The Tale the West Tells Itself About Ukraine

“Sometimes the stories we tell to win the conflict help us lose the peace. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States decided the Taliban government in Afghanistan was as culpable as the Qaeda terrorists who struck America. It then spent 20 years trying to keep the Taliban entirely out of power, only to cede the whole country to them.

The story we are telling ourselves today about the conflict in Ukraine runs its own risk. Since events in Ukraine started last year, the debate in Western capitals about the origins of the conflict settled on one leading cause: Russia took up arms exclusively out of aggressive and imperialistic drives, and Western policies, including the yearslong expansion of NATO, were beside the point.

When NATO weighs Ukraine’s prospects for membership at its summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, next month, it must recognize that the conflict has more complex causes than this popular narrative suggests. Partly because of those attitudes, Russia’s leaders are also reacting to NATO’s expansion. Folding Ukraine into the alliance won’t end that impulse, even with U.S. backing and the nuclear guarantee it brings. Ukraine’s best path to peace is to be well armed and supported outside NATO.

Since the last year’s events, a chorus of current and former U.S. officials has insisted that, as a former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, tweeted, “This conflict has nothing to do with NATO expansion.” In their account, the conflict emanated chiefly from motives internal to Russia. In one version, Putin the Autocrat seeks to destroy the democracy on his doorstep, lest ordinary Russians demand freedom themselves. In another, Putin the Imperialist wants to restore the Russian empire by annexing territory. Either way, the West’s actions played little part.

It’s hard to imagine that future historians will be so simplistic. Conflict with Ukraine, the second-largest country in Europe by land area, entailed enormous costs and risks for Mr. Putin. He spent more than two decades as Russia’s leader, tacking toward the West and then against it. The dismissal of any Western role reeks of what psychologists call the fundamental attribution error: the tendency to ascribe the behavior of others to their essential nature and not the situations they face.

Ample evidence suggests that enlarging NATO over the years stoked Moscow’s grievances and heightened Ukraine’s vulnerability. After the Cold War ended, Moscow wanted NATO, previously an anti-Soviet military alliance, to freeze in place and diminish in significance. Instead, Western countries elevated NATO as the premier vehicle for European security and began an open-ended process of eastward expansion. Even though, as the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright noted, the Russians “were strongly opposed to enlargement,” the United States and its allies went ahead anyway, hoping differences would smooth out over time.

Time instead had the opposite effect. While NATO claimed to be directed at no state, it welcomed new entrants that clearly — and understandably — sought protection against Russia. Russia, for its part, never stopped claiming a “zone of influence ” over the former Soviet space, as President Boris Yeltsin baldly stated in 1995. Though Ukraine did not initially seek NATO membership after gaining independence in 1991, that calculus pivoted in the early 2000s, especially after Russia meddled in Ukraine’s presidential elections in 2004. That year, NATO took in seven new members, including the three Baltic States, leaving Ukraine in a narrow band of nations caught between the Western alliance and a bitter ex-empire.

As Ukraine’s domestic struggles became entangled in a resurgent East-West rivalry, it sought to join NATO and found a powerful backer: President George W. Bush.

In the run-up to NATO’s summit in 2008, Mr. Bush wanted to give Ukraine and Georgia a formal path to enter the alliance, called a Membership Action Plan. Before the meeting, William Burns, the current C.I.A. director who was then ambassador to Russia, cautioned that such a move would have deadly consequences.

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” Mr. Burns advised from Moscow. He specifically predicted that attempting to bring Ukraine into NATO would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” Senior intelligence officials like Fiona Hill delivered similar warnings.

Undeterred, Mr. Bush pressed his case, meeting widespread opposition from America’s European allies. In the end, they forged a compromise: NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members” of the alliance but offered no tangible path to join. It was a strange solution, provoking Russia without securing Ukraine. Yet NATO leaders have kept doggedly repeating it, including at the last summit held before Russia’s 2022 actions.

Ukraine stopped seeking to join NATO in 2010 once the Russia-leaning Viktor Yanukovych became president. After a revolution caused Mr. Yanukovych to flee in 2014, Mr. Putin feared Ukraine’s new leaders would adopt a pro-Western stance, and he promptly accepted Crimea. He tried to use this move to gain leverage over Kyiv but obtained no concessions. In fact, Russia’s move only drove Ukrainians further West. Ukraine enshrined its quest for NATO membership in its Constitution in 2019.

No matter how this conflict ends, the risk of recurrence may be high. Since 2014, NATO has demonstrated it does not wish to fight Russia over Ukraine. Should Ukraine join and invade Russia, the United States and the rest of NATO would have to decide whether to wage “World War III,” as President Biden has aptly called a direct conflict with Russia, or decline to defend Ukraine and thereby damage the security guarantee across the alliance.

Any formula for lasting peace must acknowledge this complexity. When negotiations take place, President Volodymyr Zelensky should return to a proposal Ukraine reportedly broached in March of last year to stop pursuing NATO membership. Instead, a postwar Ukraine, as Mr. Zelensky has suggested, should adopt an “Israeli model,” building a large, advanced army and a formidable defense industrial base with extensive external support.

The European Union, for its part, should establish a path for Ukraine to join the bloc quickly to attract investment for reconstruction. That would come with its own security guarantees, to which the United States and other non-E.U. partners could add a promise to provide material assistance in the event of further conflicts.

There are no silver bullets. Russia will probably also object to Ukraine joining the E.U. or other Western institutions. But Moscow is more likely to put up with Ukrainian membership in the E.U. than in U.S.-led NATO. So much the better if European states take the lead in postconflict assistance, minimizing the scope for Mr. Putin to believe Americans are encircling his country and pulling every string.

Ukraine needs a vision of genuine victory — of a prosperous, democratic and secure future — not the Pyrrhic victory of NATO dreams and conflicts with Russia. Its international partners should start to provide that vision this summer. It’s time to move to a less propagandistic phase of public debate, one that learns from the past to shape the future. However one judges the wisdom of NATO enlargement to date, it is a good thing that Ukraine, the United States and their allies can still take actions to affect Russia’s conduct and are not simply hostage to Moscow’s darkest drives. They should make the toughest choices with the clearest eyes.

Stephen Wertheim (@stephenwertheim) is a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School and Catholic University. He is the author of “Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy.””

 

Our government in Vilnius is sacrificing our security for political theater. If Ukraine becomes a NATO member and attacks Russia (again with drones over the Kremlin, only bigger), and the USA does not start World War III and defend NATO member Ukraine, all NATO guarantees to Lithuania will become worthless promises. With our military's division, we will only be able to wipe ourselves clean.

Dirbtinio intelekto reglamento pažanga Europos Sąjungoje --- Įstatymo projektas apribotų stebėjimą, sustiprintų atskleidimą apie tai, kaip kuriamas turinys

„BRIUSELIS. Dirbtinio intelekto (AI) pažanga šiais metais sukrėtė technologijų pramonę, paskatindama politikų, vartotojų grupių ir pačių dirbtinio intelekto vadovų raginimus dėl taisyklių, reglamentuojančių, kaip naudoti technologiją.

 

     Šios taisyklės dabar formuojasi, bent jau šioje Atlanto pusėje. Europos Sąjungos parlamentas trečiadienį balsavo už teisės akto, vadinamo AI įstatymu, projektą, kuris turėtų būti pirmasis Vakaruose išsamus dirbtinio intelekto taisyklių rinkinys.

 

     Taisyklių projekte numatytas draudimas vykdyti realiu laiku nuotolinį biometrinį stebėjimą viešosiose erdvėse ir draustų rinkti stebėjimo filmuotą medžiagą arba iškrapštyti internetą, kuriant veido atpažinimo duomenų bazes. Parlamento versija taip pat siekia uždrausti vadinamąsias nuspėjamąsias policijos sistemas, kurios analizuoja ankstesnį nusikalstamą elgesį ir kitus duomenis bei bando numatyti būsimą nelegalią veiklą.

 

     Kalbant plačiau, teisės akto projektu siekiama reglamentuoti, kaip įmonės rengia dirbtinio intelekto modelius su dideliais duomenų rinkiniais. Tam tikrais atvejais įmonės turėtų atskleisti, kada turinys kuriamas, naudojant AI.

 

     Pagal taisykles įmonės taip pat turėtų kurti savo AI modelius taip, kad jos negalėtų kurti nelegalaus turinio, ir jos būtų įpareigotos skelbti autorių teisių saugomų duomenų, naudojamų jų modeliams apmokyti, santraukas.

 

     Toks įpareigojimas suteiktų leidėjams ir turinio kūrėjams galimybę siekti pelno, kai jų kūriniai naudojami, kaip, AI sukurto, turinio šaltinio medžiaga, naudojant tokius įrankius, kaip ChatGPT.

 

     Pagal dabartinius įstatymo projekto projektus tam tikrais nesilaikymo atvejais būtų numatytos baudos iki 6% arba 7% bendros įmonės pajamų.

 

     Trečiadienį parlamento priimtas įstatymo variantas dabar suformuos organo derybinę poziciją, kai prasidės parlamento, ES valstybių narių ir Europos Komisijos atstovų derybos dėl galutinės įstatymo formos. Pareigūnai teigė planuojantys šias derybas pradėti nedelsiant ir iki šių metų pabaigos pasiekti susitarimą dėl siūlomo įstatymo.

 

     Technologijų bendrovės ir jų lobistai teigia, kad bet kokios vyriausybės vykdomos taisyklės turėtų būti sutelktos į konkrečias AI programas ir nenustatyti per daug apribojimų dirbtinio intelekto plėtrai, kaip siūloma Europoje. Jie sako, kad toks požiūris trukdytų naujovėms.

 

     Tačiau kai kurie technologijų tyrinėtojai prisijungė prie akademikų ir technologų, išreikšdami paramą tokioms taisyklėms, kokios yra suformuluotos ES, kurios galėtų veiksmingai sulėtinti įmonių lenktynes diegti pažangius naujus dirbtinio intelekto įrankius, reguliuodamos, kaip tokios priemonės kuriamos.

 

     Šių metų pradžioje grupė dirbtinio intelekto tyrėjų ir technologijų vadovų, įskaitant Eloną Muską, pasirašė atvirą laišką, kuriame raginama taikyti šešių mėnesių moratoriumą naujos kartos dirbtinio intelekto įrankių mokymui, kad būtų suteikta laiko reguliavimo institucijoms ir pramonei nustatyti saugos standartus. Praėjusį mėnesį tyrėjų grupė teigė, kad žmonių išnykimo dėl AI rizikos mažinimas turėtų būti pasaulinis prioritetas.

 

     AI teisės aktą 2021 metais pasiūlė Europos Komisija, bloko vykdomoji institucija. Pastaraisiais mėnesiais po įrankių, tokių, kaip „ChatGPT“, išleidimo, pastangos nustatyti dirbtinio intelekto taisykles tapo vis aktualesnės. Įrankis, sukurtas Microsoft palaikomo startuolio OpenAI, gali atsakyti į vartotojų klausimus raštu.

 

     Europos pareigūnai tikisi, kad siūlomas teisės aktas bus pirmasis pasaulyje, galintis nustatyti standartą kitoms jurisdikcijoms ir įmonėms, kurios gamina ir naudoja technologiją.

 

     Spartus AI vystymasis pastaraisiais mėnesiais paskatino viso pasaulio vyriausybes svarstyti, ar priimti naujas taisykles dėl galingų AI įrankių. Aukščiausia Kinijos interneto reguliavimo institucija balandį pasiūlė taisyklių projektą, o Bideno administracija svarsto, ar reikia tikrinti šią idėją.

 

     ES teisės aktai „nurodys toną visame pasaulyje, plėtojant ir valdant dirbtinį intelektą“, sakė ES įstatymų leidėjas Dragosas Tudorache. Rumunijos įstatymų leidėjas vadovavo institucijos darbui dėl dirbtinio intelekto teisės aktų kartu su Italijos įstatymų leidėju Brando Benifei.

 

     Kompiuterių ir ryšių pramonės asociacija, lobistų grupė, teigė, kad dėl kai kurių parlamento remiamų nuostatų kyla pavojus sukurti pernelyg griežtas taisykles santykinai mažos rizikos AI programoms ir trukdyti naujovėms. 

 

Vartotojų grupės teigė, kad parlamento siūlomi draudimai reikalingi siekiant apsaugoti pagrindines žmonių teises.

 

     ES pareigūnai siekė tapti pirmaujančiais, nustatant AI sistemų apsauginius turėklus, kurie, jų teigimu, turėtų remti naujoves ir apriboti didžiausią technologijos riziką.

 

     ES teisės aktai „yra greitas veikimas ir atsakomybės prisiėmimas“, – sakė ES vidaus rinkos komisaras Thierry Bretonas." [1]

 

Dar anksti. AI technologija jau seniai ir gerai suprantama. Bet AI pritaikymas dar tik pradžioje. Neaišku, ko tam reikės. Patys kvailiausi žmonės pasaulyje išsišoko ir imasi tai reguliuoti mums visiems. EK yra, nuo didelės valdžios apsvaigusių, rinkėjų nepatikrintų, kvailių būrys. Europos Sąjungos parlamentarų rinkimai yra didžiulių atlyginimų, kuriuos už nieką gauna europarlamentarai, dalybos. Kadangi Europos Sąjungos parlamentas nesusigaudo Europos Sąjungos valdyme, tai rinkėjai į Europos Sąjungos parlamento rinkimus nekreipia jokio dėmesio. Todėl ir turime kvailiausių pasaulyje žmonių grupę šiame parlamente. 

 

1. AI Regulation Advances in European Union --- Draft law would curb surveillance, step up disclosure on how content is created. Kim Mackrael. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 15 June 2023: B.4.

AI Regulation Advances in European Union --- Draft law would curb surveillance, step up disclosure on how content is created.

Artificial intelligence's regulation on this level is premature.

"BRUSSELS -- Advances in artificial intelligence this year have rocked the tech industry, triggering calls from politicians, consumer groups and AI executives themselves for rules governing how to use the technology.

Those regulations are now taking shape, at least on this side of the Atlantic. The European Union's parliament voted Wednesday to push forward draft legislation, called the AI Act, that is positioned to be the West's first comprehensive set of AI regulations.

The draft rules include bans on real-time, remote biometric surveillance in public spaces and would prohibit harvesting surveillance footage or scraping the internet in developing facial-recognition databases. The parliament's version also seeks a ban on so-called predictive policing systems, which analyze prior criminal behavior and other data and try to predict future illegal activity.

More broadly, the draft legislation aims to regulate how companies train AI models with large data sets. It would, in some cases, require companies to disclose when content is generated using AI.

Under the rules, companies would also need to design their AI models in a way that prevents them from creating illegal content, and they would be required to publish summaries of the copyrighted data used to train their models.

Such an obligation would give publishers and content creators a potential means to seek a share of profits when their works are used as source material for AI-generated content by tools such as ChatGPT.

Current drafts of the bill would impose fines of up to 6% or 7% of a company's global revenue in certain cases of noncompliance.

The parliament's version of the legislation passed Wednesday will now form the body's negotiating position when talks to determine the final shape of the legislation begin among representatives from the parliament, EU member states and the European Commission. Officials have said they plan to launch those negotiations immediately and aim to reach a deal on the proposed law before the end of this year.

Tech companies and their lobbyists argue that any government-enforced rules should focus on specific AI applications -- and not put too many restrictions on how AI is developed, as is being proposed in Europe. They say such an approach would impede innovation.

But some tech researchers have joined academics and technologists in expressing support for rules like those being formulated in the EU, that could effectively slow down a race by companies to roll out advanced new AI tools by regulating how such tools are developed in the first place.

Earlier this year, a group of AI researchers and tech executives including Elon Musk signed an open letter that called for a six-month moratorium on the training of the next generation of AI tools to give time for regulators and industry to set safety standards. Last month, a group of researchers said mitigating risks of human extinction from AI should be a global priority.

The AI legislation was proposed in 2021 by the European Commission, the bloc's executive body. The push to set out rules for AI has taken on new urgency over recent months after the release of tools such as ChatGPT. The tool, developed by Microsoft-backed startup OpenAI, can respond to users' written questions.

European officials hope the proposed legislation will be a world-first that can set the standard for other jurisdictions and for the companies that make and use the technology.

The rapid development of AI in recent months has prompted governments worldwide to consider whether to adopt new rules for powerful AI tools. China's top internet regulator proposed draft rules in April and the Biden administration is looking at whether checks are needed.

The EU's legislation "will set the tone worldwide in the development and governance of artificial intelligence," EU lawmaker Dragos Tudorache said. The Romanian lawmaker led the institution's work on the AI legislation with Italian lawmaker Brando Benifei.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a lobby group, said some of the provisions backed by the parliament risk creating overly prescriptive rules for relatively low-risk AI applications and hindering innovation. Consumer groups have said the bans proposed by the parliament are needed to protect people's fundamental rights.

EU officials have sought to position themselves as front-runners in setting up guardrails on AI systems that they say should support innovation while limiting the biggest risks of the technology.

The EU legislation "is about acting fast and taking responsibility," said Thierry Breton, the EU's internal market commissioner." [1]

 

 

Yet early. AI technology has been around for a long time and is well understood. But the adoption of AI is still in its infancy. It's not clear what it will take. The dumbest people in the world have jumped out and are trying to regulate it for all of us. The EC is a bunch of fools, intoxicated by big power, untested by voters. European Union Parliamentary elections are a distribution of the huge salaries that MEPs get for nothing. Since the Parliament of the European Union does not understand the management of the European Union, the voters do not pay any attention to the elections of the European Union Parliament. That is why we have the world's stupidest group of people in this parliament.

 

1. AI Regulation Advances in European Union --- Draft law would curb surveillance, step up disclosure on how content is created. Kim Mackrael. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 15 June 2023: B.4.