Geopolitics around major sports events

[srini]

Geopolitics and its use of major sports events can be expected to increase as we get closer to 2024 Olympics. So starting this thread for discussing such. I don't understand this concept of US and European satellite nations unilaterally doing boycott of any nation athletes including Russia. I can understand if the boycott is for team events like Football but doing that for other individual players and extending to professional events like Tennis too doesn't make sense at all. Russian and Belarussian Tennis players were banned from Wimbledon last year and this year also they are allowed only after agreeing to sign a neutral declaration.

US waged two meaningless wars that served no purpose - one on Iraq started in 2003 and occupied it until 2011.The one on Afghanistan started in 2001 and occupation continued until 2021.The UN security council didn't authorize the Iraq war and the initial invasion on Afghan was also not authorized by UN, it was later when Taliban already got toppled UN had to authorize an International security assistance force to assist reconstruction of country. This would make both US waged wars illegal and constituted the crime of war of aggression according to ICJ Geneva. Despite that i wonder how US athletes got away without any bans all these years while their Russian counterparts are persecuted now for every major event. I believe US and Russia are equally evil and had been a threat to world peace.US has been smarter in showcasing the excuses for invasions while Russian invasions looked plain expansionist. The underlying intentions have been same, boosting their private defense industry through these wars.

[prasen9]

I think a fundamental difference is that Russia wants to increase its borders, while the U.S. never intended to annex these lands. Countries boycott others whenever they want for whatever. This is nothing different. I do not know how to evaluate and put a number on "evil" to say if things are equally evil or less evil, etc.

[srini]

I think a fundamental difference is that Russia wants to increase its borders, while the U.S. never intended to annex these lands.

May be not in recent past, but Guam and Puerto rico were both annexed by US after being victorious in the armed conflict with Spain around 1900.

Countries boycott others whenever they want for whatever. This is nothing different.

Russian boycotts of Olympics held in US ended with Iron curtain era. During the period of 20 years of US led meaningless wars in the 21st century, Russia hasn't boycotted or banned any US athletes.

US actions have been far more detrimental to world peace than Russians. Biden in his senile ramblings has quite openly stated that US plans to blowup the Nord stream a few days before actually doing it. After it happened US denied its involvement, now who would be so naïve as to believe it? The increase in European reliance on US for gas supply due to blowup of Nord stream is undeniable. What is the need for military treaties like NATO if UN is supposed to protect international boundaries? One could argue UN has been in-effective but if we question who is behind UN becoming in-effective there are no second thoughts. US has time and again never waited for UN authorization before it started both wars of aggression in 21st century. Putin stated NATO expansion at his door step was the core reason behind his aggression, a close observer would partly agree.

[jayakris]

I think a fundamental difference is that Russia wants to increase its borders, while the U.S. never intended to annex these lands.

This is the key point, which has always made me fall off the ledge to the US side in these matters. They have taken some lands for strategic reasons (typically small pieces of land, like islands and all) but US has never had expansionist plans. They only wanted their businesses to control the world. USA had figured out right from the start (probably from knowing the success of the piddly island thieves in India) that this could be done without questioning countries' sovereignty, and without taking responsibility for running those countries. The US did not have a religion, culture, or language of their own to impose on anybody anyway. So "let us let our businesses loose and morally we can't be questioned", was the US principle.

Russia on the other hand is one country that has, for a long time (centuries), had the principle that if they do not try to aggressively expand, they would only contract because of a lack of clear borders - geographically and based on culture/language. Expansion might have been their defense mechanism. It still sorta is. "If we do not expand and create large buffer areas, somebody will contract us" has always been Russia's philosophy. Peter The Great or somebody may have even said as much in the 17th century?

But yeah, like Prasen, I also don't know how to put a numerical score on "evilness" from the US and Russia. My feeling has always been that the USA has been less evil. But that is just my personal feeling.

[Atithee]

I completely agree with Jay-Prasen doctrine. I’ve long maintained this differentiation is the key difference. I think the real evil here is China who has the enslaving intentions. Unlike Russia, they make you economic slaves first, and de facto potentates later. They have absolutely every intention of grabbing all contiguous land (and sea). That’s the most evil player to me.

[arjun2761]

Every country primarily acts in its self-interest in most cases except if there is a tyrant in power who typically acts in their own personal self-interest. Countries that have power typically use it as leverage to further their self-interest and those that don't also use it as leverage (i.e., seek peace because it largely benefits them to do so).

US is viewed as the beacon of the free world and widely respected for that in a way that China and Russia are not. Former enemies like Germany and Japan (and Italy) have recovered from a devastating world war in significant part due to the US partnership and have mostly been free countries that have desirable economic and social fabrics. In contrast, East Germany and the other Soviet allies remained poor under a much more brutal Soviet domination. Just like Ukraine, none of them have any desire to go under a Soviet style domination by Russia.

In addition to not annexing land, another big difference in the recent conflicts is that the US has largely carefully targeted military targets and enemy combatants and not carpet bombed large civilian areas even though they clearly had the ability to do so with even more firepower than the toothless Russians. Of course, there has been some collateral damage in the US actions but most of the civilian dead in Iraq and Afghanistan has come from Taliban and ISIS violence against their own countrymen (who they viewed as collaborators). On the other hand, both in Ukraine and also earlier in Syria, the Russians have violently and indiscriminately bombed large civilian areas and have fought a war quite dishonorably and in Ukraine quite unsuccessfully.

Srini may believe his points but there are many (perhaps the vast majority in the free world) that don't and generally it's futile to argue with those that are ideologically brainwashed.

[VReddy]

I concur with Srini but this is a pointless debate. USA is the supreme power - all the atrocities will be passed off as lesser evil. For me, they are a bit like Trump (Russia) and Modi (USA) - they both have their good sides and ton of evil sides. Trump turns out to be a laughing stock as he is extremely unpolished while Modi presents himself as an elderly established statesman in the global arena.

Hopefully the next 50 years can move the world towards a multi-polar world and if that means China needs to rise up, then possibly so be it.

It would have been so much better if USA had done like: We have done several ghastly invasions and wars and most of them very unjust. We apologise for that. It is time to move on. Let us move ahead and ensure that a similar crime is not in this decade as well and lets unite to oppose Russian Occupation / Intervention in Ukraine.

But it is what it is. Monopoly breeds brute power and this is that era. Hopefully we can alive to see the tide shift a bit more visibly in a decade or two. In that way, I really admire the way the Indian Foreign Minister has been holding his guard and shaping India`s position even though I may not align with his party idealogy much.

[VReddy]

Srini may believe his points but there are many (perhaps the vast majority in the free world) that don't and generally it's futile to argue with those that are ideologically brainwashed.

This is crux of the issue on why discussion is pointless. We take the position of holier than thou and lose the capability to view opposing view points and understand the complexities involved with a bit more reasoning.

[Atithee]

It would have been so much better if USA had done like: We have done several ghastly invasions and wars and most of them very unjust. We apologise for that. It is time to move on. Let us move ahead and ensure that a similar crime is not in this decade as well and let’s unite to oppose Russian Occupation / Intervention in Ukraine.

When will the piddly island start? Aren’t they the “role model” of all aggressions? If the US has done “ghastly and unjust” invasions, what did England do to the world?

[VReddy]

When will the piddly island start? Aren’t they the “role model” of all aggressions? If the US has done “ghastly and unjust” invasions, what did England do to the world?

Everybody should be doing. This is especially more pertinent if we are trying to play a leadership role for the entire world.

We are debating between for example: 40% immoral vs 70% immoral - The point is 70% immoral country is failed state and doesn`t have much relevance in the world apart from its neighborhood. The 40% immoral is a monopoly, pokes into every conflict in the world, controls the global currency and controls all the major institutions.

I would expect at least a self-introspection, make an acknowledgement of all the mistakes and play that elder stateswoman role. If not, then we are no worse than that failed state because we are preaching to the world without any attempt of self-introspection.

[prasen9]

Countries are not moral or immoral. They reflect the human characteristics of greed and morality to varying degrees. Most often it is self-interest. Having said that, PR also matters and matters a lot. So, a lot of - mainly U.S. and well-to-do Westerners - buy this "beacon of freedom" and other American exceptionalism propaganda. Just like the U.S. constitution and founding documents made good propaganda about freedom while enslaving human beings, the situation is similar albeit in different shades. The U.S. supports dictators that are brutal and has done so in South America, Saudi, etc. because ... money. It is in its best interests. And, it has provided aid to lots of countries around the world, which has helped them. Most scholar who are based on the factual world study the subject carefully instead of eating the American propaganda recognize the evils and the goods of the country.

But, irrespective of facts, perception is perception. Here is an attempt to quantify the perception and some other metrics and rank countries. Best Countries. Not saying that that is the last word but at least they have a methodology and some quantification.

There have been some perception surveys about countries, I think done by the Pew Center, etc. If someone knows about these surveys, with whatever methodological quirks and flaws, please post links. Anecdotally, most of the young in Urban Western Europe I meet see America as a crony capitalist polluting nation. And, it is not just the fringe left. But, my slection bias, is of course, the urban population. I am sure the older generation and the rural population is more pro-America.

[prasen9]

I found this survey. America's Reputation The net is about 12%, i.e., 56% of the population in these countries in Western Europe have a positive reputation of the U.S. as of July 2022 and 44% negative. So, a small majority in Western Europe. These numbers are even lower elsewhere although there are pockets where the U.S. has a very good image. I think Philippines is one such country, where maybe 80% think positively of the U.S. etc.

[srini]

I am a pacifist, and my thinking has been shaped by the things i saw in US during my stay from 2001 to 2010.First of all i couldn't understand the Flag waving obsession Americans had. Too much of flag waving and 24*7. Its not just when you win the fifa world cup or when you land on moon or on Independence day that you fly the flag , but when you go on boating or a hunting expedition and if you're not going out anywhere just keep flying the flag in your balcony. Post 9/11 when Jr Bush saw this outpouring sentiment coming from Taliban regime being toppled as a revenge, he tried to use it for re-election bid by pre-emptive strikes on Iraq showing WMD as excuse. The whole western media creates a narrative before the attack that i truly believed at the time that WMD did exist.

Historically wars happened for Land, women, religious conflicts, looting wealth etc. So when Russia annexes Crimea and decides to extend territorial gains further in Ukraine, i can at least understand it. Its not much different from what Hitler and Stalin did 75 ears ago by having non-aggression pact to share the exploits of land grabbing from Poland and Baltic states. The motive fits a pattern.

The curious case of American wars bothers me more because it doesn't fit the commonly known patterns. All the US wars in 21st century defied the pattern and the projected reasons were pre-emptive attacks, de-weaponize, neutralize terrorist networks etc. Either US has become super smart in shielding its true motives behind war or it has been self deceitful in thinking they have been beacons of free world. I tried to fathom the true motives and the only conspicuous thing i could observe was the surge in the stocks of US defense companies when US gets involved in a war. I now realize US will probably never involve in a war at its borders for any territorial gains, but they will drool at the opportunity of wars that happen far and remote from mainland USA and hold no bars in creating situations that trigger such wars and escalate the existing wars to a whole new level. Blowing up Nord stream, assisting Ukraine in blowing up Kerch bridge etc just a few examples of US actions which speak volumes of its hold no bars to escalations policy. What makes US take such detrimental steps to world peace? Possibly it wants to continue to be relevant in a world that growing multi polar and still be seen as a player!

[srini]

I think a fundamental difference is that Russia wants to increase its borders, while the U.S. never intended to annex these lands.

This is the key point, which has always made me fall off the ledge to the US side in these matters.

Jay, you don't have to be on the US side to criticize Russia. You can criticize both and don't have to be worried for doing so as US is still NOT Russia lol, where Putin detractors disappear in thin air.

[VReddy]

Thanks for the links, Prasen. For me at least: Your reasoning and justification is practical and reasonable even for people on the other side of the fence on this topic.

On the topic of these ratings: I generally agree with them if they have highly integral and quality folks involved. Generally agree with what you shared specifically.

However I do come across random ones like
1. Hyderabad has been rated as the Greenest City in the World!
2. Afghanistan has higher press freedom than India (India is bad but common!)
3. And so on and on

Which makes me feel that a lot of these can be funded / bought over reports to boost someone`s agenda.