5 ms·

The line the Russian trolls tend to expose is "Taunting Russia risks all of our lives", then they proceed to explain how not giving Russia everything it wants i

The line the Russian trolls tend to expose is "Taunting Russia risks all of our lives", then they proceed to explain how not giving Russia everything it wants is taunting. This person has likely fallen for the propaganda they push.

imwillofficial 4y ago
I don’t think it’s helpful to categorize every opposing viewpoint as having fallen for propaganda. There are valid, reasonable concerns on both sides. Such as the US backed coup in 2012, the shelling on the Donbas for almost a decade, corruption in high levels of the Ukraine government, questions over Russia’s democratic integrity, etc… None of those are propaganda, they were in the New York Times. Which is a fairly respected news source in the west. Discounting everyone who disagrees with you as propagandists is intellectually lazy and keeps people from understanding the nuance of a very complex situation. Nobody’s hands are pure here, now we are discussing whose hands are dirtiest.
- kramerger 4y ago
  > Such as the US backed coup in 2012, the shelling on the Donbas for almost a decade, corruption in high levels of the Ukraine government, questions over Russia’s democratic integrity, etc… What?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- thefounder 4y ago
  >> Such as the US backed coup in 2012, the shelling on the Donbas for almost a decade, corruption in high levels of the Ukraine government, questions over Russia’s democratic integrity, etc… If you study big corruption in Europe this is pretty much the effect/leftovers of the Soviet Union/communist system. I really doubt the US increased corruption in Ukraine. There was not much room left for the corruption to increase anyway. As far as Donbas is concerned you have to ask yourself how did it come that Ukraine had to shell its own territory. It's not about whose hands are pure. For some reasons Russia does not understand that nobody in Europe wants Soviet Union back. The rejection of Russia is not due American interference. It's due Russia's broken backwards policies. Russia it's a beacon of corruption and waste and now it started a new war in Europe. Even Russia's closest neighbours and "allies" are starting to reject Russia(i.e Kyrgyzstan). It's clear that Putin/Russia not only failed become more attractive as an ally/example to follow but lost the plot entirely. Compare that with Germany and the EU.
- ajuc 4y ago
  You are repeating obvious russian lies. Especially funny is the accusation of corruption. Might I remind you that Yanukovych - the former pro-russian president of Ukraine that out of pretty small president salary build himself a mansion in nature reserve near a big lake where he had (among other things) - a yacht, a classic car museum with over 100 classic cars stored in weather-controlled hangars, a route to use these cars on, a small zoo and fake ruins (all of these I've seen on my own eyes when I visited in 2018) - who had protesters shot in 2014 and who faked elections in 2004 and poisoned countercandidate Yushchenko - had escaped to Russia after he tried stopping the protests by shooting at them and it didn't worked. Might I remind you that Putin is the richest person in the world? And that Russian state has a fund for bribing Ukrainian army officers? Which was defrauded by Russians before 2022 invasion :) If you think Russia will save anybody from corruption you are really beyond saving.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  > Nobody’s hands are pure here, now we are discussing whose hands are dirtiest. No, we're discussing the idea that there is something wrong with defensive cyber warfare implemented by the US on behalf of Ukraine.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    We branched from that discussion long ago, which of course you know.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      Is this a GPT response? I'm responding to a comment responding to me. There is no branch.
      - imwillofficial 4y ago
        You literally quoted me
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        I said A. You tried to divert to B. I quoted part of B to point out that wasn't the topic. You said the topic had changed to B "long ago". You see how that's wild right?
        imwillofficial 4y ago
        I didn’t “try to divert to b” I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person. That a healthy debate does not arise from essentially claiming somebody is brainwashed. Not very wild, right?
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        If you had stopped at your first sentence, and only made the point that: > I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person. But instead you went on to talk about other events and lay down some whataboutism, and talk about the dirtiest hands. That's where you diverted. If you are going to walk that back and stick to just criticizing my presumption on the source of their argument, then fair enough. However, my statement wasn't a blind malicious assumption. Defensive actions shouldn't be compared to 'poking the bear.' If the bear has already attacked, how can you consider fighting back a provocation? How can you consider "cyber defense", specifically, provocative? The only place I've yet to see that comparison is in troll propaganda, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense, and it works in favor of the aggressor. When I see someone spouting statements that make no logical sense, and those statements mirror those of propaganda trolls, I'm not doing some horrible disservice to discourse by pointing out a potential relationship.
mistermann 4y ago
> then they proceed to explain how not giving Russia everything it wants is taunting. This is what happens, without exception, is it? > This person has likely fallen for the propaganda they push. Of course. Americans never fall for propaganda, only their geopolitical rivals do. All of them, all the time.
- ajuc 4y ago
  Russia got away with annexing Crimea. They invaded again. They demanded that NATO gives up defending about 100 milion people in Eastern Europe (including myself). No matter how much you give to Russia they will demand more because they want their empire back. And people there don't want to live in this totalitarian shithole ever again. Russian occupation isn't nice. It's not just a change of government. It means you don't have free speech, you can't vote who you want to, you have no personal liberties, there's no rule of law. You regularly have to pay bribes. Your city and your infrastructure breaks down cause everybody steal. There's conscription and you have to serve in army. And there's a war or 2 every decade so you have pretty high likelihood of actually having to go kill innocent people. It's not about abstract values only. It's basic survival and rational self-interest. Nobody who has a choice wants that for themselves and their kids. If you let Russia annex some part of Ukraine - they will reinforce and in a year or 3 they will be back for the rest. And then Baltic States. And then Poland. And so on. So yes, giving up anything to Russia is a mistake - it will not create peace, it will only help reestablish iron curtain where it was. If you want to sell Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary etc. to Russia again to save some money - be explicit about it. It's a valid choice, even if I (and about 100 000 000 people living there) disagree about it strongly. It's morally outrageous, but you can make it. Allies already did it in 1945. But be honest about it - you want to sell these people to Russia. Otherwise stop giving up to blackmail cause you are only making things harder for yourself.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    I enjoyed your story, but I have one question: to what degree is it actually true? For example, is it actually possible to see the future? Are you sure (and if so: how) that what you're describing is actually that?

imwillofficial 4y ago

I don’t think it’s helpful to categorize every opposing viewpoint as having fallen for propaganda. There are valid, reasonable concerns on both sides. Such as the US backed coup in 2012, the shelling on the Donbas for almost a decade, corruption in high levels of the Ukraine government, questions over Russia’s democratic integrity, etc… None of those are propaganda, they were in the New York Times. Which is a fairly respected news source in the west. Discounting everyone who disagrees with you as propagandists is intellectually lazy and keeps people from understanding the nuance of a very complex situation. Nobody’s hands are pure here, now we are discussing whose hands are dirtiest.

kramerger 4y ago
> Such as the US backed coup in 2012, the shelling on the Donbas for almost a decade, corruption in high levels of the Ukraine government, questions over Russia’s democratic integrity, etc… What?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
thefounder 4y ago
>> Such as the US backed coup in 2012, the shelling on the Donbas for almost a decade, corruption in high levels of the Ukraine government, questions over Russia’s democratic integrity, etc… If you study big corruption in Europe this is pretty much the effect/leftovers of the Soviet Union/communist system. I really doubt the US increased corruption in Ukraine. There was not much room left for the corruption to increase anyway. As far as Donbas is concerned you have to ask yourself how did it come that Ukraine had to shell its own territory. It's not about whose hands are pure. For some reasons Russia does not understand that nobody in Europe wants Soviet Union back. The rejection of Russia is not due American interference. It's due Russia's broken backwards policies. Russia it's a beacon of corruption and waste and now it started a new war in Europe. Even Russia's closest neighbours and "allies" are starting to reject Russia(i.e Kyrgyzstan). It's clear that Putin/Russia not only failed become more attractive as an ally/example to follow but lost the plot entirely. Compare that with Germany and the EU.
ajuc 4y ago
You are repeating obvious russian lies. Especially funny is the accusation of corruption. Might I remind you that Yanukovych - the former pro-russian president of Ukraine that out of pretty small president salary build himself a mansion in nature reserve near a big lake where he had (among other things) - a yacht, a classic car museum with over 100 classic cars stored in weather-controlled hangars, a route to use these cars on, a small zoo and fake ruins (all of these I've seen on my own eyes when I visited in 2018) - who had protesters shot in 2014 and who faked elections in 2004 and poisoned countercandidate Yushchenko - had escaped to Russia after he tried stopping the protests by shooting at them and it didn't worked. Might I remind you that Putin is the richest person in the world? And that Russian state has a fund for bribing Ukrainian army officers? Which was defrauded by Russians before 2022 invasion :) If you think Russia will save anybody from corruption you are really beyond saving.
BobbyJo 4y ago
> Nobody’s hands are pure here, now we are discussing whose hands are dirtiest. No, we're discussing the idea that there is something wrong with defensive cyber warfare implemented by the US on behalf of Ukraine.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  We branched from that discussion long ago, which of course you know.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Is this a GPT response? I'm responding to a comment responding to me. There is no branch.
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      You literally quoted me
      - BobbyJo 4y ago
        I said A. You tried to divert to B. I quoted part of B to point out that wasn't the topic. You said the topic had changed to B "long ago". You see how that's wild right?
      - imwillofficial 4y ago
        I didn’t “try to divert to b” I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person. That a healthy debate does not arise from essentially claiming somebody is brainwashed. Not very wild, right?
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        If you had stopped at your first sentence, and only made the point that: > I pointed out that making personal attacks that somebody is only spewing propaganda takes away the agency of said person. But instead you went on to talk about other events and lay down some whataboutism, and talk about the dirtiest hands. That's where you diverted. If you are going to walk that back and stick to just criticizing my presumption on the source of their argument, then fair enough. However, my statement wasn't a blind malicious assumption. Defensive actions shouldn't be compared to 'poking the bear.' If the bear has already attacked, how can you consider fighting back a provocation? How can you consider "cyber defense", specifically, provocative? The only place I've yet to see that comparison is in troll propaganda, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense, and it works in favor of the aggressor. When I see someone spouting statements that make no logical sense, and those statements mirror those of propaganda trolls, I'm not doing some horrible disservice to discourse by pointing out a potential relationship.

mistermann 4y ago

> then they proceed to explain how not giving Russia everything it wants is taunting. This is what happens, without exception, is it? > This person has likely fallen for the propaganda they push. Of course. Americans never fall for propaganda, only their geopolitical rivals do. All of them, all the time.

ajuc 4y ago
Russia got away with annexing Crimea. They invaded again. They demanded that NATO gives up defending about 100 milion people in Eastern Europe (including myself). No matter how much you give to Russia they will demand more because they want their empire back. And people there don't want to live in this totalitarian shithole ever again. Russian occupation isn't nice. It's not just a change of government. It means you don't have free speech, you can't vote who you want to, you have no personal liberties, there's no rule of law. You regularly have to pay bribes. Your city and your infrastructure breaks down cause everybody steal. There's conscription and you have to serve in army. And there's a war or 2 every decade so you have pretty high likelihood of actually having to go kill innocent people. It's not about abstract values only. It's basic survival and rational self-interest. Nobody who has a choice wants that for themselves and their kids. If you let Russia annex some part of Ukraine - they will reinforce and in a year or 3 they will be back for the rest. And then Baltic States. And then Poland. And so on. So yes, giving up anything to Russia is a mistake - it will not create peace, it will only help reestablish iron curtain where it was. If you want to sell Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary etc. to Russia again to save some money - be explicit about it. It's a valid choice, even if I (and about 100 000 000 people living there) disagree about it strongly. It's morally outrageous, but you can make it. Allies already did it in 1945. But be honest about it - you want to sell these people to Russia. Otherwise stop giving up to blackmail cause you are only making things harder for yourself.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I enjoyed your story, but I have one question: to what degree is it actually true? For example, is it actually possible to see the future? Are you sure (and if so: how) that what you're describing is actually that?