Saying “well the west protests too much I think” without evidence one way or the other is literally psyops propaganda built on speculation, designed to confirm a bias. Just like everything putins administration comments on.
Yeah, despite me not being in 100% agreement with a lot of people in this sub, I have definitely had some academically honest and rewarding discourse in here, especially about macroeconomics.
That being said, I don’t really see the same level of reason being applied to this particular claim, and the amount of cyclical reasoning being validated in these comments is worrying.
Hypothetically If the US were monitoring the negotiation of the attackers and the priest what would they do? Your enemy is going to be attacked by a third party, do we warn them?
Well let’s say you don’t warn your adversary, they may just assume you did it, especially if they found proof you knew it was going to occur. Or they could just propagandize off of it, knowing well that you had nothing to do with it.
Let’s say you do warn them, they may brush you off, but hey that’s their choice, but it does give you the potential of possible deniability. Or they could listen, increase security and potentially hand you a minor moral victory.
Now let’s assume this was sponsored by the west.
What is the net gain or loss involved with warning your enemy of a potential attack? Well, if they are pretty much the same as what happened if they weren’t responsible, then I don’t really see how it really support a claim either way.
One way to look at it is to think of the behavior itself as a type of enemy.
Despite Russia being the West’s adversary, so is Terrorism, at least ostensibly.
It could be like “Yeah we’re Ukraine’s ally, but we don’t condone terrorism so we’re going to warn”.
Note I have no knowledge of the specifics of this event other than the absolutely highest-level “there was a terrorist attack in a moscow theater”. Just discussing the “game theory” of why someone like the US or France might warn Moscow of a terrorist attack even while in a proxy war with Russia.
I mean, maybe that’s naively idealistic of me, but it’s a way to reason about whether or not to support it.
That is something I thought of, but withheld because I didn’t want to seem biased, and I don’t really don’t hold a lot of good faith in US foreign diplomacy.
It does make sense considering it’s the only real geopolitical angle they’ve begrudgingly worked together with in the last decade or so.
Yeah, despite me not being in 100% agreement with a lot of people in this sub, I have definitely had some academically honest and rewarding discourse in here, especially about macroeconomics.
That being said, I don’t really see the same level of reason being applied to this particular claim, and the amount of cyclical reasoning being validated in these comments is worrying.
Hypothetically If the US were monitoring the negotiation of the attackers and the priest what would they do? Your enemy is going to be attacked by a third party, do we warn them?
Well let’s say you don’t warn your adversary, they may just assume you did it, especially if they found proof you knew it was going to occur. Or they could just propagandize off of it, knowing well that you had nothing to do with it.
Let’s say you do warn them, they may brush you off, but hey that’s their choice, but it does give you the potential of possible deniability. Or they could listen, increase security and potentially hand you a minor moral victory.
Now let’s assume this was sponsored by the west.
What is the net gain or loss involved with warning your enemy of a potential attack? Well, if they are pretty much the same as what happened if they weren’t responsible, then I don’t really see how it really support a claim either way.
One way to look at it is to think of the behavior itself as a type of enemy.
Despite Russia being the West’s adversary, so is Terrorism, at least ostensibly.
It could be like “Yeah we’re Ukraine’s ally, but we don’t condone terrorism so we’re going to warn”.
Note I have no knowledge of the specifics of this event other than the absolutely highest-level “there was a terrorist attack in a moscow theater”. Just discussing the “game theory” of why someone like the US or France might warn Moscow of a terrorist attack even while in a proxy war with Russia.
I mean, maybe that’s naively idealistic of me, but it’s a way to reason about whether or not to support it.
That is something I thought of, but withheld because I didn’t want to seem biased, and I don’t really don’t hold a lot of good faith in US foreign diplomacy.
It does make sense considering it’s the only real geopolitical angle they’ve begrudgingly worked together with in the last decade or so.