It kind of looks like he's trying to lower the unemployment rate in Russia by killing off men.

Yes, things are trending that way.

Add the brain trust fleeing the country in spring to the young people fleeing mobilization, they should be able to pound that number down to zero.

Omg, that's so sad. Russian unemployment rate:

3 ways of looking at Putin’s barbaric escalation against Ukrainian civilians (Vox; Oct 17, 2022)
The international level, The domestic level, The psychological level

Much speculation; bombing proceeds. :/

When it comes to opinion of the Russian president, right-wing populist supporters are, in many cases, again more likely than those who do not support these parties to have confidence in Putin. — Among European right-wing populists, favorable views of Russia and Putin are down sharply · Pew Research Center · Sep 23, 2022

On Dec 14, 2016, Will Jordan noted ...

The fact that I have lived here all my life and people should not be forced to flee their home as a result of political malpractice? Hello?

In other words, it's Biden. — frank

An alternative take, if you're interested.

Biden’s New National Security Strategy: A Lot of Trump, Very Little Obama

Yes, Biden and Obama are in opposite sides of the Democratic party spectrum. That's normal. Presidential candidates usually try to pick someone who complements them to appeal to more voters.

This is why Obama wouldn't have picked someone like Sanders as a running mate: the ticket would have leaned too progressive to win.

Trump is a wildcard in terms of foreign policy. He knew next to nothing about global politics and cared less, except for his grudge against China for its biased trading demands. A lot of people thought it was time for China-American trade to become more fair to Americans. Biden was expected to thaw relations with China, but maintain the trade war.

As for Russia, while campaigning, Biden couldn't have made it more clear that he planned to punish Putin in some way for interfering in American elections. Putin handed him the means to do so.

That's not really clarified matters - something 'causing' Putin doesn't make sense. so I thought you meant that nothing else in that list is causing as much damage as Putin... but then you denied that too. So I'm at a loss. — Isaac

I’ll give it another try then: "no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' are causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that one single subject (namely, Putin) is causing”. Better now?
I denied the substantial equivalence of what I wrote with the ways you rephrased it: "the war in Ukraine is the single highest toll of avoidable deaths and misery in the world right now" or "Putin is the biggest threat to civilisation because I reckon he is”. I challenge you to argue against my actual claims, not against the caricature of my claims.

But such assessments vary - different people reach different conclusions. — Isaac

Sure, there are people believing in astrology or magic, after all. So what? Here, I’m not interested in discussing doxastic surveys, I’m interested in discussing reasons wrt rational standards intelligible to me.

I'm not claiming your position is irrational. You are claiming mine is. You disputed my position, not the other way round. If the best you've got is that your position is plausible, then we have no disagreement. — Isaac

Additionally, I don’t even understand your claim that my position and your position are both plausible. What do you mean by “plausible”? Wrt what? You didn’t provide any sharable method to assess the plausibility of different position in absolute or relative terms. And it’s even hard to guess it from the way you question my claims, because they practically amount to random accusations (like cherry picking, lack of imagination, lack of support from certain sources, confusion, lacking basic concepts, etc.) or strawman arguments or labelling (like adolescent positivism). Besides, why on earth would you still claim that my position is plausible after questioning all the reasons I have to hold my position and without providing better ones?

Well then we probably have very little to talk about. I assume my interlocutors share such concerns. If not, then our differences are probably more to do with irreconcilable differences in values. — Isaac

A part from the fact that one assesses rational expectations even in this case, my question is: would our positions be still both plausible in case of irreconcilable differences in values?

There are no historical periods in which the West didn’t meddle in regional conflicts while at the same time mounting a multi-billion dollar campaign to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world — neomac


So because it's never happened before, it can't happen. Well. It's a good job you weren't around in the early twentieth century pointing out that never before had all the nations of the world got together to form a single organisation for co-operation and diplomacy. They'd have shelved the whole project.
Seriously? "If it hasn't happened in the past it can't happen". — Isaac

I addressed the rest of your objection when talking about human creativity in history. — neomac
You really didn't. — Isaac

As a starter, attributing to me the claim “if it hasn't happened in the past it can't happen”, would be like me attributing to you the claim “if it hasn't happened in the past it can happen”, both are strawman arguments. As far as I’m concerned, expectations however rational may turn out to be false, and however irrational (like hopes and wishful thinking) may turn out to be true. Yet the discrimination between rational and irrational expectations remains and is relevant for my decision process.
The other point is that rational expectations based on historical events can still account for human creativity (in history) to some extent, so they do not lead to believe that humans can not be conscious agents of disruptive socio-political changes. Indeed history is rich of cases where disruptive technologies or new socio-political arrangements were consciously implemented, so one should take into account that too to formulate rational expectations. In order to give a rational account for that one should still check/show how past regularities can fit or be exploited to trigger the disruptive change: e.g. to accounting for the end of slavery in the US, one might consider the interplay of economic dynamics, religious beliefs, demographic factors, technological innovations and skilled/ambitious political elites that made this event likely. In a similar vain, we can try to account for the emergence of disruptive historical phenomena in the present or in the future to guide our poltical choices. However you didn’t present any such analysis to support your claim that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”. So nothing rationally challenging in there.

"no 'local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty' are causing the level of economic, infrastructural, human, political damage that one single subject (namely, Putin) is causing”. Better now? — neomac

Yes, but that's exactly what I thought you meant in the first place. I then listed several examples of "local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" that were causing more "economic, infrastructural, human, political damage" than Putin and you said that wasn't what you meant.

Can you clarify how you're measuring "economic, infrastructural, human, political damage"?

there are people believing in astrology or magic, after all. So what? Here, I’m not interested in discussing doxastic surveys, I’m interested in discussing reasons wrt rational standards intelligible to me. — neomac

I'm not talking about astrology, I'm talking about experts in their field. Again, if you're going to just dismiss expert opinion because it is in opposition to what you prefer to believe then we cannot have a discussion.

I don’t even understand your claim that my position and your position are both plausible. What do you mean by “plausible”? — neomac

I simply mean that neither position is contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary and each position is supported in the field of qualified experts. Basic minimum standards. I didn't think this would be complicated.

You didn’t provide any sharable method to assess the plausibility of different position in absolute or relative terms. — neomac

Again, this is basic stuff. A position is plausible if it is not contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In technical fields it ought also have support from at least some experts in that field. There's nothing controversial to argue with here.

why on earth would you still claim that my position is plausible after questioning all the reasons I have to hold my position — neomac

Under determination. We've been through this already. If you didn't understand it the first time I'm not sure a second go round is going to help. A fixed pool of evidence can support multiple theories since any given pool of evidence supporting a theory is not exhaustive of all the evidence there is.

would our positions be still both plausible in case of irreconcilable differences in values? — neomac

Yes, of course. Values are not amenable to assessment of plausibility since no evidence can be brought to bear on them.

the discrimination between rational and irrational expectations remains and is relevant for my decision process. — neomac

You're not discriminating between rational and irrational, for Christ's sake. You're not God. You're discriminating between reasons you prefer and reasons preferred by others. You not agreeing with a set of reasons doesn't render them "irrational", epistemic peers disagree, it's quite normal and doesn't require one party to have lost the power of rational thought.

history is rich of cases where disruptive technologies or new socio-political arrangements were consciously implemented, so one should take into account that too to formulate rational expectations. — neomac

Then how does an historical failure to address poverty have any bearing on the rationality of a moral claim that we ought address poverty?

you didn’t present any such analysis to support your claim that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”. So nothing rationally challenging in there. — neomac

One more time for the slow ones at the back... You are the one claiming my position is flawed ("irrational" now, apparently). My not having proven your position wrong is not evidence that my position is wrong. I have no interest in proving your position wrong.

You keep doing this (pointing to a failure to prove my position as if it were supportive of yours). Are you seriously of the opinion that our two positions are mutually exclusive (such that if my position is wrong, yours must be right)?

Relevance is a relative term. Relevance to what, and for whom? — Olivier5

Relevance to the current geopolitical situation we're discussing.

I was reacting to your statement that:

Fixed. Morality and geopolitics don't mix well. — Olivier5

Which was in response to my statement:

The central geo-political question of this war is the challenge to Western moral leadership. — boethius

I then explain that on the fundamentals, morality is very much related to geopolitics; both in terms of seeking geopolitical dominance or protection "no holds bar" is a moral system, but also there's examples of genuine moral indignation shaping geopolitical decisions and geopolitical institutions.

What you are talking about is at best a propaganda battle (which you are deeply engaged in, by the way, given the way you are caricaturing it), not the central geo-political question. Propaganda is just one tool of the geopolitical game, with costs, limits and unintended consequences. — neomac

It is not "at best a propaganda battle" for various reasons.

First (as has already been discussed several times), whether something is used for propaganda or not is independent of whether it actually happened or not or whether it's arguably true or not.

Second, and to reiterate the point I was making that, as predicted, you seem genuinely incapable of understanding, even if our Western purported facts and moral opinions are absolutely "true" (this was the premise of my argument, that we Westerners have the truth) it's still important, even under these conditions of being ultimate arbiters of truth, to understand how other people elsewhere see things, even if it's not true, for the purposes of decision making.

For example, the West genuinely seemed to believe that the massive sanctions (that US policy-wonks kept calling "the nuclear option" for years) would destroy the Russian economy as the whole world would follow them. It seemed of genuine surprise to the US and European administrations that nearly the entire rest of the world noped out on those sanctions and the Russian economy was not destroyed.

Western politicians and western media then just basically ignored the issue.

What I am describing here is a failure in analysis even assuming that the West is good and just and the policies morally and politically sound. Failing to see that there's a "rest of the world" (in the words of Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy), a rest of the world (a "jungle" if you will) that does not have the truth and so acts differently is a basic failure of analysis, which leads to sub-optimal decision making and inefficient tending the Western "garden" and clearing of the "jungle" in the rest of the world.

Now, if could be that Western politicians and media are just so naively innocent, so unitarily focused on the sublime truth and justice they contain, that they simply can't form in their heads people holding different opinions.

Or, it could be that these alternative opinions out there in the "jungle" are actively ignored because the Western political and media simply have no good arguments supporting their belief to be ultimate avatars of the truth and justice.

So, either way, there is a failure to understand key facts about the world and the situation, which presumably leads to worse rather than better decision making.

Is Russia bullying Ukraine ... or has NATO been trying to bully Russia these past decades?
Is Ukraine standing up to Russia ... or is Russia standing up to NATO? — boethius

Putin frames it in terms of threats, danger, fear. So, we could try to examine that.

First, though... Broken promise or not? This seemed to me a recurring claim — and justification — by Putin + team, and some others.

^{• Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No” (Brookings; Nov 6, 2014)
• Did The West Promise Moscow That NATO Would Not Expand? Well, It's Complicated. (RFE/RL; May 19, 2021)
• Ukraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east (The Conversation; Feb 14, 2022)
• “NATO (under direction from the United States) is violating previous agreements and expanding eastward.” (PolitiFact; Feb 22, 2022)}

Hmm ... Not quite so clear (earlier on, I thought it was more clear). More of a "he-said-she-said" thing apparently. Either way, the violence/bombing/shamming can't hang on this. (Ukraine is the obvious victim here.)

The threats (via earlier comment instead of repeating): Nuclear? More or less everyone's threatened. Only some flaunt. Troops then? NATO has more of them, is larger. Russia's flanked. Large country. (Well, bases and troop concentrations are susceptible to tactical nuclear weapons I guess.) Cultural threats? Humbug. Are we talking "claustrophobia" versus limiting free Kremlin movements/actions?

Non-hypotheticals: At the moment, Russia is a direct/present tangible threat to Ukraine (and perhaps some neighbors), more so than NATO is to Russia, except Putin's moves have put Russians in danger. There are casualties and losses, by far most in Ukraine, not Russia, not in NATO countries. The invasion. Conversely, sanctions are threatening Russia, albeit not so much a NATO thing.

The geo-strategic interests mentioned by @Tzeentch suggests a plain old land grab, which is a rationale, just not the one out of the anti-NATO rhetoric (≈ distraction). What threat is NATO to Russia that's different from protecting the members? No one has threatened with invading Russia. The threats to Russia aren't looking like what they're made out to be. Which suggests other aims, in part at least.

Jason Jay Smart reported (Oct 15, 2022):

This poetry performance by Russian-installed Kherson official Kirill Stremousov is truly one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen — Francis Scarr (Oct 18, 2022)

Maybe their Pr department is out manning the artillery?

Ukraine to Officially Submit Request for Air Defense Supplies From Israel

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-10-18/ty-article/ukraine-requests-israel-supply-immediate-air-defense-supplies/00000183-eb24-da6b-a1fb-fba5783f0000

While Israel has condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and provided Kyiv with humanitarian relief, it has stopped short of also providing military support, citing concern for continued cooperation with Moscow over next-door Syria.

The discussion over air supplies comes amid internal wrangling in Israel over deepening its cooperation with Ukraine after the Russian invasion.

Relevance to the current geopolitical situation we're discussing. — boethius

Oh well. I can see quite a few elements of geopolitical relevance in the current context. No issue here.

My point was different: that to the extent that the West leads the world, it does so scientifically, economically, culturally and militarily, but not morally. It doesn't exert a moral leadership that I can see or trust, although politicians may pretend otherwise. One could perhaps claim that Western values are IN THEORY, AS INTENDED, morally superior to any others. That would sound unwise to me but it can be argued. But how many people nowadays still believe that the West lives by its own values?

This war does not present "a challenge to Western moral leadership", as such a thing does not exist. It is a challenge to Western geopolitical leadership.

What a tangled web is weaved:

Russia's help in fighting Assad in Syria versus stopping Iran from becoming a go to arms dealer and producer. And the old Russian Bear is not looking so good. Las Vegas is giving different percentages.

Edited for clarity.
Edit was a botch. SophistiCat fixes brain fart below.

What a tangled web is weaved:

Russia's help in fighting Assad in Syria versus stopping Iran from becoming a go to arms dealer and producer. — Paine

Russia isn't helping Israel fight Assad - Russia is supporting Assad. Rather, Russia has allowed Israel to conduct its operations against Iranian proxies in Syria - even though Russia and Iran are on the same side there. It's a tangled web indeed.

Very much so. And Israel is hesitant to sell weapons to Ukraine, as they are quite happy with the current arrangement in Syria.

I suspect only the US could get Israel to sell weapons to Ukraine, but then maybe not even them, because lots of illegal Israeli settlers are Russian. So it's a hell of a problem for Israel.

Thank you, I tried to do that the first time but did not put in the needed extra convolutions.

My point is that if Iran starts to profit significantly from selling arms to Russia, that will be the motivation to change course.
So, maybe not so happy.

It sure can. Which is why they've been stalling.

Who is stalling? Iran to admit that it is selling weapons? Or Israel because it does not want to change deals?

Israel.

Doesn't the factor of increasing Iranian involvement decrease the chances that Israel is simply being pressured by the U.S. to give up on a 'good deal'?

Beyond this question of Realpolitik, I wonder if Lavrov's riff about Hitler possibly being a self-hating Jew might be playing a part. Apologies were given. But that is a deep cut.

Update: Iran is sending trainers to help with drones they are not providing

No, I mean, Israel has its own interests that not-infrequently clash with the US' interests. Nevertheless, if they do sell weapons to Ukraine, it might get more complicated for Israel, given the amount of Russians inside Israel.

They would rather stay away from this one, but are being forced to reply.

Do these Russian people in Israel support the present regime?

Which one? Putin's?

I haven't looked at any polls mentioning this.

I was thinking Putin's.
But maybe a better way to ask my question is to ask how this group is one Israel is reluctant to offend because it would offend Russia. Can you point to a specific situation that would bring this into relief?