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?
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.
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
Exactly! Ukraine's goals aim to unify a diverse population! Majority and minority alike. It's a beautiful resistance movement towards outside Russian aggression negatively impacting the lives of the Russian minority in Eastern Ukraine!
To my knowledge it was a direct policy decision from Putin. It'd be nice to have a free and fair election to see some positive change towards this poor decision making.
NATO only expands with mutual agreement between the parties involved. If a sovereign country feels the need to join NATO, just follow their reasoning to learn about the historical context.
NATO was a reaction to Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union was a reaction to NATO. If the Soviet Union fell, who was the great enemy? What was it's purpose, if not for keeping western global hegemeny. NATO historically has always been the agressing force. Learn about history to get a proper context, lib.
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?
Zelensky was voted for many reasons, this is surely a component of it! His charismatic effect and desire for sovereign governance are others.
Yeah but the protection of the Russian minority was a key mandate.
You want to talk about historical context yet fail to contextualize anything shown to you. Your "spurring debate" is actually just bad propaganda
Exactly! Ukraine's goals aim to unify a diverse population! Majority and minority alike. It's a beautiful resistance movement towards outside Russian aggression negatively impacting the lives of the Russian minority in Eastern Ukraine!
I wonder why and how that "outside Russian aggression" came about
To my knowledge it was a direct policy decision from Putin. It'd be nice to have a free and fair election to see some positive change towards this poor decision making.
I wonder why that policy decision was made
Similar to the reasons Moldova, Georgia, and the Kuril Islands were occupied. Russian expansionism.
NATO expansion*
NATO only expands with mutual agreement between the parties involved. If a sovereign country feels the need to join NATO, just follow their reasoning to learn about the historical context.
NATO was a reaction to Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union was a reaction to NATO. If the Soviet Union fell, who was the great enemy? What was it's purpose, if not for keeping western global hegemeny. NATO historically has always been the agressing force. Learn about history to get a proper context, lib.
The Soviet Union came well before NATO was founded, but nice try.
Soviet Union 1922 NATO 1949 Warsaw pact 1955
Exactly! These are important dates to understanding the current state of international relations.