3 ms·

It is theoretically impossible for a person to know with 100% certainty whether something happened or not. We all have our biases which influence how we value t

It is theoretically impossible for a person to know with 100% certainty whether something happened or not. We all have our biases which influence how we value truthfulness of something. From a "westerner" perspective "Russia bad" and of course they would try to hide and misinform about their atrocities. From a pro-Russia perspective "west bad" and of course Ukraine is making things up to spread their propaganda. Both sides are forced to over-blow everything they report to maximize impact so whatever the truth may be it is definitely somewhere between the 2 official truths. You still have reports as recent as in the Yugoslav wars or Syria where each side has their own reported numbers as to how many people died or how many of some banned weapon was used etc where neither number really makes sense.

soco 4y ago
Maybe in this rationale we're forgetting the little detail that one side has uninvited troops on the territory of the other side. So that certain side is already in the wrong and could make all discussions moot by simply leaving.
- kungito 4y ago
  The problem with that viewpoint is forgetting tens/hundreds of years of history, demographic composition of that area, etc. The Russians are arguing that that area used to be Russia, it is mostly Russian population, they declared independence and invited their regional ally to help them secure the area (not including the Kiev assault, I'm not sure what the official narrative is for why that was ok).
  - soco 4y ago
    By the same logic, Mexico invading Texas would be totally acceptable. Or am I missing something essential? Edit: for a better example, California.
    - kungito 4y ago
      It would be a reason. Whether it is a valid one is up to debate. Nothing is black and white in geopolitics and people can always dig up an older historical reason for things
    - des1nderlase 4y ago
      To give a hypothetical analogy, let's say Mexicans in California are fed up with limited opportunity and low paying jobs, and various groups form, advocating separation from the US, to get better rights. Given their majority, they would win on any regional referendum, so officials avoid this topic altogether, extremely ignoring to acknowledge problem. At the same time Mexico start funding proxy-conflict by sending arms to now more extreme groups fighting for the "right cause". However those groups actually care more about controlling local territory. Due to local crime rise, non-mexican population start moving out. Now officials have to react by sending police/military troops to arrest/disarm any Mexican, getting into racial conflict. Some Policemen get killed and many more Mexicans (civilians), so the conflict escalates. Mexico starts firing long range missiles to military targets, but also some civilians get killed. Also extreme groups start killing each other over territory disputes, and in the aftermath stage it to blame official police/military... Now Martians come to Earth and want to do the "right thing", who should they help? If they have long term dependency on the rocket parts from SpaceX, of course on the US side. That's the paradox of modern conflict. First, there are no only two sides, there are various groups, proxy-war founders, global and local forces... Secondly, depending how far you look in the past, you can construct a pro-narrative for any side. Even hypothetically knowing all true facts and events, the one "picks" the side within their own biases, let alone when there is propaganda distortion field. This has happen so many times. How come general wisdom hasn't figured out the pattern yet. Kosovo, Syria,... and now Ukraine all have blueprints of this story, escalations going back and forth for years before the official conflict started... Ie, the west reported forming White Supremacy groups in Ukraine as far back as 2014, but I can only imagine what was the rationale for that...

soco 4y ago

Maybe in this rationale we're forgetting the little detail that one side has uninvited troops on the territory of the other side. So that certain side is already in the wrong and could make all discussions moot by simply leaving.

kungito 4y ago
The problem with that viewpoint is forgetting tens/hundreds of years of history, demographic composition of that area, etc. The Russians are arguing that that area used to be Russia, it is mostly Russian population, they declared independence and invited their regional ally to help them secure the area (not including the Kiev assault, I'm not sure what the official narrative is for why that was ok).
- soco 4y ago
  By the same logic, Mexico invading Texas would be totally acceptable. Or am I missing something essential? Edit: for a better example, California.
  - kungito 4y ago
    It would be a reason. Whether it is a valid one is up to debate. Nothing is black and white in geopolitics and people can always dig up an older historical reason for things
  - des1nderlase 4y ago
    To give a hypothetical analogy, let's say Mexicans in California are fed up with limited opportunity and low paying jobs, and various groups form, advocating separation from the US, to get better rights. Given their majority, they would win on any regional referendum, so officials avoid this topic altogether, extremely ignoring to acknowledge problem. At the same time Mexico start funding proxy-conflict by sending arms to now more extreme groups fighting for the "right cause". However those groups actually care more about controlling local territory. Due to local crime rise, non-mexican population start moving out. Now officials have to react by sending police/military troops to arrest/disarm any Mexican, getting into racial conflict. Some Policemen get killed and many more Mexicans (civilians), so the conflict escalates. Mexico starts firing long range missiles to military targets, but also some civilians get killed. Also extreme groups start killing each other over territory disputes, and in the aftermath stage it to blame official police/military... Now Martians come to Earth and want to do the "right thing", who should they help? If they have long term dependency on the rocket parts from SpaceX, of course on the US side. That's the paradox of modern conflict. First, there are no only two sides, there are various groups, proxy-war founders, global and local forces... Secondly, depending how far you look in the past, you can construct a pro-narrative for any side. Even hypothetically knowing all true facts and events, the one "picks" the side within their own biases, let alone when there is propaganda distortion field. This has happen so many times. How come general wisdom hasn't figured out the pattern yet. Kosovo, Syria,... and now Ukraine all have blueprints of this story, escalations going back and forth for years before the official conflict started... Ie, the west reported forming White Supremacy groups in Ukraine as far back as 2014, but I can only imagine what was the rationale for that...