In order to see anything scandalous on the part of Democrats, Ukraine, etc. some kind of theory (that makes sense to Americans) of how they caused the invasion seems to me to be necessary.
Right up until Russia invaded, all this stuff was just floating around with no explanation, but then it all fell into place. More than a decade of political nonsense now looks like it had one purpose, especially the whole "Hillary the warmonger" line.
If you are Russian or sympathetic, feel free to elaborate on how everything fits together from your perspective.
Sure, lots of people could be corrupt, but one assumes they were corrupted deliberately in service of a singular goal. There's no time-warping back to undo what has happened.
Propaganda can be really masterful, but eventually one has to perform the action that is the point of the whole operation, and then it all falls apart.
Anyway, if you really want the big narrative it's there. I suggest you watch Robert Mearsheimer's talks. He's one of the most highly respected scholars in international relations and he has explained pretty well how a lot of western neoliberal fuckery in Ukraine led to the recent activity. One obvious piece is the broad expansion of NATO into eastern Europe despite US promised to the contrary in the aftermath of USSR collapse. Perhaps less credible but relevant are allegations of US State / CIA involvement in Orange Revolution and Euromaidan. Biden et al. perhaps didn't care for the strategic issues beyond wanting to ensure a sufficiently friendly / pliable government to continue their corrupt schemes.
(PS: despite username I am not Russian, that is not the source of my interest / bias in these matters.)
I prefer to call it a "counter-narrative".
Prior to the invasion, a lot of loosely or unrelated bits could be assembled spontaneously by conspiracy-minded people who disliked the US government, NATO, etc.
Average people in the US DGAF about Ukraine, and didn't know what was going on with the impeachment and the allegations about Biden.
But the invasion provided a unifying element to make it all make sense - as part of a Russian plan.
So this sort of thing:
"he has explained pretty well how a lot of western neoliberal fuckery in Ukraine led to the recent activity"
seems to not be up to providing a good counter-narrative any more. It's weak because the "glue" holding the structure together has dissolved.
If there are professionals involved in the campaign against "western neoliberals", I'm curious what they are thinking or whether they are just going through the motions.
One more problem, besides not having a unified story, is not having a unified opponent. There is no strongman like Putin on the other side to target.
I noticed you assassinated Vindmans character but left Musk alone. Talk about hacks, amiright? I’ll take the lack of explicit push back as agreement Musk is a poser.
Vindman engaged in politics. Biden engaged in global politics. Shock. Awe. Trump did icky mean bad man things too! Shock, awe!
I’m not gonna ruffle my feathers over political agents being political agents. My point was Musk is also a politically driven agent.
Want to see a real quid pro quo? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jyT1rnW9fA. In case you don't want to click through, that's Joe Biden, admitting -- in fact bragging -- on video in a public discussion, that he withheld a $1 billion loan from Ukraine while he was VP. The condition? The Ukrainian government had to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma, the company where Hunter Biden was on the board.