Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Ming]

And today, Trump announced that the US was stepping back from the peace talks.
You know, the war he said he could end in 24 hours.

[BlackCat]

Quite interesting
Actually, the russians got mad when the danish military said that it wanted to go to Ukraine (no, not the whole army) and learn more about drone warfare - some high brass danish even have said that all danish soldiers should learn about using drones parallel to standard operation.

[Provost Harrison]

Patronizing much? I don't think we want Trump or anybody else really viewing other countries as like the US's dependent children that it is parenting and keeping safe.

If you as a strong swimmer took your coworker to the beach and encouraged them to go out into the surf with assurance from you and a coworker who was a weaker swimmer and also assurances from the Lifeguard at the beach that you'd all keep them safe and then while the coworker was out there the Life guard leaped into the surf and started trying to drown your coworker while also threatening to drown you and the weaker swimmer if you interfered and the both of you tried for several minutes to keep them safe but abruptly you give up and go back to shore suddenly angry and shout back that your coworker must've provoked the Lifeguard somehow and the coworker had better make it worth their while if they wanted more help then we can all agree that your later behavior would be incredibly weak and contemptible but the bad guys clearly would be the Lifeguard who was trying to drown your coworker and threatening everybody, not really you. If you acted at all to assist the Lifeguard in trying to drown your coworker or to independently try to drown your coworker, then sure you've become one of the bad guys not just a fickle and insulting former friend.

The mental gymnastics are spectacular...

[Provost Harrison]

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.

So you're saying the US's word is meaningless? "Binding contract" gets tricky when it comes to international treaties and reneging on them. I mean how would they retaliate? But it does mean that the US's name is mud and no one trusts you, it's immensely harmful in every respect to every aspect of diplomacy and international trade. And on the long run, it will be your undoing when former allies back the hell away.

[BeBMan]

Well, he's also cool with folks who think 9/11 was an iside job:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly8y27dwgpo

That's what goes for "leader of the free world" these days.

(But to be fair I have no idea if he actually claims this title for himself)

[dannubis]

Peace-Putin on Palm Sunday:



full article https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ke-2025-04-13/

Trump blames Zelensky AGAIN.

[BeBMan]

Peace-Putin on Palm Sunday:

• Summary

• Ballistic missiles hit centre of city in Ukraine's north not far from Russian border, Kyiv officials say
• Some 117 people injured, bodies strewn about street
• Ukraine says Russia used cluster munitions, deliberately hit civilians
• Moscow yet to comment on deadliest strike since September 2024
• Attack comes soon after Trump envoy held talks with Putin in US push to end war

​

full article https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ke-2025-04-13/

[Aeson]

The point of an analogy is to highlight a specific point in another, hopefully clearer, context. Not to duplicate the situation in ever detail.

If you want to duplicate the original situation in the most exacting detail, stop using analogies. Just use the actual situation.

Which is that Ukraine gave up it's nukes in an agreement where we assured their safety. We have now broken that agreement, lied about who started the war, lied about how much we had helped Ukraine in an effort to use their dire situation to extract as much value from them as we can.

We are the bad guys. Yes, Putin is even worse than us, but that doesn't excuse our behavior.

[Geronimo]

Your definition of 'not inflict any harm' must be dumbed down to the point of uselessness then.

Russian shahed drone attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets used to have a 95%+ intercept rate until Trump came into power. Ever since then, and the marked decrease in US intel sharing and support, it's been a lucky day when Ukraine manages to shoot down 90%, with the 80-85% range being more likely. This has led to hundreds of extra deaths that weren't happening thanks to the US, but now aren't. The US is purposefully abstaining from saving civilian lives, and you claim that that isn't what a bad guy would do.

The US has zero culpability for that harm. It's not as if US intelligence is in the public domain and the US was moving to conceal or deny access to data that Ukraine shared ownership of. Countries have gone to war in response to intelligence sharing and even the tit for tat response can be nasty. When the US is sharing intelligence with Russia's enemy, Russia is no doubt sharing intelligence with US enemies. A metaphor for this would be more like if a civilian knew something to help a victim mitigate a criminal assault but also knew that sharing the information would point a finger directly at them when the criminal saw the victim use the information. The right thing to do is to share the intel but not sharing it for selfish and/or stupid reasons does not make the civilian one of the bad guys. the criminal assailant and their accomplices are solely the bad guys in that context.

So the US isn't the bad guy because North Korea and the Solomon Islands didn't send military aid to Ukraine. Gotcha.

Ukraine Support Tracker | Kiel Institute​

Does that look like a map of everybody minus "North Korea and the Solomon Islands" to you? It's like you're not even trying.

And I disagree with your premise. A father who walks away on his family just because he doesn't want the responsibility is a bad guy in that situation, regardless of how good a father he was before, how much money he provided in the past, or how there are much worse fathers that even abuse their families.

A father has far different obligations than a sibling, a cousin, a shirt-tale relative or a friend or an acquaintance. Why would the relationship of a father to their child be the appropriate relationship for the metaphor for the US-Ukraine relationship than one of these?

In a town with no real law enforcement or access to law enforcement a friendly gun owning neighbor along with several other neighbors (a couple of them own pistols) tries to help save a neighbor who is a brother or cousin to several of the assisting neighbors who is being repeatedly assaulted and robbed by the victim's now hostile sibling who threatens to shoot anybody who intervenes with some of the guns he inherited from their dead parents including those that the victim had in a locked gun safe in the victim's home which the attacker had the key to and which the other gun owning neighbors had years earlier talked them into surrendering to the attacker to dispose of saying that the other gun owners in the neighborhood would be there to watch their back and that they had no intention of ever attacking the victim.

Regardless of what assistance the other neighbors stop giving and when they stop, the only bad guys will be the attacking sibling and his accomplices. The neighbors who continue to try to assist the victim are acting heroically and probably wisely and those that cease doing so are acting cowardly and probably foolishly but until they join in assaulting or literally robbing, they do not become bad guys in that conflict. Demanding payments in any form for future assistance especially from such a desperately endangered victim of an unprovoked attack is definitely mercenary and self-motivated and not heroic but how would it make any of them "bad guys" in that context? that's nuts, I'm sorry. If the actual bad guys dropped dead or simply left, there would be zero harm from anyone else to the victim. all of the harm originates from the bad guys. Actors can be bad guys, good guys and definitely can be neither as well.

[N35t0r]

Yes. Behavior of the US had ceased being that of a good guy. This was extremely disappointing and describing the US has no longer one of the good guys in Ukraine is accurate.

It was wrong to characterize the US as one of the "bad guys" in the Ukraine war. It had not inflicted any harm on Ukraine.

Your definition of 'not inflict any harm' must be dumbed down to the point of uselessness then.

Russian shahed drone attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets used to have a 95%+ intercept rate until Trump came into power. Ever since then, and the marked decrease in US intel sharing and support, it's been a lucky day when Ukraine manages to shoot down 90%, with the 80-85% range being more likely. This has led to hundreds of extra deaths that weren't happening thanks to the US, but now aren't. The US is purposefully abstaining from saving civilian lives, and you claim that that isn't what a bad guy would do.

Also you keep ignoring that I clearly said if every country in the world apart from Russia had mirrored US policy then Ukraine would have won. You are now arguing instead against a strawman of me asserting that if only the contributing allies to Ukraine (*not* almost every country in the world) had mirrored US policy that Ukraine would have won. You are certainly free to win that argument against that strawman but kindly leave me out of it.

So the US isn't the bad guy because North Korea and the Solomon Islands didn't send military aid to Ukraine. Gotcha.

My point in raising the hypothetical was to show that as a bad guy in an ongoing conflict the US should be demonstrated to be directly responsible for the bad outcome of the conflict and not merely another country failing to continue to help avert the bad outcome (let alone never helped at all and one of the bad guys who is responsible for the conflict).

And I disagree with your premise. A father who walks away on his family just because he doesn't want the responsibility is a bad guy in that situation, regardless of how good a father he was before, how much money he provided in the past, or how there are much worse fathers that even abuse their families.

[Geronimo]

If you took your 3 year old kid to the beach, and coaxed them into the surf with the assurance you would keep them safe ... then just let them drown. You are not just not a good parent. You are a bad parent.

That while they are drowning in a mess we helped get them into we are screaming at the kid for being so dumb to go in the water and demanding they pay us to maybe help them ... makes it so much worse.

Patronizing much? I don't think we want Trump or anybody else really viewing other countries as like the US's dependent children that it is parenting and keeping safe.

If you as a strong swimmer took your coworker to the beach and encouraged them to go out into the surf with assurance from you and a coworker who was a weaker swimmer and also assurances from the Lifeguard at the beach that you'd all keep them safe and then while the coworker was out there the Life guard leaped into the surf and started trying to drown your coworker while also threatening to drown you and the weaker swimmer if you interfered and the both of you tried for several minutes to keep them safe but abruptly you give up and go back to shore suddenly angry and shout back that your coworker must've provoked the Lifeguard somehow and the coworker had better make it worth their while if they wanted more help then we can all agree that your later behavior would be incredibly weak and contemptible but the bad guys clearly would be the Lifeguard who was trying to drown your coworker and threatening everybody, not really you. If you acted at all to assist the Lifeguard in trying to drown your coworker or to independently try to drown your coworker, then sure you've become one of the bad guys not just a fickle and insulting former friend.

[Aeson]

Yes. Behavior of the US had ceased being that of a good guy. This was extremely disappointing and describing the US has no longer one of the good guys in Ukraine is accurate.

It was wrong to characterize the US as one of the "bad guys" in the Ukraine war. It had not inflicted any harm on Ukraine.

Also you keep ignoring that I clearly said if every country in the world apart from Russia had mirrored US policy then Ukraine would have won. You are now arguing instead against a strawman of me asserting that if only the contributing allies to Ukraine (*not* almost every country in the world) had mirrored US policy that Ukraine would have won. You are certainly free to win that argument against that strawman but kindly leave me out of it.

My point in raising the hypothetical was to show that as a bad guy in an ongoing conflict the US should be demonstrated to be directly responsible for the bad outcome of the conflict and not merely another country failing to continue to help avert the bad outcome (let alone never helped at all and one of the bad guys who is responsible for the conflict).

If you took your 3 year old kid to the beach, and coaxed them into the surf with the assurance you would keep them safe ... then just let them drown. You are not just not a good parent. You are a bad parent.

That while they are drowning in a mess we helped get them into we are screaming at the kid for being so dumb to go in the water and demanding they pay us to maybe help them ... makes it so much worse.

[Geronimo]

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.

Then why did Ukraine need or even want to be in NATO? If the US and the UK guarantee your safety forever you don't stand to gain much by it and will definitely incur some steep costs.

Speaking of NATO, unlike the Budapest memorandum NATO treaties include actual security guarantees and the US under Trump was nowhere near the first NATO country to withdraw from Afghanistan even though the conflict there never ended. If a much stronger and specific actual set of treaty obligations as exists in NATO was not adequate to keep everyone there supporting the US forever, why would the vague and weak Budapest memorandum require for US to defend Ukraine forever?

[Geronimo]

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.

what is bullying? bullying is using the stick and not just the carrot. What is the stick that the US is brandishing in its supposed "shakedown" of Ukraine? Is the stick just lying about who started the conflict?

Breaking our word? What if Trump signed a political declaration to defend Russia in Crimea from any attack, including from Ukraine. If Trump was replaced by a democrat president would that president be breaking our word to refuse to support Russia if its forces occupying Crimea were attacked?

Political declarations are weak and non-binding. Vague political declarations are weaker still. I'm concerned about Trump flagrantly breaking several major ratified binding treaties. I don't see why anyone should care whatsoever really about Trump failing to deliver on vague predecessor political declarations like the Budapest Memorandum.

[Geronimo]

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.

Yes. Behavior of the US had ceased being that of a good guy. This was extremely disappointing and describing the US has no longer one of the good guys in Ukraine is accurate.

It was wrong to characterize the US as one of the "bad guys" in the Ukraine war. It had not inflicted any harm on Ukraine.

Also you keep ignoring that I clearly said if every country in the world apart from Russia had mirrored US policy then Ukraine would have won. You are now arguing instead against a strawman of me asserting that if only the contributing allies to Ukraine (*not* almost every country in the world) had mirrored US policy that Ukraine would have won. You are certainly free to win that argument against that strawman but kindly leave me out of it.

My point in raising the hypothetical was to show that as a bad guy in an ongoing conflict the US should be demonstrated to be directly responsible for the bad outcome of the conflict and not merely another country failing to continue to help avert the bad outcome (let alone never helped at all and one of the bad guys who is responsible for the conflict).