Further, if the purpose of western intervention was to send a message, who is listening? Independently-minded countries like the BRICS don't buy the narrative of an unprovoked invasion, and they have all refused to side with the US over this issue.
I'm not sure who "we" is supposed to be here. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Ukraine is far more than "halfway" in reducing Russia's supply of artillery systems — Count Timothy von Icarus
given Russia just had a rebellion — Count Timothy von Icarus
it seems possible that Russia is more than halfway to a defeat. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Funny how the solidity of Putin's grip on power seems to change depending on the purposes the argument is being put to.
Encourage more war - "Putin is weakening and could be overthrown any minute, just a few more bombs and we'll be there."
Encourage political action instead of war - "Putin is strong, it would take many decades to overthrow him"
Do get dizzy at all? — Isaac
very likely Ukraine in NATO — Count Timothy von Icarus
... got basically every prediction about the post-Cold War era wrong. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I certainly did not expect you to ignore all the data that contradict your thesis. — Jabberwock
If the tool you have provided does not indicate changes caused by draconian oppression, then it is not a good indicator of oppression, right? — Jabberwock
Assessing more data does not get you closer to truth than carefully selecting just the one that confirms your thesis? — Jabberwock
Considering that Russia's score in 2000 was 5.57 and it moved to 6.16 in 2008, i.e. (improvement of 0.59), and Ukraine made the progress of 0.83 from 2000 to 2008, which was the period you mentioned, then we have to conclude that both made about the same progress in those respective periods? — Jabberwock
If yep, then Putin would still attack Ukraine if it had prospects for being free and prosperous, no matter whether it was in NATO or not. Conceding NATO membership would not stop the war, if Ukraine was to be free and prosperous, it would still be attacked. — Jabberwock
So if we conceded the whole Ukraine to Putin, as you propose — Jabberwock
we could not 'expect a likewise positive effect on pressure for change in Russia (including any stolen territories) from a free and prospering Ukraine next door', as there would be no free and prospering Ukraine next door. It pretty much would diminish the likelihood of the successful Russian revolt, would it not? — Jabberwock
And you seem to care about well being of non-Ukrainians only if Ukraine can be blamed for its decrease, otherwise you are content with 'balance', as you wrote. — Jabberwock
... where you dismiss the entire, well-respected, Human Freedom Index because it doesn't show the descent of Russia that you think it ought to? — Isaac
As I asked before, if not dismiss them, what do you want me to do with them? Average them? Believe the exact centre? Add up all the experts they each used and divide by the total? Subtract the number I first thought of? What exactly do you think one should do with this other conflicting data? — Isaac
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. — Wikipedia
People disagree. Experts disagree. I don't know what it is about you people that makes you think you alone can carry out some kind super-level of meta-analysis but the very experts you're citing for some reason didn't bother. — Isaac
Yes. That's right. Unless you can give me a compelling (or any) mechanism whereby that occurs. — Isaac
The truth is the way the world is. The experts at Cato have had their best shot at modelling the truth using their Human Freedom Index. The experts at Freedom House have taken their best shot using their own index.
Now. How do I make a better shot by putting the two together? Why is the average of the two more accurate a model than either one. And if it is, why didn't either team of experts just do that? What mechanism links the averaging process to the way the world is? — Isaac
Yes, if that's what the index shows (though 0.83 is quite a bit bigger than 0.59 and I prefer rankings for the reasons I've given). Your incredulity doesn't constitute an argument. You're implying doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, picking your index to match your theory. You already decided (theory) that Russia's descent into draconian tyranny must impact human freedom more than Ukraine's economic and judicial corruption, so you're now only prepared to believe evidence which agrees with that theory. Your implication that Cato's measure is suspicious is based entirely on the fact that it doesn't match your theory. — Isaac
That's not what you asked. You said "threaten". Opposing nations threaten war, that's how the balance of power is maintained. The key is to threaten back an equal measure. As I said before, if there was a strong unified global community committed to international law which Ukraine could be a part of, then this situation would never have happened. We're here because there's no such community and rather than being protected Ukraine was dangled like bait on a line. — Isaac
I've nowhere proposed we do that. You asked a hypothetical. It's not the decision we have before us. But for the sake of your hypothetical situation... — Isaac
Yes, that's right. If, in your hypothetical, we had to relinquish all of Ukraine to Russia, the number of free and prosperous neighbours would be less and so their effect less. — Isaac
It's always about balance. Hundreds of thousands of lives, millions more at risk, for the sake of a few decimal place improvements on the human freedom measure is not balance, it's insanity. — Isaac
I do not dismiss it — Jabberwock
it should be considered together with other sources and not in isolation. — Jabberwock
If I argue that the global temperatures do not rise from year to year and carefully select data for only those places where it does not and ignore all others, are my conclusions as valid as the conclusion from the study where all data are considered and the results are just the opposite? — Jabberwock
getting all their opinions together does equal out those issues — Jabberwock
Ukrainians in general were not more opressed economically and judicially according to your single source and the descent into draconian tyranny is still unaccounted for. — Jabberwock
You said 'yep' when I wrote that Putin is willing to go to war to defend against perceived threats and you agree that he sees free and prosperous Ukraine as a threat. The conclusion must be that he would go to war for that reason. — Jabberwock
there is a strong unified global community committed to protection of its members which Ukraine could be a part of — Jabberwock
Given your view that he sees free and prosperous Ukraine as a threat, it is very likely that he would ask for it. — Jabberwock
given that this hypothetical is quite likely on your proposed course of action, it seems this course of action would make the peaceful rebellion against Putin less likely. — Jabberwock
for you people being jailed, beaten up, poisoned, shot and deprived of basic democratic freedoms is a few decimal places on your precious index. People actually involved might have a bit different opinion on that. — Jabberwock
Then what do you do with it? How has it affected your theory, what did you change about your belief in the light of it, and why? — Isaac
Yes. So you said. I'm asking how. What is this 'taking together' you think you're doing? Half way between the two? Biggest wins? What are you actually doing when you're 'taking together'? — Isaac
No. That's not the situation here (nor your other examples). None of the indices are data. They are conclusions based on data. All groups had access to the same data. They disagree about the relative importance, value and meaning.
Importance, value and meaning are not facts to include in data harvesting, they're opinions one either is persuaded by or not. — Isaac
How? Explain what you think happens. Cato make mistakes. Freedom House make mistakes. You put them together, then what? The mistakes magically pop out? What happens to the mistakes when you look at both reports? You see the differences. How do you know which ones are mistakes/biases? Majority rules? Magic bias detector? — Isaac
It's not unaccounted for. Cato have come up with a unified score. The fact that you don't like their methodology because it doesn't come up with the score you think it ought to is not a point against it. — Isaac
If I'm willing to shoot deer that enter my garden, and a deer enters my garden, does that mean I'm going to shoot it, or meraly that I'm willing to shoot it? — Isaac
Possibly. I'm not sure what that's got to do with my mention of "strong unified global community committed to international law which Ukraine could be a part of". — Isaac
If he was some kind of robot with only a single factor to take into account in any decision, perhaps. But he isn't, he's an oligarch balancing several dozen objectives of which eliminating a free and prosperous Ukraine is only one.
People rarely act in accordance with a single objective. — Isaac
Yes. Indeed it would. Still trying to make an argument by looking only at one side I see? — Isaac
They might. But since neither you nor I are, I'm not sure what difference that makes to this discussions. I'm sure someone in Yemen looking at their desperately hungry child might have a difference of opinion too. — Isaac
It's always about balance. Hundreds of thousands of lives, millions more at risk, for the sake of a few decimal place improvements on the human freedom measure is not balance, it's insanity. — Isaac
Can anyone semi-informed imagine who might replace Putin, and what policy changes would result? Or am I only dreaming? — unenlightened
Another neighbor, Finland, doesn't seem to have had much impact against Putin, though. Why is that? — Jul 23, 2023
The UN rights body, which said it has conducted extensive interviews with survivors and analyzed additional information, added that the incident "was not caused by a HIMARS rocket."
It was removed from Russian cable TV systems in 2014 after conducting a controversial poll of whether viewers thought the Soviet Union should have surrendered in the World War II siege of Leningrad in order to save civilian lives.
I consider all the facts known to me and draw conclusions from them. Like everyone else, I surely apply some bias, based on my previous opinions, but at least I try to challenge them. You consider only one fact, sorry, an opinion, that suits your conclusion and, not unexpectedly, confirms that your conclusion was right. — Jabberwock
It means that you are likely to shoot the deer: there are two factors that make it more likely than not, unless we know other facts. — Jabberwock
most likely he would react by waging a war. — Jabberwock
Unless you have good reasons why he would not, those two premises (with which you agree with) tell us that he would likely do that. — Jabberwock
The difference is that we have no right to demand they make that sacrifice from the comfort of our homes. — Jabberwock
It's always about balance. Hundreds of thousands of lives, millions more at risk, for the sake of a few decimal place improvements on the human freedom measure is not balance, it's insanity. — Isaac
... instigated + ordered by the Kremlin. Do we have an insane government on our hands? :/ — jorndoe
I get it now. When I look at sources and conclude that one or more seem better than the others, I'm cherry picking opinions to match my theory. When you look at sources you're carrying out some next level rational analysis that for some reason the experts at each of the agencies concerned aren't even capable of, and the fact that the ones you choose just happen to support the theory you've been promoting all along is complete coincidence. — Isaac
Does it explain that in your Wikipedia article? — Isaac
...? Most likely? Where are you getting your probabilities from? All we've established is that it might well be one of his motivating factors. You've not even mentioned any others, let alone assigned any probabilities to them. — Isaac
I don't think you understand how probability works. If I have a 2% chance of invading if it's sunny and a 3% chance of invading if it's a Wednesday, it doesn't mean I'm definitely going to invade on a sunny Wednesday just because those are the only two motivating factors we have. Putin might well be inclined to invade if Ukraine is free and prosperous. He may well be inclined to threaten invasion if he's already got some territory from the last threat. But since we've no data at all on how strong either of those motivating forces are, we've equally no data at all on how likely such an action becomes when both are present. — Isaac
But we do have a right to demand the Yemeni's make their sacrifice? — Isaac
Except you did not do what you now say you do. You have given one source (cherry-picked after your ahistorical claim that Ukraine turned around in a decade turned out indefensibie). — Jabberwock
I look at all sources — Jabberwock
Are you saying that we have no reason to believe Putin threatening a war due to his perceived threat is likely to do that? — Jabberwock
So 'willing to go to war', with which you have agreed, is now 2% chance? — Jabberwock
We do not, so we do not. — Jabberwock
So the US are sending 75 billion to Yemen too? Good news. — Isaac
I accept the capitulation. — Jabberwock
So the US are sending 75 billion to Yemen too? Good news. — Isaac
No Sudan Somalia CAR Afghanistan ...? — jorndoe
You have no other support to make the claim that a peaceful rebellion in Russia is likely in a reasonable time — Jabberwock
flatly refuse to consider the vast evidence that says something else. — Jabberwock
I need no other support. I'm defending against your accusation that the position has no support. One set of support disproves that claim. — Isaac
There's no 'vastness' to the counter evidence other than in your mind. Some people disagree. I'd fully expect they do. My claim was not 'Russia can escape it's current state within eight years and nobody disagrees' — Isaac
The simple fact is that, by some measures of freedom, it is perfectly possible for a nation to get from where Russia is now to where Ukraine is now in the space of eight years. It is also a fact that Russian occupation results in orders of magnitude fewer deaths and constraints than war. — Isaac
Your absurd descent into truly execrable epistemology and speculation about my reading history, has failed to cover the fact that you've not provided a shred of evidence contradicting that claim.
And no "some other people think otherwise" does not contradict that claim, not even if your Delphic wisdom determines they're the ones telling The Truth™. — Isaac
I gave you two facts, but I can give quite a few more. For some of them one has to go back to the times of tzars, when, at the time where Western civic societies were being established, Russians were still under absolutistic rule. The period of relative freedoms after the Revolutions was quite short-lived and pretty soon the Ditcatorship of Proletariat took over, although it was not so much 'proletariat' in charge as the party's verchushka. After that were fifty years of the authoritarian party's rule, with a very short period of relative relaxation under Yeltsin; then Putin came and strengthened the rule again. The point I am making is that Russians have practically no traditions of democracy and very little of grass-root civil activity. This is aggravated by the rampant corruption, which necessarily weakens all the state institutions. It should also be noted that the geographical setup also plays a role – many remote regions are unsustainable without external help, so they were and are heavily dependent on the center. For example, independent Yakutia (Sakha) might sound nice to some, but is rather unrealistic - in spite of vast resources it would be unable to develop without significant external support. That forces heavily centralized structure of the government. This makes the greatest difference between Russia and current regions/republics and some former republics – for Baltics, for example, the oppression was clearly foreign - they did not need Moscow for anything, they could perfectly manage on their own (which they did). For remote regions it is quite different. This is somewhat related to another fact that hinders a popular uprising - significant differences in the standards of living. Those whose voice would be better heard and influential, Muscovites, have it much better than the rest of the country and they are quite aware of that - they have a lot to lose. On the other hand protests in remote areas would be simply unheard. Popular uprising needs unity, which would be difficult to reach.
This does not mean that Russians are unable to reach democracy, I sincerely hope that they do, but that process would be rather long and necessarily full of upheavals. It cannot be seriously considered as a solution for a conflict that is happening right now.
[...]
Sure, it is possible! If the country's electoral process is erratic, but not fully dominated by the regime, if the country has democractic judicial oversight (Ukrainian courts were instrumental both in the Kuchma case and Yushchenko revote), well established tradition of grassroot movements (at least since the Orange Revolution), local governments which are not hand picked by the central authority, press that enjoys more freedom, that is. It might help if the opposition politicians are not routinely murdered or jailed, journalists murdered or beaten up.
But Russia does not have any of that. On the other hand, it has strict control of information (last somewhat independent press outlets were closed last year, it has massive blocking of Internet sites, Roskomnadzor, etc.), tight control of any social activities (organizations, foundations, etc.), stiff penalties for any form of protest, politically controlled judicial system. Could all those differences (beside those already mentioned by me before) affect the expected outcome? I say they would. Your argument just ignores all those differences and claims that we should expect a similar outcome, because they had a similar SINGLE metrics eight years ago (even if many other were different). And you demand to be treated seriously.
No, cherry-picked support does not disprove anything — Jabberwock
An argument based on a single cherry-picked point of support is fallacious — Jabberwock
I have described many factors from the history of both Ukraine and Russia that make me believe what you propose is unlikely. — Jabberwock
Unlike me, you have not engaged with any of them. — Jabberwock
This is simply confirmation bias. You engage ONLY with the evidence that supports your claim. — Jabberwock
The simple fact is that capability of some countries to move on the HFI by a certain amount has nothing to do with the likelihood of freeing of the whole of Russia from tyranny, which was your argument — Jabberwock
So you are simply not telling the truth when you say that I have not provided a shred of evidence. — Jabberwock
And tell me, you do not believe that the HFI contradicts my claim that the peaceful fall of regime in Russia is unlikely. How can it then support the opposite thesis? — Jabberwock
The facts underdetermine the theory — Isaac
In total, 78,000 fighters of the PMC Wagner went to the Ukrainian mission. Of these, 49,000 were prisoners from the camps. At the time of the capture of Bakhmut (May 20), 22,000 soldiers were killed, 40,000 were wounded. — Unloading Wagner · Jul 19, 2023
Allies and Ukraine strongly condemned Russia's decision to withdraw from the Black Sea grain deal and its deliberate attempts to stop Ukraine's agricultural exports on which hundreds of millions of people worldwide depend. NATO and Allies are stepping up surveillance and reconnaissance in the Black Sea region, including with maritime patrol aircraft and drones. Allies noted that Russia's new warning area in the Black Sea, within Bulgaria's exclusive economic zone, has created new risks for miscalculation and escalation, as well as serious impediments to freedom of navigation.
These attacks targeting Ukraine’s grain export facilities, similarly to all attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, are unacceptable and must stop immediately. I must emphasize that attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law. We have now seen disturbing reports of further Russian strikes against port infrastructure, including grain storage facilities, in Reni and Izmail ports on the Danube River – a key route for shipment of Ukrainian grain, not far from Ukraine’s borders with Moldova and Romania. Deliberately targeting infrastructure that facilitates the export of food to the rest of the world could be life-threatening to millions of people who need access to affordable food. In the wake of Russia’s withdrawal from the Black Sea Initiative, these latest attacks signal a calamitous turn for Ukrainians and the world. — Mohamed Khaled Khiari (UN)
The usual intellectually miserable tactic of framing opponents’ views. Apparently, on matter of facts we can’t prove anything, if we happen to believe anything is because of Western propaganda, what they believe is clearly not propaganda though (even if, on the other side, all narratives are claimed to be all plausible interpretations), on matter of moral we are either coward or cynical (is that yet another interpretation? or The Facts™?). — neomac
What does your comment have to do with my comment?
Are you disputing the fact that other Western countries, and also all the other countries, have not sent their soldiers into Ukraine?
Or are you arguing sending arms to Ukraine is brave? That's what a "brave" country would do, send arms instead of their own soldiers.
Feel free to have at it: You / the Western legacy media / NATO says Ukrainian sovereignty is a moral imperative to uphold ... just not without sending themselves or their own soldiers. If Ukrainian sovereignty is so important, why is it not worth risking our own soldiers lives to see it preserved? — boethius
The usual intellectually miserable tactic of framing opponents’ views. — neomac
Ok, well, un-frame it for me.
In what moral theory is there a cause not worth risking much of anything yourself but is like "totally so important"? Worth sending arms ... but not too many arms!!! — boethius
Of course it does. If the accusation is "there's no evidence for X" then cherry-picked evidence disproves that claim. There has to exist evidence for X in order that I can cherry pick it, it therefore disproves the claim that there is no evidence in favour of X. — Isaac
It isn't. Just because some Wikipedia article says so, doesn't render it fact. There are multiple competing theories of epistemology. Googling a fallacy doesn't prove anything. If think you have a case, make it. — Isaac
Good. You go ahead and believe that then. That you believe something to be the case is not an argument that it is, in fact, the case. — Isaac
What would constitute 'engaging' with them? You keep throwing in this term, but it's so nebulous. If I read them, decide they're not meaningful, is that 'engagement'? What do want as a sign of engagement (short of just agreeing)? I don't believe those factors make it sufficiently unlikely - I am unconvinced. What more is there to say? — Isaac
I believe only the evidence that supports my claim (is sufficiently weighty). But that's obvious. It's why I believe my claim. The same is true of you. All the evidence that supports your claim you believe is weighty enough, all the evidence which opposes it you don't. That's why you believe your claim.
You seem to think that there's some kind of number-crunching or mental kung-fu that can be done with all this competing theory, that you've carried out and I haven't, yet you can't actually describe what it is. You can list things that we agree are the case all day long, but nothing in that listing is going to magically spew out a theory that we're all then compelled to believe. The facts underdetermine the theory - a point that seems stubbornly impossible to drive home here for some reason. — Isaac
It does. The HFI is as good a measure of 'tyranny' as any. Short of you getting out your tyranny-o-meter, what could you possibly bring to bear to dispute that. I get that you don't like it, that for you tyranny is mostly about voting and political opposition, but for others, there's tyranny in lack of economic freedom, lack of opportunity... I agree with the weighting the HFI has applied. You don't. There isn't an answer to that, there isn't some way we can stare more at the data and the right opinion pops out. — Isaac
What do you think you've provided evidence for? That Russia might not overthrow tyranny in eight years? Sure. But that's not the claim, the claim was that it will not. Or your later claim that it is more likely to not. Nothing you've provided has any probability assigned to it. It all simply might be the case. — Isaac
Facts underdetermine theories. If you're having trouble with the notion, I'm sure I can dig out a Wikipedia article for your edification. — Isaac
What do you think you've provided evidence for? That Russia might not overthrow tyranny in eight years? Sure. But that's not the claim, the claim was that it will not. Or your later claim that it is more likely to not. Nothing you've provided has any probability assigned to it. It all simply might be the case. — Isaac
If past facts are irrelevant for probabilities, then anything really might come up. Why should we avoid war then? Past wars cannot inform us if there will be victims, simply that it might be the case. That is your reasoning, right?
Facts underdetermine theories. If you're having trouble with the notion, I'm sure I can dig out a Wikipedia article for your edification. — Isaac
But you do not have facts. If all the evidence I have provided is just 'some other people think otherwise', as you say, then your evidence is also just 'some other people think otherwise', which, as you say, cannot support or counter any claim. So neither theory has sufficient support, we have no reason to believe any of them is true. — Jabberwock
The problem here is that your priming bias makes the argument you have seen seem more strong than the arguments you read here. So confirmation bias leads you to see the supporting evidence for that as leading more strongly to that conclusion. — Isaac
Like everyone else, I surely apply some bias, based on my previous opinions — Jabberwock
As your anchoring bias sets you up to see your preferred indices as centre points from which to measure deviation, you use framing to shore up the evidence in favour of your preferred theories. — Isaac
Treating 'tyranny' and 'democracy' as if they were non-scalar terms is a suppressed correlative, something is not removed from either camp simply by relative position, and repeatedly arguing against that tighter definition you now have rather than those I'm using is a straw man. — Isaac
For better or worse, Russia are now embedded in Donbas and Crimea. There are two choices; leave them there and fight to free the whole of Russia (including those regions) from lack of economic freedom, lack of opportunity [substitution underlined], or expel them and continue Ukraine's progress toward the removal of lack of economic freedom, lack of opportunity in it's regions. — Isaac
Your assumption that historical conditions must, simply by existing cause the current states is an historical fallacy, and reliance on it results in retrospective determinism, and as a result the majority of your assessment of Russia's current state from it's historical roots is just post hoc ergo propter hoc. — Isaac
Your repeated insistence that I 'enagage with' only one source despite having no information on how many sources I have read is an attempt at proof by assertion, not to mention the Bulverism. — Isaac
Finally, using Wikipedia to make your arguments for you is an appeal to authority. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.