All these rubbish on freedom of speech ignore the key difference. Individual still matters.
1. NATO is solely a defensive organization. Libya is the clearest counterexample but there others.
2. NATO never gave assurances it wouldnt move east. There are a number of recently released diplomatic caches that prove this to be false https://larouchepub.com/other/2021/4824-chatham_house_lies_a...
https://news.antiwar.com/2022/02/21/uncovered-document-revea...
2 is sometimes done selectively (by saying NATO never gave legal guarantees) but sometimes not.
2. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Even if such assurances had been made, a number (most by now?) of former parts of the Soviet Union have stepped away from it and applied for NATO. Why should Lithuania be eternally bound to an assurance made to the Soviet delegation, which at the time represented Lithuania? Even if all former members of the USSR applied for NATO, should they be denied because of the alleged assurance in the past to an entity that no longer exists?
Yes, and the contents of those discussions have been released under FOIA.
>This was such a minor topic that Gorbachev didn't even recall it ever having been on agenda.
I have no idea why Gorbachev's memory failed but it's clearly there in the minutes. In many discussions.
Pretending that it never happened is a lie.
>The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore
Russia is the successor state.
Russia has used this polarization to its advantage in recent years by adding its own targeted misinformation to the mix designed to further increase polarization (as opposed as to merely convincing people of their notion of the truth). Weaponized propaganda basically. Divisions in society erode the strength of alliances like NATO, it causes people to vote for outlier politicians, etc. Zelenski is a good example of such a politician where this actually backfired: he really stepped up. But the strategy was perhaps successful in the sense that Ukrainian governance has probably not been that great in recent years. The usual mix of populism, inept politicians, corruption, and mismanagement.
The Russians are world leading experts when it comes to mass delusion, propaganda, and misinformation and they completely control domestic media and information distribution. As far as many Russians are concerned this is a peace mission that is being frustrated by armies of neo-nazis sponsored by evil westerners. That's the official narrative right now. It's bat shit crazy of course but it follows many years of misinformation, indoctrination, and propaganda in a country that hasn't had a free press for a long time to correct any of these believes.
Also a note of caution: The Russians are extremely clued in and all over public fora like this. So, beware that what you read might be written by them. It might look and sound reasonable to you but that doesn't mean it isn't carefully designed to manipulate you into disagreeing with others. It would be preying on your confirmation bias. It doesn't matter what that bias is, they'll feed it. It's a divide and conquer strategy. They'll happily feed inflammatory opinions to both sides of a debate just to make them hate each other some more.
If you hadn't noticed, politics were kind of intense lately.
Is it? Or is it just like the documentary you mention, somehow factual but leaving you only with contempt and outrage?
In time of peace, value of human life is infinite, thus fredom of someone ends where freedom of somewhere else starts. Nobody can cut basic freedoms of someone else without court decision.
In time of war, this freedom creates vulnerability, so modern democraties have utalitarian laws designed to maximise survivability of nation as whole instead. It's not so important for behemoths, but it's essential for smaller countries. However, even in large and powerful democraties there are loopholes around basic freedoms for desperate times, such as natural disaster, or assault, or war, etc.
For example, it's not allowed to shut somebody else, except when defending or to save life of someone else. It's not allowed to force somebody else to keep silence, except when it puts lifes of others in danger, such as hate speech, or division by race, color of skin, nationality, religion, income, etc.
Russian outlets are doing just that. They are trying to portrait other nations as evils. They are telling to Ukrainians that Jews are rulling our country (half truth, many politics in Ukraine are Jews), then they tell to Jews that Ukrainians are Nazi, to induce fighting between nationalities, to start civil war.
This creates danger for everybody, so we cried for years to shut down Russian propaganda. Nobody listened to us until today.
Ideally, any limitation of freedom is there to actually guarantee freedom, e.g. your freedom is limited in the form of an obligation to come to a police station to submit an explanation, but thanks to that the police can protect people from those that would otherwise limit their freedoms.
In similar vein, freedom of speech has to be limited, when some propaganda could lead to the decrease of the freedom.
It is tricky of course to judge what limitations are justified, but I find the sanctions against russian news sources on the quite safe side.
It's always preferable to counter propaganda with free speech. Even liars deserve the opportunity to speak. This is especially true when there is no formally declared war between the US and Russia.
But there is a big difference between excluding one source (which is directly and formally controlled by the Russian state).. and putting 15 year sentences on "publishing things that are not coming from the state news agency" (TAS)
BTW, and just FYI, if you want you can still read rt.com using 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8
It is true that in the US, if you want to live in a bubble, you can. However, that's a choice. There are many, many other information channels. And they are free to say whatever they want.
The real issue in the US, is the fact that so many people choose to live in a bubble. I bumped into this Vox piece the other day, "How American conservatives turned against the vaccine", that illustrates quite well how it really is destroying the US
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0dQfRRrEQActually best to observe is at the Olympics, there is across competitions and therefore across commentators, a very consistent national hierarchy for which athletes the moderator will make excuses or for which athletes the moderator seeks to qualify the performance. (Think of doping for example.)