Often the dark actions are wrapped in good words. So we either read "we Russians stand for the world peace" and understand we need to prepare for war, or don't read nothing at all, except intelligence reports about increasing military forces on the borders.
> 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?
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.
> 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?