Tim Wall's Ukraine Resolutions

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Nothing recent, but this article from a month ago seems to give a balanced view (though it is difficult to tell these days):

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/worl ... eaves-post

"Former Kremlin aide and ex-deputy prime minister Arkady Dvorkovich on Friday stepped down as chair of the Skolkovo Foundation after becoming a rare official voice of dissent against Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine."

What concrete facts have emerged since then?

[Matthew Turner]

It looks like these reports may have emanated from here https://www.republicworld.com/world-new ... eshow.html

There seem to be a number of rather preposterous claims in there. I would find the idea that Surkov was under house arrest incredibly hard to believe even in Russia.

[David Sedgwick]

If I edit the flowery language they are:
1. The ECF should push for the removal of Dvorkovich as FIDE President
2. The ECF should directly support the Ukraine people though the Ukraine chess federation.

Honestly when I first read the second one I thought I must have misunderstood it. But reading the notes, and looking at Tim's comments on unmoderated social media, apparently not. My opinion is that the ECF is not capable of organising emergency relief in a way that will materially impact the lives of people in Ukraine.

I can only apologise to Mike Truran if he sees this as just another example of people bashing the long suffering volunteers on the ECF Board. But there you go, in my view much better to give some money to the Red Cross and to support the sponsored events people have been doing.

My understanding is that the intention is to provide help and support for members of the Ukrainian chess community. I am no expert on Trust law, but it looks to me as though the objectives of The Chess Trust are broad enough to encompass that.

Giving money to the Red Cross wouldn't achieve that specific objective.

[Paul Cooksey]

I do concede my summary was inaccurate, although the motion does specify ECF Board. I still maintain better to give directly to a charity rather than asking the ECF to act as middle man

I understand Tim redrafting the first motion although I don't see in the portal yet. I suppose to deal with the procedural errors.

[Roger de Coverly]

I understand Tim redrafting the first motion although I don't see in the portal yet. I suppose to deal with the procedural errors.

There's an election fo FIDE President anyway. I suppose the success or otherwise of Tim's motion may dictate how the Board and FIDE Delegate will exercise the ECF's vote. The Finance meeting is too early in the year for the candidates to be known and the AGM usually takes place after the FIDE [residnt has been elected or re-elected.

Is there a likelihood that Nigel will stand again or even Malcolm?

[Roger Lancaster]

Starting from the premise that Dvorkovich is near-universaIIy regarded as having been a good president, particuIarIy when compared against some predecessors, it seems to me that his nationaIity is the onIy good reason for repIacing him. On a very approximate count, I'd say one-quarter of the worId's nations are either sympathetic to Putin's Russia or carefuIIy neutraI: it seems to me that those wiII back Dvorkovich. That means that two-thirds of the remaining nations, being those hostiIe to Putin, wouId have to sink their differences and agree on the choice of a repIacement candidate. FrankIy, without cIaiming any speciaI insight, this doesn't strike me as very IikeIy.

[NickFaulks]

On a very approximate count, I'd say one-quarter of the worId's nations are either sympathetic to Putin's Russia or carefuIIy neutraI

On my count, a good many more than that. Weighted by population, a clear majority.

[Roger Lancaster]

On a very approximate count, I'd say one-quarter of the worId's nations are either sympathetic to Putin's Russia or carefuIIy neutraI

On my count, a good many more than that. Weighted by population, a clear majority.

You may weII be right, Nick, but if so I take it you agree my strong expectation that Dvorkovich wiII be re-eIected. If so, any resoIution urging the ECF to vote against this couId be seen as mere gesture poIitics.

[NickFaulks]

You may weII be right, Nick, but if so I take it you agree my strong expectation that Dvorkovich wiII be re-eIected. If so, any resoIution urging the ECF to vote against this couId be seen as mere gesture poIitics.

There are only a few weeks left for nominations, and if plans are afoot to put up a serious challenger ( perhaps from the Carlsen group? ), they have been kept unusually secure.

I would not have said this a month ago, but I am starting to wonder whether we might see a straight fight Dvorkovich v Fancy.

edit : This may have drifted into the territory of another thread, but the Tim Wall resolution, which I assume will pass, could give the ECF a tricky decision in the above scenario.

[David Sedgwick]

I understand Tim redrafting the first motion although I don't see in the portal yet. I suppose to deal with the procedural errors.

I was unhappy about Motion A for two reasons: the procedural defects and the strident nature of the attacks on Arkady Dvorkovich. Malcolm Pein's editorial in Chess was more nuanced.

Yesterday I sent a suggested alternative wording to Tim Wall. He accepted my wording on the first part and we reached a compromise on the second. The revised version has the full support of Malcolm Pein.

As Paul says, the text has not yet reached the portal, so I have pasted it in below:


Resolution A on Ukraine
(amended by the Durham County Chess Association representative on 21/04/22)

“THAT the ECF utterly condemns the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin, which by its barbaric invasion of Ukraine and mass murder of Ukrainian civilians has put itself outside the civilised world community.

Council believes that, in view of these actions, as Russian Deputy Prime Minister from 2012-18, including during Russia’s illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea and involvement in conflict in Eastern Ukraine from 2014 onwards, Mr. Dvorkovich is not a fit and proper person to hold the post of FIDE President at this time.

Council accordingly calls on Mr. Dvorkovich immediately to step aside as FIDE President for the remainder of his term, thereby allowing FIDE Deputy President Bachar Kouatly of France to take over the responsibilities of President until the elections at the FIDE Congress in August 2022.

Council further calls on Mr. Dvorkovich to abandon his intention to seek re-election at the Congress."

[JustinHorton]

Council believes that, in view of these actions, as Russian Deputy Prime Minister from 2012-18, including during Russia’s illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea and involvement in conflict in Eastern Ukraine from 2014 onwards, Mr. Dvorkovich is not a fit and proper person to hold the post of FIDE President at this time.

Can we take it then that - given the references to 2014 and 2012-18 - he never has been a fit and proper person to hold the post?

[David Sedgwick]

Council believes that, in view of these actions, as Russian Deputy Prime Minister from 2012-18, including during Russia’s illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea and involvement in conflict in Eastern Ukraine from 2014 onwards, Mr. Dvorkovich is not a fit and proper person to hold the post of FIDE President at this time.

Can we take it then that - given the references to 2014 and 2012-18 - he never has been a fit and proper person to hold the post?

As you correctly quoted, the motion states that Dvorkovich is not a fit and proper person to hold the post at this time.

[J T Melsom]

But the motion doesn't explain his present failings, only references historic status. At present the FIDE president is not deemed of sufficient influence to be subject to sanctions. So this motion is effectively asking the UK chess community to say no to the FIDE President because he is a Russian. I wish the proposers were honest enough to say that.

[David Sedgwick]

But the motion doesn't explain his present failings, only references historic status. At present the FIDE president is not deemed of sufficient influence to be subject to sanctions. So this motion is effectively asking the UK chess community to say no to the FIDE President because he is a Russian. I wish the proposers were honest enough to say that.

As I said, the motion reflects a compromise between people whose views are not identical. That is a common enough practice.

[J T Melsom]

But the motion doesn't explain his present failings, only references historic status. At present the FIDE president is not deemed of sufficient influence to be subject to sanctions. So this motion is effectively asking the UK chess community to say no to the FIDE President because he is a Russian. I wish the proposers were honest enough to say that.

As I said, the motion reflects a compromise between people whose views are not identical. That is a common enough practice.

It's rare for Tim Wall and me to be in agreement about something. It's rather less rare for you to malign one or both of us.

I do wish you'd stop this 'maligning nonsense'. I took a break from this place in the hope you'd calm down when I resumed posting,but no such luck.

I understand how compromise motions are devised, but this one simply begs the questions that Justin and I have raised, and which have not so far been satisfactorily addressed.