Precisely when did Stalin refuse the united front?

Or are you talking about the fact that the West's idea of a united front was they commit nothing and expect Russia to commit everything? Instead of simply honoring their own treaty obligations with the Czechs?

This evidenced by the fact they only signed the pact AFTER the west rejected their advances.

I think you'll find it is you who is making an ahistorical bullshit argument.

Even if I accept your belief on timing, that does not contradict that a) the soviets were existentially threatened by the nazis, and b) were backed into a corner by the refusal of the allies to form a united front

Yeah I find it hard to get hyped for. What is this being a movie going to achieve that episodes in the series can't. These characters just aren't enough on their own.

The West's reasons for rebuffing do not change that the motivating factor for the USSR signing the M-R was said rebuff. Nor does it make the M-R and alliance.

The soviet oppressive actions are not relevant to whether or not the strategic situation the soviets were in explains their pact actions.

Like many people you seem to lack an understanding of the difference between explaining and excusing.

And none of this comes close to proving the M-R was an alliance; nor does it counter the fact the M-R was a response to the West's rebuff or a united front.

It has plenty of unofficial state-run media organs

And plenty of aligned "independent" media organs

It has official state run media organs too, as do all functioning states, your statement is just laughable.

I'm not trying to justify anything.

You are the only one that has claimed that any of the actors had "moral superiority", remember?

Considering the US has been, and continues to do that for much of its history from higher levels of government should cause you some introspection then

Also it is not like they were asking something new. They were asking France to honour their joint commitment to Czechoslovakia

And why might a country that was literally invaded by those western countries at its founding do that?

I am sure you don't understand the PRC

All of which occurred after the repeated rebuffs from the West at a united front against the Nazis

I grow tired of this. You are determined to ignore context at all times and regularly contradict yourself. You are too history what apologetics is to religion.

"Baoji Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China"

That is like the Mayor of a town in Alabama calling for the destruction of Russia.

US Senators regularly call for similar actions publicly, and they have much more access to levers of power

Source and context please for that claim

They caused that lobbying by instead of standing up to the nazis, giving them cravenly everything they desired. Exactly the same play that US liberals did which brought Trump into power FYI

Germany did
As did Japan

Those were who I was referring to, the two countries in an explicitly anti-soviet alliance, that were existential threats to them

Ask yourself:

Why does Russia have such a big nuclear arsenal?
Why does China have nuclear weapons?
Could there be historical concerns China has with Japan?
Why does NK have nukes?

Especially consider the context of Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently Iran

And yet they rejected a united front and instead chose appeasement, leaving the soviets with no good options.

The difference is the West had agency and a positive choice. They went against it. The soviets sought a positive choice and were rejected. Yet you claim the west is morally superior.

Bringing it back to the original discussion. The USSR was a post civil war recovery regional power surrounded by enemies who had invaded them in the recent past. Its attempts at alliances to counter this were rebuffed. UK and France had globe spanning empires, wealth and advanced militaries.

It is almost as if context is important, and things don't happen in isolation.

But for this specific instance power is important. The US is a globe spanning unipower, albeit in decline, Russia is a post collapse regional power. One of these two has greater agency than the other can you guess which?

Troop movements don't equal territorial gains or ambitions. Territory changes are decided after the war.

Finland assumed as the Germans did that the soviets would collapse, hence focussing on high value targets like St Petersburg

So the current situations in China Russia and NK are independent of US foreign policy are they?

Where did colour come into anything I said there. Or autonomy. Again influence is not equal to control.

I am arguing that you need to look at things in context. Something you seem constitutionally incapable of.

The USSR was not a superpower in 1939. Not even close.

Just because Finland failed to achieve Greater Finland, it does not mean they did not have ambitions for it.

What choices did the soviets have exactly?
All their alliance attempts were rebuffed
They were surrounded
Their geography was poor for defence
They were technologically and doctrinally backward compared to Germany, and they knew it.

And the Nazis were openly calling for their extermination

I urge you to look up "Greater Finland"

The Finns had large territorial aims in Russia, that went well beyond their losses to the soviets.

And they LITERALLY allied with the nazis. The thing you are accusing the soviets of doing

It is funny how much condemnation you have for the soviets, and how little for the Finns who did literally ally with the Nazis.

They also all had territorial aims IN soviet Russia.

And that also counters your above point. The reason the soviets couldn't have gone the ally with them path, is that they would never have accepted it, and instead actively allied and collaborated with the Nazis.

Not being independent is not equal to being controlled.

The US has plenty of organs to influence public opinion. You are using one right now.