But is there a limited pot of wealth? — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe 'wealth' isn't the right term either. There's definitely a limited pot of stuff and labour, and at the end of the day, that's what things like wealth and value are for.

I have thought of a caveat though. Savings. It's possible we could point to savings, call it wealth, but not treat it as a 'slice of the pie' because it's not being converted into pie, its just waiting. I mean, it's going to be converted into pie, and it would be valueless without being converted, but... Maybe savings is different if only in a small way?

an idea like theft — well that's social right? How far would you want to take the claim that British colonists stole North America from its inhabitants at the time? Did they own it? — Srap Tasmaner

Mmm. 'Theft' is for rhetorical purposes, it's just to waive a red rag against the notion that the rich deserve their wealth. I think the British did steal land from natives because I think they held it in common. Ownership is always about power. I own my phone here because I have the power to do what I want with it uncontested and you don't. That means that with something like land there can be multiple types of ownership because there's many things one might of might not have the power to do (incidentally why no ownership makes any sense without enforcement).

It may well have been the case that no other tribe could hunt or camp there, although unlikely (on my limited knowledge) that they couldn't even be there (in peacetime of course). Nor was it the case that the tribe which could hunt and camp there could do so with impunity. So in taking a European-type possession, the British stole something because they took away power.

Were their claims to ownership "natural" somehow? Or stronger than our later claims because earlier? Is that how we divvy up the earth — whoever gets there first? — Srap Tasmaner

I think this is where power is the more useful metric. With warring tribes, they may well have to have put up with first-come-first-served type of claims, having nothing better (might-makes-right, maybe?). But non-warring tribes need not have had any kind of notion because, being egalitarian within themselves, there's just no power to divvy up, each is free to do whatever. There's no much point in saying "we own this" - the label confers nothing more than just "this". "I own this", however, confers that you can't do what you like with it, I can. So there seems to be some necessary denial of some out-group for ownership to mean anything at all.

Maybe the extent to which wealth is the basis of a society is the extent to which that society defines itself by in-groups/out-group distinctions, such that "I own..." has real meaning, whereas for societies where out-groups are rarely even encountered, wealth might be less relevant as there's not much meaning to "we own..." if there's no-one that excludes from those rights.

My point was that IBM created a lot of value, meaning stuff, services, and intellectual property, that did not exist before, and their customers handed over wealth to get it. — Srap Tasmaner

OK, so ideas don't have a maxima, not even in rates. That makes sense (I might quibble about limits to the bandwidth of the working memory, or remind you that the brain is a calorie consuming organ and doesn't work for free...but I won't).

How is that value translated to wealth without theft? As a value in its own right its all fine and dandy, the world can now programme in a way it never could and IBM ought, quite rightly to be thanked wholeheartedly for that. But if there's a limited pot of wealth, then what material form could that thanks take other than a bigger than before share of that pot. And, let's face it, in America, the share they had before was probably grossly unjust.

So how can we cash out this growth in value that we've plucked from the jaws of entropy? Can we cash it in for anything in terms of wealth without theft, or must the reward be informational too, like the product. Gratitude, satisfaction...

Pragmatic reasoning based on your ideologically-inspired goals, questionable as anybody else’s. — neomac

Yes, that's right.

What is the well-being of the people? — neomac

That's up to us to decide. Personally I think the notion of human rights is a good starting point.

Don’t I show compassion for the well-being of “the people there” if I show my support for a Ukrainian feelings against Russian oppression — neomac

Not in isolation, no. The Russians could be liberators come to free the people from tyrannical rule, they'd still be the invaders. You have to have some clear notion of the relative harms to pick sides, it's not sufficient just to say one side is being invaded. We've no good reason to care about the outcome of that unless the invaders are significantly worse than the invaded. We do have good reason to care about the process though.

Why should I “solely” be concerned for the well-being of the people there, to prove that I’m a compassionate outsider? — neomac

You are free to have whatever concerns you wish. I'm arguing about the moral authority of our governments.

How do you think is capable to “solely” be concerned for the well-being of the people there? — neomac

I'm not struggling with that, personally, so you'll have to explain a bit more about the difficulties you're having.

it can be a means to achieve “humanitarian goal” if by “humanitarian goal” you are referring to human rights as we, in western democracies, understand them and sovereignty can be a pre-condition for the implementation of state apparatuses supporting human rights. — neomac

How? I don't see the mechanism. Representation is definitely an important tool, but that's not the same thing as sovereignty.

I'm saying that Nazi supporters are basically Nazis. — unenlightened

Yes.

A government of a country with Nazi supporters in it, though, is not, thankfully, a Nazi government.

Hence the very significant difference between Germany and England in the late 1930s.

Ukraine and Russia, however, have quite similar governments, particularly in the East where Ukraine were fighting the pro-Russian breakaway factions. Similar in levels of corruption, similar in human rights, similar in press freedoms, similar in approach to ethnic and national minorities within their territory.

Hence the notion that a comparison between the current situation in Ukraine and 1930s Europe is daft.

You would know why if such a feeling was present. — Seeker

Oh. And that reason would be a good reason?

one can relate to having pain and dont want to inflict such harm upon another living being? — Seeker

And why ought we follow that particular feeling?

Yet there in Crimea too the totalitarian system of Putin's Russia is evident and the treatment of the Tatars is telling. The annexation has led to the detention and disappearance of dissenters, the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and the stifling of the media. The going on in Donetsk and Luhansk has been even worse. — ssu

The situation in Crimea was broadly similar to the situation in Ukrainian controlled Donbas.

That was the conclusion of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, The UNHCR, The OSCE... If you disagree, you can take it up with them.

You've no argument that occupied Donbas will be worse than Donbas at war.

I know bolding doesn't seem to help your lamentably poor reading skills, but I tried.

AND THAT PROVES MY POINT. Thank you. :cheer: — ssu

How? You've not even addressed the question. Did Poland (or the Western regions of Russia) have a better time of the war because their governments didn't accept terms? Did the resistance of their governments to negotiations actually render any improvement at all in the welfare of their citizens? If not, then the best argument you can make is that surrender made no difference at all. Whether it saved lives from battles not fought is speculative, but whether it cost lives is not.

Cracking on, sir, as ordered. — unenlightened

Are you seriously suggesting that a few rallies makes us basically the same as being run by Nazis. That some public meetings are much the same as the putsches, expulsions, beatings and legal disenfranchisement of the Jews?

As I said. Crack on.

The claim I'm making is that from the treatment of the Chechens showcases the way that Putin would handle the territories that he has annexed from Ukraine. Similar treatment of "Russian citizens". — ssu

Why not Crimea? Because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have an actual example of an actual territory annexed from Ukraine and you're avoiding using it as an example, but instead reaching for the worst case you can find.

Vichy France officially surrendered to Nazi occupation and continued to fight a strong civilian resistance. Poland never officially surrendered, but were beaten in battle.

Did their experiences of the resulting occupation differ?

Did France's actions have any significant impact on lives lost by surrendering and continuing its resistance unofficially? At worst, no impact at all, at best they may have saved thousands by avoiding battles they couldn't win.

None of which has any bearing of course on the completely different question of occupied Donbas. Ukraine is not France. Russia is not Germany.

Nice. Bit of jingoistic nationalism. Very much in keeping with the slide into the far-right Europe has recently taken. I think we finally have a good grasp on where you're coming from.

To defend against the Nazi threat was justified, because of the wickedness of Nazi ideology. But Ukrainians should join Putin's Russia (which as I stated earlier, fought a genocidal war against the Chechens...which were/are citizens of Russia, actually). — ssu

Although... You do know that minimisation of the holocaust is a crime in some countries, right? I don't know what jurisdiction TPF is in, but the claim that the holocaust was similar to the Russian invasion of Chechnya is not claim I'd want to risk making in, say, Germany or Poland.

I consider that Poland, Germany and France could very well get threatened in the future if Russia wins in Ukraine. — Olivier5

...

No.

I've got nothing in response to that, we'll just leave it there for posterity.

That was different. To defend against the Nazi threat was justified, because of the wickedness of Nazi ideology. But Ukrainians should join Putin's Russia (which as I stated earlier, fought a genocidal war against the Chechens...which were/are citizens of Russia, actually). — ssu

As I said on the other thread, if you want to embarrass yourself by claiming that the difference between Nazi Germany and 1930s England is about the same as the difference between modern Russia and modern Ukraine, then I'm not even going to contest it. It's such a ludicrous claim that it doesn't even deserve comment, you crack on.

So why didn't your country surrender to Hitler and join the Third Reich and then "swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Germany and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit thte whole nation". — ssu

That might have been a solution, yes. It may well have saved thousands of lives on both sides. The idea that full on land war is the only way to combat human rights abuses is not only stupid, but dangerously so. We do not need to go to war with every tyrant to depose them. We can use diplomatic means, sanctions, revolution... there are many tools at our disposal.

It also may not have been a solution. The circumstances may have been such that war was necessary.

It's utterly absurd to point to one set of circumstances where war was a necessary option and say "well that proves that war is always a necessary option"

Did we do wrong during the cold war? Should we have just invaded Russia instead of all the negotiations, deals, and posturing we did to avoid armageddon? No.

In some cases war is necessary, in others negotiation and concession is better.

You can't just dodge the question of which is which by pointing out that one sometimes is.

who cares about the Uighurs? — Olivier5

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/714502

Oh look. It's one of the people who've been critical of all the pro-western cheerleading, what a surprise.

We care about Ukraine because we identify with them, because we could very well be next. — Olivier5

Bullshit. America, France, Engalnd are unequivocally not next on Putin's hit-list. Such a notion is daft beyond measure.

he says that in politics, naįve boyscouts often do more damage than shrewd calculators. — Olivier5

Uh huh. None of which counts as evidence for which side you're on of that divide. But I do like this dramatic u-turn of yours from moralising to real politik, it makes a change at least.

I don't see how that does anything but dodge the question. My question is about the "many excellent moral reasons to help the Ukrainians". You dodged that by claiming our aid was solely a Machiavellian move to use Ukrainians as a human shield. If you now want to go back on that claim, then tell me what the moral reason is to retain sovereignty for one people over one territory. As I said, sovereignty is not a humanitarian goal. It has zero moral dimension, no-one morally deserves control over some piece of land to the exclusion of others.

if you don't have to cause other animals pain unnecessarily, why do so? — schopenhauer1

Why not do so?

It's called geopolitics, not boyscoutism. — Olivier5

What it's called is irrelevant. We're talking about the moral judgement of it.

So, to get this clear, your new claim is that there's zero moral reason for us to help Ukraine, but we ought to do so because it's the smart Machiavellian move in terms of geopolitics.

We are not supporting Ukraine for humanitarian reasons though, but to protect ourselves. — Olivier5

Well, if you think that then the action is even more reprehensible than my interpretation of war profiteering. Using Ukrainians as a human shield against a threat to us is positively evil.

Staking a lot of people and future on such a reason (unjustified at the moment), speaking on their behalf, is a bit bold (perhaps presumptuous, especially if it's not your children that have to live with that decision), at least it seems that way to me. — jorndoe

No one is speaking on their behalf (well the Ukrainian government are, but that's their job). We are supplying weapons, training, finances, propaganda, intelligence and moral support. Did we ought to supply those things unquestionably to whatever end Ukraine choose?

If Russia asked us for help with their objective, ought we supply similar aid to them, and when the likes of you question their goals I could say "who are you to speak on their behalf, the Russians know what's best for them and if that involves invading Ukraine, then we've no right to tell them they're wrong".

No.

If we supply such enormous quantities of aid, we have a right and a duty to ensure that aid is being used to promote only humanitarian goals.

Sovereignty for some group over some territory is not a humanitarian goal.

Not perhaps with the ferocity as during the war — ssu

Could have stopped there. Any reason why you'd oppose moving to a less ferocious situation from a more ferocious one?

Let me guess, is it borders? National identity? Are we going to get the whole Rivers of Blood speech or just the highlights?

Borders are nothing but convenient administrative units. We're all one people. There are no races, no nations. The notion that there are is what causes these wars in the first place. We've no business causing even so much as stubbed toe over the idea of 'national sovereignty' let alone war, as if there were some unit of people who all think alike and need to have their wishes separately heard.

Even if there were such a group in Eastern Ukraine. a group passionate about freedom (Western style), so passionate that they'd be willing to lay down their lives for it. Then by far the best outcome is that they join Russia. Swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Russia and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit the whole nation. Their voices are wasted in Ukraine, which already is heading that way, they'll objectively do more good as part of Russia.

How does this pragmatic approach get started when one side is run by a man in a bunker calmly loading his revolver for the final scene? You make it sound like something his opponents could initiate by themselves. — Paine

Well, if Putin or his representatives aren't available for talks, then clearly no deal can be made. Do you have some reason to believe that's the case?

what's not going on is IBM taking, for itself, some fixed amount of wealth from some third-world society. Colonialism is an important part of the story, but it's not a simple matter of theft (as you put it earlier). What about exploitation? Yes, of course, but we have to start with an analysis that doesn't treat exploitation as simple theft. — Srap Tasmaner

OK, so I suppose we'd have to be clear what we mean by theft. Can one steal opportunity (future resources)? Can one steal labour? I think these are the kinds of notions by which the whole 'theft' narrative is held up.

As to whether there's a fixed pot of wealth... well. What was it you said earlier about turning fossil fuels into civilisation? I'm not so convinced there isn't such a fixed pot. The earth can only sustain a fixed rate of resource extraction (efficiency improvements, yes, but not infinite ones). Since 'wealth' is really only the ability to purchase 'stuff', then the limited rate at which the earth can sustain having the resources to make that stuff extracted presents a fixed limit on that wealth (as measured by purchasing power) does it not?

Since we're talking about rates here, we don't have to be about to run out to consider us having breached that limit. It's the sustainable rate that matters, otherwise we're stealing from future generations.

Likewise with labour. We're biological machines. The reason that a ten hour work day is cruel is because it breaches a limit our biology places on us. Plus we have other calls on our attention - family, recreation, idle drifting off... Another set of limits. Another rate of use that can be breached.

So since wealth (in terms of purchasing power) comes from a combination of resources and labour, both of which have limits on their rate of use, I'd say wealth must be limited.

I think that the impression it isn't comes from the fact that as technology develops we've grown (the rising tide, boats and all that). But this confuses maxima with rates. The fact that the maxima might change over time doesn't mean that the rate at which it changes isn't itself a limit.

So I guess I'd say to Ben that he's wrong. The limit on wealth is the current maximum resources that can sustainably be extracted from the earth using our current technology and the maximum labour effort that can sustainably be expected from the current population. If you've got more than your fair share of that, there's a strong chance you nicked it.

How can the good faith be extended to the Russians in this regard when Putin has played so many for fools for doing it in the past? — Paine

I don't really see it as a matter of good faith so much as a pragmatic decision under uncertainty.

What we know is that Russia at war is truely awful. We have a little idea of Russian-occupied territory in this region from Crimea and even though the abuses there were unacceptable, they are less than the atrocities being perpetrated in the invasion.

We also know that territory held by Ukraine is also subject to unacceptable human rights abuses.

So the decision (for us) is whether a peace deal followed by occupation would likely yield fewer abuses than a war followed by a return to Ukrainian control (or worse, one of the freshly armed far-right militia from either side)

I don't think that yields an obvious answer, but human rights abuses are universally easier to deal with outside of a war zone than they are within one, so if whomever gets the territory does, in fact, continue the sorts of horrific crimes we've witnessed thus far, I don't see how we'll be any less capable of acting against them in Russian annexed territory than we would be in Ukrainian war zone.

Think about what would have happened if Trump was president when Putin invaded. The US wouldn't have supported Ukraine. But we have Biden, so the US did.

In this case, the outlook of the US Commander in Chief is the deciding factor, not the lust of arms dealers — frank

Your opinion of what would have happened in a hypothetical situation doesn't then constitute evidence for your theory. Evidence for theories comes from actual situations, otherwise the argument is circular (you think Trump wouldn't have supported Ukraine because your theory is that world leaders are instrumental in making such decisions). If we allow theory-informed hypotheticals, then I'd say Trump would have supported the war because his cabinet would have been sufficiently influenced by the arms lobby to see it as a politically astute move (after they explained to Trump what the word 'astute' means).

I don't think world events are significantly determined by world leaders because the world has continued on one almost unerring trajectory in terms of the concentration of wealth and power for decades and yet leaders come and go every four or five years.

If you're saying the US is particularly subject to the influence of war profiteers, you may be right. Still, they can't start wars all by themselves (usually). — frank

I agree here. The most the arms lobby can do is opportunistically take advantage of situations which present themselves. That's so far been sufficient, however, to keep the US almost permanently at war for the last hundred years, so they don't seem to be short of the requisite opportunity. Either that's enormous good luck or something is tipping the scales in their favour.

The aim was not to distinguish. I agree that pretty much all wars serve this purpose

my point is that what is shared is horror at what Russia is doing. — Paine

We all (hopefully) share a horror at what Russia are doing. My point was to distinguish between what may be the Ukrainian objectives and what ought be our objectives as concerned outsiders. The Ukrainians themselves may well have some nationalistic sentiment and consider their borders a priority (as well as their natural concern for the well-being of their citizens). As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there. That means that we (the western world) and the Ukrainians may well be at odds as to which solutions we'd want to endorse. Where we might consider solutions which involve territorial changes, they might not.

As such it's not correct to say that we ought to support the Ukrainians in whatever they choose. We don't have any obligation to share their concern about their national identity, we do have an obligation to share their concern about their welfare.

This is relevant because if ceding territory to Russia ends the war and if there's no good reason to think that doing so will create a major loss in welfare, then we ought to support such a solution, even if the Ukrainians themselves don't.

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.

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.

what kind of business model did you have, if you have to pay people so little even to keep the business afloat? Maybe that's a business that doesn't really work. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, I think too little attention is paid to this and I suppose what I'm trying to say about corporate structures is that I think they might be partially responsible. The problem is the offloading of true costs (and risks). By true costs I mean things like social impacts of policies (say the impact of a non-living wage), or environmental impacts ('hey, that's our air you're using to store your waste!'). By true risks I mean the social consequences of taking big risks which too often the government pick up the pieces of. If people are relying on your business for their income, then risking new venture into some experimental product line isn't just risking your investment (as the model would have it) but it's risking their jobs too. One way of handling that it to pay for the full risk (and get the full benefit) but abetter way, I think, is to share both. If everyone's on board with the risk, then go for it, and everyone who took the risk gets some of the benefit if it works. The wider this network can be (business, community, country...) the more acceptable the risks are, since everyone took part in agreeing to them.

we should both raise the minimum wage and provide support for employers and employees to get through the transition to a better way of doing things. To say, it will hurt to change, is not an argument that where you're at is good. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, absolutely, and I think the argument you gave is the one to use to justify this. If you're not paying your worker enough to keep themselves alive, available, and healthy enough to do the job you require of them, then you're not paying the true cost, you're being subsidised by the government (or the employee's family, friends, etc) and the savings you make from that subsidy are going straight into your pocket. There's a rather cliched expression us tankies* are wont to use about capitalism being a system for extracting value from the masses and concentrating in the hands of the few.

* I'm apparently officially one now.

I submit there's a transition there from a business arrangement that is in some sense inclusive to one that is extractive, but not a shift from socialist to capitalist. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not yet sure how it works on a global scale. Are the old IBM inclusive nationally but extractive internationally? Did their subsidising of middle management jobs come out of profits, or out of exploitation elsewhere (cheaper costs of living from cheap goods, low environmental restrictions, 'slave' labour in the third world, etc). I don't know, I'm inclined to think it was, but only because I'm wired that way from decades in the Trotskyist pit that was the pre-millennial British university social sciences departments.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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

Fixed that for you.

600 to 1,000 casualties a day, and you're talking about a few beatings and some stolen kit?