As an armchair internet commentator it's so weird how you managed to cook up verbatim wordage to Russian propaganda and chose to state the origin of the conflict as if a sovereign people being invaded deserved it.
Please stop presuming malicious intent. If you want to have a discussion, try starting by assuming good faith. If you do not wish to have a discussion, well...
>...state the origin of the conflict as if a sovereign people being invaded deserved it.
I've done noting of the sort. The origins of the conflict are more complex than your framing allows. Furthermore, as we attempt to describe those origins, it would be helpful if you didn't confuse that description of events with a prescription or endorsement of specific actors.
If we are unable to describe something coherently, we are unable to reason or have a reasonable discussion around it. Reasonable people should be able to hold distinct concepts in their mind simultaneously, even if they are seemingly contradictory from a surface level. As an example, we can and should be able to describe the events, speculate as to the underlying incentives of various parties and simultaneously hold moral principles which reject the use of violence.
Propaganda can sometimes mislead by conflating these things. This prevents reasonable discussion.
Again, just super weird to say "the deliberately provoked proxy war" and not "the Russian invasion of Ukraine".
Just weirdly weirdly exactly the same themes and even the same words as the actual declaration of war by the aggressor nation - Russia[1].
But you know. No agency whatsoever or something. Just straight up impossible for the 2nd largest nuclear power on the planet not to invade a neighboring sovereign state in a war of conquest.
If the extent of your reasoning ends with hasty generalizations (specifically, perceived parallels with Russian propaganda), many things will seem super weird. Simplistic categorization is a poor way to model the world. In a productive discussion, further inquiry allows us to narrow in on the dispute. Typically this process clarifies the details in question.
Professor John Mearsheimer of the realist school has some hour long lectures on the topic of Ukraine. Some even precede the war itself. Obviously as a disclaimer, I do not agree with everything he has to say. You can pick and choose which sources or interviewers better appeal to your partisan biases. I won't choose for you, as you might dismiss it based on the source. That said, he's spoken with everyone from Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now!" to the Hoover Institution.
You might consider how your framing of super weird Russian propaganda applies to his lectures and interviews.
Mearsheimer is quite literally Russian propaganda. See the title pages of his books. The books are paid by "the Valdai Discussion Club", a propaganda arm of the Russian government.
Guilt by association is a poor substitute for an argument. The partisan takes on this site have eclipsed actual discussion. Mearshiemer has also appeared with a variety of think tanks, because he is widely respected. It is easy to cherry pick one. It should be obvious how this line of reasoning is flawed, especially in the context of non-prescriptive realism.
Let's go back to the poster's super weird assertion. By definition, a provocation is something which results in a response. Observing that it is a provocation isn't the same as endorsing the response. Knee jerk categorization doesn't remove this discernment. Instead it misleads by glossing over the details. I would regard that to be a byproduct of propaganda.
I have no horse in this race but if you want a news source or opinion on the pro-Russia side of the things and steelmanning the russian side, this channel is good.
