Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[The Brain]

You have to poop in the bathroom and not in the lobby not just hundreds of times, but every time. Funny how that works.

[The Brain]

Sweden is sending instructors to the UK to help train Ukrainian soldiers. 120 in total.

[DGuller]

You have to poop in the bathroom and not in the lobby not just hundreds of times, but every time. Funny how that works.

But what if your livelihood depends on generating publicity?  It's hard to generate publicity by shitting in the bathroom.

[The Brain]

You have to poop in the bathroom and not in the lobby not just hundreds of times, but every time. Funny how that works.

But what if your livelihood depends on generating publicity?  It's hard to generate publicity by shitting in the bathroom.

Perseverance is key. Eventually people are bound to take notice of your efforts. Typically when they use the bathroom after you.

[Josquius]

How is it wrong, if its wrong what is the right course of action? Ignoring Russian avenues of advance and military objectives and deploying where there is no chance of Russians hurting civilians? Why not just surrender then?

As I said, Ukraine are hardly in any position to be upstanding paragons of virtue.

Yeah I know. They saw the victim dressing slutty, so what's wrong with bringing it up? They're just being honest.

You still make no sense.
To try and make this analogy work its more the victim was carrying an illegal blade. Nothing to do with with why they were attacked and a very good job they had it when they were attacked, but nonetheless illegal.

[The Brain]

How is it wrong, if its wrong what is the right course of action? Ignoring Russian avenues of advance and military objectives and deploying where there is no chance of Russians hurting civilians? Why not just surrender then?

As I said, Ukraine are hardly in any position to be upstanding paragons of virtue.

Yeah I know. They saw the victim dressing slutty, so what's wrong with bringing it up? They're just being honest.

You still make no sense.
To try and make this analogy work its more the victim was carrying an illegal blade. Nothing to do with with why they were attacked and a very good job they had it when they were attacked, but nonetheless illegal.

OK Putin.

[HVC]

AI has apologized

[Josquius]

How is it wrong, if its wrong what is the right course of action? Ignoring Russian avenues of advance and military objectives and deploying where there is no chance of Russians hurting civilians? Why not just surrender then?

As I said, Ukraine are hardly in any position to be upstanding paragons of virtue.

Yeah I know. They saw the victim dressing slutty, so what's wrong with bringing it up? They're just being honest.

You still make no sense.
To try and make this analogy work its more the victim was carrying an illegal blade. Nothing to do with with why they were attacked and a very good job they had it when they were attacked, but nonetheless illegal.

OK Putin.

What an ironic insult.

[The Brain]

AI has apologized

They regret the negative response to their report. They don't apologize for any content.

"Amnesty International deeply regrets the distress and anger that our press release on the Ukrainian military's fighting tactics has caused," it said in an email to Reuters.

"Amnesty International's priority in this and in any conflict is ensuring that civilians are protected. Indeed, this was our sole objective when releasing this latest piece of research. While we fully stand by our findings, we regret the pain caused."

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/amnesty-regrets-distress-caused-by-report-rebuking-ukraine-2022-08-07/

[Razgovory]

AI has apologized

I didn't expect Skynet to fold so quickly.

[grumbler]

As I said, Ukraine are hardly in any position to be upstanding paragons of virtue.

Absolutely nop one and no group in the history of ever has been "in any position to be upstanding paragons of virtue."  So what?  The world and its people have flaws.  That news is hardly worth an AI press release.

You still make no sense.
To try and make this analogy work its more the victim was carrying an illegal blade. Nothing to do with with why they were attacked and a very good job they had it when they were attacked, but nonetheless illegal.

You still make no sense.  You are using words here like "illegal" that have no meaning in this context.  AI does not care waht international law actually says, they care only about how they can make themselves look good.  None of the things they claim Ukraine did against international law were actually against international law.

[crazy canuck]

As I said, Ukraine are hardly in any position to be upstanding paragons of virtue.

Absolutely nop one and no group in the history of ever has been "in any position to be upstanding paragons of virtue."  So what?  The world and its people have flaws.  That news is hardly worth an AI press release.

You still make no sense.
To try and make this analogy work its more the victim was carrying an illegal blade. Nothing to do with with why they were attacked and a very good job they had it when they were attacked, but nonetheless illegal.

You still make no sense.  You are using words here like "illegal" that have no meaning in this context.  AI does not care waht international law actually says, they care only about how they can make themselves look good.  None of the things they claim Ukraine did against international law were actually against international law.

Nonsense, their report applied international law.  You obviously disagree with their conclusions. The reasons why you disagree would be a more interesting discussion than the claim you are now making.

[Malthus]

There seems to be controversy over whether the allegations actually support the conclusion that whatever Ukraine was doing was actually against international law or not. Though I haven't seen any deep analysis so far.

It does seem problematic that the head of AI in Ukraine has resigned in protest at its publication, citing concerns in two areas: (1) the local staff's objections were ignored; and (2) the Ukrainian government wasn't given enough time to respond, and the report was published without any response.

The first *may* be a case of head office thinking the locals are compromised (though that raises all sorts of questions - if AI staff can be 'compromised' one way, they can be compromised the other); but the second is hard to understand. This isn't a time-sensitive report, so the omission of government response looks deliberate - maybe an example of tunnel vision.

At least some alleged experts on international law have disagreed that the facts demonstrate a breach of international law, though I've seen no deep analysis of the situation.


For example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/05/amnesty-ukraine-says-headquarters-ignored-concerns-incomplete/

[Josquius]

There seems to be controversy over whether the allegations actually support the conclusion that whatever Ukraine was doing was actually against international law or not. Though I haven't seen any deep analysis so far.

It does seem problematic that the head of AI in Ukraine has resigned in protest at its publication, citing concerns in two areas: (1) the local staff's objections were ignored; and (2) the Ukrainian government wasn't given enough time to respond, and the report was published without any response.

The first *may* be a case of head office thinking the locals are compromised (though that raises all sorts of questions - if AI staff can be 'compromised' one way, they can be compromised the other); but the second is hard to understand. This isn't a time-sensitive report, so the omission of government response looks deliberate - maybe an example of tunnel vision.

At least some alleged experts on international law have disagreed that the facts demonstrate a breach of international law, though I've seen no deep analysis of the situation.


For example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/05/amnesty-ukraine-says-headquarters-ignored-concerns-incomplete/

The second makes the most sense as a criticism to me.
Rather than just publishing bare facts and then having a pissed off Ukraine react from the outside, instead present your initial findings to them and ask for their explanations and incorporate these into the analysis in the report.
It wouldn't change that some of the reported behaviours were breaches of international law but it would put them in the proper context of "Well what were they supposed to do? Its all well and good to say wars should consist of two armies in a remote field blasting at each other but realistically that's never going to happen".
I do wonder what AI's standard procedure is here- I can see the drawback on this incorporating feedback into initial reports approach when dealing with truly nasty shit in dictatorships, will give the dictatorship a chance to begin its cover up and lay the ground for denial.

The first...In part I read this as the local folk saving their own skin given the way the report has been met in Ukraine. I wouldn't want to find myself tied to it with tempers running so hot. It is true that drawing attention to problems asap can see them remedied asap but this is looking at things on such a micro-level, there's the whole holistic issue of these small breaches that endanger civilians being very necessary to avert Russia being shitting all over international law and genociding half the country.

But then I guess to consider is that AI doesn't want to see themselves painted as just some puppet of the west. It does help their words to carry more weight when they're upfront about the bad stuff democracies do as well as the world's true nasties.

[crazy canuck]

There seems to be controversy over whether the allegations actually support the conclusion that whatever Ukraine was doing was actually against international law or not. Though I haven't seen any deep analysis so far.

It does seem problematic that the head of AI in Ukraine has resigned in protest at its publication, citing concerns in two areas: (1) the local staff's objections were ignored; and (2) the Ukrainian government wasn't given enough time to respond, and the report was published without any response.

The first *may* be a case of head office thinking the locals are compromised (though that raises all sorts of questions - if AI staff can be 'compromised' one way, they can be compromised the other); but the second is hard to understand. This isn't a time-sensitive report, so the omission of government response looks deliberate - maybe an example of tunnel vision.

At least some alleged experts on international law have disagreed that the facts demonstrate a breach of international law, though I've seen no deep analysis of the situation.


For example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/05/amnesty-ukraine-says-headquarters-ignored-concerns-incomplete/

The second makes the most sense as a criticism to me.
Rather than just publishing bare facts and then having a pissed off Ukraine react from the outside, instead present your initial findings to them and ask for their explanations and incorporate these into the analysis in the report.
It wouldn't change that some of the reported behaviours were breaches of international law but it would put them in the proper context of "Well what were they supposed to do? Its all well and good to say wars should consist of two armies in a remote field blasting at each other but realistically that's never going to happen".
I do wonder what AI's standard procedure is here- I can see the drawback on this incorporating feedback into initial reports approach when dealing with truly nasty shit in dictatorships, will give the dictatorship a chance to begin its cover up and lay the ground for denial.

The first...In part I read this as the local folk saving their own skin given the way the report has been met in Ukraine. I wouldn't want to find myself tied to it with tempers running so hot. It is true that drawing attention to problems asap can see them remedied asap but this is looking at things on such a micro-level, there's the whole holistic issue of these small breaches that endanger civilians being very necessary to avert Russia being shitting all over international law and genociding half the country.

But then I guess to consider is that AI doesn't want to see themselves painted as just some puppet of the west. It does help their words to carry more weight when they're upfront about the bad stuff democracies do as well as the world's true nasties.

I think it would be problematic if AI consulted in that way, with countries who are the subject of their reports.  The problematic issue is perhaps not having all relevant information before releasing their report, which might have been rectified by providing Ukraine more time to respond.