Ineos Grenadiers’ promising Russian rider Pavel Sivakov took to Twitter last night to denounce his country’s invasion of Ukraine, while also calling on others to distance the actions of President Vladimir Putin from the views of the majority of Russians.
Sivakov, who has long been touted as a future grand tour winner after finishing ninth at the Giro d’Italia on his first attempt in 2019, wrote: “It’s been a difficult few days seeing what’s currently happening. First of all I just want to say that I’m totally against the war and can’t get around of what’s going on in Ukraine, all my thoughts are with the Ukrainian people.”
The Ineos rider is the son of two former elite Russian cyclists, Alexei Sivakov and Aleksandra Koliaseva, and was born in Italy and raised in France. In his post, the 24-year-old addressed the popular view of the invasion in Russia, where thousands have joined anti-war protests across the country, leading to almost 2,000 arrests.
“I also want people to understand that most of the Russians only want peace and never asked for all of this to happen,” he wrote. “We shouldn’t be targets of hate just because of our origin. I know these few lines won’t make a big difference to the current situation but I just wanted to share it. Peace.”
— Pavel Sivakov (@PavelSivakov) February 25, 2022
With Ukraine’s capital Kyiv currently under attack from Russian forces, much of the sporting world has united to condemn Putin’s decision to launch a full-scale invasion of his southern neighbour.
Yesterday, European football’s governing body UEFA announced that the 2022 Champions League final, due to be held in May, has been moved from St Petersburg to Paris, while Formula One has cancelled this year’s Russian Grand Prix in Sochi, after leading drivers such as Sebastian Vettel called for a boycott of the race.
The cycling world was also forced to address the war yesterday after Gazprom-RusVelo’s 19-year-old Czech rider Mathias Vacek won the penultimate stage of the UAE Tour from a breakaway, the first professional victory of his career.
Gazprom is the largest supplier of natural gas in the world and is majority-owned by the Russian state. It has sponsored the Russian RusVelo ProTeam since 2016, when the team won a stage of the Giro d’Italia through Alexander Foliforov.
German football club Schalke 04, which has been sponsored by Gazprom since 2007, said on Thursday that it would remove the Russian company’s logo from its shirts. UEFA is also considering ending its €40m a year deal with Gazprom, the title sponsor of its flagship Champions League for the past decade.
Following Vacek’s win in the UAE, members of the cycling media called on the UCI to address the gas supplier’s role in the sport. Jeremy Whittle, author of Ventoux and Bad Blood, tweeted yesterday that the UCI and its president David Lappartient “should — if their thoughts are with the Ukrainian people — act now to sanction the Gazprom team, which directly promotes the activities of the Russian state and its oligarchs. Other sports federations are, as usual, well ahead of cycling on this.”
Cycling writer Herbie Sykes also wrote: “Gazprom should be booted out immediately. The riders and staff should be given a new jersey. They should be retained and bankrolled by UCI until a new sponsor can be found.”
Yesterday the UCI released a statement condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which breaches the Olympic Truce, and called for a peaceful solution to the conflict “through diplomatic channels”.
However, cycling’s governing body stopped short of promising any sort of concrete action against Russia, only incorrectly clarifying that “no UCI event is scheduled to take place in Russia or Belarus in 2022” [Two track meets in Moscow and St Petersburg, due to take place in May, are currently listed on the UCI’s website as sanctioned Class 2 events, while June’s Five Rings of Moscow stage race is a 2.2 ranked event].
59 thoughts on “Ineos Grenadiers’ Russian pro Pavel Sivakov denounces invasion of Ukraine”
Russian athletes are in a
Russian athletes are in a difficult position, but if they want to compete, they must, as individuals, renounce the actions of the Kremlin.
I don’t think that’s a
I don’t think that’s a sensible position.
Peng Shuai is a good example of what can happen to athletes in authoritarian regimes if they decide to speak out.
I applaud those who do so but we shouldn’t force others into potentially dangerous positions for themselves or their families.
I do agree, it has to be a
I do agree, it has to be a matter of personal conscience, but I also strongly believe that anyone with a voice who does not call out wrongs that they see is complicit in its continuation. This goes equally for things in this country such as human trafficking to staff nail bars and car washes, racism, sexism etc.
There is definitely truth in
There is definitely truth in that but I would argue that those who are citizens of autocratic regimes do not have a voice.
Putin has made it clear he is willing to flagrantly murder his critics even on foreign soil.
A Russian citizen speaking out against his regime is literally risking their life and the lives of their family.
Would you speak out if it might mean the death of your children?
I know I would not so I can’t criticise those who do likewise.
Nikolai wrote:
So you would ban any Russian cyclists who refuse to make an anti-Putin declaration? That sounds very much like something Putin would order. No. If there are internationally agreed sanctions banning all Russian athletes that’s different, but demanding that sort of declaration, particularly when you consider the consequences it could have for the rider’s family…just no.
Why would that be “very much
Why would that be “very much like something Putin would order”?
Did Putin demand TeamGB denounce Blair when we invaded Iraq? Because if he did I must have missed it.
My rule, as always, is keep politics out of sport
Just for the avoidance of any
Just for the avoidance of any doubt, I was not interested in engaging in any dialogue with you under your previous (several times suspended) alias and I am not in the slightest bit interested in engaging with you under your current one, any of your previous five, or any of the future ones you will doubtless employ in your increasingly sad and desperate attempts to suck people into your pathetic trolling. Good day to you.
I wasn’t engaging in debate
I wasn’t engaging in debate with you, simply fact checking your statement. Have a great day too.
It ceases to be politics when
It ceases to be politics when there are tanks and missiles involved.
And to draw analogies between the democratically elected government in Ukraine and the murderous despotic tyranny of Saddam Hussein is right up there with the most offensive things you have ever posted.
The regimes don’t have to be
The regimes don’t have to be analogous in order for the invasions to be equally illegal.
The Iraq war was illegal.
The Iraq war was illegal. This war is illegal. To say “oh but that other one was justified, despite the tens of thousands of civilian deaths, because bad man” is quite frankly ridiculous.
In fact, it’s akin to Putin’s “justification” of invasion because neo-nazis form a portion of Ukraine’s national defence (Azov battalion), i.e. cos bad people.
If they don’t denounce Putin,
If they don’t denounce Putin, then their presence is a moral stain on whatever contest they find themselves in. If they are worried for their safety, then they should get a different job.
Nikolai wrote:
Just no. The Russian government is crazy, probably certifiably so, but if we are going to administer ideological purity tests, based on nationality, for competing in a sport that is not country-led (leaving aside teams sponsored by the Russsian state or “basically extensions of the state” such a Gazprom), then we’re no better than they are.
If they’re Russian but competing on behalf of (and paid by) a non Russian sponsored team, just leave them alone…..
Professional sport is the
Professional sport is the silliest, most pointless occupation imaginable. It’s value is playful, or perhaps symbolic. Athletes are figureheads, or dignitaries, who occupy a privileged position in society based on that which we are willing to project onto them. The Russian athlete finds themselves thrust onto the front line, just like a resident of Kiev. The Russian athlete must choose what they want to be, that is their tragedy: Denounce or retire. What they cannot do is carry on as normal. Nobody wants to see them doing that.
Nikolai wrote:
I knew the Russian government had troll farms, I didn’t know Ukraine had the same. Get back under your bridge.
And Russian non-state athletes, carry on as normal…..
Sivakov understood what he
Sivakov understood what he had to do, and good on him.
Nikolai wrote:
I’m not going to start making Jimmy-Carr-style jokes but if you’re interested in a society in which we can all breathe some playfulness is vital. Especially when you have to face hard choices and serious conditions. I’m not huge on professional sport – and it’s also clearly tied up with money and politics. However I do believe – faced with situations of gravity – some levity is important. Or we start to become less pleasant humans.
(I’ve not got a response to your “they must choose and cannot carry on as normal” – that’s for those closer to judge. Though I certainly agree that thinking that high-level sport is entirely unrelated to politics is naive).
Nikolai wrote:
You are absolutely correct on your 1st line. But that’s about it.
By all means ban teams with nefarious connections, or for that matter individuals who espouse hateful ideologies, or break the relevant rules of conduct.
But banning people for not making statements to your subjective satisfaction is not right, and in any case pragmatically unworkable.
If you don’t denounce X your
If you don’t denounce X your presence is a moral stain on our sport.
Who decides what X is?
Many would argue that the Iraq war was an illegal invasion of a sovereign country.
Should all British athletes be required to denounce Tony Blair before competing?
The UK is declining visa
The UK is declining visa applications from Ukraine making safe routes for those fleeing war illegal. This is a moral stain on our country. Presumably, you would apply the same standard and only allow British athletes to compete if they make statements denouncing Pritti Patel and Boris Johnson.
Obviously this isn’t
Obviously this isn’t something that can be regulated or enforced. But morally, a Russian athlete SHOULD take careful steps to distance themselves from the Kremlin. An athlete is an ambassador for humanity and, secondarily, for that portion of humanity they represent. This is the downside of their position, but they way it should be. Just as Poland is refusing to play football against Russia, so to must any athlete refuse to compete against a Russian who has not publicly denounced what is happening.
That’s not really true.
That’s not really true.
We’ve closed our visa centres in Ukraine but applications can be made from other centres outside of the Ukraine.
Our diplomatic and embassy staff were withdrawn when it became clear invasion was imminent and their lives were in immediate danger.
Without them it’s impossible to run the visa service.
Given the situation in Kyiv where, I believe, most visa applications were previously processed it would be potentially catastrophic to encourage citizens to attend in large numbers even if our staff were available to process the applications.
Processing the applications in safe regions, as we are doing, is clearly the best option in a terrible situation.
We have put in place multiple other measures to ease entry requirements for Ukrainian citizens.
A good objective overview here:
Your reading of that article
Your reading of that article is different than mine. Unless they are related to a British citizen normally living in Ukraine there is no relaxation or feasible way to apply for a Visa. Our moral duty here is to stop the xenophobic anti immigration rhetoric that has been prevalent for too long and work with other countries to accept Ukrainians (and for that matter Syrians, Iraqis, Rohingya) as refugees from conflict, and welcome the diversity and enrichment they will bring to our society.
This is the pertinent section
This is the pertinent section:
“Other Ukrainian Citizens in Ukraine
…
If you are able to safely travel, you can apply through a visa application centre in one of the nearby countries.”
I don’t think there is a way to safely process applications within the Ukraine so processing them in neighbouring countries seems like the best option in a terrible situation.
You’re correct Simon. Ignore
You’re correct Simon. Ignore Rich’s obfuscation, it a tactic to draw you in – he has a very particular approach to refugees and migration. Also note that he calls the country ‘the Ukraine’ instead of Ukraine.
I’m guessing you think you
I’m guessing you think you know more than a barrister specialising in immigration.
Point out the error in the barrister’s post or accept you are wrong.
Mea Culpa re the ‘the’ though.
Rich_cb wrote:
Why not? According to your previous postings, you think you know more about climate science than the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated a GWP for methane between 84-87 when considering its impact over a 20-year timeframe (GWP20) and between 28-36 when considering its impact over a 100-year timeframe (GWP100). This means that one tonne of methane can considered to be equivalent to 28 to 36 tonnes of CO2 if looking at its impact over 100 years.”
Rich_cb “Methane has no effect after 15 years”)
I thought you were going to
I thought you were going to ignore me Rendel?
Never mind, It was enjoyable while it lasted.
I’m not going to resurrect the previous thread on here but I did leave a little explainer on there for the ‘hard of thinking’.
Have a read, see if you can figure out why both those quoted statements might be correct…
Thanks but I think we’ve all
Thanks but I think we’ve all had enough sheep recently … in many ways.
EDIT – being fair, same comment to Rendel. My wooly mind has no more space for ovine-emission-related debate.
I agree with Nick Chris.
I agree with
NickChris.I make exceptions when you
I make exceptions when you show such stinking moronic supercilious hypocrisy. Honestly, you really do need to learn that whilst the Internet is an excellent learning resource, especially for the “hard of thinking” like yourself who could clearly do with all the learning they can get, cutting and pasting from it does not actually make you the expert in virtually every subject under the sun you appear to think it does.
You’ve missed an opportunity
You’ve missed an opportunity to educate yourself there Rendel.
Never mind.
Please go back to ignoring me now. I did prefer that.
No, I shall not be bothering
No, I shall not be bothering trying to debate anything with you – because as we know, in Richworld only one person can ever be right, however many people prove him wrong – but I shall continue to point out your hypocrisy, arrogance and ignorance when I have time. Sorry about that, I know you like your internet C&P to be treated as gospel and for everyone simply to acknowledge your “expertise”. I can’t do it for every example of course, that would be a full time job.
I actually quite enjoy making
I actually quite enjoy making a fool out of you Rendel.
Debating a wealthy white Londoner with a ludicrous sense of entitlement can be tedious at times but watching you slink off tail between your legs time after time after time is really quite cathartic.
If you’re just going to insult me and not engage in debate though… Wouldn’t that just make you a troll?
Ah bless, sorry if you feel
Ah bless, sorry if you feel insulted when your hypocrisy, ignorance and stupidity is pointed out. Perhaps try being less hypocritical, ignorant and stupid?
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think you’ll enjoy this one.
Rich_cb wrote:
I absolutely do as it’s a tremendous exemplar of your utter hypocrisy, in the last hour you’ve attacked me personally for my ethnicity, my place of birth and residence, and my supposed wealth (God knows where you got that bullshit from, I wish you were right). I take it you are tacitly acknowledging your lack of any argument?
P.S. I did not grow up in West London, nor have I ever lived there.
Not an attack Rendel, just
Not an attack Rendel, just pointing out the many facets of your privilege.
The immensely privileged Left Wing Londoner is a bit of an amusing stereotype after all.
Anyway, please leave me alone.
I’m growing tired of your obsession now.
B
Rich, I suggest that ‘obsession’ might apply to you too.
Careful with the company you keep. Just remember the theory of ‘your enemy’s enemy is your friend’ is not very attractive.
Take a look at who instigated
Take a look at who instigated this interaction.
You can check other threads too
I will not be responding to any of his nonsense anymore so it will soon be pretty clear who the obsessive is.
I’ve got no problem interacting with Nige, we disagree on a lot of things but he’s polite to me and our discussions are always civil.
I actually like hearing from people with very different opinions to my own, challenges me to justify those opinions.
Live and let live.
Rich_cb wrote:
Nigel uses you for cover on his ‘trolling mission’ You are being used, wake up.
On the other matters, I didn’t say you were solely to blame, just look in the mirror please.
You couldn’t even answer me without a ‘Mum, he started it’.
The reason I point this out is that we have managed to have interesting discussions in the past without necessarily agreeing. While our views are often different you do sometimes give me something to think about.
On this thread you may have let yourself down.
Sniffer wrote:
This has not been my finest hour, I agree.
Hence the lack of interaction from now on.
If Nige is capable of civil and interesting interactions with me then maybe others can try my approach?
Engage when interested, don’t engage if not.
Works for me.
Rich_cb wrote:
duplicate for some reason
Rich_cb wrote:
You may make yourself look a bit foolish too in the process though.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Worth it to take him down a peg or two though.
He’s led such a privileged sheltered little life he can’t even handle basic disagreement.
Très amusant it is.
Rich_cb wrote:
Ooh – is it going to be like the Yorkshireman sketch now between the pair of you? Will he just send the Thatcher quote straight back?
I’ve forgotten what this thread was about now anyway so that’s something…
That would be amusing!
That would be amusing!
I look forward to Rendel’s tale of immense hardship growing up in leafy West London.
Hopefully he’ll just go back to leaving me alone though.
I did prefer that.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think his hostile persona is predicated on flunking his Cambridge interview and disappointing dear daddy. I understand how that feels as I had friends who did the same, it’s a difficult one – the questions they ask tend to be curveballs to sort out those who can think independently on their feet, and those who simply parrot the work of better people.
It takes me back to my own time studying economics at Cam when I went to a tutorial with a fantastic Fellow at Pembroke College (whose name I won’t mention here in case I embarass or libel him), studying a Money Banking and Finance module in the Economics tripos.
The Fellow was late for the start of the tutorial, and he’d inadvertently left a hand-written letter from a director of a very well known investment bank detailing how his son was looking for a place on the course, and outlining his son’s merits and his personal connections, as he himself had attended when he was younger.
There is so much competition for places that even the wealthy and privileged have to bow and scrape to get in – unless you are the best of the best or have impeccable contacts, disappointment is inevitable.
It’s certainly possible
It’s certainly possible
There’s definitely something at the root of his unpleasantness.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s splendid that the only person you can get to back you up is an alt-right Trump fanboy fantasist cyclist hater who has used (at least) six different aliases on this website and been banned numerous times. If a man is judged by the company he keeps, boy are you in trouble.
Goodbye Rendel.
Goodbye Rendel.
I’m happy to engage in genuine debate but any future posts that are just insulting or pointless (see above) will be ignored.
You mean like your ones
You mean like your ones attacking someone for their ethnicity and place of birth/residence? Suits me if you don’t respond little man, it won’t stop me calling you on your unpleasant rightist lies as they arise though.
Nikolai wrote:
The ‘Great loyalty oath crusade’ section of Catch 22 covers this quite well. When you mandate that state a certain position, the statements become meaningless.
“…calling on others to
“…calling on others to distance the actions of President Vladimir Putin from the views of the majority of Russians…”
If I remember correctly, Putin enjoyed short of 70% approval ratings during the invasion force build-up. What exactly did the majority of Russians think was going to happen?
BBB wrote:
They may have had quite a good idea what might happen if they expressed disapproval.
BBB wrote:
Not saying that people have an alternative in mind but doesn’t his government / his proteges regularly get 108% of the vote? I think opinion polls also work differently over there. I imagine you may have to give your name and address first “to prevent fraud” etc.
It’s understandable to be
It’s understandable to be sceptical of most of politically related poll results from Russia but the data comes from a respectable Levada Centre which was in 2016 considered as a “foreign agent” by the Russian Ministry of Justice.
Putin has been enjoying high levels of public support for quite a while. This isn’t a dig at the Russians in particular but all the mindless and uncivilised electorate mobs supporting dictators across the world. Whether it’s 1939 or 2022, voters enjoying the actual or promised prosperity of their countries while turning a blind eye to the dark side of the regime have blood on their hands.
In a genuine democracy that’s
In a genuine democracy that’s a reasonable criticism.
I think Russia stopped being a genuine democracy quite a while ago.
Also consider the propaganda that Russian citizens are exposed too. It’s hard not to support Putin when you’re constantly told he’s the only thing protecting your way of life.
I’ll put my hand up and say I supported the Iraq war at the time it started.
I was only a teenager and, in hindsight, hopelessly naive but I believed what the government said and what I read in the papers.
I’ve since become, thankfully, far more cynical but only because I’ve been able to access media that exposed the repeated mendacity of political and public figures.
If I’d been fed a diet of nonstop pro government propaganda I’d probably still think Tony Blair was a thoroughly decent guy.
As TB would say – there’s a
As TB would say – there’s a middle way. Or as you point out Russia looks nothing like a democracy, on closer examination. It’s all about the system – is there an effective “civil society”? How do all the parts of the state – courts, press, the military, local government, NGOs, big business – relate to the centre of power? What are people’s expectations? To what extent can / do people act on their own political views? Or do they censor these – maybe even in private? (One of the saddest things I read – in “Tibet, Tibet” – was a quote from a Tibetan woman saying she didn’t feel free even in her own head).
I picked Blair when he first got in and part of that was due to youthful optimism (which the incoming Labour party certainly spoke to). However at least as much was to do with getting rid of the previous government – at the time mired in “sleaze” and who were “the nasty party”. Elections are lost, after all.
Indeed, but also: if you realised you didn’t believe that, could you do anything about it? How safe would it be to tell anyone else?