The mad enemy.
One of the most stupid and unnerving propaganda I know of is that of the mad enemy. The narrative of the mad enemy is the one that explains to you that your enemy is such because he is megalomaniac / imperialist / irrational, and that his moves are the result of some mania of grandeur, rather than dictated by needs and evaluations.
When it comes to Putin in this period it is said that he intends to attack Ukraine for reasons such as:
- restore the soviet union
- imperialism and challenging the West
- psychology of the secret service man.
in reality, if we were objective, and we wanted to go back in history by a few years, we would remember the so-called “Euromissile crisis”.
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trattato_INF
Having positions too close to the military opponent, regardless of the fact that one is free in one's own territory, has already caused problems in the past.
Putin basically complains that if Ukraine entered the NATO sphere, as it is doing, it would deploy forces too close to Russian strategic objectives. In the sense that a missile could hit Moscow in less than 5 minutes.
This is a fact, and is, in principle, the same problem that caused the so-called “Euromissile crisis”, when the US and USSR deployed medium-range missiles in Europe.
In propaganda, it's hard to tell who did what first. But the reaction of Gorbachev's USSR was to keep the tension very high until reaching the negotiation of the INF treaty, a treaty in which it was established that certain missiles could not be in certain areas of the two sides.
Ultimately, that is, such a crisis has already occurred in the past, and Putin is behaving roughly like Gorbachev. Which was certainly not a hawk.
The problem now is that no one is going to offer another INF to the Russians. The Russians have asked several times and aloud for some "reassurance", which can only come from a treaty since we are talking about nations, on the fact that Ukraine does not enter NATO and does not host bases.
The problem with Biden, who is as mediocre and obtuse as Obama was, (not for nothing he was his deputy) is that he is not understanding the historical reference and is not trying to go and offer an INF-like treaty.
Instead, he sticks to quibbles: "NATO cannot have membership limits". Certain. But even at the time of the INF treaty, NATO could have no limits in the deployment of cruise missiles. In fact, a treaty was made precisely to establish such limits.
When I say that the US is deliberately wanting a war, I am saying just that: they are having a "wall to wall" attitude in a situation in which, in the past, a treaty was stipulated.
Russia has every reason to be concerned and to ask about buffer zones. Its historical problem is that Russia is located in what is called the “European plain”, a huge area devoid of natural obstacles to be used as force multipliers in case of war. And this explains why, although Russia has won every invasion attempt, the military budget has been HEAVIER on the side of the defenders than on the attackers: a unique case in the world, since attacking usually costs more than defending.
Putin is by no means irrational, also because he is surrounded by some of the most brilliant generals of the moment. He knows exactly what he is doing.
What he probably fails to understand is why no one is offering him a treaty like INF: a treaty in which a minimum distance is established between certain types of weapons and military forces, and the Russian border.
Of treaties that establish "I do not put weapons X in place Y if you do not put weapons W in place Z" have already been made. And they have been made every time that, in fact, one of the parties feared the deployment of another country.
Not for nothing, during the Cuban nuclear missile crisis, a treaty came out in the end, a sign that not even the US likes to have "otherwise friendly" countries that stockpile weapons on the border.
Contributors to Wikimedia projects 
But the constant of modern democratic politics is that nothing is offered and the maximum confrontation is sought, relying on one's own strength. It is not for nothing that it was not a Democrat who signed the INF, but a Republican: Ronald Reagan.
Instead we prefer to give the reading of Putin the Mad who wants the Soviet Union back.
But the question is simple: what exactly is Putin asking? What he is asking for is a treaty like so many that have existed in the past. What's the point, then?
The point is, if anything, it is the US that continues to niche. And the Russians react accordingly. The history of Georgia is cited over and over, but forgets that a Georgia in NATO could practically be the base from which to cut off Russia from the Black Sea and Caspian, with a single operation.
Similarly, Putin had to take the Krimea, exactly from the moment in which there was talk of joining NATO in Kiev: if there were NATO bases in Krimea, Russia would have almost completely lost all control over its entire southern part, and depending on the bases, Moscow itself would be in check.
From the precise moment in which the affair began, that is, during Obama's mandate, the Democrats have always placed themselves hostile towards the Russians, saying "ok, we are 5 minutes by missile from Moscow, we are practically inside the your territory, we have passed the Dnieper (the only semblance of a natural obstacle), between you and us there are only plains perfect for tanks, BUT you have to accept it ”.
Who wants domination, exactly? Are we sure that Putin wants the "Soviet Union" back?
Although we think that the US Democrats are more "pacifist" because they contain pacifist fringes, in practice we observe that their "wall against wall" policy is the one that started most of the wars made by the Americans, while in the end most of the detente treaties have always been signed by the republicans.
It was therefore not strange to say in 2016 that the US wanted a war in Europe, just as it is not strange to say it today. They are behaving in a way that will force Putin to invade Ukraine.
When the "analysts" keep saying that Putin will not make war because he has not prepared the population for a high number of deaths, something is being said that I think is out of this world.
- no one in the world, except perhaps Churchill, has ever initiated an invasion by promising the people carnage. And we remember that Churchill was attacked. Why "analysts" never expect Putin to prepare the Russians for a carnage, only they know.
- Under these conditions, Putin knows very well that there will be deaths, and resistance and all. But he has no choice, because the uncompromising stance of the US leaves him no choice. CANNOT accept a Ukrainian in NATO, in any way.
Painting Putin as a Pan-Slavist who wants the USSR back falls into the propaganda category of "the enemy is crazy and disconnected from reality". But the problem that Putin denounces is real and materially present: if Ukraine entered NATO and hosted bases there, Russia would be practically defenseless.
Putin's demands are quite clear:
The real problem is that when, in the past, there have been similar disputes, everything has been resolved with a treaty.
But treaties are not the Democrats' specialty.
This is exactly the scenario many Europeans fought for in the 2016 Meme War to get Trump elected.
Now that you have “Biden the Good,” we'll see who was wrong.
But Putin is certainly not crazy, he does not dream of the Soviet Union, and he limits himself to clarifying exactly what he wants: a treaty like INF.