Hasan Piker for example, the #1 politics streamer on Twitch, is quite far left and is much more pro-Russia than say CNN.
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.
Of course, they have different reasons for disliking western elites, but their arguments end up remarkably similar.
...and the embargo on Japan was due to it's continuing invasion of China...
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.
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.
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.
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.
True "anti-imperialism" seems like it would imply some duty to stop imperialism done by non US actors.
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 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?
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.
It's almost like the CIA and NSA might use their unregulated surveillance to get leverage over the media.
I don't think Hasan is even remotely pro-Russia. What makes you say that?
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 ...
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Aftermath_and_immedi...
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.
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.
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.
Anecdotally, this is the opposite of my experience