Under your own definition earlier propaganda would apply to individuals as well, not only states. Also I’d disagree that propaganda is one sided. Good propaganda encompasses and undermines other viewpoints.
As for spurring debate and maintaining an understanding for historical context. How do you contextualize among others things like this:
Biden predicting in 1997 what would happen if NATO expands
https://www.c-span.org/video/?86974-1/nato-expansion
If Biden knew that Russia wouldn’t tolerate NATO expansion, why push for it anyway if war is on the table?
Yes and I asked you what changed and if you can contextualize. You yourself understand that historical context is important. After all ignoring historical context would rob this conflict of it’s meaning, no? Or are you one of those rubes that believes Putin ordered an attack out of his own volition?
There’s plenty of historical context to cover. Like how Ukraine became the breadbasket feeding the Soviets in the USSR at the expense of their own population.
Sure but you’re ignoring that the Soviet Union got dissolved and had a friendly western handpicked succesor at that point. So no more threat to UA, no? NATOs purpose was also a reaction to the creation of Soviet Russia, but what was it’s purpose after the dissolution of the SU? Why join and expand NATO when everyones friendly now?
If everyone was friendly, why did Ukraine not give Russia their soverign land? The people of Ukraine voted for Zelensky fighting Russian influence for this exact reason. NATO continues to exist to promote stability and peace in the EU full stop. They’re a defensive pact to deter outside aggression. Ukraine believes joining this pact will protect them from Russian aggression. Much like Finland and Sweden. Come on now, even Switzerland has chosen the side of Ukraine here.
If everyone was friendly, why did Ukraine not give Russia their soverign land?
Everyone was friendly right after the dissolution of the SU. With the prospect of NATO expansion and initially friendly Russia getting declined 3 times into the alliance they added 1 and 1 together.
The people of Ukraine voted for Zelensky fighting Russian influence for this exact reason.
How do you differentiate between propaganda and “spurring debate”?
As usual:
Propaganda generally originates from a state and is one sided. Debate can originate between any two individuals.
Under your own definition earlier propaganda would apply to individuals as well, not only states. Also I’d disagree that propaganda is one sided. Good propaganda encompasses and undermines other viewpoints.
As for spurring debate and maintaining an understanding for historical context. How do you contextualize among others things like this:
Biden predicting in 1997 what would happen if NATO expands https://www.c-span.org/video/?86974-1/nato-expansion If Biden knew that Russia wouldn’t tolerate NATO expansion, why push for it anyway if war is on the table?
Putin being handselected by Clinton and Yeltsin https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-s-a-solid-man-declassified-memos-offer-window-into-yeltsin-clinton-relationship/29462317.html How does he go from good guy to bad guy in such a short span of time? What changed?
The leaked nuland phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk38Jk_JL0g
1997 was 26 years ago, much can change in this timeframe. However, It’s also a blink of an eye on the geologic timeline.
yet it didn’t, curious
I mean history show otherwise, so that’s a strange conclusion to draw.
Yes and I asked you what changed and if you can contextualize. You yourself understand that historical context is important. After all ignoring historical context would rob this conflict of it’s meaning, no? Or are you one of those rubes that believes Putin ordered an attack out of his own volition?
There’s plenty of historical context to cover. Like how Ukraine became the breadbasket feeding the Soviets in the USSR at the expense of their own population.
Sure but you’re ignoring that the Soviet Union got dissolved and had a friendly western handpicked succesor at that point. So no more threat to UA, no? NATOs purpose was also a reaction to the creation of Soviet Russia, but what was it’s purpose after the dissolution of the SU? Why join and expand NATO when everyones friendly now?
If everyone was friendly, why did Ukraine not give Russia their soverign land? The people of Ukraine voted for Zelensky fighting Russian influence for this exact reason. NATO continues to exist to promote stability and peace in the EU full stop. They’re a defensive pact to deter outside aggression. Ukraine believes joining this pact will protect them from Russian aggression. Much like Finland and Sweden. Come on now, even Switzerland has chosen the side of Ukraine here.
Everyone was friendly right after the dissolution of the SU. With the prospect of NATO expansion and initially friendly Russia getting declined 3 times into the alliance they added 1 and 1 together.
Zelenski got voted for because he promised an end to the civil war in donbas https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30414955 https://www.france24.com/en/20190416-russian-speakers-ukraine-candidate-talking-language
Like in Yugoslavia?