Prediction Thread: When Will Russia Conquer Ukraine

[BeBMan]

It would purely be directed to the russian audience. The idea being that directly nuking NATO with no 'provocation' would be much too risky to Putin, whereas hand-picking a 'disposable' conventional force to attack along with hand picking filler equipment to pad it out (ie cardboard inserts in armor blocks in tanks that would not have been deployable) would be substantially safer for Putin.

I don't think this would require super genius of any kind. Just paranoia, extreme confidence (possibly totally unjustified) in Russia's strategic forces and in his assessment of NATO's reaction to the strike as well as a psychotic level of indifference to human suffering. I think Ukraine has demonstrated planning of at least that level of sophistication, minus the depravity so the 'genius' doesn't seem so far fetched for Russia. On the contrary I think such a plan would be one of the stupidest gambles in human history.

If this really was anything like Putin's plan I'm sure he's realizing that there is no point in wasting much if any more time delaying pulling the trigger...if he values his health.

For the record I've generally been more likely to dismiss any 'master plan' in favor of the stupidity/incompetence explanation. But that does leave a couple loose ends. Why, for instance if he was planning to do all of the heavy lifting with conventional forces spend so much more money padding out Russia's first strike strategic nuclear forces instead?

Other than a number of "if" points -- is there any evidence for this grand plan, like a 'disposable' conventional force, etc. etc?

It rather looks like lotsa text for something that can safely be summed up as "wild speculations" at this point.

[Geronimo]

Other than a number of "if" points -- is there any evidence for this grand plan, like a 'disposable' conventional force, etc. etc?

It rather looks like lotsa text for something that can safely be summed up as "wild speculations" at this point.

I thought drunken posts and/or wild speculation was the entire point of poly OT?

[PLATO]

I approve of this poast

[BeBMan]

I take that as a "no" in regard to my question about evidence.

[Geronimo]

I take that as a "no" in regard to my question about evidence.

what level of evidence would you expect if something like this was actually occurring? It's not at all clear what mix of crap filler equipment and the good stuff Putin would think appropriate for such an operation. Western leaders have already accused Russia of false flag operations. What kind of evidence supports that?

[BeBMan]

what level of evidence would you expect if something like this was actually occurring? It's not at all clear what mix of crap filler equipment and the good stuff Putin would think appropriate for such an operation. Western leaders have already accused Russia of false flag operations. What kind of evidence supports that?

It's not my job to provide or define evidence for something you want to put forward.

[Geronimo]

It's not my job to provide or define evidence for something you want to put forward.

I "want to put forward" is at least a little misleading. More like I would be grateful to hear contrary evidence to help dismiss the possibility. You seem to laboring under the assumption that I want such a scenario to be corroborated by evidence rather than dismissed by evidence to the contrary.

Again, I don't expect such a plan to produce much if any evidence and for the record the idea of a Russian first strike nightmare scenario has been thoroughly discussed and apparently not dismissed by plenty of credible experts.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...sponse/661315/ - establishes credibility of Russia escalating to a tactical nuclear first strike and the difficulties in a NATO response

https://nuclearnetwork.csis.org/why-...late-strategy/ - CSIS explaining why we shouldn't expect evidence for any "escalate to descalate" strategy on the part of Russia.

For starters...

[BeBMan]

I "want to put forward" is at least a little misleading. More like I would be grateful to hear contrary evidence to help dismiss the possibility. You seem to laboring under the assumption that I want such a scenario to be corroborated by evidence rather than dismissed by evidence to the contrary.

Again, I don't expect such a plan to produce much if any evidence and for the record the idea of a Russian first strike nightmare scenario has been thoroughly discussed and apparently not dismissed by plenty of credible experts.

To sum up, maybe something happens, maybe not.

Why should anyone bother to provide "contrary evidence" for something that is - at this moment - a mere possibility?

[Geronimo]

To sum up, maybe something happens, maybe not.

Why should anyone bother to provide "contrary evidence" for something that is - at this moment - a mere possibility?

why do you bother posting any of your posts?

[BeBMan]

Because I can

[Geronimo]

Because I can

For what it's worth I usually agree with you when make a stand on something. You just seem to focus a lot more on lazy attempts at cheap burns and insults. Of course I'd be foolish indeed to stick around 'Poly if that was a any real annoyance.

[BeBMan]

What do you mean by insults?

If I ignore the more outlandish stuff, like "Putin's plan" (which - provided it actually exists - is only known to him, and maybe certified mind-readers) it comes down to:

Putin has Nukes - Nobody sez otherwise
Putin might use Nukes - Maybe, maybe not

So you look for contrary evidence for a possibility that we know does exist?

[Geronimo]

What do you mean by insults?

If I ignore the more outlandish stuff, like "Putin's plan" (which - provided it actually exists - is only known to him, and maybe certified mind-readers) it comes down to:

Putin has Nukes - Nobody sez otherwise
Putin might use Nukes - Maybe, maybe not

So you look for contrary evidence for a possibility that we know does exist?

You start entire intellectually dishonest threads as insults. Yes I look for such evidence. Evidence is not limited to contrary 'proof' and corroborating 'proof'. Evidence can include a whole spectrum of degrees of corroborating and contrary information of varying credibility. Some data points are more consistent with Putin planning a first strike and some are more contrary. It sounds like you object to me fishing here for any of that? Why, is it because you only enjoy intellectually dishonest roasts?

How often do we discuss anything here that can't boil down to the following?

'X' may happen - Maybe, maybe not.

It's when that statement is not tenable that extensive discussion usually become more pointless.

[BeBMan]

You start entire intellectually dishonest threads as insults.

Only when people deserve it for bull****ting around.

Yes I look for such evidence. Evidence is not limited to contrary 'proof' and corroborating 'proof'. Evidence can include a whole spectrum of degrees of corroborating and contrary information of varying credibility. Some data points are more consistent with Putin planning a first strike and some are more contrary. It sounds like you object to me fishing here for any of that? Why, is it because you only enjoy intellectually dishonest roasts?

How often do we discuss anything here that can't boil down to the following?

'X' may happen - Maybe, maybe not.

It's when that statement is not tenable that extensive discussion usually become more pointless.

The word you're searching for is "likelihood".

[Geronimo]

Only when people deserve it for bull****ting around.



The word you're searching for is "likelihood".

And you're avoiding any discussion of the merits of the "likelihood". You're also apparently objecting to any solicitation of such discussion while spilling plenty of virtual ink to do so. Sounds like "bull****ting" around to me

[BeBMan]

Nobody here is required to have the discussion you want. I'm certainly not, and I'm making clear when I think it's pointless, esp. when it comes wrapped in wild speculations and/or outlandish theories. So far for bull****.