Just more random thoughts relevant to you, but not enough to question the claim I made and supported by those graphs.

Oh look. Human rights abuses match...wait for it...wealth. Not ideology, not Western culture, not NATO... Money. — Isaac

Buthan and Costa Rica fare better than the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia in terms of human rights yet they are not wealthier than them. Classic Isaac's cherry-picking, isn't it?

So what effect do we think Ukraine's now enormous debt is going to have on human rights? — Isaac

There are ways to deal with it: "Germany agreed to pay reparations of 132 billion gold marks to the Triple Entente in the Treaty of Versailles, which were then cancelled in 1932 with Germany only having paid a part of the sum" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12469/ukraine-crisis/p351).
Or making Russia pay for the reparation also through the confiscation of Russian economic assets frozen in the West.

This view overlooks the long history of NATO shedding it's Cold-War roots and focusing on "new threats" and that Russia was for a long time tried to be connected to the European security system and with Russia even being in the then G8 and having a "Partnership for Peace" relation with the US / NATO. — ssu

Before 2008 Putin was lauded internationally as a great, reasonable leader with whom the West could do business and form partnerships, etc.

Things were looking very good. A little too good for the Americans' taste, in fact.

Can't have their European vassals getting cozy with a potential future peer competitor, can we? Heartland theory and all that.

That's why they tried to ensure Russia could never rise to great power status again - by slowly encroaching on its former sphere of influence, eventually going a bridge too far with Georgia and Ukraine.

Ukraine was the big one, with Russia's influence in the Middle-East depending for a significant part on their access to the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

It might be worth pointing out that there is a potential link between the United States' failure in the Middle-East, Russia's likely involvement, and the United States' bid for Ukraine.

I follow the New York Times and I didn't see such a claim published there. This would have been front page news everywhere if true. Notably, there is no link or any other reference. — SophistiCat

Yes, that would have been breaking news everywhere if confirmed. My second thought after reading the claim is that the Ukraine forces have been very disciplined about not saying stuff without approval. It would have been very surprising to have that fall apart on such an important issue.

The article's rhetoric was so infused with Lavrov descriptors that I double checked to make sure it was not a piece from the Onion.

So hang on. Your counter argument is seriously that country with a human rights record below Costa Rica is responsible for the human rights improvements in Costa Rica? — Isaac

No. You literally said that Costa Rica is outside of the Western sphere of influence.

That is the thing I corrected.

Biden would have no credibility in that role. — Olivier5

The administration could still throw its weight behind negotiations.

Yes, that would have been breaking news everywhere if confirmed. — Paine

The WSWS article...

The Ukrainian special forces immediately admitted having carried out the attack to the New York Times. — World Socialist Web Site

The NYT...

The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of a government ban on discussing the blast, added that Ukraine’s intelligence services had orchestrated the explosion — New York Times

...

So you're saying it would have been breaking news everywhere if the source had been 'The Ukrainian special forces', but barely a mention if the source is 'A senior Ukrainian official'.

Really? Because previous breaking news stories from Ukraine haven't required anywhere near as solid a source. What's the major difference you're seeing?

Insults? — apokrisis

Yes. Claiming someone you disagree with is not seeing the “actual world” or should look at the world “as it is” is an insult. You could just as easily present your argument without doing so.

I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman.
— Xtrix

Which in the end you cannot disprove. — ssu

Is this an argument?

I guess I can’t disprove that the war in Iraq wasn’t to spread freedom and democracy either. Maybe it really was!

The administration could still throw its weight behind negotiations. — Xtrix

Or rather, let others do it, and quietly encourage them. Russians fear the US the most, and there's value in that. If the US was seen as pushing for negotiations, it would weaken Ukraine's hand in those negotiations.

If the US was seen as pushing for negotiations, it would weaken Ukraine's hand in those negotiations. — Olivier5

In what way?

Or rather, let others do it, and quietly encourage them. — Olivier5

Sure. I'm not married to any one strategy -- I just want the war to end. If that's the outcome, I don't care how it's done. Again, I harp on the US because I live here.

If the US was seen as pushing for negotiations, it would weaken Ukraine's hand in those negotiations. — Olivier5

Not sure about this claim. It may very well be true that the US should just stay out of the way altogether. I would prefer to see them push for negotiations, quietly or otherwise. If done in good faith, I don't think their involvement would be a dealbreaker.

, your comment has that faint whiff of nefarious conspiracy theory.

Sure, it's not that difficult to find something that's consistent with the theory (like most conspiracy theories), and, for that matter, there's no love lost if Putin's Russia was to remain more of a regional power than a superpower (e.g. without annexations).

From there on, to declare your comment more or less factual is rather questionable.

For example, it's more straightforward that any number of nations (not just the US) are distrusting Putin's autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive leadership — here "distrusting" might be too mild a word — from what we've heard/seen, Putin is forcing it, little reconciliatory gestures, bona fides signs lacking.

And for our country, this is ultimately a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a people. And this is not an exaggeration: it is true. This is a real threat not just to our interests, but to the very existence of our state, its sovereignty. — Putin · Feb 24, 2022

↑ Fear-mongering an alleged existential threat, that instead proved an existential threat to Ukraine, then, depending on the Ukrainian situation, subsequently Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia (and, by extension, Europe).

Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO?

NATO and whatever/whoever are apparently in the way of Putin's Kremlin's ambitions, limiting their free movements/actions (also consistent with observations), and hence NATO and whatever/whoever are the evil ones here. Ironically perhaps, Putin's war has put Russia at risk.

A neutral Ukraine, again? What happened to that?

Ironically perhaps, Putin's war has put Russia at risk. — jorndoe

Yes. It's almost as if all the fantasy about warring 'nations' is just a pile of crap fed to stupid masses to keep them at each other's throats while the kleptocrats lap up the remaining wealth whilst there's still a planet to extract it from...

...but obviously that's just a mad conspiracy theory, the James Bond worldview version is way more realistic. I'm sure Putin will be gutted about the ruination of Russia whilst he's sipping cocktails in Malibu.

It is a break in established policy for either of the sources to speak of it. If it was an anonymous senior official, that could be an intended leak. I don't see the value in doing that since it helps the Moscow messaging.

Do you have a link from the Times story? I cannot find it.

It is a break in established policy for either of the sources to speak of it. If it was an anonymous senior official, that could be an intended leak. — Paine

My point was that far lesser sources have produced far more sensational front pages.

I don't see the value in doing that since it helps the Moscow messaging. — Paine

Yes. Surprisingly Ukrainians are not an homogeneous mass of one hive-like opinion. Some disagree with the war effort.

Do you have a link from the Times story? I cannot find it. — Paine

Sure, I linked it earlier.

the NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/world/europe/ukraine-crimea-bridge-explosion.html

A senior Ukrainian official corroborated Russian reports that Ukraine was behind the attack. The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of a government ban on discussing the blast, added that Ukraine’s intelligence services had orchestrated the explosion, using a bomb loaded onto a truck being driven across the bridge. — Isaac

, doesn't look like Putin is going anywhere.

What do you think of a neutral Ukraine?

It may very well be true that the US should just stay out of the way altogether. I would prefer to see them push for negotiations, quietly or otherwise. If done in good faith, I don't think their involvement would be a dealbreaker. — Xtrix

I think the last thing anyone on the side of Ukraine wants, is to weaken their negotiating position. The US openly pushing for negotiations could be interpreted by Russia as a sign of weakness. Instead, the US could discreetly ask Turkey or the UN to do it.

Washington Post has a similar report.

Yes. Surprisingly Ukrainians are not an homogeneous mass of one hive-like opinion. Some disagree with the war effort. — Isaac

It is unlikely that the leaked report was an anti-war statement when surrounded by all the celebration of the strike.

ask Turkey or the UN to do it. — Olivier5

How about China?

Appeasement was the lesson of WW2 wasnt it? Or do nukes plus uncertainty change everything?

doesn't look like Putin is going anywhere. — jorndoe

Not while he's still got a position he can milk, no. The moment things start going south you can guarantee he's not going down with the ship.

What do you think of a neutral Ukraine? — jorndoe

Could be useful. I don't care in the slightest bit for the fate of nations. It's the people in them that matter and they're the same whether they're Russian or Ukrainian or European. So if those with control over one completely arbitrary and anachronistic boundary have to avoid associations with other meaningless arbitrary groupings of humans, then I've no problem with that.

Short answer. Yes.

Appeasement was the lesson of WW2 wasnt it? — schopenhauer1

Yes. Biden's from the Silent Generation, so he's probably up to speed on that.

It is unlikely that the leaked report was an anti-war statement when surrounded by all the celebration of the strike. — Paine

Possibly. It seems odd to be both suspicious of the authenticity of a source but simultaneously convinced of the source's motivation.

Just saying, I wonder what the controversy is? Appeasing or not appeasing right?

Being an anonymous source, it could have been intended to be leaked or done without authorization. If it was the latter, the motive could have been a desire to gloat.

Authenticity is not a question yet since there is no way to verify the report.

frank
Just saying, I wonder what the controversy is? Appeasing or not appeasing right? — schopenhauer1

The controversy in this thread? It's hard to say. I've asked, and I don't get back anything that makes sense to me. It's maybe just people expressing their angst about war crimes and war profiteers. There's a fair amount of people assuming everyone else is naive about the agendas that give rise to mass events.

I think that expressing angst about all the victims involved is why I'm here.

The controversy in this thread? It's hard to say. I've asked, and I don't get back anything that makes sense to me. It's maybe just people expressing their angst about war crimes and war profiteers. There's a fair amount of people assuming everyone else is naive about the agendas that give rise to mass events.

I think that expressing angst about all the victims involved is why I'm here. — frank

Ah gotcha, war profiteering. It’s all staged so that military industrial complex makes money they’re saying?

frank

Ah gotcha, war profiteering. It’s all staged so that military industrial complex makes money they’re saying? — schopenhauer1

Some are saying that, yes.

How about China? — frank

Too much aligned with Moscow, I think.

Too much aligned with Moscow, I think. — Olivier5

Maybe, but they've kept their statements sort of neutral.