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.

> 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...

Correct.

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.

Sure, which the US didn't oppose as a matter of principle but as a matter of empire.

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.

As I said: "they try to minimize Russian/Japanese/Islamist wrongdoing and emphasize Western provocation"

>>Russia is opposed to Western elites, and is therefore a positive force

Ukraine is corrupt and the USA doesn't care about civilians and is acting to turn Ukraine into Russia's next Afghanistan.

It is a jump to go from there to saying Russia is good.

Or rather that they don't have facts that you can be condemned as a traitor for mentioning.

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-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.

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 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.

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.

None of which are selling points for the Ukrainian government

Hillary Clinton, like other neocons, thinks it would be great if Ukraine turned into another Afghanistan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLANOdsNhPg

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?

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.

> 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.