"Negative assessments continue to prevail in relation to the USA, the EU, Estonia and Ukraine. The attitude towards Georgia and Turkey is mostly positive (with a noticeable share of negative assessments). Respondents have a positive attitude towards
China and Belarus. The attitude to the citizens of these countries is better than to each country individually.

Respondents were asked to assess their attitude towards countries and associations from the following list: USA, EU, Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, China and Turkey. The respondents relate best to China and Belarus. Although a positive attitude
prevails towards Turkey and Georgia, a significant number of respondents have a negative attitude. A negative attitude prevails towards Western countries and Ukraine, which is explained by the current conflict."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 11:24:32 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:

"Negative assessments continue to prevail in relation to the USA, the EU, Estonia and Ukraine. The attitude towards Georgia and Turkey is mostly positive (with a noticeable share of negative assessments). Respondents have a positive attitude towards

China and Belarus. The attitude to the citizens of these countries is better than to each country individually.

Respondents were asked to assess their attitude towards countries and associations from the following list: USA, EU, Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, China and Turkey. The respondents relate best to China and Belarus. Although a positive attitude

prevails towards Turkey and Georgia, a significant number of respondents have a negative attitude. A negative attitude prevails towards Western countries and Ukraine, which is explained by the current conflict."

Great assessment. Seriously, the assessment is not a surprise given that EU and US and their allies had been working together in bombarding Russia with lies, accusation, innuendo, and insinuation to deceive all countries to go against Russia.

The Western media are working hard to write bad on anyone with their lies, falsehoods, accusations, fake news, innuendos, and use of harsh words shouting at Russia. Unfortunately, many countries saw through these had abstained and even ignored them.
Thanks to the world of people in knowing what is right and what is wrong.

Hopefully, the assessment center can extend the polls with people in Southeast Asia and South America too. It's nice to see feedback from them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

ltlee1, <news:92b6cd6c-1d34-4ab9-bdbc-4458682a9797n@googlegroups.com>

"Negative assessments continue to prevail in relation to the USA, the EU, Estonia and Ukraine. The attitude towards Georgia and Turkey is mostly positive (with a noticeable share of negative assessments). Respondents
have a positive attitude towards China and Belarus. The attitude to the citizens of these countries is better than to each country individually.

Respondents were asked to assess their attitude towards countries and associations from the following list: USA, EU, Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, China and Turkey.

The selection is somewhat weird. It's logical to pay attention on the USA,
EU, China as the most important "geopolitical players", Belarus is seen in Russia as "the closest ally", and the Ukraine is in focus given the current conflict. But if they include Georgia, then why not Armenia and Azerbaijan?
And if they include Estonia, then they should also include Latvia and Lithuania, and if they include these Baltic states, then they should also
have included Poland, and so they should also include all the east-European states. Turkey seems extraordinary given its peculiar stance, but then Iran, KSA, and other regional states are there as well.

The respondents relate best to China and Belarus.

Their comment "the attitude to the citizens of these countries is better
than to each country individually" is both incorrect and irrelevant. As one
can see from their own figures, it's true for Belarus and untrue for China.
But it's irrelevant since the discrepancies are so small that it's close to statistical error.

Although a positive attitude prevails towards Turkey and Georgia, a significant number of respondents have a negative attitude.

It would be the same true to say so, for example, about the Chinese popular attitudes towards Russia ("mostly positive, but a significant number still
have a negative attitude").

My own impression (based on reading on intra-Chinese conversations within mainland online communities) is so that about 25-30% of Chinese feel surely friendly towards Russia, about 10-15% feel certainly negative, and the
attitude of the rest would rather depend on what sentiments are prevailing currently in the China's domestic infospace.

A negative attitude prevails towards Western countries and Ukraine, which
is explained by the current conflict."

Link to the article <https://tinyurl.com/2m9sn7xl>. At the very bottom
there one can notice a warning: "The ANO Levada Center has been included in
the registry of non-commercial organizations acting as foreign agents", ie.
the Russian government considers the Levada Center an organization pursuing interests of foreign powers in Russia. I can say myself that the Levada's figures often seem adequate (and consistent with what other pollsters in
Russia find in their independent researches), but the rationalizations and conclusions the Levada's analysts attach to their figures are often clearly biased and controversial.

Also, what I personally find notable there, is that the negative attitude towards "Ukraine" - i.e. the current regime - stays in contrast to the
positive attitude towards Ukrainians (although the percentage has become
lesser against the pre-SMO period), which contradicts to the Kiev's claims
the Russians seek "to genocide" etc the Ukrainians.

Also notable things there are seen in the distribution of attitudes by age. Younger people are more like "love everyone and everything", they are more apolitical and they are less sensitive about historical background of misc issues, also the youth are more prone to take a nice wrapper against a less nice content. Their very positive attitudes towards Turkey and Georgia, as
it's seen from the Levada's figures, one may likely explain by the fact
that these countries were popular tourist destinations in the recent years.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 11:28:32 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

ltlee1, <news:92b6cd6c-1d34-4ab9...@googlegroups.com>

"Negative assessments continue to prevail in relation to the USA, the EU, Estonia and Ukraine. The attitude towards Georgia and Turkey is mostly positive (with a noticeable share of negative assessments). Respondents have a positive attitude towards China and Belarus. The attitude to the citizens of these countries is better than to each country individually.

Respondents were asked to assess their attitude towards countries and associations from the following list: USA, EU, Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, China and Turkey.

The selection is somewhat weird. It's logical to pay attention on the USA, EU, China as the most important "geopolitical players", Belarus is seen in Russia as "the closest ally", and the Ukraine is in focus given the current conflict. But if they include Georgia, then why not Armenia and Azerbaijan? And if they include Estonia, then they should also include Latvia and Lithuania, and if they include these Baltic states, then they should also have included Poland, and so they should also include all the east-European states. Turkey seems extraordinary given its peculiar stance, but then Iran, KSA, and other regional states are there as well.

The respondents relate best to China and Belarus.

Their comment "the attitude to the citizens of these countries is better
than to each country individually" is both incorrect and irrelevant. As one can see from their own figures, it's true for Belarus and untrue for China. But it's irrelevant since the discrepancies are so small that it's close to statistical error.

Although a positive attitude prevails towards Turkey and Georgia, a significant number of respondents have a negative attitude.

It would be the same true to say so, for example, about the Chinese popular attitudes towards Russia ("mostly positive, but a significant number still have a negative attitude").

My own impression (based on reading on intra-Chinese conversations within mainland online communities) is so that about 25-30% of Chinese feel surely friendly towards Russia, about 10-15% feel certainly negative, and the attitude of the rest would rather depend on what sentiments are prevailing currently in the China's domestic infospace.

A negative attitude prevails towards Western countries and Ukraine, which is explained by the current conflict."

Link to the article <https://tinyurl.com/2m9sn7xl>. At the very bottom
there one can notice a warning: "The ANO Levada Center has been included in the registry of non-commercial organizations acting as foreign agents", ie. the Russian government considers the Levada Center an organization pursuing interests of foreign powers in Russia. I can say myself that the Levada's figures often seem adequate (and consistent with what other pollsters in Russia find in their independent researches), but the rationalizations and conclusions the Levada's analysts attach to their figures are often clearly biased and controversial.

I guess the designation as foreign agents is why Western media consider Lavada poll results as more reliable. Straightly speaking, no media is totally objective. And
journalists all come their own biases. It is for readers themselves to keep in mind that
what media is writing from what view point.

Also, what I personally find notable there, is that the negative attitude towards "Ukraine" - i.e. the current regime - stays in contrast to the positive attitude towards Ukrainians (although the percentage has become lesser against the pre-SMO period), which contradicts to the Kiev's claims the Russians seek "to genocide" etc the Ukrainians.

Calling other countries genocide is currently fashionable. Sputniknews.com also used genocide to describe what had been happening in Donas from 2014 to 2022. Example:
https://sputniknews.com/donbass-genocide-2014-2022/

The difference is which nations would respond to such accusations. If the Western
media accused Russia or China for genocide, such news often spread far and wide with a lot of mindless repetition. In contrast, US genocide in the form of police shooting
black Americans and its school to prison pipeline, both a persistent daily reality, were
mostly forgotten.

Also notable things there are seen in the distribution of attitudes by age. Younger people are more like "love everyone and everything", they are more apolitical and they are less sensitive about historical background of misc issues, also the youth are more prone to take a nice wrapper against a less nice content. Their very positive attitudes towards Turkey and Georgia, as it's seen from the Levada's figures, one may likely explain by the fact
that these countries were popular tourist destinations in the recent years.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

ltlee1, <news:27d558a4-8ff5-452e-94be-157080b4d77fn@googlegroups.com>

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 11:28:32 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

Link to the article <https://tinyurl.com/2m9sn7xl>. At the very bottom
there one can notice a warning: "The ANO Levada Center has been included in >> the registry of non-commercial organizations acting as foreign agents", ie. >> the Russian government considers the Levada Center an organization pursuing >> interests of foreign powers in Russia. I can say myself that the Levada's
figures often seem adequate (and consistent with what other pollsters in
Russia find in their independent researches), but the rationalizations and >> conclusions the Levada's analysts attach to their figures are often clearly >> biased and controversial.

I guess the designation as foreign agents is why Western media consider Lavada poll results as more reliable. Straightly speaking, no media is totally objective. And journalists all come their own biases. It is for readers themselves to keep in mind that what media is writing from what
view point.

The latter is what the Russian government suggests with regard to
"foreign agents". They aren't blocked/canceled in Russia but required to
report the warning. Generally, it's quite a delicate topic though.

Also, what I personally find notable there, is that the negative attitude
towards "Ukraine" - i.e. the current regime - stays in contrast to the
positive attitude towards Ukrainians (although the percentage has become
lesser against the pre-SMO period), which contradicts to the Kiev's claims >> the Russians seek "to genocide" etc the Ukrainians.

Calling other countries genocide is currently fashionable. Sputniknews.com also used genocide to describe what had been happening in Donas from 2014
to 2022. Example: https://sputniknews.com/donbass-genocide-2014-2022/

I personally am against abuse of strong words, incl. "genocide" term.
I think the Kremlin propaganda abuses it. The post-coup Kiev regime has
not yet reached the point where one can speak of genocidal practices.
However, their ideology is based on collective hatred, so it suggests
such practices in potential, and they are "slyly" balancing on the edge.
The Kiev's troops are shelling Donetsk' residential areas to kill and
terrorize civilians (there's no military targets).

From the regime's officials, there were open proposals that the people
of Donbas should be deprived of civic rights, and generally considered "subhumans", because they dare to reject the Banderist ideology. Then,
many people from Mariupol, Kherson, other eastern Ukraine areas, taken
by the Russian military, told that the regime's troops didn't consider
them "ours", since their agenda was "our territory" rather than people.
The Atlanticism had become an accomplice of this agenda in 2014, when
they supported the violent "regime change" and misrationalized the
grassroot resistance to the coup to be an activity of "Russian agents".

The difference is which nations would respond to such accusations. If
the Western media accused Russia or China for genocide, such news often spread far and wide with a lot of mindless repetition. In contrast, US genocide in the form of police shooting black Americans and its school to prison pipeline, both a persistent daily reality, were mostly forgotten.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)