Chelsea placed under 'Special License'

Okay, interesting developing story.

UK Government "seizes" Chelsea.

They can't sell any further match day tickets and cannot be sold under their current operating licence.

Are we on the radar and next?

I don't think we are owned by a Russian oligarch, Danny.

Since Alisher Usmanov was added to the UK sanctions list last week but no restrictions were placed on Everton, would it be too soon to suggest that Everton's suspension of the sponsorship deals, along with Moshiri stepping down from USM, has been enough to deflect further sanctions away from Everton?

Danny@1: Usmanov was simply our sponsor, not owner. In the same way that Standard Chartered Bank is LFC's main sponsor.

If the government took action against clubs because their sponsor had been associated with Russia, then they'd have to include the likes of LFC and Standard Chartered, because the latter were penalised by regulators for violating sanctions against Russia following the 2014 invasion of Ukraine, which is linked with the current invasion of Ukraine.

In addition, Standard Chartered have a history of such sanctions violations dating back over 20 years, also involving sanctions against Iran and Zimbabwe, so are serial offenders and apparently unapologetic for their offences. But they are still emblazoned on LFC's shirts and doing business as usual.

If any action were taken against Everton, Everton's lawyers would have a field day raising such issues, and it would open a very messy can of worms.

BBC 5Live are reporting there are other limits placed on Chelsea's operations:

● A £20,000 limit per game on travel budget, which may be tough on their remaining European fixtures.

● Another limit of £500,000 on matchday security, catering stewards, etc. (That one seems generous?)

● And they cannot negotiate any new contracts with players.

I like this bit: the Premier League were only informed 15 minutes before this went public. So much for the privileges that come with being one of the Big 6!

I think this is slightly disturbing. Not for us as a club because we're not owned by an oligarch, but for us as a society. Putin doesn't own Chelsea, and if Abromavich was such a danger to the world, he should have been sanctioned years ago.

The Munich Philharmonic Orchestra has sacked its star Russian conductor Valery Gergiev after he failed to speak out against the invasion of Ukraine.

The Cardiff Philharmonic Orchestra has removed Tchaikovsky from its programme, because he was Russian. Dead, but Russian.

Another world famous conductor, Tugan Sokhiev, resigned after “being forced to face the impossible option of choosing between my beloved Russian and beloved French musicians... I will be soon asked to choose between Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy".

This is starting to feel like a witch hunt, asking Russians to denounce their country or lose their jobs. Surely we can differentiate between Putin and a classical musician?

I don't suppose they could be handed a 60 point deduction as well?

Unlike Abramovich,who clearly owns Chelsea, there is no evidence that Usmanov owns Everton. Despite all the opinions to the contrary, the ownership structure shows us owned by an offshore company, the beneficial owner of which is declared as Moshiri.

This may not be transparent enough for many but it is entirely legal. It is even used by some honest people!

From memory, when the Panama Papers were published in the Guardian and elsewhere, journalists tried to establish a link, which went nowhere. But it is my memory so It's not watertight.

Does this means that Chelsea can't be sold whilst under these current restrictions?

It also looks like they won't be able to sell tickets for future cup games, which seems a bit naughty, although I'm sure not everyone will see it this way

Michael@5: Indeed it is a witch hunt. That seems to the nature if conflict, where politicians and business elites create division amongst ordinary people, which usually helps conflicts to escalate further. Humans never change.

I think this is very unfair on Chelsea fans, the lifeblood of the club. Utterly hypocritical given the Tory links with oligarchs.

And I have to laugh when the Guardian is mentioned in anything to do with dodgy money: they are owned by the Scott Trust, set up as a tax avoidance device…

Agree Stan, the Western Government's might be taking “some sanctions” way to far, and rather than drawing people away from certain individuals, it's quite possible that it might just have the opposite affect.

Larry, I reckon the most hypocritical thing in the world, is the flag of democracy.

Larry @10 although technically true it was a tax dodge, and I'm no fan of the Guardian, the trust was originally set up to stop the newspaper falling into the hands of unscrupulous, profiteering owners (Beaverbrook of the Daily Express at that particular time) if the owner had died and the family been liable for death duties.

So the family basically gave it away to a non-profit trust in order to preserve its liberal ethos, and it's still run by a non-profit trust to this day. Doesn't excuse the appalling state of its journalism though - I find it unreadable these days.

Tony,

They can't be sold, they can't buy players. Only season ticket holders can attend matches. Swingeing stuff.

As for the fans, it's savage, but there are possibly bigger issues here, like the Ukrainian people being treated unfairly by the Russians!

The Guardian is indeed owned by a Trust, but it is more to do with maintaining its independence, so it can't be owned by dodgy individuals, like Murdoch or Ledbedev. I've no idea about tax avoidance, but there are certainly better ways to do that like the Mail, owned in the BVI.

Null and Void the season and leave it as it stands! Obviously tongue firmly in cheek as it won't happen.

Agree that the biggest issue in all of this, is what's happening to the people of Ukraine, Chris, but it's very savage, and you do wonder how much actual thought has gone into making such a decision?

Michael # 5 - I am inclined to agree with you about your concerns for our society. When we start “outing” people and seizing their assets because of their nationality its a red flag for me. We have been down that road before.

The Paradise Papers tried to establish the link between Usmanov and Everton. It was claimed that it was reported in Russia at the time by a media company with links to Usmanov that he was the new owner.

Moshiri claimed he used his own money to buy the club but a document said that Usmanov gifted the money to him when buying Arsenal shares which were subsequently sold. This was denied by Moshiri.

Can't imagine that the Premier League had the will or the resources to investigate any further.

This article sums it up
Link

Fingers crossed you are both right Michael & Stan. I think you are.

This is a strange one. Part of me thinks yes, they've dined off the table for years, but there is also hypocrisy in us turning a blind eye to other nations' investment and the fact that if it outraged us, why hadn't we acted sooner? We let it happen; welcomed it almost.

Politicians bowing to populist media and being seen to be doing something even though this won't influence Putin significantly?

Or am I just cynical?

It wasn't long ago that we abandoned Afghanistan in a shameless withdrawal, doing deals with the Taliban to get our people out of the country and leave many to an uncertain future at the very best. Where was the outrage then and the sad music backdrop to the BBC reports?

It's difficult to see what good this sort of stuff does to deter Putin and his close advisers. I can't imagine he's losing much sleep over Alisher losing his boat for example.

But the US and EU have done it to a far greater degree than we have in this country. So maybe it does have an impact we plebs aren't aware of, or as a propaganda message. I've no idea. Maybe it's to disguise the lack of action elsewhere, for example getting Priti and the refugees off the front page. Who knows?

As to the fans again, it's very difficult to take any significant action against any club without impacting on the fans, like Derby County for example. But this is supposedly against Abramovich, who is on record for saying he has paid for political influence.

So I don't know, none of us do.

Surely Chelsea's barristers and legal team will be getting plenty of overtime looking at these announcements over what this pathetic government are proposing for their club and more importantly their innocent supporters who are being denied their civil rights. Hypocritical behaviour of the highest order, but that is no surprise coming from this leader and his cabinet.

Is that the same EU countries that refused the RAF permission to fly over its airspace to deliver anti-tank weapons and troops to train the Ukrainian forces before the event, Chris? Or the EU that is typically responding after the event with strong words?

I see the UK is looking at providing anti-aircraft missiles.

That's more useful than the rather hollow action against a football club and its supporters.

I think punishing all Russians for one man's madness seems crazy to me.

I'm sure there's plenty of criticism to be levelled at the handling of this over a lot of time, Danny, and plenty of targets to aim at.

I read yesterday that no sanctions have yet been levied against any Russian Oil or Gas supplier, or any of the Russian banks that finance them. So if true, there's a fair bit of ‘selectivity' going on.

It seems there's a paucity of strong moral leadership across the Western world at the moment, and for some considerable time.

Johnson would be better with a stick up his arse scaring crows in a field, the scruffy twat. Imagine this happening to the red shite!

No me neither. More chance of hell freezing over…or getting a last-minute penalty at Anfield. Terrible for the fans – sport should never be used as a political weapon.

I also saw that the Welsh banned Tchaikovsky. Happy virtue signalling you soft twats.

Dave @20,

I agree it's no surprise coming from this Government, but the Opposition is also driving this – together with the media. One problem with Boris and his pals is that they are weak and will do anything to placate the mob.

Listen to what David Lammy is saying from the Opposition benches – he's claiming credit for forcing the Government into this position, so the Labour party is no better.

Is there no political party or section of the media actually questioning whether the current xenophobia has any place in a healthy democracy? Why is there no discussion taking place? Does anybody with a voice feel even slightly disturbed by private citizens being stripped of their assets because we don't like their friends, when there is no evidence being brought forward to show that they have broken the law in this or any other country?

I never thought sanctions to be all that effective in previous confrontations, but this one seems to be very different from all that have gone before.

Some of the "whataboutery" above is a bit much for me. I don't understand finger-pointing and crying 'hypocrisy' over what has gone before. You can't turn the clock back but, if you where so agitated about it, shouldn't you have done more at the time?

If you accept the premise for going after oligarchs from this point forward, as a contributing effort toward ending Putin's war, and if you believe that Abramovich is one of those oligarchs who is 'close to Putin', then it seems a justifiable escalation of sanctions, while still allowing the asset to function. The impact on fans who now can't by tickets is really minuscule in context.

Whether it has any impact on Putin does seem a stretch but, taken as just a part of a much larger and hopefully more effective overall campaign of sanctions, it seems to be an obvious step to prevent Abromovich profiting from selling the club.

I'd agree with you there Chris. A lack of preventative action followed by outrage against what they knew was coming and now a political scramble to be seen to be doing something.

It won't be obvious and wasnt widely reported, but the UK has long supported and conducted military training exercises with the Ukrainians for the past decade or so.

But a strong statement from Brussels after Putin has acted makes them look good despite having their head in the sand and submissive during his oil and sniffing his gas for decades. Sorry it grinds me, especially when we have been very supportive of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States whilst our European partners dithered as they always do.

Talk about after the horse has bolted.

Danny @27,

Is this Londongrad that many speak of on the continent?

Wouldn't putting a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and shooting down any Russian plane in that zone, be more helpful?

Barry (#28); No man is an island.... send not to ask for whom the bell tolls, the bell tolls for thee.

Germany in particular was nervous and reluctant to react, Barry. As I mentioned earlier, they refused UK military to fly over their airspace only 2 months ago to support Ukraine.

Now they're carrying out much after actions. After the event. A bit of a Chamberlain moment.

The outcome of the decision is that the British government now runs Chelsea and may require tax payers investment to maintain the club.

Given that several football league clubs have folded due to their inability to finance themselves, I am not sure that a case could be made for continuing the club when other clubs in administration were allowed to go under?

So, no Chelsea supporters at Goodison Park for the match at the end of April?? Knowing our club, we'll provide free tickets to the away fans so that they don't miss out through no fault of their own.

Looking to the future, is this the beginning of the end for the Premier League as we've come to know it?

It's easy to forget why Abromavich wanted to buy a Premier League football club in the first place. Security.

The same reason so much foreign money has flooded into property in this country. We were seen as a safe democratic haven, where someone could buy not just an asset but respectability, and profile – sportwashing in the case of buying a Premier League club.

But those assets no longer look so secure. A UK government has just seized the assets of an individual who, as far as I can tell, has broken no laws. How safe is every foreign owned club now, especially those owned by people from less democratic states? Newcastle? Man City?

Why would a foreign person buy a Premier League club again, if that asset could be seized should your country's government act in a way considered unacceptable?

Is it even a bad thing if we go back to the old model of local ownership, less money flying around, football being for the fans again?

I look at the suffering in Ukraine, and the appalling behaviour of Putin, and I think that what's happening to Chelsea and its fans pales into relative insignificance. This action isn't intended, and won't, on its own influence Putin, but is an addition to the range of levers being used.

What we did or didn't do in previous conflicts is, unfortunately, water under the bridge and for me has no bearing on what is the right action to take here and now.

Steve #32,

"The outcome of the decision is that the British government now runs Chelsea and may require taxpayers investment to maintain the club."

I might have missed it but I haven't seen any authoritative statement to that effect. I doubt the government would go anywhere near that action.

The best way of assisting Ukraine at the moment is to provide them with the arms they require to enable them to properly defend themselves. In fairness to the UK it has done more than most and certainly more than the EU at this point in time with regards to this issue.

The EU also needs to bite the bullet and stop purchasing Oil and Gas from Russia. It appears to me that the EU countries closer to Russia are prepared to take the pain that would result from this course of action, however, I am not sure that the big players, Germany and France, are.

What's happening at Chelsea is very harsh and while it will make plenty of headlines I doubt if VP will lose much sleep over it.

Brent, I read that broadcast and prize money will be frozen and the licence is limited to “football-related activity”, leaving the west London side unable to sign players, renew existing playing contracts or operate on a commercial level. The freezing of access to broadcast or prize money means that the club does not have a financial basis to continue operations unless underwritten by the government.

This from the BBC:

"The government has issued a special licence that will allow fixtures to be fulfilled, staff to be paid and existing ticket-holders to attend matches.

The government is open to considering a further addition to the special licence which will allow the sale of the club."

So effective today, the government run Chelsea and make all decisions relating to the running of the club.

Paul @29 - only if you want to risk WW3 and possible nuclear holocaust?

More importantly, let's hope we get Chelski in the cup semi and we'll have Wembley to ourselves as they can't sell any tickets

Assuming we sneak past Palace first

If they subsequently allow the sale of the club, effectively they've likely destroyed the value of the club, and that will really hurt you might think.

According to Sky, he was looking for £4B.

Steve #38, as the government has seized the assets of Chelsea, why would the government need any taxpayer investment (over and above the value of assets already seized) to maintain the club? And in what way would the government need to maintain the club? Any depreciation in assets would just make it cheaper for a potential buyer.

For the past 30 years football clubs have welcomed foreign money and the development of the PL has been sold as progress and good for the game. There has been little due diligence over the individuals who purchase clubs, their sources of income and their related business activities. Personally I'm all for a reset of football governance and finance in the UK it's long overdue and would be good news for those long forgotten people - the fans who actually attend games.

As long as all clubs owners and recent previous owners are subject to scrutiny then that's fine in my opinion. If you encounter some self righteous RS fan direct them to this article about their sponsors

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/09/standard-chartered-fined-money-laundering-sanctions-breaches

It's just been on lunchtime news, further sanctions against Abramovich and Chelsea. Including not being able to sell match tickets, merchandise and sale of actual club.

Jon @40.

So we do nothing. Sanctions won't work; Putin doesn't care how they affect anyone. Putin knew the West had no backbone. And he was right.

As much as I dislike Chelsea's fans (singing for the owner during a tribute to Ukraine is crass beyond words), I wouldn't wish this on any set of fans. Even our not so lovable neighbours.

It's clearly going to come down the ability of the club to self-sustain. If sponsors like 3 Mobile pull out (£40M a year apparently!) then they just aren't going to be able to, and it's administration, wage defaults or wait until summer and hope government allow a player firesale and extra credit lines in the meantime. Doubt the latter.

Maybe the simple answer for the UK government is to auction them off to the highest bidder and hold the sale value in some kind of escrow for any later challenge. Or simply place the sale value into a fund to help Ukraine and say there will be no challenge later. Problem there is the complicated debt structure, but maybe that's simply the minimum price and the ultimate asset seize.

What a mess!!! From a selfish point of view, I imagine it'll keep the Premier League busy over next few months, and any FFP metered elsewhere would leave them in a major pickle with one of the Sky 6 (where £90M pa loans is perfectly fine, of course).

The whole point of these sanctions does not seem to be working, it is supposed to get these oligarchs to put pressure on Putin, but as my dad said, you can't educate pork. Now we are starting to punish the general public in England, what's next?

The major income to Russia is their oil and gas and banning that would make a difference, but that could hurt the countries that import it more. The USA have just banned any Russian gas or oil but that is not a big problem for them as they only import 8% from Russia, over 51% comes from Canada, the rest from Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

There is no doubt this atrocity should be stopped, and I understand the reluctance for a no-fly zone that could start something that no-one wants.

The sanctions on Chelsea may seem harsh on their supporters, but are minute to what the Ukrainian people are suffering, but Governments should be very careful on what they are doing that affect their own citizens.

I think the main thrust of the Chelsea sanction is to ensure that Abramovich doesn't get the proceeds of the sale when it happens.

I imagine it will all be lifted as soon as the new buyer has purchased Chelsea. Chelsea overall won't really suffer, perhaps a little bit, but only until the end of this season, but they won't go bust or anything dramatic like that. I don't really get the need to stop the club selling shirts or tickets, it would be quite easy to ensure any monies didn't reach the pocket of Abramovich, wouldn't it?

Let's not forget, without Abramovich's largesse, Chelsea would likely still be searching for their first title win since 1955.

Football sold its soul and fans of all clubs have been desperate for a share of the riches.

We are now having to face up to what that means.

The bubble may be about to burst for Chelsea fans, or at least deflate a bit. Well, they can't complain after the past 20 years they've had.

I happen to agree with putting intense financial pressure on oligarchs and Putin. War is expensive. We need to make it untenable.

It does, however, seem a bizarre double standard if Newcastle Utd go on a spending spree unchecked, given their ownership. And Wolves, Leicester and everyone too, of course.

If the league is cleared of Russian money, then it should be cleared of all problem money altogether.

Barry "the Government when questioned about Everton's contacts, have said we decided to leave the current regime in place and require them to lead the club for a minimum of five years. That's punishment enough said a Government spokesman."

So we won't be in the dock? Either way?

Brent @49

It was intended to be a joke, but I see it has been removed from my original post - so obviously failed the humour test.

It does not matter who it is who owns the football clubs these days because one thing is for sure and that is, if they are a billionaire then somebody somewhere in the world is suffering because of their richness.

Just a bit like we all stand by and watch the next World Cup in Qatar which will be played out of season because they have paid or will pay whatever amount of dirty money to those who people who sanction it. The fact that thousands of poorly paid and badly treated workers have died in those horrendous conditions over there is sickening. Where are all these politically correct nations calling foul on Putin and yet stay silent on other such issues?

On the subject of the West and NATO standing up to Putin, well, the proof of that is what has been happening for nearly 10 years in Syria. That's still going on today and those poor souls have simply been forgotten about.

I get pissed off with Everton all the time as we are serial losers and I especially get angry at the so-called pro footballers who can't do basics whilst being paid fortunes but none of this really matters when you look at the atrocities humans cause each other. I would swap peace in the world tomorrow and Everton playing Championship next season.

Gary

I couldn't care less about Chelsea fans. There were only about 17,000 of them before Roman came along. They were a nothing club with a few spivs and a larger contingent of thugs supporting them. Roman came and hordes suddenly jumped on board knowing full well that he was a crook.

They've had 20 years of unparalleled success so these modest sanctions (can't give Rudiger a new contract – they've had four years to tie that down; can't buy a sandwich on game day) are hardly onerous.

In contrast, Newcastle have long had a loyal fan base in the tens of thousands, even when in the lower league. But if or when, the Crown Prince gets the Roman treatment, I won't feel bad for them either. Again, they know who they are getting into bed with.

Bill,

I agree. I think Putin has passed the point of return now as he is a pariah and has destroyed his economy. If he suddenly pulled out of Ukraine, he would be overthrown after all his rhetoric about fighting Nazis etc.

People would say "Why did you put us through that and then surrender?" It's rather like Kim Jung Un in North Korea. There can never be a happy retirement for a despot. They hang on until either nature or an assassin puts them out of commission.

With that being said, though, the thought of actually trading with him and further enriching him is unpalatable; so, even if it's a "moral" victory of sorts, it's one of those things you just have to do.

Pete #51:

"... if they are a billionaire then somebody somewhere in the world is suffering because of their richness."

Bill Gates made his billions developing technology products that changed the world. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated billions to GAVI and PATH global vaccine programs, the WHO, Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria, UNICEF, CARE, Rotary International and the Clinton Health Access Initiative among many others. Gates and Warren Buffett are giving away their entire fortunes through the foundation. They didn't make people suffer by getting rich.

Neither did George Lucas, who made his billions entertaining the world. He's giving most of his fortune away through the Gates/Buffett Giving Pledge. So is climate change activist Tom Steyer, who likewise has made no one suffer (except those who listened to his campaign speeches!).

Don't paint everybody with the same brush. Even the super-rich.

Paul #44,

Declining to commit troops and planes to defend Ukraine (which is what a no-fly zone would require) and steering away from a European continental war (which could include nukes) is not the same thing as having no backbone.

Brent @ 42.

The club will not have access to broadcast, prize money or revenue from commercial activities (even the club shop is being closed), therefore it will rapidly run out of cash to fund, for example, salaries of players and backroom staff, operating and travel expenses. The only income they will be able to generate will be from home game match day revenue (season ticket holders only) and sale of assets (players).

Losses will be underwritten by the government (ergo taxpayers) and recouped from the sale of the club to a 3rd party. Hopefully, with a profit.

Having worked for a UK bank that was effectively nationalised by the UK Government in 2008, I have seen this up close. Chelsea have in effect also been nationalised. The government will have to approve every decision made by the club until it is sold.

Mike @55.

So what do we do? Let Putin take Ukraine and any other country he likes. War with Russia is inevitable unfortunately.

Mike G,

While I agree with your point about Bill Gates etc, I totally disagree with not countering Putin.

He is a bully and, like all bullies, if you stand up to them, they will back down, especially in the event of getting knocked out themselves.

People are scared of him in the same way Trump tried to intimidate people but we cannot allow him to continue to have success by war crimes and build his confidence up.

We need a leveler, no matter what the consequences.

Imagine if Britain hadn't stood up to Hitler.

Special license to complete this season's fixtures; kick them down to regional/national leagues after that. Only relegate 2 from the Premier League this season, to be fair to the teams chasing promotion from the Championship.

Ergo, we are saved!

Yeah right...

Pete @51,

I'm not sure on your comment about resenting richness. It can be a trait in this country to resent success, even though some of those who achieve it worked hard and earned it. We all strive to rise from where we came from and improve life for our kids. There is nothing wrong with that.

I agree with you on the contradictions in standards by politicians and authorities. Russia, Qatar, China; all given the privilege of hosting major global sporting events by the authorities who no doubt had their pig's troughs filled with their Rubles, Diyals and Reniminbis.

A blind eye turned to Saudi Arabian owners. No outrage there just as until a few weeks ago there wasn't of Russian owners. Hypocrisy of the highest order until it becomes trendy to show support to something we could have been trying to head off years ago.

I take the Iraq / Syria thing personally. The UK has been and continues to be way more active there than most as it has been in being vocal against Russia despite our European neighbours' passive stance until shit happened.

Kieran; we need to be careful. 13,000 at Goodison in the early 80s and even during the glory years we struggled to hit 30,000. Times were different. My paper round used to get me to the ground, get me in and get me a sausage roll. Nowadays I don't even look at how much they cost me!!! And that doesn't include the emotional cost or traumatically post-match effect on the poor hounds.

While events in Yemen and human rights violations in Qatar (at least by our own standards) provoke a degree of 'what about that', the reality is there are degrees of transgression. China, after all, lied about Covid but little has been done about it.

But what Putin has done, launch a full-scale aggressive attack against a European country that is also targetting its civilians is too many notches past any of these as to not justify a different and much harder line approach.

It is an interesting debate whether this should cover all Russian citizens or just those with close links to Putin's regime, like Abramovich and indeed our own investor/sponsor. There is a clear moral case for the latter.

Perhaps the one big problem is that, even if a Putin ally did object to the invasion, there is a clear and very obvious personal risk in doing so publicly. Putin has no qualms about assassinating people, including those on foreign soil, indeed he launched a chemical weapons attack in England to do just that.

And for Russians unconnected to Putin, at least visibly, should they also be ostracised? Bear in mind they may well be outside Russia precisely because they have little time for Putin.

I'm still not entirely decided on this but a very large part of me says that, for this to be effective, any Russian citizen is going to have to get used to becoming a pariah unless they play their part in ridding their country of its madman leader.

The more Putin is made to appear friendless, the more likely he is to be toppled. I don't buy the idea this would make them rally around Putin. As long as he is in power, the Russian economy is screwed and so is any Russian's well-being and livelihood.

Jay

"We need a leveler, no matter what the consequences."

So if the consequences were nuclear war with millions, maybe everyone killed, that would be worth it? Throughout the history of humanity, I don't see this situation – in its present state – as the one to go kamikaze and destroy the whole world on a point of principle.

As for the comparisons with Hitler, they are accurate with respect to the way he has consolidated power, lied and targeted territory. But you could say the same thing about Kaiser Wilhelm, or indeed Britain in India, Africa elsewhere.

As far as we know, Putin doesn't have a "final solution" to exterminate entire ethnic groups: Jews, slavs, gypsies, as well as socialists, communists, catholics, Jehovah witnesses, and anyone else who disagrees with him and doesn't have blonde hair.

Now yeah, it could escalate and Putin may make more land grabs but, as of right now, to my mind, terrible though things are in Ukraine, this is not the fight to end all fights which it would be if it kicks off into full-scale NATO warfare.

I think everyone understands where I stand on this so I'll be brief. With Putin deploying nearly all of his forces in Ukraine with conscripts no less, the dude is in no position to open up a front against NATO forces. Go in and protect the corridors that they officially agreed to and don't be shy.

He's in a bad strategic place needing China to back him while Xi is trying for an unprecedented third term and a lot of European contracts on the table. Given stability is their primary concern, there is only so much they are willing to do and that's why you see them willing to play in with the disinfo.

Putin's image has been badly damaged and it is only a matter of time before pressure inside Russia begins for real. Time to make a move that signals to that creep that he isn't the only one playing for the win. Recruiting from Syria kind of gives of the game, sorry Vlad you fuck.

Mark,

I feel sorry for Russian kids being sent off to war, and citizens struggling. But at the same time, it's their country. Through revolutions and the ballot box, the citizens have allowed this regime to arise. So they are culpable to some degree, just as people in North Korea are.

Everyone has the ability to make rational choices. So if you're denied access to any media except state-controlled propaganda, based on history, it's not a stretch to think "is this just propaganda by a regime in the mold of the one that kept us under the cosh for 70 years?"

Therefore, they are choosing (the majority) not to view things logically and rationally and do what they should, eg, revolution. And I don't want to hear the old "they might get arrested, the government is oppressive" argument as there are 170 million Russians versus the government apparatus, however well equipped it may be.

They got rid of the Tsar at a time when most couldn't read and write and were comparatively weaker versus their tyrant. They could do it again if they wanted. If they don't, then tough luck.

Steve #57,

I think your penultimate para says where I'm coming from - the taxpayer will not (ultimately) fund Chelsea's needs / losses. This is surely different from taking over a bank in a financial crisis in order to avoid overall banking and economic meltdown.

Oh and resent the rich if they are poorly behaved, don't resent the thing that motivates so many people to try and get to that status.

Again that guy George Henderson, "I'm not afraid of money anymore, aahhhhh Heaven keep me poor!".

Jay #58,

" no matter what the consequences..."???

Spoken like someone who hasn't experienced those consequences. A million American families have experienced them from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The loved ones of the 7,000 killed and the 30,000 who committed suicide after returning home and the many hundreds of thousands with lifelong medical and mental health problems know what the consequences of war actually look like.

The West is standing up to Putin in every way possible short of actually sending our own citizens to die in defense of Ukraine. Americans are now 3 to 1 against direct military involvement in this war. I find that perfectly understandable.

I think, once assets are frozen, there can be an assumption that seizure is being looked into. During this process, the government is charged with fiduciary responsibility in case their case against the accused does not hold up in court.

While preventing depreciation is the stated goal of the fiduciary agent, it is not clear that football club assets weren't perhaps a bit inflated so some grey area on the valuation may exist. And I'm not sure they are required to find a buyer immediately so this gets a bit weird.

Kieran,

I doubt whether Putin would start a nuclear war. He is a sneaky backstabber and more likely to employ chemical weapons and accuse the Ukrainians of using it.

By not standing up to him at this point, we have let him know that we are scared of him using the nuclear option while young kids and babies are being murdered in their own homes.

Those poor people who are defending democracy and Western values are being decimated while we stand and watch.

Kieran @65,

Yes and many of the points you make lead me on balance to (just about) believe this has to encompass all Russian citizens. I guess that leaves a possible way out for some, to renounce Russian citizenship.

For me, it is not about punishment, since some of these won't deserve it, more – to use that French term – pour encourager les autres...

Jay (70),

I fear that, if he is cornered, Putin would resort to the nuclear option. Many doubted he would invade Ukraine, even as he was building an invasion force of nearly 200,000.

Kieran #65, sorry, not really a valid comparison. The Tsar wasn't strong at all, but badly weakened by WW1. And he wasn't overthrown by a popular uprising of the people but by the Red Army.

Besides, things have changed a bit in a hundred years. You may have noticed that it's been a very, very long time since an absolute dictator was overthrown in this world. The Russian people can't vote Putin out, and they can't throw him out. Such a change could only come from within the system, not without.

Mike,
Just like in the second world war when America refused to join for years until Pearl Harbor was bombed.

In the interim period millions of Europeans were killed fighting a monster. What is different about this lunatic? Do you honestly think he will stop if he gets Ukraine.

John,

I think if we were the Ukranian people, we wouldn't be scared of him using the nuclear option even though that is a possibility.

I honestly believe, and I know it's only my opinion that, if we stand up to him by backing a no-fly zone and assisting Ukraine to defend itself, he would back off as long as we allow him to do it with some respect remaining.

In response to Russia bombing a hospital with civilians in it. Women and children. “Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attacked what he called "pathetic shouting about so-called atrocities by the Russian armed forces".”

Anything that can be done to send a united message against Russia needs to be done. No matter how small or insignificant it may seem.

Hugely troubling times. And I just can't see Putin saving face, and backing down.

However, everything should be done so that Putin understands a land grab is not an option for these times. Protecting those in the Ukraine, and surrounding countries who must be in fear.

Oh and No xenophobia and No witchhunt happening here. Please look up Specially Designated National and realize that this is a process laid out in international law that everyone owning a club abroad should get familiar with before purchasing a club. That's what lawyers are for, innit?

Jay #75,

There is no prohibition against volunteering to go fight for Ukraine. I read last weekend that more than 3,000 American vets have applied to do so. You're welcome to join them if you feel so strongly about it. You can also donate funds or air miles to volunteers who need financial help to get themselves over there.

But Americans, as a whole, largely do not want their sons, brothers and fathers sent over there at the order of our government. And our military feels the same, judging by the responses of the Pentagon to various proposals for greater involvement.

If the experts in conducting our wars think this one is a bad idea, I would take their professional judgement into account.

Mike

The people could have a revolution if they wished and the army being people themselves would obviously have to be part of it. The people start it, the army (their husbands, friends, neighbors, wives, sons) jump on board as happened in Romania 1989, Sudan 2019, Tunisia 2011 etc and yes in 1917 in Russia.

But the people themselves have to start it and with 170 million versus Putin's relatively small circle, they could do so if they actually wished to do so.

Maybe so, Kieran. Maybe so.

I won't be placing any bets on it.

The fact that Putin made a statement today playing down the effect that sanctions will have long term, tells me they are in fact having a very considerable effect and the Russians are getting worried.

Well... if NATO won't stop him, his own people won't stop him and his billionaire friends won't stop him, he has nothing to worry about, has he?

Mike,

For your information, I have already donated and would willingly give my life up to save some of those poor people. It is a pity that the "I'm alright Jack" modern attitude prevails in the West.

It is so easy to be politically correct and profess a desire for equality while watching others far away being systematically annihilated.

Jay, odd observations about political correctness aside (really can't figure that one out!!), your willingness to lay down your life is your own choice, and I would support your right to make it. I just wouldn't support your making it for somebody else.

So I don't think my government should be sending our troops under orders to give up their lives for Ukraine.

My donation is going to MSF to provide medical care for victims and refugees. Everybody chooses their own way to do their part.

Dennis (33),

I assume Chelsea away fans will still be allowed as the money goes to the home club with an admin fee to the away side. I think the practice of away fans revenue going to their own club ended a while ago.

On a separate point, the sanctions against Russian billionaires has been practiced previously against very rich individuals with close ties to their state, in Iran and Syria for example. It's just that they didn't own football clubs so it wasn't front page news.

Of course this shouldn't excuse the UK politicians from both sides who allowed this dirty money to wash through the UK in the first place but there isn't a politician alive who doesn't love grandstanding.

Mike & Jay

Related to your discussion but different angle, I was listening to NPR last night and they were interviewing volunteers from elsewhere. It's quite complex if you try to go legitimately.

Polish guy being interviewed has been waiting on approval from his government as he could lose his citizenship from Poland if he fights for another nation's army. Various others including a British guy, Brazilian fellow, didn't get permission – just went and will deal with possible ramifications later.

Additionally, there was a guy from London who is very fit – runs a gym, and willing but has no prior military experience so the Ukrainians turned him away as they said he could be a liability.

Unsurprisingly, they said integrating the volunteers is difficult due to language barriers so consequently they only want professional soldiers.

If anyone has a shot from the hip on how likely it is that Chelsea could go into administration while the government is the asset caretaker, let's hear it.

If this situation with Chelsea rolls on somewhat, there may be a fair few promising youngsters currently on their books that they won't be able to offer new contracts to in due course. Probably be a bit of a queue to sign them up if that scenario arises.

If the papers are to be believed this morning, Dennis, it looks like Chelsea are completely fucked.

Mike,

Americans are a long way away from Ukraine and most of your countrymen would struggle to find it on a map (as would most UK residents a month ago). The US has had its fingers burnt and is back to following its old isolationist policy. However, Putin will be emboldened by our lack of military threat.

Appeasement doesn't work and our sanctions will take ages to bite and can be overcome with China covering loss of trade.

We should do what the Ukrainians want and provide air cover. We need to raise the stakes and call the bully's bluff.

Mike, I thought that it was illegal for British subjects to go to fight in Ukraine? I heard as much in a radio discussion a couple of days ago.

And yes, it's easy for people to say we should do this or that but, if their own son or daughter were facing bullets, they might think again.

I used to get pissed-off when red-faced Sun readers, showering listeners with spittle, raged that we should “Send the SAS in” to sort some problem out without realising that that is not the way things, or they, work.

Well, thank heaven that some people posting on this thread aren't in charge of UK or US foreign policy, otherwise their very naive and hawkish stance would create even more turmoil. It's easy from an armchair isn't it?

And if he isn't bluffing, Eddie? There isn't a cause on Earth worth a nuclear war.

James,

By doing nothing, we reward Putin, to protect innocents we will make him reconsider. Putin is banking on the comfy, middle classes in Europe and America who shit themselves when their normality is threatened.

Personally, I don't want to be watching him take that country apart for the next month, year or decade, killing civilians and destabilising Europe. It needs intervention now.

He is more likely to talk peace if we amass battle groups on Ukraine's Western borders. Then fly defensive air sorties.

Yes, there is a risk of escalation... but to sit and watch murder and genocide when we are capable of intervention is cowardly and pathetic.

There never was a popular uprising against the Tsar of All The Russias. It was orchestrated by the Bolsheviks assisted by high-ranking military officers.

The majority of Russians had no idea that there had been a revolution, such was their apathy and ignorance, until collectivisation began to be imposed in the 1920s.

If Putin were to be toppled, it would not be by "the people" but by the guys who wear those big hats.

Dale (89) it just needs the government to announce that Chris Grayling is being put in charge of Chelsea. That'd be the final blow.

Putin won't be going past Ukraine as, even if he wanted to, he will have to regroup and ensure his lines of supply and communication.

In the meantime, Nato has to let him know, by the positioning of troops etc, where the line is drawn and that won't be a line ignored by anyone in Russia likely to overthrow him. Not all wars are won on the battlefield.

Echoes of history on this thread. We appeased Adolf Hitler only to get caught with our pants down.

Going early didn't serve us well in WW2 as Dunkirk proved. The US were reluctant to get involved but supported the effort in different ways.

That said, Eddie, the lesson of the Cold War was to have significant forces stationed in West Germany to act as a deterrent. Had we done that with Ukraine and had deployments in western Ukraine, I would suggest this wouldn't have happened.

We didn't act proactively and have the guts to stand up to him. He smelled that and is now acting. We're too late to intervene militarily right now.

Bide your time and play the war of attrition before you get to that level.

In WW2, we stood firm, played the intelligence and resistance game and once the aggressor had basically defeated themselves by overstepping their abilities, stepped in to win.

But it took several years. Right now, 24/7 news reporting is thinking this gets sorted tomorrow or next week.

Military intervention now other than support (arms & training), would escalate it to the point of a huge conflict. Let Russia defeat itself. It will.

Danny,

Good points and Nato and Europe have neglected the situation. There has been a conflict since 2014 so there has been lots of time to put more assets in Poland and other places.

My argument is that Obama said that in Syria the red line was chemical attack. However, once the Russians and the Assad government used them, America did nothing and the British Parliament actually voted against taking action.

If we are so worried that Putin could go nuclear, then how far do we let him go? Inaction is the green light to more war crimes and further expansion.

He has no right to invade Ukraine, Russia has vetoed UN sanctions, so Nato needs to act.

The US, Britain and France decided to go and bomb Libya to help the rebels in Benghazi. They didn't get UN backing, they just did it.

We need to get our shit together now. I am sure Nato generals are making battle plans as we speak. We have been lazy and complacent.

I was ashamed when Zelensky quoted Churchill to our Parliament in his hour of need and our elected leaders offered sanctions, aid and defensive weapons but embarrassingly let him down.

Johnson has been keen on quoting Churchill in the past but, when it came to the crunch, he showed himself to be more like Chamberlain.

I find the hypocrisy in all the various guises mind-blowing, Whether it be the Premier League or various governments.

I hear politicians saying Abramovich should be sanctioned, and he should, but where were the politicians 18 years ago when he bought Chelsea? And let's not forget this Tory government gave Evgeny Lebedev a seat in the House of Lords and let him own the Evening Standard newspaper, yet his father served in the KGB alongside Putin.

The murdering Saudi Royal family were given the thumbs up to buy Newcastle and bye the way maybe we should be bringing them before the war crimes tribunal for their indiscriminate bombing in Yemen killing many women and children. And they are doing this with the approval of the US and UK Governments.

Putin has showed in Syria that he is quite happy to use chemical weapons and the West are right to be fearful of him doing so again, although I doubt he will be able to rely on President Xi of China if he does use chemical weapons.

Again China another country which has committed terrible human rights abuses but I don't see Western governments rushing to impose sanctions on them.

The main reason why China don't condemn Russia for going into Ukraine is because President Xi has stated only a couple of months back that he considers Taiwan to be part of China, and I am sure in the next few years China will impose its will on Taiwan.

Understandably the natural reaction is "Let's send in troops to protect Ukraine", but the escalation that would cause could also see China coming to the help of Russia if that did happen and it would be the start of World War 3 and that must be avoided at all costs.

A couple of interesting points there Eddie that we shouldn't shy away from.

Like him, loathe him, Tory, Labour or whatever, Cameron wanted to go into Syria as early as 2013 but was voted down by the British Parliament, much to the frustration of the British Military.

That gave Putin a free pass and, lo and behold, we went in 2 or 3 years later anyway. After the event, to try and clean up the shit show we might have maybe not prevented but at least contained.

If anyone hasn't watched it, the film, Darkest Hour is a great watch. It depicts how Churchill was under pressure from our own Parliament to appease Hitler and let him have his way in Europe as long as they left us alone.

Years before receiving US support, he stood firm and resisted despite incredible pressure from weak-minded UK politicians and played the long game.

Dictators and despots understand one language. And it isn't negotiation.

Brent @ 66, hopefully is my most optimistic assessment.

It looks like they will run of cash rapidly based on this article. I actually don't understand why they are being prevented to access cash, provided it is channelled into operating costs.

Chelsea 'set to run out of cash in 17 days'

Let's get one thing straight: Putin won't drop nukes on anyone. You do realise every other country has them and would simply flatten Russia.

Let's stop being scared of Putin. Put a no-fly zone over Ukraine, send NATO troops is as well. Let's see if Putin really has the balls for a war. I very much doubt he does.

Steve #104 - frightening for Chelsea supporters (I hope!). I can't see the government letting Chelsea go bust. Whether short-term lending facilities / subsidies come from the banks or the government, the lenders would surely get their money back as part of a sale?

I wonder who put Ralf Rangnick current Manchester United interim boss, to question the 'Russian' ownership of Arsenal and Everton?

Rangnick said: "Could anyone foresee what would happen last 4 weeks?

"We have to be very careful to blame someone.

"Not only at Chelsea, [but] also at Arsenal and Everton there were ownership shares by Russian oligarchs.

"(Chelsea) was not the only club."

This following on from Simon Jordan's "Everton will/should be punished for breaking Profit and Sustainability rules" which he later retracted and accecpted he had got it wrong as he wasn't aware of the full facts.

Barry@107: Would have been good if Rangnick had checked facts before opening his mouth, Usmanov having been merely one of Everton's sponsors, like Standard Chartered Bank for LFC, etc. Stick to football coaching Ralf. Oh, wait a minute, that's not going too well either!

Maybe Ralf should concentrate on the day job. It appears to be challenging enough.

It isn't unusual for Simon Jordan to be unaware of the full facts. He proved he was useless at owning a club taking Palace into administration. Somehow he's reinvented himself as a no nonsense guru. The media loves a blagger.

Paul (105). While I certainly don't think Putin is mad, to gamble he wouldn't unleash nuclear weapons if NATO upped the ante is not a gamble I'd care to take. Never been irradiated myself but think it didn't go well in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Given the fact we had cancers here even from the Chernobyl meltdown, a nuclear conflict would be 100 times worse.

Eddie 101, Didn't do anything? Battle of Khasham escape your memory? Ok, I looked it up but hey it was right there at the top of a google search. You should try that sometime and do read those before you post a link.

Nothing mad about Putin, he's allegedly bringing in the Syrian's, to help fight in a war, that isn't really a war. He's saying it's in response to mercenaries being sent into Ukraine, by the Americans, with the best outcome being, that the Russian people hopefully begin to question, what is really happening in Ukraine?

Eddie 101, I have to apologize for what's written there. The 2014 strike was what I meant to cite. The Raqqa airstrike was the counterexample I wanted to suggest.

Tony (112) Putin is bringing in mercenaries because the war isn't going well. Obviously his claimed reasons are BS: doesn't make him mad, just a liar.

And fair play to anyone who thought 'yeah, read those will ya'.

Ronay of the Grauniad is taking a good shot at Neeeuuuwwcastle and the League with particular attention to Shearer's clumsy comments or non-comments if you will. This story may not end with the Oligarchs.

Hopefully the Premier League will get rid of its crooked billionaire owners. And we can get to an even playing field.

Their bank account suspended and credit lines closed.

If they default on paying the players then they can default on their contract and sign for other clubs. Get on the phone to the agents for Billy Gilmour and Connor Gallagher sharpish!

Tony

I imagine he's bringing in Syrians for two reasons. 1. If they die rather than Russians he doesn't have to have awkward conversations with mothers of conscripts. 2. If they and the Belarussians get involved he can claim like Bush it's an “alliance of the willing.” Next thing you know he will rope in a few North Koreans and Eritreans and act like it's the world versus might Ukraine.

Steve Brown

Unfortunately reports of the demise of Chelsea's credit and bank accounts are premature. As of tonight Chelsea have dismissed it as “fake news.” Did you really think the Tories would let their own club fold?

Steve #118, nice dream but not so. Your government has specifically stated that Chelsea will be permitted to continue paying their players. And it's not like their salaries come out of Abramovich's personal checking account in Russia. Chelsea's accounts aren't frozen.

Paul #105, amazing how you know for certain that Putin is bluffing but don't know how NATO troops are ordered into action. (Hint: no one person can "send" them.)

I love chest-beaters who are eager to send thousands of people into war (not them) and put tens of millions at risk of nuclear fallout (not them) for a country they couldn't have identified on a map two months ago. Bravo, commodore. Your courage with others' lives is so inspirational.

Mike, permitted to continue paying the players with what? All revenue sources have been frozen, including TV and prize money and all income from commercial activities. Their weekly salary bill is over 3 million.

Their bank. account is frozen albeit temporarily:

Link

As are their credit card facilities:

Link

The banks will not expose themselves to further risk to their loan book, so it will either be a quick sale engineered buy the UK govt or Boris and Co will have to guarantee to the banks that their will underwrite Chelsea's losses.

Couldn't happen to a nicer club.

Mike @120. Sitting in your comfy home all nice and safe must be great, while thousands of miles away men woman and children are being murdered. I don't want a war, wars are horrible things but do we just turn a blind eye to it because as you say" you wouldn't know where it is on a map". Great reason for not helping. Most people probably couldn't have told you were Iraq was. But that didn't stop us invading. But that was about oil wasn't it so that's ok. Hope you can sleep well.

It's the rent boys I feel sorry for. But closer to home, it's very concerning that Putin is now dishing out contracts to mercenaries…. We'll be left with a threadbare squad.

Paul@123.
A blind eye will be turned by America because it is not in their doorstep and is not...for the moment affecting the great "American Dream".

Let's be honest here, until america can't fuel its cars it won't be arsed what happens in the Ukraine, plus...there is no gain for the good old yoo esss ayyy.

If the place was full of minerals and oil they could get their hands on they would be in like a shot.

You only have to look at the homeless situation in the states, no welfare, no medical treatment, drug addiction rife across the country to realise that they don't give a fuck about the disadvantaged in their own country, never mind a land far far away.

Paul @123
No one wants a war but why does everything have to concern Britain ? We're far from the worlds police force, our army is the smallest it's ever been yet still we stick our noses in everywhere.
If you feel so strongly about it then help in every way you can but don't judge people because they don't and yes I sleep well.

Terry@126. That's what NATO is for.

Doesn't this result in less of a slush fund for Ukraine rebuild and war victims, because the sale profits were earmarked for that - and these measures will presumably drive the sale price down?

It's just as well our grandparents didn't have the attitude many have now a days. Otherwise we would all have German names now.

paul
Nato do you mean Britain and America ? take us two out of Nato and it's a laughing stock

As I said earlier Kieran, hopefully the Russian people will begin to ask real questions, like why are we bringing in Syrians fighters to help us, if it's not even a war?

It probably will drive the price down but I think it makes it more likely that at least some money makes it to a charity for the Ukraine. Over the space of a few days Abramovich tried to hand the club over to a charitable trust, claimed he was engaged in peace talks, wrote of £1.5B debt and promised to give net proceeds to a charity. He was getting desperate as the net closed.

If there's anything signed writing off the £1.5B then anything other than the hefty legal fees should be profit for a charity. Hopefully there will also be a much higher level of transparency this way.

So the Government have finally admitted that there is and has been dodgy money been accepted into the purchase and operating of Football Clubs, Premier League Clubs.

Ive taken a look at those teams in the Premier League in 2003 when Roman Abramovic bought Chelsea.

He is supposedly an original Oligar of the 91onwards, one that got rich when the USSR broke up.Installed in positions of power, influence and trust.
Seems that his wealthy went off the clock some how.

£148million to buy the small London Club ???
The rest is history, the investment went off the clock, few if any could compete.Utd, Arsenal, Everton couldnt compete.

So what we must now assume is that Chelsea FC, or Roman Abramovic STOLE 19 years of success with money that he shouldnt have had to buy Chelsea in tge first place.Then the investment over 19years.

Rangers retrospectively were PUNISHED, wound up and new owners started at the bottom.
Derby County have been punished, what of their fate.

The question has to now be asked, HOW FAR BACK WILL THE PREMIER LEAGUE go back in INVESTIGATING Chelsea FC accounts.

In my view the money laundering laws should apply.

All sanctions apply until it goes through due process.
Tell us where the money came from to buy Chelsea in 2003.

Bolton Wanderers, Sunderland, Nottingham Forrest, Charlton Athletic, Blackburn Rovers,West Bromwich Albion all need answers.

If its clean money fine, prove it, carry on with your football club.

But Chelsea need to be wound up, or remain suspended until all questions answered.

One of Norwich, Watford,Burnley Everton, Leeds,Brentford do not need to be relagated as the third from bottom.

Chelsea need to be sidelined or new owners offered a chance to start again at the bottom of the pyramid.

Rangers, Derby are getting relagated, other teams.

Success stolen from other legitimate clubs.

So how far do the Gov look.

One week, one year, 19 stolen years.

We, Everton may well come under the microscope, but we are assured by the owner everything is legitimate.

So until proven different we are fine.But I expect our owner to have to answer some very difficult questions from the Government.I just hope we come out of this with a clean bill of health financially, morally.

But Chelsea FC, turn the clock back.Maybe winding them up is the only answer.
If it is proven that Roman Abramovic should not have bought them, well its simple.
Other clubs have suffered because of Chelsea's success.Erase the records of titles, trophies.

Thanks Peter.

My concern was that the timing might mean Abramovich has been able to protect his assets already, so the only people losing out from this measure are Ukrainians (or victims, I know Abramovich chose his words pretty carefully on that one).

Hopefully that's not the case.

I don't know much about politics. But I can't understand why the war in Yemen hasn't invoked the same degree of apparent outrage as the invasion of Ukraine. I don't recall the same level of criticism of Saudi Arabia and its backers.

I wonder if the apparent difference in the level of outrage has anything to do with the arms trade, the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia and their apparent status as an ‘ally' of the UK and US. And the influence of such government and business interests on our mainstream media.

It would be very ironic if Chelsea FC were bought by the Saudis, as Newcastle were.

There is an excellent documentary drama on the BBC at the moment, World War 2, Behind Closed Doors. Gives an excellent picture of Russia and the allies.

The difference between this current tragedy and World War 2, is the nuclear button. The ultimate game changer.

Dale, yes, a weapon such that its use damages everyone, including all the politicians and business elites who in conventional wars suffer no harm and usually profit.

Perhaps the physicists and engineers handed the politicians a weapon that they cannot handle. MAD but perhaps not mad, perhaps the very opposite. Perhaps why the era after WW2 has been the most peaceful in human history in terms of per capita deaths in wars, compared with the first half of the 20th century, which was the most violent.

I remember somebody describing the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) as negotiating from 43 to 27 the number of times nuclear weapons could wipe out the human race.

It's all politics Stan @134, often linked to economics. We are (collectively) selective in our levels of outrage as much as our willingness to turn a blind eye when it suits.

Russia both in terms of late 20th century and more recent history is easy for a UK Government to shout at and sanction.

Saddam Hussein went from friend to foe as our strategy towards Iran shifted. We supported a strategy of arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to wear down the Soviet occupation. Arms later used against US & UK forces ironically.

We have a big stake in defence contracts and development of the Saudi military. They act as a counter to Iran in the region. They serve a useful economical and political purpose.

Is that right? Of course not. Politics and economics. Like football I guess. Many didn't complain too much about Russian money over the last 20 years but now they're suddenly outraged by it.

Danny,

Many didn't complain too much about Russian money over the last 20 years but now they're suddenly outraged by it.

I'm only guessing here, Danny, but I suspect feelings might have changed a bit now there's a war on. The Russian bloke has invaded Ukraine. A lot of people are upset about that. In fact, it's that they're suddenly outraged by, not Russian money per se.

Peculiar how there hasn't been so much apparent outrage about Yemen.

I get that Michael, but there has been conflict going on around the world all of my life. I actually can't think of a period where there wasn't something.

I acknowledge the scale of this, but we are selective in our condemnation of regimes.

I maintain my consistency. As a Cold War Warrior, we took our eye off the Russian Bear and now it's come home to roost. They believe they can do what they want because of our indifference and weak approach to them.

Maybe you could say the British media have failed to wind us up so much about Yemen. But again, it's not really comparable to full-scale completely unprovoked military ground and air invasion that the Russians are inflicting on their neighbours to take over the country and remove its government.

The Saudis haven't invaded their neighbours, far from it. The Houthi uprising ousted the Yemeni government. The Saudi coalition responded with the intention to restore that government. But like all such things, it's not that simple.

I think drawing these completely false "what about" comparisons threatens to undermine the focus on and resolve against what Putin is doing in Ukraine.

Well, I'm still puzzled. Must be something to do with things not being that simple.

Dave 125, “you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing but only after theyve exhausted all other available options” said some famous English dude I think.

And Stan did you expect the previous administration to jeopardize their hotel venture in Sod Arabia just for a warm fuzzy?

Dale, I never know what to expect, apart from complication and hidden variables. And certainty on the part of many people.

The phrase “I don't know” has never been fashionable.

Again, that closing conclusion is far too simplistic, Danny.

● The unification of Germany without significant repercussions, such as the end of Nato, that was a real possibility as the Warsaw Pact collapsed.

● The subsequent expansion of Nato, almost doubling in number to a total of 30 European countries.

In fact, it's that last point that is probably the key: if we'd already added a couple more who wanted in, then the invasion of Ukraine perhaps wouldn't have happened. But the Ukraine-Nato thing is incredibly complex.

You can't change history. Only seek to understand it and perhaps learn something from it (although the cynic in me is not convinced).

Your last paragraph is telling Michael. The problem being we very rarely learn from history even though we talk about doing so a lot.

You touch on some very valid points Michael.

The west was arguably naive in it's expansion after the Cold War (speaking as someone who spent his formative military years sat on the inner German Border facing the Soviet Army).

Then again, there was a desire from the former Soviet satellites to rejoin the European family. And why wouldn't we have accommodated and welcomed that? But we failed to consider Russian paranoia and concerns.

Ukraine however, whichever way we look at it, is a red line for Moscow and there lies the problem. There is a reason we have held off including them in the EU & NATO clubs. Russian resistance and the knowledge that it would be a step too far. We've poked the bear and disturbed them.

On a larger scale, it's like the Kosovo problem but on a larger scale. Kosovo was the historical birthplace of Serbia hence their insistence it was part of their birthright as a nation. Similarly, Ukraine is viewed by many Russians as the birthplace of the modern state. Kiev (or Keeeev as the BBC keep calling it - sorry, that irritates me) was the original Capital of the modern Russian nation. But we could bully and outmuscle Serbia. Unless we want to go toe-to-toe with Russia, we can't do that with the Ukraine.

Having been sent to many conflict zones, I would never try to simplify a complex situation. I don't think the west understands the underlying tones here. Dare I say, you have a Northern Ireland scenario on our hands, but again on a larger scale. A majority that want something and to belong to something that a vocal and sizeable minority don't want with a neighbour that back that view?

It doesn't help that the 24/7 media want it sorted tomorrow or next week. It's been going on for decades and will continue to do so.

But Russia only understands one language. Unfortunately, we bottled it years ago thinking we could talk to Putin. He is the type of leader who smells weakness in his sleep. It's a good job the west didn't adopt the approach it does towards Moscow now as apposed to the stance it took in the latter half of the 20th century.

The quote from German philosopher Friedrich Hegel: "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." is possibly on the cynical side, but watching things in this age of big-tech and amazing medical and scientific breakthroughs, the human race is doomed to carry on with war as a solution to its disputes and ambitions.

If only we could spend all of that money that has been spent and will continue to be spent on the apparatus of war - albiet for defensive purposes - on improving life for as many people as possible.

One thing I did learn from a Ukranian bloke on the telly, he said something like, if you can be nice or give help to somebody close to you, and they in turn do the same with another person, suddenly the world won't seem as bad as it was before you did your good deed, I think he called it the 'Domino effect', obviously International politics isn't as simplistic as that, but it would be great if they could sometimes see there is more to life than power and money.

Some good points there, Danny. I was surprised to read the steps that had been taken towards getting Ukraine into Nato and the EU already.

The comparison with Northern Ireland, in terms of separatist regions with ethnic minorities wanting to preserve ties with the motherland... yes. I was curious about the religious aspect, and whether there is also a Catholic - Orthodox split in play too? If so, that has gone completely under the main stream radar.

As far as the history goes, I downloaded this book that Peter Neilson told us about: “Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate”. Almost too much detail, if that were possible. Just the incredible machinations over negotiating the unification of Germany, and that's Chapter 2... all I've read so far.

Barry@149: People have never changed, but what has changed is the way people are organised. I believe that the organisation of people has gradually made the world a better place. Still with evil, as it will always be, but better. What makes me believe this? Well, simple numbers, like the decreased mortality rate and increased life expectancy in developed nations, better medical care, and less hunger.

In less developed nations, all of this less so, and that is where there is maximum scope for further improvement. What we call ‘progress'.

Humans always have a balance between selfishness and altruism, between self-serving and the common good, and it is our organisation which gradually tips the balance to the greater good. There will always be wars, but since WW2 the per capita death rate from such conflicts is lower than ever. In contrast, the first half of the 20th century was the most violent in history. Perhaps the atomic bomb is responsible for this change during the 20th century, and the atomic bomb reflects people working together, organised through science and engineering, to defeat an evil and reduce the potential for further evils of the same magnitude.

The world is both good and bad, the former outweighing the latter. Despite wars like the invasion of Ukraine.

Michael

There were tensions of Catholic v Orthodox historically and again when Stalin lessened the persecution of the Orthodox to raise national morale in WWII while still suppressing Catholics and others.

But the Ukrainian orthodox broke with the Russian church after Crimea and since then, religiously speaking, the Ukrainians seem to be getting along.

Michael, I agree (150) about the detail overload. I found myself skimming some sections, I won't call it speed reading!

Reading “Putin's People” by Catherine Benton at the moment, the book that upset Abramovich and Co so much. It's a page-turner, honest, and gets into some of Danny's points around how the West under-estimated Russia after 1991-92. In particular how the KGB didn't go away, that from 1982 under Andropov they saw the death of the Communist economy as inevitable.

They then planned the transition of the KGB into eventually what became the FSK/FSB. Their role changed from being protectors of Communism to enriching themselves from the new market economy and promoting Russian nationalism.

A standout line early on from a former colleague, Sedelmayer, on Putin: ”He'd change his colours so fast, you could never tell who he really was.”

Sobering article about the plight of Chelsea fans.

Link

He'd change his colours so fast, makes me think of Boris “the remainer” Johnson. How will the world ever be straight, when nearly every politician is a liar?

Very interesting that Chelsea can now sell tickets for their FA Cup semi-final, Wembley stadium needs the money after the rebuild, so a half-empty stadium hits money coming in.

Chelsea still cannot sell tickets for their home games, but the FA are happy to turn a blind eye, so they can fill Wembley, and claw some revenue back.

Brian,

I also notice that to make sure they get all supporters to the other game they are giving free transport by coach to Liverpool and Man City supporters.