd probably still think Tony Blair was a thoroughly decent guy.

Indeed, but also: if you realised you didn't believe that, could you do anything about it?  How safe would it be to tell anyone else?

I don't think that's a sensible position.

Peng Shuai is a good example of what can happen to athletes in authoritarian regimes if they decide to speak out.

I applaud those who do so but we shouldn't force others into potentially dangerous positions for themselves or their families.

I do agree, it has to be a matter of personal conscience, but I also strongly believe that anyone with a voice who does not call out wrongs that they see is complicit in its continuation. This goes equally for things in this country such as human trafficking to staff nail bars and car washes, racism, sexism etc.

There is definitely truth in that but I would argue that those who are citizens of autocratic regimes do not have a voice.

Putin has made it clear he is willing to flagrantly murder his critics even on foreign soil.

A Russian citizen speaking out against his regime is literally risking their life and the lives of their family.

Would you speak out if it might mean the death of your children?

I know I would not so I can't criticise those who do likewise.

Nikolai wrote:

Russian athletes are in a difficult position, but if they want to compete, they must, as individuals, renounce the actions of the KremlIn

So you would ban any Russian cyclists who refuse to  make an anti-Putin declaration? That sounds very much like something Putin would order. No. If there are internationally agreed sanctions banning all Russian athletes that's different, but demanding that sort of declaration, particularly when you consider the consequences it could have for the rider's family...just no.

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I was not interested in engaging in any dialogue with you under your previous (several times suspended) alias and I am not in the slightest bit interested in engaging with you under your current one, any of your previous five, or any of the future ones you will doubtless employ in your increasingly sad and desperate attempts to suck people into your pathetic trolling. Good day to you.

It ceases to be politics when there are tanks and missiles involved.
And to draw analogies between the democratically elected government in Ukraine and the murderous despotic tyranny of Saddam Hussein is right up there with the most offensive things you have ever posted.

The regimes don't have to be analogous in order for the invasions to be equally illegal.

If they don't denounce Putin, then their presence is a moral stain on whatever contest they find themselves in. If they are worried for their safety, then they should get a different job.

Nikolai wrote:

If they don't denounce Putin, then their presence is a moral stain on whatever contest they find themselves in. If they are worried for their safety, then they should get a different job.

Just no.  The Russian government is crazy, probably certifiably so, but if we are going to administer ideological purity tests, based on nationality, for competing in a sport that is not country-led (leaving aside teams sponsored by the Russsian state or "basically extensions of the state" such a Gazprom), then we're no better than they are.

If they're Russian but competing on behalf of (and paid by) a non Russian sponsored team, just leave them alone.....

Professional sport is the silliest, most pointless occupation imaginable. It's value is playful, or perhaps symbolic. Athletes are figureheads, or dignitaries, who occupy a privileged position in society based on that which we are willing to project onto them. The Russian athlete finds themselves thrust onto the front line, just like a resident of Kiev. The Russian athlete must choose what they want to be, that is their tragedy: Denounce or retire. What they cannot do is carry on as normal. Nobody wants to see them doing that.

Nikolai wrote:

What they cannot do is carry on as normal. Nobody wants to see them doing that.

I knew the Russian government had troll farms, I didn't know Ukraine had the same.  Get back under your bridge.

And Russian non-state athletes, carry on as normal.....

Sivakov understood what he had to do, and good on him.

Nikolai wrote:

Professional sport is the silliest, most pointless occupation imaginable. It's value is playful, or perhaps symbolic. [...]

I'm not going to start making Jimmy-Carr-style jokes but if you're interested in a society in which we can all breathe some playfulness is vital.  Especially when you have to face hard choices and serious conditions. I'm not huge on professional sport - and it's also clearly tied up with money and politics.  However I do believe - faced with situations of gravity - some levity is important. Or we start to become less pleasant humans.

(I've not got a response to your "they must choose and cannot carry on as normal" - that's for those closer to judge.  Though I certainly agree that thinking that high-level sport is entirely unrelated to politics is naive).

Nikolai wrote:

Professional sport is the silliest, most pointless occupation imaginable. It's value is playful, or perhaps symbolic. Athletes are figureheads, or dignitaries, who occupy a privileged position in society based on that which we are willing to project onto them. The Russian athlete finds themselves thrust onto the front line, just like a resident of Kiev. The Russian athlete must choose what they want to be, that is their tragedy: Denounce or retire. What they cannot do is carry on as normal. Nobody wants to see them doing that.

You are absolutely correct on your 1st line. But that's about it.

By all means ban teams with nefarious connections, or for that matter individuals who espouse hateful ideologies, or break the relevant rules of conduct.

But banning people for not making statements to your subjective satisfaction is not right, and in any case pragmatically unworkable.

If you don't denounce X your presence is a moral stain on our sport.

Who decides what X is?

Many would argue that the Iraq war was an illegal invasion of a sovereign country.

Should all British athletes be required to denounce Tony Blair before competing?

The UK is declining visa applications from Ukraine making safe routes for those fleeing war illegal.  This is a moral stain on our country. Presumably, you would apply the same standard and only allow British athletes to compete if they make statements denouncing Pritti Patel and Boris Johnson.

Obviously this isn't something that can be regulated or enforced. But morally, a Russian athlete SHOULD take careful steps to distance themselves from the Kremlin. An athlete is an ambassador for humanity and, secondarily, for that portion of humanity they represent. This is the downside of their position, but they way it should be. Just as Poland is refusing to play football against Russia, so to must any athlete refuse to compete against a Russian who has not publicly denounced what is happening.

That's not really true.

We've closed our visa centres in Ukraine but applications can be made from other centres outside of the Ukraine.

Our diplomatic and embassy staff were withdrawn when it became clear invasion was imminent and their lives were in immediate danger.

Without them it's impossible to run the visa service.

Given the situation in Kyiv where, I believe, most visa applications were previously processed it would be potentially catastrophic to encourage citizens to attend in large numbers even if our staff were available to process the applications.

Processing the applications in safe regions, as we are doing, is clearly the best option in a terrible situation.

We have put in place multiple other measures to ease entry requirements for Ukrainian citizens.

A good objective overview here:
https://immigrationbarrister.co.uk/ukraine-home-office-temporary-visa-co...

Your reading of that article is different than mine. Unless they are related to a British citizen normally living in Ukraine there is no relaxation or feasible way to apply for a Visa. Our moral duty here is to stop the xenophobic anti immigration rhetoric that has been prevalent for too long and work with other countries to accept Ukrainians (and for that matter Syrians, Iraqis, Rohingya) as refugees from conflict, and welcome the diversity and enrichment they will bring to our society.

This is the pertinent section:

"Other Ukrainian Citizens in Ukraine
...
If you are able to safely travel, you can apply through a visa application centre in one of the nearby countries."

I don't think there is a way to safely process applications within the Ukraine so processing them in neighbouring countries seems like the best option in a terrible situation.

You're correct Simon. Ignore Rich's obfuscation, it a tactic to draw you in - he has a very particular approach to refugees and migration.  Also note that he calls the country 'the Ukraine' instead of Ukraine. 

I'm guessing you think you know more than a barrister specialising in immigration.

Point out the error in the barrister's post or accept you are wrong.

Mea Culpa re the 'the' though.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm guessing you think you know more than a barrister specialising in immigration.

Why not? According to your previous postings, you think you know more about climate science than the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

("The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated a GWP for methane between 84-87 when considering its impact over a 20-year timeframe (GWP20) and between 28-36 when considering its impact over a 100-year timeframe (GWP100). This means that one tonne of methane can considered to be equivalent to 28 to 36 tonnes of CO2 if looking at its impact over 100 years."

Rich_cb "Methane has no effect after 15 years")