[Faust]

Originally Posted by scorpion9 ↗

I wouldn't say more than a quarter, and no, it doesn't go against any narrative.
My point was that Ukrainian population went down during Stalin's famine and the census shows the drop. I also said that it could easily be that russians simply replaced ukrainians, as they have done with other groups in the past. And if you look at the census data, that seems to be the case.
Of course all numbers from the russians are questionable anyways, given how they wanted to downplay the deaths, but still, even with those numbers, you can see

If you look at the years highlighted and look at the population change, it does look weird that whilst the Ukrainian population took a hit and went down, the russian population was growing quite significantly.
That growth then continued disproportionately.

Resettling russians into occupied territories is an old strategy and part of russification.
You can read more about it from our lovely AI overlord.

It is also changing goalposts, nothing more

I showed you it is highly improbable that the Holodomor happened. You come with post 2014 research from groups funded to specifically create an Ukrainian narrative of genocide (to erase their own war crimes probaly)

Then you show some statistics where it is claimed that 10 million ethnic Russians were living in Ukraine even before the 90s, to prove your point that the Ukrainians were replace so the Holodomor could still have happend in your reality..

Yet at the same time you would claim within a second that it is impossible that a majority in eastern Ukraine would in 2014 vote to become independent and keep their language and whatever or vote in 2022 to join Russia


You have to choose, either there were not enough ethic Russians living in eastern Ukraine, or the Ukrainians in those regions were not replaced by Russians

Your narrative always collapses in on itself and you don’t even realize it.

Another example is:

Do you view the Russian army as weak and not capable of taking over Ukraine?
Whatever your narrative is, it would conflict with:
Do you think Russia will attack Europe if there is peace with Ukraine?

Those are two narratives that people believe in at the same time. Russia must be stopped because they will take over Europe. Russia is weak and cannot defeat Ukraine. However, if there is peace in Ukraine then Russia will take over Europe. But Russia cannot take over Ukraine as it too weak for that and about to collapse. However Russia must be stopped at any cost as it is a threat to Europe.

And so on

[toms]

it's from Ramina's interview the whole thing is an hour long,but here its only a small part,depressing story from one of Mariupol's citizen's, they were bombed by russian nazis at the beginning of invasion, one of the first posts i made here about ukrainian-russian war , it was a over crowded morgue in Mariupol , there were so many dead civillians that they put their bodies on the street ,it left me deeply draumatized,
also in this man's story, he's talking about how they were walking in hospital, and there were severed hands laying on the floor...thats scary, im actually not going to lie to you , but i am very depressed's since this war started, not to get too emotional here but sometimes i cry because of all of this, its a shame of course both sides couldnt get peace talks before 2022 , it all couldve been avoided , i am not justifying russians, those people are evil and have shit in their brains, but if only those ukrainian people couldve been saved.. i love ukrainian people , also my 2 grannies were from Ukraine

[Faust]

It is extremely sad that all this happened and that there was no diplomatic way to stop or avoid it. Feeling traumatised just means you are an empathetic person, and you don’t like or want human suffering. I don’t think this website is the correct place for empathy or coping as most people are just trying to troll each other and show how cool they think war is (it is not). Are there any people in your life who also know people from Ukraine or maybe friends or family that you feel safe or comfortable around? My guess is those could help you deal with this. Even talking about it will help you so it is brave that you opened yourself up like this!

Will watch later thanks for sharing also the interview, there is one of Mariupol from the Russian perspective but it will probably be really confronting or depressing. Let me know if you want me to post it still, and be well! It is going to end one day anyway and I hope Trump will end the suffering soon, even if that makes me a paid Kremlin troll or whatever people here call others that don’t believe in the possibility of a strategic Ukrainian battlefield victory

[scorpion9]

I showed you it is highly improbable that the Holodomor happened. You come with post 2014 research from groups funded to specifically create an Ukrainian narrative of genocide (to erase their own war crimes probaly)

I didnt give you post 2014 research, i gave you russia's own census data and if you follow the references, you can also find russian books, written long ago about the famine.
The holodomor wasn't a "secret" until 2014, it was already known and talked about when i wasn't even born. Its interesting how easily you are willing to erase and deny russian version of holocaust, but probably aren't willing to do the same for German holocaust.

Then you show some statistics where it is claimed that 10 million ethnic Russians were living in Ukraine even before the 90s, to prove your point that the Ukrainians were replace so the Holodomor could still have happend in your reality..

Yet at the same time you would claim within a second that it is impossible that a majority in eastern Ukraine would in 2014 vote to become independent and keep their language and whatever or vote in 2022 to join Russia

Why do you think i would claim that? Its you who claims that. In your head, thats the narrative the pro-ukrainians must believe, so you are putting your own words into my mouth. I never said its impossible that eastern Ukraine could want to separate. My point has been that they didn't want to separate, not that they couldnt have wanted to. And even if they wanted to, it would be up to Ukraine to organize some kind of referendum and work within the constitution to figure out the separation. The way UK left European Union. It would take years and you would need to figure out a lot of things before separating.
Also Speaking russian doesn't make you russian. Without russian interference, their troops and agents, there would have never been any separatism. And last but not least, if some people want to join another country, they can go and live there. There is no law saying that they can take the land with them. If they can, it will create a very dangerous precedent, where regions with majority being immigrants can start demanding to be part of their original country. I.e what if people living in China town somewhere in US start demanding being part of China. What if millions of Ukrainian or Russian refugees who settle in neighboring countries now, will start demanding their own independent regions within the countries who accepted them.

Do you view the Russian army as weak and not capable of taking over Ukraine?
Whatever your narrative is, it would conflict with:
Do you think Russia will attack Europe if there is peace with Ukraine?

There is no conflict here.
I see why you think that. You can't look past the current moment. Don't look at Russia where it is now. Look where its heading.
Its like looking at Germany in 1937 and saying...well, that seems harmless. There is no way they could conquer France, let alone attack anyone else on 2 fronts.
Russia is currently pumping out dangerous anti-west propaganda, which prepares the general population for total war. On top of that, they are gearing their entire economy up for war. Once you have made the effort to switch to war time economy, you kind of want to get the most out of it. Then, the same phenomena can happen as happened with Chechnya. Once a region is occupied, its population and resources can be used for the war machine. Chechens fought against the ruz, now they fight for them...for money and power. Once the führer is emboldened and gets the praise from its zerglings for "uniting mother russia" then he can easily go for a bigger goal....like Baltics and Poland, for starters.
Once the population is mentally ready and primed for war, russia can easily mobilize 2-3 million people, and that's a number which is a real threat for Europe. If you havent noticed, European military is a shadow of its former power. You could then say that "well, that's just crazy, ruz wouldn't do that", but that's exactly what people thought of the war in Ukraine...including me. I thought the idea of major war in Europe would be insane....yet, it happened, all too suddenly. We also don't know who the next führer is going to be. He might...and probably will be much worse.

[Faust]

Another narrative is:
Ukraine is winning and Russia is losing, Ukraine can defeat Russia.

Sure, but why is Ukraine talking about giving up land then? They can just defeat Russia no?
And so on

[scorpion9]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

Another narrative is:
Ukraine is winning and Russia is losing, Ukraine can defeat Russia.

Sure, but why is Ukraine talking about giving up land then? They can just defeat Russia no?
And so on

I see you are not talking to me, you are talking to someone else...someone who isnt in this thread.
If you want to talk to specific people, talk to them in PM's, such messages out of context make no sense

[WonderMomma]

Deja Vu.

[Faust]

I don’t think within 2 months it would escalate to the point where not even Trump can stop it. Though I am not sure how long they will keep Zelensky around. Not sure how accurate this is:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/653618/...eadership.aspx

If they want to continue the war then Zelensky is getting replaced. if the war stops he is getting replaced as well. If the war stops then I am sure it will be temporary only, or become internal civil war

Btw this was 5 years ago mind you:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/11...meier-formula/

The Ukrainian comic-turned-president announced on Oct. 1 that he had signed the Steinmeier Formula, a road map to ending the war with Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of his country. The process, which is overseen by Germany and France, calls for local elections in occupied parts of the Donbass region and its recognition as a special autonomous region.

Some background information:

KYIV -- In the United States, Ukraine is in the spotlight over what some call "Ukrainegate" -- the developments that have led to an impeachment probe involving a phone conversation between the presidents of the two countries in July. In Kyiv, there's been a bigger buzz about a different catchphrase -- the Steinmeier Formula.

That term has been splashed across front pages, led television news programs, and been debated at hipster cafes and family dinner tables since early September. That's when it emerged that President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was seriously considering supporting it -- the Steinmeier Formula, that is -- as a potential way to reinvigorate negotiations with Russia over the war that has killed more than 13,000 people in eastern Ukraine since 2014.

Late on October 1, Zelenskiy called an urgent press conference -- only the second one he has held since his inauguration in May -- to say that he had taken the controversial step of officially signing up Ukraine to the Steinmeier Formula.

SEE ALSO:
Mixed Reactions For Zelenskiy's Eastern Ukraine Election Deal
Here's what you need to know about the move and its implications.

What Even Is The Steinmeier Formula?

Ukraine and Russia, overseen by France, Germany and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), signed two agreements in the Belarusian capital, Minsk -- in September 2014 and February 2015 -- to establish a cease-fire and a road map to a lasting peace in eastern Ukraine, where Kyiv's forces are fighting the Russia-backed separatists who hold parts of two provinces in what is known as the Donbas.

Those pacts are known as the Minsk agreements, and they include such steps as the pullback of forces and military equipment by both sides, Kyiv granting amnesty to combatants who have not committed grave crimes; and Ukraine holding local elections and granting special status to the areas now held by separatists. They also include the withdrawal of "all foreign armed formations, military equipment, as well as mercenaries" from Ukrainian territory and the restoration of Kyiv's control over its border with Russia in that area, across which ample evidence shows that Moscow has sent troops and weapons during the continuing conflict.

While the Minsk agreements have helped to deescalate the fighting, they have not stopped it. One reason is that deals were hammered out quickly during hot phases of the war and were vaguely worded, allowing each signatory to interpret details -- such as the sequence of steps toward peace -- in its own way.

Enter Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

In 2016, looking for a way to break the deadlock, Steinmeier -- then Germany's foreign minister, now its president -- proposed a slimmer, simplified version of the Minsk agreements. Basically, it was a way to get Ukraine and Russia to agree on the sequence of events outlined in Minsk.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (left) and Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk hold a news conference in Kyiv in November 2014.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (left) and Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk hold a news conference in Kyiv in November 2014.
Specifically, Steinmeier's formula calls for elections to be held in the separatist-held territories under Ukrainian legislation and the supervision of the OSCE. If the OSCE judges the balloting to be free and fair, then a special self-governing status for the territories will be initiated and Ukraine will be returned control of its easternmost border.

The formula was vocalized and had not been put to paper until it was signed on October 1 by representatives of Ukraine, Russia, the separatist territories of Luhansk and Donetsk, and the OSCE in Minsk.

What Did Zelenskiy Say About It?

Acknowledging that the Steinmeier Formula had become a highly charged issue for the Ukrainian public, Zelenskiy said he wanted to clarify what it meant.

Yes, he said, by signing on, Ukraine agreed to hold local elections in the Donbas -- but only under Ukrainian law, and only after Russian forces are withdrawn and Ukraine regains control of the state border -- wording that suggests there may still be ample room for disagreement on the sequence of steps each side must take.

"There won't be any elections under the barrel of a gun," Zelenskiy said, apparently trying to bat away assertions that he had conceded to Russia's demands. "There won't be any elections there if the troops are still there."

Volodymyr Zelenskiy: "There won't be any elections under the barrel of a gun."
Volodymyr Zelenskiy: "There won't be any elections under the barrel of a gun."

He said a new law on special self-governing status for the Donbas would be addressed by parliament soon and that the language included in it would not cross any "red lines," adding that "there will be no capitulation."

Zelenskiy said that mutual agreement to the Steinmeier Formula meant that "the final obstacles" to a proposed and highly anticipated summit bringing him together with Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and French President Emmanuel Macron that is seen as a potential key step to peace "have been eliminated." He said a date for the summit, which would be his first meeting with Putin, could be announced soon.

Is Moscow On Board?

Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters on October 2 that Kyiv's approval of the Steinmeier Formula was a "positive" development, adding, "There is no doubt that this is an important step toward implementing the earlier agreements."

"Hopefully, the implementation of the Minsk agreements will continue, since this is the only way to resolve the Ukrainian conflict in the country's east," he added. Russia has repeatedly drawn criticism from Kyiv and the West for referring to the war, which Ukraine and NATO say Moscow helped ignite and has stoked by sending active military and financial support for the separatists, as an internal Ukrainian conflict.

Moscow's approval was no surprise, as it has long seemed to see the Steinmeier Formula as more beneficial to Russia than to Ukraine. What the Kremlin especially likes about it, analysts say, is the outline of local elections in the Donbas followed immediately by the special self-governing status for the region kicking in.

Putin previously declined to meet with Zelenskiy unless Ukraine signed an agreement on holding local elections.

Peskov made no direct comment on Zelenskiy's remarks about the sequence of steps, the withdrawal of Russian forces, and the return of control over the border to Kyiv.

Peace Or Surrender?

Opinions about the Steinmeier Formula have been mixed in Ukraine, and events immediately following Zelenskiy's announcement indicated the issue will continue to be hotly debated, a potential factor in the success or failure of future negotiations to end the war.

Surveys show a vast majority of Ukrainians want to see an end to the war in the Donbas. A big part of the allure of Zelenskiy, a comic actor who entered Ukraine's presidential election campaign with no political experience, was his promise to bring peace.

The public has continued to back him while he has engaged with Putin on the war issue – they have spoken by phone twice -- and he scored a major victory in securing the return last month of 35 Ukrainians who were being held by Russia in its jails and prisons.

People rally against the Steinmeier Formula on Independence Square in Kyiv on October 1.
People rally against the Steinmeier Formula on Independence Square in Kyiv on October 1.
But supporting the Steinmeier Formula could be risky for Zelenskiy. A recent poll by the Kyiv-based Rating Group said two-thirds of respondents were unable to rate the Steinmeier Formula, while 23 percent opposed the idea and 18 percent supported it.

Some Ukrainian veterans and opposition political parties, as well as some civil-society groups and Ukrainian ultranationalists, have stood against the Steinmeier Formula or any peace deal that may benefit Russia.

On September 17, some of them published an appeal to Zelenskiy that set out "red lines" that they argued must not be crossed in negotiations with Russia on the war.

Many of those critics side with former President Petro Poroshenko, who has suggested even the smallest concession to Russia would mean capitulation.

Poroshenko's former foreign-policy adviser, Kostyantyn Yeliseyev, wrote on Twitter on October 1 that for Ukraine, to sign onto the Steinmeier Formula "is to stop fighting and surrender."

Following Zelenskiy's press conference, a group of far-right nationalists protested his decision with signs that read "no capitulation," some accusing him of treason, and a group of civil-society members gathered on Kyiv's central Independence Square, the Maidan, to decry the move.

https://www.rferl.org/a/what-is-the-.../30195593.html

I now realize there was always going to a war. Either full scale civil war, or the special military operation.
The first one potentially has even more civilian deaths, though what we got is hell also.

If there is any form of peace, I think some parties will try and take control. It will only cost about 100 million US $ for outside parties to continue the war and turn it into a terrorist attack kind of conflict where they go after airliners and recruit suicide attackers from some ethnic regions.

We

[WonderMomma]

EDIT: everytime I get ready to post this, I see more BS and have to edit it.

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

I showed you it is highly improbable that the Holodomor happened.

Holodomor is a well documented event around the world even in Russian texts. But I and everyone else understand why you're pushing this narrative.

Regardless, in an official capacity, I have to tell you that claiming that Holodomor didn't happen could be construed as a conspiracy theory and misinformation due to how well documented it is.

==========

ChatGPT. Another discussion that's been had before.

Here's is one of only two questions I ever needed to ask ChatGPT.

Can ChatGPT be trusted as a reliable source on anything?

ChatGPT can be a useful and reliable tool for many purposes, but whether it is a trusted source for specific information depends on the context and the type of inquiry. Here are some key points to consider:

Strengths of ChatGPT:
General Knowledge: ChatGPT is trained on a large dataset of publicly available text, which allows it to answer questions about widely accepted facts, historical events, and general knowledge up to its last training cut-off (November 2023).

Summarization and Explanation: It can provide clear explanations, summaries, and overviews on many topics, which can be especially useful for complex subjects or as a starting point for research.

Problem-Solving: It can assist with specific tasks like writing, brainstorming, solving math problems, or providing code examples.

Limitations and Caution:
Lack of Real-Time Data: ChatGPT does not have access to the internet or current events beyond its last training update, so it may not provide up-to-date information on recent news, trends, or scientific discoveries.

Accuracy and Citations: ChatGPT generates responses based on patterns in the data it was trained on. While it tries to provide accurate information, it does not always include citations or references. As a result, there can be occasional errors, misinterpretations, or overgeneralizations. It is advisable to double-check critical information, especially in specialized fields.

Not a Primary Source: ChatGPT is not an original research source or peer-reviewed platform. For academic, medical, legal, or highly technical fields, it's important to consult primary sources, textbooks, or subject matter experts.

Bias and Ambiguity: Like any AI trained on large datasets, ChatGPT may reflect biases present in the training data, and its responses can sometimes be vague or unclear.

When to Trust ChatGPT:
For broad overviews or explanations of general knowledge or common topics.

As a brainstorming tool for writing, coding, or creative tasks.

For simple facts or when you need quick answers that don’t require in-depth expertise.

When to Verify Information:
For specialized or expert-level topics (e.g., medical advice, legal matters).

For current events and the latest updates in any field.

When making important decisions (e.g., financial, health-related, or academic decisions).

In conclusion, ChatGPT is a reliable tool for many everyday uses, but it's important to verify its information and seek authoritative sources when needed.

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

The main issue with ChatGPT is that it is trained on basically CNN, so you really need to interrogate it in order to get a correct answer, I am equipped to do so don’t worry but it might take 5 minutes

As far as the information it was trained on, there is more information from the platform itself to refute that it's "basically CNN". It's a whole load of sources; news sources just being one of many.

Common sense dictates CNN wouldn't be the only news source they use. If so, why would someone like you, someone who despises western media, use it as source for anything you say? Oh wait, nevermind.

Nevertheless, you pushing the above narrative could again, be considered misinformation. So Holodomor and this? Might even qualify for "coordinated". Not sure.

What sources is ChatGPT trained on?

ChatGPT is trained on a broad range of publicly available text data sources, but it does not have direct access to proprietary databases, confidential information, or private sources unless they are publicly available. Here are some of the key categories of data sources used:

Books: Publicly available books, including works of literature, non-fiction, academic texts, and more.

Websites: Text from a wide variety of websites, including news outlets, forums, and informational websites. This includes publicly available content from sources like Wikipedia, StackExchange, and other publicly accessible web pages.

Scientific Papers: Publicly available research papers, preprints, and academic publications.

Conversations: Dialogue data, including conversational datasets that are publicly available, such as those used in chatbots and other conversational agents.
News Articles: Publicly available news websites and archives (up until the training cut-off in 2021).

Other Public Text: Data from other publicly available text-based sources such as manuals, documentation, and open-source projects.

ChatGPT does not have access to any proprietary data unless it was made publicly available before the training cut-off (September 2021) and does not have the ability to access or retrieve personal data unless explicitly shared during a conversation. It also cannot access real-time information or databases beyond its training data.

Another red flag - one answer provides a training cut off of 2023 and the other 2021. For a platform that some use as a source for information you would think these dates would be consistent throughout.

So no, I won't consider anything you post coming from ChatGPT. I also won't consider any source you post from western media. You loathe the west yet use it's media as source when you believe it even remotely supports your point. Hypocrisy is an impossible hurdle for me to ignore.

After reading all that you still find ChatGPT acceptable to you to use it as a source for your own needs, that's on you. But no one here is going to take you seriously using it for anything related to the war. Especially when you glaze over rebuttals and put words in people's mouths.

On another related note, a couple weeks ago you used ChatGPT to write a political quote of Trump in a death thread. A thread that had ZERO relation to US politics. Politics aren't allowed in the death section and you know that.

While you have a bad habit of making unfounded and hypocritical claims, the root of your disciplinary history here isn't necessarily the things you say, it's your inability to follow instructions.

Unfortunately for you, you've created this problem for yourself here and I doubt you will take accountability for that based on what I've seen since you returned from your year-long ban. I won't hold my breath that this information will absorb and you'll stop repeating the same mistakes but no one can say I didn't try.

[Faust]

"basically CNN"
This is both narrative and political, not saying that they only used CNN, merely that ChatGPT will provide the same narratives and political ‘bias’ as that is its purpose in general; to create a “trustworthy” source which will then be able to paint information to the people who trust it.

A test I did yesterday after finding out it has blacklists of people and subjects, I don’t really want to explain it but maybe you figure it out from the video I recorded:


To get back on the subject; as this is the discussion forum.

I explained why I believe it is likely that there will be a new Ukrainian president soon, and also why I think it is likely, based on 2019 also, that there will be power struggles in the country and near certain civil war and other internal escalations in the near future in the event of any peace or ceasefire.

You disagree, or you do not have an opinion or is there anything that could add to it?

I understand you as well;
If I said last year that it is a nato proxy war then people say it is coordinated disinformation and I am trolling.
However now I post a video of Boris Johnson saying it.

Or I said: if trump is president he will do anything in his power to stop the conflict, and he most likely will.
Then I am also trolling and posting coordinated disinformation. he cannot be president as he is a criminal and he will be in jail also Ukraine is winning and will defeat Russia so no need for trump

However, now Trump is the chosen president and Zelensky is on western television talking about ceasefires and giving up land, with basically all western publications now writing how Ukraine is actually doing for the past few years.

Whatever you view as trolling or disinformation did not matter. Banning me did not change anything, what I said would happen had arrived all the same.


The biggest misunderstanding of it all is believing having another opinion is trolling.

One of the regular users saying Palestinians are rat like creatures that is trolling. Or calling users nazi sympathizers that is trolling also. That is not having another opinion, that is trolling, straight up racism and even condoning genocide in a way