4 ms·

Why? It's perfectly normal human behavior. You don't care very much for most people by default. Even if you think they're not very good people, because caring

Why? It's perfectly normal human behavior. You don't care very much for most people by default. Even if you think they're not very good people, because caring takes effort. But once they punch you or a friend in the face? now you have a reason to care. Everyone just thought that Russia was sabre rattling and that they weren't actually going to do it. Once they did it, that caused a lot of people to re-assess their views.

flir 3y ago
Then why not 2014? Why don't a dozen other wars around the world get the same reaction? Why not the Uyghur genocide? Why this one? Yes, it's normal human behaviour, but it's normal human behaviour with a propaganda pump behind it (IMO). Of course, I can't prove this. Maybe it was all just completely organic and I've just watched one too many Adam Curtis documentaries.
- astrange 3y ago
  I don't think we need to put the Uyghur genocide on Russia. Syria sure.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > Then why not 2014? Because Crimea is in a weird political situation where it sorta arguably belonged to Russia before Khruschev did a bizarre stunt with reassigning it to Ukraine, in a time when that didn't matter, which suddenly started to matter post USSR. That plus it having a huge Russian population. All of that muddled the waters enough to make it very unclear who was in the right there, and that leaves the easy default of not caring. Meanwhile, the current war was extremely unambiguous. > Why don't a dozen other wars around the world get the same reaction? Why not the Uyghur genocide? Why this one? Because it's physically closer, and because Ukraine is a lot more culturally closer to us. Uyghurs are Muslim, while Ukraininans are Christians and generally a decent cultural fit with the west. And because Ukraine had been moving towards a more democratic government. And I think Zelensky can take a lot of credit for being a great communicator at exactly the right time.
  - flir 3y ago
    > And I think Zelensky can take a lot of credit for being a great communicator at exactly the right time. I'll definitely give you that one. Ukraine's social media game was... well, they could have taught Wendy's a thing or two. And the rest of it sounds reasonable, but how do we prove it's not just a post hoc justification? This is why I'd hate to be a sociologist...
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      > And the rest of it sounds reasonable, but how do we prove it's not just a post hoc justification? I don't think any of it is particularly controversial? Crimea's situation is well documented, and you can easily search online for posts before the current war. It belonged to Russia since 1783, and Khruschev reassigned it to Ukraine in 1954, which I understand at the time was nigh practically meaningless and a sort of PR stunt more than something that was intended to actually do something. It's also been a very common vacation spot for Russians, and has a huge Russian population, and it's arguable that if Russia did rig the referendum, they probably didn't need to. So it's an already messy matter even if you're close to the issue. It's very hard to foreigners to clearly pick a "right side" in this conflict, and it's not hard to argue that Khruschev's action wasn't intended to actually do anything, and therefore should be disregarded.
      - flir 3y ago
        We must be talking at cross-purposes. All your statements can be true and uncontroversial, and still not be resposible for the groundswell of hatred towards Russians in Western populations. Or, more subtly, would have been ignored without a propaganda pump drawing the public's attention to them. All I'm saying (and it's not a particularly useful statement tbh) is that it's damn hard to tease out cause and effect here.
        Paradigma11 3y ago
        The feelings were always there but the cost was too high to do something about it. Now that the cost is already paid, there is no reason to hold them back. Lets not forget that there is more than enough reason for that hatred. As a European: Russia regularly kills people on our soil. We do not kill people in Russia. Russia supports extremist political groups in Europe with the sole aim to do damage. Russia runs media organizations like RT that also have no ideological orientation but will always report the take that will do the most damage to society. Russia used gas as a weapon to blackmail Europe. Already in summer 21 Gazprom reduced its supply to the spot market to increase the gas price and keep storage low. Later Gazprom rented storage facilities but kept them empty..... Russia buys politicians like Orban to weaken and disintegrate EU and NATO. There are many millions people in the EU who lived under and still remember the repressions of the SU and Warshaw Pact states.... Putins Russia had declared itself as an enemy of the western way of life and political order.
- piva00 3y ago
  Because 2014 was not a blatant full invasion of a country with hundreds of thousands of troops, it was a coup with little green men showing up, carving out a region on the outskirts of Ukraine. > Why this one? This one because it was a full blown invasion of the 2nd largest country by landmass in the European continent, it's a huge difference in level and degree... That's the simple why. Of course the propaganda pump went full on when that happened, it was a major development compared to the annexation of Crimea or helping some militias on breakaway regions, a country tried to take over another country's capital in Europe. It doesn't mean no one would've cared if the propaganda machine didn't start turning but that was just to drum support, not to change completely the public's opinion.

flir 3y ago

Then why not 2014? Why don't a dozen other wars around the world get the same reaction? Why not the Uyghur genocide? Why this one? Yes, it's normal human behaviour, but it's normal human behaviour with a propaganda pump behind it (IMO). Of course, I can't prove this. Maybe it was all just completely organic and I've just watched one too many Adam Curtis documentaries.

astrange 3y ago
I don't think we need to put the Uyghur genocide on Russia. Syria sure.
dale_glass 3y ago
> Then why not 2014? Because Crimea is in a weird political situation where it sorta arguably belonged to Russia before Khruschev did a bizarre stunt with reassigning it to Ukraine, in a time when that didn't matter, which suddenly started to matter post USSR. That plus it having a huge Russian population. All of that muddled the waters enough to make it very unclear who was in the right there, and that leaves the easy default of not caring. Meanwhile, the current war was extremely unambiguous. > Why don't a dozen other wars around the world get the same reaction? Why not the Uyghur genocide? Why this one? Because it's physically closer, and because Ukraine is a lot more culturally closer to us. Uyghurs are Muslim, while Ukraininans are Christians and generally a decent cultural fit with the west. And because Ukraine had been moving towards a more democratic government. And I think Zelensky can take a lot of credit for being a great communicator at exactly the right time.
- flir 3y ago
  > And I think Zelensky can take a lot of credit for being a great communicator at exactly the right time. I'll definitely give you that one. Ukraine's social media game was... well, they could have taught Wendy's a thing or two. And the rest of it sounds reasonable, but how do we prove it's not just a post hoc justification? This is why I'd hate to be a sociologist...
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    > And the rest of it sounds reasonable, but how do we prove it's not just a post hoc justification? I don't think any of it is particularly controversial? Crimea's situation is well documented, and you can easily search online for posts before the current war. It belonged to Russia since 1783, and Khruschev reassigned it to Ukraine in 1954, which I understand at the time was nigh practically meaningless and a sort of PR stunt more than something that was intended to actually do something. It's also been a very common vacation spot for Russians, and has a huge Russian population, and it's arguable that if Russia did rig the referendum, they probably didn't need to. So it's an already messy matter even if you're close to the issue. It's very hard to foreigners to clearly pick a "right side" in this conflict, and it's not hard to argue that Khruschev's action wasn't intended to actually do anything, and therefore should be disregarded.
    - flir 3y ago
      We must be talking at cross-purposes. All your statements can be true and uncontroversial, and still not be resposible for the groundswell of hatred towards Russians in Western populations. Or, more subtly, would have been ignored without a propaganda pump drawing the public's attention to them. All I'm saying (and it's not a particularly useful statement tbh) is that it's damn hard to tease out cause and effect here.
      - Paradigma11 3y ago
        The feelings were always there but the cost was too high to do something about it. Now that the cost is already paid, there is no reason to hold them back. Lets not forget that there is more than enough reason for that hatred. As a European: Russia regularly kills people on our soil. We do not kill people in Russia. Russia supports extremist political groups in Europe with the sole aim to do damage. Russia runs media organizations like RT that also have no ideological orientation but will always report the take that will do the most damage to society. Russia used gas as a weapon to blackmail Europe. Already in summer 21 Gazprom reduced its supply to the spot market to increase the gas price and keep storage low. Later Gazprom rented storage facilities but kept them empty..... Russia buys politicians like Orban to weaken and disintegrate EU and NATO. There are many millions people in the EU who lived under and still remember the repressions of the SU and Warshaw Pact states.... Putins Russia had declared itself as an enemy of the western way of life and political order.
piva00 3y ago
Because 2014 was not a blatant full invasion of a country with hundreds of thousands of troops, it was a coup with little green men showing up, carving out a region on the outskirts of Ukraine. > Why this one? This one because it was a full blown invasion of the 2nd largest country by landmass in the European continent, it's a huge difference in level and degree... That's the simple why. Of course the propaganda pump went full on when that happened, it was a major development compared to the annexation of Crimea or helping some militias on breakaway regions, a country tried to take over another country's capital in Europe. It doesn't mean no one would've cared if the propaganda machine didn't start turning but that was just to drum support, not to change completely the public's opinion.