Have you tried climate? Abortion? — jorndoe

Climate is less interesting because experts don't really disagree. Sure one or two obviously paid off ones might take their 20 pieces from the oil companies, but no one is in much doubt about their motives.

Abortion does seem to be genuinely split (two sides at each other's throats) but over what they agree are value judgments - women's right vs sanctity of life (proto-life). Not really an issue in which there is any agreed expertise.

Covid and Ukraine are different. Experts with no vested interests and no clear ulterior motives, genuinely disagree as to the appropriate strategy with (seemingly) the same broad objectives in mind - general humanitarian goods.

Yet one side wants to claim possession of the absolute truth and accuse the other of being something beyond merely being wrong; usually lying, or spreading 'disinformation', or being uninformed, even (we've had it right here) in the pay of Russia... for both issues, wierdly.

It's like right at the beginning of the Covid stuff, Facebook censored the British Medical Journal (one of the top medical journals in the world)... For disinformation! How did we get to a place where Facebook are seen to have access to a Truth about medicine that the British Medical Journal apparently don't? Anyway... Off topic. That's where my interest is.

It's like the police always say to mugging victims "just give them your handbag, it's not worth your life". It doesn't somehow become less sensible advice at different scales. International legal action is the way to deal with criminal acts of invasion, not utterly devastating your country to somehow 'teach them a lesson'. — Isaac

That's a nice analogy, so what's wrong with it?

That's a nice analogy, so what's wrong with it? — Srap Tasmaner

Lack of international law.

The US don't even recognise the jurisdiction of the very court it's popular press are in such a lather about Putin having violated.

They're now sending cluster bombs, to much popular cheering, internationally banned in most countries.

The invasion of Iraq, Kosovo, Libya... All verging on war crimes.

I won't go on, I'm sure you know all this, though others seem to perilously short memories.

Basically, we need an international law that is, well, international. That means it constrains the US and Europe too. Then the sanctions of that law need to be something we can realistically put in place without committing the very crime we're punishing (most countries have banned capital punishment for a reason).

But that too is stymied because those sanctions would be financial and no one wants to create systems which are robust enough to do that (the quick buck, non robust ones simply earn more).

You wrote specifically:

the more in debt they get to those institutions, the less sovereignty they have. Having pecuniary free market restrictions on your economy limits economic freedom — Isaac

After the communism Eastern European countries were in a rather poor state, with rather poor infrastructures, inefficient, seriously outdated industry, etc. Then they were in significant debt from the IMF (with significant part of it relieved) and they had 'imposed' pecuniary free market restrictions. It did not limit their freedom, their freedom (i.e. HFI) soared.

Right. So if no peace deal is reached, history tells us the war will drag on for decades. So remind me again how that helps the people of Ukraine? Remind me how decades of war gets them any more freedom, any more 'sovereignty'. Just your wild and unsubstantiated hope that somehow Russia will run out of artillery first? — Isaac

Well, at least we see Russia is running out of artillery, although slowly. What you propose is wild and unsubstantiated hope that somehow Russia will leave Ukraine alone if we give them more and more, even though it has no reason to do so.

On what basis? The economy is already tanking https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-drags-europes-economy-succumbs-crisis-2022-08-23/ . What grounds do you have for believing this level of militarisation can be sustained for another ten years? — Isaac

It needs to be sustained at the level higher than Russia, which hurts economically much more.

Again, on what grounds? This is just pie in the sky wishful thinking at the moment. How is the west going to sustain this level of militarisation for decades when it can't even keep out of recession after just two years? — Isaac

It does not, as noted above.

Yes. Again, history shows that strong ceasefire negotiations work — Isaac

Sure, I have already said that strong ceasefire negotiations work. What is required for that, however, is some sort of conflict resolution. That is why I have asked how exactly negotiations at this point would resolve the conflict. You cannot answer that question.

What exactly? — Isaac

You cite hypothetical unknown assumed factors that would prevent Putin from starting the war. If that is so, I can cite hypothetical unknown assumed factors that would push Putin to war.

Because I'm darkly fascinated by this new trend for absolute certainty in the mainstream opinion. Ukraine, Covid, ... both shared this odd feature that even though solidly qualified experts in the respective fields disagreed, the lay populace were utterly convinced that only one side were right and the other were little short of murderers. I'm exploring that. — Isaac

Good luck. Just do not expect that an argument that you are unwilling to support will get any serious consideration.

Lack of international law. — Isaac

Certainly. What I had in mind before talking about government.

But I was also thinking about the other side.

just give them your handbag, it's not worth your life — Isaac

I'm not sure "teaching them a lesson" is the only other possible goal in refusing. I think there are times when people acknowledge that you might be able to take what you want from them, but you're going to have to take it, they're not going to give it to you just on the threat that you'll take it.

Think of the inquisition or other uses of torture. Of course resistance is irrational, on a first reading, but so is altruism. For torture to be efficient as a means of controlling a population, it has to be used sparingly. You don't want to have to torture everyone individually to secure compliance. So if a population could sustain a strategy of not complying, they raise the cost of control for the would-be boss, and that's rational, even if you can't be sure you're raising the cost enough to deter him.

After the communism Eastern European countries were in a rather poor state, with rather poor infrastructures, inefficient, seriously outdated industry, etc. Then they were in significant debt from the IMF (with significant part of it relieved) and they had 'imposed' pecuniary free market restrictions. It did not limit their freedom — Jabberwock

It did. It just did so less than the relief from communist dictatorship improved it.

their freedom (i.e. HFI) soared. — Jabberwock

What dataset are you using, the HFI started in 2013 with data going back from their previous methodology to 2008. The countries you're mentioning were last under communist rule in the late 20th century?

Well, at least we see Russia is running out of artillery, although slowly — Jabberwock

Not to any meaningful extent. what matters is their ability to replenish, and as the historical data I've presented shows, that ability is usually sufficient to maintain war for decades. That Russia will be the exception for some reason is wishful thinking.

What you propose is wild and unsubstantiated hope that somehow Russia will leave Ukraine alone if we give them more and more, even though it has no reason to do so. — Jabberwock

It's not wild and unsubstantiated. I've provided you with the evidence of armistices working.

Notwithstanding that, your two suggestions here make no sense together. If Russia are going to run out of artillery first, then they must know that. If they know that, then they know they're going to lose, therefore they have good reason to accept terms.

You can't have it both ways. Ukraine can't have an excellent chance of winning a war, depleting Russia's armoury to almost redundancy, and threatening Putin's grip on power... and also claim Russia has no reason at all to accept terms. Either continued war is an existential risk for Russia or it isn't.

It needs to be sustained at the level higher than Russia, which hurts economically much more. — Jabberwock

It doesn't.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-inflation-024-first-nine-days-2023-2023-01-11/

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russian-consumer-inflation-drops-below-4-target-first-time-year-2023-04-12/

https://www.euronews.com/2023/06/01/europe-inflation-rate-takes-positive-turn-dropping-to-61

Where are you getting your figures from?

Sure, I have already said that strong ceasefire negotiations work. What is required for that, however, is some sort of conflict resolution. — Jabberwock

Ceasefires are conflict resolution. Read the paper.

You cite hypothetical unknown assumed factors that would prevent Putin from starting the war. If that is so, I can cite hypothetical unknown assumed factors that would push Putin to war. — Jabberwock

I'm not the one suggesting your opinion is nonsense, remember? I think your opinion is perfectly valid. I'm defending the claim that mine isn't.

do not expect that an argument that you are unwilling to support will get any serious consideration. — Jabberwock

Serious consideration isn't a priority, nor would I expect it on the basis of argument (been there).

I'm not sure "teaching them a lesson" is the only other possible goal in refusing. I think there are times when people acknowledge that you might be able to take what you want from them, but you're going to have to take it, they're not going to give it to you just on the threat that you'll take it. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah. That, I expect, is why the police don't offer the same advice to threat of rape, for example. Some things are not worth a struggle, but others are.

It's why I think it's so important to have a realistic idea of what Ukraine and Russia are like comparatively, and why the media effort is so strong to erase Ukraine's less rosy aspects. Life for the people in Donbas and Crimea was no picnic before the Russian invasion and the fair share of the cause was Ukraine's. It's reflected in the Amnesty reports in the region, and it's reflected in the split in the population when polled, or when voting.

One of the things I think is mistaken here (quite unpleasantly so) is that the horror of war, particularly war with Russia, is contrasted with sovereignty, and those two are not opposites. Ukraine's sovereignty is like the handbag. It's not worth fighting for (not with the absolute human devastation of war). It's just a flag.

Ukrainian's freedom... that might be worth sacrificing a generation for, that's not just a handbag. But fighting for freedom is not a matter of changing borders, it's a matter of changing systems, and even then not just exchanging one form of exploitation for another.

It's that process that I'm trying to separate out from the act of war. War, even at its best and most noble, is nowadays merely pushing tyranny around the globe, penning it in here and there. It's not actually dealing with it. Dealing with it requires a populace to have more power than the authority exploiting them. That doesn't need war, it needs solidarity.

if a population could sustain a strategy of not complying, they raise the cost of control for the would-be boss, and that's rational, even if you can't be sure you're raising the cost enough to deter him. — Srap Tasmaner

Absolutely. Exactly what I'm talking about here. Given the state of affairs in East Ukraine prior to the invasion, swapping leaders isn't going to make an awful lot of difference - it's why I gave the example of Crimea, which did exactly that - we can read what difference it made. Not much. What will make a lot of difference is the kind of resistance you're talking about. That can be against a corrupt and pecuniary Ukrainian government, or against a corrupt and repressive Russian one.

And I'm not, in that, suggesting those two states of affairs are equal. I'm suggesting they're not 100,000 dead soldier's worth of different.

It did. It just did so less than the relief from communist dictatorship improved it. — Isaac

So in fact their freedom increased?

What dataset are you using, the HFI started in 2013 with data going back from their previous methodology to 2008. The countries you're mentioning were last under communist rule in the late 20th century? — Isaac

And now their HFI is quite high, much higher than Russia's. Thus is it reasonable to assume that if Ukraine stopped being 'just like Russia', as you claim it is now, and was more like them, HFI of its citizens would significantly improve.

Not to any meaningful extent. what matters is their ability to replenish, and as the historical data I've presented shows, that ability is usually sufficient to maintain war for decades. That Russia will be the exception for some reason is wishful thinking. — Isaac

It would be sufficient to maintain a simmering conflict, as you wrote, not for a full-scale war effort which it is taking now.

It's not wild and unsubstantiated. I've provided you with the evidence of armistices working. — Isaac

Armistice is cessation of hostilities. In itself it does nothing to resolve any conflict. It is usually a precondition to a peaceful conflict resolution, but it is not a conflict resolution in itself.

Notwithstanding that, your two suggestions here make no sense together. If Russia are going to run out of artillery first, then they must know that. If they know that, then they know they're going to lose, therefore they have good reason to accept terms.

You can't have it both ways. Ukraine can't have an excellent chance of winning a war, depleting Russia's armoury to almost redundancy, and threatening Putin's grip on power... and also claim Russia has no reason at all to accept terms. Either continued war is an existential risk for Russia or it isn't. — Isaac

That is why I did not write that Russia is 'going to lose' and I also did not write that 'Ukraine has an excellent chance of winning the war', as I have ackhowledged that the hostilities might simmer for a long time. The conflict would be resolved by getting Russia to a point when Ukraine will be able to integrate with the West without Russia preventing it.

It's not wild and unsubstantiated. I've provided you with the evidence of armistices working. — Isaac

Without addressing all the particular reasons for why this is not likely in this particular case, it is still wild and unsubstantiated. We had Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, so there are no reasons to think Minsk 3 (or whatever you call it) would fare any better.

It doesn't. — Isaac

You do realize that Russia is an authoritarian country, therefore its statistics might not be completely truthful, to put it mildly? You know that Russia has classified most of its economic indicators, so it is not entirely transparent, right? That is why its official inflation figure might not be completely trustworthy and it might be reasonable to turn e.g. to basket-based indices, such as Romir. Hanke from Hopkins gives an even higher rate, but it is clearly an outlier, so it should be treated as such. There are several such indicators, I think they average at about 25%, I will gather some more. Interestingly, even CBR reports that the perceived inflation is ten points higher than the official one.

The point is that the actual inflation rate in Russia is rather difficult to estimate. It certainly is not reasonable to treat the official indicator as a sufficient single indicator of Russia's economy (why am I feeling deja vu?).

Still, there are a few indicators that Russia cannot hide or fake, like trade deficit, or exports income, because they need to mirror the data of other countries. For example, before the war half of Russia's budgetary income was premium from the exports of natural resources. Now Russia's resource exports value fell by over one third, so Russia's budget deficit achieved the projected yearly value in three months - it will be rather difficult make up for that... Russia's official current account dropped drastically, even if we assume it has not been 'prettified'. Also the ruble exchange rate defense is not going too well, Nabullina pretty much said that it cannot continue forever.

In general, getting even an approximate view of Russian economy is not easy. However, if you take many indicators into consideration (I can provide more), it does not look too well.

Ceasefires are conflict resolution. Read the paper. — Isaac

No, they are not. They might be a precondition to a conflict resolution, but they in themselves do not resolve anything.

I'm not the one suggesting your opinion is nonsense, remember? I think your opinion is perfectly valid. I'm defending the claim that mine isn't. — Isaac

I do not suggest that your opinion is nonsense, only that it is unsupported. You have not provided any support for the view that it is ilkely that Putin would refrain from hostilities. Citing assumed unknown factors is not support. I did provide support for the view that it is unlikely.

Serious consideration isn't a priority, nor would I expect it on the basis of argument (been there). — Isaac

OK, so we have no reason to think that the conflict resolution in Ukraine by peaceful methods would be likely.

It's like the police always say to mugging victims "just give them your handbag, it's not worth your life". — Isaac

But the police themselves confront. overwhelm and arrest muggers, and do risk their lives. Otherwise they would have no authority to give any advice. And even the police do not advise giving up your home, your children and your neighbours to the muggers. On the contrary, they ask people to come forward and help them.

I must say I find the consequentialist moral argument completely opaque. We cannot know the consequences of our acts in advance, nor the counterfactual consequences of alternative acts with hindsight. Gandhi suggested that Hitler could have been stopped by non-violent means but even he admitted it would have been difficult and costly.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. — Jesus

Matthew 5:39.

The policy of non-resistance has the highest authority:— but expect to get crucified.

If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. — Jesus

Matthew 16:24.

I think of this whole thing as giving the lie to the libertarian (or anarcho-capitalist) worldview that trade and commerce and markets are natural and self-sustaining.

It would have been nice for the Western leadership to figure this out before investing trillions into Chinese high end production facilities and granting them trillions in technology transfers.

Fo example, China told Boeing and Airbus that they'd have to do technology transfers in order to have access to the cheap Chinese labor market. And what do you know? China's aviation industry has since grown by leaps and bounds and they now have a parastatial competitor airliner production firm coming out, while the J-15 shows a marked improvement on the Su-33, the J-10 shows an upgrade over older block F-16s/the abandoned Lavi, and China is now the second country producing fifth generation stealth fighters and has its own version of the B-21, the H-20 due out. Funny how that synergy between private incentives to chase higher profit margins despite being oligopolies already and an authoritarian regime building up its military power works out...

On the bright side, we're not alone. I have Egyptians tell me they think "made in China," is probably stamped on the bottom of the Pyramids by now.

It's all so depressing, men with power who want more, men with money who want more.

This view is arguably true for autocracies where one person is able to weld a tremendous amount of decision power. But when it comes to things like the American oil market the problem is in some ways worse. The structures in place counter any one person's attempt to make reforms. A CEO or board president who attempts socially minded reforms will just see themselves replaced. Any one company that attempts to reform will simply lose market share, and others will exploit the opportunities they do not.

I think there has long been two problems in economics. The first is to think that markets are magical. That the "invisible hand," is something unique to economics, not simply a good description of complex dynamical systems that have feedback loops and equilibrium points. This has led to a fear of regulation based on the fear that it will "kill the magic," when in fact the same sort of argument against intervention from complexity would apply equally well to medicine or ecosystems.

The other problem is a faliure to see that the invisible hand supersedes the decision-making of individuals and may cause as many negative outcomes as positive ones. Individual leadership is replaced by a group mind. However, this group mind is not highly evolved at the outset. It isn't self-conscious and reflective, it's more a "lizard brain," driven to pick up new traits by selection pressures, grinding its way towards survival goals.

This is why removing "bad people," and putting "good people," in doesn't fix systemic issues in more complex organizations. The organization's have their own priorities and are adapted to their own survival. And, if you think group minds are a metaphysically dodgy concept, you can always just take it as a metaphor.

The state is so important because it is (one of) the most evolved systems out there, but even moreso because its survival needs line up with those of its citizens in the way a corporations' won't. A state will tend to evolve systems that promote the welfare of its citizens for the same reason that bodies will tend to evolve capacities that meet the needs of their cells (although this doesn't stop things like cancer from existing in particular instances).

That's sort of the dynamical systems take on what Hegel lays out in the Philosophy of Right, and I think it's a very good insight in the big picture, even if his details end up wrong.

So in fact their freedom increased? — Jabberwock

Yes.

now their HFI is quite high, much higher than Russia's. Thus is it reasonable to assume that if Ukraine stopped being 'just like Russia', as you claim it is now, and was more like them, HFI of its citizens would significantly improve. — Jabberwock

Yes, that's right. Russian HFI is low, so not being like Russia raise the HFI. I don't think that's in dispute. You've not provided the data you were using for your claims that their HFI soared.

It would be sufficient to maintain a simmering conflict, as you wrote, not for a full-scale war effort which it is taking now. — Jabberwock

So?

The conflict would be resolved by getting Russia to a point when Ukraine will be able to integrate with the West without Russia preventing it. — Jabberwock

Right. But how? You've not provided a mechanism. How does Ukraine get Russia to a point where is will give up all the territory it has gained, but somehow not run into exactly the same supply problems Russia faces? And all this without racking up so massive a debt that it will never get it's sovereignty back? And at no point provoking Russia into using nuclear weapons? And all this somehow without Russia realising that capability (otherwise Russia would have good reason to negotiate now)?

Without addressing all the particular reasons for why this is not likely in this particular case — Jabberwock

What reasons? Do you think all armistices only came on the back of serious of amazingly successful previous agreements? Minsk agreements were crap, so we do better. It's not a difficult concept to get your head around. There's loads of expert opinion online about why the Mins agreements failed, if you're interested. As there is on why negotiations might succeed. It's really daft to try and learn this stuff from me. Look it up, you have the internet.

trade deficit — Jabberwock

Russia's balance of trade https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/balance-of-trade
The US's https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

exports income — Jabberwock

Russia exports (rising) https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports
US exports (falling) https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports

current account — Jabberwock

Russia current account https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/current-account
US current account https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account

ruble exchange rate — Jabberwock

The Ruble https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency
The Dollar https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/currency

it might be reasonable to turn e.g. to basket-based indices, such as Romir. — Jabberwock

...and the equivalent rate for the US/Europe would be...? Of course, you don't have one because the aim is simply to give an alarming rate fo Russia and leave it there.

Russia Core Consumer Prices https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/core-consumer-prices
US Core Consumer Prices https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/core-consumer-prices

But the police themselves confront. overwhelm and arrest muggers, and do risk their lives. Otherwise they would have no authority to give any advice. — unenlightened

Yes. We engineer the system so that the police (backed up by the army if necessary) have the greater power. They have guns, we don't.

That's why an assessment of the power balance is important. Pluck isn't sufficient.

even the police do not advise giving up your home, your children and your neighbours to the muggers. — unenlightened

Yes (as I mentioned to Srap above).

That's why an assessment of what is at stake is so important. Comparing Donbas under Ukraine to Crimea under Russia, the answer seems to be not much.

We cannot know the consequences of our acts in advance, nor the counterfactual consequences of alternative acts with hindsight. Gandhi suggested that Hitler could have been stopped by non-violent means but even he admitted it would have been difficult and costly — unenlightened

Fair enough. So the alternative is...?

The policy of non-resistance has the highest authority — unenlightened

It seems as if there's an epidemic of imagination loss going around. Is open war the only alternative to non-resistance?

It seems as if there's an epidemic of imagination loss going around. Is open war the only alternative to non-resistance? — Isaac

If course not. I think the whole world should bow down to the majesty of the US military due to the realization that nonviolent resistance is key.

It seems as if there's an epidemic of imagination loss going around. Is open war the only alternative to non-resistance? — Isaac

No, there is passive resistance and underground resistance, and argument and demonstrative protest, and a thousand variations thereof, from labour strike to hunger strike and from assassination attempt to the whole repertoire of terrorism. Who's for a march on Moscow?

I doubt that negotiations will lead to conflict resolution IF Russian annexations won't be acknowledged by Ukraine and the West. And I find this acknowledgment politically suicidal for Ukraine and the world order promoted by the West.

Yes, that's right. Russian HFI is low, so not being like Russia raise the HFI. I don't think that's in dispute. You've not provided the data you were using for your claims that their HFI soared. — Isaac

When they were communist states, they were more like Russia, so when they stopped, their HFI would increase (if it was assessed then).

Right. But how? You've not provided a mechanism. How does Ukraine get Russia to a point where is will give up all the territory it has gained, but somehow not run into exactly the same supply problems Russia faces? And all this without racking up so massive a debt that it will never get it's sovereignty back? And at no point provoking Russia into using nuclear weapons? And all this somehow without Russia realising that capability (otherwise Russia would have good reason to negotiate now)? — Isaac

I think it is quite possible that Russia will not give up all the territories it has gained and Ukraine will not be able to get them back. As I said, the main point is depleting Russia's potential to the point when it is no longer capable of threatening Ukraine.

And why would Putin use nuclear weapons? Free Ukraine might be a mortal threat in the future, using nukes would end his regime definitely and rather quickly.

What reasons? Do you think all armistices only came on the back of serious of amazingly successful previous agreements? Minsk agreements were crap, so we do better. It's not a difficult concept to get your head around. There's loads of expert opinion online about why the Mins agreements failed, if you're interested. As there is on why negotiations might succeed. It's really daft to try and learn this stuff from me. Look it up, you have the internet. — Isaac

Well, obviously the concept is difficult enough to get your head around that so far you have given no indication HOW are we supposed to 'do better'. And you are making the claim, so I am asking you to support it. 'Read the Internet' is a rather poor way of discussing things. Again, if you are not interested in the discussion, why maintain it?

Russia's balance of trade
US balance of trade

Russia trade to GDP ratio for 2021 - 52.17%
US trade to GDP ratio - 23.12%

Russia exports (rising)
US exports (falling)

Lol. Month to month, yes. Click year to year, or compare 2021 with the first half of 2023.

Russia current account
US current account

Again, the U.S. does not depend as heavily on trade

The Ruble
The Dollar — Isaac

Yes, dollar has somewhat weakened, while ruble weakened much more compared to the dollar. That is, ruble has weakened even more than shown on the chart.

...and the equivalent rate for the US/Europe would be...? Of course, you don't have one because the aim is simply to give an alarming rate fo Russia and leave it there. — Isaac

There are several PPP indices for Europe and US (e.g. OECD), they use somewhat different methodology, so the results are scattered. OECD does not do Russia, however, as it stopped revealing its data. Maybe it was doing so well that it did not want to embarass other countries.

"Just give them your handbag, it's not worth your life" well it depends on what is in the handbag.
Besides, as Holy Guru Mearsheimer spoke, in the international arena anarchy reigns: “It simply means that there is no centralized authority, no night watchman or ultimate arbiter, that stands above states and protects them.” So states have to protect themselves against bullies.

Russia meddling in Africa for Macron's joy:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/regional-global-powers-decry-nigers-coup-countrys-future-101846403

Ukraine's sovereignty is like the handbag. It's not worth fighting for — Isaac

Ukrainian's freedom... that might be worth sacrificing a generation for, that's not just a handbag. But fighting for freedom is not a matter of changing borders, it's a matter of changing systems, and even then not just exchanging one form of exploitation for another. — Isaac

I share your gut-level disbelief in borders -- though I'm sure your disbelief is better grounded -- but I suspect this skepticism is a luxury. The sovereignty of my nation is not in question. For some, achieving sovereignty is the necessary first step to securing freedom.

Here's one thing about your position that puzzles me: you argue that war is the worst option because of the loss of life and destruction it entails, and military defeat plus political resistance is a better option. Let's grant that. Why do you also think there's little to choose between being under Putin's boot and the IMF? Surely there's more room to maneuver against an enemy that puts you in debt than one that assassinates or imprisons you.

Louisiana wasn't bombed into submission. Corporate assassination is exceptionally rare. (Karen Silkwood?) There may have been actual corruption among regulators and inspectors, I don't know, but often even that is unnecessary. It would have been difficult to organize against the petrochemical industry or to hold government's feet to the fire, perhaps as difficult as organizing against Putin, but no one would be risking their life or their freedom by speaking at a meeting or going to a rally. With the right resources and effective oversight from the federal level, Louisiana might have gotten the jobs without the cancer and environmental destruction. The key would be for other communities to make the same demands, else the jobs will just go there instead. (Although geography is leverage and ports matter; this whole war is about ports.)

No, there is passive resistance and underground resistance, and argument and demonstrative protest, and a thousand variations thereof, from labour strike to hunger strike and from assassination attempt to the whole repertoire of terrorism. — unenlightened

Something unites all those things that sets them apart from war;

1) they kill fewer people.
2) they make less profit.
3) the mainstream left have decided that (1) and (2) are suddenly irrelevant compared to war uniquely in the case of Ukraine.

'Cos it's always the previous war that was wrong, never the current one.

When they were communist states, they were more like Russia, so when they stopped, their HFI would increase (if it was assessed then). — Jabberwock

Yes. That's just saying the same thing I said. Communism isn't good for the HFI score. How does that relate to a comparison of modern Russia (not communist) and modern Ukraine (not a Baltic State). And why are we speculating on these unavailable data sources when we have available ones with which to make the comparison?

I think it is quite possible that Russia will not give up all the territories it has gained and Ukraine will not be able to get them back. As I said, the main point is depleting Russia's potential to the point when it is no longer capable of threatening Ukraine. — Jabberwock

So it's 'leave them there' in both scenarios then. All that talk of sovereignty and freedom was a waste, you're expecting ten more years of occupation anyway.

So the debate is around how best to neutralise the Russian threat. Political instability and isolation, negotiations, agreements... Or use up all their bombs by cunningly giving them Ukrainian hospitals to fire at until they run out...

And why would Putin use nuclear weapons? Free Ukraine might be a mortal threat in the future, using nukes would end his regime definitely and rather quickly. — Jabberwock

Again, I can't think why you'd be asking me. If you think the people concerned about the risk of nuclear escalation are wrong then I suggest you take it up with them. If you don't, then why on earth are you asking me as if there wasn't a good set of reasons?

This notion that a bunch of laymen can somehow 'thrash out' the data and come up with answers that have defied the people whose job it is to do exactly that is absolutely dumbfounding.

I am asking you to support it — Jabberwock

You're not asking me to support it, if you wanted support you would have read the relevant expert opinion already.

You're using mock astonishment as a rhetorical device to imply that there isn't any support, despite knowing full well there is. I'm not playing that game.

trade to GDP ratio — Jabberwock

year to year, or compare 2021 — Jabberwock

depend as heavily on trade — Jabberwock

several PPP indices — Jabberwock

...are certainly all other measures of economic stability. Now...where did I put that article about cherry-picking...

This is why removing "bad people," and putting "good people," in doesn't fix systemic issues in more complex organizations. The organization's have their own priorities and are adapted to their own survival. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Certainly, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. But that observation will strike American libertarian conservatives as being at odds with this:

The state is so important because it is (one of) the most evolved systems out there, but even moreso because its survival needs line up with those of its citizens in the way a corporations' won't. A state will tend to evolve systems that promote the welfare of its citizens for the same reason that bodies will tend to evolve capacities that meet the needs of their cells (although this doesn't stop things like cancer from existing in particular instances). — Count Timothy von Icarus

They see the state as an institution bent on preserving and increasing its own power.

The state does have power, and corporations are mindful of this fact, hence their continual efforts to capture the state. This is @Isaac's "it's just a tool" view.

But I would say the state is one sector of the entire political system, and fights over the use of state power don't end once the votes in elections are counted, but continue within government. So I see government as, in part, a battlefield, where interests vie with one another, and even though money wields tremendous influence in these contests, it is not the source of the power in play and cannot completely control the process. Even Amazon gets sued. Even Microsoft gets regulated. There is always a chance of government rising to the occasion, if pushed hard enough the right way.

I suspect this skepticism is a luxury. The sovereignty of my nation is not in question. For some, achieving sovereignty is the necessary first step to securing freedom. — Srap Tasmaner

Absolutely. Faith in a solution and realism about one are two different matters. In some respects I think that makes the West's response here even worse. We can realistically expect Ukrainians to feel the need to establish sovereignty, if they have none. It's because we have the luxury of scepticism that we ought to be providing cooler-headed council.

Why do you also think there's little to choose between being under Putin's boot and the IMF? Surely there's more room to maneuver against an enemy that puts you in debt than one that assassinates or imprisons you. — Srap Tasmaner

Mainly because of the data I have available for comparison. I'm using OHCHR data and Amnesty International reports relating to Donbas and Crimea; and the HFI from Cato Institute. They don't seem to show an awful lot of difference between Ukrainian governance and Russian occupation. There is a difference, no doubt about it, but it's not Norway vs Sudan, it's more Nigeria vs Ethiopia. So the first issue is the scale of the improvement to people's lives if Ukraine wins back sovereignty, I just don't think it'll be that substantial, not enough to justify the cost.

Secondly, I'm looking at countries like Greece which have suffered greatly under the ECB rules, and places like Latvia which have suffered from pecuniary IMF and global reconstruction efforts. Ukraine will be in this position already, even deeper the more it commits to a war it can't afford.

You're right that none of this economic pressure amounts to direct threats to life, but life expectancy reduction due to poverty kills more people than any authoritarian regime could ever muster. It might be hard to fight the police. It's even harder to fight heart disease.

The ongoing grain thing ...

Russia has not offered UN World Food Programme free grain
^{— Michelle Nichols, Doina Chiacu, Leslie Adler · Reuters · Jul 28, 2023}
Russian missile attacks leave few options for Ukrainian farmers looking to export grain
^{— Hanna Arhirova, Volodymyr Yurchuk, Courtney Bonnell · AP · Jul 30, 2023}

(FYI, Agroprosperis' homepage is in Ukrainian; there's a bit of information on wikipedia and elsewhere)

As if on cue, the Kremlin unveiled naval expansion St Petersburg.

Regress. :/ The Kremlin is increasingly hard to excuse here.

Donbas and Crimea — Isaac

Crimea — Isaac

Crimea — Isaac

We have lots more to go by (Putin's Russia itself, Chechnya, Georgia, trajectories and moves, regress and improvement), but I guess this stuff has already come up a few times in the thread. The Ukrainians (and the UN) said "No". The Kremlin might well have worsened life for Russians (at large), except, perhaps, for the Putinistas.


Kim Jong Un delivers an ultimatum to South Korea (including via whatever representatives): we'll be taking over the Gyeonggi and Gangwon provinces and everything north thereof, as per the map you received. In case of any non-compliance, we start nuking. Non-negotiable.

^{(The exact areas somewhat arbitrarily chosen. Surely an example of insanity at the helm, however unrealistic the scenario may be. There are some 50 million people in South Korea, a fifth of them in Seoul.)}

What to do?

1. Quick, pre-emptive strike.
2. Everyone on full readiness, anti-air systems, everything, pronto.
3. Broadcast surrender. Border guards (and others) stand down.
4. Don't do anything. Perhaps hope it's an organized hoax.

The military security situation in the area of the Korean peninsula, which has undergone a fundamental change due to the reckless military moves of the U.S. and its followers, more clearly indicates what mission the nuclear weapons of [North Korea] should carry out. I remind the U.S. military of the fact that the ever-increasing visibility of the deployment of the strategic nuclear submarine and other strategic assets may fall under the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons specified in the [North Korean] law on the nuclear force policy. — Kang Sun Nam (via The Hill · Jul 20, 2023)

I'll go with 2. Maybe I should have made it into a poll. Nah.

You're right that none of this economic pressure amounts to direct threats to life, but life expectancy reduction due to poverty kills more people than any authoritarian regime could ever muster. — Isaac

Okay, that is roughly where I thought you were.

People think driving is safer than flying, simply because they give too much weight to their perception of control, or at least to the chance of having control. (I can at least try to avoid a collision, but if my plane is going down I just sit there doing nothing until I die.)

Maybe there's a similar mistake here: under an authoritarian regime, you have no freedom, no opportunity to control your fate; if you're poor but free, at least there's a chance you can do something. People do across the board refuse to believe that great, impersonal, historical forces affect them, so they reject the idea that poverty would be as deadly for them as a bullet.

Maybe there's a similar mistake here: under an authoritarian regime, you have no freedom, no opportunity to control your fate; if you're poor but free, at least there's a chance you can do something. People do across the board refuse to believe that great, impersonal, historical forces affect them, so they reject the idea that poverty would be as deadly for them as a bullet. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, I think that's it. That plus...narratives. We understand the story of being oppressed directly because we can relate (we think we can), we've all been told to do stuff we don't want to do, we've all been to school.

For myself, and most people I've spoken to who've been to the poorest nations (which isn't many) we just don't know how to come to terms with the absolute poverty there. I don't know if you've ever been to some of the poorest countries, but it's just truly shocking in a way that we don't seem to have stories for. The Ukrainians fighting the bad guys to win back their freedom is just so much easier to come to terms with (even for the Ukrainians I suspect) than the 7 million people that die every year because we don't have stringent enough air pollution laws.

Something unites all those things that sets them apart from war;

1) they kill fewer people.
2) they make less profit.
3) the mainstream left have decided that (1) and (2) are suddenly irrelevant compared to war uniquely in the case of Ukraine. — Isaac

Anti-natalism fulfils the first two better than any other policy.

But I think perhaps one might better distinguish first violent from non-violent, and individual from national responses.

We understand the story of being oppressed directly because we can relate (we think we can), we've all been told to do stuff we don't want to do, we've all been to school. — Isaac

That's quite good. I think my point was actually a little garbled, but another way to say it might be that we have a prejudice in favor of situations where we perceive ourselves as free to act, or, better, that we filter out predictions that we interpret as curtailing our freedom to act. Such situations are just unacceptable.

--- I'm struggling with getting this right because you could imagine this realizing as a preference for political oppression over poverty -- at least you can fight the bastards but how do you fight being hungry. So it is a matter of narrative, that if the story begins "Suppose you have no freedom," that one's automatically binned. (The most appalling gulf war anthem, "Proud to be an American" or whatever it's called features the peculiar line "Where at least I know I'm free." At least? Seems like a lot of injustice is being allowed in by that little "at least".)

Maybe you're right that we prefer the one we think we understand to the one we're clueless about.

But I still think there's some prejudice for perceived agency, and maybe it's just that people think "poverty doesn't take my freedom" because they don't understand it.

If you want to convince someone that flying is safer than driving, one of the things you will have to say is, "Yes, you will take action, but your actions will not save you, your actions may in fact be what kills you." That's a tough sell. Action is our whole thing.

This was the problem with COVID lockdown orders, telling people that the best thing they could do was do nothing, don't go to work, don't go to school, don't shop, don't go to the movies. --- I don't want to relitigate the wisdom or necessity of lockdowns, but the deep resistance some people felt, the revulsion for having their freedom curtailed, was accompanied by this message that they had much less agency than they wanted to believe, that if they went about their regular lives they would get sick and make others sick and it would just happen, not up to you, not a matter of choice.

Yes. That's just saying the same thing I said. Communism isn't good for the HFI score. How does that relate to a comparison of modern Russia (not communist) and modern Ukraine (not a Baltic State). And why are we speculating on these unavailable data sources when we have available ones with which to make the comparison? — Isaac

Because we know current score for Russia, Ukraine and, say, Belarus, and we know current scores for countries which are no longer in Russian sphere of influence. The difference in HFI is rather significant, which might motivate Ukrainians to leave it.

So it's 'leave them there' in both scenarios then. All that talk of sovereignty and freedom was a waste, you're expecting ten more years of occupation anyway. — Isaac

The difference is that at least some of the area might be deoccupied (and some already were), while your 'leaving them' would likely end in occupation of the whole Ukraine (and we have no idea when it might end).

So the debate is around how best to neutralise the Russian threat. Political instability and isolation, negotiations, agreements... Or use up all their bombs by cunningly giving them Ukrainian hospitals to fire at until they run out... — Isaac

The issue is that non-violent means, negotiations and agreement were already tried and they did not work.

Again, I can't think why you'd be asking me. If you think the people concerned about the risk of nuclear escalation are wrong then I suggest you take it up with them. If you don't, then why on earth are you asking me as if there wasn't a good set of reasons?

This notion that a bunch of laymen can somehow 'thrash out' the data and come up with answers that have defied the people whose job it is to do exactly that is absolutely dumbfounding. — Isaac

I am asking you, because it is you who mentioned that possibility. And, for the third time, if you do not want to discuss the topic, then I am not sure why you do.

You're not asking me to support it, if you wanted support you would have read the relevant expert opinion already.

You're using mock astonishment as a rhetorical device to imply that there isn't any support, despite knowing full well there is. I'm not playing that game. — Isaac

Yes, I am asking you support your claims, which is quite reasonable to do. What is astonishing is that you do have that special expert opinion and you refuse to share it. And 'look it up yourself' is exactly the game, as old as the Internet itself.

...are certainly all other measures of economic stability. Now...where did I put that article about cherry-picking... — Isaac

So you believe trade deficit is equally hurtful for major exporters and minor exporters? You believe month to month is a better indicator of export rise than year to year or 5Y to 5Y? Or are you just embarrased you read the exchange rate chart backwards?