Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Serb]

UA?
RA?

[Serb]

Whiskey?

[Serb]

Tango?

[Serb]

Foxtrot?

[Serb]

WTF are you lying about, cat?

[BlackCat]

Ukrainian Army, Russian Army - I thought that you were reasonably intelligent, but that apparently isn't the case

[Geronimo]

I may have believed everything Douglas MacGregor had to say 14 months ago. He has lost a lot of credibility since then.

[Geronimo]

UA?
RA?

ukrainian armed forces and russian armed forces IIRC

[Geronimo]

I've already gave you the book and the author.

Ok, if you want a summury:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man#:~:text=Confess ions%20of%20an%20Economic%20Hit%20Man%20is%20a%20s emi%2Dautobiographical,Perkins%2C%20first%20publis hed%20in%202004.&text=The%20book%20provides%20Perk ins'%20account,Main%20in%20Boston.

The book doesn't describe full mechanism of robbering of post-Soviet countries and other "undeveloped" countries, but provide with basics.


You have robbed my country and killed millions in 90's!
You did it without any war, because we were stupid enough to trust you.
That will never happen again!
So, if you want to repeat 1991 to rob and finnish us off completely - you better dig your bunkers low!
We will incinerate you, America, but won't let it happen again!

Extending tons of loans to Russia was "robbing" it? Even if we believe its sole source, John Perkin, as credible, the book does not describe robbery and if you characterize it as such then China's 21st century thefts are considerably larger than those of the US and yet you don't seem to fear Russia will fall victim to them.

No foreigners "robbed" Russia in 1991 and your book says nothing to contradict that.

What are your thoughts on this Wapo article Serb?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/09/20/the-looting-of-russia/ffad1ff5-6592-4106-99b8-5398c3466916/

The Looting of Russia
David Ignatius was right on the money in "Who Robbed Russia?" [op-ed, Aug. 25]. The answer: the Russian oligarchs, mostly former Communist nomenklatura members. But who set them up? The U.S. government.

Mr. Ignatius cites recent "Russiagate" articles. John Lloyd wrote last month in the New York Times Magazine that President Boris Yeltsin, whom "we in the West supported, became worse than the Communists we helped him to overthrow." Robert Kaiser quotes former U.S. diplomats in Moscow to the effect that high U.S. officials, led by Vice President Albert Gore, ignored information on the corruption of Russian bureaucrats, as long as the Russians swore by "reforms" ["Pumping Up the Problem," op-ed, Aug. 15].

The United States promoted "privatization" in the name of market reforms. In reality, Russia's resources went to criminal money launderers. Wittingly or not, the U.S. government became their accomplice. By wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars, the United States defeated the purpose of its assistance to Russia. Mr. Ignatius is right that "the Clinton administration squandered one of the most precious assets -- the goodwill of the Russian people."

Oh, were it only Russia! A recent United Nations report says that post- communist reforms have been calamitous for a vast swath of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, leading to widespread poverty, alarming drops in life expectancy, widening inequalities between the sexes, falling investment in education, the collapse of public health, and the spread of disease, crime and violence.

For the United States, in the midst of its economic boom, to emerge as the chief sponsor of misery in the world is not only obscene; it defeats our national purpose.

W. GEORGE KRASNOW

President

Russian American Goodwill Association

Washington

Too bad Joe McCarthy isn't around to enjoy the new political game of gotcha called "who lost Russia?" David Ignatius even raises the stakes a bit by asking, "Who robbed Russia?" And the reader gets help in guessing the answer with the subhead: "Did Al Gore know about the massive lootings?" Better search the vice president's shoes to see if he is smuggling diamonds.

No surprise that according to a front-page article ["Gore Faces Ticklish Issue on Russian Corruption," Aug. 27], Steve Forbes and George W. Bush have taken up the cry. As the candidates with the least amount of foreign affairs experience, they wouldn't miss a chance to turn the vice president's record of public service into a liability.

Clearly, Russia is in a mess, but does it automatically follow that the United States is to blame? Of course not. Russia lost itself, and it will have to find itself. Western efforts can influence the course of events only marginally, and not all that we have done in Russia was unhelpful. But what fun to pin the blame on Vice President Gore, who dared to try to make one of the world's most dangerous problems a little less so.

PETER A. POOLE

Oakton​

Russia was robbed by Russians Serb. Find out where they live and incinerate those places if 1991 bothers you so much.

[Berzerker]

OH... you mean like the MAGA crowd tried but failed on Jan 6th?

That was a protest turned riot with a couple hundred govt assets in attendance. If it was a coup they would have brought guns and used them, not roam the halls of the capital taking selfies. If MAGA snipers killed over a hundred people to frame Biden and he fled for his life, that would be a coup.

[Berzerker]

It absolutely is not equivalent to "force". Violence is not equivalent to "force".

Force requires coercion. If someone secretly poisons a water supply and then swoops in as a hero simultaneously detecting the poison and framing an innocent person for the crime such that they get elected mayor by the grateful public, that would definitely be violence, even if nobody died and would be even worse violence if 100 people died. The entire incident would not constitute exercise of " force" however.

The "hero" would not have become mayor through force. The mayor would be an unidentified violent criminal and a fraudster winning an election through lies enabled by their criminal violence. The election itself would be legitimate although an impeachment would be justified.

Furthermore the only reason I keep drawing attention to the "both sides" nature of the violence is because that totally undermines any coercive value the violence would have.

the 2014 Ukrainian government did not gain power through a coup regardless of what you believe about the 100 people killed by snipers.

Even if they had however, it would neither bestow a right to secede on Donbas, nor a right for Russia to intervene in any way.

"a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group" - Merriam Webster

The definition equates force with violence... I dont know why you insist on analogies, opponents of the elected leader framed him for a massacre they committed to remove him from power and it worked. Ty Victoria. If we didn't plan it we sure knew who did and we started arming them to kill protesters and have been ever since. Ofc the 2014 Ukrainian govt gained power through the coup, murder inc framed the guy in charge. People have the right to secede, this country was founded on it. One of them 'natural rights'.

[Serb]

Ukrainian Army, Russian Army - I thought that you were reasonably intelligent, but that apparently isn't the case

I see now.
So, in your absolutely brilliant Cat's universe, anyone who is saying something different from your Western propaganda narrative is an idiot by definition!

Great!

I see you are an expert in the field! Well done!

[Serb]

No foreigners "robbed" Russia in 1991



Russia was robbed by Russians Serb. Find out where they live and incinerate those places if 1991 bothers you so much.

Don't tell me something about what I have seen with my own eyes in 90's.


You are a fking colonial robbers, always have been, are and always will be!
That is the NATURE of the West, your essence!

[Berzerker]

No...Putin sent the FSB in immediately and set up the Separatists. It was only after Azov that he sent regular Russian military formations in.

no group violently altered the existing government unless the 100 victims were supposedly parliamentarians or their friends family or employees...in which case all signs point to Viktor.

The separatists didn't need to be set up, the people in these regions wanted greater autonomy and the Nazis said fu to them. Why do the victims have to be politicians? If the leader is framed for a massacre and flees for his life that isn't a coup because he wasn't killed? Where did you find that requirement in the definition?

[Serb]

Perhaps he found that in a text of political agreement between Yanukovich and the opposition to stop the violence and do a new presidential election.
The treaty which was GUARANTEED by the state secretaries of Germany, France and Poland!
The treaty, which those "guarantors" used as a toilet paper the next very day they have signed it, when Yanukovich had fulfilled its part removed police from the street and left the capital to Kharkiv for the congress of his political party.