Russian truth for English ears

Sadly enough, Western publications do not always live up to the standards of decent journalism. Recently, the British Daily Mail carried Peter Hitchens’ article titled “As Ukrainians force Russians to turn their back on their language and change their names, I ask: Is this the world’s most absurd city?” Judging by the rather provocative title, the author’s purport was to persuade his readers that in Sevastopol, Ukrainians victimized Russians.

For some reason, Hitchens started to acquaint his audience with the process of the collapse of the USSR, which resulted in a complicated situation around Sevastopol, with an imaginary breaking up of Britain, instead of just presenting mere facts. So, Cornwall and Devon are now annexed by Wales. The Royal Navy is much shrunk and renamed the English Navy, and is only allowed to share Plymouth with the newly-sprung Welsh fleet. Signs in Welsh have appeared on banks, police cars, and taxis. Movie theaters are forced to dub films in Welsh. Children are taught “anti-English” history at school, and are pressed to learn Welsh. All that, in this British journalist’s opinion, is “utterly mad and unthinkable.”

Even in building this analogy, Hitchens demonstrates a certain selectiveness in picking his facts. The USSR collapsed in its good time — not by an order from somewhere, but following the will of its nations. Ukrainian people voted for their own independence in a referendum. By the way, the vast majority of people in the Crimea voted “for” as well. In Hitchens’ case, Britain is broken up by an order from Brussels. Yes, it looks much more absurd, but equally false.

The next part of the article is the substantiation of Russia’s right to dominate Ukraine. In the author’s opinion, for several centuries Moscow used to own “the great plains of Ukraine and the shores of the Black Sea.” To take them away from it would equal an attempt “to shift the Himalayas with a bulldozer.” Moreover, he censured the West for supporting new democracies which broke free from Russia’s influence.

How skillfully was Hitchens able to solve the conflict resulting from the fact that on those plains, so generously granted by him to Russia, entire nations live, and an independent state exists. He just went and stated that most Ukrainians desire to become Russian!

He did not take the trouble to adduce statistics, or expert opinion. However, should he have bothered, Hitchens might have easily found out that the vast majority of population considers Ukraine their Fatherland and is not going to give it up to anyone. The polls held by the Razumkov Center in recent years have shown that 57.9 percent of southern Ukrainian residents, and 62.8 percent east Ukrainians were prepared to take arms to defend Ukraine. In the most battleworthy age groups the number of those ready to fight for Ukraine was even higher and reached 70 percent. Although the living standards of most of the population have deteriorated over the years of independence, nevertheless, 74.5 percent of the population in the south and east considered themselves patriots, and 67.4 percent called themselves rather patriotic.

Conversely, the number of those willing to be annexed by Russia is quite insignificant. In 2007, with the “Orange team” in power, when anti-Ukrainian sentiments should have been at their peak, only 11.6 and 10.4 percent of southern and eastern Ukrainians, respectively, would be annexed by another state.

Not to mention the fact that not only Ukrainians, but even ethnic Russians are not especially anxious to move from Ukraine to “Mother Russia,” with its permanent war in the Caucasus and the terrorism, which has become an everyday reality.

The journalist’s story of his trip to Sevastopol shed some light on some of his sources. They were Black Sea Fleet officers. One of them used to be in charge of the fleet’s intelligence. It was he who adduced what may be the only fact which might prove the linguistic persecutions of Russians by Ukrainians. He related that when he got his Ukrainian passport, his name there was written as “Volodymyr.”

Doesn’t Hitchens know that Ukrainian passports are filled out in two languages, Ukrainian and Russian? And the Russian name “Vladimir” was written in the passport next to its Ukrainian counterpart, “Volodymyr.” Where is the harm?

Also, he voiced the complaints made by the Russians of Sevastopol about teaching history at state educational institutions of Ukraine.

Generally speaking, with regards to the complicated history of Ukraine-Russia relations, there is more controversy in them than one would desire. And it is up to historians and scholarly conferences to decide when “Moscow betrayed Ukrainians,” and what marked “the beginning of the unification of two brother nations.” Officers are perhaps not competent enough to do that.

Yet the very fact of the British journalist entering such complaints in the scanty martyrology of Russians’ grudges against Ukraine is very eloquent.

Having failed to unearth any facts of Russians being victimized in Sevastopol, Hitchens reoriented promptly. He noted that although this city was considered to be Ukrainian, but it didn’t quite fit the definition. The waitress who served him did not speak Ukrainian, the best school was built by the Moscow city council, and there was a branch of the Moscow University in Sevastopol.

While assessing this article one must note that the author was only relying on pro-Russian sources. Unfortunately, he did not meet the representatives of Ukrainian organizations or the Crimean Tatars. Thus they could not explain to him that it is not Russians that are victimized in the Crimea, but just the other way around.

But was Hitchens really anxious to hear the other party? Doesn’t look like it. His article abounds in humiliating anti-Ukrainian phraseology. “Sevastopol, once the pride of Russia, now absurdly part of a supposedly independent Ukraine”; for him, Ukraine is some “strange” country. He considers the declaration of independence by our nation as an event of epic stupidity, which resulted in annexing a major Russian navy base.

You’ve got to hand it down to Hitchens: he can present his facts in such a way as to easily disorient a British reader, hardly aware of the Ukrainian reality. This is the general key in which Hitchens wrote about film dubbing in Ukrainian. It all looked as if poor Russians were forced to learn about Russian film culture only via the Ukrainian language, which resulted in the collapse of cinemas. He kept back the fact that this requirement is only valid for films from Europe and the US, and that Russian-made movies were shown in Ukraine in the original language! He also chose not to mention the protests of film distributors against the cancellation of dubbing.

It must also be noted that a fair assessment of Hitchens’ article and his flirtations with the Kremlin was given by one of his English readers in the comments to the publication. He reminded the author that the Crimea had been conquered. That Tatars had been deported and the peninsula was then populated by Russians (retired military) who hated Ukraine. He also remarked that the incumbent Russian regime reminded him of the German one of 1933.

However, not everyone took the article for what it is. There were some who agreed with it.

Sadly, it is publications of this ilk that shape anti-Ukrainian sentiments in the European public opinion. And it looks like Ukrainians have to defend themselves on their own on this front, too. Maybe, journalists and the public should set up some Walter Duranty club and confer membership on those Western journalists who are now writing about Ukraine as “honestly” as their patron did in the times of the Holodomor? Or maybe start a Duranty Prize? At least, we have got the first nominee already.