EU could stop Russian GP from being held

[Captain Hammer]

Ukraine was an unified country before the maidan, sure people had different opinions about matters such as EU but that's extremely typical for any given country. Ukraine was relatively stable for a country that had undergone a revolution even after the maidan. At that Yanukovych was gone, only a small minority of Ukrainians was protesting against the new government, and while they may have experienced slight language discrimination and such in the wake of the maidan, they most definitely were not under a massive threat by a "fascist" government.

The eastern half of Ukraine primarily relies on manufacturing for its economy, and Russia is one of its biggest export partners. For example, many trains that operate in Russia are built in eastern Ukraine. If Ukraine joined the EU, the economic relationship with Russia - a non-member state - would change drastically. The perception pre-maidan was that a move to the EU would be good for the western half of the country and bad for the east; conversely, a move towards Russia would be good for the east and bad for the west.

You have also missed the point on the language issue - the specifics of the issue were not the point; the fact that the interim government tried to pass that bill in the first place is for two reasons. One, they were an interim government. They had no constitutional power to start passing laws. They should have called for an election and limited themselves to performing the basic functions of government until then. Secondly, the bill they tried to pass only reinforced perceptions of them in the east - namely, that the interim government was only interested in looking after the western half of the country.

At that point, Russia supported Yanukovych and went on conquer Crimea to protect the population from the fascist government.

There was an existing treaty between Moscow and Kiev, ratified under international law, that allowed one to call on the other in the event of an attack. Yanukovych was well within his rights to call on Putin, just as Putin was to provide aid. The only reason why this was received poorly in the West was because the West believed the interim government to be acting in the interests of the people moreso than Yanukovych. So what's the greater evil here - a deposed leader turning to an ally in a time of need, as per the terms of an internationally-recognised treaty, or the West choosing to ignore that because it was inconvenient?

As for the "ethican governance" stuff, every single country violates human rights.

Which is my point - you can't refuse one country the right to host a race because of their human rights abuses when other countries are allowed to host a race despite their human rights abuses.

I'm not familiar with the situation in Oz but all reports suggest to me that it's still a top 20 country in regards to them, and they do not kill a journalist a month, so it was odd to take Australia up.

Anybody who arrives illegally is taken to an offshore processing centre - essentially a prison - either on Christmas Island or Nauru. They are kept in these facilities for years while their claims are processed, and there have been riots triggered by the local population that have resulted in deaths and injuries. The conditions here are substandard; in the past two months, an asylum seeker died from a simple staph infection. There have been mental health issues, hunger strikes, self-harm and suicide attempts. The actual process of applying for residency has been made as difficult as possible, even for legitimate refugees. Any boats that are intercepted in our waters are forcibly turned back to Indonesia, to the point where the Navy has crossed into Indonesian waters without authorisation, and has detained asylum seekers at sea. Our government has even tried to forcibly repatriate asylum seekers to their country of origin, including Syria, despite knowing the abuses they would face there. And all of this has been dubbed a "national security issue" so that they never have to face scrutiny over it. The whole thing has been condemned by just about every stakeholder in human rights and civil liberties, and if it continues like this, I wouldn't be surprised if the Minister for Immigration gets dragged off to the International Criminal Court.

I'd have thought China or Bahrain would have been more fit comparison points for Russia.

I can see why you'd think that - and that's why I chose Australia. Sure, it's one of those "top 20" countries you mentioned, but our current asylum seeker policy is absolutely disgusting.

Furthermore, Russia not having an "ethical enough a governance" was not the reason I wouldn't let the Russians host a race; and that's exactly for the reasons you mentioned - it'd be far too difficult to draw a line.

The reason is a militant invasion to another country coupled with aggressive war-mongering rhethorics and acts towards independent countries.

Again, I refer you back to my previous posts. I am not trying to defend Russia, but rather highlight that the issue is nowhere near as one-sided as you make it out to be, and that because of this complexity, Formula 1 is in no position to make generalisations about Russia.

And if you want militant, aggressive rhetoric, look no further than Yatseniyuk, the Ukrainian Prime Minister - he's variously accused Russia of attempting to start a third World War, Putin of wanting to reform the Soviet Union, and has implored the West to continue sanctions against Russia even if Russia backs down in the east. The guy is an absolute lunatic, and has set the stabilisation process back several times with his outbursts.

[girry]

"Putin was well within his rights to provide aid"

Yanukovych was deposed by the people. Only a very small portion of the people - even in Eastern Ukraine - were pro-Yanu regardless of the pro-West policies of the new government. It was an uprising by the people and after that Yanukovych had de facto nothing to do with Ukraine.

To then provide "aid" to Yanukovych was essentially an attack towards Ukraine, regardless of him having been an "ally" or whatever. You also conviniently ignore that Russia couldn't give a crap about Yanukovych, Putin used his deposition merely as an excuse to attack.

As for Russia attempting to start WWIII - thus far he has conquered Crimea, started a war in Ukraine, made statements how he could take Eastern European capitals in a couple of days, questioned the independence of several formerly Soviet/Russian countries, and Russian planes now regularly violate the airspace of its neighbours. I'd say Yatseniyuk's accusations are not baseless.

[Captain Hammer]

Yanukovych was a democratically-elected leader. Don't mistake his unpopularity for legitimacy of the interim government - which has no recognition under the Ukrainian constitution, and certainly no power to enact laws. You've made the mistake of assuming that because the interim government was pro-West, it's somehow more legitimate than Yanukovych's government and that invalidates the treaty between Ukraine and Russia. And all of this is precipitated on the ridiculous assumption that a sporting event should be making broad ethical or moral judgements that it has no right to make.

[girry]

Yanukovych's governments legitimacy was zilch once it was deposed by the people of Ukraine in an insurgency. "Legitimate government" or "interim government has no rights to enact laws" are just excuses; de facto Yanu had and still has nothing to do with Ukraine and Ukrainians, and Putin knows that too.

Do you get paid or are you just a useful idiot?

[CoopsII]

Do you get paid or are you just a useful idiot?

I would LOVE that job.

[girry]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... my/375932/

Just as long as you leave the f1rejects forums alone coops.

[mario]

At that point, Russia supported Yanukovych and went on conquer Crimea to protect the population from the fascist government.

There was an existing treaty between Moscow and Kiev, ratified under international law, that allowed one to call on the other in the event of an attack. Yanukovych was well within his rights to call on Putin, just as Putin was to provide aid. The only reason why this was received poorly in the West was because the West believed the interim government to be acting in the interests of the people moreso than Yanukovych. So what's the greater evil here - a deposed leader turning to an ally in a time of need, as per the terms of an internationally-recognised treaty, or the West choosing to ignore that because it was inconvenient?

Under international law, Russia had signed an agreement to preserve and protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Yanukovych may have called upon Russia for help (incidentally, Yanukovych has remained remarkably quiet since the conflict began, hasn't he?), but Russia's move to annex the Crimean peninsular violates the clause on territorial integrity. [It should be noted that the treaty on territorial integrity explicitly contained clauses that affirmed that the Crimean peninsular was Ukrainian territory.]

[solarcold]

Calm down please. If my opinion would have any value - here it is.

I visit the russian Internet every day, I watch Russian TV occasionally, I know what the mood here is.

If you're here, if you absorb this information here, you understand that "Russia has no military forces in Ukraine, it only had accepted the Crimeans, running from the nationalist government, who wished to enter Russia, and also Russia is insisting on talks and measures to bring peace to Ukraine, which USA and Europe try to prevent, supporting Ukranian's side peace treaty breach.".

Is that true?

Similarily, I visit the western Internet every day, I watch western TV occasionally, talk to foreigners, and I know what the mood there is.

If you're not russian, if you absorb that information there, you understand that "Russia has militantly invaded Crimea, supported the no-longer legitimate government and unlawful referendums, and is curretly invading the South-Eastern Ukraine, while rightful USA and West support the progressive forces who want to enter their new future and forget the oppressive past."

Now, is that true?

I've seen Russian media lie. I've seen Western media lie. Both are disgusting. Would you really judge people and countries based on untruthful information?
No one is right.

P. S. No one pays me for that. I of all people hate Kremlin's internal policies on information, religion, ideology and some more spheres. There are spheres though where Kremlin does a fairly good job. I'm pretty liberal, if you like to put it this way. But to tell you truth, I have no trust in current Ukranian government. I suspect they won't do well.

[Captain Hammer]

Do you get paid or are you just a useful idiot?

Neither - I just know that, in the event of an insurgency taking control of a country, any interim government needs unanimous international recognition. And when Yanukovych was deposed, the Ukrainians didn't get that recognition.

[roblo97]

Do you get paid or are you just a useful idiot?

Neither - I just know that, in the event of an insurgency taking control of a country, any interim government needs unanimous international recognition. And when Yanukovych was deposed, the Ukrainians didn't get that recognition.

I think you will find that the whole if the E.U recognised the Yatsenyuk Goverment, so did America and many others as well. I want to post concrete evidence on this thread of a list of country's who did recognise the Goverment because I bet it was pretty damn unanimous.

[Rusujuur]

Let's have another take on this - the whole reason behind even thinking about a boycot is not the fact that the GP is held in Russia but the fact that it is concidered a "pet project" of Putin. If they wanted a race for F1 fans they would hold it in Moscow or St. Petersburg. But they do it in Sochi, wich is a bit like the Korean GP although not quite as bad. And in a way it is not even Putins fault, private promoters have tried to get the GP going but were never able to get enough finances for Bernies liking. It seems that these days if you want to have a GP you either have to be government backed or Red Bull or in the States.

On the speculation the the EU could stop the GP from going through - sure, they could do it as they have several levers they can pull. Most teams if not all operate from the EU and so do most other companbies associated with F1. The EU could impose all kinds of export and financial sanctions that would make the GP impossible. For example, find a pretext and ban the export of some integral part to Russia, they already have such a list for materials that can be used for military and for some oil and gas drilling equipment. But if they would have wanted to do it they should have done it alreadey a long time ago as the decisionmaking process is VERY slow.

[mario]

Let's have another take on this - the whole reason behind even thinking about a boycot is not the fact that the GP is held in Russia but the fact that it is concidered a "pet project" of Putin. If they wanted a race for F1 fans they would hold it in Moscow or St. Petersburg. But they do it in Sochi, wich is a bit like the Korean GP although not quite as bad. And in a way it is not even Putins fault, private promoters have tried to get the GP going but were never able to get enough finances for Bernies liking. It seems that these days if you want to have a GP you either have to be government backed or Red Bull or in the States.

On the speculation the the EU could stop the GP from going through - sure, they could do it as they have several levers they can pull. Most teams if not all operate from the EU and so do most other companbies associated with F1. The EU could impose all kinds of export and financial sanctions that would make the GP impossible. For example, find a pretext and ban the export of some integral part to Russia, they already have such a list for materials that can be used for military and for some oil and gas drilling equipment. But if they would have wanted to do it they should have done it alreadey a long time ago as the decisionmaking process is VERY slow.

Then there is also the fact that it cashes in on the Winter Olympics, which was also intended to be a promotional event for Putin's government (even though much of the press coverage, both within and outside of Russia, focussed more on complaints of corruption and poor construction quality).

As I mentioned earlier, the other likelihood would be for the EU to target the institutions which would be in charge of the financial transactions between the promoters and FOM - if the promoter cannot pay up, I think that FOM would become considerably less enthusiastic about the race going ahead.

[dr-baker]

Most teams if not all operate from the EU and so do most other companbies associated with F1.

The only team(s) that are non-EU is/are Sauber (Switzerland, entirely surrounded by the EU) and Haas (USA, not yet in F1). All other teams are UK or Italy-based.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Most teams if not all operate from the EU and so do most other companbies associated with F1.

The only team(s) that are non-EU is/are Sauber (Switzerland, entirely surrounded by the EU) and Haas (USA, not yet in F1). All other teams are UK or Italy-based.

This could be the perfect opportunity for Sauber to turn their season around should the EU actually go through with this. Assuming both cars finish in this scenario (which is a likelihood given the fact that engine penalties and the like won't be a huge concern), Sauber will be promoted to 7th in the WCC (assuming there isn't a freak result for the teams immediately ahead of them in Suzuka), Gutiérrez will unrejectify himself and Sutil will be guaranteed a podium giving Pierluigi Martini his record back and restoring balance to the force. The race is probably going to boring anyway looking at the layout so having only two cars won't be such a great loss will it?

[tommykl]

Most teams if not all operate from the EU and so do most other companbies associated with F1.

The only team(s) that are non-EU is/are Sauber (Switzerland, entirely surrounded by the EU) and Haas (USA, not yet in F1). All other teams are UK or Italy-based.

This could be the perfect opportunity for Sauber to turn their season around should the EU actually go through with this. Assuming both cars finish in this scenario (which is a likelihood given the fact that engine penalties and the like won't be a huge concern), Sauber will be promoted to 7th in the WCC (assuming there isn't a freak result for the teams immediately ahead of them in Suzuka), Gutiérrez will unrejectify himself and Sutil will be guaranteed a podium giving Pierluigi Martini his record back and restoring balance to the force. The race is probably going to boring anyway looking at the layout so having only two cars won't be such a great loss will it?

Actually, there'd be a problem with that as well, seeing as the teams don't get their tyres until the race weekend, and Pirelli are very much Italian and therefore based in the EU

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Actually, there'd be a problem with that as well, seeing as the teams don't get their tyres until the race weekend, and Pirelli are very much Italian and therefore based in the EU

Damn, if only Bridgestone were still the official tyre supplier... This leads me to another crazy idea. Sauber more than likely have their old cars on display somewhere right? Now these cars would have tyres on them. So what if they take the tyres from their most recent cars and take them to Sochi?

[dr-baker]

Actually, there'd be a problem with that as well, seeing as the teams don't get their tyres until the race weekend, and Pirelli are very much Italian and therefore based in the EU

Damn, if only Bridgestone were still the official tyre supplier... This leads me to another crazy idea. Sauber more than likely have their old cars on display somewhere right? Now these cars would have tyres on them. So what if they take the tyres from their most recent cars and take them to Sochi?

DMACK tyres!!! Manufactured in China....

[watka]

Most teams if not all operate from the EU and so do most other companbies associated with F1.

The only team(s) that are non-EU is/are Sauber (Switzerland, entirely surrounded by the EU) and Haas (USA, not yet in F1). All other teams are UK or Italy-based.

This could be the perfect opportunity for Sauber to turn their season around should the EU actually go through with this. Assuming both cars finish in this scenario (which is a likelihood given the fact that engine penalties and the like won't be a huge concern), Sauber will be promoted to 7th in the WCC (assuming there isn't a freak result for the teams immediately ahead of them in Suzuka), Gutiérrez will unrejectify himself and Sutil will be guaranteed a podium giving Pierluigi Martini his record back and restoring balance to the force. The race is probably going to boring anyway looking at the layout so having only two cars won't be such a great loss will it?

But Caterham and Marussia could also use the excuse that they are registered in Malaysia and Russia so that they can race. Not to mention Force India who would get a guaranteed 1-2 as long as they didn't take anyone out. So Sauber would finish 7th and 8th, which means the big losers here are Lotus.


On a more serious note, I agree with a lot of concerns about the Western media. Just look at Syria for example. When the uprisings against Assad started, some of the British media where practically trying to sell to us that the rebels where the heroes and that Britain should be giving them weapons aid. Now Assad does have a pretty awful track record, but it also turned out that a large proportion of the rebel "heroes" have turned out to be IS. So basically it is fair to say the media has a tendency to throw its opinions behind things when it has key facts missing.

[koza]

I'd also like to point out that Cptn's posts misrepresentate a lot of things (the support on Yanukovych's "legal" government, the "division" of the country pre-invasion, the comparison between Australia and Russia - lol wat ...) but then again I suppose misrepresentating was his intention too, so well done with it.

Would you care to explain how I have misrepresented things rather than simply saying that I have and leave it at that?

As for my comparison betwewn Australia and Russia, I thought my point was quite clear - if you start considering "ethical governance" as the leading factor as to whether or not a country hosts a race, it's easy to wind up a hypocrite. You don't have to look too hard to find something questionable being done by a government. In our case, the Australian government enforces border protection policies that are inhumane, hidden behind "national security" to avoid scrutiny, and motivated by purely selfish political reasons. If you decided who had the right to host a Grand Prix based on "ethical governance", Australia would lose their race for sure. But if Russia lost their race when Australia kept theirs, you'd be a hypocrite.

Ukraine was an unified country before the maidan, sure people had different opinions about matters such as EU but that's extremely typical for any given country. Ukraine was relatively stable for a country that had undergone a revolution even after the maidan. At that Yanukovych was gone, only a small minority of Ukrainians was protesting against the new government, and while they may have experienced slight language discrimination and such in the wake of the maidan, they most definitely were not under a massive threat by a "fascist" government. At that point, Russia supported Yanukovych and went on conquer Crimea to protect the population from the fascist government.

Calling those moves anything but powerplay by the Russians is bs. "support stability"....lol.

As for the "ethican governance" stuff, every single country violates human rights. I'm not familiar with the situation in Oz but all reports suggest to me that it's still a top 20 country in regards to them, and they do not kill a journalist a month, so it was odd to take Australia up. I'd have thought China or Bahrain would have been more fit comparison points for Russia.

Furthermore, Russia not having an "ethical enough a governance" was not the reason I wouldn't let the Russians host a race; and that's exactly for the reasons you mentioned - it'd be far too difficult to draw a line.

The reason is a militant invasion to another country coupled with aggressive war-mongering rhethorics and acts towards independent countries.

Someone give this man a beer!

[Captain Hammer]

Then there is also the fact that it cashes in on the Winter Olympics, which was also intended to be a promotional event for Putin's government

I think there is a much more basic motivation behind it - Moscow or St. Petersburg would be bloody inhospitable in mid-October. It would be a bit like having the British Grand Prix in the Shetland Islands.

Sochi is one of the Black Sea resorts - it has a stable climate year-round, which has made it popular as a tourist destination. The Russians see sporting facilities as a way of boosting the tourist economy in Krasnodar Krai; in addition to the Olympics and the Grand Prix, the city has been touted as a host venue for the 2018 World Cup.