Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Serb]

Eastern Ukraine.

Care to explain when such country as Ukraine existed before?

You know there is a very simple test to check an existence of a country.

Every country has its currency.

Can anyone show me an Ukranian coins or banknotes (with the exception of the period 1917-1918)?

You can't!

So, if Ukraine never existed before, how can you call another country, which existed since the 9th century after a name of the country, which never existed before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991?

Do you have ANY freaking logic or brains?
​

[Geronimo]

It's ironic that you have mentioned Chechnya. Back then you have sponsored and fully supported this separatism movement inside Russia, called them a "freedom fighters" even when their terrorist captured shchools, theaters and maternity hospitals killing hundreds of children, you greet their leaders in the Whit house.

Back then you were all FOR separatism!

Now, in Ukraine you are strongly against the separatism (which is funny, because America is a Nation of separatists by definition).​

So tell me, American, when were you (Americans) lying: then or now?​

When did the US recognize Chechen independence? How much war material did the US send to anyone in Chechnya? The pro-independence outlier in recent decades of US policy would be its inexplicable full bore material and legal support for Kosovo independence. For the record, I have always wholly condemned that as an outrageous violation of international law and of the long term collective interest of the US and their allies. So why should I support independence of any Ukrainian oblasts or territory at all? Also the real traumatic formative event in US history isn't 1776. It's the US Civil War.​

A glass house and thrown stones again.

So, a mythical threat for lives of a few Amerecan students is a good enough reason for you to invade Grenada or a bullsh!t test tube with a white poweder in UN by Powel is a good enough reason to invade Iraq, but Russia has no right to protect Russians, when there is an OBVIOUS slaughter of them in thousands?

You know I respect you, Ger, so I am sorry in advance, but I have to ask this question:

Are you an idiot?

I made clear that US allies were appalled by Grenada (and I was too) but Grenada was also a lot more like Russia's takeover of Crimea in that there were relatively few casualties. Well, actually, I guess it would be more like Russia's Crimean operation it if the US had subsequently annexed Grenada and had used troops without identification and had denied any military involvement until years later. As for Iraq in 1991 the US went through the UN security council. It was as legal as any invasion could be. In 2003 the US tried to go through the security council and I'm shamed to admit that until that fell through I was willing to support the invasion so long as the US secured clear security council mandate to do so. I totally believed the weapons of mass destruction sell, and honestly I'm still convinced that the Bush administration believed it as well. However the moment talk started of "coalition of the willing" I totally opposed the invasion. Why should I, (or anyone really) give a pass to Russia for invading Ukraine? The Russians slaughtered were citizens of Ukraine (apart from the hostile FSB agents perhaps?) There's been quite a few serious civil wars in recent decades. In which of them could another country have license to not only intervene but to annex the involved and neighboring territories as well? What are the Rules for annexing territory while intervening in another country's civil war Serb? If the US sent thousands of CIA agents to organize a separatist war in Mexico (maybe because the FSB organized a coup that replaced the lawfully elected Mexican government with one friendlier to Russia) how many OBVIOUS casualties in the resulting war would entitle the US to step in and Annex the involved territories to "rescue" them? what are the rules Serb?

As for the "internationally observed elections", we ALWAYS (unlike you) invite international observers to any of our elections. The referendum in Crimea and Donbass were no exception.

You didn't come there to have a reason to declare those referendums illegitimate later. You always to so. But there were a lot of foreign observers there from non-Western countries and an unofficial observers from the Western one. Everything was fair and square!

Unlike you, we have nothing to hide!

And you have a rusty, corrupt, archaic and obsolete sh!t instead of the election system in America, but at the same time, dare to teach other peoples about a "true democracy".

You are a laughingstock, no more, no less!

And insane self propelled Joe is a perfect decoration of American decline and degradation.​

I constantly advocate here at Poly along with anywhere else for more and varied foreign electoral observers in the US. Especially after Trump tried to claim that his loss was a "stolen" election. If there's anything to hide I want it out in the sunshine. No matter how hilarious the US becomes the invasion and annexation by Russia of any portion of Ukraine does not become any less appalling or any more legitimate. So, how many observed and fair elections did Ukraine have to have after the coup before Russia was no longer entitled to use the coup as a justification to invade Ukraine? Did the coup give Russia a permanent option to invade Ukraine whenever would be convenient for Russia? A kind of "coup" broke up the USSR. Does that mean every state has an option to invade Russia as coup-spawn? is that how it works?

[Dinner]

In 1991 Russia recognized Ukrainian independence and agreed to accept it's territorial boundaries. In at least three other treaties after that Russia reaffirmed that Independence and territorial boundaries even agreeing to help defend those boundaries from change. So it is extremely clear Russia is the aggressor and in the wrong here.

Lastly, the supposed "coup" claim doesn't make any sense as the constitutional procedures were all followed so how is following the constitution of Ukraine a "coup"? It isn't.

[Geronimo]

In 1991 Russia recognized Ukrainian independence and agreed to accept it's territorial boundaries. In at least three other treaties after that Russia reaffirmed that Independence and territorial boundaries even agreeing to help defend those boundaries from change. So it is extremely clear Russia is the aggressor and in the wrong here.

Lastly, the supposed "coup" claim doesn't make any sense as the constitutional procedures were all followed so how is following the constitution of Ukraine a "coup"? It isn't.

For the record, even though the Budapest memorandum was a formal declaration and very clearly prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." it was not a treaty in itself signed by Russia. The difference was that it was never submitted for ratification. This means it lacked domestic force of law. It was, however a binding formal public declaration under international law whose violation would directly compromise the good faith of the violating party. Russia totally and flagrantly violated the UN charter with the special military operation. Russia also totally and flagrantly violated its formal treaty obligations under the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Neither of these obligations included any clauses or exceptions permitting the special military operation so long as Ukraine had a coup, or a Nazi government or a civil war or hostile language laws passed against Russian. Russia directly and flagrantly violated these two treaties in way that would make even the US blush.

The thing with their definition of a "coup" is that it doesn't actually require any evidence or corroboration. Just a change in a power which they choose to explain as a result of violence, whether that violence consisted of supposed framing of the deposed government for a violent crime or consists of bribing and blackmailing others in the government to effect the legal process that led to the deposing. There is really little point in disputing whether a "coup" occurred in this case since in their minds, Nulands infamous phone call "proves" that the US was "behind" the "coup". Even if you got them to understand that the Nuland phone call proves nothing of the sort, they also believe that the alleged confessions of the snipers who shot at cops and protestors "proves" that the change in power was a foreign backed coup. Also, there is little question that the deposed government was legitimately elected and nothing that Viktor Yanukovych did or proposed to do would have prevented him being peacefully removed from power with the next election so I don't see any point getting off into the weeds and defending his removal from power. It is irrelevant. What really matters is that even if we accept, for sake of argument, that there was a foreign backed "coup" it is worthless as a justification for the special military operation.

[Geronimo]

Ukraine is not Russia.
The term "Ukraine" was invented and introduced by Austro-Hungrians in 1890's or something. Because the provinces of Ruthenia and Galicia were under their rule, the part of their Empire. And since those provinces were absolutely Russia nad Orthodox, they have spitted the inead that they are not Russians, but "Ukranians".
They hang anyone or throw into a concentration camps anyone who doesn't accept the idea.

Before that there was NEVER ANY UKRAINE! PERIOD!

The lands now know as Ukraine are historical Russian lands since 10th century and the gifts of Russian tzars and bolshevicks.



It is an artificial and failed state, which never existed before!
(except of the few years of the short period of the Russian revolution, and even then the absolute majority of Ukraine was Soviet and ended-up as one of the four co-founders of the Soviet Union).
​

I think what you do not seem to understand Serb is the extent to which the most passionate dedication to a separate national identity can be wholly and entirely "artificial" and have nothing to do with ancient history and shared heritage.

Exhibit A could be examining the relationship between Canada and the US. The only thing that really separated them initially was the fact that the 13 colonies that started the US voted to go to war to secede and the rest of British North America declined to do so. There was no meaningful cultural or historical divide along the new national border when the Crown officially recognized the independence of the 13 colonies (along with a generous portion of the less organized portions of British North America to the West of the colonies). At that time the closest thing to a divide was the very recent at the time influx of Crown loyalists from the seceding colonies into the rest of British North America. Even that, however, did not define any national identities to be discerned across the border. The borders between the colonies and between the new US "states" were at least as meaningful in the usual national identity sense. However, when friction between the US and Britain pushed the US to consider invasion of the rest of British North America as a way of leveraging redress from the Crown for their grievances in 1812 *that* totally and permanently changed the national identity dynamics of the border, especially infamous provocations like the burning of the tiny provincial capital of York. Ever since this war Canadians were able to gravitate to a new national identity. Was it a distinctive "Canadian" national identity? no. not at all in fact. It was a distinctive "whoever we are we are *not* those guys who call themselves "Americans" to our south" national identity. For many, if not decisively most Canadians nationalism would develop almost entirely as a rejection of US national identity above all else.

My point, Serb, is that all of your misguided history lessons that you and Putin keep returning to to try to argue that Ukraine isn't a really a nation have zero relevance. People *not* wanting to be part of a nation can be as much of a division (and far stronger typically) than any amount of shared history language or shared anything else really. To the extent that residents of Ukraine may have previously viewed themselves as being as much "Russian" as "Ukrainian" and viewed any division between the two states as meaningless the special military operation has no doubt massively undermined that sentiment. If Ukrainians didn't see themselves as separate before, they surely do now to a *massively* increased degree.

[Dinner]

"Ukraine is not Russia."

Putin claims otherwise. Understand that and you will be on your way to understanding Putin's actual motivations for invading and attempting to annex Ukraine by force. He wants his empire. With Russia's demographic decline he honestly needs it... Unless he is willing to make the difficult reforms needed which he does not want to do as it would mean a Russia he no longer controls and corruptly steals from.

[Geronimo]

I think something that observers might get extremely wrong about Russia may be the way they think they understand what makes Putin tick. Most seem to take for granted as a demonstrated fact that Putin is motivated by gaining personal power and personal wealth. Personally I don't understand how that has been established. I've always felt that everything about Putin could be just as easily explained as a genuine love and devotion to the Soviet Union as a state, a state that he equates with the current Russian federation. He, as a dedicated former KGB agent saw enormous corruption eating Russia alive under Yeltsin along with enormous geopolitical losses associated with the end of the USSR. There's plenty of accounts and anecdotes to suggest that Putin engaged in a battle against the corruption and that he used that battle to enrich himself personally but I don't think this was to feed his personal avarice. No, the vast sums of money he placed under his personal control were simply another lever of power alongside political power to personally lead Russia away from the ruin of the Yeltsin era. I don't think he intended to do so by invading originally but when he saw the US and it's NATO partners pursue might-makes-right in the Balkans and in the middle east and north africa he was determined that Russia would show that it can play by such rules as well. Of course absolute power truly does corrupt and Putin has so much power in Russia now that it no longer pays for anyone to tell him anything he doesn't want to believe, so his leadership is becoming more and more unhinged as time goes on.

So why are so many convinced that Putin is primarily motivated by personal money and power rather a love of the state he served when he was a dedicated and largely apolitical KGB agent? Yes his actions and policies seem terrible for the welfare of the Russian people lately but according to the information he gets from subordinates they are the best way to enhance and protect the geopolitical power of Russia.

[BlackCat]

We have an alike saying: "First remove the log from your own eye, then say to other man that he should remove a speck from his".

Well, I'm pretty sure that you still have that log inside your eye
Try pulling it out and you might find yourself as a member of a partisan group that works for ending the facist putin regime

[Dinner]

I just thought I would drop this here.

https://youtube.com/shorts/M6hClRAOnzc?si=l4BqOq4rDn7vZRig

[BeBMan]

Russia didn't exist in XYZ, so let's give it all back to them dinos. Oh wait, the dinos are gone. Then let's clone some to give it all back, and hope the amoebae don't complain that they were there first.

[BeBMan]

Just noticed:

Russia to free Gershkovich and Whelan in major prisoner swap

Three US citizens imprisoned in Russia, including Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, are expected to be released on Thursday under a prisoner exchange deal.

Gershkovich, US Marine veteran Paul Whelan, and Russian-American radio journalist Alsu Kurmasheva will be released under the deal agreed by the Biden administration, a senior US official confirmed.

In total, the exchange will involve 24 prisoners held in Russia, the US, Germany and three other Western countries. The swap has not happened yet but is expected later on Thursday.

Eight Russian nationals are expected to be returned to Russia, including several with suspected ties to Russian intelligence.

One of them is Vadim Krasikov, identified by German officials as a colonel in Russia’s FSB intelligence service, who is serving a life sentence for the 2019 murder of a Kremlin opponent in a Berlin Park.

German media reported that he is on a plane to the Turkish capital Ankara.

The swap comes after days of speculation about a major swap between various countries, which increased after several dissidents and journalists jailed in Russia were moved from their prison cells to unknown locations.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Kremlin opponent with dual Russian-British citizenship, is one of those detainees whose whereabouts are unknown which has fuelled expectations that he too could be released.

Others potentially on the list are Russian opposition politician Ilya Yashin and veteran human rights campaigner Oleg Orlov.

Although secret prison transfers are common in Russia, the multiple "disappearance" of well-known prisoners was unusual.

Earlier this week, Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko pardoned a German citizen Rico Krieger who had been sentenced to death for terrorism and other charges.

If all the releases take place, it will be one of the biggest exchanges between Russia and the West in history.

The last high-profile prisoner swap took place in December 2022, when US basketball star Brittney Griner was exchanged on the tarmac at Abu Dhabi airport for notorious Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who had been held in an American prison for 12 years.

The last comparable one occurred in Vienna in 2010, when 10 Russian spies held in the US were swapped for four alleged double agents held in Russia.

One of them was Sergei Skripal, a former military intelligence officer, later poisoned by nerve agent Novichok in Salisbury in 2018.

Tensions between Moscow and the West have been high in recent years, especially since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
​
​

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c29d6k382k5o

Earlier this week, Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko pardoned a German citizen Rico Krieger who had been sentenced to death for terrorism and other charges.

Lil tidbit on this supposed terrorist:

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/07/25/they-ve-raised-the-stakes

[Geronimo]

I just thought I would drop this here.

https://youtube.com/shorts/M6hClRAOn...BqOq4rDn7vZRig

talk is cheap. especially anonymous narrator you-tube video talk. Do you have any credible sources?

[Dauphin]

I think what you do not seem to understand Serb is the extent to which the most passionate dedication to a separate national identity can be wholly and entirely "artificial" and have nothing to do with ancient history and shared heritage.

Exhibit A could be examining the relationship between Canada and the US. The only thing that really separated them initially was the fact that the 13 colonies that started the US voted to go to war to secede and the rest of British North America declined to do so. There was no meaningful cultural or historical divide along the new national border when the Crown officially recognized the independence of the 13 colonies (along with a generous portion of the less organized portions of British North America to the West of the colonies). At that time the closest thing to a divide was the very recent at the time influx of Crown loyalists from the seceding colonies into the rest of British North America. Even that, however, did not define any national identities to be discerned across the border. The borders between the colonies and between the new US "states" were at least as meaningful in the usual national identity sense. However, when friction between the US and Britain pushed the US to consider invasion of the rest of British North America as a way of leveraging redress from the Crown for their grievances in 1812 *that* totally and permanently changed the national identity dynamics of the border, especially infamous provocations like the burning of the tiny provincial capital of York. Ever since this war Canadians were able to gravitate to a new national identity. Was it a distinctive "Canadian" national identity? no. not at all in fact. It was a distinctive "whoever we are we are *not* those guys who call themselves "Americans" to our south" national identity. For many, if not decisively most Canadians nationalism would develop almost entirely as a rejection of US national identity above all else.

My point, Serb, is that all of your misguided history lessons that you and Putin keep returning to to try to argue that Ukraine isn't a really a nation have zero relevance. People *not* wanting to be part of a nation can be as much of a division (and far stronger typically) than any amount of shared history language or shared anything else really. To the extent that residents of Ukraine may have previously viewed themselves as being as much "Russian" as "Ukrainian" and viewed any division between the two states as meaningless the special military operation has no doubt massively undermined that sentiment. If Ukrainians didn't see themselves as separate before, they surely do now to a *massively* increased degree.

I think this is true of most if not all kinds of us vs them scenario. Be it tribes through nations, or undying support for a sports club, or political party.

Split a group of people random into team A and team B, and you will find both sides want theirs to win, regardless of why how that team came to into existence.

[BeBMan]

Give Crimea back to the Greeks

[Bereta_Eder]

Nice map it was before alxender the great.


and before the bhzantine empire.

so it is rather small but still cute