Engage in dialogue, perhaps? If you're asking me if I ought to force people to abide by my principles, then obviously the answer is no.

So you morally ought to do nothing to have people abide by your moral principle, except engage in dialogue perhaps. So I guess nobody else morally ought to do anything to have people abide by your moral principle, except engage in dialogue perhaps. Clear enough.
So imagine someone is bombing the neighborhood where your family and friends live (some die a horrible death, others are severely injured or maimed), they lost where to live and all basic services in the neighborhood, some even jobs if working in the neighborhood, does anybody (you included) morally ought to do anything about it?

The collapse of the Soviet Union + ensuing independence is correlated with boost in human rights support to the top for many countries in eastern block and post-Soviet countries. — neomac

Not derivable from the charts. As I said, V-dem bias their scoring heavily in favour of democratic representation which is only a small part of human rights. We can say with certainty that the collapse of the Soviet Union produced a strong increase in democratic representation (and associated freedoms). The rest of human rights are not addressed by your charts.

After some of those countries joined EU/NATO, they managed to keep their positive trends relatively stable, and for those which experienced a noticeable decline (like Poland) still the trend doesn’t look as bad as it looks for other post-Soviet countries still under Russian influence — neomac

Again, that's not what the charts show. The trend is similar in EU nations as it in Russio-sphere nations (in fact the trend is, on average, slightly more positive in Russio-sphere nations than it is in EU nations). The starting points in EU nations are often higher (explained by the weighting given to democratic representation).

we have good reasons to think that EU may have been a stabilising (if not a boosting) factor, while Russia may be a destabiliser and threat to human rights. — neomac

We have no such reason from the data you've provided. You've given no evidence that EU pressure, monitoring and requirements improve human rights as a whole. You've given no evidence that Russia is responsible for the low V-dem scores of the nations which chose not to join the EU. Basically you've come at this with a preconceived notion and squeezed the data into your theory.

What we actually have is...

1. Post Soviet break up, some nations chose to move toward joining the EU, for which they increased their systems of democratic representation which dramatically improved their V-dem scores. We don't have any data on why or how.

2. Other nations chose not to, so their V-dem scores remained low. We don't have any data on what influenced them to make this choice, certainly nothing showing that 'Russian influence' was the determining factor. That is entirely a fabrication of yours.

3. We have no data at all on comparisons between non-democracy related human rights such as freedom from slavery and the right to respect for family and private life.

4. We have no data at all on the impact of the post-soviet states on the human rights of other nations such as developing world trading partners.

Relating this to Ukraine. We have no reason (from the data you've given) to think that Ukraine defeating Russia would lead to a Lithuania-style improvement, or maintain the previous Ukraine-style levels. We don't know why Ukraine had such a low score and we've no evidence at all to suggest that might be related to Russia in a way which their defeat in a land war would prevent.

it’s good that you see electoral reform and democracy in post-Soviet Eastern European countries have improved human rights. — neomac

I've said no such thing. I've pointed out that V-dem scoring system weighs democracy highly.

since the XIX century Ukrainians are striving for having an independent nation and resisting Russification and Russian subjugation pursued by any Russian regime — neomac

Bollocks. There has been a civil war raging between those who want to remain in the Russian sphere of influence and those who don't. Your elaborations of data are bad enough. If you're going to just start making shit up we can't progress at all.

NATO expansion has so far secured certain East block countries against the perceived Russian threat — neomac

...and a single shred of evidence for this would be...?

it’s important to not discount other promoting factors (like EU membership) that might counterbalance potential declining trends — neomac

It is unequivocal from the data you yourself provided that the EU is no such promoting factor. Look at the data. The main net gains during the period after most states joined the EU were from Russia and Belarus. If anything, the data show the exact opposite, that being outside of the EU is a better influencer on human rights.

how likely is that Russia will spare Ukraine from becoming Russian puppetry given all its strategic relevance — neomac

That depends on the progress of the war. If the war goes very well and Russia lose quickly and completely, then that will secure Ukraine a free and intact future. If the war goes really badly and Russia make gains, that will actually increase the chances of Ukraine becoming a puppet state over say, simply ceding Crimea and Donbas right now. If the war drags on, then it will be the worse outcome of all since whether Russia win or lose will be irrelevant. Ukraine will be financially crippled and will be utterly under the control of either Russia or the IMF. In neither case will it be free to make its own choices.

there is no reason for the West to let Russia take Ukraine for free — neomac

Firstly, No one is talking about Russia taking Ukraine. That has never been a negotiating position of either power. The dispute is over the territory of Donbas and Crimea and the security thereof.

Secondly, there's ample reason. The longer the war drags on the more people die (or are put at risk of death) both Ukrainians and other affected groups such as those reliant on Ukrainian exports and those who care not be destroyed by nuclear holocaust.

No one has yet provided a shred of evidence showing that a Russian controlled Donbas/Crimea would be so much worse for the people of those territories as to justify the deaths of thousands (and risk to millions) of a continued war. All the evidence points to the fact that life for the people of those regions would be much the same either way (pretty bloody awful).

If Ukrainian casualties... — neomac

We're not talking (primarily) about Ukrainian casualties. We're talking about the risk of nuclear war, mass starvation, and future economic devastation. Ukrainian casualties are a drop in the ocean. More people died from Ukraine's appalling environmental pollution that died in the war so far (civilians). I don't see that over the front pages day after day.

So imagine someone is bombing the neighborhood where your family and friends live (some die a horrible death, others are severely injured or maimed), they lost where to live and all basic services in the neighborhood, some even jobs if working in the neighborhood, does anybody (you included) morally ought to do anything about it? — neomac

I don't think we necessarily have moral obligations to do things to other people, even if we think it is in their best interest.

But I would probably try to get them out of there, obviously.

What's the time by the Doomsday clock? — Agent Smith

I hope that some sneaky internal group of Russian dissenters, have 'knobbled' any such clock on the Russian side and have some plans to do something similar to whatever long term intentions Putin and his cronies have.

I would consider even a single person dying against their will to be an enormous cost that was unjustly imposed, on the moral ground that no person has the right to tell another to give their life against their will, under any circumstance. — Tzeentch

Isn't this more of an objection to most political/societal systems, except anarchy (maybe)?
Defenders don't really have much choice, as attackers do.

How do you imagine this playing out?

Wait for something to better regulate our interaction, say along the lines of 180 Proof's idea?
I suppose (theoretically) we might hope and wait for particular global change in the ethics of our neurotic, part-time rational homo sapiens (maybe even an evolutionary leap); yet that's quite high hopes, not quite realistic.

EDIT

Any one person is outnumbered by two with a different sentiment/attitude.
Individuals in a society could be ruled by organized thugs or a (transparent) democratic majority where all have a say.
Running with the least bad is rational enough, regardless of some personal sacrifices.

Isn't this more of an objection to most political/societal systems, except anarchy (maybe)? — jorndoe

Certainly. I am morally opposed to any system that is based on the use and threat of violence.

Interestingly, an article on some of 'benefits' of western control Ukrainians can look forward to...

https://jacobin.com/2023/01/ukraine-postwar-reconstruction-western-capital-blackrock-neoliberalism/

Ukraine is being sized up by neocolonial vultures from BlackRock to the EU for a carve-up after the war is over. On the menu is deregulation, privatization, and “tax efficiency” — measures that may have already begun.

Among the policy recommendations are a “decrease in government spending,” “tax system efficiency,” and “deregulation.”

Perhaps you could explain to me how "deregulation", the removal of what you call "conditional requirements", can have the effect you're claiming is likely?

All this bullshit fairy tale you're spinning about how EU rules are going to keep human rights up to scratch is counter to the documented reality that westernised post war Ukraine is planned to be a deregulated neo liberal nightmare.

Certainly. I am morally opposed to any system that is based on the use and threat of violence. — Tzeentch

Apart from mercenaries, sociopaths, dictators, ..., I'd think most share the sentiment.

What does that translate to, though, in real life, social life?

(I'm wary of thinking up idealized Utopias, would rather stick to ongoing realistic aspirations, but this ↑↓ stuff isn't about me personally.)

I would consider even a single person dying against their will to be an enormous cost that was unjustly imposed, on the moral ground that no person has the right to tell another to give their life against their will, under any circumstance. — Tzeentch

The collapse of the Soviet Union + ensuing independence is correlated with boost in human rights support to the top for many countries in eastern block and post-Soviet countries. — neomac


Not derivable from the charts. As I said, V-dem bias their scoring heavily in favour of democratic representation which is only a small part of human rights. We can say with certainty that the collapse of the Soviet Union produced a strong increase in democratic representation (and associated freedoms). The rest of human rights are not addressed by your charts. — Isaac

Oh, you just went back to complaining about the metric.
The charts caption says “Based on the expert assessments and index by V-Dem. It captures the extent to which people are free from government torture, political killings, and forced labor, they have property rights, and enjoy the freedoms of movement, religion, expression, and association.” This is what they measured. If you have anything pertinent to the issue at hand and arguable better than those charts, show them to me. If you do not have them, I’ll keep reasoning over the evidence I have. You feel free to keep speculating over the evidence you do not have.

After some of those countries joined EU/NATO, they managed to keep their positive trends relatively stable, and for those which experienced a noticeable decline (like Poland) still the trend doesn’t look as bad as it looks for other post-Soviet countries still under Russian influence — neomac


Again, that's not what the charts show. The trend is similar in EU nations as it in Russio-sphere nations (in fact the trend is, on average, slightly more positive in Russio-sphere nations than it is in EU nations). — Isaac

What do you mean by “similar”? I don’t see very much relevant similarity wrt what I’m arguing.
Here some latest stats:

Post-Soviet republics (outside NATO/EU):
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&time=1988..latest&uniformYAxis=0&country=MDA~TJK~TKM~UZB~BLR~RUS~ARM~KAZ~KGZ~GEO~UKR~AZE
Only 3/12 are upper bound >= 0.9
Only 4/12 are upper bound >= 0.8
Only 5/9 are upper bound >= 0.7
Only 5/9 are upper bound >= 0.6

Post-Soviet republics and Eastern bloc (within EU/NATO)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-vdem?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&uniformYAxis=0&country=LVA~LTU~EST~SVK~ROU~BGR~POL~CZE~HUN~HRV~SVN
Only 7/9 are upper bound >= 0.9
Only 9/9 are upper bound >= 0.8
Only 9/9 are upper bound >= 0.7
Only 9/9 are upper bound >= 0.6

Once again you fail to consider comparative likelihood, and comparison is not over variation but over desirable levels of human rights index. Also a turd can look similar to a chocolate muffin. Yet I guess it would still taste different enough in your mouth, innit? Would this change significantly enough if you removed the sugar-coat on top of the muffin and put it on the turd?

We have no such reason from the data you've provided. You've given no evidence that EU pressure, monitoring and requirements improve human rights as a whole. You've given no evidence that Russia is responsible for the low V-dem scores of the nations which chose not to join the EU. Basically you've come at this with a preconceived notion and squeezed the data into your theory. — Isaac

The data I provided shows some trends and allow us for some reasoning under uncertainty.
The good reasons are things like these:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/648145/IPOL_BRI(2020)648145_EN.pdf
https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/achievements_en
https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/peace-and-governance/human-rights_en
Which must be again assessed comparatively. And the alternative here is to be Russian puppetry.

at issue is not simply the question of whether Ukraine would be better off outside of Russian puppetry (undoubtedly yes). — Isaac

What we actually have is...
Post Soviet break up, some nations chose to move toward joining the EU, for which they increased their systems of democratic representation which dramatically improved their V-dem scores. We don't have any data on why or how.
2. Other nations chose not to, so their V-dem scores remained low. We don't have any data on what influenced them to make this choice, certainly nothing showing that 'Russian influence' was the determining factor. That is entirely a fabrication of yours.
3. We have no data at all on comparisons between non-democracy related human rights such as freedom from slavery and the right to respect for family and private life.
4. We have no data at all on the impact of the post-soviet states on the human rights of other nations such as developing world trading partners.

Relating this to Ukraine. We have no reason (from the data you've given) to think that Ukraine defeating Russia would lead to a Lithuania-style improvement, or maintain the previous Ukraine-style levels. We don't know why Ukraine had such a low score and we've no evidence at all to suggest that might be related to Russia in a way which their defeat in a land war would prevent. — Isaac

Of course we have reasons. Just we are reasoning under uncertainty as avg dudes by considering the available evidences (which will always be very limited, we are neither experts nor decision makers), make comparisons, guided by some reasonable assumptions like the EU/NATO policies, the degree of involvement of the West in Ukraine, the Ukrainian aspirations, geopolitical theories, history, etc. If you refuse playing this game, that’s fine with me. Believing that’s not worth playing it, that’s entirely your problem not mine. You didn’t offer any better alternative anyways to anything we have discussed so far. You just wish all and only Western rich people and politicians sell all they have and pay for Yemeni/African/Chinese/Indian/Russian kids starving and the UK healthcare system. And apparently the best strategy for you to make that happen is by holding them accountable through posts on a philosophy forum. How is it going so far? Don’t need evidences, use your imagination.

since the XIX century Ukrainians are striving for having an independent nation and resisting Russification and Russian subjugation pursued by any Russian regime — neomac


Bollocks. There has been a civil war raging between those who want to remain in the Russian sphere of influence and those who don't. Your elaborations of data are bad enough. If you're going to just start making shit up we can't progress at all. — Isaac

Which doesn’t contradict what I’m saying at all. Indeed the separatists fighting the civil war concerns Russified regions of course. If you are ignorant about Ukrainian history, it’s not my problem. I gave you the link to Timothy Snyder classes. Alternatively a wikipedia summary can come in handy too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Tatarization_of_Crimea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_nationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donbas
Ukrainians in the Donbas were greatly affected by the 1932–33 Holodomor famine and the Russification policy of Joseph Stalin. As most ethnic Ukrainians were rural peasant farmers, they bore the brunt of the famine.

NATO expansion has so far secured certain East block countries against the perceived Russian threat — neomac


...and a single shred of evidence for this would be…?. — Isaac

I gave it a while ago [1]

it’s important to not discount other promoting factors (like EU membership) that might counterbalance potential declining trends — neomac


It is unequivocal from the data you yourself provided that the EU is no such promoting factor. Look at the data. The main net gains during the period after most states joined the EU were from Russia and Belarus. If anything, the data show the exact opposite, that being outside of the EU is a better influencer on human rights.. — Isaac

Irrelevant. Even if one can’t discriminate the impact of the EU/NATO from domestic factors from those charts (“absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence”), one can still clearly see that COMPARATIVELY those post-Soviet or eastern block countries which joined EU/NATO are in much better human rights conditions than those which didn’t. Besides we know that EU membership requires reviewing before and after the accession, pro-human rights policies, sanctioning mechanism and various other economic/security/social benefits which may motivate countries to stay in line. So if we do not fully know how effective or broad they are in promoting human rights (in comparative terms), still anybody who cares about human rights and is risk averse may still reasonably prefer to have them than nothing at all or the opposite of it.

how likely is that Russia will spare Ukraine from becoming Russian puppetry given all its strategic relevance — neomac.

That depends on the progress of the war. If the war goes very well and Russia lose quickly and completely, then that will secure Ukraine a free and intact future. If the war goes really badly and Russia make gains, that will actually increase the chances of Ukraine becoming a puppet state over say, simply ceding Crimea and Donbas right now. If the war drags on, then it will be the worse outcome of all since whether Russia win or lose will be irrelevant. Ukraine will be financially crippled and will be utterly under the control of either Russia or the IMF. In neither case will it be free to make its own choices. — Isaac

That’s not related to what I was arguing: EU/NATO influence vs Russia influence. If Ukraine didn’t join EU/NATO, it would have likely become a Russian puppet as Belarus due to its strategic importance and the evident intolerability for Russia to have a pro-West democratic government over there. So human rights conditions would have been likely as shitty as they are in Russia and Belarus.
There is no free meal you know? And IMF may still be the lesser evil than Russia.
In any case, my understanding is that Western international reputation is bound with the fate of Ukraine during and after this war. So if Ukraine can not be sold as a success story in some credible way for years to come Western reputation is screwed much more severely than what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam (put together).

there is no reason for the West to let Russia take Ukraine for free — neomac


Firstly, No one is talking about Russia taking Ukraine. That has never been a negotiating position of either power. The dispute is over the territory of Donbas and Crimea and the security thereof.

Secondly, there's ample reason. The longer the war drags on the more people die (or are put at risk of death) both Ukrainians and other affected groups such as those reliant on Ukrainian exports and those who care not be destroyed by nuclear holocaust.

No one has yet provided a shred of evidence showing that a Russian controlled Donbas/Crimea would be so much worse for the people of those territories as to justify the deaths of thousands (and risk to millions) of a continued war. All the evidence points to the fact that life for the people of those regions would be much the same either way (pretty bloody awful). — Isaac

Russia tried to attack Kyiv with the purpose of denazifying the Ukrainian regime. Since it failed, it had to redefine its military objectives and now it seems to focus on South-Eastern Ukrainian territories. But threats from Russia and for Russia are all still there. Even if you want to limit the scope of your argument, the choice for Ukraine between joining EU/NATO or remaining prey of Russia is still there. Therefore for the West and Ukraine the Russian threat needs to be reduced as much as possible (e.g. concerning Russian military capability to pursue conventional wars for further expansion or in support of China, also to give the West enough time to grow its military capacity bigger and more advanced than Russia’s ). That’s necessary for any negotiation to be perceived enough reliable (coz Putin’s word have absolutely zero value right?).
I don’t think the West/Ukraine are fighting this war to save the pro-Russian separatists in Donbas/Crimea, but to keep strategic territories and to save those who aren’t pro-Russian.

If Ukrainian casualties... — neomac


We're not talking (primarily) about Ukrainian casualties. We're talking about the risk of nuclear war, mass starvation, and future economic devastation. Ukrainian casualties are a drop in the ocean. More people died from Ukraine's appalling environmental pollution that died in the war so far (civilians). I don't see that over the front pages day after day. — Isaac

If you are claiming that pollution is a more serious problem than border disputes because it causes more deaths, that has nothing to do with the war. One can’t fix all problems at once and those that have priority concern the means of survival for competing geopolitical actors.
So, for example, the strategic relevance of “risk of nuclear war, mass starvation, and future economic devastation” can’t discount implied moral hazards which competitors can exploit (indeed less risk averse or bluffing competitors may easily turn perceived risks into emotional blackmailing strategies).

https://jacobin.com/2023/01/ukraine-postwar-reconstruction-western-capital-blackrock-neoliberalism/

Ukraine is being sized up by neocolonial vultures from BlackRock to the EU for a carve-up after the war is over. On the menu is deregulation, privatization, and “tax efficiency” — measures that may have already begun.


Among the policy recommendations are a “decrease in government spending,” “tax system efficiency,” and “deregulation.”


Perhaps you could explain to me how "deregulation", the removal of what you call "conditional requirements", can have the effect you're claiming is likely?

All this bullshit fairy tale you're spinning about how EU rules are going to keep human rights up to scratch is counter to the documented reality that westernised post war Ukraine is planned to be a deregulated neo liberal nightmare. — Isaac

"jacobin.com"? "deregulated neo liberal nightmare"? "documented reality"? show that to me, I wanna see the metrics of your unbiased source.




[1]
From:

THE DEBATE ON NATO ENLARGEMENT
======================================================================= HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS 
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 7, 9, 22, 28, 30 AND NOVEMBER 5, 1997
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations


Comments about the Russian “imperialist bent” were of the following kind:

Russia has also been an imperialist country that, for 400 years of its history, acquired territories, expanding from the region around Moscow to the shores of the Pacific, into the Middle East, to the gates of India, and into the center of Europe. It did not get there by plebiscite. It got there by armies. To the Russian leaderships over the centuries, these old borders have become identified with the nature of the state.
So I believe that one of the major challenges we face with Russia is whether it can accept the borders in which it now finds itself. On the one hand, St. Petersburg is closer to New York than it is to Vladivostok, and Vladivostok is closer to Seattle than it is to Moscow, so they should not feel claustrophobic. But they do. This idea of organizing again the old commonwealth of independent states is one of the driving forces of their diplomacy. If Russia stays within its borders and recognizes that Austria, Singapore, Japan and Israel all developed huge economies with no resources and in small territories, they, with a vast territory and vast resources, could do enormous things for their people. Then there is no security problem.

[…]

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, ``We should not be shy in saying that NATO expansion will help a democratic Russia and hurt an imperialistic Russia.''

[…]

Dr. Kissinger. One slightly heretical point on the Russian situation. We have a tendency to present the issue entirely in terms of Russian domestic politics. I could see Russia making progress toward democracy and becoming extremely nationalistic, because that could become a way of rallying the people. We also have to keep an eye on their propensity toward a kind of imperialist nationalism, which, if you look at the debates in the Russian parliament, is certainly present.

[…]

Advocates of NATO transformation make a better case for the Alliance to disband than expand. NATO's job is not to replace the U.N. as the world's peacekeeper, nor is it to build democracy and pan- European harmony or promote better relations with Russia. NATO has proven the most successful military alliance in history precisely because it has rejected utopian temptations to remake the world.
Rather, NATO's mission today must be the same clear-cut and limited mission it undertook at its inception: to protect the territorial integrity of its members, defend them from external aggression, and prevent the hegemony of any one state in Europe.
The state that sought hegemony during the latter half of this century was Russia. The state most likely to seek hegemony in the beginning of the next century is also Russia . A central strategic rationale for expanding NATO must be to hedge against the possible return of a nationalist or imperialist Russia, with 20,000 nuclear missiles and ambitions of restoring its lost empire. NATO enlargement, as Henry Kissinger argues, must be undertaken to ``encourage Russian leaders to interrupt the fateful rhythm of Russian history . . . and discourage Russia's historical policy of creating a security belt of important and, if possible, politically dependent states around its borders.''
Unfortunately, the Clinton administration [/b] does not see this as a legitimate strategic rationale for expansion. ``Fear of a new wave of Russian imperialism . . . should not be seen as the driving force behind NATO enlargement,'' says Mr. Talbott.
Not surprisingly, those states seeking NATO membership seem to understand NATO's purpose better than the Alliance leader. Lithuania's former president, Vytautas Landsbergis, put it bluntly: ``We are an endangered country. We seek protection.'' Poland, which spent much of its history under one form or another of Russian occupation, makes clear it seeks NATO membership as a guarantee of its territorial integrity. And when Czech President Vaclav Havel warned of ``another Munich,'' he was calling on us not to leave Central Europe once again at the mercy of any great power, as Neville Chamberlain did in 1938.
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other potential candidate states don't need NATO to establish democracy. They need NATO to protect the democracies they have already established from external aggression.
Sadly, Mr. Havel's admonishments not to appease ``chauvinistic, Great Russian, crypto-Communist and crypto-totalitarian forces'' have been largely ignored by the Clinton administration. Quite the opposite, the administration has turned NATO expansion into an exercise in the appeasement of Russia.

[…]


Regarding Mr. Simes' comments, I would simply clarify my own position. My position is not that we should accommodate Russia. Far from it. It does seem to me that whatever residual imperialistic tendencies, which, indeed, can be a problem, can best be contained by methods other than adding members to NATO. I can think of no lever more effective, no political lever, than the threat that if Russian behavior does not meet certain standards, NATO will be enlarged, and enlarged very rapidly, and even further, and considerably further, than the current proposal envisages.

[…]

The Russian people do not see NATO as an enemy or a threat. They are mainly interested in the improvement of their desperately bad living conditions.
Unfortunately, the Russian political ruling class has not reconciled itself to the loss of its empire. The economic and political system has been changed, but the mentality of the people who are pursuing global designs for the Soviet super power all their lives cannot be changed overnight. Eduard Shevardnadze warned the American people that the Russian empire disintegrated but the imperialistic way of thinking still remains. Andrei Kozyrev also warned against the old guard which has a vested interest in presenting NATO as a threat and an enemy. ``Yielding to them,'' wrote Kozyrev in Newsweek, ``would play into the hands of the enemies of democracy.''
Both statesmen have inside knowledge of the Russian ruling elite. They certainly speak with authority. Moscow is opposed not to the enlargement of NATO but to the very existence of NATO because it rightly sees a defensive military alliance as a threat to its long-term ambitions to regain in the future a controlling influence over the former nation of the Soviet orbit.
As in the time of the Soviet Union, we have to expect that the continued enlargement of NATO will meet with threats and fierce opposition from Moscow. Once, however, the process is complete, any imperialistic dreams will become unrealistic and Russia may accept the present boundaries of its influence as final. Such a reconciliation with reality would prompt Moscow to concentrate its full attention and resources on internal recovery. A change of the present mind set would open a new chapter of friendly relations between Russia and her neighbors, who would no longer see Moscow as a threat. This new sense of security would be an historic turning point.
This is exactly what happened between Germany and Poland.


Comments about Ukraine were of the following kind :

If, for example, we are saying that this is not the end. The Baltic countries are welcome. Ukraine is welcome. What then would be the consequences within Russia?
I guess all of this leads me to one question, and maybe this is my way, as somebody who is trying to sort through these issues, of getting closer to what I think would be the right position for me to take as a Senator.
You said that if countries meet this democratic criteria, they are welcome. Would Russia be welcome? Maybe that is the question I should ask. If Russia meets the criteria, after all, all of us hope that they will build a democracy. I mean, it will be a very dreary world if they are not able to. This country is still critically important to the quality of our lives and our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. If Russia meets this criteria, would they be welcome in NATO?
Secretary Albright. Senator, the simple answer to that is yes. We have said that if they meet the criteria, they are welcome. They have said that they do not wish to be a part of it.
[…]

My estimate here rests on the fact that including the Madrid 3, there are now 12 candidates for NATO membership. This total of 12 candidates can easily increase to 15 if Austria, Sweden, and Finland decide to apply. In fact, I see a 16th country, Ukraine, on the horizon.

[…]
The most important issue this prospect raises, however, is NATO's relationship to the countries to its east. Specifically, expansion to the borders of the former Soviet Union unavoidably raises the question of NATO's approach to that vanished empire's two most important successor states: Russia and Ukraine. The suspicions and multiple sources of conflict between them make the relationship between these two new and unstable countries, both with nuclear weapons on their territory, the most dangerous and potentially the most explosive on the planet today.
An expanded NATO must contribute what it can to promoting peaceful relations between them, while avoiding the appearance either of constructing an anti-Russian coalition or washing its hands of any concern for Ukrainian security.
There is no more difficult task for the United States and its European allies and none more urgent. To the extent that their accession to NATO provides an occasion for addressing that task seriously, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will have performed yet another service for the West.

[…]
Some may ask, if the aim is to promote stability, then why not admit Ukraine or the Balkan countries first, since they need stability even more than Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The answer is that prospective new members need to have achieved a certain degree of political, economic and military maturity before they can become members. They need to be ``contributors to security'' not just ``consumers'' of it. Otherwise, NATO and the EU would simply become a collection of economic and political basket cases and both organizations would be unable to function effectively.
[…]
I am not by this question suggesting that you do not feel and believe we have a commitment to the Baltics, but I think there is a factual historical difference between Ukraine and the Baltics. For example, I think the immediate effect on the Russian psyche of admitting either the Baltics or Ukraine would be very similar. But in fact we never recognized that the Baltics, which were annexed by the Soviet Union, were legitimately part of the Soviet Union. We have never recognized that, and it seems to me that any further actions will take some time and may need some massaging. I am not smart enough to know exactly how to do it, but it seems to me as a matter of principle that it is very important to make a distinction between the Baltics, for example, and Ukraine.
[…]
That understanding will be advantageous even to the nations not invited, at least in the near future, to join the Alliance just as the presence of NATO members on the borders of Austria, Sweden, and Finland provided an essential security umbrella during the Cold War. Ukraine and the Baltic States will benefit in a similar manner from the inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in the Alliance. Although Ukraine is not at this point seeking membership in the Alliance as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are, all four states are united in the belief that NATO enlargement--even if limited to its current parameters--is advantageous to their security. As a matter of fact, as expansion of the Alliance has become increasingly likely, Russian treatment of Ukraine and the Baltic States has become more moderate and more flexible. Russian policymakers clearly appreciate that rocking the boat too much could accelerate NATO's expansion to Russia's frontier--something they are eager to avoid.


Apparently, some are making a buck off the war with computer games:

Battlefront: Black Sea

Ukraine Defender

Squad



And some are using games to spread fakes:

Trolls are using this life-like video game to spread misinformation about the Ukraine war

Can't trust alleged footage, though fake game video is often a bit too "perfect". At the moment anyway.

I hope that some sneaky internal group of Russian dissenters, have 'knobbled' any such clock on the Russian side and have some plans to do something similar to whatever long term intentions Putin and his cronies have. — universeness

As we can see whomsoever it was that, long time ago, claimed nuclear weapons are pointless, is right on the money. Nobody can use it. It's just there for show - a weapon that can't be used is useless, oui?

You care more about mollycoddling the current media darlings than you do about holding the most powerful nation on earth to account. I find that morally bankrupt, but if you're proud of it, there's little I can do about that. — Isaac

This list of my shortcomings does not get you closer to supporting your view that all appearances that Ukraine is acting in their own self-interest is a piece of agitprop. The U.S. has their bundle of interests. The Europeans have many different alignments and disagreements over their interests. You insist upon excluding Ukrainian interests as another factor driving events.

That fervor to exclude them is odd.

When I talk about US interests or European interests I'm talking about their governments, which, in turn, largely means the interests of their corporate lobbyists.

Yes, I'm sure the Ukrainian government has its interests and lobbyists too. They do, after all, consist of some of the wealthiest people in Ukraine.

What I've objected to is the notion that some unified group called 'Ukrainians' have a single view, and that, even if they did, that view should matter to US and European policy above than any other.

I’ll keep reasoning over the evidence I have — neomac

No, you're ignoring the evidence and continuing with your fairytale in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Your theory is that Western influence on Ukraine would improve human right compared to Russian influence.

You've given data showing that some ex-soviet countries improved their human rights record (according to one metric) after leaving the USSR, but others didn't. Those that did later joined the EU, some later joined NATO.

You've not shown that Western influence was responsible for this improvement, not even given any data at all regarding the cause.

You've not shown that Russian influence was responsible for the lack of improvement in Ukraine (and Belarus), not even provided any data at all on the matter.

What we do see, however, is data which opposes your theory.

1. During the last decade many countries in the EU have shown a decline in their human rights record, during the same period Russia and Belarus have registered an increase. You can't argue the EU are a protector of human rights when countries in them decline whilst countries outside of them improve.

2. Many other countries within 'western influence' like Saudi-Arabia, have seen their human rights record decline (from an already poor start). If there was a significant driver of human rights improvements in the ex-Soviet nations post 1999, western influence clearly wasn't it since it did not have a similar effect outside of those states and that time period.

3. The US (the chief 'western' influence in Ukraine) has a steeply declining human rights record and is currently below Belarus, a Russian puppet state.

To summarise.

• You cherry-pick a particular group of states at one very narrow period of history (ex-Soviet states post 1999 to early 2000s) and then extrapolate a general theory from those despite the fact that you've been shown other states and other time periods which contradict that theory.
  
• You infer reasons for those cherry-picked improvements which are not given in the data ('western' vs Russian influence), again despite being given data which shows the opposite - the Russian-influenced Belarus is now above the archetype of western influence, the US.
  
• You then ignore all other data, such as the fact that Ukraine's post-war policy is documented as being one of "deregulation", continuing instead with your fantasy that somehow western regulations are going to improve human rights. The fact that no state the US has aided militarily has actually improved. The fact that Ukraine's human rights record has not tracked Russia's (declining when Russia's improved)...

So no, you're not "reasoning over the evidence". You're regurgitating the message your newspapers are ramming down your throat and ignoring anything which contradicts it.

What they have used quite a lot is Armed Assault -series (Arma 3). Typically been pro-Russian stuff. Even if IR-camera footage is blurry, anyone who has played the game can immediately notice the obvious signs of it.

Prague, 28th November 2022 – Developers from the independent Czech game development studio Bohemia Interactive would like to address the recent circulation of videos which were originally taken from their game Arma 3, and falsely used as footage from real-life conflicts, mainly from the current war in Ukraine. These user-made videos have the potential to go viral, and are massively shared by social media users; sometimes even by various mainstream media or official government institutions worldwide. The Arma 3 dev team would like to take this opportunity to point out how the general public can distinguish such in-game videos from real-world footage.

How to distinguish in-game videos from real-world footage (tips from the developers):

Very low resolution

Even dated smartphones have the ability to provide videos in HD quality. Fake videos are usually of much lower quality, and are intentionally pixelated and blurry to hide the fact that they’re taken from a video game.

Shaky camera

To add dramatic effect, these videos are often not captured in-game. Authors film a computer screen with the game running in low quality and with an exaggerated camera shake.
Often takes place in the dark / at night
The footage is often dark in order to hide the video game scene’s insufficient level of detail.

Mostly without sound

In-game sound effects are often distinguishable from reality.

Doesn't feature people in motion

While the game can simulate the movement of military vehicles relatively realistically, capturing natural looking humans in motion is still very difficult, even for the most modern of games.

Heads Up Display (HUD) elements visible

Sometimes the game’s user interfaces, such as weapon selection, ammunition counters, vehicle status, in-game messages, etc. are visible. These commonly appear at the edges or in the corners of the footage.

Unnatural particle effects

Even the most modern games have a problem with naturally depicting explosions, smoke, fire, and dust, as well as how they’re affected by environmental conditions. Look for oddly separated cloudlets in particular.

Unrealistic vehicles, uniforms, equipment

People with advanced military equipment knowledge can recognize the use of unrealistic military assets for a given conflict. For instance, in one widely spread fake video, the US air defense system C-RAM shoots down a US A-10 ground attack plane. Units can also display non-authentic insignias, camouflage, etc.

Lastly, we would like to ask the players and content creators of Arma 3 to use their game footage responsibly.

No one here has argued that the provocation argument is true "because John Mersheimer said so and he's an expert". Not a single comment has been to that effect. — Isaac

Wrong.

You yourself have admitted it. Just twelve days ago.

You champion Mearsheimer's theory of International Relations as the best explanation of the events unfolding in Ukraine. You discount previous behavior by Russia as indicative of anything happening in this conflict.
— Paine

Yes. What's that got to do with the argument here? — Isaac

:smile:

What?

Certainly. I am morally opposed to any system that is based on the use and threat of violence. — Tzeentch

Apart from mercenaries, sociopaths, dictators, ..., I'd think most share the sentiment. — jorndoe

You'd be surprised. Most people readily support systems based on violence without batting an eye. It's so normal to them. Nation states would be one such system. Politics and the laws through which they operate are based on (threats of) violence. Without violence, there would be no law.

What does that translate to, though, in real life, social life? — jorndoe

Refraining from the use of violence or threats thereof.

No, you're ignoring the evidence and continuing with your fairytale in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Your theory is that Western influence on Ukraine would improve human right compared to Russian influence. — Isaac

Not “improve” for the reasons I already explained.

my hypothesis is not that joining EU improves human rights because: 1. when you roughly reached the top (the range is between 0-1) of course there is no much improving , at best you can preserve it 2. Those trends do not discriminate between driving factors (e.g. domestic vs foreign). Indeed EU/NATO membership could also contribute to inhibit/weaken adverse trends prior and after the membership was accepted e.g. through sanctions, monitoring and induced constitutional reforms etc. — neomac

You've given data showing that some ex-soviet countries improved their human rights record (according to one metric) after leaving the USSR, but others didn't. Those that did later joined the EU, some later joined NATO.

You've not shown that Western influence was responsible for this improvement, not even given any data at all regarding the cause. — Isaac

Not exactly. First, I didn’t talk about “improvement”, you did. Secondly, also those post-Soviet republics which didn’t join EU/NATO experienced a boost in the earliest years according to those charts but then they didn’t keep the trend (until the top position) or degraded sharply. One might need to investigate domestic and foreign factors accounting for those trends (as I pointed out many times). Yet we have plausible reasons to suppose EU/NATO offered enough benefits to keep that trend relatively stable, even if we can not see that from those charts.

You've not shown that Russian influence was responsible for the lack of improvement in Ukraine (and Belarus), not even provided any data at all on the matter. — Isaac

I didn’t know such evidences were even needed (and I’m not certainly going to unload all the credible sources that anybody can easily consult on the internet in support of my claims, and that you are not going to read anyways or still consider biased because they do not into your echo chamber). Also because it’s very much obvious and implied in all discussions here. Yours included

at issue is not simply the question of whether Ukraine would be better off outside of Russian puppetry (undoubtedly yes). — Isaac

Besides it’s preposterous to set standards for evidence-based reasoning for a philosophy forum exchange arbitrarily high. So unless you provide more unbiased and conclusive evidence for your claims than what you demand from me to offer for my claims, you are proving yourself to be intellectually dishonest. For a while now.

2. Many other countries within 'western influence' like Saudi-Arabia, have seen their human rights record decline (from an already poor start). If there was a significant driver of human rights improvements in the ex-Soviet nations post 1999, western influence clearly wasn't it since it did not have a similar effect outside of those states and that time period. — Isaac

3. The US (the chief 'western' influence in Ukraine) has a steeply declining human rights record and is currently below Belarus, a Russian puppet state.[/quote]

This is a total equivocation of the notion “Western influence”. The case of Ukraine is completely different from the case of Saudi-Arabia. To say the least, for Ukraine there is a meaningful discussion over its EU/NATO membership as there was for other post-Soviet countries in its neighbourhood (until their actual integration). And nowhere I claimed that Western influence has the same effects in every case. Western interests (vs competitor interests) in the region and domestic conditions must be taken into account.
Concerning Ukraine, the situation is particular because of the bitter conflict between anti-Russians and pro-Russians, and the ensuing effects of forced Russification: from the national government control to the pro-Russian Ukrainian regions (including the tragedy of the Crimean Tatars). Besides, according to your eagle eye for positive variations, the US influence may have improved the situation in Ukraine:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr?tab=chart&time=2014..latest&country=UKR~RUS

What we do see, however, is data which opposes your theory. — Isaac

You cherry-pick a particular group of states at one very narrow period of history (ex-Soviet states post 1999 to early 2000s) and then extrapolate a general theory from those despite the fact that you've been shown other states and other time periods which contradict that theory.
You infer reasons for those cherry-picked improvements which are not given in the data ('western' vs Russian influence), again despite being given data which shows the opposite - the Russian-influenced Belarus is now above the archetype of western influence, the US. — Isaac

You simply misunderstood my claims (your cherry-picking charge is grounded on your strawman fallacy). And keep playing dumb as if nobody can notice it.

You then ignore all other data, such as the fact that Ukraine's post-war policy is documented as being one of “deregulation" — Isaac

Economic deregulation may be needed, for example if the local economic regulations are meant to let local corrupt oligarchs win easily. There is nothing in the notion of “economic deregulation” that makes it incompatible with regulations promoting human-rights. Again it all depends on how deregulation is going to be implemented. BTW I don’t need AT ALL to ignore all side-effects and failures of Western induced policies in post-Soviet countries (like Russia). Yet they didn’t fail everywhere (see Poland). Besides, as I understand the stakes of the current war, lots of already compromised Western reputation (instrumental to its power struggle as for any other competing power) hinges on the fate of Ukraine, so the West can’t reasonably let it be just another failure story in Western and international perception.

I see. So Ukraine may or may not "improve", it's plausible the EU might help but the evidence isn't in the charts, but it's "obvious" so there's no need for you to actually show any... and we don't need evidence anyway because we're just a philosophy forum... and Ukraine is "different" from any of the places where western influence hasn't worked (but oddly the same as the ones where it might have), but again, no need to actually specify how because.... hey, who needs all this 'evidence'... and 'deregulation' is the means by which regulations are sometimes enforced....

But somehow this is all enough evidence to justify full-throated support for a devastating war which many experts think risks full nuclear exchange...

Yeah, I think we're done here.

Secondly, also those post-Soviet republics which didn’t join EU/NATO experienced a boost according to those charts in the earliest years but then they didn’t keep the trend or degraded sharply. One might need to investigate domestic and foreign factors accounting for those trends (as I pointed out many times). Yet we have plausible reasons to suppose EU/NATO offered enough benefits to keep that trend relatively stable, even if we can not see that from those charts. — neomac

Both for joining EU and NATO having problems with human rights is an issue. And the emphasis in is joining, because then you do have (and did have) very much focus on the situation and members countries could use (and actually did use) those indicators as reasons why not to give membership. In EU membership talks human rights has been the obvious unsolved problem with Turkey's membership, but also in NATO membership in the environment after the collapse of the Soviet Union created.

As the The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe notes about NATO:

The NATO Participation Act of 1994 (PL 103-447) provided a reasonable framework for addressing concerns about NATO enlargement, consistent with U.S. interests in ensuring stability in Europe. The law lists a variety of criteria, such as respect for democratic principles and human rights enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, against which to evaluate the suitability of prospective candidates for NATO membership. The Act stipulates that participants in the PfP should be invited to become full NATO members if they... remain committed to protecting the rights of all their citizens.... Under section 203, a program of assistance was established to provide designated emerging democracies with the tools necessary to facilitate their transition to full NATO membership.

The NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 (PL 104-208) included an unqualified statement that the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights are integral aspects of genuine security. The law also makes clear that the human rights records of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe interested in joining NATO should be evaluated in light of the obligations and commitments of these countries under the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Helsinki Final Act.

But after gaining membership, you can have populists coming into power who don't give a damn to human rights or see them just a way for the West to control their country's sovereignty. Hence you have the problems like the EU is having with Hungary and Orban. And of course Turkey under Erdogan has become a somewhat problematic member of NATO.

And correlation is not causation.

Nothing in that establishes that those countries made those changes because of western influence, or were accepted into the western sphere because of an internal desire to make those changes.

Likewise with Ukraine and Belarus, it is not established if their failure to adopt western political systems was a result of being in the Russian sphere of influence, of whether they sought the Russian sphere of influence because of a lack of interest in such policies.

It's so funny to read the same people who've been bleating on about the evils of removing Ukrainian 'agency' all of a sudden fine with laying all the progress former Soviet states have made at the hands of the great 'western influence'.

Where's their agency now? Lithuania are great because Europe/NATO made then so. Ukraine are shit because Russia made them that way.

Suddenly lost all their agency have they?

Nothing in that establishes that those countries made those changes because of western influence, or were accepted into the western sphere because of an internal desire to make those changes. — Isaac

Again nonsense from you. I think there was an evident and obvious desire to make changes from the Soviet system. Even if you think it was so much better.

Hence these countries left Marxism-Leninism and Soviet socialism. Except those who stayed in the Russian sphere of influence (Belarus, Transnistria etc...), where usually the reforms, if any, brought into power oligarchs close to the leader into power.

In fact Ukraine was more prosperous per capita than Poland, which now is far richer than either Ukraine or Belarus. So it's no wonder that it has been Ukraine that has had the uprisings against how politics has gone in the country and that Ukrainians do want to join the West and the EU:



The simply undeniable fact is that those countries who have joined EU and the West have prospered and those who have been "independent" but de facto under the Russia sphere of influence have had it quite bad.

we can see whomsoever it was that, long time ago, claimed nuclear weapons are pointless, is right on the money. Nobody can use it. It's just there for show - a weapon that can't be used is useless, oui? — Agent Smith

There is always the unpredictable MADman. Mutually assured destruction might not worry a crazy theist like Putin, if he thinks he is fulfilling his gods will. To me, Putin could have had a starring role in Dr Strangelove.

As we can see whomsoever it was that, long time ago, claimed nuclear weapons are pointless, is right on the money. Nobody can use it. It's just there for show - a weapon that can't be used is useless, oui? — Agent Smith

Except that "Rogue states", those that are deemed to be one by the West, that do have actual nuclear weapons aren't attacked by the US and it's allies. Not at least in the way that would call for a retaliatory nuclear strike. (For example Iran has attacked US bases with conventional artillery missiles under the Trump administration.) Hence nuclear deterrence works.

I think if Russia wouldn't have nuclear weapons, NATO would have intervened with a no-fly-zone. At least in Western Ukraine out of the range of Russian SAM systems located in Russia.

Nuclear weapons actually work perfectly well in their role of deterrence... even if the threat of "pre-emptive attacks" because of faulty alarms given by machines have sometimes put as to the brink of nuclear disaster and nobody has noticed.

And notice how people will adapt: once they are used again, then that's the reality we live in. Period.

I see. So Ukraine may or may not “improve”, it's plausible the EU might help but the evidence isn't in the charts, but it's “obvious” so there's no need for you to actually show any… and we don't need evidence anyway because we're just a philosophy forum... and Ukraine is "different" from any of the places where western influence hasn't worked (but oddly the same as the ones where it might have), but again, no need to actually specify how because.... hey, who needs all this 'evidence'... and 'deregulation' is the means by which regulations are sometimes enforced....

But somehow this is all enough evidence to justify full-throated support for a devastating war which many experts think risks full nuclear exchange...

Yeah, I think we're done here. — Isaac

As usual, you need to caricature my views to score a point:
1 - The word “improve” is misleading, but since your objection revolved around it, you need to keep framing my views accordingly
2 - I said nowhere that is “obvious” from those charts. I was the first one to acknowledge that does charts did not discriminate between driving factors. So, given that we were uncertain about some relevant facts, I simply said it’s reasonable to make some assumptions. And to support the plausibility of those assumptions I also provided evidences.
3 - What needs to be shown depends on what it is actually claimed (not what you think the interlocutor has claimed) which concerns both what can be verified and inferred from the available evidence.
4 - I didn’t say anywhere “we don't need evidence anyway because we're just a philosophy forum”. Just that one can not set evidence-based reasoning standards arbitrarily high for a forum post. Even more so if you yourself are not up to standards you demand from others. For example: prove from unbiased sources that regulations are always correlated to improvements of human rights. That’s exactly how dumb your counter-arguments look to me.
5 - My claim wasn’t generic about “Western influence” nor made without considering “how” this needs to be specified wrt to other countries: e.g. Ukraine is different from Saudi-Arabia wrt joining EU/NATO as neighbouring countries with shared history did. And EU/NATO accession requirements imply policies and strategic concerns which hold for Ukraine too as they hold for its neighbouring post-Soviet countries (which joined EU/NATO).
6 - Deregulation and privatisation happened also in Poland (as suggested by Jeffrey Sachs according to his infamous “shock therapy”), and are still considered by many as the major drivers of Poland economic boost:
Advising in post-communist economies
Sachs has worked as an economic adviser to governments in Latin America, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. A practice trained macroeconomist, he advised a number of national governments in the transition from Marxism–Leninism or developmentalism to market economies.[citation needed]
In 1989, Sachs advised Poland's anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland's reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Sachs was the main architect of Poland's debt reduction operation. Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership. Closure of many uncompetitive factories ensued.[24] In Poland, Sachs was firmly on the side of rapid transition to capitalism. At first, he proposed American-style corporate structures, with professional managers answering to many shareholders and a large economic role for stock markets. That did not bode well with the Polish authorities, but he then proposed that large blocks of the shares of privatized companies be placed in the hands of private banks.[25] As a result, there were some economic shortages and inflation, but prices in Poland eventually stabilized.[26][third-party source needed] The government of Poland awarded Sachs with one of its highest honors in 1999, the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit.[27] He also received an honorary doctorate from the Kraków University of Economics.[17]
Sachs's ideas and methods of transition from central planning were adopted throughout the transition economies. He advised Slovenia in 1991 and Estonia in 1992 on the introduction of new stable and convertible currencies. Based on Poland's success, he was invited first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and then by Russian President Boris Yeltsin on the transition to a market economy. He served as adviser to Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar and Finance Minister Boris Federov during 1991–1993 on macroeconomic policies.[citation needed] Sachs' methods for stabilising economies became known as shock therapy and were similar to successful approaches used in Germany after the two world wars.[23] When Russia fell into poverty after adopting his market-based shock therapy in the early 1990's,[28] some Western media called him a cold-hearted neo-liberal.[29][30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

BTW the author Tyler Cowen you cited a while ago to question the myth of the Marshall plan is talking about pro-market policies like privatisation and deregulation as major factors of European economic recovery
U.S. advisors urged Italy to undertake a coordinated public investment program and extensive Keynesian aggregate demand management policies. In 1949-1950, American officials finished a study of the Italian economy without mentioning stringent migration controls across municipalities and rent controls, perhaps Italy's two worst pieces of economic legislation. Once again, the recommendations involved Keynesian macroeconomic poilicies

Policy makers and aid proponents should no longer view the Marshall Plan as an unqualified success. At best, its effects on postwar Europe were -mixed, while its impact on the American economy was negative. The basic problem with foreign aid is that economic growth is not a creature of central planning and direction. Growth is the result of individual initiative and enterprise within a sound legal and economic framework. Government can only supply the framework. Anything more will result in the well-known problems of central or socialist planning: the impossibility of rational economic calculation, the creation of perverse incentives, and the stifling of entrepreneurial initiative, among others. Foreign aid programs always will be plagued by such problems.

In most cases, and certainly in the case of the Marshall Plan, the government-to-government character of foreign aid encourages statism and central planning, not free enterprise. The best way to promote free markets in other countries is to allow their businesses to trade with the U.S. without government interference. This freedom of trade includes not only exporting and importing, but also lending, borrowing, and labor emigration and immigration.
https://www.ccoyne.com/files/Marshall_Plan.pdf]/
So the problem is not “deregulation” per se but how it is implemented and fits other major driving factors.

And correlation is not causation.

Nothing in that establishes that those countries made those changes because of western influence, or were accepted into the western sphere because of an internal desire to make those changes. — Isaac

Suddenly lost all their agency have they? — Isaac

You are conceptually confused. I didn’t talk about causation which is a notion that can be particularly misleading in human affairs since human affairs involve agency (and that’s not the first time we have been discussing about it). I’m fine with correlations and arguable reasons for agents to process those correlations for decision making or explaining those correlations.
BTW human agency is also matter of responding to incentives and the fact that incentives do not lead to the desirable effect right away is not a sufficient counter-argument to those incentives. For example: even economic sanctions to Russia and military aid to Ukraine are not proving effective in convincing Putin to stop the war, yet we didn’t stop sanctioning Russia nor military aid to Ukraine, why is that? Because for example people can be stubborn in the pursuit of some goals as long as they can afford it, until they can’t of course. Since nobody can be certain that competing rational/irrational agents stop misbehaving out sweet-talking, one can just raise the costs of misbehaving until the misbehavior wears out its resources. And Putin will make the reciprocal reasoning. (One could also cursorily mention that even scientific theories have some resiliency against adverse evidences, and this phenomenon is the object of much debate about epistemologists like Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend)

Again nonsense from you. I think... — ssu

Views opposed to what you "think" are not thereby nonsense. It's called disagreeing.

But after gaining membership, you can have populists coming into power who don't give a damn to human rights or see them just a way for the West to control their country's sovereignty. Hence you have the problems like the EU is having with Hungary and Orban. And of course Turkey under Erdogan has become a somewhat problematic member of NATO. — ssu

I agree. Focusing on the EU, while there is lots of literature out there about the problematic interplay of domestic factors and foreign factors showing the limits of EU pre-accession conditionality in shaping post-Soviet EU members’ “Europeanisation” (as the Visegrad group has shown), yet there are also the effects of EU integration after post-accession which help explain the relative stability of democratic trends in other cases (https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/gpop/files/why_no_backsliding.pdf). To which one can now add the Russian threat which is breaking the Visegrad group (https://en.uj.edu.pl/en_GB/news/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_SxA5QO0R5BDs/81541894/150377650) and may turn in favour of a greater EU integration (e.g. in the domain of security and foreign affairs) but also European re-democratization (https://www.democratic-erosion.com/2022/10/13/democratic-backsliding-in-the-ukraine-conflict-and-renewed-prospects-of-re-democratization-in-europe/).

In a recent interview with Jeffrey Sachs, he calls United States foreign policy a major threat to peace, and ascribes significant responsibility to the United States in provoking this conflict.

Obviously, he doesn't spare Russian or Ukrainian foreign policy either, but that kind of goes without saying. The important thing here is that the United States' role in this conflict is highlighted - an important aspect of this conflict which is completely voided by the mainstream media.

Note also a common theme among people who speak out against the narrative - they have to do so via independent platforms, because the establishment media simply will not allow them to talk.

We see this for Sachs, Mearsheimer, Chomsky, and a myriad of others whose messages are being purposely suppressed.

Not allowing people to speak is censorship, and omitting truth is propaganda. I hope people realize this is taking place in what were formerly known as civilized societies.