For example, whenever someone brings up Ukraine, when is the last time they also provided the historical context just prior to the Russian escalation?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/americas-ukra...
This is the author of the content.
https://www.cato.org/people/ted-galen-carpenter
There are other articles and sources events described
Just a bit of what you might missed.
"...It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country—especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government—an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’s blessing, but apparently with its assistance..."
And whatever US did doesn't justify using political instability to annex a part of Ukraine. Russia did it because it could and there was an opportunity.
The point is that there is only one prevailing viewpoint without the context of contributors to the conflict. Why would this not be included? Maybe everyone would still reach the same conclusion; however, if historical context is being withheld, how can anyone know if their assessment is logical.