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?
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?
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
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?