Another possible explanation is that younger people tend to rely more on far right or far left media, which tends to be much more pro-Russia than mainstream media (sometimes organically, sometimes through paid sponsorship like https://twitter.com/bamnecessary/status/1499162014895296516).
Hasan Piker for example, the #1 politics streamer on Twitch, is quite far left and is much more pro-Russia than say CNN.
>>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.
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.
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.
Without American oil imports, Japan was forced to seize Dutch oil production in Indonesia to keep their economy running. That would drag the USA into the war, therefore it was a logical conclusion to strike the USA first.
It's not hard to see Russia's action as a logical action to protect their interests. That however is not the same as condoning Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
I don't think this particular clip shows a strong support for the Russian Federation in general. He seems to be saying that a majority of the people of Crimea want to be a part of Russia, having been more tied to Russia proper historically than any independent Ukraine, and they were able to make that switch without much violence.
It completely ignores the context (which you would see in more mainstream sources) for why most people see that annexation as unethical.
In particular, the lack of a "status quo" option for Crimea (the referendum only had two options, go independent or join Russia) and the lack of international observers (OSCE observers currently in the Crimea were asked to leave by the Russian authorities in the area) made the whole thing iffy from the get go.
And that's not even getting into the fraud allegations ...
That's definitely true. However, it's not really arguable that a majority or close to a majority of Crimea was moreso favourable to joining Russia than staying in an anti-Russia version of Ukraine. Independent polls confirm this : https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a...
There was no status-quo option because at the time, according to the dominant legal opinion (as in, backed by force), Crimea had already seceded from Ukraine. To consider the status quo that Crimea was part of Ukraine would undermine the legal basis for a referendum without assent from Kyiv, which is why it was not included. It's for sure bullshit to the moral level, but it couldn't have been done differently while still being a referendum on joining Russia. They could have done a referendum on returning to Ukraine, I guess.
To be fair, it is a tiny clip of an off-hand response; hard to compare to focused articles and segments on the topic. I can see the criticism of piecing together an opinion from a bunch of off-hand comments vs fully expressed arguments. It might be better to compare a full discussion on the specific topic from the criticized party to the lauded one.
One problem with many mainstream outlets is that they are often give free passes to organizations like OSCE. For example, the OAS, an organization that serves a similar watchdog position in the Americas, completely bungled their duties in recent Bolivian elections. So much so, that they helped legitimize a violent far-right coup in 2019.
He glosses over the fact that native Ukrainians in those regions were displaced in the 1930s during the Holodomor and replaced with Russian settlers. That might explain why Russian sentiment in those regions is high.
The problem with that argument is that Crimea had been considered a part of Russia as far back as about the founding of the United States, and prior to that had nothing to do with a Ukrainian National project. Crimea isn't even mentioned by name once in the Wikipedia article you linked. Why would they be targeted as Ukrainians at that time?
He does not say "Russia was right", he said the annexation was justifiable and clearly not justifiable as in "right" but as in "defensible".
Saying he is "pro-Russia" is a big claim, because you're saying their position on Russia's action are overwhelmingly one of agreement. In that clip he appears to call Russia's actions defensible (which is not the same as agreement) on the Crimea issue, while being unclear but likely opposed on the Donbas issue.
Also given that many people are capable of more nuance than blindly supporting or opposing a country on every issue, you might as well be calling them a simpleton.
I mean his is the quintessential “both-sides” take that pushes (younger) people to be “unsure” about who they support, no?
Russia is bad, but so is Ukraine and NATO, too. Russia is bad but Ukraine does have a Nazi problem. People like him are probably the greatest contributors to the large amount of Gen Z who are unsure as to who they support.
Yes, in real life the truth is often that all participants in a conflict have morally ambiguous motivations and do bad things when they think they can get away with it. It's OK to acknowledge that while also acknowledging that in a certain narrowly focused issue one side is less wrong and one side is more wrong.
If you're arguing that young people should accept that Russia (which is already a complicated concept) is universally Bad and the western friendly powers (another nearly uselessly complicated concept) are universally Good then you're arguing for a false view of reality. Give the public a little credit, they can tolerate a little bit of moral ambiguity and still make a reasonable decision of right and wrong.
Hasan Piker for example, the #1 politics streamer on Twitch, is quite far left and is much more pro-Russia than say CNN.