Chess grandmaster Sergey Karjakin received a six-month ban from the international competitions, and his appeal was dismissed. When the international chess federation FIDE initiated the case, it accused Karjakin of supporting the unjustified war:
“FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action…”
(The concepts of “justified war” or “just war” can be found in the encyclopaedias.)
However, Karjakin not only approved that war but also presented some arguments to convince us that this war was justified.
In sum, Karjakin’s fault seems to be the following:
He tried to justify the unjustified war.
If a sportsperson tries to justify the unjustified war, it results in 6 months ban from international competitions.
But what if a sportsperson presents strong arguments to justify the unjustified war? Whether the punishment should also be more serious? For example, it results in a 6-year ban from international competitions.
But what if a sportsperson succeeds in justifying that war?
He presented compelling arguments to justify the unjustified war.
Probably, that sportsperson should be jailed for 170-years. Because it is impossible to justify the unjustified war, and if someone succeeds in doing the impossible, it should be regarded as the greatest crime.
