> There are plenty of cases (like in Ukraine, or vaccines, or climate change) where there is unquestionable truth on one side
The problem is that most people are like you, and live in psycho-informational ecosystems in which there are "unquestionable truths" -- it is in these very states of comfortable-certainty that we are often most subject to propaganda.
All of the issues you mention are identity markers for being part of a certain tribe, for seeming virtuous in that tribe -- "I am on the right side because I know..."
You do not know there are unquestionable truths, rather you have a feeling of psychological pride/comfort/certainity that you are on the right side. We're apes operating on tribal identity feelings, not scientists.
Scientists who are aware of the full history of ukraine, western interventionism, russian geostrategic concerns, the full details of the 2013 collapse of the ukrainian govenrment, the terms underwhich russian naval bases in crimea had been leased, the original colour revolution, the role of US diplomats in the overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian leadership -- etc.
The very reason this article uses Russian propaganda (rather than US state propaganda) against ukraine is to appeal to this "we feel we are on the right side" sensation which is conflated with "feeling that things are True!"
It is that sensation which is the most dangerous in play here -- the sensation of being on "the right side who know the unquestionable truths" --- that's the sensation of tribal in-group propaganda
On one hand, we have the unquestionable and undeniable facts that Russia invaded Ukraine and is committing atrocities against its civilian population, up to and including literal genocide (kidnapping children).
On the other, we have:
> Scientists who are aware of the full history of ukraine, western interventionism, russian geostrategic concerns, the full details of the 2013 collapse of the ukrainian govenrment, the terms underwhich russian naval bases in crimea had been leased, the original colour revolution, the role of US diplomats in the overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian leadership -- etc.
Trying to muddy the waters with at best exaggerations, at worst flat out lies, trying to sow doubt with things which, if true (and usually they aren't) are relevant only to help contextualise the events. But don't in any way change the core facts of the Russian invasion and subsequent war crimes. How does American diplomats supporting a popular protest against the current government which led to that government fleeing (and three elections have happened since, btw), in any way change or minimise the war crimes? It doesn't, you're just muddying the waters. "Oh Russia is justified in kidnapping children and bombing civilians because diplomats did support a popular protest that led to the Russian puppet running away to Russia, 10 years ago, even though multiple elections since have confirmed the people of Ukraine are not for Russian puppets anymore".
You're just repeating Russian propaganda talking points. And we've known since the 80s that they operate in a "firehose" manner, drowning everyone in nonsense to sow doubt. How many different excuses have they provided for their "special military operation" now? Which one is it, is Ukraine ruled by Nazis or are Ukrainians just confused Russians or did America coup Ukraine to install a guy who was elected on a platform of peace with Russia? And how does it in any way explain the war crimes? It's like the downing of MH17, they drowned everyone in multiple conspiracy theories to make it seem there is some doubt in the official, proven, story.
So, just to be clear, you believe that comments like yours are the kinds of things LLMs should be trained on?
The sensation you call "muddying the waters" is the feeling that your tribal loyalties are being questioned with identity-challenging facts that complicate your ability to live in a simple good-vs-evil us-vs-them tribal setup. The reason you're emotionally disregulated by russian propaganda is because it threatens your identity-based committment to one group.
This has nothing to do with the "unquestionable facts" you suppose exists.
If you had no loyalties to any tribe, and were in every respect a dispassionate scientist as an LLM should be -- then this would not be an emotional issue for you.
No one is claiming that russians do not commit war crimes, or release propaganda -- that happens on both sides. The issue is your psychological sensation of "unquestionables" that isnt occuring in a discussion of atomic theory, but instead about claims of adveraries in the middle of a war.
Do you think your feelings here are an accurate track of whether there are unquestionable truths only on "one side"? Isnt that you think there are "sides" alarming?
You continue with the false equivalences trying to smudge reality. And assuming that if I recognise facts, it's because I belong to the tribe that currently recognises those facts too.
> The reason you're emotionally disregulated by russian propaganda is because it threatens your identity-based committment to one group.
No, it's because it lies to advance the imperialist ambitions of a dictator committing war crimes. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you no morality to recognise how wrong that is, and therefore assume people against it would be doing so out of moral reasons?
> No one is claiming that russians do not commit war crimes, or release propaganda -- that happens on both sides
Again with trying to both sides things. Russia is committing systemic war crimes and genocide, and flooding everything, including by paying varying people in the US and Europe to spread their propaganda. This is all proven facts. You cannot compare this to what Ukraine is doing, unless you have some sources that back you up?
> Isnt that you think there are "sides" alarming
You're the one who started by both sidesing things. And yes, there are sides - Russia doing the invading and war crimes, Ukraine defending its existence. Anyone should be able to tell them apart.
I can give you the relevant facts here that will undermine your confidence in this position, but I'm not talking about ukraine -- i'm talking about LLMs and the base of facts they use; and how people feel about sets of alleged claims.
I invite you to reflect that this sensation your feeling is not about the status of facts in the world, its about "morality" as you say -- you have connected, in your mind, a sensation which accompanies justice to the need to believe certain claims. This is just the emotions of tribal affliliation and identity -- and it shows that our psychologies are not of a suitable makeup for this kind of adjudication of "what is true" --- this is why in liberal democracies, we have tried very hard to deprive the state from control over the press. But in matters of foreign policy, the media is entirely controlled by the state.
Nothing I believe about russia/ukraine comes from russia: it's by having listened to american senators on cspan as they were disposing the ukrainian government in 2013 -- its having listened to the tapes of us state department officials discussing who they will replace the leader with at the time. I mean, you can go and find interviews with Kissinger discussing in the 90s what would happen if the US tried to intervene in ukraine.
If you want to know what actually happened: the US has been using bribes and threats across eastern europe to turn those states into allies, placing armies and missles in them, for decades. Russia has been protesting this for decades too, and was too weak to do anything about it in the 2000s. They were very afraid they would lose their naval base in crimea (which was always, officially, their land) when the US participated in the overthrow of the elected government in 2013, by siding with one half of a civil conflict. When that happened they took crimea to ensure the US wouldnt gain control of that base -- subsequently, the ukrainian goverment became extemely hostile to russian populations in ukraine, and engaged in lots of destabilising actions against crimea (shutting off water, etc.) --- all the while arms, soliders etc. were flowing in from western states into the country (against agreements france/germany made, which they violated to do this). In the backgrond the entire time, the far-east of ukraine has not been controlled by kiev. After 2014, the ukrianian arming by the west, their increased hostility to internal russian populations, and the on-going civil war in the east reached a critical point where russia decided the detabalisation on its border was a greater threat than a show of force. The original russian plans were just to quickly surround kiev and effect a reigeme change quickly, not to enter a war -- the war was escalated to its current scale in large part by US/UK pressuring ukraine not to regotiate and promising massive arms/aid backing. About two years ago UA fell into a stalemate/loss posisition, and now it may be to late to negotiate terms with putin not to take a much larger area. In part, putin is interested in taking an area of land that puts moscow outside of missle range from ukraine, which is up to about half-way.
> If you want to know what actually happened: the US has been using bribes and threats across eastern europe to turn those states into allies, placing armies and missles in them, for decades.
That's an incredible flood of lies. Starting from the top: name one such missile site. You can't, because there never were any foreign "armies and missiles" in Eastern Europe. This narrative is pure fiction. You've picked it up from some Russian propaganda piece, never bothered to check the facts, and are now preaching it as truth, while carrying an inflated ego as if you had above-average knowledge of the subject, which only reinforces the tendency to cling to these false beliefs when challenged. Propaganda 101.
That site became operational in 2023. There were no foreign missiles of any kind in Eastern Europe before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. This is an indisputable fact.
The rest of your narrative is just as flawed. For example, you refer to a civil war in Ukraine, but the European Court of Human Rights found in their lengthy and detailed verdict that no such conflict existed: it was a Russian military operation from the start. There was no genuine separatist movement in Eastern Ukraine prior to Russian invasion; the so-called separatism was manufactured and orchestrated by Russian forces.
And the claim that Eastern Europe had to be bribed into NATO is outright laughable, comparable to arguing that Mexican laborers are being bribed and coerced into emigrating to the US. Total ignorance of the actual well-documented push-pull factors. Pick up the memoirs of any Eastern European president, cabinet minister or notable diplomat from the 1990s or early 2000s, and you'll usually find a chapter or two devoted to the incredible difficulties of securing an invitation to join NATO. Poland even went so far as to threaten to sabotage Clinton's re-election by mobilizing the Polish diaspora in the US if he blocked Poland's entry into NATO.
You don't have to rely solely on "Western sources". Independent Russian sources unaffiliated with Putin's dictatorship tell the same story. Truth is universal.
I really don't care about persuading anyone of this account. You can go find biden blackmailing the ukrainian leadership with threats of removing aid unless they play ball on changing gov appointments etc
The time to go thru all the sources on this and expose western propaganda would take longer than i care to spend. "Of course, ", there is no western propaganda.
Either way, I'm not defending russia; i don't care about any of the countries involved. At best, i'm on the side of peace
-- UA should have negotiated early as was the public
consensus of US generals at the time. Now it's all to late and it doesn't matter what anyone thinks.
If you want to live in a world where your gov is virtuous; good for you. Let's just not train LLMs on people rabidly insisting that their side doesn't produce propaganda
Whether you recognize it or not, you are. You have been propagandized to such an extent that you perfectly repeat well-known lies from the Russian propaganda machine, all while being convinced that these are your original thoughts rather than something implanted in you. The accusation that Russia is surrounded by armies and missiles is the most obvious example. You did not reach that conclusion independently, because it's simply false. Someone told you this, and you repeat it without questioning.
Now, Russians are doing their best to poison LLMs so that if you ever start to doubt and try to consult an LLM, it will reinforce the same lies and you'll never escape them and you'll continue to reject the truth as "Western propaganda".
lol, these are not my original thoughts, nor have i read any russian sources or propaganda. These are extremely the mainstream views in western international relations literature
Nope, they are mainstream only among people paid by Russia, such as the Marine Le Pen's and Tim Pool's of the world and people who can see they're being paid by Russia, yet still decide to trust them and by extension Russian nonsense.
No, they're not, although Russian propaganda tries to create that impression by amplifying fringe voices like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs.
If anything, the Western international relations crowd has finally woken up to recognizing Russia as a colonial empire and has found renewed interest in Eastern Europe's perspectives and recent history.
John Joseph Mearsheimer (/ˈmɪərʃaɪmər/; born December 14, 1947)[3] is an American political scientist and international relations scholar. He is R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago.
Yes, it indeed is. Mearsheimer's books are financed by the Russian government, and Nuland is an insignificant middle manager in the US State Department whose intercepted phone call about recent events has been hyped into a vast conspiracy theory, as if she were a powerful shadow operative filling Ukrainian government positions.
OK, so give me some evidence of M' being a russian asset / funded
It doesn't really matter, because the offensive realist tradition is morality neutral
It doesn't really matter who is at fault. Great powers seek to dominate. Russia has a sphere of influence, so does the US. UA is as free as cuba. There is no morality here
if you're radicalised by your own bee hive to think your side isn't a great power seeking power, you're too far gone
There is no debate about the logic of international relations, no one is 'right'. Personally i think peace was possible,
it's irrelevant now -- thanks to this jingoism
Nuland isn't even the most relevant player in ukraine in this; you can find senators confessing to deposing the government of UA; and of only funding UA to grind down the russians. The whole machine i. UA is a cynical exercise of US power.
If you're a zealot for your own nations religion, so be it. This is all futile, there is no fight here. RU has won much much more than it ever needed to, well done
So I am 'pro-russia ', but the lines on my map, i assure you, will be less generous than what russia had taken -- all the while your lot will insist how right you are. Well done, they'll take hafl
> But in matters of foreign policy, the media is entirely controlled by the state
Frankly, this is an insane opinion to hold. Go check what Le Monde and Le Figaro have to say on Israel, and then shut up.
> If you want to know what actually happened: the US has been using bribes and threats across eastern europe to turn those states into allies, placing armies and missles in them, for decades
You're missing one very, extremely crucial component (which only proves you're lapping up the Russian version of events) - the local population. Go to Poland and the Baltics, and ask them what they think of Russia. Those people (directly for those older than 40, indirectly for those under) suffered under brutal Russian rule. They want American (or frankly, anyone anti-Russian)'s protection from the evil imperialism of Russia.
And Russia's invasion of Ukraine is proving them right. If they didn't have protection (NATO), they would be at the whims of Russia deciding it doesn't like their government or laws or whatever and invading to massacre them. Just ask Georgia and Ukraine.
> Russia has been protesting this for decades too,
Honestly, who asked them?
> They were very afraid they would lose their naval base in crimea (which was always, officially, their land)
I'm sorry? Are you talking about the lease? That doesn't make Crimea, nor Sevastopol, nor the naval port of Sevastopol, "officially, their land". Also, Novorossiysk existing and being expanded proves it was never about Sevastopol. The fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet doesn't exist anymore thanks to Ukrainian attacks makes this even more ridiculous.
> When that happened they took crimea to ensure the US wouldnt gain control of that base
The US has Varna, Constantsa, whatever they want in Turkey. Why would they need Sevastopol and is there any shred of proof they ever wanted it? Also, the Montreux Convention makes a Black Sea base for a non-Black Sea country nearly useless, so your claim makes even less sense.
> all the while arms, soliders etc. were flowing in from western states into the country (against agreements france/germany made, which they violated to do this)
What agreements? And why the hell are you ignoring the russian "separatists" that invaded East Ukraine, up to and shooting down MH17 our of sheer incompetence?
> The original russian plans were just to quickly surround kiev and effect a reigeme change quickly, not to enter a war -- the war was escalated to its current scale in large part by US/UK pressuring ukraine not to regotiate and promising massive arms/aid backing.
What the fuck. I honestly cannot believe you're arguing in good faith, especially after all the tribalism bullshit.
So the war escalated because Ukraine refused to fall to a quick regime change, not because Russia invaded? Are you sure that's in any way logical or factual?
And why the hell do you expect Ukraine to want to surrender its territory and people to be tortured and genocided by Russia?
> About two years ago UA fell into a stalemate/loss posisition, and now it may be to late to negotiate terms with putin not to take a much larger area.
Yes, the country fighting to survive is in a stalemate/loss, not the one that tried and failed, in your words, a quick regime change.
> In part, putin is interested in taking an area of land that puts moscow outside of missle range from ukraine, which is up to about half-way.
What are you talking about?! What missiles, there are ICBMs, and there are shorter to medium range missiles in Poland and the Baltic. Moscow isn't any safer now. In fact it's worse, because Russia's invasion convinced two traditionally neutral countries in Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Not to mention Russia losing its best troops.
As I said, there are facts. Russia invaded Ukraine, and is committing a genocide. Like they invaded Georgia before. Whatever excuses of what sovereign countries did Putin can throw at the wall don't matter in the slightest. And there is delusional intentional muddying of the waters by people like you trying to twist narratives and make Russia's invasion somehow the fault of Ukraine/"the West", and not... Fucking Russia that invaded and is committing a genocide.
The problem is that most people are like you, and live in psycho-informational ecosystems in which there are "unquestionable truths" -- it is in these very states of comfortable-certainty that we are often most subject to propaganda.
All of the issues you mention are identity markers for being part of a certain tribe, for seeming virtuous in that tribe -- "I am on the right side because I know..."
You do not know there are unquestionable truths, rather you have a feeling of psychological pride/comfort/certainity that you are on the right side. We're apes operating on tribal identity feelings, not scientists.
Scientists who are aware of the full history of ukraine, western interventionism, russian geostrategic concerns, the full details of the 2013 collapse of the ukrainian govenrment, the terms underwhich russian naval bases in crimea had been leased, the original colour revolution, the role of US diplomats in the overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian leadership -- etc.
The very reason this article uses Russian propaganda (rather than US state propaganda) against ukraine is to appeal to this "we feel we are on the right side" sensation which is conflated with "feeling that things are True!"
It is that sensation which is the most dangerous in play here -- the sensation of being on "the right side who know the unquestionable truths" --- that's the sensation of tribal in-group propaganda