4 ms·

>>far right or far left media, which tends to be much more pro-Russia than mainstream media I wouldn't say pro Russian but anti-war. This kind of framing remin

>>far right or far left media, which tends to be much more pro-Russia than mainstream media I wouldn't say pro Russian but anti-war. This kind of framing reminds me of GW Bush's "you're either with us or with the terrorists" accusation against people who opposed invading Iraq. Also "far right or far left media" would be more accurately characterized as non-corporate non-MSM journalism. For reasons that aren't entirely clear, the MSM literally promotes every US war and foreign intervention no matter the cost or predictable disastrous consequences. It's as if they have become engulfed in the military industrial complex.

lalaland1125 4y ago
I don't think the far right or far left media is more "anti-war" than the mainstream media. After all, the NYT is also publishing opeds about how the US shouldn't institute a no-fly zone: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/opinion/no-fly-zone-ukraine-nati-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/opinion/no-fly-zone-ukrai... Anti-war is the mainstream opinion in the US from pretty much top to bottom. When I talk about something being pro-Russia or not I am referring to stuff like Hasan saying that Russia's annexation of Crimea was ethical, Nick Fuente's literal cheering for Putin, etc.
- nicholasnorris 4y ago
  Anti-war might not even be entirely the right word, but it's possible that a more "anti-imperialist" sentiment is growing. Sort of along the lines of the old "world police" critique. A lot of these people are probably both sympathetic to Ukraine, but also not in favor of some countries extending their military and financial influence far beyond their borders. I think Hillary Clinton said in an interview, something along the lines that Russia should be prepared for the West to turn Ukraine into another Afghanistan. Seems like a pretty harsh way to view the people that are supposed to be supported.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Hillary Clinton, like other neocons, thinks it would be great if Ukraine turned into another Afghanistan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLANOdsNhPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLANOdsNhPg
  - lalaland1125 4y ago
    That isn't "anti-imperialism", that's just good old fashioned isolationism. True "anti-imperialism" seems like it would imply some duty to stop imperialism done by non US actors.
    - nicholasnorris 4y ago
      That's where you get into a muddy mess of where to draw the line between "imperialism," and something else. There are different takes on what constitutes imperialism, and whether one State trying to push back on what it perceives as creeping imperialism is legitimate. The argument a lot of people are making, not just Russia or Russians, is that overextension of NATO influence was a major cause for the conflict. This might be something like if the Soviet Union had refused to deescalate military support to Cuba during the missile crisis and the US went ahead with military action there. That's not to say that I personally would agree with US intervention in Cuba, or Russia in Ukraine, just trying to understand the logic that's being played by here.
      - ptr 4y ago
        The “nukes in Cuba” in this situation are democracy, free speech, LGBT rights and other Western principles. Yes, they are a threat to Putin and his system.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        None of which are selling points for the Ukrainian government
Veen 4y ago
I'm not so sure that's true. The logic of both left and right people I've talked to is something like: Western elites are terrible, Ukraine colluded with those elites/is their puppet (wanted to join Nato/EU/etc), Russia is opposed to Western elites, and is therefore a positive force. I've talked to many people of both political persuasions and they try to minimize Russian wrongdoing and emphasize Western provocation (poking the bear). Of course, they have different reasons for disliking western elites, but their arguments end up remarkably similar.
- barbacoa 4y ago
  Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was spurred by America oil embargo on Japan, and 9/11 was spurred by American meddling in the middle east. None of those statements should be necessarily seen as minimizing or justifying those subsequent acts. There is nuance in the world, nothing happens in a vacuum.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    > Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was spurred by America oil embargo on Japan ...and the embargo on Japan was due to it's continuing invasion of China...
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Sure, which the US didn't oppose as a matter of principle but as a matter of empire.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        The US and the EU repeatedly told Japan to stop it's invasion. Japan did have some cassus belli initially but after several atrocities happened the response grew much louder - specifically after a pastor was killed by a stray bomb and the photograph made it's way back to western audiences with an accounting from his daughter.
    - barbacoa 4y ago
nicholasnorris 4y ago
I agree. The younger respondents tend to consume media that's not only more politically diverse, but often a little more nuanced than many of the mainstream outlets. Less black-and-white thinking is bound to lead to opinions that aren't so easily reflected in a "Yes, No, Unsure" poll.
dc-programmer 4y ago
There are people out there who are weirdly pro-russia. Oliver Stone was gassing Putin up for years, defending his actions such as his anti-gay legislation. The Putin documentary he created was nothing short of a hagiography. The ostensible reasons would be he wants to stick it to America or that he likes the attention his contrarian opinions give him (which is much less in our transgressive age). Maybe some people naturally gravitate to authoritarians. One interesting fact though is that his son worked at RT. It’s all deeply weird to me. I try to grapple with it intellectually but it’s beyond my comprehension. If you are someone who truly believes America is irredeemable, why wouldn’t you esteem more peace loving nations over countries with overt expansionist intentions?
- secondcoming 4y ago
  Oliver Stone has blood on his hands with that documentary. People cite it as a source of ultimate truth, yet it's lost on them that Putin is far too clever to appear in something he doesn't fully control.
ErikVandeWater 4y ago
> For reasons that aren't entirely clear, the MSM literally promotes every US war and foreign intervention no matter the cost or predictable disastrous consequences. It's almost like the CIA and NSA might use their unregulated surveillance to get leverage over the media.
- barbacoa 4y ago
  I wouldn't go so far as saying it's blackmail, but when you read in the paper "official familiar with the matter say", it really should read "CIA/NSA asked us to tell you". It's hard to bite the hand that feeds you.

lalaland1125 4y ago

I don't think the far right or far left media is more "anti-war" than the mainstream media. After all, the NYT is also publishing opeds about how the US shouldn't institute a no-fly zone: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/opinion/no-fly-zone-ukraine-nati-russia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/opinion/no-fly-zone-ukrai... Anti-war is the mainstream opinion in the US from pretty much top to bottom. When I talk about something being pro-Russia or not I am referring to stuff like Hasan saying that Russia's annexation of Crimea was ethical, Nick Fuente's literal cheering for Putin, etc.

nicholasnorris 4y ago
Anti-war might not even be entirely the right word, but it's possible that a more "anti-imperialist" sentiment is growing. Sort of along the lines of the old "world police" critique. A lot of these people are probably both sympathetic to Ukraine, but also not in favor of some countries extending their military and financial influence far beyond their borders. I think Hillary Clinton said in an interview, something along the lines that Russia should be prepared for the West to turn Ukraine into another Afghanistan. Seems like a pretty harsh way to view the people that are supposed to be supported.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Hillary Clinton, like other neocons, thinks it would be great if Ukraine turned into another Afghanistan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLANOdsNhPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLANOdsNhPg
- lalaland1125 4y ago
  That isn't "anti-imperialism", that's just good old fashioned isolationism. True "anti-imperialism" seems like it would imply some duty to stop imperialism done by non US actors.
  - nicholasnorris 4y ago
    That's where you get into a muddy mess of where to draw the line between "imperialism," and something else. There are different takes on what constitutes imperialism, and whether one State trying to push back on what it perceives as creeping imperialism is legitimate. The argument a lot of people are making, not just Russia or Russians, is that overextension of NATO influence was a major cause for the conflict. This might be something like if the Soviet Union had refused to deescalate military support to Cuba during the missile crisis and the US went ahead with military action there. That's not to say that I personally would agree with US intervention in Cuba, or Russia in Ukraine, just trying to understand the logic that's being played by here.
    - ptr 4y ago
      The “nukes in Cuba” in this situation are democracy, free speech, LGBT rights and other Western principles. Yes, they are a threat to Putin and his system.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        None of which are selling points for the Ukrainian government

Veen 4y ago

I'm not so sure that's true. The logic of both left and right people I've talked to is something like: Western elites are terrible, Ukraine colluded with those elites/is their puppet (wanted to join Nato/EU/etc), Russia is opposed to Western elites, and is therefore a positive force. I've talked to many people of both political persuasions and they try to minimize Russian wrongdoing and emphasize Western provocation (poking the bear). Of course, they have different reasons for disliking western elites, but their arguments end up remarkably similar.

barbacoa 4y ago
Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was spurred by America oil embargo on Japan, and 9/11 was spurred by American meddling in the middle east. None of those statements should be necessarily seen as minimizing or justifying those subsequent acts. There is nuance in the world, nothing happens in a vacuum.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  > Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was spurred by America oil embargo on Japan ...and the embargo on Japan was due to it's continuing invasion of China...
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Sure, which the US didn't oppose as a matter of principle but as a matter of empire.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      The US and the EU repeatedly told Japan to stop it's invasion. Japan did have some cassus belli initially but after several atrocities happened the response grew much louder - specifically after a pastor was killed by a stray bomb and the photograph made it's way back to western audiences with an accounting from his daughter.
  - barbacoa 4y ago

nicholasnorris 4y ago

I agree. The younger respondents tend to consume media that's not only more politically diverse, but often a little more nuanced than many of the mainstream outlets. Less black-and-white thinking is bound to lead to opinions that aren't so easily reflected in a "Yes, No, Unsure" poll.

dc-programmer 4y ago

There are people out there who are weirdly pro-russia. Oliver Stone was gassing Putin up for years, defending his actions such as his anti-gay legislation. The Putin documentary he created was nothing short of a hagiography. The ostensible reasons would be he wants to stick it to America or that he likes the attention his contrarian opinions give him (which is much less in our transgressive age). Maybe some people naturally gravitate to authoritarians. One interesting fact though is that his son worked at RT. It’s all deeply weird to me. I try to grapple with it intellectually but it’s beyond my comprehension. If you are someone who truly believes America is irredeemable, why wouldn’t you esteem more peace loving nations over countries with overt expansionist intentions?

secondcoming 4y ago
Oliver Stone has blood on his hands with that documentary. People cite it as a source of ultimate truth, yet it's lost on them that Putin is far too clever to appear in something he doesn't fully control.

ErikVandeWater 4y ago

> For reasons that aren't entirely clear, the MSM literally promotes every US war and foreign intervention no matter the cost or predictable disastrous consequences. It's almost like the CIA and NSA might use their unregulated surveillance to get leverage over the media.

barbacoa 4y ago
I wouldn't go so far as saying it's blackmail, but when you read in the paper "official familiar with the matter say", it really should read "CIA/NSA asked us to tell you". It's hard to bite the hand that feeds you.