Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions



This is a very good answer, but it seems like it is not answering the original post. (Or maybe my perception is biased and I am reading something that is not there... I apologize if so).

The main point I took from the post (and with which I wholeheartedly agree, so I am not approaching this topic as rationally as I probably should), is that, when talking about "buying off" Russia with a bit of Ukrainian land, the attention somehow avoids the people living there, and what will happen to them if such a compromise was enacted.

Is there a part of the Russian underground that is prepared to fight for the minds, hearts and ammunition of the troops?

Probably not. And the existing system does everything it can to make sure no such underground will arise, by destroying the agency of the people living there. Chances are the system will succeed and there won't be any change, forever.

And when talking about ceding, say, Zaporizhzhia Oblast to Russia, you must not forget that the people living there will get the same choice as the rest of Russia does now: get tortured, or become a zombie, or become an NPC.


True; but I think one of the Viktoria's main points was that any "compromises" which surface in popular discussions from time to time, those that involve ceding parts of Ukraine to Russian control, will doom the people living there to the same fate people in Russia are already facing (or worse, because the regime on the newly-annexed territories will be more evil simply due to how the Russian system works).

Right now there is an opportunity to liberate the occupied territories, including Crimea, and at least the people of those lands will be saved. When considering any compromises, the invisible loss of those people must be factored in. Once this opportunity passes, another might not arise for a long time.

Also, there is a "theory" that Crimea is the Putin's phylactery. In the sense that so-called "Crimean consensus", the popular approval rise he got out of annexing Crimea, was a major factor in propping up his current  power, and after losing Crimea he won't be able to survive as every faction will turn on him. We cannot know if that's true, but it will certainly destabilize the regime, and it may buy new opportunities for the Russian domestic players.

Could the mistakes be only a special case of a more general trait of being prone to changing its behavior for illegible reasons?

E.g. for me, the behavior in video #3 does not look like a mistake. Initially it feels like a possibly straightforward optimizing behavior, similar to the case #1, but then the object inexplicably "changes its mind", and that switches my perception of the video into an agentic picture. A mistake is only one possible interpretation; another can be the agent getting a new input (in a way unobvious to the viewer), or maybe something else going on inside the agent's "black box".