Propaganda is rhetoric designed to produce support for or against particular decisions/actions. Russian propaganda is shaped to meet Putin's goals, but easily disproven and consistently, blatantly false.
I'm spurring debate in a conflict ridden world. It's important to understand and discuss all sides, but to maintain an understanding of historical context to guide this discourse.
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
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?
What do you understand as propaganda? And how do you designate what is and what isnt (If you do)
Propaganda is rhetoric designed to produce support for or against particular decisions/actions. Russian propaganda is shaped to meet Putin's goals, but easily disproven and consistently, blatantly false.
Sounds kinda like kinda what you're trying to do here. Would you agree?
I'm spurring debate in a conflict ridden world. It's important to understand and discuss all sides, but to maintain an understanding of historical context to guide this discourse.
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
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?