Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Ming]

I dont think 'America' knows what happened but I do blame Biden... and Trump and Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan and Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, all war criminals.

Nice of you to blame everybody BUT the person who actually ordered the attack on another nation. And your "hero" Putin is one of the worst war criminals of all.
He's not helping/saving anybody. His troops are killing them and raping them, destroying their towns and lives. But feel free to blame EVERYBODY else. I guess you saw that in an online video.

[Dauphin]

Actually, that's probably more sane that what many of us do.

[Dauphin]

"Yanukovych fled the country on February 22, 2014 after losing the support of his own party and security forces."

I think he fled the evening of the 21st the day after he was framed for the massacre. That was the coup. You keep arguing it wasn't a coup because parliament - in the immediate aftermath of a massacre by the Ukrainian right wing to frame the leader - removed him because he fled the country. Nazis are slaughtering people, we'll call it democracy. Bing AI now? Who programs that? Might as well just stick with wikipedia.

Oh dear, Berz is now selectively arguing with a chatbot.

[pchang]

Does anybody remember how shrill and desperate Kid used to sound when he kept claiming Trump actually won the election? Berz is starting to sound pretty similar.

[Geronimo]

hey Bing, would slaughtering protesters to drive a leader from office qualify as a coup?
I .

Ok here's what I get...

Hello, this is Bing. I can help you with your question. According to the dictionary results, a coup is a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government¹²³. Therefore, slaughtering protesters to drive a leader from office may qualify as a coup, depending on the context and the outcome of the action. For example, if the protesters are supporting a legitimate and democratic government, and the slaughter is carried out by a group of people who want to overthrow or replace that government by force, then that would be a coup. However, if the protesters are opposing an illegitimate and authoritarian government, and the slaughter is carried out by the government itself or its allies to suppress or intimidate the opposition, then that would not be a coup. Instead, that would be a violation of human rights and a crime against humanity.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 9/11/2023
(1) . https://bing.com/search?q=definition+of+coup.
(2) Coup Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup.
(3) COUP | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...y/english/coup.
(4) Coup definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...y/english/coup.
(5) Coup - definition of coup by The Free Dictionary. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/coup.
(6) undefined. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/.

[Berzerker]

hey Bing, would slaughtering protesters to drive a leader from office qualify as a coup?

[Berzerker]

"Yanukovych fled the country on February 22, 2014 after losing the support of his own party and security forces."

I think he fled the evening of the 21st the day after he was framed for the massacre. That was the coup. You keep arguing it wasn't a coup because parliament - in the immediate aftermath of a massacre by the Ukrainian right wing to frame the leader - removed him because he fled the country. Nazis are slaughtering people, we'll call it democracy. Bing AI now? Who programs that? Might as well just stick with wikipedia.

[Berzerker]

I dont think 'America' knows what happened but I do blame Biden... and Trump and Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan and Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, all war criminals.

[PLATO]

AI is getting scary.

Spot on.

[Geronimo]

I bring you the following gem of AI wisdom courtesy of Bing AI in response to asking "In order for these assertions that the change in government post-Maidan was a "coup" to be true, what sort of definition of "coup" would need to be used?

In order to assert that the change in government was a “coup”, they would need to use a very broad and vague definition of “coup” that does not match the common or dictionary meaning of the word. According to the dictionary results from my web search, a coup is “a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government” or “a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group” ¹². However, the change in government in Ukraine in 2014 did not fit this definition for several reasons:

• The change in government was not sudden, but followed months of protests and negotiations between the opposition, the government, and the international mediators. The agreement signed on February 21, 2014 by Yanukovych and the opposition leaders, with the endorsement of the EU and Russia, envisaged constitutional reforms, early presidential elections, and a national unity government ³.
• The change in government was not violent, but peaceful and constitutional. Yanukovych fled the country on February 22, 2014 after losing the support of his own party and security forces. The parliament voted to remove him from office with a constitutional majority of 328 votes out of 450, based on his abandonment of his duties ⁴. The parliament also appointed an interim president and a caretaker government until new elections were held in May and June 2014. These elections were recognized as free and fair by the international community ⁵.
• The change in government was not unlawful, but legitimate and democratic. The parliament acted within its constitutional powers and followed the procedures established by the agreement of February 21, 2014. The interim authorities respected the human rights and freedoms of all citizens, including the Russian-speaking minority. The new authorities also sought dialogue and cooperation with Russia and other countries to resolve the crisis peacefully ⁶.

Therefore, these publications would need to use a definition of “coup” that ignores or distorts these facts and relies on unsubstantiated claims or conspiracy theories. They would also need to disregard the popular will and sovereignty of the Ukrainian people who participated in the protests and voted in the elections. They would also need to overlook the external aggression and interference by Russia that violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity and international law . Such a definition of “coup” would not be credible or accurate.

.

[Geronimo]

No, it means they controlled the buildings... cue the illogical analogy, get ready, here it comes

The buildings didn't shoot anybody Berz. Why does it matter who controls the buildings? Furthermore, this thing you have where you label as "analogy" any refutation of your claims that involve showing examples where your claims demonstrably fail, as if being analogy invalidates the evidence or objection is quite telling. I imagine your cognitive dissonance works much more effectively if you don't have to worry about ever generalizing any of your predictions or conclusions to other contexts to see if they are consistent. It's not a good sign if your predictions and conclusions are untestable because they can never be generalized to any other context (lest this constitute an "analogy").

On this forum you tell us that the protest organizers should be recognized as the same as the "coup organizers" at least in part because the buildings that the snipers used were controlled by the protest organizers. I point out that Oswald was a sniper who used a building controlled by the Texas school book depository and that this control has never been used to suggest an affiliation between Oswald and the people who controlled the security of the Texas Schoolbook depository. This is useful because it immediately falsifies any assertion that evidence of control of security in a building where snipers operate in any way implicates the people who control the security of that building in any of the sniper's activities. I could also assert that "just because the protest organizers control security of a building it doesn't follow that they are implicated in activities of snipers who used the building." and that would certainly be true and valid but I would say that providing evidence that this is the case in the same breath is a stronger statement. Dismissing the refutation as an "analogy" reveals your lack of logic Berz. I also pointed out why selecting buildings not controlled by the sniper handlers would be a good idea from the sniper handlers point of view. you ignored that. I also pointed out that selecting buildings whose security was controlled by the protest organizers would be a good idea from the point of view of the sniper's handlers as it would be expected they would have less chance of having tightened security in response to the unrest of the protests than other building security owners and also because the protest organizers could be reasonably expected to have fewer resources, experience and focus on building security, especially at that time. you ignored that as well.

The hole you've been digging is denying the coup happened, now you're arguing the snipers snuck in without any help from the people in charge of security because Oswald went unnoticed. Your analogies are terrible. He didn't get away, the snipers at Maidan were given an escort. The BBC did a documentary on it, they interviewed one of the snipers and a cameraman had footage of a dozen or so people involved running around setting up for the massacre. Multiple witnesses and studies have shown which buildings were used and confirmed by the sniper they interviewed. The weapons were stashed in a nearby building overnight. Seems kinda important since this is what started the war we're watching today, but Kiev and Washington swept it all under the rug.

Here's a study by a researcher

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356691143_The_Maidan_Massacre_in_Ukraine_Revelatio ns_from_Trials_and_Investigation

You ought to have led with this. Unfortunately for the credibility of your worldview Berz, this paper is not peer reviewed for its publication. It is essentially self published. no more standing than a blog really. Even more unfortunately for your argument, the paper has generated enough attention to be reviewed and has since been found wanting on multiple occasions:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4048494

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2994347

https://www.academia.edu/33689002/The_Maidan_Massacre_in_Ukraine_Revelations_from_Tr ials_and_Government_Investigations

I haven't found anybody who has reviewed and supported the paper or its conclusions. I think the critique's of the video evidence and methodology were especially damning.

[Ming]

The war started because Russia wants their empire back, pure and simple. It might have been an excuse their propaganda arm used, but it wasn't the cause.
Russia continues to kill and rape the people they claim they are trying to protect, while destroying their homes, the infrastructure, and destroying their lives.
But keep trying to blame it all on Biden and America. Russia is the reason this war is going on.

[N35t0r]

They are clearly undercover <s>FBI</s> GRU agents.

[Berzerker]

BBC did the story years ago before the new narrative was given to the media. You see, back then western media didn't shy away from identifying Nazis in Ukraine.
When a news story runs counter to the existing narrative it stands a better chance of being true. For years the partisan media lied about Biden's corruption, so when they finally start telling the truth its because the house of cards is collapsing and its time for Joe to go.

[Berzerker]

"Controlled the buildings" means nothing.

No, it means they controlled the buildings... cue the illogical analogy, get ready, here it comes

The Texas schoolbook depository was not responsible for Oswald right? Why would you assume the buildings abused by the snipers would be buildings that the sniper's handlers (whom it's safe to say would like to remain anonymous) would control the security of? It would seem a lot more prudent to use a third party's building. Preferably a third party suspected of not being focused on security and if the third party was unlikely to be spooked into increasing security in response to the ongoing protests then so much the better.

Tell me about the hole that I maybe dug too deep.

Having explained all that I'm still curious about which buildings the protest organizers controlled that were used by the snipers and what your sources were

The hole you've been digging is denying the coup happened, now you're arguing the snipers snuck in without any help from the people in charge of security because Oswald went unnoticed. Your analogies are terrible. He didn't get away, the snipers at Maidan were given an escort. The BBC did a documentary on it, they interviewed one of the snipers and a cameraman had footage of a dozen or so people involved running around setting up for the massacre. Multiple witnesses and studies have shown which buildings were used and confirmed by the sniper they interviewed. The weapons were stashed in a nearby building overnight. Seems kinda important since this is what started the war we're watching today, but Kiev and Washington swept it all under the rug.

Here's a study by a researcher

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356691143_The_Maidan_Massacre_in_Ukraine_Revelations_from_Trials_and_Investigation