Thanks for the info. I was trying to give a fair hearing to the idea that the Ukraine invasion was provoked or partially provoked by the US. The more I learn, the more absurd that seems.

Do you agree with that? Or do you still think provocation was part of the story here?

Per the ACLU:

" Migrant workers pay the price when the U.S. lags in international standards. For example, under the U.S. guestworker program, foreign guestworkers (or temporary workers) are left at the mercy of employers who can exploit, isolate and abuse them. Guestworkers often arrive to the U.S. deep in debt after paying exorbitant amounts of money to recruiters who promise them job opportunities. With inadequate governmental oversight of labor abuses in the guestworker program, it is only after they arrive in the United States that these workers discover that they have no way to escape an abusive situation because, under the terms of the guestworker program, they are unable to lawfully transfer their visas from one employer to another.

"Another group of very vulnerable migrant workers are domestic and agricultural workers, who are excluded from federal legislation that provides basic protections like the right to a minimum wage, overtime pay, freedom of association, and health and safety guarantees while at work. These exemptions can be traced back to New Deal legislation passed in the 1930s, when the growers' lobby and other moneyed interests pressured Southern senators to exempt the then largely African-American worker populations of farm workers and domestic workers from these basic workplace protections. Because of this racially biased “compromise,” workers in these professions today – who largely include migrants from Central/South America, South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean – continue to be unprotected."

So Latinos in America today are victimized by Jim Crow era loopholes in labor laws.

But after a righteous Civil Rights Movement, why hasn't this problem been addressed by a nation that prides itself on its human rights stance?

Next: why would they put up with these conditions? — frank

In some cases it's old fashioned slavery, but not state condoned, so the enslavers are subject to prosecution.

I say it isn't condoned, but since little effort is made to inspect farms and meat packing facilities to make sure the labor isn't being harmed, it's at least a low priority.

Legislation to protect slave labor from abuse existed in America before the USA was created. As London began asserting its authority in the previously anarchic English Colonies, it laid down the first labor laws in America.

So what's gone wrong that the worst kind of labor practices go unnoticed until someone gets around to prosecuting the transporters?

Likely they will ask to join.

Likely they will be admitted and likely the countries will be in NATO in the end of this year or so.

But of course, surprising things can happen. We live in interesting times. — ssu

And now I don't understand why Ukraine didn't join earlier.

The panic over women is a panic over capitalism in another form — StreetlightX

I agree, except I'd add that the setting for this is the age of high tech warfare, so we aren't shuffling millions of men off to die in a trench somewhere.

Maybe this eased the way for women's rights in the 1920s when capital's domination of labor was worse.

So I would refer to what I said a month ago here. It's also useful to listen to the comment of an Finnish ex-prime minister who tells our position quite well and the what is left of the idea of Finnish "neutrality". After all, Putin is both against the EU and NATO. — ssu

I remember that earlier discussion. For Finland and Sweden, the benefit of joining NATO is deterrence. So will they join now?

And there was that time the Dutch committed genocide against the French. Terrible.

The Russian economy could pivot to become better integrated with the Chinese economy. It would be less profitable and also place Russia in a situation of dependency to China, something they would resent, but what choice do they have now? Withdraw from Ukraine and ask for forgiveness? — Olivier5

If Putin pulled out of Ukraine now, how long would it take to normalise relations with Europe?

To facilitate a reduction of the number of countries with nuclear weapons, the US made security promises to Ukraine in exchange for them delivering the weapons to Moscow, something Moscow agreed to.

With that in mind, how does everything said about reckless escalation not apply to Russia attacking a country that the US has openly promised to protect in coordination with Russia? — Count Timothy von Icarus

So the US and Russia haven't been fighting over Ukraine for decades.

It could take a few years, yes. But I could be wrong; Mr Putin could still surprise us. — Olivier5

Supported with oil dollars and conscription? Will that just hollow out the Russian economy? More than it already was?

think the war will go on untill a new Russian president is ushered in, who is psychologically and politically capable of making peace. There might be ceasefires now and then though, or long periods of low intensity conflict. — Olivier5

Wow. That might take a while.

How long is this war going to continue in your view?

Yep.

Why don't you tell me what you think is true and argue why the above is false instead of handwaving at it? — Benkei

I just meant your belief that NATO was threatening Russia isn't based on what's most probable. It's something about Mexico.

I just don't think you're focusing on what's probably true.

Right. There are two things I'd like to get you to see about the USA-Mexico comparison to Russia-Ukraine.

1. In the USA-Mexico scenario where Mexico wants to ally itself with China, the aggression actually started with the USA, not China. MEXICO WANTS A STRONG ALLY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ABUSED.

So the USA can't really complain that it feels threatened by China. It's rather that its regional authority is threatened.

So this translates to:

Ukraine wants to join NATO because Russia is a real threat. If NATO is interested in this alliance, this does not mean NATO is threatening Russia.

I'll go on to number 2 (if that's OK) if you agree with 1.

I find the argument that the NATO is purely a defensive alliance rather naïve. As if the US would accept a defensive pact between Mexico and China where China places ballistic missiles in Mexico. — Benkei

In this scenario, why is Mexico interested in a defensive pact with China?

But they'd been proposing to be less corrupt. The idea is dangerous to Putin. That made Ukraine the best candidate for empire building.

Unfortunately, Putin didn’t have the expertise necessary to take Kiev, so his plans went astray.

Putin knew NATO had no intention of threatening Russia militarily. He wasn't worried about that. He felt it was time to raise Russia's global profile.

All accounts I read were reporting that corruption reform wasn't going anywhere — Benkei

In Russia? That's expected.

Wouldn't that do it?
— frank

Haven't they done that already? — Olivier5

Yes. I think the anti-corruption-democratic activities that went on in Ukraine were seen as a threat to Putin directly. He needed to squash that and the ties Ukraine had that reinforced that mentality.

He's not going to let Ukraine join the EU.

Military integration resulting in all sorts of military bases surrounding Moscow is in my view the main worry of the Russians, — Benkei

Ok.

↪frank I seem to recall, but can't find it right now, that Russia explicitly stated economic integration with the EU wasn't the issue — Benkei

That doesn't really make a lot of sense though. Economic ties usually go hand in hand with political ties.

Now I'm confused. Weren't you arguing that the West is responsible for the attack because of overtures toward Ukraine?

How could they stop it, if the EU is willing? Nuke Brussels? — Olivier5

They could invade Ukraine and blow a bunch of stuff up, kill a bunch of people, try to take the Donbas region, get bogged down, kill more people, blow more stuff up.

Wouldn't that do it?

Economics has never been the issue as far as I know. The question is the level of corruption and to what extent that's a barrier to integrate with the EU economic system. — Benkei

Russia would allow Ukraine to integrate into the EU?

Remember, people are often blind to their own bigotry, clothed in self righteousness as they are.

I'm not saying you're a bigot, but I know what Tclark was talking about. The psyche gravitates toward the acceptable vent for hatred and frustration and disappointment. It takes what it can get.

And the OP stinks of it. It's disgusting.

Assuming that everyone in the world is on a spectrum from the most cruel diabolical and evil human being to the most divinely graceful and saintly human and everything in between (by the assumption that some people are better -more moral/ kind/ loving than others).... my questi — Benj96

People are never separable from the environments they inhabit. The ruthless wacko who bathes himself in blood might have been a fairly normal person in a different time and place.

We each have the potential for monstrousness or saintliness. I think the person who ends up being a Saint in the worst of circumstances has some special insight. For instance, consider what Othello would have needed to understand to avoid becoming a murderer.

Could Ukraine reestablish economic ties with Europe after the war? Or would that be a provocation?

:rofl: Well I thought you could research a topic. I might have been wrong.

You can start with learning what's meant by "superpower."

I'm not continuing this conversation.

Will do. If you could cite me a good contemporary political science source arguing that Russia is no longer a military super power, I'll get stuck in. — Isaac

I think you're capable of doing a little research.

..or we could go with the opinion of some random dude off an obscure social media forum... — Isaac

Russia isn't a superpower, Issac. Read some contemporary political science and get yourself up to speed.

It sounds a lot more like evidence which conforms to the zeitgeist is given more weight, no? — Isaac

Ok.

frank

Cool. That's why I was asking about the other sources for this claim. Do you have them? — Isaac

I don't think there are any yet. They're looking since the Russians already threatened to use chem weapons and they have a history of using them.

Confirmation from multiple sources is usually given weight.

Banno seems to want to limit "philosophy" to "what interests Banno", and that's a very selfish attitude, especially since Banno's interests are very shallow. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

There are good philosophical and social reasons to remove certain threads. — Banno

You could just notify a mod if you have a concern. You post this in order to be a pompous ass. What's worse is you're crap at philosophy as well.

The way things are going and how the US and Europe are preparing for the next round of bipolar struggle everything might be moot. But Kudos for looking even further, I don't plan beyond my kids' expected death, somewhere around 2100. — Benkei

I've been interested in futurology for a while. In a way it's related to trying to understand history. :nerd:

How many is a few? At a minimum 20 years then. Much too late. Climate action needs to happen today and considering the rich west is not willing to give up its way of life, they will continue to squabble about how to account for carbondioxide and make sure there are enough loopholes that on paper they reach their target but in reality don't do anything. — Benkei

I agree it's too late to aim for zero anthropogenic global warming. I mentioned before that a significant chunk of accessible hydrocarbons have yet to be burned, and per David Archer, a long range climate modeler, it's what we do with those reserves that decides how bad it will be over the course of the next 10,000 years.

My focus is more on how that will play out. The course of the next few centuries is already set.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

It ain't going to happen. Not soon enough , if ever, and it doesn't address the huge environmental problems at all. I'm unsurprised, but disappointed that the same nonsense is being spouted here as we have been hearing for 40 years or so.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-not-the-main-driver-of-madagascar-food-crisis-scientists-find But it is an additional, back-seat driver. Deforestation, overfishing, soil depletion, uncontrolled mining and logging, are all also driving in the same direction, and as people get more desperate, the over-exploitation of whatever resources remain gets worse. — unenlightened

That's an odd attitude. The Chinese are getting there. .

The rest of the world will catch up. Have a little faith, Peter.

We already have millions of climate refugees, and we are already set to lose a great many low-lying cities and a large portion of our arable land. This much is already unavoidable, and dreams of cheap energy are what brought us to this point. — unenlightened

If we could limit the change to that, it would be a win for humanity. The high projection for change is about 8 degrees.

One way to avoid that would be fusion.