the language and protection stuff is the actual propaganda. that's not what's driving them.
also, cia mcgovern misspoke 'cause he's old. but suggesting that russia should be interpreted differently than the soviet union is one of those naive academic traps that i've fallen into in the past and others shouldn't.
the cold war didn't start in 1945 or 1917. it goes back to a string of conflicts originating around the french revolution that was about the british empire containing the growing russian empire and included conflict both in the crimea area and central asia (the great game), over control of india.
it's historically wrong to siphon off russia's communist phase. it's convenient from an american imperial perspective that wants to compartmentalize everything in order to deny a larger strategic conflict, but it's wrong.
rather, there's a deep continuity going back centuries. it's not wrong to look at the situation today and say "gee, it looks just like it did in the mid nineteenth century". in fact, that's the perspective that really gets it.
in that sense, you can almost leap frog the soviet union.
taking it back to kievan rus is a bit too far, granted. you could get really abstract about eastern and western roman empires but it's largely incoherent.
understanding it in a general london v moscow conflict that is older than any of us is, however, far more correct than setting up a year zero in 1991.
this is really legitimately still british shipping interests containing czarist ambitions.
and they're *still* fighting over russian deepwater ports.
it's funny, though. the one thing that the russians and british have always agreed on is that those goddamned franks and germans can't get out of hand. it'll be interesting to see if that reasserts itself.