Antony Penaud: The Ukraine crisis and recent russophobia
(Antony Penaud – May 23, 2014)
Antony Penaud <antonypenaud@yahoo.fr> received a DPhil in applied mathematics from Somerville College, University of Oxford, UK, in 2000. In the last few years, he has noticed the development of anti-Russia campaigns in the Western media. The quasi-uniform reporting of the Ukraine crisis has led him to write this essay. He is French and lives in London.
1 Regime change
Political and identical map In January 2010, Yanukovich (Party of Regions, 35.32%) and Tymoshenko (Fatherland, 25.02%) came top of the 1st round of the Ukrainian presidential elections. Some of the other candidates were Yatsenyuk (1) (6.96%), and Tyanhibok (Svaboda (2) 1.96%). On 7 February 2010 and with 51.84% (3) Yanukovich beat Tymoshenko in the 2nd round and became Ukraine’s president for what was thought to be 6 yrs.
The electoral map of these elections (4) shows a clear and strong separation: in the South and the East (where there are more russophones and people who want closer ties with Russia), Yanukovich had more votes in every region. In particular, in the Donbass (Lugansk region and Donetsk region) Yanukovich had more than 80%, and in some parts more than 90%. On the other hand, Tymoshenko had her best scores (near 90%) in the West of Ukraine, in particular in the Lviv region. This region (Eastern Galicea) only became part of the USSR after WW2. Before it was part of Poland, and before WW1 part of the Austrian Empire. Unlike the rest of Ukraine, it is not Orthodox. It is worth noting that in the first round of the elections, Svaboda’s score was 20-30% in Eastern Galicea.
Ukraine choose an economic treaty with Russia. At the end of 2013, Yanukovich had to choose between a commercial treaty with the EU, or a commercial treaty with Russia (5). The EU option offered Ukraine a USD 838m loan and (together with the IMF) asked the Ukrainian government to increase gas bills by 40% and make big budget cuts (austerity). The Russia option offered Ukraine a loan 18 times that size (USD 15bn) plus 33% discounts on gas prices (6). Given the better Russia offer, and that Yanukovich had been elected as a pro-Russia candidate (7), it is not surprising that he decided, in November 2013, for the Russia option (8).
The protests, NATO, the far right Then started protests in Kiev (9), and foreign meddling in Ukrainian affairs. US and European leaders supported the protesters, they went to Kiev, to the streets and participated in the protests. On 15 December, John McCain hold the stage and told the protesters “the US support your just cause”, and warned the Ukrainian government it would face sanctions if it went ahead with the trade union with Russia and not with the EU. That day McCain was on stage with Tyahnibok, the leader of Svaboda (Svaboda were very present in the protests).
5bn dollars In December 2013, during a conference about Ukraine in Washington, Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State) said “Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government – all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals.” (10)
Fu-k the EU The interesting part of this leaked conversation (11) between Nuland and Geoffrey Patt (US amabassador in Ukraine) was not the swearing. Rather, as the BBC commented, it was that “this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals.”.
Right Sector In the second part of January, things turned more violent, with barricades being erected in the streets of Kiev. The paramilitary organisation Right Sector (it had been founded in November 2013 as a coalition of different far right groups) was one of the main actors of these violent stages. Many people had come to Kiev from the Lviv region (and other regions, mainly from the West) in December or January.
Snipers On 18-20 February, snipers shot at people in the streets of Kiev. In a leaked conversation (12) between Catherine Ashton (Vice-President of the EU and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for the EU) and Urmas Paet (13) (Minister of Foreign Affairs for Estonia), Paet said “And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets, a doctor who helped the wounded] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides (…) And it’s really disturbing that the new coalition they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened, so that there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”.
It is telling that Ashton did not seem too concerned about what Paet had just told her. She in fact said “If the Rada doesn’t function then you’ll have complete chaos. So, if you thought being an activist and a doctor is very, very important but you’re not a politician and somehow they’ve got to come to a kind of accommodation for the next few weeks.”, i.e. Ashton said that Olga is just a doctor and should not question the politics behind all this!
Both Paet and Ashton confirmed the authenticity of the conversation, but tried to undermine its significance. Hours after the leak, the Daily Telegraph reported Olga saying that one could not conclude that it was the coalition, and therefore implicitly accused the Estonia Foreign Affairs of having made up the whole thing! (14)
On 10 April, a German TV channel (ARD) screened their independent investigation about what happened that day and their conclusion was in line with the leaked conversation.
The new NATO backed government Let’s move on to the coalition government, after Yanukovich fled Kiev. The new government was composed of:
* 5 members of Svaboda
* 7 members of the Tymoshenko party (15).
* 1 (Serhiy Kvit, Minister of Education and Science) member of the far-right Ukrainian paramilitary organisation the Stepan Bandera Tryzub (this organisation is one of the founding organisations of Right Sector).
* 4 people from Lviv (16) with unclear affiliation (the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Health, Economy).
* 2 Euromaiden activists (the Euromaiden podium presenter became Minister of Culture, another one became Minister of Youth and Sports).
* 1 former minister under the former Timoshenko government (before 2010).
The new government had no representant of the Party of Regions, it was a coalition Tymoshenko party + fascists + people from Lviv + Euromaiden activists. There was no representent from the East of Ukraine.
On 23 February 2014, only the day after Yanukovich fled Kiev, with no debate, the parliament voted to remove Russian as a second official language.
On destabilisation It is worth pausing and reflect at this stage (because later, NATO countries and the new coalition accused Russia of being the cause of Ukraine’s “destabilisation”): a democratically elected government had been toppled with the help of the US.
Russia had not done anything.
Destabilisation is in fact a weak word for the toppling of a democratically elected government: History tells us that often such revolutions bring chaos (17).
We repeat: a revolution (or a coup) is a major factor of destabilisation, and chaos often follows, for years.
Typically one group takes power, another group is not represented in the new government, and reacts. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The East was not represented in the new government. What made it worse, was that it was a democratically elected government that had been toppled.
2 The aftermath
The very day after the new authorities took power in Kiev and voted to remove Russian as an official language (18), protests started in Crimea.
In the next sections, we are going to see what happened in two regions (first ‘Crimea’, then ‘East and South of Ukraine’).
Violence As in the previous part, we are not going to catalogue all the violence that happened. It should be said though, that the most violent phase has been the ‘South (19) and East of Ukraine after the toppling of Yanukovich’.
The ‘Kiev Maiden’ events (before the Yanukovich toppling) were less violent.
‘Crimea’, were Russia intervened, was almost non-violent.
Western and Central Ukraine Finally, we have not written a special section for ‘Western and Central Ukraine after the toppling Yanukovich’. Events there have not been much reported in the western media. One could have thought that, after Yanukovich, all became fine and peaceful. Below are just a few of the events that happened after Yanukovich:
On 11 March, all cable regulators ordered to stop transmitting a number of russian channel (20).
On 19 March, a Svaboda MP assaulted the head of national TV and forced him to resign (see Appendix).
The director of the CIA, John Brennan (21), spent the weekend of 12 April in Kiev (22).
On 29 April, masked far right paramilitary groups with torches clashed with other pro-Maiden self defense units in the streets of Kiev: as far as we know, only the BBC (23) and the ibtimes (24) reported on it.
On 12 May, it was announced that the son of Joe Biden (the Vice President of the US) was the new head of the legal department of Burisma, the biggest gas producer in Ukraine. Weeks before that, Devon Archer had been appointed to the Board of Burisma. Archer was an adviser to John Kerry (25)’s campaign in 2004 (26).
2.1 In Crimea
Summary of events
On 23 February, tens of thousands protested against the new authorities in Sevastopol and voted for the establishment of a new administration.
In the next few days, pro-Russian (mainly Russian) forces took control of Crimea (27).
On 28 February, the Supreme Council of Crimea voted to replace Mohyliov by Aksyonov.
A referendum was held on 16 March, and 96.7% voted in favor of rejoining Russia (28), turnout was 83.1%.
Background on Crimea Until the 13th century and the Mongol invasions, Crimea had been occupied by different groups (including Romans, Goths, Huns, Kievan Rus….). From the 13th century to the 18th century Crimea was controlled by the Crimean Khanite (29) and was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. It was conquered by Catherine the Great in 1783 (30).
In 1954, as part of the celebration of the 300 years of Ukraine and Russia together, Kruchtchev transferred Crimea from the Russian Republic to the Ukrainian Republic. This decision, maybe another symptom of the exuberance of the Soviet leader, didn’t change anything: the USSR was one country, and the power was in Moscow. This gift was just symbolic, maybe a proof of love for Ukraine that Khruchtchev wanted to show, maybe a political move, others say it was to simplify administration work for the construction of the North-Crimean canal (31).
But, in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Crimea found itself part of the newly created Ukrainian country. Ethnic Russians in Crimea (65\% of the Crimean population at the time) woke up one day in a foreign country (32).
Crimea was also special in Russia (and later in the Soviet Union) for its climate (33).
Sevastopol But Crimea was also the home of Russia (and later the Soviet Union) most cherished and important (only warm water port) naval base: Sevastopol. After the 1991 USSR collapse, it was agreed that Russia and Ukraine would share the port. In 2010, Ukraine (with Yanukovich) and Russia signed a deal to extend the lease until 2042 in return for cheap gas (34). One cannot emphasise enough that Sevastopol is considered vital for Russia (see the coming quotes of Mearscheimer a bit further down). In July 2013, Yatseniuk said “In Sevastopol there must be solely the Ukrainian Navy”, and that the 2010 deal “contradicts the Constitution, it is against the state, Ukraine” (35). The position of Svaboda on this issue should be clear to the reader. For Russia, the Russian navy presence in Sevastopol was also the insurance that Ukraine was not joining NATO, since
NATO members don’t allow non-NATO military presence in their countries. With the revolution and the new coalition coming to power, the 2010 Sevastopol deal was in jeopardy, and the threat of Ukraine joining NATO was real.
NATO moving eastwards In May 1990, Gorbachev agreed for a unified Germany to join NATO. In previous negociations, the US Secretary of State James Baker had agreed that “no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the East”. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary joined NATO. In 2004, it was the turn of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Albania. One could have thought that after the dissolution of the Warsaw pact, NATO had lost its reason to exist. Not only it kept existing but the number of NATO countries increased from 16 to 28.
Mearscheimer John Mearscheimer (professor of political science and author of {\it The Tragedy of Great Power Politics}, in a piece published on 13 March in the New York Times, said “The White House view, widely shared by Beltway insiders, is that the United States bears no responsibility for causing the current crisis. In their eyes, it’s all President Vladimir V. Putin’s fault – and his motives are illegitimate. This is wrong. Washington played a key role in precipitating this dangerous situation, and Mr. Putin’s behavior is motivated by the same geopolitical considerations that influence all great powers, including the United States.
The taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion and Washington’s commitment to move Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit and integrate it into the West. The Russians have intensely disliked but tolerated substantial NATO expansion, including the accession of Poland and the Baltic countries. But when NATO announced in 2008 that Georgia and Ukraine “will become members of NATO,” Russia drew a line in the sand. Georgia and Ukraine are not just states in Russia’s neighborhood; they are on its doorstep. Indeed, Russia’s forceful response in its August 2008 war with Georgia (36) was driven in large part by Moscow’s desire to prevent Georgia from joining NATO and integrating into the West.
Fast forward to last November, when it seemed that President Viktor F. Yanukovych would sign an agreement with the European Union that was designed to deepen Ukraine’s integration with the West and greatly reduce Moscow’s influence there. Mr. Putin offered Ukraine a better deal in response, which Mr. Yanukovych accepted. That decision led to protests in western Ukraine, where there is strong pro-Western sentiment and much hostility to Moscow.
The Obama administration then made a fatal mistake by backing the protesters, which helped escalate the crisis and eventually led to the toppling of Mr. Yanukovych. A pro-Western government then took over in Kiev. The United States ambassador to Ukraine, who had been encouraging the protesters, proclaimed it ‘a day for the history books.’
Mr. Putin, of course, didn’t see things that way. He viewed these developments as a direct threat to Russia’s core strategic interests.
Who can blame him? After all, the United States, which has been unable to leave the Cold War behind, has treated Russia as a potential threat since the early 1990s and ignored its protests about NATO’s expansion and its objections to America’s plan to build missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.(…)
But even if the West could impose significant costs on Russia, Mr. Putin is unlikely to back down. When vital interests are at stake, countries are invariably willing to suffer great pain to ensure their security. There is no reason to think Russia, given its history (37), is an exception.(…).
To achieve those goals, the United States should emphasize that Georgia and Ukraine will not become NATO members. It should make clear that America will not interfere in future Ukrainian elections or be sympathetic to a virulently anti-Russian government in Kiev. And it should demand that future Ukrainian governments respect minority rights, especially regarding the status of Russian as an official language. In short, Ukraine should remain neutral between East and West.”.
Decision And so, with the US backed revolution, the situation changed from [historical mistake( 38) + most people are Russians] to [historical mistake + most people are Russians + NATO closing in + threat of losing Sevastopol + need to react to NATO aggression].
In 1961, the prospect of Soviet missiles in Cuba was enough for the US to want to start a war. Khrushchev removed the missiles, and avoided the war (39).
As seen in the above formula, it was many reasons that, when added together (40), led to Russia’s decision (41). The decision then did everything at the same time: react to NATO aggression, safeguard Sevastopol, correct the historical mistake and, last but not least, allowed the people of Crimea to choose what they wanted.
Gorbachev, the West’s favourite leader, said: “While Crimea had previously been joined to Ukraine based on Soviet laws, which means [Communist] party laws, without asking the people, now the people themselves have decided to correct that mistake” (42).
Criticism What happened in Crimea has been criticised by the new coalition government and NATO countries (43). One criticism was that the referendum was “held under the barrel of a Russian gun” (William Hague, UK foreign minister). Did Hague watch the celebrations in Crimea following the results? Did he also think the crowds were celebrating “under the barrel of a Russian gun”? He must have known what journalists and others were witnessing in Crimea: that a vast majority of people wanted to be part of Russia again. At the very same time, Hague saw the new coalition as legitimate – a non elected coalition that was took power after the overthrowing of a democratically elected government.
Furthermore, shortly afterwards, the new coalition and NATO countries had the opportunity to be consistent in their unfair criticism: they could have accepted the request for a Ukrainian organised referendum in the Donbass. The reply of the new coalition to the request was to send the army.
The commissar vs the people If Khrushchev had not woken up one day of 1954 and decided to transfer Crimea to Ukraine, all this would’t have happened. This is indisputable. Crimea, like the other regions of Russia, would have remained part of Russia.
So, when western democratic leaders describe the referendum as a “sham of democracy”, they are effectively saying that a caprice of a former Stalin protege has more democratic credential than the will of the people.
2.1 In the South and in the East
Maybe this sections should be called “In the Donbass”. It is in the Donbass region (44) that the anti-Kiev reaction was the strongest (45).
Anti-Kiev Protesters in the East (and the South) have been described as “pro-Russian”. This appellation is misleading. As we have already explained, the prime motivation of the protests is against the new coalition. A more exact appellation would be “anti new coalition”. Some media have used the shorter “anti-Kiev” appellation (46).
Interestingly, the new coalition called them “terrorists”. The very same people who rose against a democratically elected government (and saw themselves as “heroes” (47)), called “terrorists” people who rose against a non-elected government.
The first “anti-terrorist” operation On 6 April, the leaders of the separatist group in the Donetsk announced that a referendum would take place no later than 11 May.
In response, the Kiev government launched an “anti-terrorist” operation on 16 April. Western media and the Ukrainian government said the “pro-Russians” were in fact “Russian special forces” (48). Alec Luhn wrote in the Guardian “Ukrainian troops and their hardware are blocked by angry residents, who stop them in their tracks and convince them to turn round or even withdraw.(…)some of the Ukrainian troops reportedly defected to the pro-Russian side.(…) One soldier siding with the separatists in Slavyansk told a Reuters reporter that he and others in his group were part of a Ukrainian paratroop unit who could not shoot ‘our own people'”. These Ukrainian troops, after having surrended or given many of their weapons to the rebels, retired. They would be replaced later by other Ukrainian troops, this time carefully chosen so they would have no moral issue shooting at their own people.
An interview with a Donetsk policeman In an interview published on 11 April in Le Courrier de Russie (49), a Donetsk policeman explained why the police did not act against the “pro Russian” activists: “These are our people! Why would you want to arrest them? This group you are talking about, these are normal people.(…) Here in the Donbass, we have nothing in common with Lviv – the only thing that still unites us, is the country. It was Vatunin [Soviet general in WW2] who liberated my city. And six months later, he was assassinated by the soldiers of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Over there, in Lviv, their heroes are the people from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army; but for me, it is Vatunin the hero. That man who led the Red Army and who freed my city from the fascists. What do we have in common with Lviv people? We have a different History and a different culture (50)(…). They are taking our language. It is mainly because of that that people protest. When the new government announced they wanted to remove Russian as an official language, people got scared. Here, most people can’t speak Ukrainian(…) There is no ‘Ukrainian people’. I don’t understand what it is. Maybe you mean ‘citizens of Ukraine’? Because Transcarparthia, for example, is inhabited by Hungarians and Slovaks. Lviv was always part of Poland. Then the Soviet Union conquered them and they became part of Ukraine. Before the war, the majority of Lviv inhabitants were Jews (51).
A report from NYT reporters on the ground In an article published in the New York Times on 3 May (52), Shivers and Sneider wrote “Western officials and the Ukrainian government insist that Russians have led, organized and equipped the fighters. A deeper look at the 12th Company – during more than a week of visiting its checkpoints, interviewing its fighters and observing them in action against a Ukrainian military advance here on Friday – shows that in its case neither portrayal captures the full story. The rebels of the 12th Company appear to be Ukrainians but, like many in the region, have deep ties to and affinity for Russia. They are veterans of the Soviet, Ukrainian or Russian Armies, and some have families on the other side of the border. Theirs is a tangled mix of identities and loyalties.”
NATO, Ukrainian government, western media What was happening in the East of Ukraine was classic. A coup/revolution happened. The result was that a democratically elected president had been replaced by a particular group (there was no representent of Eastern Ukraine in the new government) hostile to another group (Eastern Ukraine). So, this group reacted. This predictable storyline was the logic consequence of the US backed coup/revolution in Kiev.
These rebellion in the East of Ukraine was a mirror image of the Kiev rebellion that had happened before. With the difference that the Kiev protests (Euromaiden) were against a democratically elected president. And that they had happened first.
And when the new non elected government sent the army against its own people in the East, all could be heard from NATO leaders and media was: “Putin! Hitler! Sanctions!”. While they were supporting the bloody repression of Eastern Ukrainians by the new government, all they could talk about was Russia and all they did was put in place economic sanctions against Russia. Maybe that was a PR tactic to shift the discussion away from the situation in Ukraine. By talking about Russia and Putin instead of talking about the real situation in Ukraine, they wanted to create an association between the two.
Referendum on secession Western media and politicians kept citing a poll from the Pew Research Centre (5-23 April), in which 18% of Eastern Ukrainians were in favour of secession, as proof that the Donbass referendum was flawed. But the Donbass is only a small part of Eastern Ukraine. And, as was shown in the more detailed poll released by the Kiev Institute of Sociology, the variations were great between different regions of the East, and the Donbass regions were by far the most “anti-Kiev” regions. That Kiev poll was done in a similar period (8-16 April) and said 41.1% wanted decentralisation and 27.5% wanted secession. More importantly, these polls were done {\it before} the army was sent to the Donbass and blood started being shed.
A correspondent of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and of the Washington Post took an opinion poll on the day of the referendum and on the day after: the result of the poll was 94.8% for independence.
Appendix A: Svaboda
Svaboda was founded in 1991 in Lviv as the Social-National Party of Ukraine. Its symbol was a slightly modified version of a nazi logo (the Wolfsangel). It established in 1999 a paramilitary organisation called Patriot of Ukraine.
It changed name to Svaboda in 2004 and dropped the Wolfsangel logo. Tyahnibok, who had been expelled from another political party for calling Ukrainians to fight against “Muscovite-Jewish mafia”, and celebrated the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists for having fought “Moscovites, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.”, became Svaboda’s leader.
In the 2012 elections, Svaboda did 38.01% in Eastern Galicia. Its lowest scores were in Crimea (1.05%), and in the Donbass (around 1.25%).
In terms of policies, Svaboda opposes abortion and gay rights (53), keeping and bearing arms should be allowed, Ukrainian children should not be adopted by non-Ukrainians, ethnic origins should be specified on passports.
Svaboda has organise commemorations of Stepan Bandera and of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (54). They have organised marches (in Lviv) to celebrate the Waffen SS Galicia division.
Unsurprisingly, in 2013 the World Jewish Congress labelled the party as “neo-nazi” (55).
The EU U-turn on Svaboda On 13 December 2012 the European Parliament adopted a text in which one paragraph reads “Parliament goes on to express concern about the rising nationalistic sentiment in Ukraine, expressed in support for the Svoboda Party, which, as a result, is one of the two new parties to enter the Verkhovna Rada (56). It recalls that racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views go against the EU’s fundamental values and principles and therefore {\it appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna Rada not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party}.”.
Just over a year later, the EU associated with Svaboda in the toppling of the democraticaly elected government. The EU backed the new coalition, of which Svaboda was the second most important political party (57).
Svaboda and freedom of speech Svaboda MP Igor Miroshenko is Deputy Head of the Parliamentary Committee on Freedom of Speech and Information. He had made news in the West in 2012 by calling Ukrainian actress Mila Kunis a “dirty jewess”.
On 19 March 2014 he made news again by storming with four others the office of the head of National TV, Oleksandr Panteleymonov (58). They assaulted Panteleymonov, forced him to sign a resignation letter, and abducted him for several hours. Astonishingly, Miroshenko then posted online the video of the assault. The message he wanted to send was clear. We do not know what happened after this assault. On Panteleymonov wikipedia page, it says “Acting CEO of National Television Company of Ukraine from 20 February 2013 to 25 March 2014).” (59)
Appendix B: Russophobia in the media
Pussy Riot
The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow is the tallest orthodox church in the world. It is situated in the city centre, on the North bank of the Moskva river. Alexander I decided to build it after the victory over Napoleon. In 1931, Stalin razed (60) it as part of the antireligious campaign. It was rebuilt after the fall of communism.
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova is a young Russian woman, member of the “art” group Pussy Riot. This group is itself is a faction of another group called Voina, of which Tolokonnikova was also a member. Art activities of this group included things like: girl goes to supermarket, steals a chicken, puts it inside her vagina, and lets it out. Tolokonnikova was not part of that particular “art performance”, but took part in the Moscow biology museum orgy. She was only weeks away of delivering a baby when she “acted” in that “art performance” (61).
A punk prayer (62) On 21 February 2012, with four women colleagues, Tolokonnikova entered the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. They took off their winter jackets and got on stage to mime a song (they shouted “sran gospodnya” but apparently most of the performance was silent). The music (with words judged to be insulting for the Orthodox church) was added later to the video. She was sentenced to 2 years, but was released in December 2013.
London riots In August 2011, there were riots in London. It started in Tottenham after police shot Mark Duggan. The riots spread (first to the rest of London, then to other UK cities) and developed into a gigantic shoplifting event.
During the riots, it was interesting to observe liberals (so keen on revolutions when they happen abroad, so critical on repression in foreign countries) call for the army to step in.
The army didn’t get involved, but the courts did: 1,292 offenders got jailed, and the average sentence was 16.8 months. Let’s give a couple of examples of such sentences.
– Nicolas Robinson, 23, no previous conviction, from London was jailed for 6 months: he had stolen a bottle of water in a Lidl supermarket.
– Jordan Blackshaw, 20 and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22 (both from Cheshire), no previous conviction, posted a message on facebook in order to organise a riot. No one turned up at the meeting point apart from the police. Each of them received a 4 years prison sentence.
Double standard We are not sure what is the right sentence for a given illegal act. But we can compare illegal acts and compare the given punishments. Such comparison is in fact the foundation of English Law. The Guardian is a British paper (63) (and therefore is supposed to be a little bit more concerned with disruptions of public order in Britain than public order disruptions that happen in some foreign country). Yet it gave non-stop coverage to the Pussy Riot story, while the facebook English men only got articles when they got their sentence (16-17 August 2011). A google search of “Nicolas Robinson” gives 10,400 results. A google search for “Jordan Blackshaw” gives 14,500 results. A google search for “Nadezhda Tolokonniviva” (64) gives 3,380,000 results, more than “Francois Hollande” (2,520,000) (65).
Some journalists (like Simon Jenkins in the Guardian (66) understood what was going, and denounced those double standards. But they were only a few amid an ocean of hypocrisy.
Free speech This campaign of western media, western politicians and “artists” reached a summit of ridicule when the debate was described as being about freedom of speech.
Valery Gregiev (more about him later) just stated the obvious about Pussy Riot: “I don’t think this is anything to do with artistic freedom….Why go to the Cathedral of Christ to make a political statement? Why with screaming and dancing? You don’t need to go to a place that is considered sacred by many people.”. Indeed, even in our “liberal” western countries, people don’t go to a church, a synagogue or a mosque to protest (67).
Anti propaganda law
Not so long ago, homosexuality was illegal in countries that are today very liberal. A good example is the United Kingdom. In London at the turn of the 20th century, Oscar Wilde was jailed for being homosexual. In 1953, Alan Turing, the “father of computer science”, the inventor of the Enigma machine which helped break Nazi codes in WW2, was forced to choose between jail and medical treatment because he was gay. This drove him to his death (by suicide) two years later.
Homosexual acts became legal in 1967 in England and Wales, in 1981 in Scotland, and in 1982 in Northern Ireland.
Section 28 However, in 1988 a law (known as section 28) was passed (68) to prohibit “the internal promotion of sexuality” by any local authority and “the teaching in any law maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. This antiproganda law was passed under Margaret Thatcher. It was removed in 2003 by Tony Blair. In 2000, David Cameron “repeatedly attacked Tony Blair over his plans to abolish Section 28, accusing him of the ‘promotion of homosexuality in schools’ and of being ‘anti-family.’ (69). A fuller quote from Cameron in 2000: “”The Blair government continues to be obsessed with their fringe agenda, including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools” (70).
The Russian law in question In Russia, in 2010, a law was passed. It had nothing to do with homosexuality (yet), and was called “On protecting children from information harmful to their health and development”. In short, the object of the law was to protect children of violence, self-harm, drug abuse etc… It was later amended in 2012 for glorification of suicide, drugs and child pornography. And it was amended again in 2013 for “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” (71).
And so, that Russian anti gay propaganda law, is basically the same as a law that existed in the UK between 1988 and 2003, and that was supported by the current British PM.
In the world Let’s take a quick look at legislation in the world. In many countries, homosexuality is illegal. Homosexuality is a criminal activity punishable of emprisonment in most African countries, in most Muslim countries and in a few other countries (including India). In a few of these countries (including US ally South Arabia), homosexuality can lead to the death penalty.
On 8 April 2014, it was reported that four men had been jailed for up to 8 years for gay acts. This happened in Egypt, one of the few Muslim countries where homosexuality is legal. I tried to google in order to find outcry from western intellectual, or artists. All I found was a video in which Stephen Fry said “Putin treats homosexuals like Hitler treated Jews”.
Why so much hate? It is strange that a person who cares about gay rights and want to make an impact, doesn’t talk much about those countries were gays are put in jail, and instead spends a lot of time comparing to Nazi Gemany a country where homosexuality is legal (72).
It seems to us, that this is because they have assimilated that they would have more media coverage if they go after Russia, that they have understood that going after Russia is accepted, that they in fact will look like the good guy if they go after Russia, if they compare Russia to Nazi Germany (73).
We ask ourselves why is that the West calls “artist” an heavily pregnant woman who participates in an orgy in a public museum, makes a world star out of her, and insults one of the best conductors in the world? (74) Given what we know of the capacity of judgment of these Western journalists and celebrities, it is tempting to think that these judgments are purely esthetic.
But the deep (75) answer is political: one is against the Russian government, and should be supported (we should make her a star, in order to give ideas to other young Russians). And the other one has been supportive of his government (76).
Sochi 2014 (77)
Until the 2014 Winter Olympics, western media coverage of Russia had only been about Pussy Riot and the anti propaganda law (to a point when one said the word “Russia” people couldn’t help thinking about Pussy Riots and the propaganda law and inevitably the conversation would move in that direction). To Western journalists (including correspondents in Moscow), nothing helped happened in Russia but Pussy riots and the 2013 amendment.
But then came the prospect of the Winter Olympics in the south of Russia, and the prospect for journalists to criticise Russia on another topic.
According to western journalists, Russia was spending too much, some terrorism was bound to happen during the games. According to a hoax there was even wolves wandering in hotels. Everything was talked down, and the day after the beautiful opening ceremony, the Guardian made its front page with the picture of an Olympic ring that didn’t light up properly.
Appendix C: section 28
Below is the full text of section 28.
Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material.
(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition of political publicity)-
2A” Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material.
(1) A local authority shall not-
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.
(3) In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
(4) In subsection (1)(b) above “maintained school” means,-
(a) in England and Wales, a county school, voluntary school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944; and\\
(b) in Scotland, a public school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.”\\
(2) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed]
Endnotes
1 Yatseniuk was part of the Tymoshenko government before the 2010 elections. After the 2010 elections he became one of the leaders of the Fatherland party.
2 See Appendix.
3 To put into prespective, Hollande beat Sarkozy with 51.62\% in 2012.
4 The electoral map is available on Wikipedia.
5 We can wonder why Ukraine had to make such a binary choice. During the negociation process, Yanukovich was talking to both organisations (EU and the Russia union). Jose-Manuel Barroso said in February 2013: “one country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union”. However, others, like Jean-Pierre Chevenement (and de Gaulle in his days), had been promoting a Europe “from Brest [in Brittany, France] to Vladivostok”. Vladimir Putin too, in a 2010 Spiegel editorial, proposed a Europe “from Lisbon to Vladivostok”. Finally, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger argued in 2014 that Ukraine shouldn’t have had to choose between East an West, and should be “a bridge”. Mearscheimer (more about him later) said in 2014: “Ukraine should remain neutral between East and West.”
6 Ukraine imports gas from Russia.
7 We say “pro-Russia” to be quick. His party claims to defend the rights of ethnic Russians and speakers of the Russian language in Ukraine.
8 Belarus and Kazakhstan are part of the free trade zone too.
9 Many people were also fed up with corruption. Note however that corruption had been a problem in Ukraine for a long time, and the way Tymoshenko became one of the richest people in Ukraine before entering politics raised many questions. As for the economic situation in Ukraine and other post Soviet republics, and the responsibilities of the IMF and Washington, we refer to “Globalisation and its discontents” by Nobel prize winner Joseph Stieglitz.
10 Two months later, with US support, a democratically elected government was overthrown. But this was not the first time that the US got involved in Ukrainian
affairs, and indeed Nuland’s quotation specifies “since 1991”: according to The Guardian’s Ian Traynor, activists in the Orange Revolution (winter 2004-2005) were funded by the US State Department, USAID, the National Democratic Insititute of Foreign Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the NGO Freedom House, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute. In 2004, Russophobia (see Appendix) didn’t blind Guardian journalists.
11 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957 for the transcript. It was leaked around 6 February. The exact date of the conversation is unclear.
12 The conversation was leaked on 6 March. It can be found on youtube.
13 Both Ashton and Paet went to Kiev to support the protests.
14 Western media coverage of this made good reading. Some, unsurprisingly, ignored the story. Others, like Greg Mitchell in the Nation, called “conspiracy fans, pro-Putin agitators and faux journos” those who “promoted it” (in other words he called conspiracy fans, pro-Putin agitators and faux journos those who reported an information (without discrediting it) that was damaging for the coalition. The obvious explanation, according to him, was that Paet had completely misunderstood what Olga had told him!
15 Including the PM, Yatseniuk.
17 The Russian and the French revolutions are the most famous examples (note that, contrary to Yanukovich, Nicholas II and Louis XVI had not been elected). But more recently, the 2011 topplings of Gadhafi and Mubarak (Yanukovich had more democratic credentials than these two too) were followed by years of chaos. In fact, Egypt and Libya have not stabilised yet. In Egypt, a military coup toppled Mosri in 2013, one year after he had been elected. Massacres followed, thousands of people died. In Libya, there has been unrest and murders since the end of the civil war (the US ambassador was murdered in 2012). Just in 2014, there has been two coups attempts so far. Mali got destabilised too because of the events in Libya: weapons from Libya reached Islamist fighters in Northern Mali, and France launched “Operation Serval” to help the Mali government.
18 On 28 February (1 March?), the new Ukrainian president vetoed the law against the Russian language: he probably realised (or was advised) that it was bad PR. But it was too late, the true colors of the new people in power had been made clear for everyone to see.
19 The Odessa fire has been the most violent event so far (over 40 victims). What exactly happened is still unclear, and it doesn’t look like it will be clarified. Most victims were anti-Kiev: most died due to fire, but some were shot. At first Ukrainian media (and some Western media) said most victims were from Russia or Transnistria, and that it proved that Russia was responsible. In fact all victims were from Odessa http://ru.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/odessa-who-is-to-blame-for-46-odessa-deaths-346817.html} has been the most violent event so far.
20 Latvia and Lithuania followed.
21 See http://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-director-brennan-visited-kiev-in-ukraine-the-covert-war-has-begun/
22 On 4 May, and AFP news read “Citing unnamed German security sources, Bild am Sonntag said the CIA and FBI agents were helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set up a functioning security structure.” .
23 The caption was wrong on the website though. People who didn’t click to watch the video were led to think the Kiev clashes were in fact events in the East of Ukraine.
24 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-crisis-masked-far-right-activists-carrying-flaming-torches-fight-kiev-1446701
25 John Kerry ran for US president in 2004. He is currently Secretary of State.
26 Willy Wimmer, former vice president of the OSCE, said: “The US have organised the events that are happening today in Ukraine, as Victoria Nuland’s declarations about the USD 5bn they have invested. Today, they want to get the benefits of those investments.” [He was not talking specifically about this Burisma story when he said that].
27 It is unclear at what stage Russian troops were involved, and what was the exact proportion.
28 While this percentage does seem very high, Western journalists present in Crimea the day of the referendum struggled to find people who were against rejoining Russia. A poll conducted by the GfK (German) group just days before the referendum gave the following results: participation 94.6%, 74% in favour of rejoining Russia. Exit polls gave 93% for rejoining Russia. The BBC commented “many Crimeans loyal to Kiev boycotted the referendum”: given that the actual participation rate was lower than the GfK participation rate and that the actual NO was lower than the GfK NO, the BBC explanation might be correct. The BBC’s Ben Brown, commenting from Simferopol celebrations, said “There is a sea of Russian flags.”
29 Descendants of Gengis Khan.
30 To put into perspective in that year the USA was a 7 years old country made of what is now the West of the USA. While talking about Crimean Tatars, we should also mention Mustafa Dzhensilev, described in the western media as “the leader of the Crimean Tatars”, and hailed for his heroic opposition to Russia. In fact Dzhensilev had only one official position: he was an MP in the Tymoshenko party. Western media also kept reminded us of the displacements of the Crimean Tatars during WW2. At the same time in the US, 110,000 people of Japanese heritage were interned in “war relocation camps”. Furthermore, the romantic portrayal of a peaceful people that was conquered by evil Russians in the 18th century is not correct: until that time there it was “the area of the great slave raids” from the Crimean Khanite into Russia and Ukraine.
31 See the following article by Khrushchev’s son, http://www.voltairenet.org/article183288.html
32 I went to Crimea once, in 2008. I could see for myself the number of people who identified themselves as Russians. Also, in conversations with Russians, when I would praise the courage of Khruchtchev for his secret speech at the 20th congress, or for his allowing the publication of “A journey in the life of Ivan Denissovich”, I would often get reminded of his stupidity of 1954. And when I would talk to Russians about my trip in Crimea in Ukraine, they would tell me that Crimea is Russia.
33 Anton Chekhov had a dacha in Crimea, and many writers and artists used to visit him there (Leo Tolstoy, Maxim Gorky and Fyodor Shalyapin to name just a few). Later, it became a prime holiday destination for holidays for Soviet citizens.
34 The debate in the Ukrainian parliament included a brawl.
35 From jail, Tymoshenko voice the same opinion.
36 Contrary to what some say these days, it is actually Georgia who started this war by launching a military offensive on the night of 7 August 2008.
37 A reference to Russia’s incredible sacrifice in WW2.
38 The way Crimea found itself part of Ukraine is – to our knowledge – unique, and thefore cannot be compared to other situations. Usually territories become part of a new country as the result of war (eg part of the Austro Hungarian Empire became Czechoslovakia after WW1). In the modern world, boundaries are more stable than in the past: it is more convenient to topple a regime and replace it by a friendly regime. The most infamous of such a regime change is Iran 1953 (the US and the UK toppled the democratically elected regime because it wanted to nationalise oil, which was bad news for US and UK oil companies). This was confirmed by CIA documents declassified in 2013. A list of US regime interventions since 1945 can be found on http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html. But these regime changes don’t stop the US (and its allies) doing wars too. A recent example is the Iraq war, which was based on lies and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands people (most US and UK media backed the war at the time). We are not aware of any sanction against the UK or the US because of this.
39 A very good account of the Cuba crisis can be found in Michael Taubman’s Pulitzer winning biography of Khrushchev.
40 For instance Russia was happy with the situation before Euromaiden. Yet the situation was [historical mistake + most people are Russians]/
41 The 18 March address by the Russian president is compulsory reading for those willing to understand Russia’s decision, see http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889. Many issues are discussed, including the unipolarity of the world and quotes from the UN International Court regarding Kosovo: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.”
42 See http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/gorbachev-says-outcome-of-crimea-referendum-corrected-historical-mistake/496386.html
43 The UN Security Council voted a draft resolution condemning the referendum. All NATO countries voted against. But many other countries abstained, including China, India, Israel, Brazil and Argentina. In total there was 100 against the referendum, 11 for, and 58 abstentions.
44 Donetsk and Lugansk region
45 See also the sections called “political and identical map” and “referendum on secession”
46 It is possible that western media use the “pro-Russian” appellation because it contains the word “Russian”, and therefore this appellation creates an association between the rebels and Russia, which is useful if one wants people to believe that it is Russia that is controlling the whole thing.
47 And where called heroes by many in the West
48 What we are going to show is that most rebels are Ukrainians, locals. However, there are certainly Russians too (some sent by the government, some not sent by the government), how many is unclear. There has been many articles about a man called Igor Strelkov. According to the French government, over 200 French citizens have joined the djihad in Syria (and Syria and France don’t share a border!). This doesn’t mean that France is the mastermind of the Syrian civil war.
49 It is the french equivalent of the Moscow Times: a free french publication one can find in Moscow cafes.
50 In a Guardian piece dated 10 March, Marina Lewycka, the author of “A short history of tractors in Ukraine” voiced the same opinion: “The second world war has left its gory mark on this part of Ukraine in another way, too. Galicia was home to the notorious pro-Nazi Ukrainian Insurgent Army, whose leader, Stepan Bandera, was viewed as a hero by some Ukrainian nationalists (including my maternal grandfather), but a fascist antisemite by others (including my paternal aunt)”
51 Speaking about the Jewish community, Alec Luhn wrote on 18 April in the Guardian about a hoax in Donetsk. Flyers had been distributed to worshippers outside the synagogue, asking Jewish citizens to register with the “Donetsk Republic commisar for national affairs” and pay a USD50 fee, “given that the leaders of the Jewish community of Ukraine support the Banderite junta in Kiev and are hostile to the Orthodox Donetsk Republic and its citizens.” Incredibly, John Kerry believed this story (or did he use it as useful PR?), and said during a press conference in Geneva: “Just in the last couple of days, notices were sent to Jews in one city indicating that they have to identify themselves as Jews. In the year 2014, after all of the miles traveled and all of the journey of history, this is not just intolerable – it’s grotesque. It is beyond unacceptable.”. Alec Luhn
wrote that when the Guardian saw the leaflets, “several aspects of the document immediately called into question its legitimacy”, and that “City’s chief rabbi states pamphlet is fake, claiming it is meant to discredit pro-Russian protesters or Jewish community”.
52 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/world/europe/behind-the-masks-in-ukraine-many-faces-of-rebellion.html
53 To say the least: the Kievpost dated 11 December 2011 reads “The ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party has admitted that their activists attacked gay community and human rights activists who were holding a protest in central Kyiv on Dec. 8 to commemorate international Human Rights Day.”, see http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/sabbath-of-perverts-svoboda-boasts-of-attacking-gay-demonstration-317463.html
54 This army was founded during WW2. It played a large role in the ethnic cleansing of Poles in Eastern Galicea.
55 This did not stop many in western media compare Putin to Hitler. This is what Brezinski (former influential national security adviser and current US ambassador in Sweden) did in his Washington Post article. Brezinski is also known for his belief of the importance of Ukraine in geopolitics (see his book The grand chessboard), and for Ukraine’s role as a pivot for Russia (Russia turns East if Ukraine is shut down by NATO). He is also well known for supporting the providing of weapons to Mujaheddin during the Soviet-Afghan war (from which Al-Qaeda emerged).
56 The Ukrainian parliament.
57 See paragraph about the NATO backed coalition in the first part. Note that their presence in the EU process is obviously tactical, they are not pro-EU.
58 Apparently, following a mistake by a releasing editor, the Crimea Red Square concert had been broadcasted during 5 minutes, see http://euromaidanpr.com/tag/panteleymonov/
59 On 28 April 2014, the mayor of Kharkov Gennady Kernes was shot while cycling. The Guardian’s Luke Harding wrote “Kharkiv journalist Zurab Alasania blamed Russia for Monday’s shooting. He noted in a Facebook post that the mayor had not changed his routine of going for a morning lake swim, despite the deteriorating security situation in the East. ‘The Russian Federation is identifying and liquidating key centres of
resistance,’ Alasania said.”. The reader was led to think that Zurab Alasania was an independent local journalist. In fact he was the pro-Maiden journalist who replaced Panteleymonov as head of National Television.
60 He dynamited it.
61 Most of their “performances” are supposed to have an anti-government meaning.
62 The goal of the “art performance” was to denounce the proximity between the Church and the government. In fact this proximity dates from the days of Peter the Great (see Massie’s Pulitzer winning biography of Peter the Great)
63 It just won the Pulitzer prize for Public Service, for the Snowden files story. Without Russia, Edward Snowden would today be in an American jail alongside Bradley Manning.
64 Interestingly, we only need to type ‘”nadez’ for google to suggest ‘nadezhda tolokonnikova hot’. Would we have even heard of Pussy Riot, had the people entering the Moscow cathedral been men? Or if Nadezhda had not been ‘hot’? But this is
another discussion.
65 And sadly, more than “Leo Tolstoy” (2,320,000) who seems to top by far the number of results for Russian writers. A search restricted to the Guardian would have been interesting, but I haven’t figured out how to do it.
66 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/west-hypocrisy-pussy-riot
67 Even less to the tallest church, the tallest synagogue or the tallest mosque.
68 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/9/section/28
69 http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/cameron+toff+at+the+top/328047.html
70 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/4424394.stm
71 Another (non official?) rationale for the law is actually that gay street parades would put participants in danger of attacks from thugs. In Ukraine, the problem is similar, where thugs like Svaboda activists attack gay people (see Appendix on Svaboda).
72 In a letter sent to – of all people – David Cameron, Stephen Fry compared the Sochi Olympics to the Berlin 1936 Olympics. We don’t remember Stephen Fry comparing the Euro 96 football tournament (it took place in England while section 28 was on) to the Berlin 1936 Olympics. Nor do we remember him comparing Thatcher to Hitler.
73 The last on the list is Prince Charles, as I write this [21 May] in a visit in Canada. It is of course ironic for a prince (whose great uncle Eduard VIII supported the Nazis) to lecture on democracy. Talking about Nazis, we want to make 3 comments: i) The NATO backed coalition is made of people who celebrate every year a Waffen SS division. Ii) If a comparison to this period could be made, it is that when a society (media, politicians, leaders) show support for open xenophobia, then more people join in. iii) The Soviet Union saved the world from Nazis in WW2. They did so at the price of 25 millions casualties. To put into perspective, the total US+UK number of casualties is 600,000, which is less than the number of casualties in just one Russian city (Leningrad, one million casualties during the blockade).
74 Gergiev is the general director and artistic director of the Mariinsky (Kirov) theatre in St Petersburg, and currently the principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra. Some of his NYC and London concerts got interrupted.
75 As said before, many go after Russia simply because of herd behaviour: they join the party. Another recent example of such behaviour was the booing at the Eurovision song contest.
76 It is an understatement to say that Putin’s image is bad in the West. By comparison, Yelstin and especially Gorbachev had a much better image. Joel Ostrow ( a Putin critic) wrote: “I was ecstatic when communism collapsed(…) But this is not the point(…) Everything Gorbachev did, he thought he was doing not merely to save but strengthen his country. Yet everything
he did sped the country to its destruction, brought consequences diametrically opposite to those he intended and expected. He was a leader lacking a vision for his country’s feature, lacking a strategy to move the country forward, lacking a basic understanding of the nature of his country’s political system, political dynamics, and political culture, and lacking the ability to make authoritative decisions on policy matters of the greatest importance and to stick with them. Such qualities are the definition of political ineptitude and leadership failure, and history should, on this basis, judge Gorbachev’s leadership as a spectacular failure.”. Yelstin listened to IMF and Washington advice (the shock therapy) which that led to the Russian default in 1998: by then poverty had increased from 2% to 40% (during that same time Yelstin’s associates became billionaires), GDP was 30% below what it was in 1990. In the first 10 years under Putin, average
GDP yearly increase was 7%. One wonders what are the criteria of western commentators when they rate Russian presidents.
77 The Beijing Olympic games were also heavily criticised by Western media. In fact, China’s portrayal in the estern media could also be the obkect of a short study similar to the one we are doing here with Russia. In London 2012, British media often suspected Chinese swimmers of doping, and the expelled badminton players were the object of a lot of criticism (see Simon Jenkinjs in http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/01/london-2012-chinese-badminton-players-medals)