Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Serb]

...

[Serb]

Really? . "I have seen with my own eyes[/U] in 90's."??

How is that even possible? You saw them load up the assets into cargo planes running from the cops?

What did you actually see with your own eyes Serb?

I've seen poverty and a suicide on a mass-scale in 90's in my country, as well as a civil war between Russia and its part Chechnya instigated by YOU, USA).
I've seen how our government was infested by your American and Western "advisors", who had the real power over the economy and everything else (absolutely the same kind of power you have over Ukraine since 2014).
I've seen how your Corporations were withdrawing trillions, not billions, but TRILLIONS of USD from the Russian economy to the American, British , Cyprus banks.​
I've seen it all! With my own eyes!

So, don't fuking tell me, American, you know better then me about Russia!​

[Dinner]

Never mind. Big G covered it. I will disagree that there was ever any "coup" attempt.

[Geronimo]

The actual seditious conspiracy convictions are probably just a coincidence.

I think that was sort of his point. That the FBI didn't claim an organized conspiracy for the whole event but instead prosecuted smaller conspiracies within the riot/protest. My point was that that in no way renders viewing it overall as an attempted coup unreasonable.

[N35t0r]

The actual seditious conspiracy convictions are probably just a coincidence.

[Geronimo]

Wow, Ming is really drinking the Kool aid. There was no organized attempt to stop the transfer of power according to the FBI report. Maybe you should read it?

In hindsight an organized failed coup can be much harder to prove than a successful one. Just because the FBI didn't think they had enough evidence to treat the entire incursion of protestors and rioters as an organized coup does not mean there is a lack of convincing evidence that at least some of them wanted to prevent the transfer of power. Do you really believe the shouts to hang Mike pence weren't driven by opposition to the certification of votes?

​​​​​​Believing the capital incursion 06jan2021 was an attempted (if weakly organized and supported) coup is perfectly reasonable. Hardly "drinking the Kool aid".

[Dinner]

Wow, Ming is really drinking the Kool aid. There was no organized attempt to stop the transfer of power according to the FBI report. Maybe you should read it?

[Ming]

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.

Uhhhh... they tried to stop the legal transfer of power. That was an attempted coup. FACT.

[Geronimo]

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?

Oh good, because Azov didn't need to be setup either so I guess now you'll stop invoking them to justify everything Russia does.

The victims don't need to be politicians but the crimes against the victims do need to be politically coercive if they are not. Violence as deception would not count. You need to understand that if force=violence, your Webster definition starts to include scenarios that do not even remotely resemble a coup. The definition is clearly using a narrower sense of the word "force" than just "violence". Dictionaries don't work if you don't use some critical thinking.

​​​​

[Geronimo]

I agree with your wider point but I don't get your example.

A simpler example in my mind was if a leader were assassinated, is that a coup? I don't ever (credibly) hear the assassination of Lincoln or Kennedy referred to as such, or the attempts on Thatcher or the Queen by the IRA to be a coup.

You're right certainly. The difficulty with a simple assassination example is that arguably that could become a coup simply based on who was ultimately responsible for the assassination. According to the very broad dictionary definition that Berz gave the assassination might be construed as "exercise of force in politics". I'm trying to show that violence cannot be equivalent to force in that definition without inviting absurd conclusions.

"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

[Dauphin]

To say otherwise implies other bizarre scenarios such as that if a leader was reelected in large measure for ordering a successful special military operation against a Nazi neighbor then I guess that election would become a coup and the runner up would be the legitimate leadership. It's nuts Berz.

I agree with your wider point but I don't get your example.

A simpler example in my mind was if a leader were assassinated, is that a coup? I don't ever (credibly) hear the assassination of Lincoln or Kennedy referred to as such, or the attempts on Thatcher or the Queen by the IRA to be a coup.

[Geronimo]

"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 massacre was a violent alteration of the existing govt, its purpose was to overthrow the leader. Do you think the snipers had to shoot at him to qualify as a coup? The right wing did get power, Azov marched against the Donbas with our weapons and high ranking members of various right wing factions got important positions in govt as they cracked down on various undesirables. Nuland mentioned one of their leaders in that phone call with Amb Pyatt. Tatanyook or something. She told Pyatt to keep him and the boxer Klitchko on the outside helping the guy she wanted. That was 2-3 weeks before the coup. Murdering over 100 people with Obama's blessing had no coercive force on the political process? What was the vote to replace the leader before the massacre?

They wouldn't have needed to shoot him but they certainly would have needed to arrest him, hold a gun to his head or otherwise use force against him or functional members of his government. The massacre certainly could have been force if delivered with any sort of ultimatum or coercion. It's not use of force to frame the leadership for a crime. Violence without coercion isnt force. It's just violence.

To say otherwise implies other bizarre scenarios such as that if a leader was reelected in large measure for ordering a successful special military operation against a Nazi neighbor then I guess that election would become a coup and the runner up would be the legitimate leadership. It's nuts Berz.

But as fun as this is to debate how would Viktor losing power in a "coup", however you like to define "coup" have any relevance in 2014 let alone 2022? A coup doesn't confer any sort of license to secede or nullify any state treaties.

[Berzerker]

Only if it's also a coup for a leader to be elected after killing an unpopular protestor with his bare hands on national TV and getting elected partly due to jury nullification and public backlash against the protests.

It's not enough to have violent toadies, do something violent personally, or even gain power in part due to violent actions. The violent actions must constitute some sort of coercive force applied to the political process.

I would agree that a leader forced to flee for his life could be a coup if those who gained power forced him to flee. I don't agree that Viktor was forced to flee. I don't agree that those who gained power were threatening his life or using force.

"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 massacre was a violent alteration of the existing govt, its purpose was to overthrow the leader. Do you think the snipers had to shoot at him to qualify as a coup? The right wing did get power, Azov marched against the Donbas with our weapons and high ranking members of various right wing factions got important positions in govt as they cracked down on various undesirables. Nuland mentioned one of their leaders in that phone call with Amb Pyatt. Tatanyook or something. She told Pyatt to keep him and the boxer Klitchko on the outside helping the guy she wanted. That was 2-3 weeks before the coup. Murdering over 100 people with Obama's blessing had no coercive force on the political process? What was the vote to replace the leader before the massacre?

[Geronimo]

I saw a brief summary of a recent report claiming 4.5 million people have died as a direct or indirect result of our foreign policy since 9/11.

It's probably 4.5 billion killed by the US. That's how the malthusian crisis was avoided.

[Geronimo]

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?

Only if it's also a coup for a leader to be elected after killing an unpopular protestor with his bare hands on national TV and getting elected partly due to jury nullification and public backlash against the protests.

It's not enough to have violent toadies, do something violent personally, or even gain power in part due to violent actions. The violent actions must constitute some sort of coercive force applied to the political process.

I would agree that a leader forced to flee for his life could be a coup if those who gained power forced him to flee. I don't agree that Viktor was forced to flee. I don't agree that those who gained power were threatening his life or using force.