This article says (Russian) propaganda aims to increase confusion, not foster beliefs.
It says that smart people are taken in by propaganda, and the reason we know this is because of vigilant even smarter people.
It declares that the Ukraine people are interested in joining NATO because of Russian attacks not the other way around. But since when did the U.S. policy makers seriously care what the Ukrainian people? They don't care what the people of U.S. want!
Why are they making categorical claims about a population at large but picking on 3 influencers?
It's very well understood across all forms of mass media that the primary purpose is to psychically agitate audiences while rendering them passive to policy. This is merely confirmed by the engineering of social media, not a new cause.
There's no honest reckoning that can blame NATO for the Russian invasion, but the U.S was carrying out provocative political moves knowing this must arouse Russian aggression.
Eatern Germany is the line that has defined expansionist policy overall. As to the legalese of international law...
The article's litany of Russian aggression being not limited to NATO includes events before the formation of NATO, and strives to dump the history of two world wars down the memory hole.
Morally, Chomsky would be the first to say that responsibility for events belongs to the predictable consequences of one's own actions. But this article pleas that actually Russia is responsible for U.S. actions to destabilize the region, you know, because freedom!
Regarding arguing for truth in a "post truth world": Sounds like propaganda rules the roost.
As to telling others how to think about democracy, the U.S. really needs to look in the mirror.
