Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[N35t0r]

Total absurdity. mothballed equipment destined for destruction has been demonstrably hugely effective in Ukrainian hands time and time again, especially when facing Russians armed with shovels riding donkeys and backed up by the occasional T-55 but even when facing Russia's cutting edge super weapons.

So you claim that if the UK had sent whatever old tank it could find half-rusted somewhere instead of Challenger IIs, Ukraine would be better off?

[Aeson]

Geronimo is just a defender of trying to shake down Ukraine for $500billion, lying about how much we helped, lying about who started the war, after breaking our agreement with them. He thinks that's what good people do.

[Geronimo]

Geronimo is just a defender of trying to shake down Ukraine for $500billion, lying about how much we helped, lying about who started the war, after breaking our agreement with them. He thinks that's what good people do.

BS Aeson. I am a defender of the truth and opposer of hyperbole and emotional distortion. I totally oppose the "shakedown" of Ukraine as stupid. That move by the US is not a "bad guy move" in the Ukraine war, however. The US had only the vague non-binding political commitment of the Budapest memorandum to compel it to forever materially support Ukraine in the war against fellow nuclear armed Budapest memorandum guarantor and unprovoked invader of Ukraine Russia. The only "threat" the US offers against Ukraine to back up its "shakedown" is cessation of future assistance to Ukraine. That's stupid but it wasn't yet a shakedown. When Trump offers to help Russia unless Ukraine caves to the demands that may be a shakedown depending on how specific and credible the threat is. If the US only offered to end sanctions or some other economic indirect assistance (not a grant of any kind) to Russia I'm not even sure that would constitute a shakedown if the stick was massively dwarfed by the carrot of more military support for Ukraine.

You say I lied about how much the US helped? where? the numbers have varied surely but I've been settling on 184 billion for weeks now. you call that a lie? I also never said the US is doing what good people do. Doing what good people do is a separate issue from being a "Bad guy". If most people look the other way as someone is mugged on a sidewalk the people looking the other way and not offering to help in any way whatsoever are surely not acting as "good people" in that context but they aren't one of the "bad guys" in that situation either. I think that the US was doing what good people do for Ukraine under Biden. I think that was swiftly curtailed under Trump. That doesn't make the US "bad guys". Even a verbal absurd accusation that Ukraine started the war, especially absent any binding action such as a UN vote to back up the assertion was certainly not sufficient to make the US meaningfully one of the "bad guys" in the Ukraine war. The US taken as a state has surely even now not only materially assisted Ukraine in its war more than any other state in the world and by a huge margin but it has not yet materially inflicted harm on Ukraine's war effort in any form other than cessation of prior extremely generous support.

The US may well become one of the bad guys in the Ukraine war. it definitely wasn't there when I objected to it being characterized as such. not even close really.

You say you detest people who can see Trump is doing an appallingly exceptional bad job as president yet "defend him" continually on an off-topic forum overwhelmingly frequented by posters completely opposed to Trump. What I detest are people who are happy to redefine everything and spin everything however is most effective to shore up their political agenda.

[Geronimo]

So you claim that if the UK had sent whatever old tank it could find half-rusted somewhere instead of Challenger IIs, Ukraine would be better off?

You're asking me if the UK had replaced sending its Challenger II tanks with instead sending some vague something implicitly defined as something grossly inferior to the Challenger IIs whether that alteration would leave Ukraine better off? Is that an incredibly lazy troll or do you sometimes have some lapses of reason? What possible relevance would my reply have?

I said that if every country in the world had mirrored US policy with respect to Ukraine since the Start of Russia's full-scale invasion that surely Ukraine would have won by now and that the harm under Trump's second term to Ukraine arising from Trump's policies with regard to Ukraine as of the start of this part of our discussion a few weeks ago when everyone insisted that the US were "The Bad Guys" in the Ukraine war would be negligible harm. So, I'll ignore your moronic question/troll and assume what you really meant was since you regard the UK policies towards the Ukraine war (and presumably the policies of most of Ukraine's allies who have materially contributed to Ukraine's defence) was to give military equipment of substantially superior quality to the US contributions that you would apparently argue that were every country in the world to have mirrored US policy toward Ukraine since the start of the full scale war that in fact Ukraine would be worse off because of these other allies downgrades to the quality of their top of the line contributions and this helps demonstrate that the US have been "bad guys" in the Ukraine war since at least the start of my verbal opposition to it being characterized as such in this thread.

I hope I'm wrong because that would also be pretty moronic, if only because most countries in the world representing the large majority of the world economy and military potential have contributed *zero* to Ukraine's defence and mirroring US policies would have resulted in a defence support windfall to Ukraine much vaster than the total of Ukraine's allies contributions. Do you really assert that it makes sense to characterize all of these non-allies to ukraine as "bad guys" in the Ukraine war? if not and if mirroring US policy would massively increase their impact on Ukraine then we are hard pressed to argue that the US was a bad guy in Ukraine at least at the start of this debate.

I could also challenge your assertion that the US contributions were qualitatively inferior to most Ukraine allied contributions but it's not really relevant. the point is that the US to date was a good guy and former good guy in Ukraine but could not meaningfully be characterized as "a bad buy" in the ukraine war when that started being asserted in this thread. Maybe not even now but I suppose Trump may have launched some covert operation against Ukraine or given Russia some intel to use against Ukraine or sold Russia some military hardware or voted against ukraine and with Russia on a harmful UNSC vote or some such and I may well have missed that on vacation. I stand by my assertion however that the US was not meaningfully one of the "bad guys" in Ukraine when we started debating this unless you want to apply a special definition of "bad guys" that makes almost everybody except Ukraine's other allies a "bad guy" in the Ukraine war.

[Aeson]

BS Aeson. I am a defender of the truth and opposer of hyperbole and emotional distortion. I totally oppose the "shakedown" of Ukraine as stupid. That move by the US is not a "bad guy move" in the Ukraine war, however. The US had only the vague non-binding political commitment of the Budapest memorandum to compel it to forever materially support Ukraine in the war against fellow nuclear armed Budapest memorandum guarantor and unprovoked invader of Ukraine Russia. The only "threat" the US offers against Ukraine to back up its "shakedown" is cessation of future assistance to Ukraine. That's stupid but it wasn't yet a shakedown. When Trump offers to help Russia unless Ukraine caves to the demands that may be a shakedown depending on how specific and credible the threat is. If the US only offered to end sanctions or some other economic indirect assistance (not a grant of any kind) to Russia I'm not even sure that would constitute a shakedown if the stick was massively dwarfed by the carrot of more military support for Ukraine.

You say I lied about how much the US helped? where? the numbers have varied surely but I've been settling on 184 billion for weeks now. you call that a lie? I also never said the US is doing what good people do. Doing what good people do is a separate issue from being a "Bad guy". If most people look the other way as someone is mugged on a sidewalk the people looking the other way and not offering to help in any way whatsoever are surely not acting as "good people" in that context but they aren't one of the "bad guys" in that situation either. I think that the US was doing what good people do for Ukraine under Biden. I think that was swiftly curtailed under Trump. That doesn't make the US "bad guys". Even a verbal absurd accusation that Ukraine started the war, especially absent any binding action such as a UN vote to back up the assertion was certainly not sufficient to make the US meaningfully one of the "bad guys" in the Ukraine war. The US taken as a state has surely even now not only materially assisted Ukraine in its war more than any other state in the world and by a huge margin but it has not yet materially inflicted harm on Ukraine's war effort in any form other than cessation of prior extremely generous support.

The US may well become one of the bad guys in the Ukraine war. it definitely wasn't there when I objected to it being characterized as such. not even close really.

You say you detest people who can see Trump is doing an appallingly exceptional bad job as president yet "defend him" continually on an off-topic forum overwhelmingly frequented by posters completely opposed to Trump. What I detest are people who are happy to redefine everything and spin everything however is most effective to shore up their political agenda.

As I said, you think it's what good guys do. You don't see the evil in it.

[Aeson]

.

You say I lied about how much the US helped?

Trump lied about how much we had helped. He claimed we had sent $350 billion. It's a bald faced lie. Reality is closer to $110 billion that's actually gone to Ukraine, and even that is using replacement value for all equipment, munitions, etc.

[Geronimo]

As I said, you think it's what good guys do. You don't see the evil in it.

Ok then you misunderstand me. Refusing to help Ukraine in its war defending against a totally unprovoked full-scale invasion IS NOT what good people or "good guys" do. it's what cowards and fools do surely. Accusing Ukraine of starting the war may well be what the bad guys do but it certainly is absurd to use as a defining criterion for "bad guys" in the Ukraine war because by itself it makes no material difference to the war whatsoever.

I maintain that a "bad guy" in a war is materially and knowingly responsible for the wrong outcome of a war. Shouldn't that be obvious?

Are you maintaining that "a bad guy" in the context of a war is any state whose actions in relation to the war had "evil" in it? evil has many definitions. Which definitions of evil and US actions that meet that definition make the US "a bad guy" in the Ukraine war?

[Geronimo]

Trump lied about how much we had helped. He claimed we had sent $350 billion. It's a bald faced lie. Reality is closer to $110 billion that's actually gone to Ukraine, and even that is using replacement value for all equipment, munitions, etc.

OMG so now the president lying about the magnitude of contribution to Ukraine is sufficient or even a contributor to making the US a bad guy in the Ukraine war? really Aeson?

[Aeson]

If most people look the other way as someone is mugged on a sidewalk the people looking the other way and not offering to help in any way whatsoever are surely not acting as "good people" in that context but they aren't one of the "bad guys" in that situation either.

If you told someone on the street to give up their gun and you would protect them ... Then did not ... It's an entirely evil thing to do.

If you, once they were being mugged then lied about who was mugging who, it's an entirely evil thing to do.

If you, once the mugged person was in very poor shape, started bullying them, lying about how much you had helped them, to get them to pay you absurd fees to ... not even guarantee their safety ... It's an entirely evil thing to do.

[Aeson]

OMG so now the president lying about the magnitude of contribution to Ukraine is sufficient or even a contributor to making the US a bad guy in the Ukraine war? really Aeson?

Yes, the president lying about actual facts is an evil thing. Especially when it's to try to bully a victim into giving up $500 billion for nothing in return. While lying about who started it. While breaking the agreement to protect them. While throwing the whole concept of nuclear non-proliferation under the bus.

Its evil.

[Geronimo]

If you told someone on the street to give up their gun and you would protect them ... Then did not ... It's an entirely evil thing to do.

If you, once they were being mugged then lied about who was mugging who, it's an entirely evil thing to do.

If you, once the mugged person was in very poor shape, started bullying them, lying about how much you had helped them, to get them to pay you absurd fees to ... not even guarantee their safety ... It's an entirely evil thing to do.

What if you gave the victim assistance for years in a protracted knife fight with an armed gunmen who had signed the same open letter (but no contract) to convince the victim to give up the gun and promising to guarantee their safety and was now constantly threatening to shoot anyone who interfered?

There's plenty of cowardice there but not really evil.

The US are acting as fools, liars and cowards with respect to Ukraine and certainly there may be evil motives. The Bad guys in Ukraine remain others. That should be obvious.

[Geronimo]

Yes, the president lying about actual facts is an evil thing. Especially when it's to try to bully a victim into giving up $500 billion for nothing in return. While lying about who started it. While breaking the agreement to protect them. While throwing the whole concept of nuclear non-proliferation under the bus.

Its evil.

Having an evil president doesn't make a state "bad guys" in an ongoing war they used to materially help the victim with.

[Aeson]

What if you gave the victim assistance for years in a protracted knife fight with an armed gunmen who had signed the same open letter (but no contract) to convince the victim to give up the gun and promising to guarantee their safety and was now constantly threatening to shoot anyone who interfered?

There's plenty of cowardice there but not really evil.

The US are acting as fools, liars and cowards with respect to Ukraine and certainly there may be evil motives. The Bad guys in Ukraine remain others. That should be obvious.

It's irrelevant that Russia broke the agreement. That you keep bringing it up as applicable tells a lot. Their betrayal does not excuse ours. Our word, our honor, is not theirs to give away. It is ours. And we threw it away.

It's irrelevant how long it's been going on. We obviously could continue to fund them at these levels indefinitely. $30 billion cash and some used equipment. Trump is asking for $200 billion a year in increased military spending. $5 trillion in tax cuts. Wiped out the IRS to the tune of $500 billion a year for tax cheats. We waste $2.35 trillion a year on absurdly expensive and second rate healthcare. Trump wiped several trillion in wealth away (so far) with his stupid tariffs. We could afford to help Ukraine indefinitely at Biden levels. Easily.

It's only a matter of will, honor, and intelligence. All 3 which we have shown we lack as a nation. We are the bad guys now.

[Aeson]

Having an evil president doesn't make a state "bad guys" in an ongoing war they used to materially help the victim with.

Yes it does. President Trump represents the US in this matter. His policy in this matter is officially US policy. His policy is evil, our policy is evil, so long as he is calling the shots

[N35t0r]

You're asking me if the UK had replaced sending its Challenger II tanks with instead sending some vague something implicitly defined as something grossly inferior to the Challenger IIs whether that alteration would leave Ukraine better off? Is that an incredibly lazy troll or do you sometimes have some lapses of reason? What possible relevance would my reply have?
.

Well, then I suggest you go and actually research what, how and why the US sent since the start of the war.

If you need time, you can skip on the rambling wall of text posts.