>...state the origin of the conflict as if a sovereign people being invaded deserved it.
I've done noting of the sort. The origins of the conflict are more complex than your framing allows. Furthermore, as we attempt to describe those origins, it would be helpful if you didn't confuse that description of events with a prescription or endorsement of specific actors.
If we are unable to describe something coherently, we are unable to reason or have a reasonable discussion around it. Reasonable people should be able to hold distinct concepts in their mind simultaneously, even if they are seemingly contradictory from a surface level. As an example, we can and should be able to describe the events, speculate as to the underlying incentives of various parties and simultaneously hold moral principles which reject the use of violence.
Propaganda can sometimes mislead by conflating these things. This prevents reasonable discussion.
Just weirdly weirdly exactly the same themes and even the same words as the actual declaration of war by the aggressor nation - Russia[1].
But you know. No agency whatsoever or something. Just straight up impossible for the 2nd largest nuclear power on the planet not to invade a neighboring sovereign state in a war of conquest.
[1] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-putin-s-declar...
Professor John Mearsheimer of the realist school has some hour long lectures on the topic of Ukraine. Some even precede the war itself. Obviously as a disclaimer, I do not agree with everything he has to say. You can pick and choose which sources or interviewers better appeal to your partisan biases. I won't choose for you, as you might dismiss it based on the source. That said, he's spoken with everyone from Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now!" to the Hoover Institution.
You might consider how your framing of super weird Russian propaganda applies to his lectures and interviews.
Let's go back to the poster's super weird assertion. By definition, a provocation is something which results in a response. Observing that it is a provocation isn't the same as endorsing the response. Knee jerk categorization doesn't remove this discernment. Instead it misleads by glossing over the details. I would regard that to be a byproduct of propaganda.