Propaganda presumes lies. Official position is just that: official position. Kremlin believes that Ukraine is preparing to war. There are reports about Ukraine forces gathering up, so those beliefs probably are justified.
There's not, just like there's not any presumption that BBC reports about Russian forces are not lying. So one should weight all the information and choose which one to believe. I expressed my point of view which might be wrong. There's absolutely no reason right now for Russia to invade Ukraine. They had plenty of time before. They have to finish Nord Stream 2, so they absolutely don't want to impose any additional sanctions on themselves. While US have all the incentive to break bonds between Russia and Germany and to prevent Nord Stream 2, so they commanded Zelensky to start a war, hoping that Russia will join it and Europe will be forced to impose additional sanctions.
Russia could have attacked before. Russia could attack later, when Nord Stream 2 is finished and Germany is on hook and won't go anywhere. But right now it's just the wrong time.
Do you think the US has such influence over _any_ country to command it to go to war with another country?
> They have to finish Nord Stream 2, so they absolutely don't want to impose any additional sanctions on themselves.
One would think so, yes; but on the other hand, hasn't Russia annoyed the Western world enough over the last 6-7 years, with Syria, Skripal, or Navalny, despite its obvious need to finish Nord Stream?
> Do you think the US has such influence over _any_ country to command it to go to war with another country?
They definitely have enough influence to suggest doing so. I remember Victorya Nuland openly supporting Ukraine revolution by physically being there, so obviously they supported them financially. And when US pays someone dollars, they expect something in return. Ukraine officials promised to their people that Ukraine will join NATO, so that's another leverage.
> One would think so, yes; but on the other hand, hasn't Russia annoyed the Western world enough over the last 6-7 years, with Syria, Skripal, or Navalny, despite its obvious need to finish Nord Stream?
I don't fully trust Skripal and Navalny stories, so that's more of western propaganda trying to paint Russia's black from my PoV. Not sure about Syria, probably there were enough geopolitical reasons for that.
> I remember Victorya Nuland openly supporting Ukraine revolution by physically being there, so obviously they supported them financially
Oh yes. There's no doubt the US is supporting Ukraine, at least militarily. They make no secret of it. But it's one thing to ask for, say, access to trade or to natural resources in return, and it's quite another to demand that receiving party commit to something that can potentially turn into a suicide.
Do you think Zelensky is so stupid to star the war with Russia just because he is told to(no reason to believe this, probably russian propaganda again). He would end up like arab countries when they tried to destroy Israel... stub of state left. The reason is probably not war but russia alwyas has some reasons to send troops. Invade something here. Cause fog of war there. And do some other stuff. Maybe they are trying to hide that thair vaccine is total scam. Or they are blackmailing ukraine. Putin is in trouble so he is flexin like a school bully. If he invades Ukraine he is done for the west. Also when russia says that Ukraine started. It should be taken with the same seriousness as when Hitler claimed that Poland started.
As I already said, I don't think that Zelensky will start the war. He's just doing his thing and Russia's doing theirs thing and that's all. He could do that if NATO would support him with army, but they did not support him for obvious reasons and that's about it.