A couple of days ago, I got the idea of checking what the AI-based Chat GPT had to say about issues pertaining to the war in Ukraine. I must say that its answers were a pleasant surprise from the perspective that I hold dear – peace.
Here is what I asked and what it answered – within a couple of seconds:
How to make peace in Ukraine?
“The conflict in Ukraine is complex and multifaceted, and there are no simple solutions. However, here are some steps that could potentially contribute to peace in Ukraine:
- Dialogue: The first step towards peace in Ukraine is for all parties to engage in dialogue. This includes the Ukrainian government, the separatists in Eastern Ukraine, and Russia. All sides must be willing to sit down and negotiate in good faith.
- Ceasefire: A sustainable ceasefire is necessary to create an environment conducive to dialogue. All parties must agree to a cessation of hostilities and respect the ceasefire agreement.
- Humanitarian aid: The conflict has resulted in the displacement of many people, and there is a need for humanitarian aid to help those affected by the conflict.
- Addressing underlying issues: The conflict in Ukraine is rooted in political, economic, and social issues that need to be addressed. This includes issues related to language rights, economic disparities, and regional autonomy.
- International mediation: International mediation can play an important role in helping to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. The OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) has been involved in monitoring the ceasefire and facilitating dialogue between the parties.
- Respect for international law: All parties must respect international law, including the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
It’s important to note that there are many challenges to achieving peace in Ukraine, including deep-seated mistrust between the parties and conflicting interests. However, taking steps towards dialogue, ceasefire, addressing underlying issues, international mediation, and respect for international law can help move towards peace.”
Advantages and disadvantages of sending weapons to Ukraine?
“Advantages of sending weapons to Ukraine:
- Increased military capabilities: Sending weapons to Ukraine would increase its military capabilities, allowing it to better defend itself against separatists in the east of the country and potential aggression from Russia.
- Deterrence: The presence of more powerful weapons in Ukraine could deter Russia from taking further aggressive actions.
- Strengthened alliances: Sending weapons to Ukraine could strengthen its alliances with countries that support it, such as the United States and other NATO members.
Disadvantages of sending weapons to Ukraine:
- Escalation of conflict: Sending weapons to Ukraine could escalate the conflict, leading to increased violence and casualties on both sides.
- Russian response: Sending weapons to Ukraine could provoke a response from Russia, potentially leading to a larger conflict and further destabilization of the region.
- Arms race: Sending weapons to Ukraine could contribute to an arms race in the region, with Russia potentially responding by increasing its own military capabilities.
- Divisiveness among allies: Sending weapons to Ukraine could be seen as divisive among allies, with some countries opposing such action and potentially damaging diplomatic relationships.
Overall, the decision to send weapons to Ukraine is a complex and controversial one, with potential advantages and disadvantages that must be carefully weighed. It’s important to consider the potential consequences of such action and to work towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine.”
Was NATO’s expansion a good idea?
“The question of whether NATO expansion is a good idea is a complex and controversial one, and there are different perspectives on this issue. Here are some arguments for and against NATO expansion:
Arguments for NATO expansion:
- Security: NATO expansion provides additional security guarantees to countries that join the alliance, particularly those that are located near Russia. This can help deter aggression from Russia and provide a sense of security to smaller countries.
- Stability: NATO expansion can contribute to stability in Europe by strengthening democratic institutions and promoting economic development. This can help prevent conflicts and ensure long-term stability in the region.
- Promoting shared values: NATO expansion promotes shared democratic values, including the rule of law, human rights, and individual freedoms. This can help strengthen ties between countries and promote greater cooperation.
Arguments against NATO expansion:
- Provocation: NATO expansion can be seen as provocative by Russia, which may view it as a threat to its security. This can increase tensions and potentially lead to conflict.
- Cost: NATO expansion can be expensive, particularly for smaller countries that join the alliance. This can divert resources from other important areas, such as social services and infrastructure.
- Sovereignty: NATO expansion can be seen as a violation of national sovereignty, particularly if it involves countries that have historically been within Russia’s sphere of influence. This can be seen as an affront to Russia and may contribute to further tensions.
Overall, the question of whether NATO expansion is a good idea depends on a number of factors, including geopolitical considerations, economic factors, and strategic goals. While there are arguments for and against NATO expansion, ultimately the decision to expand the alliance must be based on a careful analysis of these factors and a consideration of the potential consequences of such action.”
Did Gorbachev get assurances that NATO would not expand eastward?
“Yes, there is evidence to suggest that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev received assurances from Western leaders that NATO would not expand eastward.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, as the Soviet Union began to collapse, Gorbachev sought to reduce tensions with the West and promote greater cooperation between the two sides. One of his key concerns was the future of NATO, which he viewed as a potential threat to Soviet security. In negotiations with Western leaders, Gorbachev reportedly sought assurances that NATO would not expand its membership or military presence in Eastern Europe.
According to some accounts, Western leaders did provide Gorbachev with assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. For example, former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker has said that he promised Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not extend “one inch” to the east if the Soviets agreed to the reunification of Germany. Similarly, former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl has stated that he assured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward if the Soviets agreed to the reunification of Germany.
However, there is some debate over the extent and nature of these assurances. Some Western officials have argued that they only promised not to station NATO troops permanently in East Germany, and that they did not make any commitments regarding the future expansion of NATO. In any case, NATO did eventually expand eastward, with several former Warsaw Pact countries joining the alliance in the 1990s and 2000s. This has been a source of tension between Russia and the West in recent years.”
What is the relationship between conflicts and violence?
“Conflicts and violence are closely related, as conflicts often escalate into violent confrontations. Conflict refers to a state of disagreement or opposition between two or more parties, whereas violence refers to the use of physical force to cause harm or damage.
When conflicts are not resolved through peaceful means, they can lead to violent actions by one or both sides. Violence can range from verbal abuse to physical assault, and in extreme cases, it can result in war and genocide.
However, it’s important to note that not all conflicts lead to violence. Conflict resolution techniques such as negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy can help parties to reach a peaceful resolution without resorting to violence.
In summary, conflicts can escalate into violence, but it’s not inevitable. Effective conflict resolution strategies can help prevent or deescalate violent confrontations.”
All these answers seem to me rather amazing and indeed “intelligent.” They reveal more knowledge and broad approaches/understanding of complex issues than any Western decision-maker I have come across recently
What we see is that:
ā¢ AI “thinking” of peace does not include more armament.
ā¢ AI’s approach to peace is much more aligned with genuine, research-based concepts of peace and, importantly, implies a reduction of violence; it is intellectually vastly superior to that of the present Western leaders.
ā¢ AI is able to handle – take into account – a series of aspects and dimensions, something I would not say that the present managers – on all sides – of the Ukraine war have shown any similar ability to do.
ā¢ AI seems able to look at issues from more than one side.
ā¢ AI reveals a relevant and knowledge-based understanding of the relations between manifest violence and underlying conflicts. Professionally, it defines both concepts quite well. In comparison, the media, the politicians and many experts – military, in particular – appear obsessed with the violence – the weapons, what happens at the battlefield and who is to blame – rather than asking the relevant questions: Why did violence occur, what are the issues standing between the parties that they could not handle non-violently and what can be done to solve those incompatibilities, those conflicts?
They are simply not conflict-intelligent compared with AI – and, in addition, would not focus on the underlying conflicts because there they would have to ask whether NATO’s expansion was a good idea.
ā¢ AI is honest. Its answer to the question about the promises given to Gorbachev flatly contradicts the present Western propaganda that Gorbachev was never given such promises. For your information, the homepages of both the EU and NATO denies that he got any such promises and NATO also states that that is an argument aligned with Russian disinformation.
In conclusion, it seems – and yes, it is a mind-boggling thought – that it would be better for the world if AI were used as an inspirational tool in conflict resolution and peace-making policies than if we continue to rely completely on the HI – Human Intelligence – which presently dominates in prime ministers’ offices, defence, foreign ministries and parliaments.
You have probably noticed that the AI writes about “potential” Russian aggression.
This is because the AI only uses data prior to some date in 2021, when its data was input.
This AI is not a dynamic AI that can incorporate further data. It can only use the data it was given and subsequently “trained” on.
The AI even “thinks” that it is still 2021.
Try to ask it “What date is it?”.
Very true, Jakob – for instance, I just tried to ask whether it knew about the Chinese mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia last week, and it responded that its “cutoff date” was September 2021. And of course, AI cannot produce an output that has not been put in. However, most of the questions I tested were of a more theoretical nature or, as in the case of promises to Gorbachev, went way back in relation to its cutoff date. So, yes, it is not uptodate on Ukraine but its general answer there too – also when seen in relation to its handling of peace and its elements – is till not uninteresting, in my view. Thanks for your pointing this out.
Yes, it is interesting regardless.
However, as I understand it, Bakers promise to Gorbachev is not just alleged but actually documented eg:
https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Baker-Gorbachev-conversation.webp
Be careful with Bitterwinter š I have documented basically all about this here – and there are tons of better sources, incl the National Security Archive in the US: https://transnational.live/2022/08/18/the-tff-abolish-nato-catalogue/
And there is Sarotte’s brilliant book… so many solid sources… cascades of them – but both the EU and NATO lies about this issue and say that Gorbachev never got such promises.
On the other AI issue – which this post is actually about: You were right in pointing out that Chat GPT ends its “knowledge” in 2021. But https://www.perplexity.ai – tells you what happened yesterday. Very interesting!
Jeg tror desvƦrre ikke, at USA og Ukraine er motiverede for konfliktlĆøsning. Imperialismen og deres redskaber har deres egenlogik.
Vel, det gĆør jeg heller ikke umiddelbart – men der kommer jo en smertegrƦnse for enhver i den her slags situationer.
I Ćøvrigt har Rusland jo allerede foreslĆ„et fredslĆøsningsforslag som Ukraine, Tyskland og Frankrig har imĆødekommet i form af Minsk-Aftalerne. Men…hvilket jo bekrƦfter, at imperialismen og dets redskaber….
Yep, vi ved jo hvad Angela Merkel og andre har sagt om Minsk-forhandlingernes egentlige rolle i det hƩr spil.
Og om baggrunds-konteksten:
Some of Us Donāt Think the Russian Invasion Was āAggression.ā Hereās Why.
By Mike Whitney
Global Research, March 11, 2023
āWe are not threatening anyone.ā¦ We have made it clear that any further NATO movement to the east is unacceptable. Thereās nothing unclear about this. We arenāt deploying our missiles to the border of the United States, but the United States IS deploying their missiles to the porch of our house. Are we asking too much? Weāre just asking that they not deploy their attack-systems to our homeā¦. What is so hard to understand about that?ā Russian President Vladimir Putin,
Imagine if the Mexican army started bombarding American ex-pats living in Mexico with heavy artillery-rounds killing thousands and leaving thousands more wounded. What do you think Joe Biden would do?
Would he brush it off like a big nothing-burger and move on or would he threaten the Mexican government with a military invasion that would obliterate the Mexican Army, level their biggest cities, and send the government running for cover?
Which of these two options do you think Biden would choose?
Thereās no doubt what Biden would do nor is there any question what the 45 presidents who preceded him would do. No US leader would ever stand by and do nothing while thousands of Americans were savagely slaughtered by a foreign government. That just wouldnāt happen. Theyād all respond quickly and forcefully.
But if thatās true, then why isnāt the same standard applied to Russia? Isnāt the situation in Ukraine nearly identical?
It is nearly identical, only the situation in Ukraine is worse, much worse. And if we stretch our analogy a bit, youāll see why:
Letās say, the US Intelligence agencies discovered that the Mexican government was not acting alone, but was being directed to kill and maim American ex-pats on orders from the Chinese Communist government in Beijing. Can you imagine that?
And the reason the Chinese government wants to kill Americans in Mexico is because they want to lure the US into a long and costly war that will āweakenā the US and pave way for its ultimate splintering into many pieces that China can control and exploit. Does any of this sound familiar? (Check out the Rand Strategy for weakening Russia here)
So, letās say, the Chinese are actually the driving force behind the war in Mexico. Letās say, they toppled the Mexican government years earlier and installed their own puppet regime to do their bidding. Then they armed and trained vast numbers of troops to fight the Americans. They supplied these warriors with cutting-edge weapons and technology, logistical support, satellite and communications assistance, tanks, armored vehicles, anti-ship missiles, and state-of-the-art artillery units all of which were provided with one goal in mind; to crush America in a proxy war that was concocted, controlled and micro-managed from the Chinese Capital of Beijing
Is such a scenario possible?
It is possible, in fact, this very same scenario is playing out right now in the Ukraine, only the perpetrator of the hostilities is the United States not China, and the target of this malign strategy is Russia not the US. Surprisingly, the Biden administration isnāt even trying to hide what theyāre up-to anymore. Theyāre openly arming, training, funding, and directing Ukrainian troops to prosecute a war aimed at killing Russian soldiers and removing Putin from power. Thatās the objective and everyone knows it.
And the whole campaign is based on the sketchy claim that Russia is guilty of āunprovoked aggressionā. Thatās the whole deal in a nutshell. The moral justification for the war rests on the unverified assumption that Russia committed a criminal offense and broke international law by invading Ukraine. But, did they?
Letās see if that assumption is correct or if itās just another fake claim by a dissembling media that never stops tweaking the narrative to build the case for war.
First of all, answer this one question related to the analogy above: If the US deployed troops to Mexico to protect American expats from being bombarded by the Mexican army, would you regard that deployment as an āunprovoked aggressionā or a rescue mission?
Rescue mission, right? Because the primary intention was to save lives not seize the territory of another sovereign country.
Well, thatās what Putin was doing when he sent his tanks into Ukraine. He was trying stop the killing of civilians living in the Donbas whose only fault was that they were ethnic Russians committed to their own culture and traditions. Is that a crime?
Take a look at this map.
This map is the key to understanding how the war in Ukraine started. It tells us who did the provoking and who was being provoked. It tells us who was dropping the bombs and who was getting bombed. It tells us who was causing the trouble and who was being blamed for the trouble-making. The map tells us everything we need to know.
Can you see the yellow dots? Those dots represent the artillery strikes that were documented in daily summaries by āobservers of the Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE), positioned at the frontlines.ā The vast majority of the strikes were in the area inhabited by Russian-speaking people who have been under military siege for the last 8 years. (14,000 ethnic Russians have been killed in the fighting since 2014.) The Minsk Agreements were drawn up to resolve the issues between the warring parties and end the hostilities, but the government in Kiev refused to implement the agreement. In fact, the former President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, even admitted that the treaty was just a vehicle for buying time until another full-scale offensive on the Donbas could be launched.
In short, the Ukrainian government never had any intention of reaching a peaceful settlement with leaders of the Donbas. Their goal was to intensify the conflict in order to provoke Russia and draw them into a protracted war that would exhaust their resources and collapse their economy. The long-range objective was to remove Putin from office and replace him with a Washington-backed stooge that would do as he was told. US officialsā including Joe Biden- have even admitted that their plan involved regime change in Moscow. We should take them at their word.
The map provides a visual account of the events leading up the Russian invasion. It cuts through the lies and identifies the true origins of the war which can be traced back to the heavy artillery strikes launched by the Ukrainian Army more than a week before the Russian invasion. (February 24) The massive shelling was aimed at the Russian-speaking people living in an area in east Ukraine. These are the people who were being bombarded by their fellow Ukrainians.
What Really Happened?
On February 16āa full 8 days before the Russian invasionāthe shelling of the Donbas increased dramatically and steadily intensified for the next week āto over 2,000 per day on February 22.ā As we said, these blasts were logged in daily summaries by observers of the OSCE who were on the frontlines. Think about that for a minute. In other words, these are eyewitness accounts by trained professionals who collected documented evidence of the Ukrainian Armyās massive bombardment of areas inhabited by their own people.
Would this evidence hold up in a court of law if a case against the Ukrainian government was ever presented before an international tribunal trying to assign accountability for the hostilities?
We think it would. We think the evidence is rock-solid. In fact, we have not read or heard of even one analyst who has challenged this vast catalogue of documented evidence. Instead, the media simply pretends the proof doesnāt exist. They have simply swept the evidence under the rug or vanished it from their coverage altogether in order to shape a Washington-centric version of events that completely ignores the historical record. But facts are facts. And the facts donāt change because the media fails to report them. And what the facts suggest is that the war in Ukraine is a Washington-concocted war no different than Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. Once again, Uncle Samās bloody fingerprints are all over this sorry affair.
Check out this summary of ceasefire violations posted on podcast host Martyr Madeās twitter account:
Martyr Made @martyrmade
On Feb 15, the OSCE recorded 41 ceasefire violations as Kievās forces began shelling Donbas.
Feb 16: 76 violations
Feb 17: 316
Feb 18: 654
Feb 19: 1,413
Feb 20-21: 2,026
Feb 22: 1,484
ā¦virtually all by the Kiev side. Feb 24: Russian forces intervene
Notice how the shelling of the Donbas increased every day before the invasion?
Iād call that a thoroughly-calculated provocation, wouldnāt you?
Why does this matter?
It matters because the vast majority of people have been hoodwinked into supporting a war for which there is no moral justification. This is not a case of āunprovoked aggressionā. Not even close. And Putin is not an out-of-control tyrant bent on reconstituting the Soviet Empire by terrorizing his neighbors and seizing their territory. That is a complete fabrication based on nothing but speculation. In Putinās own words, he invaded Ukraine because he had no choice. His own people were being ruthlessly exterminated by an army that acts on Washingtonās orders alone. He had to invade, there was no other option. Putin felt a moral obligation to defend the ethnic Russians in Ukraine who could not defend themselves. Is that aggression? Hereās a bit more background from an article at The Intercept by James Risen:
Despite staging a massive military buildup on his countryās border with Ukraine for nearly a year, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not make a final decision to invade until just before he launched the attack in February, according to senior current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
In December, the CIA issued classified reports concluding that Putin hadnāt yet committed to an invasion, according to the current and former officials. In January, even as the Russian military was starting to take the logistical steps necessary to move its troops into Ukraine, U.S. intelligence again issued classified reporting maintaining that Putin had still not resolved to actually launch an attack, the officials said.
It wasnāt until February that the agency and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community became convinced that Putin would invade, the senior official added. With few other options available at the last minute to try to stop Putin, President Joe Biden took the unusual step of making the intelligence public, in what amounted to a form of information warfare against the Russian leader. He also warned that Putin was planning to try to fabricate a pretext for invasion, including by making false claims that Ukrainian forces had attacked civilians in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, which is controlled by pro-Russian separatists. The preemptive use of intelligence by Biden revealed āa new understanding ā¦ that the information space may be among the most consequential terrain Putin is contesting,ā observed Jessica Brandt of the Brookings Institution.ā
Bidenās warning on February 18 that the invasion would happen within the week turned out to be accurate. In the early hours of February 24, Russian troops moved south into Ukraine from Belarus and across Russiaās borders into Kharkiv, the Donbas region, and Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.ā (āU.S. Intelligence Says Putin Made a Last-Minute Decision to Invade Ukraineā,James Risen, The Intercept)
Thereās so much baloney in this excerpt, itās hard to know where to begin. But just review the timeline we provided earlier; a timeline that has been verified by officials from the OSCE. Can you see the discrepancy?
Biden issued his warning on February 18; thatās two days after monitors from the OSCE reported an intensification of the bombing in the Donbas. In other words, Biden already knew that his buddies in the Ukrainian army were bombing the shit out of east Ukraine when he tried to make it look like he was privy to some sensitive, insider information about the upcoming invasion.
Of course, he knew Putin was going to invade! They created the provocation that forced him to invade! They were bombing the hell out of the people Putin is obliged to protect. What else could he do? Any leader worth his salt would have done same thing.
What bothers me is that people continue support the war in Ukraine because they have no idea of what actually happened in the lead-up to the invasion.They know nothing about the relentless bombing of civilians, or the defiant rejection of Minsk or the repeated military attacks on the Donbas,or the or the plan to retake Crimea through force of arms. or the laws directed against ethnic Russians, or the rise of Nazi fascism in Kiev. They know nothing about any of these things. Their views on Ukraine are entirely shaped by the rubbish they read in the western media or hear on the cable news channels where the deluge of propaganda issues like a mighty river pulling the population inexorably towards another vicious neocon bloodbath.
People must know the truth or this war will escalate into something far worse.
Dear Per – I appreciate your engagement here, I really do. But – the famous but – my article is not about the NATO-Russia conflict per see – it’s about AU compared with HI with a few examples from the issues of that conflict. So, I shall not go into the details of the analysis you have pasted in here – but just let it stand for other readers to gain knowledge from. Thanks.
PS If you are interested, you’re welcome to browse articles on https://transnational.live – and, in particular, my 160-page analysis of all these things here:
https://transnational.live/2022/08/18/the-tff-abolish-nato-catalogue/
My comment regarding “documentation for promises to Gorbachev” should be understood in the context of AI.
I find it very symptomatic of the AI, that it’s worldview is in many regards politically correct pro-western skewed.
This is not strange.
Western big-tech which has long time been a core member of the Western hegemonic narrative-distortions have fed this AI with selected data, and then had an army of people “training” it to give “good” answers, and those people are both dominantly indoctrinated, and probably under strict rules to comply with the script.
It was interesting that it was “wise” regarding your “theoretical” questions.
But in many other instances it is blindsided by the Western narrative.
I agree with all that and, in parenthesis, exactly for that reason, the answer I got concerning the promises given to Gorbachev is also interesting because the official narrative denies those promises.
Jakob Hede Madsen : I totally agree with your reflections !
And now a few days later, our conversation about the September 2021 time limit of Chat GPT is already outdated…it seems:
https://uk.pcmag.com/news/146088/openai-supercharges-chatgpt-by-adding-web-browsing-support