In this case, “propaganda” is a matter of emphasis. I think that there is a very strong case to be made that the USA supported pro EU/pro NATO forces in Ukraine, with weapons, services, and goods, during and after Maidan. This aid influenced Ukraine to join NATO which was a hard red line for Russia. There is a strong case, and historic precedence to be made that the USA pushed, or at least nudged (using aid, which made up 90% of foreign aid) Ukraine to join NATO specifically to draw Russia into a long, protracted conflict with Ukraine.
NATO is an entity that was formed to stop Soviet “spread” into Europe. So.why does it still exist after the fall of USSR? It still functions as a hostile military front against Russia. It makes sense in any context that Russia would not permit a new NATO installation in Ukraine.
Does this justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Fuck no. But that doesnt mean that being objective about the history is propaganda, it means the lead up to the invasion was messy, there were western and Russian elements using Ukraine to carry out their own imperial agenda. Ukraine has been incredibly vulnerable and heavily exploited for a very long time. Ukraine had the lowest standard of living during the USSR, which dropped significantly after the fall, and basically never recovered. Post USSR Russia played a role in this, as did the USA, EU, and NATO.
Propaganda does not mean “facts that don’t suit my camp”. Such facts may be used in propaganda, but doesn’t make them false, context is everything. Being a pro-USA campist is also bad. Even if it puts you on the “side” of the victims in the invasion doesn’t give you the right to disregard the USA’s role in using Ukraine for their own imperialist aganda.
In this case, “propaganda” is a matter of emphasis. I think that there is a very strong case to be made that the USA supported pro EU/pro NATO forces in Ukraine, with weapons, services, and goods, during and after Maidan. This aid influenced Ukraine to join NATO which was a hard red line for Russia. There is a strong case, and historic precedence to be made that the USA pushed, or at least nudged (using aid, which made up 90% of foreign aid) Ukraine to join NATO specifically to draw Russia into a long, protracted conflict with Ukraine.
NATO is an entity that was formed to stop Soviet “spread” into Europe. So.why does it still exist after the fall of USSR? It still functions as a hostile military front against Russia. It makes sense in any context that Russia would not permit a new NATO installation in Ukraine.
Does this justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Fuck no. But that doesnt mean that being objective about the history is propaganda, it means the lead up to the invasion was messy, there were western and Russian elements using Ukraine to carry out their own imperial agenda. Ukraine has been incredibly vulnerable and heavily exploited for a very long time. Ukraine had the lowest standard of living during the USSR, which dropped significantly after the fall, and basically never recovered. Post USSR Russia played a role in this, as did the USA, EU, and NATO.
Propaganda does not mean “facts that don’t suit my camp”. Such facts may be used in propaganda, but doesn’t make them false, context is everything. Being a pro-USA campist is also bad. Even if it puts you on the “side” of the victims in the invasion doesn’t give you the right to disregard the USA’s role in using Ukraine for their own imperialist aganda.
Edit: gonna post some links for reference https://thewallwillfall.org/2022/04/17/retired-swiss-intelligence-officer-explains-ukraine/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/788874844/how-u-s-military-aid-has-helped-ukraine-since-2014
https://www.stimson.org/2022/u-s-security-assistance-to-ukraine-breaks-all-precedents/
https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea?s=08