Read on Twitter
It's really fascinating to me how despite the fact China and Russia persecute Muslims or kill them in industrial numbers, there isn't a similar movement of popular or state-backed enmity the way you have with America.
You could go back to something as old as Eisenhower blocking the tripartite aggression on Egypt in 1956 or as recent as halting the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia, and even then America is branded as the Great Satan. They even funded jihadists in Afghanistan!
Not to say America doesn't have its catastrophic tragedies like the second Iraq War, the overthrow of Mossadegh, backing dictators, selling weapons, etc. But in sheer numbers it pales to the crimes of Russia and China, certainly in internal persecution measures.
Israel can't really explain it either because this reflexive rejection is borne by younger folks who don't even remember the second intifada and aren't as steeped in the Palestinian cause emotionally as previous generations given the Arab spring.
Moreover, while America's record is mixed on standing with popular movements, such as their tragic inaction on Syria, Russia actively stifled popular resistance and literally bombed thousands to death in Syria.
Russia did have its heydey as a villain in the popular imagination back in the 1990s because of Chechnya, but they largely get carte blanche now despite Syria.
You would think for instance that leaders like Erdogan who derive some legitimacy from their self-proclaimed role as defenders of Muslims would rush to use the Uighur issue to strengthen his popular base, since his party has been steadily losing popular support.
Instead he antagonizes Europe (for good reason) but is silent on China and Russia. I know the trade argument, but surely the bellicosity with the West has harmed relations to a great extent too and yet he is willing to bear the political cost.
I do wonder if part of it has to do with the idea that autocratic leaders are more likely to be perceived as "statesmen" deserving respect and admiration than weak democratic types who leave or change their minds.
For instance, in 2005-2006 popular polls often showed that Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah, especially after the Lebanon war, were the most popular leaders in the region.
Erdogan still holds significant popularity despite the popular state narrative in Egypt, the Gulf, and elsewhere of his MB sympathies and imperial ambitions.
The "why do they hate us" narrative is obviously reductive and a little imbecilic in that it reflects an end of history naivete, but I wonder if it's worth exploring the intellectualization of this disparity of popular perception of US vs China/Russia
