Hacker News Reader

Comment by timonoko | Hacker News Reader

Nobody ever mentions this area was wilderness, because the invading Muscovites totally decimated indigenous population known as Hakassi.

For various reason, the Finnish version of wikipedia is more informative. https://fi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Hakassit?_x_t...

View on HN

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.

Ukrainian what?

"Noko" was a clan and castle year 1000 in Western Finland.

Nice to know, thanks and sorry for the mistake! Finish culture is one of my favorites and Helsinki is amazing. Ditto on sauna culture.

>blanket Russophobia

Sure most major powers did horrible things in the past. But now? How many other major powers are launching bloody invasions of their neighbors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United...

Thankfully we got to keep SWIFT and our McDonalds since those invasions were all totally justified...

Odd description of intervening in a civil war manufactured by western war mongers to support ethnic Russians.

Dunno. See "Russia's Igor Strelkov: I Am Responsible for War in Eastern Ukraine" https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strel...

See

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

2008 Classified Cable describing potential future

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.

Ah OK, that settles it - Putin is innocent.

Ok, we won't confuse you with the facts, as your mind is already made up.

You've a victim of Western propaganda. Can't you see that?

Compared to the Russian propaganda you are consuming and spouting?

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.

> That was because I consumed a lot of Western main stream news media. It's all propaganda.

Now you consume Russian propaganda and all is well.

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.

The information i get is from US Military personnel.

Tell us more about what you've been hearing, please.

Especially as regards this topic.

"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."

I was actually genuinely interested in what you might have to say.

> Russia would have to decide whether to intervene;

Why would they have the right to intervene? Ukraine is an independent country.

> a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

I'm sure that Russia conquered Crimea against their hearts wish lol.

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.

So what did the West promise to Ukraine and when, in this regard?

It was kind of vague to be honest:

>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”.

Exactly - "an obligation that flows from [it]" is quite vague, and in any case wasn't the language of the Memorandum itself.

The USA has 700 military bases world wide. Russia, China, India have 15 bases. Who's spreading their tentacles around the world?

Iraq invasion? Syria ongoing occupation? WMDs? Assisting Israel's War in Gaza? Come on. Please stop this Western bias nonsense.

And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.

> Syria ongoing occupation?

Russia did so too.

> WMDs?

Russia has those.

> Assisting Israel's War in Gaza?

Russia is assisting Hamas and Houthis.

> And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.

No, it did in 2014 when ... surprise, surprise, Russia invaded Crimea, a part of Ukraine.

WMDs was referring to the lies USA told to invade Iraq.

Russia is in Syria at request of Syrian regime. USA still occupies the oil fields in Syria. Not at all comparable in intent is itm

Crimea is Russian. The people who live there are Russian and were glad to be part of Russia.

Surely you know the history of Ukraine?

Do you know why Zhelensky was elected leader of Ukraine in the first place and what happened afterward?

The Crimea is multiethnic.

It belongs to all of its pre-war citizens equally.

Its sovereignty is Ukrainian.

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.

0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_intervention_in_the_...

1 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/russian-carries-air-st...

2 https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-kremlin-oks-troop...

The USA has 700 military bases world wide

128 actually.

The 700-1000 numbers are disinformation, but people like to copy-paste them around endlessly, anyway.

That's 127 too many.

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.

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".

Goes back a while, there's even a book on the topic: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34237648-creating-russop...

> First published January 1, 2016

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.

Sounds like you're just looking for excuses to justify bigotry and/or collective punishment (not a western value, btw).

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.

And people write nonsense books about nonsense topics all the time.

Have you read the book? Or you simply don’t like the premise because it might challenge your existing world-view?

Not every book is worth reading, nor is every worldview that comes along worth considering.

We definitely aren't going to agree on this, nor is there any reason we should.

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.

Your link has few details of indigenous population decimation. The "Indigenous peoples of Siberia" Wikipedia link seems to have more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_Siberia

Your link does not say what your summary says. The Wiki article just says the Hakassi joined the Soviet revolution (presumably happily) and moved from nomadic to modern livelihoods. No mention of a massacre.

Now, I am not saying that a massacre didn't happen. But it also didn't happen they way you are implying. This wasn't "the Communists oppressed poor tribesmen" but rather "imperialistic 18th century power steamrolls some natives". I can name a few more imperialistic powers of the period that did the same or worse.

Also, the Hakassi culture is descended from Mongols, not Finns. Why are they more Finnish than Russian? That's right, because they are not. In fact, Hakassia is nowhere near Finland (it's in the middle of Siberia), but linking to the Finnish Wikipedia makes it seem like another little European country attacked by the Ogre Horde.

Lastly, you say that tiny Finnish stub article has more details than the Russian Wikipedia, and that is simply not true. In addition to the main article, there is a link from it specifically to a standalone article about Hakassia's inclusion into Russia, which is described as "painful": https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%.... The events are covered in great detail starting with the 1600s.

Does this explain why your comment is mostly Russophobia?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com