Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Geronimo]

The definition said nothing about 'both sides', but now killing people isn't force?

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.

[Ming]

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

[Berzerker]

How do you know the Pentagon ignored the ban?

How do you know who sent a Nazi army? How do you know the Nazi army was sent to attack the people of the Donbas in general?

How do you know that after Putin sent a Nazi army to declare independence that Kiev didn't send a Nazi army to fight Putin's Nazi army?

Finally taking advantage of a massacre to frame a lawfully elected leader is not a coup. Not even if the same people arranged the massacre and the framing.

Because they continued arming them, people in Congress were visiting Azov in the warzone thanking them and promising further support. Putin didn't send the army in until Azov advanced into the Donbas and the people there asked for help. You posted a link earlier showing that happened. The definition says a coup is a small group violently altering the existing govt.

[Berzerker]

OMG no. The sniper's commiting a violent crime and getting Viktor framed for it would not fit Webster's definition. Think about it. Killing people on both sides is not "an exercise of force" in anyway. Subsequently framing someone else for it is fraud. Not force.

The definition said nothing about 'both sides', but now killing people isn't force?

[Geronimo]

The Pentagon ignored the ban... The ban on drugs would be symbolic if it wasn't enforced. How did Russia oppose protests against the guy they preferred? The Donbas separated because of the coup, the new govt came later and whitewashed the massacre blamed on the democratically elected leader. The coup was the massacre and the leader framed, describing the aftermath as democratic, lawful or constitutional is unconvincing. As for the people of the Donbas, we sent a Nazi army to attack them so I care.

How do you know the Pentagon ignored the ban?

How do you know who sent a Nazi army? How do you know the Nazi army was sent to attack the people of the Donbas in general?

How do you know that after Putin sent a Nazi army to declare independence that Kiev didn't send a Nazi army to fight Putin's Nazi army?

Finally taking advantage of a massacre to frame a lawfully elected leader is not a coup. Not even if the same people arranged the massacre and the framing.

[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

like a mass shooting sniper event to frame the leader and drive him from office

OMG no. The sniper's commiting a violent crime and getting Viktor framed for it would not fit Webster's definition. Think about it. Killing people on both sides is not "an exercise of force" in anyway. Subsequently framing someone else for it is fraud. Not force.

[Berzerker]

Bullcrap. What is your definition of 'coup'?

"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

like a mass shooting sniper event to frame the leader and drive him from office

[pchang]

Whatever he wants it to be.

[Geronimo]

that 'mass shooting sniper event' was a coup

Bullcrap. What is your definition of 'coup'?

[Berzerker]

that 'mass shooting sniper event' was a coup

[Geronimo]

maybe it was little green men who massacred cops and protesters in Kiev

What if it was Barack Obama himself personally leading a team of neo-con toadies to sniper nests in Kiev who shot them all?

This thread is about the war between Russia and Ukraine. Whether it was Barack Obama or Putin's little green men or crazed sadist dark eldar time traveling from the 40th millennium would make no difference to casus belli or anything else about this war.

Russia doesn't get to invade and the Donbas doesn't get to secede on the basis of the mass shooting sniper event.

[Berzerker]

maybe it was little green men who massacred cops and protesters in Kiev

[Geronimo]

I figured the missing members were mostly from eastern Ukraine. If murdering over 100 people to drive the president from office doesn't make you suspicious what will?

I'm always suspicious Berz. Especially of bat**** crazy conspiracy theories. No. Someone paying snipers to kill people on both sides of a protest does not make me any more or less suspicious of acts of parliament that occur afterwards.

[Berzerker]

How would you know if it happened? There's people using illegal drugs that I am aware of. Does that mean the ban on those drugs is symbolic?

Why wouldn't Russia intervene, however it felt that it could, in order to oppose protests against the guy they preferred?

"People in Donbas didn't support the coup so Kiev attacked them". Is that any different from, "Separatists in Donbas, declared independence from Ukraine because they were angry when the lawful Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Viktor Yanukovych from power, so the new Kiev government attacked the Separatists."? If not, who cares?


Wrong. If foreign back snipers kill 100 people on both sides or just one or the other side of protests against a president then the president being forced from power by the parliament isn't a coup. Duh. Why should we take seriously people in the Donbas calling it coup?

I hope you don't think a mass shooting occuring in Washington during protests against a US president could render constitutional removal of the president from power somehow impossible? If the president was removed that would mean any state that has people that call that a coup can secede?


I picked last year's Superbowl winner. Does that mean I control the NFL behind the scenes?

The Pentagon ignored the ban... The ban on drugs would be symbolic if it wasn't enforced. How did Russia oppose protests against the guy they preferred? The Donbas separated because of the coup, the new govt came later and whitewashed the massacre blamed on the democratically elected leader. The coup was the massacre and the leader framed, describing the aftermath as democratic, lawful or constitutional is unconvincing. As for the people of the Donbas, we sent a Nazi army to attack them so I care.

[Berzerker]

Don't you also find it curious that precisely enough parliamentary members were disappeared to deny parliament the 75% quorum required to impeach? You keep extrapolating from a couple interviews vast conspiracies and behind-the-scenes a "coup", but shouldn't we more suspicious about that?

I figured the missing members were mostly from eastern Ukraine. If murdering over 100 people to drive the president from office doesn't make you suspicious what will?