Quote from: serveria.com on Today at 10:39:04 AM

You mention propaganda in every post but ironically, your own posts look like propaganda more. Perhaps you can't see it but it's obvious for the reader.

You see, there's NATO and as a military alliance always has to have an enemy or a potential enemy they're grouping against. Otherwise there's no point to form an alliance! In NATO case the enemies are Russia and China. NATO has already promised they're not going to expand further east but didn't keep their promise: they accepted the Baltic States, Turkey or whoever else... then Putin found out that NATO is going to accept Ukraine and got mad probably as he considered Ukraine one of his satellite puppet states. Which is pretty normal reaction if you ask me: remember the Cuban crisis in the 50ies? The US got mad and were close to pressing the red button just after finding out the USSR plans to place some nukes in Cuba.

Now imagine Putin investing huge amounts of money to influence the politicians in Mexico, financing a coup, visiting Mexico and giving some cookies to locals then installing a pro-Russian president and parliament. Founding several military bases in Mexico, providing Mexico with Russian armament and military equipment and training Mexican army. So what would the US do in response to that? What do you think? It's not hard to guess, is it? Grin

I partly agree

In fact, the promotion of any idea is, in a sense, propaganda. Or advertising

The only question is - is this an advertisement based on facts or is it a fake advertisement!
This is a huge difference.
Let me clarify - Russian propaganda is built solely on fakes and attempts to mislead its population and groups of people with pro-Russian views. Just watch and read their media! By the way, the media with TOTAL control of the state and the legislative framework, the purpose of which is to completely exclude any other opinions and even the publication of FACTS.
The US also has propaganda. But it is not based on total fakes. Yes, they recognize that the world is not unipolar, there are countries that can act as a regional or geopolitical counterweight to the United States. But in the same USA there is no total propaganda from the region - "everyone except us is nonentities, we will destroy everyone, this is our right. Everyone attacked us. We are surrounded by enemies. Russia wants to take over our resources and China wants to make us homosexuals"

and etc. .P.

Regarding NATO, NATO did not invite us into its membership. And a very important note - until February 2014, Ukraine did not even have ideas about joining NATO. Just read the Ukrainian legislation. The first official document appeared only in 2018, when Ukraine appreciated and realized that any peaceful dialogues and agreements with Russia do not make sense! And only after that a meaningful decision was made on the POTENTIAL opportunity to enter this bloc in the future to strengthen the security of Ukraine. The narrative that Russia took preemptive steps because Ukraine is joining NATO began to be dispersed already when President Poroshenko was in power, who really built relations with the West and accelerated the rupture of ties (economic and non-economic) with Russia. But by this time, Russia had already been destroying Ukrainian cities for 4 years, the population, seizing territories ... Before that, if you listen to Putin's speeches, the goal of the attack on Ukraine was ... "saving the Russian-speaking population" ... by destroying it ...

By the way, Putin's opinion and his vision of what Ukraine is for him is the fruit of his complexes. By the way, let me remind you that the Russian rhetoric about Putin as "the collector of the territories of the USSR, up to the borders of the Warsaw Pact" appeared after 2010, and apart from imperial ambitions and a sense of permissiveness (due to the softness of the West) there was nothing under it. And that was BEFORE the attack on Ukraine. At the same time, at that time, NATO had not expanded its borders for a long time, and many combat units in the EU were disbanded altogether.

By the way, about the Caribbean crisis, I will clarify - it was not the United States that initiated it. The point was a little different. The United States, within the framework of NATO, and open confrontation with the USSR, in response to the steps of the USSR, also placed nuclear weapons in NATO member countries. At that time there was a certain parity in nuclear weapons in the European part. Plus, the USSR was armed with a huge number of strategic carriers of nuclear weapons, which could hit the territory of the United States. But the USSR went to the aggravation and placed nuclear weapons in Cuba, in close proximity to the United States. This was already a challenge that led to an increase in tension and, in fact, to the very Caribbean crisis.

I am sure that with the parity of forces, neither the United States nor the European partners in NATO wanted a nuclear war, but they were obliged to show that in the event of a nuclear war from the USSR, this would lead to mutual total destruction.