War of aggression that will affect all of us.

[jlt]

Unofficial summary of the meeting (auf Deutsch):

https://www.dgob.de/bericht-von-der-aus ... ne-kriegs/

[kvasir]

These were the voting results according to my record:

Proposal: All EGF events in Russia to be canceled and reallocated.
Yes: 58 No: 4 Abstain: 2

Proposal: Russian players can't represent Russia but can still participate in EGF events under a neutral banner (alike at Olympic Games), until further notice
Yes: 49 No: 8 Abstain: 7

Proposal: Suspension of RGF within EGF
Yes: 40 No: 20 Abstain: 4

Proposal: Exclusion of RGF from EGF
Yes: 7 No: 51 Abstain: 2 (would require 2/3 of the votes, it is actually about "expulsion")

Proposal: Exclusion of Russian players from EGF events until further notice
Yes: 24 No: 32 Abstain: 8

Proposal: Exclusion of the RGF representative from the EGF executive board
Yes: 15 No: 32 Abstain: 17

Proposal: (Same) Measures against Belarus Go Association
Yes: 47 No: 9 Abstain: 4

[kvasir]

NK has resigned from the executive.

Natalia Kovaleva said she would "suspend" her membership in the EGF executive, I don't think it is clear what this means.

The EYGC starts in about a week and the executive is urgently working to resolve various issues related to that.

The host organization (Czechia) for the EYGC announced previously (a decision of their annual meeting) that Russian participants would not be welcome and that they recommend their players to boycott games with Russian players. Hungary has indicated similar sentiment (I think). It is not only the EYGC that is up in the air, it is also the PGETC. The PGETC had games postponed earlier this week because of the war by Russia against Ukraine.

I had hoped that the EGF would decide to forbid the participation of Russian and Belarussian players but now that it didn't the possibility of boycotts and other actions remains.

[kvasir]

The European Chess Union (ECU) board had more resolve on Thursday than the EGF Special General Meeting and is banning all Russian and Belorussian teams and clubs from competition. Individuals representing Russia or Belarus are explicitly banned from ECU event unless they change federations or explicitly apply to play under the FIDE flag (that is to notify FIDE in the form of an Official Application). Trainers, arbiters and officials representing Russia and Belarus will have no functions in ECU events.

ECU will consider expelling the Russian Chess federation at its next General Assembly and is recommending FIDE to also consider this matter urgently.

https://www.europechess.org/ecu-suspend ... derations/

[jlt]

See here: https://www.eurogofed.org/announcement_2002-03-06.html

ancm_2022-03-06.png (250.96 KiB) Viewed 9574 times

[tundra]

Is there an official source available for the letter by Toby Manning? I am not able to find it on the website of the British Go Association ( https://www.britgo.org/ ).

[jlt]

It's an email sent by him. Anyway it's obsolete now.

[kvasir]

Some new developments.

First the International Go Federation announced the following policy:

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has passed a resolution urging all International Federations to relocate or cancel their events currently planned in Russia or Belarus.

The IGF has no plans to stage any events in either country and urges all regional associations/federations and all IGF association members to relocate or cancel any events currently planned in Russia or Belarus.

In addition, until further notice, no Russian or Belarussian flags will be displayed at events under IGF’s auspices. The Russian or Belarussian players participating in IGF events will be identified with the IGF flag. Regional associations/federations and IGF association members are urged to adopt a similar policy.

This statement is being sent to all IGF members and association members confirming IGF’s strong condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia with support of Belarus and expressing IGF’s unwavering solidarity with our Ukrainian friends.

Secondly Russia has now been officially disqualified in the Pandanet Go European Team Championship and the following announcement was made. Belarus is not competing this year and can therefore not be disqualified in the same way.

European Team Championship to exclude Russia

The Pandanet Go European Team Championship has excluded Russia from
the current League A, following the decision of the EGF (EGF announcement)

The team and the match results are deleted from the tournament table
and the League A will be played with 9 teams in the coming rounds.

As the League A will be finished with nine teams, the rules for
demotion and promotion of teams are modified for the end of the 12th
season:

League A 9th place team will play a play-off with League B 2nd place
team. League B 1st place team is promoted directly.

League B 10th place team will be demoted to League C, the 9th place
team will avoid demotion.

League C top 2 teams will be promoted to the League B.

League C 8th place team will be demoted to League D, the 7th place
team will avoid demotion.

League D top 2 teams will be promoted to League C.

I hope our Ukrainian friends are safe and I wish this war to end soon.

Vesa

[Elom0]

We really should prioritise above all people in the world the healthcare workers who are in danger trying to help people so we must do all we can to help them the most, after the stress off fighting Covid-19 and are still fighting Omicron, and in some countries like Yemen during SARS-2, and they are not in a bunker or fleeing, even though one can argue they are the ones who deserve it the most and from a skills perspective losing a healthcare worker is probably the worst for a country, especially during SARS-Cov-2, and especially during a war, so one can say they should be protected most I mean I don't even know if the government is properly capable of paying them on time even, even in Ukraine . . .

[kvasir]

We really should prioritise above all people in the world the healthcare workers who are in danger trying to help people so we must do all we can to help them the most,

That is true. Many suffer when healthcare workers are prevented from doing their thing.

Farmers also do lot of good. It is easy to forget that they raise crops to feed the world. It is a brewing humanitarian crises when farmers are kept out of the fields. Now it is becoming more known that farmers also rid the world of some tanks and other weapons that otherwise would be put to no good use.

[Elom0]

We really should prioritise above all people in the world the healthcare workers who are in danger trying to help people so we must do all we can to help them the most,

That is true. Many suffer when healthcare workers are prevented from doing their thing.

Farmers also do lot of good. It is easy to forget that they raise crops to feed the world. It is a brewing humanitarian crises when farmers are kept out of the fields. Now it is becoming more known that farmers also rid the world of some tanks and other weapons that otherwise would be put to no good use.

Exactly. Russia would do well to focus on making food over war, I mean special military operations.

The US should conduct their own 'special military operation', flying outdated and unthreatening jets over Ukraine in freedom of navigation manouvres with old jets over the air to discourage random. Look you can't just bully backward cavemen for twenty years to look good but then not push around the more threatening bully. It sets a ridiculous precedent and starts looking like we the only threats to your security are ccountries that are equally stronger or stronger than you. Ironically, a country can only ever justify fighting countries that are stronger than them or are peer competitors, since fighting weaker countries sets a bad global precedent. NATO should use the go tactic of moving first on the other side, increasing the presence of ships on the pacific on the right side of Russia, enough for an invasion of Russia. If America makes it clear to Russia that any threat would be based on a ground invasion with troops, in makes missiles less justified, and it would simultaneously mean that we can increase security for Taipei-controlled China, probably the most tactically vital strategic interest in America at this point in time. This is the only kind of behaviour that will get the attention of a military leader, which is what Putin essentially is, a KGB. America being 'cautious' is America being reckless when we're talking about setting precedents for major powers.

This is why in natural unilism I intended to argue that large states and great powers are an inherently bad thing and destabilising to the world, and that was before hearing the overview Mearshimer's Great Power Tragedy theory, which even if 50% true confirms to my skepticism of even the existence of humungous states, because by definition they are the consolidation of power into too few individuals, no different from wealth inequality which is destabilising even when te poor is overall richer too, because it's those relatively richer who can lobby relatively more.

We have to set the precedent now where ground troop invasions or air-to-air combat between major powers can never be an excuse for missiles, and the Eagle must never signal to the Bear or the Dragon those they are of the table, which would reduce the likelihood they occur. Now it's probably too late to make it less likely to occur but it still should be done.

On the other hand, disallowing Paralympians from attending the winter games was wrong, because abler-bodied athletes were allowed to compete, so this amounts to blatant ablism. I'm also not sure fully about sanctioning youth players in youth events, but sanctioning disabled athletes but allowing abler bodied ones to compete is wrong and hard to properly to my perception. Instead, banning all Russian athletes entirely from the next summer and winter Olympics would have made more sense, perhaps, and if Russia doesn't give any reason to reverse that decision--I mean I don't see how that's possible unless Russia gives Ukraine Russian land and pays reparations or something major like that--then the decision will also automatically hold for the next winter Olympics too.

I know that mindsports are not included in the Olympics so the heads of the International Olympic and International Paralympic Committees are not likely to necessarily be bona fide strategists per se, but banning Russia from future Olympics would give Russian athletes and the Russian government incentive to oppose their government in this war I mean "Special Military Operation", pardon my inaccuracy. Now their chance is gone, if anything it emboldens them to support the war since it helps them get brainwashed with a victim mentality since they were not the ones who started the violence but are not being given a chance to show such before being banned. Remember the art of war, leave an opening for the enemy so that they don't fight as hard, but not an escape route for yourself, burn your bridges. It should be done to the secessionist government in Beijing (in my opinion--setting a good example to the west in reducing poverty and I wish the west would stop yapping to them hypocritically about pollution concerns they never paid attention to in their own rise, basically saying the ridiculous notion that non-westerners don't deserve to rise economically (and note that 90% of climate change today is caused by particles that were emitted by western powers into the air in the past, China's current larger output is irrelevant to today's climate, so in any natural disaster, blame the west) but, fundamentally, I mean they are technically still a terrorist group since they eye on removing the democratically elected and obviously more legitimate government of China. Through coup. Terrorism is part of theirs their policy sadly, though this is not too different to how all great powers behave or have behaved, great powers are the problem . . .), and it should be done to Russia . . .

[Elom0]

As a unilist, I believe strongly that large countries and centralised power isn't good. Many small countries are the answer. Even if a territory isn't officially independant, they should still have full autonomy.

Initially when Putin recognised the donbass republics I was sure he wasn't going to launch an invasion, and that he was just trying to intimdate Zelensky with the excercises in Belarus (Lukashenko condemed the invasion but the opposition says the dictator is under the control of the kremlin so he can't do anything); I thought that there'll be a similar system employed in the Donbass agreed to that of northen ireland, at least it seemed like the obvious solution to me . . . . . .

. . . . . . In the hope of ending this war as soon as humanly--or divinely--possible, Donbass and Crimea can be recognised as an independent neutral states in that neither russian nor ukrainian and nato forces will be allowed in the region, Only neutral forces. NATO troops will be allowed in Ukraine except up to these regions.

People whose home is in the Donetsk, Luhanks and Crimea will all have citizenship and passports for those countries. However the key point is that they will all have a second passort which they can choose to either be Ukrainian or Russian. People who choose a ukrainian passport will simultaneously be ukrainian citizens with all their rights. Those who choose a russian passport will likewise simultaneously be russian citizens any few rights that russians may have. To be honest we have to stop thinking only as chess players where the aim is to anihalate th other and add go-thinking where the aim is to only have a slight edge. This is the only way great powers can live in peace.

P.S. Apparently the oppostion in sweden was even more pro-nato, and their politicall system seems actually democratic, unlike in the US and UK, so on that basis if it's what the swedish people want then it's fine. But I'm not sure if it's really the best idea. On the other hand I think Finland Joining NATO is absolutely necessary. In the long term I want NATO broken up into three blocks, but in the short term we gotta punish putin with more nato until he makes civilised deal in the donbass.

[jlt]

I am more pessimistic. I don't believe peaceful negotiations will ever happen. Russia will conquer whatever parts of Ukraine it can. Afterwards, at best we will have years of cold war between pro-Russia et pro-NATO countries, and at worst other invasions will be launched.

[gennan]

I think/hope that Putin will not succeed in achieving his goals in Ukraine.

But whatever the outcome of Putin's invasion, I think he has turned Russia into a pariah country. The EU will not buy Russian oil and gas anymore as soon as they can. China and India may gladly buy that instead, but they will probably demand a large discount, because there won't be many other buyers. So Russia's income will shrink significantly in the coming years. And most of that income will still be stolen by the oligarchs. So the future looks really grim for ordinary Russian people.

[Elom0]

Okay . . .

When Dr Putin first invaded, I supported NATO immediately engaging in deterrence manoeuvres with their Jets. In other words my position aligned exactly with Trumps later comments. I thought. I even saw NATO reps on TV confirming what I thought by saying that they can't impose a no-fly zone because shooting down Russian jets would trigger article 5, collective defence. Sooo . . .

However, then one of Zelenksy's ministers said that what they need is a no-fly zone. So I thought, well, there's no way Kiev would say that unless they do not think shooting down Russian Jets necessarily trigger article 5, so he must know something I don't in those terms, but also apparently he think simple deterrence manoeuvres aren't good enough so maybe again he knows something I don't, so I changed my position so that western nations should impose a no-fly zone on the west of Ukraine and posted that here. And now I'm finding out that it turns out that Russian attacks on Turkish planes don't trigger article 5 . . . because none of them were over NATO Land in Turkey. So now I'm confused. Would shooting down Russian Jets or vice versa over Ukraine trigger article 5 or not? Because if it doesn't there then there is absolutely no excuse not to conduct exercises. It seems that apathy is the new 'cool' in international politics, thanks to Americas botched missions. So yes I am angry.

At this point in time, it's a bit lat for that, the lives that could have been saved already gone. The ideal situation is that we end the hostilities now, that Crimea and the Donbass should both be independent with citizens free to choose either Ukrainian or Russian Citizenship for Dual citizenship with international observers . . . This would mean Ukraine should focus on taking back Mariupol and half of Crimea. Now that Russia is focusing on the east I doubt if this is possible without air superiority. However, I think right now Ukraine should try to take back all areas except, then recognise Crimea and the Donbass as independent, and then NATO should streamline NATO troops being present in Ukraine, perhaps by Ukraine joining NATO. As a rule I am against NATO expansion and would not have supported Ukraine or Finland joining, before the 24th, but you cannot reward violence from a more powerful foe by backing down. This is literally against what mainstream western leaders want. Well to me they seem to want to have their cake and eat it. They encourage Kiev to unfairly attack the Donbass for not recognising a coup d'tar, then fail to properly defend Ukraine's legitimate territory. To me it looks like the West is using Ukraine but making Ukraine make all the sacrifices, now running to despots for oil when we should be coming of plastics and fuel-based cars. A Joke, really.

It just seems like NATO member are acting like strategic novices learning about ladders for the first time or how the horse moves. By definition you cannot publicly state that a country having nuclear weapons is a reason not to engage them, even if it is. That should be secret information in in your joint chiefs of staff meeting and the like. Because by publicly stating that you are doing the number one thing to encourage the proliferation. So publicly you have to talk tough. When Big P uses the ------r word you by definition have to respond by saying you are analysing what a deterrence mission in the west of Ukraine looks like and immediately after, so that there is no mistake that it was caused by the use of such language. Deter first and then soon after switch to consolatory language, but never start of with timid or consolatory language first in response to that language. Of course this kind of weak behaviour with Russia is encouraging N. Korea, so the entire thing is a mess

I would:

Recognise the Donbass and Crimea as Independent Territories and promise that they will never be a part of NATO and that they, and start conducting Ariel exercises over the black sea.
Then, put NATO troops in Ukrainian-held areas of Ukraine as a precursor to them Joining NATO. Although NATO seems like an inherently naff organisation in the modern age, today I would support Finland and Ukraine joining NATO due to recent events. I agree with the comment that if Russia invaded to get less NATO, then wat they deserve is more NATO, although the ultimate goal should be that all military alliances should be toned down or reduced in size into multiple smaller alliances where bigger nations defend smaller countries. Anyway the aim of placing NATO in Ukraine, exactly what he didn't want and was avoiding, is to punish Putin for overreaching beyond the Donbass and Crimea, and stop others from even thinking about pursuing similar actions to pursue their objectives.

Really, it is our incompetence over the past 14 years that caused this, or even before that since the legal framework of NATO directly contradicts the spirit of the promise over east Germany unless at least one nation commits to keeping the spirit of the promise. Forget that, let's just look at the past 8 years. From the moment of the coup, NATO should have been very clear that they would support regions of Ukraine that didn't recognise the coup to temporarily self-govern and potentially become independent as long as they remain neutral between Ukraine and Russia and don't become Russian puppet states. It's the same as the situation was between Ghana and Togo when they became independent, but no one decided to invade each other to stop people being independent. When Vizzy P stole back Crimea instead of kicking him out of an economic forum--the non-egotistically named, 'great eight'--again, the west should have decided to declare both Crimea and the Donbass as independent, and then then commit to NATO neutrality as long as those regions were truly independent and not Russian puppet states, but if Russian did make them puppet states, we should have committed to placing (just like we should commit to defending the legitimate democratically elected government of China, but not necessarily Taiwan as an independent nation. Don't know-tow to the extremists on either side). It's like when a revier or AI constantly lights up the same point and the players keep playing somewhere else. We have 15 kyu leaders running us, no matter the political orientation. By definition the right answer is not just 'centrist'# but syncretic--incorporating so-called extreme opinions from both sides of the so-called political spectrum (although I laugh at that concept of political spectrum. It sounds like something invented for the sole purpose of letting stupidity be acceptable in governance).

The problem on all sides of the Ukraine conflict is the worldwide pathology of not allowing people to be independent from your way of thinking or your group, and not allowing them to make their own decisions. We have overly large states and overly centralised power and overly large militaries to oppress every inch of our overly large territories (with overly-high voting ages, often run by overly-old and overly-male governance, and if there are young, they are overly-idealistic and overly naive (although this is not an excuse for an overly high voting age*). Well the games of baduk I like the most are not the ones with two large territories. It's the one's with many small groups.

*

You could pick out ANY demographic group in society and give VERY good reason why they specifically shouldn't be allowed to vote. Young people, old people, women, men, low-IQ people, high-IQ people, Crazy people in asylums, people who are too sane and rational, people in jail or on bail, people who follow the law too much. Using the very good reason for why a group of people shouldn't be allowed to rule as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to vote, but people do not realise that these are two extraordinarily different things, and I call it the democracy fallacy. The entire point of democracy is to allow people who otherwise wouldn't be allowed to rule, the chance to vote, so that the people who do rule do not run over them. You cannot conflate the two and use it as a reason for these people to also not vote. Which means that all of the groups above must properly be represented (people in asylum represent only a minority of the population). I mean we could decide today that we're only going to allow people with an IQ over 120 to vote. I for one would be very interested in comparing the voting patterns of people with IQ above 120 or 130, or below 80, or 75. Just the expectation on a person to vote can make them more responsible. In other words, anyone who is able to understand the concept of voting should be given it. Yes that will include some daft voters. Deal with it. Freedom isn't free. It already happens anyway, duh, you just think that it's okay to let a non-crazy, over 18 make stupid votes, and but yet it's not okay for certain other groups who altogether represent a minority of the population (so likely wouldn't affect the vote in most cases) to to do the exact same thing. Democracies--real democracies, not two-party states--would never go to war with each other. But I doubt we would ever see a real democracy in the world. I doubt we would ever see a nation that truly follows the 'let my people go' doctrine. A lack of democracy and a lack of self-autonomy are the major issues facing our time, the primary cause of war in our time. And the overly large, overly powerful 'great eight' merely pay lip-service to these ideals. The average person, not knowing anything better, only half-heartedly employs these ideals in their own lives. Our world is doomed.