It doesn't seem plausible that workers could just peacefully occupy a factory and the state lets them. The state will take it back eventually, by force. I think doing it successfully necessitates force.

I'm sure the logic in the first statement is a big part of the real answer, but in a purely game theory context, it makes the same mistake as Roko's basilisk. Once the other country has already launched, nothing you do will make them less likely to have made that decision in the past. Causality doesn't work in that direction.

This covers very well the issues that can come up in understanding an audio recording, all of which could explain the judiciary's resistance to them. But it's interesting that it seems to assume the transcript is inherently clearer. We've all seen the misunderstandings that can arise from trying to text instead of talk to someone. Stripping tone, timing, and audio cues can cause plenty of misinterpretation.

This is the critical point, not the points in the accepted answer. If the independence declarations are invalid, then this still isn't an invasion. The invasion happened in 2014.

Is there any evidence that anyone in power really believes in Pivot Theory? I thought it was ridiculously outdated pseudoscience from the early 1900s.