I hate to tell you this, but most of the major powers did all sorts horrible things during that time period. Especially my people group, who were arguable the most effective at it.
And fwiw, the late Soviets tried to course correct regarding ethnic groups. My wife (half ethnic Komi, another Finnish group), was taught that language in school.
Don’t get me wrong, the Finish and Finnish ethnic groups (and many others) got a raw deal, but it’s no reason for the blanket Russophobia that we see on hn so often.
Taking the risk of receiving the same fate as Protomolecule, but didn’t understand why he’s flagged
> Russia did so too
Didn’t Russia was indeed invited while others partygoer wasn’t? I’m more into <div> than politics but I do listen western news and it’s also my understanding of the events, even if bitter (INHM)
> On 30 September 2015, Russia launched a military intervention in Syria after a request by the government of Bashar al-Assad for military support in its fight against the Syrian opposition and Islamic State (IS) in the Syrian civil war.
I know it’s Wikipedia 0. The two sources Al Jazeera 1 and Los Angeles Times 2 seems to confirm it.
All countries' bases are infinitely too many, everywhere.
But if one prefers to carry on with an image, or a number in their mind that differs greatly from the physical reality on the ground -- that's their own lookout.
Experts tell us
that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions
in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the
ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a
major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In
that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
Your source says the Americans were aware the Russians would be upset by Ukraine joining NATO. Partly as a result I guess Ukraine did not join NATO and was not invited to.
The Girkin article basically says he started the war in eastern Ukraine as an imperialist who thought eastern Ukraine should be part of Russia. I see no mention western warmongers in that. If you can fault the west it seems to me that they caused the war more by forcing Ukraine to give up its nukes in return for promises to defend it from Russian invasion and then not bothering to do so.
>The Budapest Memorandum consists of a series of political assurances whereby the signatory states commit to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. But the meaning of the security assurances was deliberately left ambiguous. According to a former US diplomat who participated in the talks, Steven Pifer, it was understood that if there was a violation, there would be a response incumbent on the US and the UK. And while that response was not explicitly defined, Pifer notes that: “there is an obligation on the United States that flows from the Budapest Memorandum to provide assistance to Ukraine, and […] that would include lethal military assistance”.
I don't pay that much attention to media actually. But I work with actual victims: refugees from Ukraine whose homes were bombed by Putin's army. We can talk about who is bad for hours on end, but in the end there is an aggressor and there are victims. You can try to blur the image as much as you want but it will not change reality.
Bye the way, so you don't get offended, I used to think just like you. In 2014 I was all anti Putin viz-a-viz Ukraine, Crimea etc. That was because I consumed a lot of Western main stream news media. It's all propaganda.
I don't consume Russian propaganda. The information i get is from US Military personnel. And also written records by US and Western Officials over the last 20 years.
How do u know u haven't been duped by Western propoganda.
"You have to understand how hard this makes it to engage honestly with your post. All useful conversation requires a minimal foundation of trust/honesty/charity - i.e. that both parties honestly want the best overall outcome for everybody, and the disagreement is only about what that compromise looks like and how to get it. When you write like this, it makes you sound like you just want confrontation."
What is the origin of this word "Russophobia" ? It seems like a recent invention trying to take advantage of the general western progressive concern of xenophobia to encourage weakness, similar to how their propagandists have re-purposed and abused general anti-war sentiment stemming from the Iraq debacle.
But I'm curious to know if it's even older and was perhaps used as some kind of powertalk during Soviet times when a new area was being subjugated. "You just don't want us here because you're scared of us".
That's quite recent, and the lead-in's focus on Putin "hysteria" is suspicious. The whole meme just feels an awful lot like the "American" neofascists' persecution complex, and that book seems right in line.
Most certainly there is anti-Russia bias in the West that waxes and wanes - like during that entire Cold War. But extrapolating this general difference of perspective to some narrative that it's all unjust "phobia" is just disingenuous.
Seems like more superficial appeals to Western values that end up falling apart under the slightest scrutiny. I'm out. Enjoy the great explanatory power of your phobias.
Yes, every data point is worth taking a look at and considering. That's not the same as agreeing. And yes, there's a long history of Russophobia - especially in Western Europe that goes back to "uncivilized hordes from the east", to the Great Game competition (why the British in particular are so vapidly anti-Russian), then the more recent anti-soviet/communist mentality (excluding the current modern Putin era).
I suppose you're the type to spend at least 10 minutes talking to everyone on the street who hands you a flyer, or makes some other approach to you suggesting that you join their church, cult or whatever it is they're trying to get you to be a part of. And if they give you a book to read, you'll take that home and read it cover to cover.
Because every data point is worth taking a look at and considering.
You do realize the default state of separate societies is mutual distrust, right? And that liberalizing communications and trade creates familiarity and mutual interdependency? And that such liberalization was essentially impossible until the fall of the Iron Curtain, after which relations with Russia had indeed been liberalizing until Putin decided to flip the table and become a military aggressor?
Anyway, my original question was asking about the history of the term itself. Your best argument has been a book from 2016, so I guess the answer must be "no" - this term "Russophobia" is a recent creation, and seemingly just part of the propaganda campaign from the current military aggression.
The book did not invent the term Russophobia in 2016, it's an exploration of historical negative sentiment towards Russia and Russians. And to be precise, philosopher John Stuart Mill coined it back in 1836 (who was no doubt, under the influence of Russian Propaganda™ and just repeating Putins talking points).
What you seem to be tripped by is the fact that an information source can on first appearances seem quite legitimate and useful, by telling you all kinds of perfectly valid and interesting stuff, like the book you are promoting here, with all these nifty factoids about 19th century history, that fun quote by JSM and so on -- while at the same time also subtley (or in the case of this book, not so subtley) blowing smoke in your face in regard to other aspects which are important to the key message it's trying to get into your head.
In regard to the topic -- of course negative sentiment has existed against Russia, as it has against the US, the UK, France, Spain, Germany and and other other major colonial powers at various times. And of course politicians will always say and do stupid things, especially if we go back to the 19th century.
Where the material you are advocating itself crosses into the realm of propaganda is precisely: (1) the attempt to promote "russophobia" as an actual thing, that is, as universally accepted and recognized concept (it is not by any stretch); and (2) the suggestion that negative sentiment in regard to any version of the Russian state and its actions in the world is basically just an instance of irrational "fear", essentially a form of xenophobia, or racially driven fear; and (3) the implication that this imagined "russophobia" is in fact the tail wagging the dog of relations between Russia and other countries today, and is what's really driving people's perceptions about its current regime and what it is doing to its neighbors on the ground, right now.
Points (1)-(3) are all pure nonsense of course, yet they are the very heart of the modern "russophobia" accusation. All that stuff about what happened in the 19th century or what JSM said is just sugarcoating to get you to swallow and internalize these 3 basic messages. And then get on the internet and tell everyone about this neat little book you found, and how they really ought to read it because you know, it just might change their worldview.
And fwiw, the late Soviets tried to course correct regarding ethnic groups. My wife (half ethnic Komi, another Finnish group), was taught that language in school.
Don’t get me wrong, the Finish and Finnish ethnic groups (and many others) got a raw deal, but it’s no reason for the blanket Russophobia that we see on hn so often.