Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Geronimo]

I’m not so sure that Crimea can be returned to Ukraine. It would appear that close to half the people living there want to be part of Russia.

That hasn't ever stopped Russia from taking land where more than half of the people there didn't want to live in Russia and for which there was zero legal basis for Russia to do so. So why should that stop Ukraine when it has the legal basis at least?

[pchang]

I’m not so sure that Crimea can be returned to Ukraine. It would appear that close to half the people living there want to be part of Russia.

[PLATO]

the real and only end result of russias complete failure with ukriane is that china will never try the same with tiawan.

Hard to say that I think given the literally billions that China has spent and continues to spend to get ready for that. Still, I think they know the West is on to them and from what I can tell we are making some pretty strong moves to get ready ourselves. Maybe after Xi is gone (assuming they haven't attacked by the time he eventually is out of power) maybe someone a little less ambitious on that issue will arise. Hard to tell at this point....

[My Wife Hates CIV]

the real and only end result of russias complete failure with ukriane is that china will never try the same with tiawan.

[PLATO]

So since Polytubbies seemed to have missed it, pro-Russian demonstrations have been taking place in Moldova (that bit between Ukraine and Romania). Moldova used to have Black Sea ports, and after being rejected by Romania and Ukraine as 'partners' (Moldava is a basket case), seems to see this as a chance to ingratiate itself by opening some sort of western front, and maybe capturing a port or two.

Of course, Romania would probably be pulled in if a conflict occures.And this would give Putin the excuse he needs..

Transnistria has been "hot" before and is a pro-Russian separatist region. 1500 Russian troops are deployed there as "peacekeepers". Most of Moldova is pro Europe. Unless the Russian troops engage, I think it is unlikely that the separatist have the means to try and seize ports. They would certainly be engaged by the regular Moldovan armed forces if they chose to attack anywhere. Likely this will remain a frozen conflict unless Russia is able to link up with its forces in Transnistria by seizing the Black Sea Coast...an event that is looking more and more unlikely.

[Uncle Sparky]

So since Polytubbies seemed to have missed it, pro-Russian demonstrations have been taking place in Moldova (that bit between Ukraine and Romania). Moldova used to have Black Sea ports, and after being rejected by Romania and Ukraine as 'partners' (Moldava is a basket case), seems to see this as a chance to ingratiate itself by opening some sort of western front, and maybe capturing a port or two.

Of course, Romania would probably be pulled in if a conflict occures.And this would give Putin the excuse he needs..

[Dinner]

No concessions can be given to Putin for his war of aggression and conquest. Also, Putin must be defeated soundly or else he will proceed on to Moldova, Poland, and the Baltic states. THAT conflict will be nuclear. No question about it. The reason is the Russians feel they have to do this for their very survival but they also now know their regular military is no match for NATO so, of course, Putin will go nuclear. It is his only option.

If we want to avoid that then our ONLY option is to make sure the Russian army dies in Ukraine so that Putin cannot move on to the next steps in his plan. Period.

[Geronimo]

Ukraine gave its enormous thermonuclear arsenal and triad of delivery systems to its neighbor Russia, a country which had territorial claims on Ukraine, in exchange for Russia dropping those claims forever. When Ukraine then found itself invaded, occupied and partially annexed by Russia less than 10 years later by the same Russian leader who would invade and occupy and annex Ukrainian territory again less than 10 years after that...I think all talk of peace agreements between Russia and any other country became literally meaningless.

Peace with Russia is wonderful but Putin has destroyed any basis for codifying peace with Russia in any civilized way. The only way forward is to decisively defeat them on their chosen battlefield.

[PLATO]

Well said Jrabbit.

[PLATO]

Interesting that the general feeling here seems to be that some type of concession must be made to Putin to end the war. I think that this is self defeating. Aggression should have NO reward unless it is impossible to prevent. If Ukraine can restore its boarders and hold them against Russian counter attacks, then it is time for them to ascend to NATO membership. A peace treaty is not needed immediately...only an armistice. Once those three things happen, then years can be spent, if need be, on political pressure for a peace treaty. If Putin uses nuclear weapons, it will lead to the ultimate destruction of the Russian Federation.

The West must hold strong...it must give Ukraine what it needs to eject the Russians, and it must be there as a treaty ally once the guns fall silent. Anything less and aggression is rewarded. That would be the path to a larger war in the future.

[-Jrabbit]

Thank you both for your replies. Geronimo, your dogged pursuit of this conversation with Berz is admirable and appreciated. No way would I have the patience for it. FWIW, it's my position that nearly all political discourse these days suffers greatly from overgeneralization (like this "neocon" catch-all), as if there are precious few possible points of view, any and all of which require their opponents to be monolithic for their arguments to hold any water.

[Geronimo]

As charming as all these claims, objections and ripostes are, I'd like both Geronimo and Berzerker to specifically state both the definition and identities of these "neocons" you both speak of with such glib self-assurance.

I'm sorry if I conveyed "glib self-assurance" when bandying the term "neocon" or "neo-cons" or "neoconservative" about. The short answer is that when I use those terms, I want the term to mean whatever it is Berzerker thinks he means when he says it. When I chat here at 'poly I'm driven by a desire to find people who seem willing to demonstrate great verbal stamina in committing to text ideas that I find completely wrong in an open-ended forum debate. I like to think I learn a lot more in those situations and they're more fun. Of course I *do* recognize that when I'm bandying a term about that I should personally agree with the meaning I'm using...in general. However, I've found that refusing to use or avoiding the use a corrupted or weasled out loaded phrase, euphemism, or political epithet works against my goals. I'm trying to step into a strange new habitat occupied by an alien mind to see why they like it there and if I go ripping the curtains down and otherwise re-decorating that spoils the experience.

I found Berz's answer to your question above somewhat helpful in this regard but not as much as you might think because his definition of "pursuing hegemony" probably means he regards every US politician who weighs into foreign policy in almost any capacity other than as an opponent to US foreign exercise of power as being part of the neocon boogeyman crowd and his above list only includes the ones that were currently most salient in his mind. A president who undermined US power with an intervention aimed at some lofty goal would be a neocon right alongside one who seemed Machiavellian to the core of everything their administration did in planning their interventions. If you intervene using US tax dollars...you are a neocon to Berz I suspect. I think he'll disagree in principle but that will prove to be the case in practice.

The long answer is that even though I'm trying to use "neocon" in a way that fits the way I think I see Berz using it I have my own ideas about the term as well and those surely show up at least unintentionally in what I write here.

So, what I think the meaning of "neoconservative" and its derivatives is would be that for some time now "neocon" has existed only as a political epithet. Nobody is really a "neocon" or "neoconservative" now in the sense that either nobody will describe themselves as such or if they do so its only to try to grab a particular kind of attention. It didn't start off that way but even in its origins there was no consensus on any definition that would actually shed any useful light on which policies we would expect to be endorsed by the "neoconservative". During the era between its origins and its transformation into a vague political epithet it came to mean anything from advocating military force to further human rights and democracy to meaning you were dead set against using military force to further human rights and democracy and any number of other doctrines or policies with no clear identifiable common denominator apart from advocating another hawkish intervention and means to accomplish it.

[BeBMan]

I think it's obvious that Modovians (or is it Moldovans?) want to conquer Russia all up to the Chinese border. Because Russia has much more trees than Moldova, esp. in Siberia. Now remember, who's living in trees? That's right, squirrels.

If you control vast stretches of land with trees you control the world's most squirrels - then you just have to wait a couple million years and them dead squirrels turn into oil. Same happened to the dinos. Now the neocons try the same with squirrels.

Plus outside America red squirrels are more common than grey squirrels. Which means you get oil and fight communism in one go, but the MSM is hiding it.

[Berzerker]

As charming as all these claims, objections and ripostes are, I'd like both Geronimo and Berzerker to specifically state both the definition and identities of these "neocons" you both speak of with such glib self-assurance.

Neocons are interventionists pursuing US hegemony. The Bush & Cheney clans, the Clintons, Obama, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Biden, Nuland, Jake Sullivan, Samantha Power, Madeleine Albright, Adam Schiff, the media and the military industrial complex. The people who impeached Trump for interfering in their war in Ukraine. The Cold War was too profitable and peace is bad for business. Welcome to fascism.

[Uncle Sparky]

Also, since Polytubbies seem to have all the insider info - Moldova, is Russia opening a second front?