Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Geronimo]

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.

Russia being a Budapest memorandum signer and the aggressor against Ukraine is extremely relevant in that, especially as the agreement only offered security assurances to Ukraine not Security Guarantees, basically, the Budapest memorandum, a political statement, was already falsified the moment Russia acted to invaded. Any signer could view the declarations premises as falsified and obsolete subsequent to that. Regardless, the Budapest memorandum also did not force Ukraine to give up its nukes. Ukraine did that mainly because it could not operate them, only Russia could, and because modifying or attempting to cannibalize the soviet nukes residing in Ukraine to create a Ukraine operable nuclear deterrent would have been prohibitively expensive. Ukraine wanted and attempted to negotiate for real security guarantees in exchange for its cooperation in handing over all soviet nukes for disposal in Russia, but it failed to secure them, and the Budapest memorandum's toothless and vague political declaration was all that it was able to secure. It certainly wasn't the motive, especially not a coercive motive for Ukraine giving up the nukes.

It is absolutely relevant how long it's been going on. The Budapest memorandums vague assurances become more and more credible to have been thoroughly satisfied the longer substantial assistance is given. 3 years was a long time.

After that you reason that it could be prudent to continue funding Ukraine's defence even with direct cash contributions if necessary. Don't bother. You're preaching to the choir. I already agree that it would have been wise and cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars to continue funding Ukraine's defence and have even long lamented that the assistance wasn't provided all at once at the beginning for maximum effectiveness.

Being stupid and self-defeating doesn't make the US the bad guy in Ukraine, just the village idiot in Ukraine.

[Geronimo]

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

I disagree that having an evil government is sufficient to make the state governed by that evil government the bad guy in all contexts. Evil is as Evil does. The changes may well be motivated by solely by evil intent but until they materially contribute more to the wrong side of the war than to the right side in the war they are not bad guys and they won't be "the bad guys" until they form some kind of pact with the wrong side of the war or until they inflict more harm than the wrong side of the war is continuing to inflict to the correct side.

[Geronimo]

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.

I've already researched it. you're wrong. More importantly even if for sake of argument I accepted that the UK contributed vastly higher quality equipment than the US and the US contributed the lowest quality equipment of all it would not leave room for the US to be regarded the bad guys so why should I even waste time discussing your assertion that the US contributed only equipment of lower quality?

[Aeson]

I disagree that having an evil government is sufficient to make the state governed by that evil government the bad guy in all contexts. Evil is as Evil does. The changes may well be motivated by solely by evil intent but until they materially contribute more to the wrong side of the war than to the right side in the war they are not bad guys and they won't be "the bad guys" until they form some kind of pact with the wrong side of the war or until they inflict more harm than the wrong side of the war is continuing to inflict to the correct side.

Were the bad guys. It's not a binary switch. We're just well on the side of doing harm, and for no particular reason other than Trump is an ******* who vastly overestimates himself.

In the long run we may do more harm than Russia. Undermining nuclear non-proliferation threatens the very existence of our species.

[Aeson]

Russia being a Budapest memorandum signer and the aggressor against Ukraine is extremely relevant in that, especially as the agreement only offered security assurances to Ukraine not Security Guarantees, basically, the Budapest memorandum, a political statement, was already falsified the moment Russia acted to invaded. Any signer could view the declarations premises as falsified and obsolete subsequent to that. Regardless, the Budapest memorandum also did not force Ukraine to give up its nukes. Ukraine did that mainly because it could not operate them, only Russia could, and because modifying or attempting to cannibalize the soviet nukes residing in Ukraine to create a Ukraine operable nuclear deterrent would have been prohibitively expensive. Ukraine wanted and attempted to negotiate for real security guarantees in exchange for its cooperation in handing over all soviet nukes for disposal in Russia, but it failed to secure them, and the Budapest memorandum's toothless and vague political declaration was all that it was able to secure. It certainly wasn't the motive, especially not a coercive motive for Ukraine giving up the nukes.

It is absolutely relevant how long it's been going on. The Budapest memorandums vague assurances become more and more credible to have been thoroughly satisfied the longer substantial assistance is given. 3 years was a long time.

After that you reason that it could be prudent to continue funding Ukraine's defence even with direct cash contributions if necessary. Don't bother. You're preaching to the choir. I already agree that it would have been wise and cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars to continue funding Ukraine's defence and have even long lamented that the assistance wasn't provided all at once at the beginning for maximum effectiveness.

Being stupid and self-defeating doesn't make the US the bad guy in Ukraine, just the village idiot in Ukraine.

You just gave your soul over to Putin. "Well Putin broke the agreement so it ok if we **** over Ukraine". Bull****.

[Aeson]

Ukraine upheld their end of the bargain, got rid of the nukes, trusted us. We broke our word. You weaseling about "assurance" or "guarantee" tells everyone you have no honor. No one should trust you, because your word is worth ****.

We are bad guys here.

[Geronimo]

Just wow. I don't know what say if your take away from my poly posts is that I've sold my soul to Putin. I suppose it must be a bizarre troll.

[Aeson]

Just wow. I don't know what say if your take away from my poly posts is that I've sold my soul to Putin. I suppose it must be a bizarre troll.

You're the one trying to justify breaking agreements with Ukraine because Putin did it first.

[Aeson]

Breaking an agreement, especially one that millions of lives depends on, is wrong.

You think it's ok because Putin did it first. You've adopted Putin as your moral and ethical guide in the matter.

[Aeson]

I disagree that having an evil government is sufficient to make the state governed by that evil government the bad guy in all contexts. Evil is as Evil does. The changes may well be motivated by solely by evil intent but until they materially contribute more to the wrong side of the war than to the right side in the war they are not bad guys and they won't be "the bad guys" until they form some kind of pact with the wrong side of the war or until they inflict more harm than the wrong side of the war is continuing to inflict to the correct side.

If a doctor saves 2 patients then goes and murders an innocent person for kicks, they are still a bad person. The net doesn't matter, you do evil, it drags you down to that level

"First do no harm" is important because your type of utilitarian bull**** is easily twisted to justify horrific actions. Like you are doing with Trump, the US, and Ukraine.

[Geronimo]

You're the one trying to justify breaking agreements with Ukraine because Putin did it first.

no, I'm arguing that the terms of the agreement have long since been met. Ukraine wanted NATO membership for a reason despite it coming with many commitments and onerous obligations for Ukraine. The reason is that Ukraine was acutely aware from the beginning that the Budapest Memorandum did not contain any Security Guarantees. That Russia essentially voided the agreement with its actions in no way justifies that Russia did so, but it does highlight the irrelevance of the agreement at that point and clearly leaves room for other signers to argue that the circumstances to which the agreement could reasonably be envisioned to encompass no longer existed. The most important point however is that Ukraine was never offered anything like a security guarantee and that the UK and the US at the least could argue they had long since fulfilled the extremely vague and limited political commitments of the Budapest memorandum. The US *did* violate later political statements of intent (wisely) made by the Biden administration, but Biden would clearly be unable to make such statements binding on successors who routinely revise or ignore such predecessor verbal commitments with little to no consequence or condemnation.

It is entirely absurd to claim that this reasoning constitutes any sort of justification for anything Putin has done. On the contrary it shifts some small share of any blame for limitations on the scale of the other signers implementation of the terms of the political declarations of the agreement onto Putin's shoulders.

[Geronimo]

If a doctor saves 2 patients then goes and murders an innocent person for kicks, they are still a bad person. The net doesn't matter, you do evil, it drags you down to that level

"First do no harm" is important because your type of utilitarian bull**** is easily twisted to justify horrific actions. Like you are doing with Trump, the US, and Ukraine.

And if a doctor saves 2 patients pro bono after earlier promising to do so if either patient were the victim of assault and then when one of them returns for more treatment and the doctor refuses unless the patient (who was assaulted again by the same mugger who threatened the doctor if the doctor didn't stop helping the victim) pays not only for the earlier procedure but for all future procedures then the doctor isn't meaningfully one of the bad guys the repeat offender mugger and his accomplices are the bad guys with it being grossly offensive to characterize anyone else as a bad guy in the scenario, let alone the now financially motivated doctor as the bad guy.

The doctor should keep helping for free and ignore the threats and will not be one of the good guys if that stops occurring. The doctor does not share any culpability for the assault regardless, however.

You seem to want to argue that anyone who stops doing the most admirable thing crosses the line to bad guy. Take note that in your example the doctor murders someone after saving 2 patients. Are you suggesting that the US is now murdering Ukraine? when? that was not the case when we started debating this.

[N35t0r]

I've already researched it. you're wrong. More importantly even if for sake of argument I accepted that the UK contributed vastly higher quality equipment than the US and the US contributed the lowest quality equipment of all it would not leave room for the US to be regarded the bad guys so why should I even waste time discussing your assertion that the US contributed only equipment of lower quality?

That was not my assertion.
My assertion was that your argument that if other western countries had behaved like the US then the war would be over already is bull****, because a lot of the value in what the US sent was replacement (new) value for stuff that had been mothballed for over 20 years and actually saved the military money. Also, that it took other nations taking the initiative and then pushing the US for it to send a lot of more modern/powerful equipment, like modern MBTs, MRLS and cruise missiles, as well as in the lifting of the restrictions about hitting targets inside Russia proper.

Also, that does not change the fact that the US are bad guys wrt Ukraine nowadays. Ever since Trump took power, support for ukraine has slowed to a trickle, and he's been constantly disrespecting and trying to extort them. That's not the behaviour of the good guys in a conflict, and past behaviour doesn't change this.

[Aeson]

And if a doctor saves 2 patients pro bono after earlier promising to do so if either patient were the victim of assault and then when one of them returns for more treatment and the doctor refuses unless the patient (who was assaulted again by the same mugger who threatened the doctor if the doctor didn't stop helping the victim) pays not only for the earlier procedure but for all future procedures then the doctor isn't meaningfully one of the bad guys the repeat offender mugger and his accomplices are the bad guys with it being grossly offensive to characterize anyone else as a bad guy in the scenario, let alone the now financially motivated doctor as the bad guy.

The doctor should keep helping for free and ignore the threats and will not be one of the good guys if that stops occurring. The doctor does not share any culpability for the assault regardless, however.

You seem to want to argue that anyone who stops doing the most admirable thing crosses the line to bad guy. Take note that in your example the doctor murders someone after saving 2 patients. Are you suggesting that the US is now murdering Ukraine? when? that was not the case when we started debating this.

We never did the most admirable thing. That aside, bullying Ukraine to get them to give up $500 billion is not just stopping helping. Lying about who started the war to undermine Ukraines bargaining position isn't just stop helping. Breaking our word is not just stop helping.

You constantly try to reduce the whole issue to "we just stopped helping". You are ignoring reality to help justify Trump's actions.

[Aeson]

We agreed to assure Ukraine's safety. There was no "one time" or "only for X years". We broke that agreement.

You keep showing you are an honorless person by trying to pretend breaking the agreement was justified. Doing so to protect Trump from criticism.