thway0987

We should indeed. But we shouldn't use that to justify, excuse or dismiss any wrongs done that isn't at the scale of other wrongs.

OP's point is that if as a result of an intervention that is perceived as too direct by Putin, Russia wipes out Ukraine completely it will be a net loss to Ukraine. If on top of that he also wipes out Poland, then the loss will be even more dire. Russia has weapons it hasn't used yet, conventional and nuclear.

We can take a gamble and decide that Putin will decide to retreat because Poland donated some planes to the Ukrainians, but how much do you believe that will happen?

This publication (based in Bulgaria) seems to publish fairly pro-Russian articles, which should be a red flag for news like this. A quick search for Kireev's name returns a lot of contradictory information. I found an article from the Sun [0] (UK-based, not sure how reliable) and from an Indian paper [1] that seem to confirm the news. I can't really comment on the reliability of any of these papers, not being familiar with any of them.

[0] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17857369/ukraine-peace-negotia...

[1] https://www.ibtimes.co.in/ukrainian-delegation-member-killed...

> If a man murders someone, the victim's family sues and win, and as a result the murder's children are economically deprived...

Sorry but this is not accurate. This would be more accurate: a man is in the process of murdering hostages, so we hurt his children to make him stop.

The sanctions are not "justice", they are pressure tools to make Russia stop the invasion. There cannot be any justice until the crime (the war) is stopped.

> everyone comes out worse than before. But who is at fault and what is the equitable outcome?

There is no equitable outcome, and it is not a betrayal of the victim to feel empathy for the murderer's children.

> I am tired of repeating myself about how I hate this situation, but the victims are not Russian grandmasters, they are Ukrainian children.

Nobody in this thread has denied that Ukrainian children are victims, and nobody has disagreed that there should be a reaction.

What people are questioning is who should be targeted by this reaction, and with what actions. Your stance, as I read it, is everyone who is Russian, because there is no other way. Even with that, people didn't argue against, at least when it comes to economic sanctions. But bans that do not affect the war criminals, but only common people (aka, civilians)? That does feel petty and unnecessary. And to be clear, unlike others in the thread I don't suggest selecting people based on their opinion -- it feels too antithetic to our democratic ideals (so that it is clear, I personally despise these opinions).

Forgive me for changing the focus a bit, but since you bring up the plight of children, it is likely that Russian children will also suffer from the consequences of economic sanctions. Some will grow up in poverty because of this mess, some will die indirectly, from the effects of poverty. I don't really have a solution to that (right now the efforts should go to stop the war in Ukraine), and that doesn't mean that sanctions can be avoided, but I do think that they are also victims.

> you are failing to impose a cost for Russian war crimes.

Isn't the simple logic that the people who should bear the cost of war crimes are those who commit these war crimes?

> It's an awful situation for everyone involved and the best situation would be for an immediate cessation of hostilities and military withdrawal so the ban can be lifted.

Not only that, but the immediate cessation of hostilities and military withdrawal would be better for everyone even if there were no ban. Aside from a few deranged hawks in the Russian government I can't see how this conflict is good for anyone, Russian or not.

> this is simply chess and nobody is dying.

And the ban does nothing that would influence Putin's decisions. The economic sanctions might change his attitude (only time will tell). A ban of Russian chess players won't. Sanctions are a tool to force Putin to the negotiation table. Pointless actions like this are only harming people with no influence or responsibility on the conflict.

> On the other hand, thousands of civilians are dead, families are divided, and there is real hardship.

This war is dreadful, and I would like (without much hope) that Putin and those responsible for it respond for their crime. I just don't see how imposing hardships (however less strong they may be) on people unrelated to the conflict has any bearing on this.

> This is in reaction to a much greater moral outrage: thousands of dead Ukrainian civilians because of an unprovoked Russian invasion.

No, this is racism and intolerance under a thin guise of outrage. We are talking about targeting individuals who bear zero responsibility for what people claim they are outraged about. The sole reason these individuals are targeted is because of their nationality. This is cancel culture at its worse - we don't even care about what people think or say anymore, and hurt them for something they can't change anything about.

What next? Should we make the Russians immigrants in our countries live in fear of reprisals? Should our children bully theirs in schools? How far can we take it before the outrage excuse wears out?

Outrage over the Russian invasion of Ukraine is warranted. I feel the same. It is good to see an international reaction to it, and I sincerely hope that this will pressure Putin to stop. The virtue signalling and posturing we have seen this week on social medias is not justice, however. It's a disgusting act of violence by people who feel they can get away with it. Is that violence comparable to what the Ukrainians live through at the moment? Of course not! But that doesn't make it excusable.