Further, if the purpose of western intervention was to send a message, who is listening? Independently-minded countries like the BRICS don't buy the narrative of an unprovoked invasion, and they have all refused to side with the US over this issue.

Uh huh.



At best they've managed to avoid outright condemnation, but even that has failed. South Africa told Putin not to come to the BRICS summit as they would be forced to arrest him for war crimes. ثرثى ؤاهىش هس مخسهىل حشفهثىؤث

I'm kind of thinking Putin outdoes John Gotti rather well, maybe even in outfit. :D

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Mark A. Milley Hold Press Conference Following Virtual Ukraine Defense Contact Group Meeting
^{— U.S. Department of Defense · Jul 18, 2023}
Inside a secret bunker, hear what soldier noticed about Russian soldiers
^{— Alex Marquardt · CNN · Jul 20, 2023 · 3m:28s}

Lots of soldiers in the Crimea area, rumors will have them gathering north of Kyiv as well.

Reportedly there are a few heavily mined Russian lines by now, perhaps put up when Wagner mercs (and newbies) were being sent to Bakhmut.



Might be worth noting how many defensive arms Ukraine has received, e.g. to take down kamikaze drones, etc. There's been much tiptoeing around Putin's Russia (hence they walk all over things like the grain stuff). Maybe the capable should start seriously talking about implementing a no-fly zone in Ukrainian airspace, iff the Ukrainian government wishes it.

Sending F-16s to Ukraine in fight against Russia would take 'months and months': Blinken
^{— Tal Axelrod · ABC · Jul 23, 2023}
A Russian fighter jet fired flares at a US drone over Syria and damaged it, the US military says
^{— Lolita C Baldor, Tara Copp · AP · Jul 25, 2023}

Then (if their government says so), any missiles violating that, warrants taking out the source of launch. Much like whatever other nation, here implemented by whatever coalition agreeing to help Ukraine. Once the Ukrainian skies are better cleared of offenders, civilians will be safer, the situation different, and more assessments warranted. That is, no tiptoeing inside Ukrainian airspace (if they want it so). If nothing else, that seems reasonable (to me).

Countries may say one thing, and do another.

That should be obvious by now. If it isn't obvious to you yet, ask yourself why the international sanctions against Russia failed.

It's also worth noting the countries who abstained from voting: China and India for example - the countries with the largest populations on the planet, each one seperately being larger than all NATO countries combined.

I'm not sure who "we" is supposed to be here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

A generic rhetorical device, nothing more. As in "what do we have here?"

Ukraine is far more than "halfway" in reducing Russia's supply of artillery systems — Count Timothy von Icarus

You talk like you don't know what bombs do. Ukraine is 'using up' Russian artillery at the expense of its own citizen's lives. It's like being shot in that arm and claiming a victory because I'm 'using up' your bullets. I'd rather you kept your bullets and I not get shot, as any sane person would.

I don't care how many artillery Russia has. I care about their propensity to use them on innocent people. Disarmament is a good way to de-plenish stocks, hospitals isn't.

given Russia just had a rebellion — Count Timothy von Icarus

It really didn't.

it seems possible that Russia is more than halfway to a defeat. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I said above...

Funny how the solidity of Putin's grip on power seems to change depending on the purposes the argument is being put to.

Encourage more war - "Putin is weakening and could be overthrown any minute, just a few more bombs and we'll be there."

Encourage political action instead of war - "Putin is strong, it would take many decades to overthrow him"

Do get dizzy at all? — Isaac

Putin's grip on power seems remarkably fickle to you people. The slightest military blip and his head's on the block, but apparently no amount of political or popular uprising is going to harm so much as an eyebrow.

very likely Ukraine in NATO — Count Timothy von Icarus

What makes you say that? Everything I've been reading from NATO members seems to indicate the opposite.

But sure. Russia's security situation has been weakened. So? The question was an ethical one, not a geopolitical one. Is the outcome worth the cost? Is war the only route?

You say Mearsheimer...

... got basically every prediction about the post-Cold War era wrong. — Count Timothy von Icarus

... and I think you're broadly right there. But what exactly did he get wrong? He got wrong the power of peaceful disarmament, trade having more force than militarism, globalisation effects on diffusing military great power conflicts...

(that and the ongoing uni-polarity of US dominance, but he didn't so much get that wrong as simply have a theory that only applied in its absence)

In other words he made exactly the same mistake being made here - to assume military solutions just trump every other solution, and that great powers only respond to military force.

I certainly did not expect you to ignore all the data that contradict your thesis. — Jabberwock

You mean like...

If the tool you have provided does not indicate changes caused by draconian oppression, then it is not a good indicator of oppression, right? — Jabberwock

... where you dismiss the entire, well-respected, Human Freedom Index because it doesn't show the descent of Russia that you think it ought to?

As I asked before, if not dismiss them, what do you want me to do with them? Average them? Believe the exact centre? Add up all the experts they each used and divide by the total? Subtract the number I first thought of? What exactly do you think one should do with this other conflicting data?

People disagree. Experts disagree. I don't know what it is about you people that makes you think you alone can carry out some kind super-level of meta-analysis but the very experts you're citing for some reason didn't bother.

Assessing more data does not get you closer to truth than carefully selecting just the one that confirms your thesis? — Jabberwock

Yes. That's right. Unless you can give me a compelling (or any) mechanism whereby that occurs.

The truth is the way the world is. The experts at Cato have had their best shot at modelling the truth using their Human Freedom Index. The experts at Freedom House have taken their best shot using their own index.

Now. How do I make a better shot by putting the two together? Why is the average of the two more accurate a model than either one. And if it is, why didn't either team of experts just do that? What mechanism links the averaging process to the way the world is?

Considering that Russia's score in 2000 was 5.57 and it moved to 6.16 in 2008, i.e. (improvement of 0.59), and Ukraine made the progress of 0.83 from 2000 to 2008, which was the period you mentioned, then we have to conclude that both made about the same progress in those respective periods? — Jabberwock

Yes, if that's what the index shows (though 0.83 is quite a bit bigger than 0.59 and I prefer rankings for the reasons I've given). Your incredulity doesn't constitute an argument. You're implying doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, picking your index to match your theory. You already decided (theory) that Russia's descent into draconian tyranny must impact human freedom more than Ukraine's economic and judicial corruption, so you're now only prepared to believe evidence which agrees with that theory. Your implication that Cato's measure is suspicious is based entirely on the fact that it doesn't match your theory.

If yep, then Putin would still attack Ukraine if it had prospects for being free and prosperous, no matter whether it was in NATO or not. Conceding NATO membership would not stop the war, if Ukraine was to be free and prosperous, it would still be attacked. — Jabberwock

That's not what you asked. You said "threaten". Opposing nations threaten war, that's how the balance of power is maintained. The key is to threaten back an equal measure. As I said before, if there was a strong unified global community committed to international law which Ukraine could be a part of, then this situation would never have happened. We're here because there's no such community and rather than being protected Ukraine was dangled like bait on a line.

So if we conceded the whole Ukraine to Putin, as you propose — Jabberwock

I've nowhere proposed we do that. You asked a hypothetical. It's not the decision we have before us. But for the sake of your hypothetical situation...

we could not 'expect a likewise positive effect on pressure for change in Russia (including any stolen territories) from a free and prospering Ukraine next door', as there would be no free and prospering Ukraine next door. It pretty much would diminish the likelihood of the successful Russian revolt, would it not? — Jabberwock

Yes, that's right. If, in your hypothetical, we had to relinquish all of Ukraine to Russia, the number of free and prosperous neighbours would be less and so their effect less.

And you seem to care about well being of non-Ukrainians only if Ukraine can be blamed for its decrease, otherwise you are content with 'balance', as you wrote. — Jabberwock

It's always about balance. Hundreds of thousands of lives, millions more at risk, for the sake of a few decimal place improvements on the human freedom measure is not balance, it's insanity.

... where you dismiss the entire, well-respected, Human Freedom Index because it doesn't show the descent of Russia that you think it ought to? — Isaac

As I wrote I do not dismiss it, I just point out the possible shortcomings (like you did with Freedom Hourse) and point out that it should be considered together with other sources and not in isolation.

As I asked before, if not dismiss them, what do you want me to do with them? Average them? Believe the exact centre? Add up all the experts they each used and divide by the total? Subtract the number I first thought of? What exactly do you think one should do with this other conflicting data? — Isaac

First of all, I want you to think. If one source confirms your conclusions and many others do not, maybe that is not a correct conclusion after all? You want to process only preselected data that support your conclusion and ignore all others. That is a classic example of confirmation bias or more generally, cherry picking:

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. — Wikipedia

That is exactly what you do. Intentionally.

And please tell me, how your vaunted index is arrived at? Experts at Cato gather all individual indices and then... average them? THE HORROR! Don't they know that averaging does not bring you the truth?!

People disagree. Experts disagree. I don't know what it is about you people that makes you think you alone can carry out some kind super-level of meta-analysis but the very experts you're citing for some reason didn't bother. — Isaac

I am just pointing out that using that one source preselected to confirm your view might not be the best methodology and therefore not the best support for your argument.

Yes. That's right. Unless you can give me a compelling (or any) mechanism whereby that occurs. — Isaac

If I argue that the global temperatures do not rise from year to year and carefully select data for only those places where it does not and ignore all others, are my conclusions as valid as the conclusion from the study where all data are considered and the results are just the opposite?

If I have a theory that the local population is dissatisfied with the city government and select those five opinions from the poll that confirm my theory and ignore 95 people who are satisfied, is my view equally supported as those who consider all opinions and conclude just the opposite?

If I claim that each plane travel is a terrible risk and include in my statistics only the crashes, ignoring all the safe travels, am I telling the truth?

If I read a single book on history (or just a single index on history), are my conclusions equally as valid as the person's who has read a bit more than that?

I am astonished that i even have to explain this.

The truth is the way the world is. The experts at Cato have had their best shot at modelling the truth using their Human Freedom Index. The experts at Freedom House have taken their best shot using their own index.

Now. How do I make a better shot by putting the two together? Why is the average of the two more accurate a model than either one. And if it is, why didn't either team of experts just do that? What mechanism links the averaging process to the way the world is? — Isaac

People at Cato have their preferences, biases and make their own mistakes. Experts at Freedom House have their preferences, biases and make their own mistakes. Many other experts do as well. So yes, getting all their opinions together does equal out those issues and provides better general view than cherry-picking the data.

I do recommend you read the whole article on that fallacy of yours. Actually, at this point, I believe reading any source on the issues you discuss would be beneficial for you.

Yes, if that's what the index shows (though 0.83 is quite a bit bigger than 0.59 and I prefer rankings for the reasons I've given). Your incredulity doesn't constitute an argument. You're implying doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, picking your index to match your theory. You already decided (theory) that Russia's descent into draconian tyranny must impact human freedom more than Ukraine's economic and judicial corruption, so you're now only prepared to believe evidence which agrees with that theory. Your implication that Cato's measure is suspicious is based entirely on the fact that it doesn't match your theory. — Isaac

And your theory is that economic and judicial corruption has an equal or greater impact? The issue with that theory is that you did not even bother to check your single source. Ukraine's indicators for the rule of law and for economy just about level out for the whole period from 2000 to 2018 (Ukrainians have a bit more judicial freedom and Russians a bit more economic one). So no, Ukrainians in general were not more opressed economically and judicially according to your single source and the descent into draconian tyranny is still unaccounted for.

You were writing about 'democracy', when that did not work you wrote about 'authoritarianism', when that collapsed you moved to 'general freedom', when even that did not work, we are at 'economic and judicial corruption', where you are wrong about the latter part. So now your argument is reduced to 'Putin's regime is likely to fall due to popular uprising, because Cato's experts have shown that during some period Russian's economic freedom has improved, even though it descended into draconian tyranny'. For some reason, I do not find that argument convicing, maybe others do.

That's not what you asked. You said "threaten". Opposing nations threaten war, that's how the balance of power is maintained. The key is to threaten back an equal measure. As I said before, if there was a strong unified global community committed to international law which Ukraine could be a part of, then this situation would never have happened. We're here because there's no such community and rather than being protected Ukraine was dangled like bait on a line. — Isaac

You said 'yep' when I wrote that Putin is willing to go to war to defend against perceived threats and you agree that he sees free and prosperous Ukraine as a threat. The conclusion must be that he would go to war for that reason. Not to mention that you are willing to make concessions based on threats alone, not to 'threaten back'.

And it happens so that there is a strong unified global community committed to protection of its members which Ukraine could be a part of. You do not want it to be there, because Putin objects. Why think Putin would not object to the community you describe?

I've nowhere proposed we do that. You asked a hypothetical. It's not the decision we have before us. But for the sake of your hypothetical situation... — Isaac

Yes, in our hypothetical situation you would give Putin the whole Ukraine. Given your view that he sees free and prosperous Ukraine as a threat, it is very likely that he would ask for it. So the course of action you proposed (give in to Putin's demands if he threatens war) is very likely to bring about the effect I am writing about: subjugation of the whole Ukraine with no prospect of it being free and prosperous.

Yes, that's right. If, in your hypothetical, we had to relinquish all of Ukraine to Russia, the number of free and prosperous neighbours would be less and so their effect less. — Isaac

But given that this hypothetical is quite likely on your proposed course of action, it seems this course of action would make the peaceful rebellion against Putin less likely.

It's always about balance. Hundreds of thousands of lives, millions more at risk, for the sake of a few decimal place improvements on the human freedom measure is not balance, it's insanity. — Isaac

Well, for you people being jailed, beaten up, poisoned, shot and deprived of basic democratic freedoms is a few decimal places on your precious index. People actually involved might have a bit different opinion on that.

I do not dismiss it — Jabberwock

Then what do you do with it? How has it affected your theory, what did you change about your belief in the light of it, and why?

it should be considered together with other sources and not in isolation. — Jabberwock

Yes. So you said. I'm asking how. What is this 'taking together' you think you're doing? Half way between the two? Biggest wins? What are you actually doing when you're 'taking together'?

If I argue that the global temperatures do not rise from year to year and carefully select data for only those places where it does not and ignore all others, are my conclusions as valid as the conclusion from the study where all data are considered and the results are just the opposite? — Jabberwock

No. That's not the situation here (nor your other examples). None of the indices are data. They are conclusions based on data. All groups had access to the same data. They disagree about the relative importance, value and meaning.

Importance, value and meaning are not facts to include in data harvesting, they're opinions one either is persuaded by or not.

I am astonished that I even have to explain this.

getting all their opinions together does equal out those issues — Jabberwock

How? Explain what you think happens. Cato make mistakes. Freedom House make mistakes. You put them together, then what? The mistakes magically pop out? What happens to the mistakes when you look at both reports? You see the differences. How do you know which ones are mistakes/biases? Majority rules? Magic bias detector?

Ukrainians in general were not more opressed economically and judicially according to your single source and the descent into draconian tyranny is still unaccounted for. — Jabberwock

It's not unaccounted for. Cato have come up with a unified score. The fact that you don't like their methodology because it doesn't come up with the score you think it ought to is not a point against it.

I am astonished that I even have to explain this.

You said 'yep' when I wrote that Putin is willing to go to war to defend against perceived threats and you agree that he sees free and prosperous Ukraine as a threat. The conclusion must be that he would go to war for that reason. — Jabberwock

If I'm willing to shoot deer that enter my garden, and a deer enters my garden, does that mean I'm going to shoot it, or meraly that I'm willing to shoot it?

I am astonished that I even have to explain this.

there is a strong unified global community committed to protection of its members which Ukraine could be a part of — Jabberwock

Possibly. I'm not sure what that's got to do with my mention of "strong unified global community committed to international law which Ukraine could be a part of".

Given your view that he sees free and prosperous Ukraine as a threat, it is very likely that he would ask for it. — Jabberwock

If he was some kind of robot with only a single factor to take into account in any decision, perhaps. But he isn't, he's an oligarch balancing several dozen objectives of which eliminating a free and prosperous Ukraine is only one.

People rarely act in accordance with a single objective.

I am astonished that I even have to explain this.

given that this hypothetical is quite likely on your proposed course of action, it seems this course of action would make the peaceful rebellion against Putin less likely. — Jabberwock

Yes. Indeed it would. Still trying to make an argument by looking only at one side I see?

for you people being jailed, beaten up, poisoned, shot and deprived of basic democratic freedoms is a few decimal places on your precious index. People actually involved might have a bit different opinion on that. — Jabberwock

They might. But since neither you nor I are, I'm not sure what difference that makes to this discussions. I'm sure someone in Yemen looking at their desperately hungry child might have a difference of opinion too.

Then what do you do with it? How has it affected your theory, what did you change about your belief in the light of it, and why? — Isaac

I have considered it in view of your argument that peaceful regime change in Russia is likely. It does not show it - at best it shows that some indices of freedom are prone to quicker changes than others, but in both directions. It does not say which change is more likely than the other. Also, as I have pointed out, it seems to have significant shortcomings, as portraying Russia, with its anti-gay laws, as exactly as great in the same-sex relaltionships as the Netherlands, which have same-sex unions and robust anti-discrimination laws or not indicating the introduction of authoritarian rule during Putin.

On the other hand, many other sources that I have also considered in my assessment (unlike you) do influence my view on the probability of popular uprising in Russia, based on those many sources I conclude that it is unlikely.

Yes. So you said. I'm asking how. What is this 'taking together' you think you're doing? Half way between the two? Biggest wins? What are you actually doing when you're 'taking together'? — Isaac

I consider all the facts known to me and draw conclusions from them. Like everyone else, I surely apply some bias, based on my previous opinions, but at least I try to challenge them. You consider only one fact, sorry, an opinion, that suits your conclusion and, not unexpectedly, confirms that your conclusion was right.

No. That's not the situation here (nor your other examples). None of the indices are data. They are conclusions based on data. All groups had access to the same data. They disagree about the relative importance, value and meaning.

Importance, value and meaning are not facts to include in data harvesting, they're opinions one either is persuaded by or not. — Isaac

So cherry-picking an opinion is somehow better than cherry-picking data? I really do not think so.

How? Explain what you think happens. Cato make mistakes. Freedom House make mistakes. You put them together, then what? The mistakes magically pop out? What happens to the mistakes when you look at both reports? You see the differences. How do you know which ones are mistakes/biases? Majority rules? Magic bias detector? — Isaac

You have not read the article on your fallacy, have you?

It's not unaccounted for. Cato have come up with a unified score. The fact that you don't like their methodology because it doesn't come up with the score you think it ought to is not a point against it. — Isaac

If the indicator does not reflect the introduction of an oppressive regime and is supposed to be your evidence for the likelihood to overthrow an oppresive regime, then yes, it is unaccounted for. The indicator (or should I say, the opinion) does not show what you say it does.

If I'm willing to shoot deer that enter my garden, and a deer enters my garden, does that mean I'm going to shoot it, or meraly that I'm willing to shoot it? — Isaac

It means that you are likely to shoot the deer: there are two factors that make it more likely than not, unless we know other facts.

Possibly. I'm not sure what that's got to do with my mention of "strong unified global community committed to international law which Ukraine could be a part of". — Isaac

Because the distinction makes no difference: it will still put Ukraine outside of Putin's sphere of influence, so most likely he would react by waging a war.

If he was some kind of robot with only a single factor to take into account in any decision, perhaps. But he isn't, he's an oligarch balancing several dozen objectives of which eliminating a free and prosperous Ukraine is only one.

People rarely act in accordance with a single objective. — Isaac

Yes, human mind is inscrutable, however, often we have to make predictions concerning other people's behavior. Unless you have good reasons why he would not, those two premises (with which you agree with) tell us that he would likely do that.

Yes. Indeed it would. Still trying to make an argument by looking only at one side I see? — Isaac

Well, all the other side has is a fallacious argument based on cherry-picked data, sorry, a cherry-picked opinion, that does not even support the conclusion, because it makes improvement of freedoms as likely as their worsening.

If the other side comes up with an proper argument with proper evidence, I will be happy to consider it.

They might. But since neither you nor I are, I'm not sure what difference that makes to this discussions. I'm sure someone in Yemen looking at their desperately hungry child might have a difference of opinion too. — Isaac

The difference is that we have no right to demand they make that sacrifice from the comfort of our homes.

It's always about balance. Hundreds of thousands of lives, millions more at risk, for the sake of a few decimal place improvements on the human freedom measure is not balance, it's insanity. — Isaac

... instigated + ordered by the Kremlin. Do we have an insane government on our hands? :/
I guess, say, Litvinenko = a decimal point. (= rhetorical ramble)
How will the border/country-free world come about anyway?

Can anyone semi-informed imagine who might replace Putin, and what policy changes would result? Or am I only dreaming? — unenlightened

Another neighbor, Finland, doesn't seem to have had much impact against Putin, though. Why is that? — Jul 23, 2023

Some news briefs:

The Olenivka incident...

UN says Ukrainian POWs in Donetsk not killed by rocket, as Russia claimed
^{— Reuters · Jul 25, 2023}

The UN rights body, which said it has conducted extensive interviews with survivors and analyzed additional information, added that the incident "was not caused by a HIMARS rocket."

"Need more meat"...?

Russian lawmakers extend age limit for compulsory military draft
^{— AP · Jul 25, 2023}

Another one bites the dust...

Russia declares independent TV channel 'undesirable,' banning it from country
^{— AP via ABC · Jul 25, 2023}

It was removed from Russian cable TV systems in 2014 after conducting a controversial poll of whether viewers thought the Soviet Union should have surrendered in the World War II siege of Leningrad in order to save civilian lives.

I consider all the facts known to me and draw conclusions from them. Like everyone else, I surely apply some bias, based on my previous opinions, but at least I try to challenge them. You consider only one fact, sorry, an opinion, that suits your conclusion and, not unexpectedly, confirms that your conclusion was right. — Jabberwock

I get it now. When I look at sources and conclude that one or more seem better than the others, I'm cherry picking opinions to match my theory. When you look at sources you're carrying out some next level rational analysis that for some reason the experts at each of the agencies concerned aren't even capable of, and the fact that the ones you choose just happen to support the theory you've been promoting all along is complete coincidence.

Does it explain that in your Wikipedia article?

It means that you are likely to shoot the deer: there are two factors that make it more likely than not, unless we know other facts. — Jabberwock

Good. So Ukraine being free and prosperous doesn't mean that Putin will invade it, it means he has a reason to invade it which he will weigh with all his other reasons to act or not. And yet...

most likely he would react by waging a war. — Jabberwock

...? Most likely? Where are you getting your probabilities from? All we've established is that it might well be one of his motivating factors. You've not even mentioned any others, let alone assigned any probabilities to them.

Unless you have good reasons why he would not, those two premises (with which you agree with) tell us that he would likely do that. — Jabberwock

I don't think you understand how probability works. If I have a 2% chance of invading if it's sunny and a 3% chance of invading if it's a Wednesday, it doesn't mean I'm definitely going to invade on a sunny Wednesday just because those are the only two motivating factors we have. Putin might well be inclined to invade if Ukraine is free and prosperous. He may well be inclined to threaten invasion if he's already got some territory from the last threat. But since we've no data at all on how strong either of those motivating forces are, we've equally no data at all on how likely such an action becomes when both are present.

The difference is that we have no right to demand they make that sacrifice from the comfort of our homes. — Jabberwock

But we do have a right to demand the Yemeni's make their sacrifice?

It's always about balance. Hundreds of thousands of lives, millions more at risk, for the sake of a few decimal place improvements on the human freedom measure is not balance, it's insanity. — Isaac


... instigated + ordered by the Kremlin. Do we have an insane government on our hands? :/ — jorndoe

Sure. And yes, without a doubt.

The question is what we do about it. It's no good tutting.

I get it now. When I look at sources and conclude that one or more seem better than the others, I'm cherry picking opinions to match my theory. When you look at sources you're carrying out some next level rational analysis that for some reason the experts at each of the agencies concerned aren't even capable of, and the fact that the ones you choose just happen to support the theory you've been promoting all along is complete coincidence. — Isaac

Except you did not do what you now say you do. You have given one source (cherry-picked after your ahistorical claim that Ukraine turned around in a decade turned out indefensibie). You have also not mentioned that you consider this source better than others and why, you have flatly refused to look at other sources. I look at all sources - in case you did not notice, for the last two days we are talking about YOUR evidence. I assess the counterevidence and discuss what is its relevance to the argument presented and how methods used might affect the conclusions. In other words, I engage with the counterevidence. You claim that you do not even have to look a the counterevidence. See the difference?

Does it explain that in your Wikipedia article? — Isaac

Maybe you should read it? Who knows, maybe it would even help you to avoid your fallacies?

...? Most likely? Where are you getting your probabilities from? All we've established is that it might well be one of his motivating factors. You've not even mentioned any others, let alone assigned any probabilities to them. — Isaac

Are you saying that we have no reason to believe Putin threatening a war due to his perceived threat is likely to do that? If that is so, then he was not provoked into war by promises of Ukraine in NATO? Then nobody provoked the war, because nobody could know it was likely.

I don't think you understand how probability works. If I have a 2% chance of invading if it's sunny and a 3% chance of invading if it's a Wednesday, it doesn't mean I'm definitely going to invade on a sunny Wednesday just because those are the only two motivating factors we have. Putin might well be inclined to invade if Ukraine is free and prosperous. He may well be inclined to threaten invasion if he's already got some territory from the last threat. But since we've no data at all on how strong either of those motivating forces are, we've equally no data at all on how likely such an action becomes when both are present. — Isaac

So 'willing to go to war', with which you have agreed, is now 2% chance? Quite impressive backtracking.

But if it is so, then nobody could predict that Putin would invade Ukraine because of NATO. He was willing to, but given that it was just 2% chance, everyone can be excused for thinking he would not.

But we do have a right to demand the Yemeni's make their sacrifice? — Isaac

We do not, so we do not.

More on the grain thing...

Analysis: Russia's Danube attacks tighten noose on Ukraine's grain sector
^{— Max Hunder, Jonathan Saul, Olena Harmash, Sybille de La Hamaide, Tom Balmforth, William Maclean · Reuters · Jul 25, 2023}
Anger grows in Ukraine’s port city of Odesa after Russian bombardment hits beloved historic sites
^{— Hanna Arhirova, Lori Hinnant · AP · Jul 25, 2023}

Hate and talks usually don't mix well. :/ The Kremlin isn't into talks anyway, just reciting demands.
Going to take some efforts to trust the Kremlin (with much of anything). The current folks anyway.

Except you did not do what you now say you do. You have given one source (cherry-picked after your ahistorical claim that Ukraine turned around in a decade turned out indefensibie). — Jabberwock

You seem to know an awful lot about my reading habits. Are you stalking me?

I look at all sources — Jabberwock

Indeed; what can 'scape the eye Of God, all-seeing, or deceive His heart.

Are you saying that we have no reason to believe Putin threatening a war due to his perceived threat is likely to do that? — Jabberwock

'Likely', 'most likely'. Any idea as to the difference?

So 'willing to go to war', with which you have agreed, is now 2% chance? — Jabberwock

I don't think its actually possible for anyone to have misunderstood that more, well done.

We do not, so we do not. — Jabberwock

So the US are sending 75 billion to Yemen too? Good news.

I accept the capitulation.

How to deal with an untrustworthy insane party that rules an armed country? Looks like it's not just Ukraine that has a problem here. Criminals and insane folks are sometimes restrained in some way. Really, what will they do next? Whatever comes to pass, I'm sure someone will be (are) taking notes.

So the US are sending 75 billion to Yemen too? Good news. — Isaac

No Sudan Somalia CAR Afghanistan ...? :/

I accept the capitulation. — Jabberwock

There isn't one. You made an absurd comment somehow implying that you know exactly what I've read and what I haven't (despite the fact that the evidence to the contrary is on this very thread), then went on to proselytise about how you manage some kind of next level meta analysis of "all sources" which even the experts at Cato and Freedom House are incapable of, and expected anyone to believe that you arrive, by this at what just so happens to be the theory you prefer anyway.

Then you pretended that "most likely" and "likely" were the same thing, despite the fact that when comparing options they are literally the only difference we'd ever be talking about.

Then you catastrophically misunderstood an example explaining probability for an estimate of Putin's invasion chances.

Then you chuck in some throwaway comment that doesn't even make sense suggesting that somehow our payments to Ukraine are inevitable, yet paying Yemen would be a choice we don't have to make, apparently because I have a phone...

I gave it the response it deserved.

So the US are sending 75 billion to Yemen too? Good news. — Isaac


No Sudan Somalia CAR Afghanistan ...? — jorndoe

Exactly. We make a choice. A Ukrainian's freedom to vote is apparently more important that Afghan's freedom from starvation. Anyone who can ethically sustain that, feel free to lay it out. Apparently it's because @Jabberwock knows the Ukrainians better, but I'm not sure I really understood that argument... probably too next-level for my addled brain.

Your whole argument was first based on clearly ahistorical claims, when that did not pan out, on cherry-picked data (or opinion in your view) AND by shifting the goalposts from 'oligarchy to democracy in a few years' to more and more watered down idea of 'freedom'. You have no other support to make the claim that a peaceful rebellion in Russia is likely in a reasonable time and flatly refuse to consider the vast evidence that says something else. You have acknowledged that Ukrainian independence might be a cause of war and now you are backtracking out of the claim by quibbling, when I have pointed it undermines your whole view. Yes, we are really done with this one - I gave it much, much more than it deserved.

It always looks more like solid ground to me when the causes of war are identifiable as economic rather than ideological. So why would there be a big dispute about the ownership of "The breadbasket of the World"? Can it be that food is becoming a scarce resource? Who owns the breadbasket owns the world. Talk of democracy and freedom and nazification fades to the buzzing of flies round the feast, as possession is asserted by the destruction of the world's dinner by the dispute of those already bloated of stomach. The burning question is 'Who would you rather beg for your dinner, and slave for?' The prospect of the parties agreeing to share seems remote.

Google knows where we're heading: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.optivelox.radmeter&hl=en_US&pli=1

The shortly to be needed shopping and tableware ap You will need the geiger tube detector as well, as the comments point out. This is pure paranoia of course.

You have no other support to make the claim that a peaceful rebellion in Russia is likely in a reasonable time — Jabberwock

I need no other support. I'm defending against your accusation that the position has no support. One set of support disproves that claim.

flatly refuse to consider the vast evidence that says something else. — Jabberwock

There's no 'vastness' to the counter evidence other than in your mind. Some people disagree. I'd fully expect they do. My claim was not 'Russia can escape it's current state within eight years and nobody disagrees'

The simple fact is that, by some measures of freedom, it is perfectly possible for a nation to get from where Russia is now to where Ukraine is now in the space of eight years. It is also a fact that Russian occupation results in orders of magnitude fewer deaths and constraints than war.

Therefore, if the goal is Ukraine's current level of freedom, it is reasonable to believe that the least damaging route is to avoid war, but instead focus on the longer, but less damaging route of removing tyranny entirely.

Your absurd descent into truly execrable epistemology and speculation about my reading history, has failed to cover the fact that you've not provided a shred of evidence contradicting that claim.

And no "some other people think otherwise" does not contradict that claim, not even if your Delphic wisdom determines they're the ones telling The Truth™.

I need no other support. I'm defending against your accusation that the position has no support. One set of support disproves that claim. — Isaac

No, cherry-picked support does not disprove anything, which you would know if you read that article. An argument based on a single cherry-picked point of support is fallacious and that is how it should be and will be treated.

There's no 'vastness' to the counter evidence other than in your mind. Some people disagree. I'd fully expect they do. My claim was not 'Russia can escape it's current state within eight years and nobody disagrees' — Isaac

I have described many factors from the history of both Ukraine and Russia that make me believe what you propose is unlikely. Unlike me, you have not engaged with any of them. This is simply confirmation bias. You engage ONLY with the evidence that supports your claim.

The simple fact is that, by some measures of freedom, it is perfectly possible for a nation to get from where Russia is now to where Ukraine is now in the space of eight years. It is also a fact that Russian occupation results in orders of magnitude fewer deaths and constraints than war. — Isaac

The simple fact is that capability of some countries to move on the HFI by a certain amount has nothing to do with the likelihood of freeing of the whole of Russia from tyranny, which was your argument. Ironically, I have demonstrated that Russia was able to improve its index while succumbing to the said tyranny.

Your absurd descent into truly execrable epistemology and speculation about my reading history, has failed to cover the fact that you've not provided a shred of evidence contradicting that claim.

And no "some other people think otherwise" does not contradict that claim, not even if your Delphic wisdom determines they're the ones telling The Truth™. — Isaac

I would say I gave you more than a shred, for example:

I gave you two facts, but I can give quite a few more. For some of them one has to go back to the times of tzars, when, at the time where Western civic societies were being established, Russians were still under absolutistic rule. The period of relative freedoms after the Revolutions was quite short-lived and pretty soon the Ditcatorship of Proletariat took over, although it was not so much 'proletariat' in charge as the party's verchushka. After that were fifty years of the authoritarian party's rule, with a very short period of relative relaxation under Yeltsin; then Putin came and strengthened the rule again. The point I am making is that Russians have practically no traditions of democracy and very little of grass-root civil activity. This is aggravated by the rampant corruption, which necessarily weakens all the state institutions. It should also be noted that the geographical setup also plays a role – many remote regions are unsustainable without external help, so they were and are heavily dependent on the center. For example, independent Yakutia (Sakha) might sound nice to some, but is rather unrealistic - in spite of vast resources it would be unable to develop without significant external support. That forces heavily centralized structure of the government. This makes the greatest difference between Russia and current regions/republics and some former republics – for Baltics, for example, the oppression was clearly foreign - they did not need Moscow for anything, they could perfectly manage on their own (which they did). For remote regions it is quite different. This is somewhat related to another fact that hinders a popular uprising - significant differences in the standards of living. Those whose voice would be better heard and influential, Muscovites, have it much better than the rest of the country and they are quite aware of that - they have a lot to lose. On the other hand protests in remote areas would be simply unheard. Popular uprising needs unity, which would be difficult to reach.

This does not mean that Russians are unable to reach democracy, I sincerely hope that they do, but that process would be rather long and necessarily full of upheavals. It cannot be seriously considered as a solution for a conflict that is happening right now.
[...]
Sure, it is possible! If the country's electoral process is erratic, but not fully dominated by the regime, if the country has democractic judicial oversight (Ukrainian courts were instrumental both in the Kuchma case and Yushchenko revote), well established tradition of grassroot movements (at least since the Orange Revolution), local governments which are not hand picked by the central authority, press that enjoys more freedom, that is. It might help if the opposition politicians are not routinely murdered or jailed, journalists murdered or beaten up.

But Russia does not have any of that. On the other hand, it has strict control of information (last somewhat independent press outlets were closed last year, it has massive blocking of Internet sites, Roskomnadzor, etc.), tight control of any social activities (organizations, foundations, etc.), stiff penalties for any form of protest, politically controlled judicial system. Could all those differences (beside those already mentioned by me before) affect the expected outcome? I say they would. Your argument just ignores all those differences and claims that we should expect a similar outcome, because they had a similar SINGLE metrics eight years ago (even if many other were different). And you demand to be treated seriously.

So you are simply not telling the truth when you say that I have not provided a shred of evidence. You simply dismissed it by saying that your cherry-picked evidence trumps all that I wrote. That much is clear: you do not engage with evidence. And saying that I do not provide it is a lie, pure and simple.

I was ready to provide more, I still am, but why should I, if you refuse to engage with it?

And tell me, you do not believe that the HFI contradicts my claim that the peaceful fall of regime in Russia is unlikely. How can it then support the opposite thesis?

No, cherry-picked support does not disprove anything — Jabberwock

Of course it does. If the accusation is "there's no evidence for X" then cherry-picked evidence disproves that claim. There has to exist evidence for X in order that I can cherry pick it, it therefore disproves the claim that there is no evidence in favour of X.

An argument based on a single cherry-picked point of support is fallacious — Jabberwock

It isn't. Just because some Wikipedia article says so, doesn't render it fact. There are multiple competing theories of epistemology. Googling a fallacy doesn't prove anything. If think you have a case, make it.

I have described many factors from the history of both Ukraine and Russia that make me believe what you propose is unlikely. — Jabberwock

Good. You go ahead and believe that then. That you believe something to be the case is not an argument that it is, in fact, the case.

Unlike me, you have not engaged with any of them. — Jabberwock

What would constitute 'engaging' with them? You keep throwing in this term, but it's so nebulous. If I read them, decide they're not meaningful, is that 'engagement'? What do want as a sign of engagement (short of just agreeing)? I don't believe those factors make it sufficiently unlikely - I am unconvinced. What more is there to say?

This is simply confirmation bias. You engage ONLY with the evidence that supports your claim. — Jabberwock

I believe only the evidence that supports my claim (is sufficiently weighty). But that's obvious. It's why I believe my claim. The same is true of you. All the evidence that supports your claim you believe is weighty enough, all the evidence which opposes it you don't. That's why you believe your claim.

You seem to think that there's some kind of number-crunching or mental kung-fu that can be done with all this competing theory, that you've carried out and I haven't, yet you can't actually describe what it is. You can list things that we agree are the case all day long, but nothing in that listing is going to magically spew out a theory that we're all then compelled to believe. The facts underdetermine the theory - a point that seems stubbornly impossible to drive home here for some reason.

The simple fact is that capability of some countries to move on the HFI by a certain amount has nothing to do with the likelihood of freeing of the whole of Russia from tyranny, which was your argument — Jabberwock

It does. The HFI is as good a measure of 'tyranny' as any. Short of you getting out your tyranny-o-meter, what could you possibly bring to bear to dispute that. I get that you don't like it, that for you tyranny is mostly about voting and political opposition, but for others, there's tyranny in lack of economic freedom, lack of opportunity... I agree with the weighting the HFI has applied. You don't. There isn't an answer to that, there isn't some way we can stare more at the data and the right opinion pops out.

So you are simply not telling the truth when you say that I have not provided a shred of evidence. — Jabberwock

What do you think you've provided evidence for? That Russia might not overthrow tyranny in eight years? Sure. But that's not the claim, the claim was that it will not. Or your later claim that it is more likely to not. Nothing you've provided has any probability assigned to it. It all simply might be the case.

All you've done is listed a load of facts and then said "see, they all add up to my theory". But facts don't just magically add up to theories, it's just a list of facts. They might seem to you to add up, but they don't seem to me to do so (not with the same degree of certainty). That difference is not resolvable - you can't just say "well, they ought to". Facts underdetermine theories.

And tell me, you do not believe that the HFI contradicts my claim that the peaceful fall of regime in Russia is unlikely. How can it then support the opposite thesis? — Jabberwock

Facts underdetermine theories. If you're having trouble with the notion, I'm sure I can dig out a Wikipedia article for your edification.

The facts underdetermine the theory — Isaac

Hey you got it right this time! Good for you.

Hey you got it right this time! Good for you. — Srap Tasmaner

I've been practising.

From a Wagner commander, otherwise unverified (translation by google):

In total, 78,000 fighters of the PMC Wagner went to the Ukrainian mission. Of these, 49,000 were prisoners from the camps. At the time of the capture of Bakhmut (May 20), 22,000 soldiers were killed, 40,000 were wounded. — Unloading Wagner · Jul 19, 2023

NATO says it's boosting Black Sea surveillance, condemns Russian grain deal exit
^{— Andrew Gray, Ron Popeski, William Maclean · Reuters · Jul 26, 2023}

Allies and Ukraine strongly condemned Russia's decision to withdraw from the Black Sea grain deal and its deliberate attempts to stop Ukraine's agricultural exports on which hundreds of millions of people worldwide depend. NATO and Allies are stepping up surveillance and reconnaissance in the Black Sea region, including with maritime patrol aircraft and drones. Allies noted that Russia's new warning area in the Black Sea, within Bulgaria's exclusive economic zone, has created new risks for miscalculation and escalation, as well as serious impediments to freedom of navigation.

Ukrainian port cities are "the latest casualities in this senseless, brutal war", ASG Khiari tells Security Council in briefing on Ukraine
^{— Mohamed Khaled Khiari · UN · Jul 26, 2023}
UN official says latest Russian attacks on Ukraine ‘signal a calamitous turn’
^{— Tara Suter, AP · The Hill · Jul 26, 2023}

These attacks targeting Ukraine’s grain export facilities, similarly to all attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, are unacceptable and must stop immediately. I must emphasize that attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law. We have now seen disturbing reports of further Russian strikes against port infrastructure, including grain storage facilities, in Reni and Izmail ports on the Danube River – a key route for shipment of Ukrainian grain, not far from Ukraine’s borders with Moldova and Romania. Deliberately targeting infrastructure that facilitates the export of food to the rest of the world could be life-threatening to millions of people who need access to affordable food. In the wake of Russia’s withdrawal from the Black Sea Initiative, these latest attacks signal a calamitous turn for Ukrainians and the world. — Mohamed Khaled Khiari (UN)

Maybe they are "insane".
, it's not just about "freedom to vote". (= rhetoramble (again))

The usual intellectually miserable tactic of framing opponents’ views. Apparently, on matter of facts we can’t prove anything, if we happen to believe anything is because of Western propaganda, what they believe is clearly not propaganda though (even if, on the other side, all narratives are claimed to be all plausible interpretations), on matter of moral we are either coward or cynical (is that yet another interpretation? or The Facts™?). — neomac


What does your comment have to do with my comment?

Are you disputing the fact that other Western countries, and also all the other countries, have not sent their soldiers into Ukraine?

Or are you arguing sending arms to Ukraine is brave? That's what a "brave" country would do, send arms instead of their own soldiers.

Feel free to have at it: You / the Western legacy media / NATO says Ukrainian sovereignty is a moral imperative to uphold ... just not without sending themselves or their own soldiers. If Ukrainian sovereignty is so important, why is it not worth risking our own soldiers lives to see it preserved? — boethius

The usual intellectually miserable tactic of framing opponents’ views. — neomac

Ok, well, un-frame it for me.

In what moral theory is there a cause not worth risking much of anything yourself but is like "totally so important"? Worth sending arms ... but not too many arms!!! — boethius

As far as I’m concerned, you (and others) keep arguing based on background assumptions (on morality, propaganda, geopolitics, etc.) that I do not share at all, and keep challenging me based on your background assumptions, even after I explicitly questioned them. One of MY assumptions is that in an anarchic environment constituted by many nation states, there are 2 constitutive shared rules: pursue national interest, do not aggress acknowledged sovereign states first. The first is a domestic politics engagement between governments and its citizens. The second is a foreign politics engagement between states. There is absolutely nothing intrinsically immoral, coward or cynical in the Western decision to send weapons and not soldiers in Ukraine IF this serves Western national interests, and even if this is NOT in Ukraine’s best national interest, because Ukrainian sovereignty is a moral imperative AT BEST of the Ukrainian government. So no, I do not believe at all that Ukraine is "totally so important” or “Ukrainian sovereignty is a moral imperative to uphold” as if this is Western top priority, Ukraine is instrumental to the Western national interest (the European security, as Zelensky puts it) as much as the West is instrumental to the Ukrainian national interest (Zelensky’s moral imperative is Ukraine’s national interest, not European national interests). But the Western support doesn’t need to end up being some sort of cynical exploitation (as the “Ukrainians as cannon fodder” accusation suggests), even in case of significant power or costs imbalance, because again harnessing foreign consensus, allies and partners can also be part of power struggle strategies.

Of course it does. If the accusation is "there's no evidence for X" then cherry-picked evidence disproves that claim. There has to exist evidence for X in order that I can cherry pick it, it therefore disproves the claim that there is no evidence in favour of X. — Isaac

Oh my, you still have not read the article, which clearly explains why this approach is incorrect. Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.

It isn't. Just because some Wikipedia article says so, doesn't render it fact. There are multiple competing theories of epistemology. Googling a fallacy doesn't prove anything. If think you have a case, make it. — Isaac

I have been warned, now I realize why.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Cherry-Picking
https://listoffallacies.com/cherry-picking/
http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/cherry-picking-data/
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11526726

Good. You go ahead and believe that then. That you believe something to be the case is not an argument that it is, in fact, the case. — Isaac

I believe something based on as many facts as I have been able to gather, you believe something based on a single fact that you have picked because you believed that before you picked that fact. If you believe both views are equally valid, good for you.

What would constitute 'engaging' with them? You keep throwing in this term, but it's so nebulous. If I read them, decide they're not meaningful, is that 'engagement'? What do want as a sign of engagement (short of just agreeing)? I don't believe those factors make it sufficiently unlikely - I am unconvinced. What more is there to say? — Isaac

Yes, I truly believe you do not know what it means to engage with counterevidence.

I believe only the evidence that supports my claim (is sufficiently weighty). But that's obvious. It's why I believe my claim. The same is true of you. All the evidence that supports your claim you believe is weighty enough, all the evidence which opposes it you don't. That's why you believe your claim.

You seem to think that there's some kind of number-crunching or mental kung-fu that can be done with all this competing theory, that you've carried out and I haven't, yet you can't actually describe what it is. You can list things that we agree are the case all day long, but nothing in that listing is going to magically spew out a theory that we're all then compelled to believe. The facts underdetermine the theory - a point that seems stubbornly impossible to drive home here for some reason. — Isaac

You believe a single piece of evidence against all other evidence that says otherwise, i.e. an outlier (you still do not know what that is), because you have picked it out based on your beliefs. You actively and persistently avoid learning any facts that might challenge your view, and you do not examine your belief in view of the counterevidence.

It does. The HFI is as good a measure of 'tyranny' as any. Short of you getting out your tyranny-o-meter, what could you possibly bring to bear to dispute that. I get that you don't like it, that for you tyranny is mostly about voting and political opposition, but for others, there's tyranny in lack of economic freedom, lack of opportunity... I agree with the weighting the HFI has applied. You don't. There isn't an answer to that, there isn't some way we can stare more at the data and the right opinion pops out. — Isaac

Sure, if you take 'tyranny' to mean whatever else than is usually meant by that, then anything can be a measure of tyranny. For example, if you take 'tyranny' to be the amount of rainfall, then all you need to measure it are weather charts. Because there are different theories of epistemology.

What do you think you've provided evidence for? That Russia might not overthrow tyranny in eight years? Sure. But that's not the claim, the claim was that it will not. Or your later claim that it is more likely to not. Nothing you've provided has any probability assigned to it. It all simply might be the case. — Isaac

If past facts are irrelevant for probabilities, then anything really might come up. Why should we avoid war then? Past wars cannot inform us if there will be victims, simply that it might be the case. That is your reasoning, right?

Facts underdetermine theories. If you're having trouble with the notion, I'm sure I can dig out a Wikipedia article for your edification. — Isaac

But you do not have facts. If all the evidence I have provided is just 'some other people think otherwise', as you say, then your evidence is also just 'some other people think otherwise', which, as you say, cannot support or counter any claim. So neither theory has sufficient support, we have no reason to believe any of them is true.

The problem here is that your priming bias makes the argument you have seen seem more strong than the arguments you read here. So confirmation bias leads you to see the supporting evidence for that as leading more strongly to that conclusion.

Your belief bias gets in the way of a dispassionate assessment of the logic in the counterarguments and your overconfidence in your ability to assess those arguments logically, leads to several non-sequitur arguments.

As your anchoring bias sets you up to see your preferred indices as centre points from which to measure deviation, you use framing to shore up the evidence in favour of your preferred theories.

Treating 'tyranny' and 'democracy' as if they were non-scalar terms is a suppressed correlative, something is not removed from either camp simply by relative position, and repeatedly arguing against that tighter definition you now have rather than those I'm using is a straw man.

Your assumption that historical conditions must, simply by existing cause the current states is an historical fallacy, and reliance on it results in retrospective determinism, and as a result the majority of your assessment of Russia's current state from it's historical roots is just post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Your repeated insistence that I 'enagage with' only one source despite having no information on how many sources I have read is an attempt at proof by assertion, not to mention the Bulverism.

---

Finally, using Wikipedia to make your arguments for you is an appeal to authority.

What do you think you've provided evidence for? That Russia might not overthrow tyranny in eight years? Sure. But that's not the claim, the claim was that it will not. Or your later claim that it is more likely to not. Nothing you've provided has any probability assigned to it. It all simply might be the case. — Isaac


If past facts are irrelevant for probabilities, then anything really might come up. Why should we avoid war then? Past wars cannot inform us if there will be victims, simply that it might be the case. That is your reasoning, right?

Facts underdetermine theories. If you're having trouble with the notion, I'm sure I can dig out a Wikipedia article for your edification. — Isaac


But you do not have facts. If all the evidence I have provided is just 'some other people think otherwise', as you say, then your evidence is also just 'some other people think otherwise', which, as you say, cannot support or counter any claim. So neither theory has sufficient support, we have no reason to believe any of them is true. — Jabberwock

You must have realized by now how full of sophistry, incoherence and self-defeating conclusions his arguments are. Many of the points you have raised are similar to the ones me and others have raised against his arguments. The problem is however deeper because it is rooted into the meaning of words and in concepts (like argument, bias, likelihood), he thinks he scores points by messing with words and concepts until he simply becomes unintelligible. That's why I have no pity for him.

Great, so you finally did some reading.

So: is using a single outlier to support your argument is a fallacy or not?

The problem here is that your priming bias makes the argument you have seen seem more strong than the arguments you read here. So confirmation bias leads you to see the supporting evidence for that as leading more strongly to that conclusion. — Isaac

Of course, I have already acknowledged that:

Like everyone else, I surely apply some bias, based on my previous opinions — Jabberwock

But as I have pointed out, it is easier to overcome one's confirmation bias by seeking many sources, both confirming and countering his thesis.

As your anchoring bias sets you up to see your preferred indices as centre points from which to measure deviation, you use framing to shore up the evidence in favour of your preferred theories. — Isaac

That is the exact opposite of what I was doing. I have proposed to review as many indices as possible, including yours, with no particular weights attached to any of them, so there would be no anchoring and no preferential treatment whatsoever. You object to that because you realize that putting them all together would indicate your source is an outlier. How exactly is that framing?

Treating 'tyranny' and 'democracy' as if they were non-scalar terms is a suppressed correlative, something is not removed from either camp simply by relative position, and repeatedly arguing against that tighter definition you now have rather than those I'm using is a straw man. — Isaac

I have explicitly demonstrated that the HFI might be a positive correlative to 'tyranny': for Russia the HFI increased together with its tyranny. However, your argument requires that the correlation be negative. Having realized that, you try to redefine 'tyranny' as 'lack of economic freedom, lack of opportunity', but that is not what is generally meant by the term. And surely it was not your meaning when you have initially used the term, which is rather clear when we substitute 'tyranny' in your original argument with that meaning:

For better or worse, Russia are now embedded in Donbas and Crimea. There are two choices; leave them there and fight to free the whole of Russia (including those regions) from lack of economic freedom, lack of opportunity [substitution underlined], or expel them and continue Ukraine's progress toward the removal of lack of economic freedom, lack of opportunity in it's regions. — Isaac

How does that work? It does not - if people in Russia are more free economically and have more personal opportunities AND there is still an authoritarian regime that is likely to impose its rule mlilitarily on its neighbors, that does not resolve the Ukrainian conflict in any way.

Your assumption that historical conditions must, simply by existing cause the current states is an historical fallacy, and reliance on it results in retrospective determinism, and as a result the majority of your assessment of Russia's current state from it's historical roots is just post hoc ergo propter hoc. — Isaac

No, it is not my assumption that it must happen, my argument is that it is more likely to happen than not. I am not arguing for historical determinism, but for historical probabilism. If you reject historical probabilism, then you cannot argue that the US provoked the war: if history is wholly undetermined and future inscrutable, then nobody could predict any course of events, therefore they are blameless.

Your repeated insistence that I 'enagage with' only one source despite having no information on how many sources I have read is an attempt at proof by assertion, not to mention the Bulverism. — Isaac

Maybe you have read many sources, but you engage with only one.

Finally, using Wikipedia to make your arguments for you is an appeal to authority. — Isaac

Yes, of course it is. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious. After all, citing HFI is also an appeal to authority.

So, still no. A small point for the effort, maybe.