The assumption is that blacks are the prototypical victims and so foreigners and non-Russians that are attacked are sort of honorarily black. Most aren't fair skinned and fair haired. Heck, a fair number of Russians aren't blond and esp. pale.
Blond Lithuanians and Estonians have been attacked. It's a lot easier to spot foreigners if they're Caucasian, Central Asian, or a graduate of Patrice Lumumba University in Soviet times. Lots of reasons for this ethnic animus.
Westerners take in their own attitudes and assumptions, so the attacks are filtered through Western assumptions of racism. It's hard not to be ethnocentric, esp. when you pride yourself on being quite non-ethnocentric. Confirmation bias rules.
Xenophobia is a beast with various heads. Some might the imprint "racism." Some can't bear that imprint.
Some of the distribution of this xenophobia is class-based. Some is nationalism-based (with a lot of national humiliation mixed in). If you don't feel threatened, if you don't feel humiliated, you're much less likely to be xenophobic. Putin's appeal is precisely this: A strong Russia defending itself against outsiders that are trying to threaten it. The economic woes were because of the West. And all enemies are, ultimately, agents of the West. Unless you're in southern Siberia. Then your focus may be elsewhere.
It's the same in Ukraine. Some of the protesters were hooligans--which in this context is the English word, as in "soccer hooligans." Ill-bred low-SES low-wage or unemployed thugs who need an object for their frustration. The opposing team is a good target. So is the opposing team's supporters. Or those who aren't in their "team"--not suitably Ukrainian. They were "racist"--but the object of their ire was Russians.
In both Russia and Ukraine some of the problem is that the foreigners are often deemed carpetbaggers.
= new reply since forum marked as read
