Can you give an example? I mean, providing context for a Soviet decision or elaborating on why the USSR did something doesn’t necessarily mean someone agrees with it.

What’s the difference between rationalising something and insisting on treating it in its historical and political economic context?

I note as an aside that almost every time someone puts the Ukraine war into context, a lib will claim that this must be (uncritical) support for Russia/Putin. But one doesn’t necessarily follow the other. (I’m giving libs the benefit of the doubt here, as I don’t think most know the difference between critical and uncritical support.)

How does one add nuance if those who’ve already come to a conclusion reject the nuance as rationalisation (apologia?) for leading to a revised conclusion.