"perception-based index"...interesting. Whereas Freedom House is more of an analytical index in that experts are commissioned to provide the rankings. That in my view goes a long way towards explaining the sudden decrease in the US ranking.

Following Joe's link to the [url=http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=1350]original source at World Politics Review[/url], I read:

'RSF provides a brief note on "How the index was compiled" -- pompously titled a "methodological note" in the French version. The note is barely 400 words long...The only relevant piece of information one learns from RSF's "methodological note," is that RSF's rankings are supposed to be based on the responses to a questionnaire sent out by RSF "to its network of 130 correspondents around the world, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists." Just how these responses are supposed to have been converted into the numerical "score" that determines the rank of each country in the index, we are not told. We are merely told reassuringly that the RSF has "devised a scale" for this purpose. The questionnaire is made available on the RSF Web site. The responses are not, nor are the names of the persons whose opinions are supposed to have been surveyed.'

Compare this to [url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=333&year=2007]Freedom House's detailed methodology[/url]. They use academically rigorous, but not strictly speaking scientific, surveys.

We could learn a lot from comparing an expert opinion study to a scientific survey of perceptions of a representative sample of journalists. But, if the post at World Politics Review is correct, the RSF survey [i]doesn't even qualify as a scientific survey[/i]!

Granted, an informal survey of what the RSF membership thinks, is useful. But if Freedom House's findings must be taken with "a pinch of salt", RSF's findings require a heaping handful.

Aside: The World Politics Review articles raise important questions about the amount of direct and indirect subsidy RSF gets, but I think the writer John Rosenthal goes too far in his conclusions about the subsidy question. Also, even if RSF turns out to be mostly subsidized, it could still be a useful organization, as is Freedom House.

re Canada's Human Rights Commissions - they are provincial commissions, not federal, so you have to search on "Alberta Human Rights Commission", "Ontario Human Rights Commission", etc. Yep, the Reason article is the thing I'm talking about...is RSF membership even aware of this?

"If a stifling effect of litigation-as-such is taken as a barrier to press freedom, the US also has a few things to answer for."

Yes, our lawyers are abusive! But, in this area there have been no dramatic changes in overall US law or practice in the past three years. Minor changes, yes, but nothing to justify the huge changes in the US rank.

Even the wikileaks case is merely the court recognizing the mutual agreement between a plaintiff and a defendant (the name registrar). This agreement is horrible, but it has already failed utterly and I don't think it is a major threat to press or other freedom.

There is a lot of territory between Russia and Kosovo that these Russian divisions would have to cross. They would almost certainly use the Black Sea to avoid Ukraine, but I don't see how they could avoid either Romania or Bulgaria, both of which are NATO countries. Forcing the Bosporus seems out of the question.

Any path would cause a great deal of diplomatic outrage, and may in fact see the EU/NATO resolve strengthened substantially from the nearly non-existent state it is now. Then Zyme's points become more relevant.

Furthermore, Russian resupply would be extraordinarily difficult. They would find these supply lines harassed at almost every step by local mafias, paramilitaries...and by US or NATO air operations. Their ADA coverage would have to cover not just the Kosovo area, but also their supply lines; this is a huge area. Russian ground troops have been tested in battle plenty since the fall of the USSR, but their air defense abilities (ground and navel) have not.

Russia dominates the Black Sea currently but with Turkish support we could turn it into a NATO lake or at least no-go territory for Russia.

Zyme: Your point that Russian has more to loose from a trade embargo that does the EU, is true. However, Russian gas and oil would be sorely missed in Europe.

You write regarding Russia, "How many countries on this planet would be willing to risk almost half of their foreign trade relations for a mere matter of prestige abroad?" It seems this is what they did, more or less, in Afghanistan. It would be stupid of them, but it could happen.

Individual European nations have historically been willing to make sacrifices, but the EU is new and untested. So I have to ask: would the EU be willing to risk even 6-10% of its trade, plus endure a very cold winter, for the mere matter of Kosovo?

The EU probably has the ability to deter Russia without fighting, but does it have the will?

Overall I agree with Zyme that a Russian invasion of Kosovo is highly unlikely, and would fail if it were tried. However, the fear of a NATO response is probably more of a factor than the fear of an EU embargo.