In the crazy speech apparently Putins first, and main argument was Natos eastward expansion. According to DW.
While other pundits found, that he also didnt speak about Nato almost at all (instead he delivered a crazy rant, mind you -) and instead made his encrazed speech about Stalin, nationalism and his own personal historic interpretation (which later turned out to be an old, shared history concept commonplace in most of russia, by virtue of their education system, but which in the short term was also declared appeasement to the intellectual class by western commentators for the first two weeks), that shows that he is dreaming of a revitalization of the soviet empire, which he hates. Because he put down Stalin in that speech “for no reason”. He’s that crazy.
Dont remember the exact speech where that assessment was made, but I’m certain I’ve linked the video in here before. Actually, probably quite a few, where that assessment was made.
What the DW video missed: click
I’m sure that was just a harmless mistake tough - they asked a former US ambassador to Ukraine what he understood those commitments would have been, and thats clearly enough information for most common people, DW is targeting an explanation video at. And then arrived at:
“The impact of NATO expansion can better be understood by not focusing on NATO expansion at all.”
Thank you DW!
Oh, and thats btw. the narrative that was first created by the Hoover institute on March the 6th. To sideline Mearsheimers view, which was stated as the first sentence of the Panel created to discredit him, but later at least Mearsheimer was allowed to publish an article in the economist stating his long held views.
Thats more than propaganda, thats an attempt at rewriting the majority common narrative.
And for DW - you do that with an explainer video, with freaking “childrens programming (TV show)” tonality, and catchy BGM, come on - learn it, its so easy, bang your head to the beat? You’ll get it, its so easy!
Oh - and when you get to the narrative, that at least one of the concepts that threatened Putin in terms of Nato expansion had been the “success factor of democracy”, then please also dont forget, that Ukraine wasnt exactly a prospering nation (IMF report) beforehand, and then dont stop there, but at least go into Orwells interpretation that wars in foreign countries are only fought if “moneyed classes” think they are going to profit from them, in terms of monetary gain, systemic stabilization, demographic concerns, …
In which case “fear of democracy” also has nothing to do with it, neither would have Nato - and while we are at it, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland are not well functioning democracies? (edit: And - to a lesser extent, Armenia.) The fear of those countries must have been so stark, it literally became one of the main explanations for an entire DW piece on the reasons for war in the Ukraine.
The first explanation are geopolitical concerns - you know like NATO, or shit, my access to the black sea will be gone in just a few years. Or shit, long range missiles, that can be armed with nuclear payloads will be stationed there. Or shit, there are energy resources there we might need.
The third explanation is “Putins personal reasons”.
Fuck off.
You know a dead beat easy way to identify propaganda? When a news channel tells you something is the case, because of a bad persons fear of a higher concept that you love, and a crazy persons personal interests.
Boy, did the Hoover Institute FUCKING deliver this time around.
