When compared to the leading hardcore Russophobes, Michael McFaul comes across more as being a diva, seeking to maintain a niche within the anti-Russian leaning US establishment. McFaul is on record for saying that he doesn't accept the notion that Russia is inherently prone to negative attributes and bad relations with the West. Given that view and the existing status quo of folks out there, he's arguably not a top ten Russophobe.

Bill Browder is considered a Russophobe by a twist of fate. Prior to his falling out of favor with the Russian authorities, Browder was characterized by some anti-Russian leaning elements as a Kremlin shill. Browder's main focus of criticism is the Russian president and government at large. As is true of McFaul, the available choices indicate that Browder is arguably not a top ten Russophobe.

Several names come to mind that IMO should make a top ten Russophobe list for 2018. Granted, the difficulty in choosing people for such, as there're numerous individuals worthy of consideration.

Whether in 2017 or this year, it's surprising that the outgoing Trump administration UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, didn't get a top Russophobe ranking by RT. During her time as UN ambassador, Haley has spoken about the need to slap Russia, adding that the US and Russia can never be friends.  

An acquaintance describes the Washington Examiner's Tom Rogan, as exhibiting the worst Anglo-American ignorance and arrogance against Russia. Rogan's often enough, unchallenged, Russia related commentary at some leading American media venues, is a tell all sign of US mass media shortcomings – when it comes to having a reasonably balanced presentation of views.

Rogan called for the Kiev regime to bomb the bridge linking Crimea with the rest of Russia. That advocacy of his received attention in Russia.

Rogan recently wrote a very inept piece on the situation with Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine. Whether he likes it or not, a noticeable number of people in the former Ukrainian SSR, don't oppose the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is loosely affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC-MP). That established Ukrainian Orthodox Church (also known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, UOC-MP) didn't ask for the Kiev regime and/or the Constantinople (in Istanbul) Patriarchate to get involved with its matters. Note that the Washington Examiner appears to be otherwise prone to support the desire for a separation between church and state.

In conjunction with the Kiev regime, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (formed in 1992) that sought autocephaly approval from the Constantinople Patriarchate, is headed by Filaret Denisenko, who for decades supported the Moscow Patriarchate's ties with the Orthodox churches in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. He changed course after not getting a promotion within the Moscow Patriarchate. A noticeable number of individuals in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine support Denisenko's changed position. That aspect doesn't deny the noticeable existence of those in that territory who support the UOC-MP.

The Constantinople Patriarchate doesn't have the same centralized authority as the Vatican. There's good reason to believe that some form of payola might be at play between the corrupt nationalist Kiev regime and the Constantinople Patriarchate. One is hard pressed to find any of the national Orthodox churches (recognized by the Constantinople Patriarchate) supporting the Constantinople Patriarchate's decision to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. If anything, there's a near unanimous to complete agreement of these national Orthodox churches, favoring the position of the UOC-MP and ROC-MP, to not have the Constantinople Patriarchate grant an autocephaly status to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Among the UOC-MP and ROC-MP faithful (as well as some others), there's a reasonable concern that the Kiev regime and Denisenko's church will use the Constantinople Patriarchate's decision as a basis to seize UOC-MP property. Further complicating matters is the existence of a third and smaller Ukrainian Orthodox Church, known as the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Contrary to Rogan, the ROC-MP and Russian government aren't nationalistically interwoven with each other, in the way that he so very inaccurately suggests. Despite the Kremlin's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, the ROC-MP recognizes Orthodox Christian property in these areas as being with the Georgian Orthodox Church. Likewise, the UOC-MP continues to maintain jurisdiction over Orthodox Christian property in Crimea, which is now part of Russia.

As I noted, the sports world has experienced a good deal of overtly anti-Russian advocacy. This situation leads to three individuals with top ten anti-Russian credentials.

Travis Tygart is a US legal sports politico, who has repeatedly sought a collective ban on all Russian athletes – something he has never collectively advocated against any other national group of athletes.

Sebastian Coe heads the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), that still has a ban on Russia, unlike the International Olympic Committee. In 2016, Coe actively sought to have Russian drug cheat turned "whistleblower", Yulia Stepanova compete in the Rio Summer Olympics, unlike the clean medal contending Russian track and field athletes, who were unfairly banned from that competition. Coe apparently approves of Stepanova uncritically participating in a German aired propaganda film, that made a broad unproven claim against Russia's top track and field athletes.

Rune Andersen serves under Coe at the IAAF. Andersen suggested the possibility of banning clean Russian track and field athletes from competing as neutrals, if the Russian sports authorities don't acknowledge all of the core claims made in the quite faulty McLaren report.

Photo: flickr

The New York Times (NYT) and some others actively suggested the insulting singling out of Russia which the IOC has approved. Days before the planned December 5 decision on Russia's 2018 Winter Olympics status, the so-called "whistleblower" Grigory Rodchenkov, advocated (in The NYT) a formal Russian Winter Olympic ban, with only clean Russians participating as neutrals. Responsible patriots the world over can criticize their respective country in a fair and balanced manner, that's not intended to unfairly bring shame to their country. That desire is different from Rodchenkov's NYT approved advocacy.

Rodchenkov is essentially a NYT puppet. That "paper of record" has run a series of exclusives with him. Otherwise, Rodchenkov hasn't been readily available for critical (not puff segment) follow-up. It'd be journalistically and legally appropriate to see his full unedited "diary", that supposedly details a direct Russian government connection to sports doping. To date, some cherry picked quotes from that recollection have been released.  

Rodchenkov has made a series of extraordinary claims about a concerted Russian government involved effort to cover-up Russian doping at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. Ethically, he's a failed medical doctor, who was fired from his sports related position in Russia for having engaged in illicit activity. After getting canned, Rodchenkov's take against some others, serves to take attention away from the stated basis for his getting released. With that in mind, it's inappropriate to accept his claims without clear proof.  

Legally going after Rodchenkov (as has been suggested) is a limited move. Elements within the IOC and World Doping Agency (WADA) have declared him "credible". Hence, Rodchenkov isn't the sole source to legally pursue. Regardless, there's also the matter of a very unsympathetic (to Russian concerns) Western influenced factor, thereby making it difficult to successfully prosecute Rodchenkov and his IOC/WADA supporters.

On this score, the Western chauvinist reply will casually claim a paranoid irrational conspiratorial mindset. Upon further review, the opposite exists, inclusive of some unpunished, unethical advocacy, that has been very much covered up in the "free press".

At the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics, the IOC gave authority to the individual sports federations to decide on how their respective sport should be monitored. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), launched a near complete ban of Russians from the track and field competition at that Olympiad. Darya Klishina was the lone exception, on account of her being US based. Just before Klishina's event, there was a crude last ditch effort to have her banned. Other than Klishina, clean Russian track and field athletes weren't allowed to compete at the last Summer Olympics.

To date, the IAAF maintains a policy of clean Russian athletes participating as neutrals. The IAAF very recently upheld this stance. The timing of that announcement served to influence the anti-Russian ban for the upcoming Winter Olympics.

Concerning Russia, the IAAF President Sebastian Coe, is on record (from months ago) for seeking to share his federation's experience with other sporting bodies. Coe has shown little, if any concern for the clean Russian track and field athletes, who were denied Olympic participation at Rio. It's not as if these Russian athletes were never tested outside of Russia, while seeking further testing. Coe's morally flawed behavior is highlighted by his effort to get drug cheat Yulia Stepanova to compete at Rio, unlike the clean Russian athletes, including legendary pole vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva and world class hurdler Sergey Subchenkov. Coe's motivation has been influenced by Stepanova and her ex-husband making negatively unsubstantiated claims against Russian track and field athletes, in a German TV aired propaganda documentary. Keep in mind that Stepanova got busted for doping in Russia Her seemingly changed attitude happened after that development.

The just announced IOC decision against Russia is said to be based on new "evidence" obtained since the 2016 Summer Olympics. Canadian sports legal politicos Dick Pound and Richard McLaren, are among the leading anti-Russian proponents. They've indicated a satisfaction if the Russian government formally acknowledged fault for something that hasn't been substantively proven and remains quite dubious. Specifically, the claim that Russian athletes en masse have been doped through a clandestine Kremlin supported effort to achieve athletic success.

This dubious charge states that about 1,000 Russian athletes participated in that regimen. Upon further review, one finds that figure to exceed the number of Russian athletes who were available to compete in the last Winter and Summer Olympics and Paralympics. (Care of some extreme Western chauvinism, Russia was completely banned from the 2016 Summer Paralympics.) Yet, the overwhelming majority of these Russian Olympians/Paralympians haven't been found guilty of a doping infraction.

On the one hand, we're told that the Russian government masterminded a sophisticated clandestine system of cheating. This alleged covert operation appears clumsy in not having its tracks covered, as exhibited by releasing Rodchenkov in the way pursued. Rather interestingly, the December 5 IOC decision emphasized Russian Olympic Committee culpability for faulty anti-doping testing, without implicating the Russian government.

As of this writing, it remains to be seen what the level of Russian participation will be in Pyeongchang. In Russia, there've been mixed messages on this particular. There's also the matter of Russian athletes being held to much higher drug testing standards than other athletes. With that in mind, it might be hypothetically possible for clean Russian athletes to be denied, unlike those who've not been as strenuously tested. This scenario can happen on the premise that a Russian athlete hasn't been adequately tested enough – even though such a person has been typically more arduously screened than their non-Russian peers. It's sheer crock to believe that sports doping is an exclusively Russian phenomena.

Whatever the Russian participation in Pyeongchang, Russian fans should proudly wave their country's tri-color, while loudly chanting Rossiya! Symbolically, these acts will serve as a well deserved middle finger to the sanctimonious blowhard likes of Dick Pound, who has been especially pious.

Bigotry has been definitely at play. From Juliet Macur’s July 20 New York Times (NYT) article «First Medal of Rio Olympics Deserves to go to a Whistle Blower», is this contemptible excerpt: «The whistle-blowers are holding their breath. The Russians and clean athletes are, too». That kind of sentiment has been expressed elsewhere. Substitute «Russians» for some other group in such a negatively applied way and see the selective outrage. No NYT journo would write a bigoted comparison that differentiates between law abiding citizens and African-Americans, followed by a utilization of crime statistics as «proof» for such a presented contrast.

Like her other NYT Olympic covering colleagues, Macur has been an uncritical cheerleader of their newspaper’s exclusive feature of the Russian doctor, Grigory Rodchenkov,  who has made a series of eye opening claims that (to date) haven’t been firmly established. Likewise, The NYT has given uncritical praise to the questionable report by Canadian attorney Richard McLaren, at the behest of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). McLaren’s report is largely based on Rodchenkov’s claims. Rodchenkov hasn’t been accessible for follow-up. Rather than seeking to cover-up the claim of a Russian state sponsored doping campaign in sports, the Russian government has openly sought a further questioning of Rodchenkov.

In his report, McLaren states a need to get it completed by a certain date – with the obvious intent to serve as a tool to further propagate the call to ban the Russian athletics (track and field) team, as well as the rest of their Olympic compatriots before the start of the Rio Olympics. WADA’s bias against Russia has been clear. It was no surprise that the WADA appointed McLaren went along with their line.

A detailed second guessing of McLaren’s report is provided by Rick Sterling in his Counterpunch articles of August 3 «The Biased Report that Led to Banning Russian Athletes» and 12 «Banning Paralympic Athletes to Bash Russia». I can see instances where McLaren and his supporters will take issue with Sterling. That aspect serves the argument for a greater point-counterpoint scrutinizing of McLaren’s report. Meantime, it isn’t appropriate to fully accept McLaren’s report.

The Russian athletics team got screwed over big time. That wasn’t enough for the heavy anti-Russian advocacy, which sought a complete ban of Russia at Rio.

The suspiciously sudden attempt by the International Association of Athletics (IAAF) and WADA to ban Russia’s lone Rio Olympic track and field participant, Darya Klishina, from competing was rejected on appeal. To the bone, Alexander Mercouris’ August 14 Duran article «Darya Klishina – Last Remaining Russian Track and Field Athlete in Rio Suddenly Banned From the Olympics», expresses my immediate reaction to the announced banning of Klishina.

It remains to be seen whether the ban on the Russian Paralympic athletes will remain in force. The IAAF, WADA and International Paralympic Committee (IPC) appear out of control in not respecting the rights of Russian athletes. In the interests of fairness, these organizations are in need of a comprehensive outside review and overhaul. Meantime, it’s not impractical to seek some interim scrutiny over the three.

Besides harboring bigoted thoughts about Russia/Russians, some in the West harp on a previous time in history. Matthew Futterman’s July 22 Wall Street Journal article «Why Russia Makes the Olympics Better», reminisces about evil Soviet era Russians during the Cold War, in conjunction with his stated depiction to fear competing against present day Russian athletes – a reference to whether they’re clean. Futterman doesn’t take into consideration the lack of actual evidence against Russian Olympians en masse, while downplaying the non-Russian use of banned substances in Olympic sports.

Within reason, one can question Futterman’s characterization (in his article) about Soviet period Olympic cheating against the US. I share his view that the US got a raw deal in the 1972 men’s Olympic basketball final against the USSR – a scenario involving some Soviet allied countries on the review panel of that game. On other matters, a bias of that sort isn’t as clear cut. Circa the 1970s, the US wasn’t generally among the top competitors in the very judgmental sports of gymnastics and pairs figure skating.

Sally Jenkins’ August 10 Washington Post article «In Vilifying Russian Swimmer Yulia Efimova, Americans are Splashing Murky Waters», might very well be the most objective US mass media article concerning Russia and the Olympics. Jenkins clearly reveals that Efimova wasn’t acting under a direct Russian «state sponsored» program, with her prior drug offences being quite minor when compared to some other illicit drug taking occurrences. Jenkins’ article isn’t the norm to be found in Anglo-American mass media.

An additional point to Jenkins’ piece concerns US swimmer Michael Phelps’ stern anti-illicit drug taking stand, as a direct follow-up to what his swimming compatriot Lilly King said against Efimova’s Olympic participation. Upon her initial denunciation of the Russian swimmer, King seemed unaware of the previously banned status of American track sprinter Justin Gatlin. After being informed of Gatlin’s prior offences, King said that he should be banned as well. Phelps has taken a cordial selfie with Gatlin, without any mention of doping.

The IAAF head Sebastian Coe’s stated negativity on Gatlin highlights the former’s hypocrisy. Gatlin isn’t the only US Olympic track and field athlete with prior drug offences. Yet, he and other non-Russian track and field drug cheats (US and otherwise) will be competing in Rio, unlike the clean Russian track and field athletes (as well as some of those with a prior banned status, who served the penalty time allotted to them), who Coe approvingly banned.

Only now, does Coe speak of having the Russian track and field team reinstated sooner rather than later. This one time world record holder in the 800 and 1500 meters eloquently spoke out against boycotting the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics where he competed. By denying the clean Russian track and field athletes a Rio Olympics entry, Coe knows better than anyone the damage he has done to them.

Coe/IAAF didn’t give the clean Russian track and field athletes ample enough notice on the dubiously revised standard of needing to train outside Russia for an extended period for Olympic track and field consideration. Never minding that drug cheats can and have existed outside Russia.

Moreover, Coe has openly sought getting the 800 meter drug cheat Yuliya Stepanova approved for Rio competition. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) correctly denied that request. For justice sake, too bad the IOC couldn’t have been more forceful against the IAAF/WADA bias against Russian athletes. Stepanova was busted for doping in Russia. Her changed anti-doping stance came after (not before) she was caught. Stepanova has been continuously involved in caricaturing Russia’s top track and field athletes without clear supporting evidence.

For Coe, she’s the better example of what a Russian athlete should be unlike Yelena Isinbayeva, Sergey Shubenkov, Maria Kuchina, Sergey Litvinov and the other clean Russian track and field athletes, who steadfastly claim innocence with no evidence against them.

There’re other like-minded individuals besides Coe who’ve received kid gloves treatment. The former WADA head Dick Pound has been at the forefront in seeking a blanket Olympic ban against Russia.

Pound’s main arguing points are collapsible. He has repeatedly made reference to apartheid era South Africa as one example of a precedent for banning a nation from the Olympics. That absurd red herring overlooks the multiethnic dynamic of Russia’s Olympic team, government and society at large – a far cry from apartheid era South Africa.

Pound is right in saying that innocent apartheid era South Africans missed out on an Olympic opportunity. That view isn’t a legitimate basis to ban Russia from the Rio Olympics. Two or more wrongs don’t make a right. Many of us would like to believe that the international community has evolved in finding workable ways to avoid a primitive collective punishment approach.

Another Pound talking point portrays the Russians seeking to get off in the manner of a speeding violator, who says that other drivers are speeding as well without getting charged. That perception is wrong.

The Russian consensus supports penalizing drug cheats, as opposed to the primitive collective punishment route favored by Pound. I’ve likened his advocacy towards Russia to instances like the driving while black situation in the US. In addition, British academic Ellis Cashmore makes the analogy of revoking the driving license of every resident in a whole town, because a disproportionate minority in such a community (when compared to other towns) are found guilty of wrongdoing.

The collective punishment sought against Russia is premised on the idea of an unproven vast state sponsored doping regimen of athletes. Rather coincidently, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, recently came out with a statement that the late Serb President Slobodan Milosevic wasn’t part of a «criminal enterprise» in Bosnia. (Of possible interest, a sharp difference of opinion on this topic exists between Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty’s Gordana Knezvic and Andy Wilcoxson.)

Aspects of international law are big on conspiracies like the aforementioned «criminal enterprise» and «state sponsored doping» examples, which are used to punish a given group. The banning of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) from the 1992 Summer Olympics was wrong, seeing how other countries at war weren’t banned from the Olympics, for acts that led to many more deaths than what happened in Bosnia. The likes of Efimova, Subchenkov, Isinbayeva, Kuchina, Litvinov and most other Russian athletes, don’t seem to be part of a state sponsored doping program.

Notwithstanding, the Russian government acknowledges a doping problem in Russia and has announced an implemented regimen to curtail that activity. Another subject to tackle is the considerable lack of objectivity within the IAAF, WADA, IPC and a good portion of Western mass media.  

For the reasons stated in this essay, the spin portraying a cowardly corrupt IOC of not doing the right thing in completely banning Russia from Rio, isn’t a well-founded position. The aforementioned instances against Yugoslavia (in 1992) and Russia (at present) are indicative of a cultural bias.