[flagged]
> Otherwise, this is just agitprop.
On whos side?
Will anybody honestly argue about Russia's expansionist policy? After events which can be interpreted as a solid confirmation of that? Will anybody honestly willing to twist words and images as much as to question this? If so, what's the dictionary which can be agreed upon, so the dialog is possible at all, at the level of "citation requested"? Where's the evidence that if a picture is presented which describes the events the discussion won't move to the critique of the description, not to the conclusions the picture was meant to illustrate?
Or, in other words, who's doing agitprop here?
This is about preventing the circumstances whereby yet more war and calamity are foisted on the world.
Western public love to pontificate that they 'know' (telepathically?) what the Russian state 'wants'. But they can't point to a single policy document to support their argument - just more agitprop.
>Or, in other words, who's doing agitprop here?
Those who profess to know what official state policy is, without actually having read any.
Russia’s expansionist policy, on the other hand, continues to cast a long shadow across Europe. The country has a long history of conquest, but for centuries, its vast dominion resembled a loose federation of fiefdoms, not a single state; it wasn’t until the emergence of the USSR that a cohesive national identity — along with a renewed focus on global expansion — started to take hold. Through various machinations, the USSR soon ended up annexing Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and seizing military and political control of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and other neighboring states. For decades, the residents of these lands suffered repression and economic hardships — and were barred from leaving the Soviet-controlled world.
What policy? This is a generalization. Specifically, which articles ratified by the Kremlin make this official state policy?
Any blowhard can say what they want. Where is the official state policy to support this argument?
> Citation requested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russi...
Is the deputy prime minister of Russia demanding Alaska back enough of a citation?
Or do you actually not care for any evidence, comrade?
Current Russian regime knows that it cannot clearly explain the invasion of Ukraine. And yet, they invaded, occupied territories, quickly annexed them etc.
Something something "actions speak louder than words".
How do YOU 'know' that? This is supposition and not based on any evidence.
Show me where a representative of the Russian Federation states, with clarity, that they know they cannot clearly explain the invasion of Ukraine.
This is just coffee-shop psychology, weaponized. You don't actually know anything. Read more official state policies - especially those of your own state.
February 24th, 2023, so it's not some ancient history...
Wasn't PNAC a non-government think-tank?
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine...
https://time.com/6150046/ukraine-statehood-russia-history-pu...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/opinion/ukraine-war-natio...