| HN Mirror

People can often behave similarly to LLMs, not simply regurgitating the data they have but are incapable of imagining anything outside of their dataset. Data in a dataset does not have to be accurate, unique or truthful for an LLM to produce an output that is coherent to the dataset.

It's obvious from every question you have asked that you only consume information from sources that push the "approved narrative". Are you able to imagine anything outside of your current Russia-Ukraine dataset?

> How do you justify Russia invading a sovereign country?

I'm sure what you mean by that is, "do I think Russia was justified in defending their sovereignty from the numerous violations of international agreements ultimately threatening their sovereignty", then yes. "Do I think Russia is justified in liberating and defending a peoples under siege and in need of help?", yes.

> Does that not constitute a death march?

I don't really understand your question, so from wiki: "A death march is a forced march of prisoners of war or other captives or deportees in which individuals are left to die along the way. ... Death marches usually feature harsh physical labour and abuse, neglect of prisoner injury and illness, deliberate starvation and dehydration, humiliation, torture, and execution of those unable to keep up the marching pace. The march may end at a prisoner-of-war camp or internment camp, or it may continue until all the prisoners are dead. "

From that I still don't understand your question.

Anyone with any military understanding and with the factual account of the situation on-the-ground in Ukraine (which you can not get from sources pushing the "approved narrative") will draw the inevitable conclusion that Ukraine will is not and never was capable of achieving any kind of victory against Russia in this confrontation. The Western leaders must know this. I can not believe that the US military and other Western militaries have not presented detailed reports to the leaders explaining this conclusion down to the most mundane of details.

Russia has offered reasonable terms and has been present for negotiations, but it was Ukraine at the behest of the Western death-cult that has forced peace to fail each time.

> Why would you think the western world ( the death cult ? ) would want to support Russia's aggression instead of Ukraine's defense?

A war fought on the defense can never result in victory. The western support of Ukraine is provided on the provision that Ukraine does not attack Russian territory.

The support the western world is "giving" to Ukraine is not free. On top of the pointless death, destruction and devastation that Ukraine is suffering, Ukraine will inevitably have to repay the debt incurred from the "gifts". Ukraine is nothing to the western world, just a dog to kick and a cow to milk all the while serving as a cautionary tale designed to keep other nations in line and their own citizens blood appetite sated for now and hooked in anticipation for a feast soon.

> And finally, with the entire world already against Russia's aggression, why would Canada need to discredit India who's Russian support seems to be limited to dark room oil deals?

"the entire world" only stands against Russia in your perception, formed from a curated bubble of "approved sources". In reality, the world is split and Russia has powerful allies, one of which is the long-standing ally India. India is not just a back-room oil partner for Russia, they are an important and powerful military ally. By global population, Russia has more support than Ukraine. But of course, "the entire world" doesn't consider all lives equal so who cares about little details like that.