Why the Chinese Internet Is Cheering Russia's Invasion

 Li Yuan

Mon, February 28, 2022, 5:00 AM

Damage from a missile in an apartment building in Kyiv, Ukraine, Feb. 25, 2022. (Lynsey Addario/The New York Times)

If President Vladimir Putin is looking for international support and approval for his invasion of Ukraine, he can turn to the Chinese internet.

Its users have called him “Putin the Great,” “the best legacy of the former Soviet Union” and “the greatest strategist of this century.” They have chastised Russians who protested against the war, saying they had been brainwashed by the United States.

Putin’s speech Thursday, which essentially portrayed the conflict as one waged against the West, won loud cheers on Chinese social media. Many people said they were moved to tears. “If I were Russian, Putin would be my faith, my light,” wrote @jinyujiyiliangxiaokou, a user of Twitter-like platform Weibo.

As the world overwhelmingly condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese internet, for the most part, is pro-Russia, pro-war and pro-Putin.

Putin’s portrayal of Russia as a victim of the West’s political, ideological and military aggression has resonated deeply with many on social media. It dovetails with China’s narrative that the United States and its allies are afraid of China’s rise and the alternative world order it could create.

For its part, the Chinese government, Russia’s most powerful partner, has been more circumspect. Officials have declined to call Russia’s invasion an invasion nor have they condemned it. But they have not endorsed it, either.

Under Xi Jinping, its top leader, China has taken a more confrontational stance on foreign policy in recent years. Its diplomats, the state media’s journalists and some of the government’s most influential advisers are far more hawkish than they used to be.

Together, they have helped to shape a generation of online warriors who view the world as a zero-sum game between China and the West, especially the United States.

A translation of Putin’s speech Thursday by a nationalistic news site went viral, to say the least. The Weibo hashtag #putin10000wordsspeechfulltext got 1.1 billion views within 24 hours.

“This is an exemplary speech of war mobilization,” said one Weibo user, @apjam.

“Why was I moved to tears by the speech?” wrote @ASsicangyueliang. “Because this is also how they’ve been treating China.”

Mostly young, nationalistic online users like these, known as “little pinks” in China, have taken their cue from the so-called “wolf warrior” diplomats who seem to relish verbal battle with journalists and their Western counterparts.

The day before Russia’s invasion, for instance, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said in a daily press briefing that the United States was the “culprit” behind the tensions over Ukraine.

“When the U.S. drove five waves of NATO expansion eastward all the way to Russia’s doorstep and deployed advanced offensive strategic weapons in breach of its assurances to Russia, did it ever think about the consequences of pushing a big country to the wall?” asked the spokeswoman, Hua Chunying.

The next day, as Hua was peppered with questions about whether China considered Russia’s “special military operation” an invasion, she turned the briefing into a critique of the United States. “You may go ask the U.S.: They started the fire and fanned the flames,” she said. “How are they going to put out the fire now?”

She bristled at the U.S. State Department’s comment that China should respect state sovereignty and territorial integrity, a long-standing tenet of Chinese foreign policy.

“The U.S. is in no position to tell China off,” she said. Then she mentioned the three journalists who were killed in NATO’s bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999, a tragic incident that prompted widespread anti-U.S. protests in China.

“NATO still owes the Chinese people a debt of blood,” she said.

That sentence became the top Weibo hashtag as Russia was bombing Ukraine. The hashtag, created by the state-run People’s Daily newspaper, has been viewed more than 1 billion times. In posts below it, users called the United States a “warmonger” and a “paper tiger.”

Other Weibo users were bemused. “If I only browsed Weibo,” wrote user @____26156, “I would have believed that it was the United States that had invaded Ukraine.”

The strong pro-war sentiment online has shocked many Chinese. Some WeChat users on my timeline warned that they would block any Putin supporters. Many people shared articles about China’s long, troubled history with its neighbor, including Russian annexation of Chinese territory and a border conflict with the Soviet Union in the late 1960s.

One widely shared WeChat article was titled, “All those who cheer for war are idiots,” plus an expletive. “The grand narrative of nationalism and great-power chauvinism has squeezed out their last bit of humanity,” the author wrote.

It was eventually deleted by WeChat for violating regulations.

The pro-Russia sentiment is in line with the two countries’ growing official solidarity, culminating in a joint statement Feb. 4, when Putin met with Xi in Beijing at the Winter Olympics.

The countries’ friendship has “no limits,” they declared.

Given that the leaders met just weeks before the invasion, it would be understandable to conclude that China should have had better knowledge of the Kremlin’s plans. But growing evidence suggests that the echo chamber of China’s foreign policy establishment might have misled not only the country’s internet users, but its own officials.

My colleague Edward Wong reported that over a period of three months, senior U.S. officials held meetings with their Chinese counterparts and shared intelligence that detailed Russia’s troop buildup around Ukraine. The Americans asked the Chinese officials to intervene with the Russians and tell them not to invade.

The Chinese brushed the Americans off, saying that they did not think an invasion was in the works. U.S. intelligence showed that on one occasion, Beijing shared the Americans’ information with Moscow.

Recent speeches by some of China’s most influential advisers to the government on international relations suggest that the miscalculation may have been based on deep distrust of the United States. They saw it as a declining power that wanted to push for war with false intelligence because it would benefit the United States, financially and strategically.

Jin Canrong, a professor at Renmin University in Beijing, told state broadcaster China Central Television, or CCTV, on Feb. 20 that the U.S. government had been talking about imminent war because an unstable Europe would help Washington, as well as the country’s financial and energy industries. After the war started, he admitted to his 2.4 million Weibo followers that he was surprised.

Just before the invasion, Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, ridiculed the Biden administration’s predictions of war in a 52-minute video program. “Why did ‘Sleepy Joe’ use such poor-quality intelligence on Ukraine and Russia?” he asked, using Donald Trump’s favorite nickname for President Joe Biden.

Earlier in the week, Shen had held a conference call about the Ukraine crisis with a brokerage’s clients, titled, “A war that would not be fought.”

When the fighting began, he, too, acknowledged to his Weibo followers, who number 1.6 million, that he had been wrong.

Nationalistic emotions on social media were also sparked by the Chinese Embassy in Ukraine. Unlike most embassies in Kyiv, it didn’t urge its citizens to evacuate. Hours into the war, it advised Chinese people to post the country’s red flag conspicuously on their vehicles when traveling, indicating that it would provide protection.

The state-owned People’s Daily, CCTV and many top government agencies posted about that on Weibo. Many people used the hashtag #theChineseredwillprotectyou, referring to the flag.

The idea echoed a movie, the 2017 Chinese blockbuster “Wolf Warrior 2,” which ends with the hero taking fellow passengers safely through a war zone in Africa as he holds a Chinese flag high. “It’s Chinese,” an armed fighter says. “Hold your fire.”

Two days later, the embassy reversed course, urging Chinese citizens not to display anything that would disclose their identity. Chinese people living in Ukraine advised fellow citizens not to make comments on social media that could jeopardize their security.

As the war drags on, and especially if Beijing calibrates its position in the face of an international backlash, the online pro-Russia sentiment in China could ebb. In the meantime, other internet users are getting impatient with the nationalists.

“Putin should enlist the Chinese little pinks and send them to the frontline,” wrote Weibo user @xinshuiqingliu. “They’re his die-hard fans and extremely brave fighters.”

© 2022 The New York Times Company

Yuval Noah Harari argues that what’s at stake in Ukraine is the direction of human history

 Humanity’s greatest political achievement has been the decline of war. That is now in jeopardy

By Yuval Noah Harari

Feb 9th 2022 (Updated Feb 11th 2022)

At the heart of the Ukraine crisis lies a fundamental question about the nature of history and the nature of humanity: is change possible? Can humans change the way they behave, or does history repeat itself endlessly, with humans forever condemned to re-enact past tragedies without changing anything except the décor?

One school of thought firmly denies the possibility of change. It argues that the world is a jungle, that the strong prey upon the weak and that the only thing preventing one country from wolfing down another is military force. This is how it always was, and this is how it always will be. Those who don’t believe in the law of the jungle are not just deluding themselves, but are putting their very existence at risk. They will not survive long.

Another school of thought argues that the so-called law of the jungle isn’t a natural law at all. Humans made it, and humans can change it. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the first clear evidence for organised warfare appears in the archaeological record only 13,000 years ago. Even after that date there have been many periods devoid of archaeological evidence for war. Unlike gravity, war isn’t a fundamental force of nature. Its intensity and existence depend on underlying technological, economic and cultural factors. As these factors change, so does war.

Evidence of such change is all around us. Over the past few generations, nuclear weapons have turned war between superpowers into a mad act of collective suicide, forcing the most powerful nations on Earth to find less violent ways to resolve conflict. Whereas great-power wars, such as the second Punic war or the second world war, have been a salient feature for much of history, in the past seven decades there has been no direct war between superpowers.

During the same period, the global economy has been transformed from one based on materials to one based on knowledge. Where once the main sources of wealth were material assets such as gold mines, wheat fields and oil wells, today the main source of wealth is knowledge. And whereas you can seize oil fields by force, you cannot acquire knowledge that way. The profitability of conquest has declined as a result.

Finally, a tectonic shift has taken place in global culture. Many elites in history—Hun chieftains, Viking jarls and Roman patricians, for example—viewed war positively. Rulers from Sargon the Great to Benito Mussolini sought to immortalise themselves by conquest (and artists such as Homer and Shakespeare happily obliged such fancies). Other elites, such as the Christian church, viewed war as evil but inevitable.

In the past few generations, however, for the first time in history the world became dominated by elites who see war as both evil and avoidable. Even the likes of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, not to mention the Merkels and Arderns of the world, are very different types of politicians than Attila the Hun or Alaric the Goth. They usually come to power with dreams of domestic reforms rather than foreign conquests. While in the realm of art and thought, most of the leading lights —from Pablo Picasso to Stanley Kubrick—are better known for depicting the senseless horrors of combat than for glorifying its architects.

As a result of all these changes, most governments stopped seeing wars of aggression as an acceptable tool to advance their interests, and most nations stopped fantasising about conquering and annexing their neighbours. It is simply not true that military force alone prevents Brazil from conquering Uruguay or prevents Spain from invading Morocco.

The parameters of peace

The decline of war is evident in numerous statistics. Since 1945, it has become relatively rare for international borders to be redrawn by foreign invasion, and not a single internationally recognised country has been completely wiped off the map by external conquest. There has been no shortage of other types of conflicts, such as civil wars and insurgencies. But even when taking all types of conflict into account, in the first two decades of the 21st century human violence has killed fewer people than suicide, car accidents or obesity-related diseases. Gunpowder has become less lethal than sugar.

Scholars argue back and forth about the exact statistics, but it is important to look beyond the maths. The decline of war has been a psychological as well as statistical phenomenon. Its most important feature has been a major change in the very meaning of the term “peace”. For most of history peace meant only “the temporary absence of war”. When people in 1913 said that there was peace between France and Germany, they meant that the French and German armies were not clashing directly, but everybody knew that a war between them might nevertheless erupt at any moment.

In recent decades “peace” has come to mean “the implausibility of war”. For many countries, being invaded and conquered by the neighbours has become almost inconceivable. I live in the Middle East, so I know perfectly well that there are exceptions to these trends. But recognising the trends is at least as important as being able to point out the exceptions.

The “new peace” hasn’t been a statistical fluke or hippie fantasy. It has been reflected most clearly in coldly-calculated budgets. In recent decades governments around the world have felt safe enough to spend an average of only about 6.5% of their budgets on their armed forces, while spending far more on education, health care and welfare.

We tend to take it for granted, but it is an astonishing novelty in human history. For thousands of years, military expenditure was by far the biggest item on the budget of every prince, khan, sultan and emperor. They hardly spent a penny on education or medical help for the masses.

The decline of war didn’t result from a divine miracle or from a change in the laws of nature. It resulted from humans making better choices. It is arguably the greatest political and moral achievement of modern civilisation. Unfortunately, the fact that it stems from human choice also means that it is reversible.

Technology, economics and culture continue to change. The rise of cyber weapons, AI-driven economies and newly militaristic cultures could result in a new era of war, worse than anything we have seen before. To enjoy peace, we need almost everyone to make good choices. By contrast, a poor choice by just one side can lead to war.

This is why the Russian threat to invade Ukraine should concern every person on Earth. If it again becomes normative for powerful countries to wolf down their weaker neighbours, it would affect the way people all over the world feel and behave. The first and most obvious result of a return to the law of the jungle would be a sharp increase in military spending at the expense of everything else. The money that should go to teachers, nurses and social workers would instead go to tanks, missiles and cyber weapons.

A return to the jungle would also undermine global co-operation on problems such as preventing catastrophic climate change or regulating disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence and genetic engineering. It isn’t easy to work alongside countries that are preparing to eliminate you. And as both climate change and an AI arms race accelerate, the threat of armed conflict will only increase further, closing a vicious circle that may well doom our species.

History’s direction

If you believe that historic change is impossible, and that humanity never left the jungle and never will, the only choice left is whether to play the part of predator or prey. Given such a choice, most leaders would prefer to go down in history as alpha predators, and add their names to the grim list of conquerors that unfortunate pupils are condemned to memorize for their history exams.

But maybe change is possible? Maybe the law of the jungle is a choice rather than an inevitability? If so, any leader who chooses to conquer a neighbour will get a special place in humanity’s memory, far worse than your run-of-the-mill Tamerlane. He will go down in history as the man who ruined our greatest achievement. Just when we thought we were out of the jungle, he pulled us back in.

I don’t know what will happen in Ukraine. But as a historian I do believe in the possibility of change. I don’t think this is naivety—it’s realism. The only constant of human history is change. And that’s something that perhaps we can learn from the Ukrainians. For many generations, Ukrainians knew little but tyranny and violence. They endured two centuries of tsarist autocracy (which finally collapsed amidst the cataclysm of the first world war). A brief attempt at independence was quickly crushed by the Red Army that re-established Russian rule. Ukrainians then lived through the terrible man-made famine of the Holodomor, Stalinist terror, Nazi occupation and decades of soul-crushing Communist dictatorship. When the Soviet Union collapsed, history seemed to guarantee that Ukrainians would again go down the path of brutal tyranny – what else did they know?

But they chose differently. Despite history, despite grinding poverty and despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Ukrainians established a democracy. In Ukraine, unlike in Russia and Belarus, opposition candidates repeatedly replaced incumbents. When faced with the threat of autocracy in 2004 and 2013, Ukrainians twice rose in revolt to defend their freedom. Their democracy is a new thing. So is the “new peace”. Both are fragile, and may not last long. But both are possible, and may strike deep roots. Every old thing was once new. It all comes down to human choices.■

Copyright © Yuval Noah Harari 2022.

看看曾经的《布达佩斯备忘录》，说说视条约如废纸的俄罗斯

苏联解体之前，乌克兰是4个拥有核武器加盟共和国之一。并且，继承了130枚SS-19和46枚SS-24型导弹，并且拥有相当多的核弹发射井和核弹头。在当时是仅次于美国，俄罗斯的第三大储备国。

苏联解体后，为了保证乌克兰自愿放弃核武之后，不受军事入侵，保证乌克兰的主权和领土完整，1994年，美国，英国，俄罗斯和乌克兰，共同签署的《布达佩斯备忘录》。文件中规定了乌克兰承诺放弃核武器之后，俄，美，英作为担保方，保证乌克兰的独立、主权、安全和领土完整，并且不干涉乌克兰的内政。

可是乌克兰销毁完核武器后，才20年时间，《布达佩斯备忘录》在俄罗斯眼里就成了过时失效的历史文件了。

2014年，俄罗斯吞并了乌克兰的领土克里米亚。

怎么办？乌克兰人的觉得保证自己安全的唯一办法就是加入北约，有了这条粗腿就应该不用害怕俄罗斯了。是俄罗斯吞克里米亚在先，而且还对乌克兰东部二个州虎视眈眈（最新消息，普京已经承认这两个州独立，这就违反了2014年的明斯克协议 ），乌克兰想加入北约保证自己的安全在后。

但普京不干了，于是就上演了重兵陈列俄乌边境一幕。

这就是俄乌危机的由来，完全是俄罗斯言而无信、仗势欺人的结果。

要说毁约，俄罗斯说第二，没人敢认第一。看看曾经和老毛子签的条约吧：

这就是俄罗斯，一个毫无信义的国家。

丰县八孩妈妈第四份通告，还继续关注吗

 2022年2月10日19:41，微博账号 徐州发布 就徐州丰县铁链子拴着的八个孩子妈妈案发布了第四份通告。

有网友表示：这个到底是不是最后一份公示，还是说下次依旧推翻这次。

徐州发布称，近日，经部、省、市公安机关对杨某侠、光某英（小花梅同母异父妹妹）与普某玛（已去世，小花梅母亲）生前遗物进行DNA检验比对，结果为普某玛与杨某侠、光某英符合母女关系，结合调查走访、组织辨认，认定杨某侠即是小花梅。

经公安机关侦查，董某民（男，55岁，丰县人）涉嫌非法拘禁罪，桑某妞（女，48岁，云南省福贡县人）、时某忠（男，67岁，东海县人，桑某妞丈夫）涉嫌拐卖妇女罪，上述三人已被采取刑事强制措施。

为保障杨某侠及其家人基本生活，丰县民政部门已对他们进行低保保障。教育部门依法依规落实学生资助政策，保障其子女受教育权利。妇联的爱心志愿者和镇、村干部帮助照顾其老人，对其子女进行关爱陪伴和生活照料。后期将根据对案件的处理情况，依法确定对其未成年子女的监护责任。

在这份通告下边，有很多网友留言：

姓董的只有非法拘禁罪吗？强奸罪呢？虐待罪呢？

小花梅年龄为什么不公布？

除了这个男的非法拘禁，还有强奸等的嫌疑，包括当时非法上户入籍登记结婚的那些人，希望可以该怎么处置就怎么处置。

徐州发布的第四份通告，相比前三份通告有了很大的突破，但是，也像网友说的那样调查结果像挤牙膏一样，也还没能解释全此事中存在的所有疑点，比如八孩妈妈的年龄、第一次生孩子是否已经是成年等。

徐州丰县八孩妈妈的事情，得到广大媒体、网友的关注，理性追问、讨论。值得注意的是，在第四次的通报里，该案的真相都调查出来了吗？当事人董志民只涉嫌一项非法拘禁罪吗？此事中涉及到的相关责任人怎么处理的？当地类似情况的其他受害女性被解救了吗？

如果没有广大网友的支持，或许在第一份通报“不存在拐卖行为”就结束了。第四份通告称，桑某妞（女，48岁，云南省福贡县人）、时某忠（男，67岁，东海县人，桑某妞丈夫）涉嫌拐卖妇女罪，被采取强制措施。

第三份通报与之前两份通报不同，之前称八孩妈妈“名杨某侠，是丰县欢口镇人”的说法，第三份改称八孩妈妈是“云南省福贡县亚谷村人，名为小花梅”。

在第四份通告称，经公安机关侦查，董某民（男，55岁，丰县人）涉嫌非法拘禁罪。

《中华人民共和国刑法》 第二百三十八条 「非法拘禁罪」 非法拘禁他人或者以其他方法非法剥夺他人人身自由的，处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役、管制或者剥夺政治权利。具有殴打、侮辱情节的，从重处罚。

犯前款罪，致人重伤的，处三年以上十年以下有期徒刑；致人死亡的，处十年以上有期徒刑。使用暴力致人伤残、死亡的，依照本法第二百三十四条、第二百三十二条的规定定罪处罚。

刑法第241条，总共有6个条款：

第二百四十一条　【收买被拐卖的妇女、儿童罪】

收买被拐卖的妇女、儿童的，处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制。

收买被拐卖的妇女，强行与其发生性关系的，依照本法第二百三十六条的规定定罪处罚。

收买被拐卖的妇女、儿童，非法剥夺、限制其人身自由或者有伤害、侮辱等犯罪行为的，依照本法的有关规定定罪处罚。

收买被拐卖的妇女、儿童，并有第二款、第三款规定的犯罪行为的，依照数罪并罚的规定处罚。

收买被拐卖的妇女、儿童又出卖的，依照本法第二百四十条的规定定罪处罚。

收买被拐卖的妇女、儿童，对被买儿童没有虐待行为，不阻碍对其进行解救的，可以从轻处罚；按照被买妇女的意愿，不阻碍其返回原居住地的，可以从轻或者减轻处罚。

在2022年2月10日的第四份通报里没有涉及虐待罪，虐待行为一般算进「非法拘禁罪」里了。但在这份通告里没有列出强奸罪。

《中华人民共和国刑法》 第二百三十六条规定，强奸罪，以暴力、胁迫或者其他手段强奸妇女的，处三年以上十年以下有期徒刑。

奸淫不满十四周岁的幼女的，以强奸论，从重处罚。

强奸妇女、奸淫幼女，有下列情形之一的，处十年以上有期徒刑、无期徒刑或者死刑：

(1)强奸妇女、奸淫幼女情节恶劣的；

(2)强奸妇女、奸淫幼女多人的；

(3)在公共场所当众强奸妇女的；

(4)二人以上轮奸的；

(5)致使被害人重伤、死亡或者造成其他严重后果的。

2022年2月10日下午，微博徐州守望家园发布了标题为《“丰县生育八孩女子”事件，我们可否按一下暂停键？》的文章。

该文章称，冷静想一下，就这“八孩女子”事件我们的同情、愤慨的表达，是否可以给她们带去正面的温暖，对事件中的人事无巨细、没有底线的深入挖掘，是否是另一种伤害？甚至还有人利用自媒体谩骂，攻击；这些行为对事件的解决能否起到作用？我们能否让自己的激情冷却一下，回过头来，稍微作逆向思考：事情既然已经发生，下一步该怎么办？我们是否除了愤怒、喊叫，到底想表达什么？我们的责怪、谩骂能否拯救得了“八孩女子”？我们的喊叫是否可以抚慰她们心头的创伤和不幸？能否一劳永逸地解决类似问题的发生？种种对相关部门的口诛笔伐，可否让事情得到理性解决？

对于“可否按一下暂停键”？不能。

为什么不能？此类拐卖妇女儿童案件不应该到此为止，当地更多同类案件应该得到系统处理。让更多的没有被报道的被拐卖妇女儿童，得到解救和保护。从第一次通报的“不存在拐卖行为”到第四次通报的“桑某妞（女，48岁，云南省福贡县人）、时某忠（男，67岁，东海县人，桑某妞丈夫）涉嫌拐卖妇女罪”，这中间的经历也太离奇、太魔幻。

还有一点值得关注的是，在2022年2月10日的第四份通报里“近日，经部、省、市公安机关”这件事已经惊动了中央部委了。第四次通报估计是徐州发布的最后一次通报了，接下来应该通报的是相关责任人的处理结果了。

在这次“八孩妈妈案”新闻报道中，并没有记者去现场采访报道，媒体的退场也令人遗憾。现在同时看这四次通报，就会感受到第一份通告有多么敷衍。历史会重演吗？下一次有类似的新闻事件发生时，还会这么敷衍吗？

                                     8孩母亲杨某侠的现状：年龄不详，已精神失常。

2022年1月28日

网曝“八孩妈妈被铁链拴脖囚禁于土屋”的视频，当地妇联称：正跟踪关注。

2022年1月28日

丰县县委宣传部公布《情况说明》称：杨某侠患有精神疾病，已对其进行救治，不存在拐卖行为，具体情况正在进一步调查核实中。

2022年1月30日

全国人大代表蒋胜男发文称：已将舆论舆情向相关领导汇报。

2022年1月30日

丰县联合调查组公布《调查通报》称：杨某侠系被董某民之父收留，与董某民生活在一起，生活中发现杨某侠有智障表现，但生活尚能自理。至今未比中亲缘信息。调查中也未发现有拐卖行为。其身份信息公安机关将持续深入调查。2021年6月以来，杨某侠病情加重，为防止杨某侠犯病时伤人，董某民暂时使用锁链约束其行为，精神状态稳定后便将锁链拿下。

2022年2月7日

徐州市委市政府联合调查组公布《调查进展》称：杨某侠为云南省福贡县亚谷村人，原名为小花梅。小花梅1994年嫁至云南省保山市，1996年离婚后回到亚谷村，当时已表现出言语行为异常。桑某某（女，当时已嫁至江苏省东海县）受小花梅母亲所托，将小花梅带至江苏治病，并要找个好人家嫁了。两人从云南省昆明市乘火车到达江苏省东海县后小花梅走失，当时未报警，也未告知小花梅家人。后续调查情况将适时公布。

2022年2月10日

董某民（男，55岁，丰县人）涉嫌非法拘禁罪，桑某妞（女，48岁，云南省福贡县人）、时某忠（男，67岁，东海县人，桑某妞丈夫）涉嫌拐卖妇女罪，上述三人已被采取刑事强制措施。