But there is. America's war were sold to the public as "war on terror", which is on a very surface level a cause that can rally people's sympathies: terrorism is, in theory, a threat to every civilized nation. Russia's war is sold on the basis of a possible threat in the future by a country that is half Russian itself - that's why terms like "brothers' war" and "kindred war" are thrown in sometimes by the propaganda machine. Russia isn't even trying to win the global propaganda war because they know it's a lost battle, they simply can't find a justification that would be seen favorably by the global public opinion. That's why the American and EU glowies are having a field day with it.McGinnis wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 11:25 pmWhich is completely irrelevant. the fact that America has a vast propaganda machine to sell its wars to the sheep and Russia is, for some reason, refusing to even fight the propaganda war doesn't change the fact that, by every objective metric, one is no worse than the other
I'm not saying I believe for a second in the bushite-obamite justifications for their invasions and drone-bombing of brown people's weddings. What I'm saying is that they could sell it to the public opinion much more favorably. Bush's team was, in that regard, Machiavellian geniuses - not only they sold his petty Iraqi war as a "war on terror", they also devised the most unpatriotic set of laws that spit in the Bill of Rights and the American values, and had the schutzpah to call it "The Patriot Act". Brandon only wishes he could sell such bullshit, despite having the lugenpresse on his side (which Bush definitely didn't have besides the usual Fox sycophants).
There's an important difference for optics: Cuba already had nukes stationed on its soil when the US decided to blockade "quarantine" it. Russia is currently reacting on the possibility of missiles being put on Ukraine. Which is OK for them to be worried about, but it isn't enough to justify a full scale invasion.