Ukraine

[John McKenna]

I agree with most of what Paul has written above.
The question is though - what exactly are the "real obstacles".

[John McKenna]

Relocated from "Media comments on chess" in "General Chat", where it was a reply to posts regarding a Dominic Lawson newspaper article.

Since the development of the conflict is bogged down in the 'Donyetesk' Variation of a middlegame - stemming from White's Kiev Attack (on an elected Ukrainian, pro-Russian, government) to which Black replied with the Crimean Gambit - it may be worth reading a snippet of what Dominic Lawson's opposite number Peter Hitchens had to say (in his blog of 9th Aug.) about the origin of the latest encounter in the continuing (since at least Napoleonic times) Great Game of Russia versus the West -

This is a very nasty little war, the nastiest since Yugoslavia. I counselled against the steps which led to it, and wish it was not taking place. It is leading rapidly to the ‘New Cold War’ which others have long wanted, though it may not be that Cold when it comes to it.
I believe, and have argued here till every particle of the relevant facts and logic was ground into tiny mites of dust, that the aggressors in this matter (and so the instigators of the horrors) were the EU and their American backers. I still believe this is very much the case, and deplore their willingness to take such a large, conscious risk, against many clear warnings, in such a contentious area.
Anyway, my point here is that, if the coverage of the war in the Western media were a little fuller, the self-righteous anti-Russian tone might be a little less shrill.

[John McKenna]

Michael Farthing (from "Media comments on chess" in "General Chat")>
If we take the view that the future of Ukraine should be debated between Western and Eastern blocks without regard to the wishes of those in the middle then John is clearly right. However, there was clearly a body of opinion in Ukraine that wanted to westernise and a body that didn't and in my politics the resolve of those in the area is more important than the wishes of either block. That is not to say that John is not still right and I'd like to know a lot more about the sequence of events and internal political manoevres within Ukraine. The impression given at the time was that a majority of the parliament had been unhappy with the direction of the president; there was unrest on the streets of Kiev in that direction also; the president bolted and the parliament democratically reversed policy (possibly in the absence of some pro-Russian members, suggested at the time in the Western press to be a minority). Is that interpretation inaccurate? . Can you point us to any good analysis of what has been happening, John?<

Michael asks if his "interpretation was inaccurate?"

Well, I agree it is a rough outline of the events that led to Russia's involvement - apart from the understatement, in my opinion, that "there was unrest on the streets of Kiev..."

He also asks for "more good analysis of what has been happening...?"

All I can do is right now is point again to Peter Hitchens (see above) for an alternative view, but with the caveat that he warns against relying too much on the mainstream media for unbiased coverage.

[Michael Farthing]

John,

I note the movement of discussion to this thread and I am now here!
I had not been following this thread. My comments as posted in Media Comments on Chess were perfectly genuine and should be read at face value. I really would like to understand what is going on with greater insight. In my previous post I had conflated your comments with your quoting of Peter Hitchens, for which I apologise. Bit late now to give further sober comment.

[John McKenna]

Michael,

It is indeed a matter that weighs heavily.
Best to slough it off tonight and return to at a later date.

John

[Rob Thompson]

Just a quick note to say that, in general, Peter Hitchens is almost never right about anything.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29026623

"Russia 'to alter military strategy towards Nato' "

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Was thinking about this some more. Do those who were around in 1989 and 1990 when the USSR broke up and the Berlin Wall fell, remember what that felt like? Those were historic events, but I was just slightly too young to fully realise the import of it all. Now, some 25 years later, the geopolitical landscape still seems hard to make sense of. What has changed and what hasn't? What will historians looking back in another 25 years time make of the past 25 years?

[Roger de Coverly]

Do those who were around in 1989 and 1990 when the USSR broke up and the Berlin Wall fell, remember what that felt like?

The division of Europe seemed permanent, like the perpetual Israel v Palestine conflict. Yet the East German Border guards blinked and suddenly it was all over and within a couple of years the Soviet Union disappeared as well. But Russia has now turned into an expansionist power, seemingly attempting to rebuild the Soviet Union or the Czarist Empire and isn't acting with the caution of the former Soviet Union, but then the EU or NATO aren't either. With the exception of Yugoslavia who were non-aligned , the borders of what "belonged" to "the west" and what belonged to the Soviets was strictly defined. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the people and states of the former Warsaw Pact decided they very definitely didn't want to be in a Russian sphere of influence.

[John McKenna]

Just a quick note to say that, in general, Peter Hitchens is almost never right about anything.

Hi Rob,

You are right to say that "... in general, Peter Hitchens is almost never right about anything."
Since his advice is generally ignored by those in power what usually happens is that the opposite of what he advocates actually takes place and what's done is factual, as opposed to counterfactual.

(Seems he was right about not going into Syria, though, as was shown by the Commons vote of last year. Wonder if they, and he, have had any second thoughts about that.)

John

Here's another piece on the Ukraine -

http://www.cityam.com/1409592437/putin- ... -long-game

[David Sedgwick]

Do those who were around in 1989 and 1990 when the USSR broke up and the Berlin Wall fell, remember what that felt like?

I remember turning on the television to see the Wall being literally torn down and staring at the screen in sheer disbelief. It was simply a day that I could never have imagined.

Nine years later I accompanied the England Women's Team when they went to Dresden for a match against the German Women's Team prior to the Elista Olympiad. Even then, I could scarcely believe that I was really going to Dresden.

[John Clarke]

Do those who were around in 1989 and 1990 when the USSR broke up and the Berlin Wall fell, remember what that felt like?

Amazement at both the events themselves and the speed at which they occurred. I'd never expected Germany to become one country again in my lifetime, and yet it came about. Those months from August to December 1989, starting with Poland's first democratic elections and ending with the fall and execution of Ceaucescu were just an unending series of incredible happenings.

But when the USSR began to fracture, I remember feeling highly sceptical as well as optimistic. Would they really let Ukraine go after all those centuries? Unbelievably they did. At least to begin with. Now it appears I was right to be doubtful.

Lithuania and/or Poland must now be wondering if they're next on Mr Putin's little list for destabilisation - after all, Kaliningrad still remains separated from the rest of Russia ....

[Paul McKeown]

Just for Christopher, a photo I took in Berlin in November 1989:

[Arshad Ali]

But Russia has now turned into an expansionist power ...

It has?

[John McKenna]

Great historical photo from Paul, above.

(I once went from W. to E. Berlin and back again thru' a bigger gap - Checkpoint Charlie.)

A comment in a Chessbase News article -

"Sometimes "overt political commentary" cannot be avoided: Ukraine has been invaded. It is difficult for many of us to imagine what Kavalek's generation has experienced.

Playing our little war game helps us forget our troubles. Our chess friends include many Russians and Ukrainians. In the 1960s, Kavalek did not confuse Simagin, Keres, Smyslov, Spassky, or even Botvinnik with the Soviet government. We can learn from his example. Uncivilized people would divide us; Kavalek does not.

And yet Russia has invaded Ukraine. Just as the two World Wars affected international chess, so too will Putin's quest for Lebensraum. That's regrettable for the chess world. But the Ukrainians have much bigger problems right now."

I wouldn't really describe it as "Putin's quest for Lebensraum" - Russia has a big living room. It is more a case of Anschluss - taking over the part of a neighbour's property that your relatives have been sleeping in.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/huffington ... ime-of-war

Not really a proper answer to Arshad's question, above, but hope it will do for now.

PS I know this is the Not Chess! section but there has to be some seepage, so I'll just say there is a great Smagin-Stein game in the link above.