4 ms·

> 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 reas

> 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.
  - the_why_of_y 3y ago
    Notably, Crimea belonged to Russia since the defeat of the Crimean Khanate in 1783, when Russians ethnically cleansed half of the native Crimean population, and in 1944 Stalin deported the entire ethnically Crimean population that was left to Uzbekistan. The only reason there are Crimeans in Crimea today is that after the fall of USSR, Ukraine allowed them to return. Also, Crimea voted 54% to stay with Ukraine in 1991 referendum.

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.
- the_why_of_y 3y ago
  Notably, Crimea belonged to Russia since the defeat of the Crimean Khanate in 1783, when Russians ethnically cleansed half of the native Crimean population, and in 1944 Stalin deported the entire ethnically Crimean population that was left to Uzbekistan. The only reason there are Crimeans in Crimea today is that after the fall of USSR, Ukraine allowed them to return. Also, Crimea voted 54% to stay with Ukraine in 1991 referendum.