Not using a priori information for Russian propaganda

(The first version was written extremely poorly and received a lot of bad marks, so I hesitated to publish it for a long time, now this is the second version)

I live in Russia, so I regularly encounter samples of Putin’s propaganda, and apparently, due to the effect of familiarity, I overestimate it credibility.

One of the characteristic features is that she does not seek to convince you that she is telling the truth, she seeks to convince you that no one is telling the truth, because such a thing simply does not exist, there are only views that are beneficial to various sides of propaganda.

The propaganda of your Motherland and the propaganda of the Anglo-Saxons, who throughout the history of our country have been trying to destroy it, because they are jealous.

And from this follows the tactics of attempts to persuade in specific situations. For example, if a house was destroyed in Ukraine, then you will be told that it is the Ukrainians who are bombing themselves in order to put the noble Russian soldiers in a bad light, and themselves as victims.

And there is often no evidence in either direction, and therefore it can very easily begin to seem that, in general, both versions are equally likely, and now you are simply supporting the enemies of the motherland for no reason.

However, this is a mistake, it does not take into account a priori information, which says that the probability of regularly bombing yourself after the troops of another country invaded you is extremely small, but the probability of bombing by the invading countries is extremely high, both in terms of statistics and with point of view of assessing the complexity of the hypothesis.