Tim Wall's Ukraine Resolutions

[David Sedgwick]

To my mind, there are clear parallels between 2014 and 1938.

It is often forgotten nowadays that the Munich Agreement of 1938 was popular not just because it avoided war but because a substantial body of British public opinion felt that the Sudeten Germans had right on their side.

When it became clear that the Sudetenland was a long way from being Hitler’s “last territorial demand in Europe”, perceptions naturally changed.

The same is true of the events of 2014. A free and fair referendum in the Crimea could well have resulted in a vote for union with Russia.

Against that background, welcoming the election of Arkady Dvorkovich as FIDE President in 2018 doesn’t seem so very terrible to me, especially as the alternative was Georgios Makropoulos.

However, the events of Thursday 24th February 2022 were of course a game changer.

I was asked on here whether I could countenance any Russian being FIDE President in the current situation. I would not rule out someone who had denounced the “special military operation” and dissociated themselves from and renounced any past involvement with the Putin regime.

However, I do not believe that Dvorkovich is such a person. His stance is at best ambivalent. I stand by the view expressed in the Council resolution that Dvorkovich is not a fit and proper person to hold the post of FIDE President at this time.

Dvorkovich has a forthcoming opportunity to prove me wrong, although not until after the FIDE elections. On the second day of the FIDE General Assembly, following the elections, the Russian Chess Federation are seeking to have Russian and Belarusian teams readmitted to FIDE events. Dvorkovich could state clearly and unequivocally that no such action should even be contemplated until after Russia has withdrawn from occupied Ukrainian territory.

But I am not holding my breath.

[Gerard Killoran]

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.

Has the ECF defined what constitutes the 'civilised world community'? Which countries are members of this organisation, and what do have to do to get expelled from it?

I'm sure there are plenty of countries around the world who would at least raise an eyebrow if the invaders and occupiers of Iraq were considered suitable for membership.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thank you for posting your views David. They largely concur with mine. I am fortunate enough to be currently studying aspects of the interwar period, and I think you are right that key parts of what happened in the 1920s and 1930s are now largely forgotten or oversimplified. It is sometimes not easy to draw parallels across the years, but there are many in this case. One example that is often discussed is the propaganda value of the 1936 Berlin Olympics to the Nazis. While the Chess Olympiad is not at the same level as the Olympics, It is good that the Chess Olympiad was removed from Russia. What strikes me most though, is how the differences (modern technology) really make a difference, but at the same time the underlying ethics and the need to stand up for what you believe in does not change. It does feel, sadly, as if the world as a whole has largely sleepwalked into this, though many people were warning of what might happen (and Gerard is absolutely right to keep pointing out the double standards over Iraq and Afghanistan). The big question it seems right now is which way China will turn.

[J T Melsom]

It is all a bit late in the day and nothing we debate at this stage will halt the barbarism. Nevertheless the assertion about AD's participation in Putin's cabinet as per the second paragraph of the motion, is open to challenge in that it suggests his active support for actions in Ukraine. The presentation of that information in the composite motion therefore seems to me to be at the very best spin, it invites readers to infer something that is unproven. And spin is essentially dishonest. I understand integrity is an important value, although it is clearly more valuable to those wishing to be an arbiter than leader of the Conservative party, but unfortunately that paragraph raises doubts that have not been disabused.

[David Sedgwick]

It is all a bit late in the day and nothing we debate at this stage will halt the barbarism. Nevertheless the assertion about AD's participation in Putin's cabinet as per the second paragraph of the motion, is open to challenge in that it suggests his active support for actions in Ukraine. The presentation of that information in the composite motion therefore seems to me to be at the very best spin, it invites readers to infer something that is unproven. And spin is essentially dishonest. I understand integrity is an important value, although it is clearly more valuable to those wishing to be an arbiter than leader of the Conservative party, but unfortunately that paragraph raises doubts that have not been disabused.

Thank you for the clarification. It simply hadn't occurred to me that anyone would seriously suggest that Dvorkovich might not have been associated with the Russian invasion of Crimea, despite being a Russian Deputy Prime Minister at the time.

A similar suggestion about a cabinet minister in the Blair Government in respect of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 would provoke the obvious retort "Why didn't you resign?" The late Robin Cook did, of course.

[Paul Cooksey]

Regarding your first paragraph, I hope that I am not being unfair to you, but you seem to be saying that there is nothing particularly exceptional about Putin's actions and that it should be business as usual. I am not in the least surprised that a large majority of the ECF Council thought otherwise.

This is a misunderstanding of my position. I was commenting on what the ECF Council is and is not competent to do, not giving an opinion on the war in Ukraine itself. In matters of chess, I think the ECF’s job is to set the rules, but in other matters I think its job is to follow them.

But David has addressed my point in not addressing it. His view that this is an exceptional event and it is very clear what we should do is probably widely held amongst Council members. They did feel competent to take a position, in a way they might not on, say, Palestine or Tigray.

[JustinHorton]

Thank you for the clarification. It simply hadn't occurred to me that anyone would seriously suggest that Dvorkovich might not have been associated with the Russian invasion of Crimea, despite being a Russian Deputy Prime Minister at the time.

A similar suggestion about a cabinet minister in the Blair Government in respect of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 would provoke the obvious retort "Why didn't you resign?" The late Robin Cook did, of course.

That might well be an apt comparison (though Cook had been Foreign Secretary until 2001 and was known to have a particular interest in foreign affairs) but I would want to know more about Russian government and politics than I do before being sure of this. And as I have said sundry times already, it is not really convincing for people to point at where Dvorkovich was in 2014 when they had every opportunity to say this in 2018 but didn't find it important to say so.

His view that this is an exceptional event and it is very clear what we should do is probably widely held amongst Council members.

Is it clear though? It was clear - I thought - that the Olympiad could not be held in Russia, but how much more than that are we actually clear about, in specifics?

[J T Melsom]

It is arguable that AD should have resigned earlier. But as I understand it the motion effectively only condemns him retrospectively. You have written elsewhere about how the initial invasion of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine might not constitute a redline for many, it seems only with hindsight to have become exactly that, and those supporting the ECF motion do need to ask themselves where they were when the Crimea was annexed.[You have explained your own view, and irrespective of whether we agree, I suspect many have not examined themselves so thoroughly]

[Chris Goodall]

I'm sorry if I contributed to you feeling beseiged, David. I know the resolutions are better for your involvement; that the ECF involved itself in geopolitics now but not in 2014 is not a point I think you should have to defend. Your name isn't the one in the thread title.

However, I must point out that the ECF Board's "directive" was only advisory, It was the Northumberland Chess Association who decided that the player to whom you refer must change their flag.

Millions of Belarusians are of course struggling to secure their own freedom.

I doubt whether you actually use flags in Northumbria Division 3. If you do, I imagine that the Ukrainians would be very sympathetic if your player wished to play under the red and white flag of the Belarusian people.

However, I doubt if they would have much sympathy for anyone who wished to (continue to) play under the flag of the dictator Lukashenko.

I share the sympathies you ascribe to the Ukrainians there. You are right that we don't use flags in the literal sense. I think I was unclear that I was using "flag" as a metonym for "FIDE registration". Since one can play under the FIDE flag, it is not quite the same thing as "country".

The ECF Board confirms that individual players and officials with a Russian or Belarusian FIDE registration will be excluded from all ECF-organised competitions until further notice. The ECF Board urges all organisers of events held in England to adopt the same approach.

I don't read this as advisory. As organisers of events held in England, we were "urged" to make participation in those events conditional on the player adopting a different flag. "This is the right thing to do, but if it backfires then it was technically your decision" is not the kind of governance one looks for from a body that fancies itself as the national governing body. It does not, as the business people say, add any value.

[David Sedgwick]

I share the sympathies you ascribe to the Ukrainians there. You are right that we don't use flags in the literal sense. I think I was unclear that I was using "flag" as a metonym for "FIDE registration". Since one can play under the FIDE flag, it is not quite the same thing as "country".

The ECF Board confirms that individual players and officials with a Russian or Belarusian FIDE registration will be excluded from all ECF-organised competitions until further notice. The ECF Board urges all organisers of events held in England to adopt the same approach.

I don't read this as advisory. As organisers of events held in England, we were "urged" to make participation in those events conditional on the player adopting a different flag. "This is the right thing to do, but if it backfires then it was technically your decision" is not the kind of governance one looks for from a body that fancies itself as the national governing body. It does not, as the business people say, add any value.

Perhaps "advisory" was not the right word. I should have said "not mandatory".

However, many Counties and other organisations have not implemented the ECF "directive" and it is apparent that the ECF will not be taking any action against those which have not. If in the Northumberland Chess Association felt pressured to do so against your own wishes, you may like to reconsider.

[JustinHorton]

To my mind, there are clear parallels between 2014 and 1938.

It is often forgotten nowadays that the Munich Agreement of 1938 was popular not just because it avoided war but because a substantial body of British public opinion felt that the Sudeten Germans had right on their side.

When it became clear that the Sudetenland was a long way from being Hitler’s “last territorial demand in Europe”, perceptions naturally changed.

Oh I missed this. Do me a favour.

The reason British political figures didn't care about the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was that they didn't care about fascism or militarism, except in so far as many of them admired it and were quite favourable to it, especially it were necessary to chooise between fascism and organised labour. (This is extremely visible from a viewpoint in Spain.) It was only when it became clear that Hitler threatened Britain and the British Empire that suddenly everybody had always been against fascism.

Similarly, the reason why British political figures (not Cameron. Not May, not Johnson and for that matter definitely not Blair) had no great problem with Putin was that he didn't threaten them. Not only that but as far as the Conservative Party was concerned Russian money and Russian donors were good and George Osborne got to be editor of the Standard. On top of that, elements of his regime - the nationalism, the aggressive policing, the flat tax and so on - were admired by many rightwingers because those are things that rightwingers often admire. They liked him! So he could level Chechnya and he could annex Crimea and there was little enough to say...until things got out of hand, and then it was imperative that everybody denounce him and it be everybody's top priority.

I have very little time for this kind of humbug. It shouldn't get in the way of anybody recognising Putin for what he is, that's for sure. But it shouldn't get in the way of recognising humbug for what it is, either.

[David Sedgwick]

To my mind, there are clear parallels between 2014 and 1938.

It is often forgotten nowadays that the Munich Agreement of 1938 was popular not just because it avoided war but because a substantial body of British public opinion felt that the Sudeten Germans had right on their side.

When it became clear that the Sudetenland was a long way from being Hitler’s “last territorial demand in Europe”, perceptions naturally changed.

Oh I missed this. Do me a favour.

The reason British political figures didn't care about the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was that they didn't care about fascism or militarism, except in so far as many of them admired it and were quite favourable to it, especially it were necessary to chooise between fascism and organised labour. (This is extremely visible from a viewpoint in Spain.) It was only when it became clear that Hitler threatened Britain and the British Empire that suddenly everybody had always been against fascism.

Similarly, the reason why British political figures (not Cameron. Not May, not Johnson and for that matter definitely not Blair) had no great problem with Putin was that he didn't threaten them. Not only that but as far as the Conservative Party was concerned Russian money and Russian donors were good and George Osborne got to be editor of the Standard. On top of that, elements of his regime - the nationalism, the aggressive policing, the flat tax and so on - were admired by many rightwingers because those are things that rightwingers often admire. They liked him! So he could level Chechnya and he could annex Crimea and there was little enough to say...until things got out of hand, and then it was imperative that everybody denounce him and it be everybody's top priority.

I have very little time for this kind of humbug. It shouldn't get in the way of anybody recognising Putin for what he is, that's for sure. But it shouldn't get in the way of recognising humbug for what it is, either.

Thank you for confirming the wisdom of my decision not to engage in debate with you on this Forum in future.

For the record, I said nothing about the attitudes of the British political establishment in the 1930s. I referred to "British public opinion".

[Roger de Coverly]

For the record, I said nothing about the attitudes of the British political establishment in the 1930s. I referred to "British public opinion".

I think it's well documented that there was a sea change in public opinion after the takeover of the rest of the Czechoslovakia in March 1939. For what it's worth, the Labour party opposed increased defence spending consistently for most of the 1930s.

Russia's various disputes with other former members of the Soviet Union could be seen as almost internal affairs, but a blatant invasion of a neighbour was a step too far.

[JustinHorton]

For the record, I said nothing about the attitudes of the British political establishment in the 1930s. I referred to "British public opinion".

Foreign policy was not and is not determined by public opinion.

. For what it's worth, the Labour party opposed increased defence spending consistently for most of the 1930s..

Though leaving Spanish democracy to Franco, Hitler and Mussolini, not so much.

(I don't want to do too much thread diversion, but somewhere* in Orwell - it's in the first volume of the Collected Essays, Letters and Journalism - he's talking about various grotesqueries of Thirties politics and he recalls Conservative MPs cheering in the House of Commons at the news that British ships aiding the Republic had been bombed. This is a very striking reminiscence and most helpful in concentrating the mind against some of the handwaving and pearl-clutching above.)

* EDIT: it's in "The Limit To Pessimism", New English Weekly 25 April 1940, a review of "The Thirties" by Malcolm Muggeridge, no less. (Now there was a real old humbug )

[Chris Goodall]

It was only when it became clear that Hitler threatened Britain and the British Empire that suddenly everybody had always been against fascism.

...

So he could level Chechnya and he could annex Crimea and there was little enough to say...until things got out of hand, and then it was imperative that everybody denounce him and it be everybody's top priority.

Why yes, my opinion of people goes down when they stop leaving me alone and start throwing rocks at my head. Even if I already disliked them. I don't think that's a character flaw on my part.

I could go around despising everyone so much that, if they were to start throwing rocks at my head, it would be no disappointment. But I don't want to, because if nothing else I want them to have an incentive not to start throwing rocks at my head.