This is pretty much the official position of NATO and the Western governments. It might be a controversial position in the sense of "we're not doing enough", but I don't see who would cancel anyone for that.

> And if you're "anti-war" in the sense of "this is all NATO's fault; Russia was right to invade", you get cancelled very quickly, because you have become indistinguishable from a Russian propagandist, and we know that there are plenty of Russian propagandists trying to influence the west's cultural mindset.

I hope there'll eventually be room for a position along "We should investigate whether the West's methods actually match their values - but Russia still lost all legitimacy the moment they attacked a sovereign nation".

I do believe there is a lot of hypocrisy in the current rethoric and in the rebuttals of russian claims. Of course the USA has a sphere of influence - it's commonly called "the West". And we (as in "the West") seem to have our fair share of propaganda outlets as well, such as Radio Free Europe or the National Endowment for Democracy. I'd like if this stuff was discussed more openly. (For my own sanity as well. My knowledge here is also not more than some bits and pieces and discussions with relatives. I'd absolutely be interested in arguments from both sides)

What also worries me is that the term "misinformation" and "propaganda" now seems to be assigned solely based on where a claim comes from, without needing to present any arguments that actually contradict the claim. I can't see how that squares with the values of free speech and press freedom. I wonder if the Snowden leaks would also be labelled "misinformation" if they were released in today's climate.

(To be clear - we're still better than Russia in that regard. At least, you only get cancelled for that stuff here and not jailed for 15 years. But I still think it's a worrying development)