According to RSF, there's vast difference between the two countries in terms of freedom of press and violence towards journalists. — Olivier5

Ukraine is ranked 126 and Russia 148.

Ukraine has a score of 36,79 and Russia 43,42.

This is in the context that the top score, Finland, is 6,38, and the bottom Eritrea scores 84,83.

I fail to see the "vast difference" between Russia and Ukraine on this ranking.

And Reporters Without Borders being a Western organisation with head quarters in Paris, it's certainly not biased towards Russia, so stands to reason bias could easily account for a the 5-6 point difference, if not more.

I am talking about freedom of press, as you know. It is an important democratic principle. It's not about 'kits'. — Olivier5

No. You were talking about freedom of the press, then @boethius pointed out that many of those same repressions were active in Ukraine so you pivoted to a report about beatings and stolen kit.

If you want to go back to the general point about press freedom, then address the issue of Ukraine unilaterally banning opposition press without due process.

So, it seems like some of the videos of people complaining about poor treatment, lack of supplies, living outside, etc. are genuine. The Russian MoD has tacitly affirmed this by responding to some of the worst cases, where quite old or legally blind people were mobilized. But the latest batch, which seem much angrier and name commanders as responsible, appear like they are likely staged.

The same guy appears in several. Mixed in with the poorly equipped conscripts are guys in balaclavas who seem better equipped, and many have Wagner patches. It seems like an attempt to foment dissent, or at least simulate it for public consumption.

Prior videos were downplayed and accused of being fake in the pro-Russian milblogger space, but these are being boosted by Wagner and Kadyrovite aligned accounts.

Obviously there is more explicit infighting, with Kradyov calling out Lapin, and now the response:

"Kadyrov said that I should be demoted to the rank of private, stripped of all awards and sent with a machine gun in my hands to the front line to wash away my shame with blood. And all this for the fact that I allegedly holed up in Lugansk, 150 kilometers from my units. Well, I took an example from Kadyrov, who sits thousands of kilometers away from his units on a luxurious sofa, sitting on this sofa he has repeatedly taken Kyiv and even prepared for an attack on Poland*.* I didn’t have such a luxurious sofa in Luhansk and I gave orders not on Tik-Tok broadcasts, but via special communications."

It's a bit worrying because the open infighting and attempts to win public support suggest that leaders now feel they need some sort of wider support outside their status in Putin's regime. I think it is an underplayed risk that Putin might be toppled, or simply die or be disabled by health issues, and that even more reckless and hardline leaders take control, or that there is an actual fight for power given there is no clear successor, especially as Putin's popularity falls.

Ukraine has a score of 36,79 and Russia 43,42. — boethius

Yep. @Olivier5 really takes those 6 points very seriously. Apparently they're worth sacrificing thousands of innocent lives for in a massive land war. As opposed to, say, a modicum of diplomatic pressure which could achieve the same 6 point gain.

I shudder to think what action he'd advocate for Eritrea!

Yep. Olivier5 really takes those 6 points very seriously. Apparently they're worth sacrificing thousands of innocent lives for in a massive land war. — Isaac

Well, when you've framed things as Hitler vs. The Buddha, it might be hard point of view to introspect from.

You go to war with the points you have, not the points you wish for.

RSF = Reporters Sans Frontières. Nothing to see with Reuters

↪boethius RSF = Reporters Sans Frontières. — Olivier5

Yes, a typo which I already corrected.

I think it is an underplayed risk that Putin might be toppled, or simply die or be disabled by health issues, and that even more reckless and hardline leaders take control. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, it's a good job we haven't just flooded the world's largest black market arms trader with a shit ton of untraceable weapons. That would be a disastrous thing to have done in such an unstable region about to experience a power vacuum.

Oh no wait, that's exactly what we've just done.

address the issue of Ukraine unilaterally banning opposition press — Isaac

Opposition press is NOT banned in Ukraine. They un-liscenced three TV channels from broadcasting but didn't ban them. Plenty other outlets are still on, and even those 3 TVs are still operating, but just on YouTube.

They un-liscenced three TV channels from broadcasting but didn't ban them. Plenty other outlets are still on, and even those 3 TVs are still operating, but just on YouTube. — Olivier5

And in Russia?

Is your claim that the Russian bans are in any meaningful way more draconian. Are there literally no anti-Putin outlets left. Is YouTube not broadcasting anti-Putin content?

If either Russia or Ukraine's public estimates of each other's losses were reflective of reality, we'd see a lot fewer functional units able to engage in operations.


Before the war, Ukraine was at 68 on the Press Freedom Index, Russia at 51, "problematic" (3/5) versus "very serious," (5/5).

Ukraine fairs worse on corruption indexes though relative to Russia, but Russia still does worse. Suprisingly though, Ukraine actually has fairly low inequality, which I always found surprising, but it's also significantly poorer than Russia.

Opposition press is NOT banned in Ukraine. They un-liscenced three TV channels from broadcasting but didn't ban them. Plenty other outlets are still on, and even those 3 TVs are still operating, but just on YouTube. — Olivier5

Again, how is that freedom of the press?

Moreover:

Banned journalists, media, websites

The Ukrainian government and President Petro Poroshenko have banned journalists, media and websites.[83] The new sanctions in May 2017 targeted 1,228 people and 468 companies.[80] The decision was condemned by Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Committee to Protect Journalists.[82][71][83] — Freedom of the press in Ukraine, Wikipedia

Which, notably, is press and journalist banning 5 years before the war, reported by a source you cited as authoritative a few posts ago.

You also simply ignored completely pretty much the most anti-democratic move possible which is straight-up banning 11 opposition parties including the second largest party in the country:

During the weekend, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government suspended 11 Ukrainian political parties citing their alleged “links with Russia”. While the majority of the suspended parties were small, and some were outright insignificant, one of them, the Opposition Platform for Life, came second in the recent elections and currently holds 44 seats in the 450-seat Ukrainian Parliament. — Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties? - Aljazeera

If either Russia or Ukraine's public estimates of each other's losses were reflective of reality, we'd see a lot fewer functional units able to engage in operations. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree, but the exact figure wasn't pertinent to the point. One would hope no sane individual would even see a tenth on those deaths as being a worthwhile sacrifice for a 6 point rise on the press freedom league tables.

Before the war, Ukraine was at 68 on the Press Freedom Index, Russia at 51, "problematic" (3/5) versus "very serious," (5/5).

Ukraine fairs worse on corruption indexes though relative to Russia, but Russia still does worse. Suprisingly though, Ukraine actually has fairly low inequality, which I always found surprising, but it's also significantly poorer than Russia. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yeah, one picks one's metric I suppose. But I still think the point stands that the idea of defending Ukraine (at enormous human cost) because it's some kind of beacon of democracy and enlightenment is ludicrous.

The Ukrainian's themselves may well fight for national pride, but the idea of Westerners cheerleading that fight because of shared values is obscene.

If we (those keen on freedom, human rights, etc outside of Ukraine) had an interest in the region it could not, under any rational metric, be to ensure that territory remained in Ukrainian hands rather than Russian. The difference is minimal in those terms (for us) and certainly not worth sacrificing a single life for when improvements can be made using less violent methods.

Another strawman. They aren't fighting a war to improve their press freedom index, they are fighting because Russia, a state that perpetrated a massive genocide against them in the 1930s, and another large scale repression after WWII, invaded them and has been raping and pillaging in areas they take.

They aren't fighting a war to improve their press freedom index, they are fighting because Russia, a state that perpetrated a massive genocide against them in the 1930s, and another large scale repression after WWII, invaded them and has been raping and pillaging in areas they take. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Who said anything about why the Ukrainians are fighting? Read what I've actually written, not what you expect your little caricature of me to write. I even underlined it.

The question is about what legitimate interest we (as a group of freedom-loving, compassionate westerners) could possibly have in who controls what territory in that region.

I'm sure if Germany invaded Russia, the Russians would fight back too for the same reason. Would we legitimately want the disputed territory to remain in Russian control? No. It would unequivocally be better in German control.

The fact that nations defend their borders against attack is not alone justification for us to unreservedly support that fight. We ought not put the integrity of their territorial boundaries above the well-being of their population even if they do. We do not share their national pride and it's obscene to pretend we do.

It comes down to Biden, I think. Biden led the sanctions drive. I think if Trump was the president, the EU would have had a more muted response with the the US actually cheerleading Russia's conquests.

I don't quite get why Putin did this while Biden was president. Maybe he thought Biden was old and so he wouldn't respond?

Likely because the Russians felt time was running out.

Likely because the Russians felt time was running out. — Tzeentch

Why running out?

Likely because the Russians felt time was running out. — Tzeentch

I think that's right. I can't believe even Putin would have been reckless enough to attack NATO, and yet may not have wanted to risk an invasion without the veneer of justification. So Ukraine poised to join NATO, but not yet in it, was perfect.

Of course, seeing as this invasion has served US interests so perfectly, it's very difficult to believe the US didn't know this and drag that state of affairs out as long as possible for this exact reason.

There's two ways I can see to defend a border against malicious aggression; either offer too little to gain, or offer too much to lose. Presenting an ever increasing threat of NATO membership without actually bestowing the defensive benefits is exactly the opposite of either.

The United States have expressed their desire to incorporate Ukraine into NATO at the Bucharest Summit in 2008. In 2013-2014 the Maidan revolution took place in Ukraine, showing the Russians that a pro-Western flip of Ukraine was a real threat. The Russians responded by taking their primary strategic asset, Crimea, by force in 2014.

After 2014, it was clear that the situation with Ukraine's neutrality being at odds and Crimea being cut-off from Russia was not a long-term solution, and that war was looming.

In light of that, the United States started to support Ukraine financially and militarily, furthering the threat of a pro-Western flip.

At least since January 2021 U.S. support for Ukraine became official policy; U.S. Security Coorporation with Ukraine


It was a matter of time before Ukraine was armed and trained to such a degree that would make a limited war for southern Ukraine unfeasible, and even moreso the threat of Ukraine joining NATO, which would have made any invasion pretty much impossible.

Of course, seeing as this invasion has served US interests so perfectly — Isaac

I don't think it has in the long run. It's demonstrated Russia's military weakness and economic vulnerability. That's bad for the region in terms of stability.

It's made Russia more of a client state to China.

The US infrastructure could have used that 19 bn, but that's how it always goes.

So it was now or never. Makes sense.

which strategy is most likely to quickly reduce the scale of war crimes. — Isaac


Try reading first, commenting after. If you have anything to contribute about what course of action is most likely to REDUCE the severity of war crimes then let's have it, because I don't know if you've noticed but continued war doesn't seem to be doing that. — Isaac

Total and irrevocable surrender. Ukrainian should pay for all the material and human losses Russia has suffered up this war, give up on their national identity, let Russia annex whatever they want on the terms they want, condone rapes, killings and destruction perpetrated by Russians, and refrain from denounce future oppression. And believe from now on that whatever the Russians did to the Ukrainians during the special operation was meant for their good, since Ukrainians are their brothers, as everybody knows since ever. And whenever the Russians feel like to kill rape and destroy Ukrainians it is always for their good, nothing worth to fight against, or even sacrifice a minute of their life to worry about because the evil is the imperialist-capitalist-colonialist-globalist-world-mongerist-america and all its ludicrous cheerleaders (like the all ones you are objecting to in here). This would be the most likely way to quickly reduce the scale of war crimes.

Why not just go ahead and do a side-by-side comparison of freedom?

• Media freedom in Russia (Wikipedia)
• Freedom of the press in Ukraine (Wikipedia)

The latter has a comparison table that includes a few other countries: Press freedom scores as perceived by Freedom House

A more detailed analysis would include the (supposed) rationale in the various cases.
In the same round, an apparent/expected trajectory might be informative, moves and trends and deterioration/improvement and such. Isn't that one of the things that matters? Where things are going?
Hand-picking a couple of select cases isn't really the best way to go about it.

• Press freedom index in Russia from 2013 to 2022 (Statista)
• Press freedom index in Ukraine from 2021 to 2021 (Statista)
• Press freedom in Europe - statistics & facts (Statista)
• 5 charts on views of press freedom around the world (Pew Research Center · May 1, 2020), some care less/more than others
• World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: Global Report 2021/2022 (UNESCO)
• Infographic: Where is press freedom restricted? (Al Jazeera · May 3, 2022)
• RSF’s 2022 World Press Freedom Index : a new era of polarisation [EN/RU] (ReliefWeb (UN/OCHA) · May 3, 2022)
• Press Freedom Index (Wikipedia)

Russia doesn't really come through better than Ukraine.

Russia is journalistic hell.

However, I think they are now realizing how self-defeating the 'official truth regime' is. The understand better now what some of us have spoken of here: that constant lies pollute the world view of the liars, detach them from reality and lead them to take very bad decisions. So on Russian TV, where they used to lambast the 'defeatists' who originally cautioned against the war, now they lambast those who report too rosy a picture, those who 'fail to take ful measure of the seriousness of the situation'. It's quite the U turn... :-)

We do not share their national pride and it's obscene to pretend we do. — Isaac

Pride? What is being shared is the desire to exist as a people and to defeat an organization that is really good at erasing such people. That is why borders are defended.

I believe we ought to be fighting for a global order that accepts some set of basic human rights and which thus provides a productive framework within which sovereign states can freely compete. — apokrisis

This makes sense, but much reform needs to be made, in particular to the United Nations, which is currently quite limited by the Security Council.

The prevailing world structure was far from wonderful, but it made things like collecting crates of gold teeth beyond the pale. It accepts war as justified, but wants some sane rules around such contests. — apokrisis

In theory. In practice it wasn't applied, or if applied, it was done so in a quite selective manner. Russia is correct in stating that France, the US, U.K and others basically use human rights as toilet papers when it comes to the wars they participate in, I don't think I need to mention them much as they are so obvious and large, Algeria and so on. Not that Russia used that phrase, but the idea is correct.

However, Russia is wrong in concluding that because these powers do as they wish, they can do so too. That does not follow. None of them should ignore human rights, yet all of them do.

At this level of political realism, Ukraine is just a massive distraction. Putin must take full blame not just for the human atrocities he is responsible for, but also the disruption to the fragile world order and its willingness to battle climate change, or at least create some kind of equality in the suffering we’ve got coming. — apokrisis

I think you are correct on the topic of climate change. This war is a massive set back for the issue of global warming, which after Nuclear War, is the most serious issue we face as a species.

And yet, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the US are also at fault here, as you mention. And others too, China, India. Nobody comes clean here, though the moment of the war is tragic.

Yet Ukraine does get to have a say in what its people believe. And the whole planet should find Putin worth stopping - but in the context of the degree to which he threatens the world order that we need to construct, rather than the degree that it protects the world order that underpinned a fossil fuel consumption based model of humanity these past 70 years. — apokrisis

Stopping or not stopping Putin does not change the world order. Now, it is likely he will lose. What are the consequences? A far stronger NATO that Putin could have dreamed of. So in that respect too, the war was a massive mistake, not to mention a crime.

Suppose something completely unexpected happens and Russia wins. What happens to the world order? Does Russia have the capacity to challenge the US seriously both in economy and militarily? Not even close: just take a look at the amount of US military bases around the world and compare it with Russia. It's not even close.

When Russia annexed Crimea, the world order didn't freeze, it continued as is. It wasn't even an issue for the US or Europe, outside of Ukraine, of course.

The only "equalizer" here are nukes. But nobody wins that war.

From a Real Politic perspective, what does China gain by "stopping Putin"? They have the Taiwan issue to worry about, and they would like to have allies and not become isolated in that case. Regardless, they are getting cheaper oil and other products due to the sanctions. As does India.

Meanwhile stop with the bullshit about feints and Russian competence. Stop with the whataboutism when I don’t see anyone claiming the US doesn't act self interestedly. Anyone who has studied modern history knows that setting up a global free trade environment was as self serving for the US as it was altruistic. — apokrisis

This here does irritate me, the so called "whataboutism". Russia invaded Ukraine, that's a crime. NATO is helping Ukraine win the war, without the US, NATO would not exist.

AT THE SAME TIME this war is happening, Afghanistan is starving to death due to the US not releasing the money they owe to the country. This is equally a crime, happening now and nobody is mentioning it. What's the deal with condemning Russia and Putin to hell, when a situation which is arguably worse is happening due to US actions? How can the US claim moral status when it is destroying a country it was war with for 20 years?

That's simple hypocrisy.

The worry about Ukraine is because it could lead to a Nuclear Armageddon. If Russia had no nukes, this war would not have nearly as much coverage.

As long as there are massive power asymmetry, speaking about leading the free world or so on, is meaningless, unless changes are made to the UN or some other international organization.

You and I may have a very different idea of what US interests are. You seem to be working on the interests of the country, I'm assuming the interests of the ruling class. They're not the same.

I agree that if China take their place, a weakened Russia is not as much use. If only there were some event on the horizon that might also serve to challenge China's influence... Oh look, what another astonishing coincidence.

The money from the aid packages has gone directly into the pockets of the arms industry which in turn pays its dividends directly to the very people responsible for deciding on it. If anyone wants to be so naive as to think that's just a fortuitous accident, then there's nothing I could ever say to dissuade them. As to to rest of the aid, it basically makes Ukraine a vassal state to US trade interests.

I'm struggling to see any disadvantages. But I'm happy to be proven wrong. Just link me the appropriate returns showing that the American politicians and business leaders have actually got poorer this year because of the sacrifices they made to help Ukraine. I'll gladly eat my hat.

That is why borders are defended. — Paine

What nationalistic claptrap. So when Great Britain's border extended to India and half of Africa they were about the Great British people wanting to all exist 'as a people' (whatever in hell that means). Bullshit. They were about one ruling class occupying as much resource rich land as their military power could defend. That's why borders are defended.

People are the same the world over. We're not divided into races and we're not divided into nations. Such rubbish is there to justify wars, not resolve them.