Nice:

The retreat of Russian forces from areas north of Kharkiv is covered by poorly armed recruits drafted in the Luhansk People’s Republic. In a video released on Telegram on Friday, these fighters said that their battalion, which fled to the Russian border north of Kharkiv, now is stranded at the gate, with Russian authorities refusing to let them cross and threatening to imprison them if they don’t turn around and fight

Source

Focusing on what’s important in life, major Russian newspapers today were decrying Ukraine’s victory in the Eurovision Song Contest, complaining bitterly that not only was Russia excluded (for reasons unknown) but the Ukrainian band also engaged in banned political speech on stage, evidently advocating peace. Which does sound kind of bad…

Do you read Russian?

Below is from Putin's days as a rock star. I don't read or speak Russian, so someone will have to translate. Might have some clues to his state of mind?

How many votes does it take to kick Turkey out of NATO?

Or how many Kurds...

Or how many Kurds...

I’m thinking maybe they’d settle for kicking Turkey out of Kurdistan, but that’s another festering conflict I don’t know quite enough about.

Clearly the world is conglomerating into four clusters:

Russia + satellites
China + satellites
Religious nut cases
Pursuers of life, liberty and PB&J sandwiches

Yes, except the home of the PB&J sandwich is rapidly sliding into category three.

I wonder if the divide can be specified as falling along just a few axes.

As a first take

1. Whether it is successful at it or not, is there an expectation that the government should work to benefit the people under its authority? (Most of the world -- including I think even China -- gets a "yes" on this; Russia and some other kleptocracies get a "no”)

2. Is it held that the people themselves are the ones who decide what benefits them? (Democracies -- and the people who support democracy -- get a "yes" on this; theocracies and ideology-centered governments -- and the people who support these -- get a "no")

3. Is the government expected to protect certain inviolable rights of individuals, regardless of popular sentiment?

4. Are property rights held to be of a stature equivalent to that of universal human rights?

Very good. However...

Democracy is not the same as being able to decide what is best for oneself and one's family. The nuances therein is the story of America! Being self sufficient is one of the best things about Americans...although it leads to e.g. the worst healthcare in the world outside lots of Africa and North Korea.

I think that distinction comes under "inviolable rights": America holds that it cannot generally claim people's property for uses that the public supports but that don't really benefit the affected property owners.

Except when the property in question is a uterus, of course.

Another one:

5. Are all people under the authority of government expected to have the same (a) protection of inviolable rights; and (b) the same say in what benefits them?

6. Is the equal sovereignty of other people and their governments recognized?

6. Is the equal sovereignty of other people and their governments recognized?

Every country sticks its nose into other countries' businesses. It's annoying. One thing you can say about North Korea is they don't interfere. If you can ignore the occasional missile.