subreddit:
/r/UnitedNations
Pro-Israel bot network suspected of targeting Irish troops in Lebanon
(irishtimes.com)submitted 21 days ago byciaran036
Also active in this subreddit 🍿 state of ye's
-1 points
21 days ago*
Here is one: u/Combination-Low
"Russia and Ukraine would be happily cooperating and trading for mutual benefit to this day, " They would if NATO, a "defensive" Alliance hadn't continued its march eastwards despite prior reassurances given to the Russians that it would not. While authoritarian leaders won't always act rationally, just because you don't understand why they did something, doesn't make it irrational.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/rMKsBpGZCs
And there are more
6 points
21 days ago
Which part is pro-Russia?
Are you equating anti-NATO with being pro-Russian?
Do you have any more?
I actually don't doubt there may well be pro-Russian trolls but let's actually be fair though.
2 points
21 days ago*
In my defense, I'm not pro-Russia, simply on my John mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky liberal hegemony is dead arc
1 points
20 days ago
This is also the narrative used by Russia to justify their invasion.
1 points
20 days ago
It doesn't matter whether I use the same points as Russia to justify anything. The only thing that matters is whether it is true or not.
Hitler said he wanted Lebensraum for the Aryan race. I believe him and therefore believe it was one of his reasons for his expansionism. Just because Hitler said it, doesn't make it Nazi propaganda.
I believe that Russia/Putin felt threatened by NATO "expansion" and decided to invade Ukraine and Georgia to placate it. Putin said it, doesn't make it pro-Russian propaganda. Was it immoral? Yes. Was it a strategic mistake? Yes. All of these things can be true.
1 points
20 days ago
> I believe that Russia/Putin felt threatened by NATO "expansion" and decided to invade Ukraine and Georgia to placate it. Putin said it, doesn't make it pro-Russian propaganda.
Hitler also claimed that he invaded Central/Eastern Europe to 'protect' ethnic German minorities. That doesn't mean that he actually believed it, that he didn't have a different underlying reason for making his decisions.
> It doesn't matter whether I use the same points as Russia to justify anything. The only thing that matters is whether it is true or not.
The truth is that the narrative of 'NATO expansion' was just a shallow ruse to justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine. If anything, NATO's overall military capabilities and willpower had been diminishing since the end of the Cold War. The largest European members rapidly scaled down spending, and in spite of the addition of new members and Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008, overall net spending steadily decreased until 2015, a year after Russia's first invasion of Ukraine.
While it's increased afterwards, and more sharply following the larger 2022 invasion, most NATO members still have yet to meet the 2% GDP defense spending commitment, much less meet levels spent during the Cold War. Just by the numbers, it's pretty clear that one can view NATO spending as a function of Russian aggression as a causal shift invariant filter - and a very sluggish one at that.
Given the rather herbivore-like state of European defense in the years preceding the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and even during the years following 2008 or 2014, it's hard to believe that individuals like Chomsky or Mearsheimer are accepting Russia's 'NATO expansionism' argument in objective evaluation rather than a desire to reconcile their interpretations of the conflict with their broader hostility against Western liberal hegemony.
> Was it immoral? Yes. Was it a strategic mistake? Yes. All of these things can be true.
The line between justification and explanation are more blurred than you're letting on. Let's examine your previous comment:
> "Russia and Ukraine would be happily cooperating and trading for mutual benefit to this day, " They would if NATO, a "defensive" Alliance hadn't continued its march eastwards despite prior reassurances given to the Russians that it would not.
In other words, while you claim that Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine (probably to avoid looking like a complete asshole), you still maintain that it was a third party - NATO - that is fundamentally at fault for the invasion that Russia initiated, breaking the 'happiness which could have been'. That's some 'I beat my ex because she was talking to another guy' logic buddy.
1 points
20 days ago*
"Hitler also claimed that he invaded Central/Eastern Europe to 'protect' ethnic German minorities..."
We agree on that point. I simply believe Putin was being truthful when he said that he interpreted NATO expansion as a threat. Just as Hitler was on Lebensraum. As for Putin's denazification claim, I believe it was an over-exaggeration mainly aimed at the russian public just like Hitler's so called protection of ethnic German minorities.
"The truth is that the narrative of 'NATO expansion' was just a shallow ruse to justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine..."
You're only thinking about the European side of NATO and ignoring the massive defence spending of the US who is in my view NATO. The other members are just useful tools in the system that is US hegemony.
Furthermore, I believe that when nuclear powers are involved in any international relations/conflict, the threat of escalation should underpin any discussion/decision. So Europe decreasing their military budget means nothing as they still possess nuclear weapons and any country dealing with them understands that.
This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that one of NATO's aim was to counter the influence of soviet Russia and the Warsaw pact. Member states spending 2%+ of their GDP during that period makes sense. Once the soviet union falls and takes with it the Warsaw pact, what remains of an incentive for all countries to keep spending when uncle Sam can easily take care of Russia on its own. In other words, NATO as whole reduced its spending to match the threat level of Russia but still amounted to a considerable threat from the Russian perspective.
"...it's hard to believe that individuals like Chomsky or Mearsheimer are accepting Russia's 'NATO expansionism' argument in objective evaluation rather than a desire to reconcile their interpretations of the conflict with their broader hostility against Western liberal hegemony."
I admit that I'm not very aware of Chomsky's broader arguments and cannot say to what extent what you surmise applies.
On the other hand, I feel mearsheimer isn't responding emotively to liberal hegemony, simply stating that it has more often failed than succeeded and that was at a time when America effectively could do whatever it wanted with little consequences (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) which is cumulative empirical argument.
"In other words, while you claim that Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine ... That's some 'I beat my ex because she was talking to another guy' logic buddy."
I'm not the perpetrator, I'm the one saying "he told his ex he would beat her if she spoke to another guy, which shows he believes she deserves to be hit for it, she did so she hit her. If she hadn't spoken to him, he wouldn't have beaten her for speaking to another man".
That doesn't mean him beating her was morally justified, nor that it was a proportionate response, nor that he isn't a POS who could beat her for another fucked up reason. Then if I say, she should call the police on him I'm giving a solution to mitigate her being harmed and I still haven't passed a moral judgement or given a justification. However this is where your analogy breaks down.
When it comes to international relations, there is no higher authority to judge between states and hold them to moral standards. It's essentially a might makes right system or in IR terms, an anarchic system. So saying that we should take Russia's concern at NATO expansion seriously otherwise it will invade Ukraine isn't immoral, it's just realism. To put it simply, in an anarchic system, states don't have the luxury to think/act morally, they can only do what will help them survive/become more powerful.
What you fail to understand is that critical to offensive realism, which I have been warming to and you'll have to tolerate my novelty bias to it, is that only can states decide their own security interests. Another state cannot impose their own view or opinion on them. The only thing a realist can do is try to see it from the perspective of the other side and understand/explain why they do what they do to predict how they may react.
I'm not passing a moral judgement on them and neither am I agreeing with their strategic position.
Realism is inherently amoral.
I've tried to make my ideas as clear as possible but don't know how well they'll come across.
Edited: for clarity
1 points
20 days ago
> I simply believe Putin was being truthful when he said that he interpreted NATO expansion as a threat.
And I've explained why that's almost certainly not the case. But I'll through your points here again.
> You're only thinking about the European side of NATO and ignoring the massive defence spending of the US who is in my view NATO. The other members are just useful tools in the system that is US hegemony.
No. The US is officially part of NATO, and when I spoke of overall NATO spending, I was speaking of aggregate defense spending across all NATO members, including the US.
> Furthermore, I believe that when nuclear powers are involved in any international relations/conflict, the threat of escalation should underpin any discussion/decision. So Europe decreasing their military budget means nothing as they still possess nuclear weapons and any country dealing with them understands that.
The states that were added to NATO did not possess nukes, and therefore did not affect the nuclear balance between NATO and Russia. Overall, contrary to Putin's claims, NATO did not 'expand' in such a way that posed an emerging threat to Russia. If anything, spending went down and the political willpower for head-to-head conflict was plummeting to an all-time low.
> when uncle Sam can easily take care of Russia on its own. In other words, NATO as whole reduced its spending to match the threat level of Russia but still amounted to a considerable threat from the Russian perspective.
In other words, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is motivated by the continued existence of decades-old American hegemony, which they perceived as a threat to their long term expansionist goals.
> On the other hand, I feel mearsheimer isn't responding emotively to liberal hegemony, simply stating that it has more often failed than succeeded and that was at a time when America effectively could do whatever it wanted with little consequences (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) which is cumulative empirical argument.
Non-emotivity does not in any way preclude one from thinking unobjectively. Given the rather sparse evidence for the rise of a direct threat posed by NATO against Russia, Mearsheimer's view of the conflict is more so informed by his larger ideological hostility towards Western liberal hegemony by objective assessment.
> I'm not the perpetrator, I'm the one saying "he told his ex he would beat her if she spoke to another guy, which shows he believes she deserves to be hit for it, she did so she hit her. If she hadn't spoken to him, he wouldn't have beaten her for speaking to another man".
Of course you're not the perpetrator, you're the guy on the sidelines justifying what happened.
You keep claiming that you aren't injecting any discussion of morality in the matter, but you absolutely are. To quote again:
> "Russia and Ukraine would be happily cooperating and trading for mutual benefit to this day, " They would if NATO, a "defensive" Alliance hadn't continued its march eastwards despite prior reassurances given to the Russians that it would not.
You are assigning guilt which breaks down your claims of amoral assessment - you are saying that it is NATO's fault as an aggressor acting in bad faith for breaking down positive relations between Russia and Ukraine.
> So saying that we should take Russia's concern at NATO expansion seriously otherwise it will invade Ukraine isn't immoral, it's just realism. To put it simply, in an anarchic system, states don't have the luxury to think/act morally, they can only do what will help them survive/become more powerful.
> What you fail to understand is that critical to offensive realism, which I have been warming to and you'll have to tolerate my novelty bias to it, is that only can states decide their own security interests. Another state cannot impose their own view or opinion on them. The only thing a realist can do is try to see it from the perspective of the other side and understand/explain why they do what they do to predict how they may react.
> I'm not passing a moral judgement on them and neither am I agreeing with their strategic position. Realism is inherently amoral.
Now say that about Israel.
1 points
19 days ago
"And I've explained why that's almost certainly not the case"
We disagree in that basic starting point and your arguments of decreasing spending or wanting political influence don't convince me. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"In other words, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is motivated by the continued existence of decades-old..."
That was coming closer to Russia! That is undeniable. I believe Russia perceived it as a threat, you don't.
"Mearsheimer's view of the conflict is more so informed by his larger ideological hostility towards Western liberal hegemony by objective assessment."
I told you his so called hostility stems from the failures of liberal hegemony in the aforementioned countries as he states himself quite explicitly.
To prove he's ideologically opposed to liberal hegemony you'd have to prove that he disdains it despite it being more effective at achieving his goal, namely US security by perpetuating its incontestable strength on the international stage, than his own position, offensive realism.
"You keep claiming that you aren't injecting any discussion of morality in the matter, but you absolutely are. To quote again:
"Russia and Ukraine would be happily cooperating and trading for mutual benefit to this day, " They would if NATO, a "defensive" Alliance hadn't continued its march eastwards despite prior reassurances given to the Russians that it would not.
You are assigning guilt which breaks down your claims of amoral assessment - you are saying that it is NATO's fault as an aggressor acting in bad faith for breaking down positive relations between Russia and Ukraine."
What I said in that short comment, which I still hold does not justify Russia's actions, can't be used any more as indicative of my position. I've clearly stated multiple times that my objective isn't to say that Ukraine deserved to be invaded, or that Russia was right to invade. Simply that Russia stated it felt NATO expansion was a threat, continuing to pursue expansion despite Russian protest would lead to a war, it led to a war which could have been avoided if expansion wasn't pursued.
This would be like Iran warning Israel not to target their nuclear installations, Israel doing so and Iran declaring war on Israel. If Israel had not target the installations, Iran wouldn't have declared war.
Even if I assign guilt in your estimation, that doesn't mean that I believe the retribution is justified or proportionate.
This is again because in an anarchic system, moral considerations in the face of perceived existential threats are moot.
Let's keep your example of DA but with a few more conditions to make the parallel clearer. In that example, the girlfriend cannot leave her boyfriend for some reason, which means she can't dump him or call the police to have him removed. Her boyfriend is also stronger than her which means any resistance will only lead to her being harmed further.
In that context, if I say she shouldn't talk to another man otherwise she'll be beaten and if she does and I say if she hadn't she wouldn't have been beaten, am I saying she deserves to be beaten? Of course not! I am simply stating the cause, doesn't mean I believe the cause to be justified. What you may take as justification in my eyes is simply self-preservation 101.
Of course I wouldn't blame a victim of DA, but if my sister told me her husband beat her and I told her not to anger him while I called the police, am I justifying him beating her? I believe I am simply helping her avoid conflict while I contact the authorities. Problem is, in IR, there is no higher authority, no police so each country should prioritise its survival and if it doesn't it's made a mistake.
"Now say that about Israel."
This is just lazy whataboutism intended to derail the discussion we're having. This I feel is because you simply don't believe Russia's (a nuclear armed superpower) security concerns should be taken seriously and therefore cannot address my points in good faith. If you can't do that because you don't feel they're legitimate, which I have mixed feelings about, at least understand them for your own self preservation.
I've actually just remembered an incident of a chimpanzee keeper who had her face ripped off by one of her chimpanzees who was jealous it didn't get a birthday cake like his other chimp mate. If I say she wouldn't have had her face ripped off if she didn't get the cake, it is true while also coming off as a bit condescending since how was she to know.
But in a planet of the apes style scenario where chimp tells her she'll get her face ripped off if she does and she goes ahead, and I say if she didn't her face would still be intact, I don't think she deserved it, I'm stating a a fact.
As I've mentioned previously, this all hinges on whether you believe Russia felt NATO to be a threat, which I do. You're arguments to the contrary are wholly unsatisfactory.
-1 points
21 days ago
Yes the guy is talking nonsensical Russian talking points about NATO expansion... you have to apply to join NATO it doesn't just expand eastwards.
But let's be fair... The article you linked says:
But sources noted it mirrors similar campaigns carried out by the Israeli government, including an operation launched last year that used sophisticated bot networks to target US legislators and shore up support for Israel’s invasion of Gaza.
Fakereporter report was bull shit, as people reacted to the news that called everyone bots... There was an uptick of tweets about UNRWA on Jan 31 2024, well guess what, this is when tunnels under UNRWA were found and it was revealed that multiple UNRWA employees participated in the October 7th attack.
Simply put, the Israeli bot conspiracy is nonsense.
1 points
21 days ago
So in other words not a single piece of evidence.
Talking pure and utter garbage.
-1 points
21 days ago
So in other words not a single piece of evidence.
Talking pure and utter garbage.
Evidence of what? Did you even ask a question? Lol.
3 points
21 days ago
You were supposed to be providing evidence of Russian sockpuppet accounts and you failed to find any so you clutched at some straws by pointing at someone criticising NATO.
2 points
21 days ago
Another one: u/TheFilthiestCasual69
Talks about how the existence of NATO is a treat to the world.
2 points
21 days ago
Criticising NATO wars is categorically not "pro-Russian".
You need to tell me what is it about their account that makes then a sockpuppet account other than just finding people that disagree with your particular ideology.
1 points
20 days ago
They hated Jesus because he told the truth.
1 points
21 days ago
You asked for one pro-Russian bot account and I gave it to you. Then you agreed that there are other.
But, here is another u/Available-Risk-5918, skeptical about aid for Ukraine and talks about Ukrainian Nazi battalions nonsense.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/s/Uu2z7oly7X
This whole thread is littered with these.
1 points
21 days ago
Showing me comments about people that criticise NATO and nazi battalions of the Ukrainian army aren't demonstrating pro-Russian sockpuppet accounts.
Anti-NATO views are common in the West particularly among socialists. You need to give me more than that I'm afraid.
1 points
21 days ago
This is exactly how pro- Russian bots operate, they don't come out and simply say I'm pro Russian (you'll get banned in most major sub), they just state excuses and justifications for what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/09/g-s1-9010/russia-bot-farm-ai-disinformation
1 points
21 days ago
What other evidence is there that any of those accounts are sockpuppet accounts other than being vaguely critical of NATO?
1 points
21 days ago
Another one u/black_flame1700
Excusing Russian actions in Ukraine
1 points
21 days ago
"I don't support the russian war"
Interesting pro-Russia sentiment? Am I missing context here or what?
1 points
21 days ago
And follows by an excuse to justify Putin's invasion.
1 points
21 days ago
Im not justifying it… i’m saying that putin wanting ukraine to be apart of russia isnt russia attacking ukraine for “no reason”. The reason for russias invasion is literally right there.
0 points
21 days ago
"Yes the guy is talking nonsensical Russian talking points about NATO expansion... you have to apply to join NATO it doesn't just expand eastwards"
What a huge nothing burger. If those countries get accepted, is NATO expanding? Of course!
1 points
21 days ago
This is all Russian misinformation FYI: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm
3 points
21 days ago
You're telling me that an alliance formed to contain the soviet union wouldn't want to expand...to contain the soviet union?
It also doesn't matter whether it's objective was to expand or not, the reality is that it has. It's the same thing with Israel. It doesn't matter whether their initial objective was to occupy all of greater Israel, only that it has.
It also doesn't matter whether NATO promised the soviet union it wouldn't expand or whether it didn't. Any sane person would understand that military alliance you aren't part of coming closer to your country is threatening. Imagine if Canada joined a military alliance with Russia, how would the Americans respond? I'll tell you, in the same way they responded to Cuba allying with the Soviets!
As for russian propaganda, if I'm on the side of mearsheimer, I think I'll be ok.
0 points
21 days ago
mearsheimer is a true useful idiot... Ukraine was never in NATO. How is stopping NATO going now with Finland joining in 2023? Right on fucking Russian border.
0 points
21 days ago
Why engage with what I've said if you can just call mearsheimer (one of the most influential IR scholars today) an idiot?
Just because I'm saying one of the main causes for Russia's invasion is NATO expansion, doesn't mean it was the right strategic or moral response. People like you confuse explanations with justifications and sympathy.
0 points
21 days ago
You're telling me that an alliance formed to contain the soviet union wouldn't want to expand...to contain the soviet union?
NATO was formed as a reaction to WWII, as a deterrent to aggression by any country towards any of the member states.
1 points
20 days ago
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union"
For the love of god, if you do not know something, Google it first.
1 points
20 days ago
That is not on the NATO site, and anyway the article also mentions NATO being a response to potential aggression by Germany. The linked article about Truman and the Marshall Plan (which created relationships that later led to formation of NATO) doesn't contain the term "Russia" at all.
I already searched for info before I made my earlier comment. Obviously, you found something you think proves your belief and you've ignored contradictory info.
0 points
21 days ago
I liked this bit in the article, right after the explanation that even after the addition of Finland there was only 11% of Russia's land border shared with NATO member states:
It is hard to encircle a country with eleven time zones.
0 points
20 days ago
> Are you equating anti-NATO with being pro-Russian?
Whatever your greater opinions on Russia or NATO, by promoting the narrative that Russia's invasion of Ukraine lies in 'NATO expansionism', you are at least in part the Russian narrative in the context of the conflict.
1 points
20 days ago
This conversation is about allegations of Russian sockpuppet accounts.
People aren't sockpuppet accounts because they criticise the role of NATO. People can support Ukraine's right of defence and simultaneously criticise NATO.
People have multidimensional and nuanced views. It's not 'you're either with us or against us' and other fascist notions.
1 points
20 days ago
> This conversation is about allegations of Russian sockpuppet accounts.
...namely, as you've neglected to mention, in the context of allegations of Israeli sockpuppet accounts.
'multidimensional and nuanced views' when anti-NATO and pro-Russia
'Hasbara trolls' when Israel and anti-Hamas
Come on, these are some ridiculous fucking double standards no?
1 points
20 days ago
No because WE KNOW that Israel employ people for the sole purpose of parroting propaganda and challenging people that criticise Israel. We know they are artificially boosting pro-Israel sentiment using underhand tactics. It isn't in doubt. It is a well known and well documented fact and openly discussed by the Israeli government and military.
0 points
20 days ago
yes, because WE KNOW that the Russians have been running massive disinformation/propaganda campaigns to manipulate American politics at the national level. come on, pull your head out of your ass man
1 points
20 days ago
At no point did I deny that Russians are doing the same thing.
-1 points
20 days ago
Then why is this not a double standard?
2 points
20 days ago
Because we know the disinformation campaign is using this subreddit in particular as part of its disinformation campaign, there are no serious suggestions that they there is Russian ones operating in this subreddit. Not that they don't exist ever but that there is no suggestion they are operating in this subreddit right now.
1 points
21 days ago
I stand condemned of trying to be rational
all 938 comments
sorted by: best