Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Geronimo]

Meanwhile:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oop-deployment

If I understand correctly, South Korea is only threatening to consider directly supplying Ukraine with weapons in the event that Russia transfers technology to North Korea. As that would be almost impossible to prove I suspect talk of new South Korean support for Ukraine is at best premature and in all likelihood will not occur.

[BeBMan]

And meanwhile, the deadliest weapon in the Russian arsenal continues to be windows:

"Russian sources claimed on October 20 that former Russian Yukos Oil Company Vice President for Corporate Management Mikhail Rogachev was found dead in a possible suicide after falling from a window in Moscow."

How often did he fall before he died?

[BeBMan]

Seems I confused Bakhmut and Mariupol. I guess that makes everything look much better here. Ahh, no.

[BeBMan]

Here's how Russia ...cough "celebrates" its military achievements these days:

https://meduza.io/en/short/2024/10/21/russian-army-officer-gives-kindergarteners-diorama-depicting-ruins-of-ukraine-s-bakhmut

But was it accurate enough to include the large "Children" signs visible from the air, outside the bombed theatre?

[BeBMan]

Also Russia clarifies how it wants to achieve peace:

Moscow’s ambassador to London has said the UK is waging a proxy war against Russia, while predicting the “end of Ukraine” as Russian invading forces make deeper advances into the country.

In an interview with the BBC, Andrei Kelin said Ukraine continued to fight but claimed “the resistance is more feeble and feeble”.

Russian troops, he said, were gaining more terrain every day, adding: “The end of this phase will mean the end of Ukraine.”

from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...xy-war-ukraine

Who knows, maybe that proxy bit also means North Korea is using Russia as proxy to deplete US stockpiles?

[BeBMan]

Meanwhile:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/21/south-korea-summons-russian-envoy-over-north-korean-troop-deployment

[BeBMan]

I was afraid Moby would endlessly repeat Putin's propaganda lies. Ooops, he actually did.

[Geronimo]

Ukraine was not under any threat from Putin until the US backed coup in 2014.

Try again.

how does Nuland's call prove 2014 was a coup?

Nuland's call is evidence of nothing more than US preferences for transfer of power. Ask yourself this Mobius: "In the absence of any "coup" US or otherwise, what would I expect Nuland's call in private to any local US consulate bureaucrat or official to look like? Would I really be surprised if they would be communicating in no uncertain terms US preferences for the transfer of power and contempt for the interests of other actors even if transfer of Ukrainian power was by no means certain?" answer honestly.

For reference here's a BBC annotated transcript of the complete recording of Nuland's infamous call.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

[Geronimo]

Just like Putin was bluffing about Ukraine joining NATO? 🙄

A. Ukraine has not joined NATO. if we are witnessing Putin's threat credibility because he invaded Ukraine without any formal invitation to Ukraine to join NATO You'll have to explain. Are you suggesting that When he demanded NATO officially prohibit any future candidacy for Ukraine as a member of NATO and then invaded a couple of months later that this shows his threats are credible and that he doesn't bluff? In that case, I still do not understand since he did not in fact make any such official threat and ,on the contrary, officially declared several times even up to the day before the invasion that Russia would not invade Ukraine. That does not sound like evidence that Russia would not bluff either.

B. Even if Putin had made a dire threat and carried it out when his demands were not met this would still not serve as evidence that his nuclear threats against nuclear 2nd strike capable powers are not bluffs because MAD tells us carrying out his threats would lead to the destruction of the Russian state, OR if his nuclear threats involved tactical nuclear weapons use those tactical nuclear strikes would not only either be grossly ineffective (while leading to massive diplomatic fallout with the PRC) and if somehow strategically significant lead to devastating conventional retaliation. no matter what Russia Loses. Until we see Russia walk wide eyes wide open into a MAD level certainty of state destruction nothing Russia will do will undermine the premise that his threats of nuclear retaliation against 2nd strike capable nuclear powers are clearly bluffs.

[N35t0r]

Ukraine was not under any threat from Putin until the US backed coup in 2014.

Try again.

That's why they tried to assassinate Viktor Yuschenko, to prove they weren't a threat. Right.

[MOBIUS]

if by "do it anyway because they're irrational" you mean "disregard any nuclear threats against nuclear powers because such threats are inherently irrational so make a point of doing whatever would be done in the absence of nuclear threats anyway" then I guess that part of your paraphrasing was ok.

Where in the hell did you ever get the impression that I said "they're irrational and likely to use nukes"? On the contrary I think their nuclear bluffs against NATO (or any other nuclear power) are a bluff because they are likely to be rational actors. I *did* suggest that if they are irrational enough to use nukes in response to non-nuclear "provocations" by nuclear powers that we should assume they are irrational enough to launch a surprise first nuclear strike for strategic advantage and in that case caving to their demands would do absolutely nothing to ultimately reduce the risk of nuclear war anyway.


You realize that MAD isn't about complying with nuclear blackmail demands? MAD is about asserting the futility of using nuclear weapons against a nuclear power that has substantial second strike capability. a corollary to MAD would be that nuclear threats against a nuclear power that has substantial second strike capability will be seen as bluffs and lack credibility.

Just like Putin was bluffing about Ukraine joining NATO? 🙄

[MOBIUS]

Keep talking out of your ass.

Putin, who has said that there is no such thing as the nation of Ukraine, was not going to leave Ukraine be.

Ukraine was not under any threat from Putin until the US backed coup in 2014.

Try again.

[Geronimo]

Dude...

Now you're letting your imagination run wild... 😅

Any nukes will likely be tactical in nature if Russia starts suffering reversals on the battlefield.

But you're saying do it anyway because they're irrational and likely to use nukes...!?

Yeah, welcome to MAD! 🤣🤣🤣

But hey, if Trump wins, as is looking increasingly likely, he will save us from nuclear war by ending the war.

Did I actually write that...!? 😂🤪

if by "do it anyway because they're irrational" you mean "disregard any nuclear threats against nuclear powers because such threats are inherently irrational so make a point of doing whatever would be done in the absence of nuclear threats anyway" then I guess that part of your paraphrasing was ok.

Where in the hell did you ever get the impression that I said "they're irrational and likely to use nukes"? On the contrary I think their nuclear bluffs against NATO (or any other nuclear power) are a bluff because they are likely to be rational actors. I *did* suggest that if they are irrational enough to use nukes in response to non-nuclear "provocations" by nuclear powers that we should assume they are irrational enough to launch a surprise first nuclear strike for strategic advantage and in that case caving to their demands would do absolutely nothing to ultimately reduce the risk of nuclear war anyway.


You realize that MAD isn't about complying with nuclear blackmail demands? MAD is about asserting the futility of using nuclear weapons against a nuclear power that has substantial second strike capability. a corollary to MAD would be that nuclear threats against a nuclear power that has substantial second strike capability will be seen as bluffs and lack credibility.

[N35t0r]

And meanwhile, the deadliest weapon in the Russian arsenal continues to be windows:

"Russian sources claimed on October 20 that former Russian Yukos Oil Company Vice President for Corporate Management Mikhail Rogachev was found dead in a possible suicide after falling from a window in Moscow."

[N35t0r]

I keep things simple because I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself beyond this. Putin said Ukraine joining NATO was a red line back in 2008. Georgia defied him in 2008 and was invaded (simply, but it was way more complicated than that!). Ukraine knew what was going to happen. 2014 was a CIA coup against the democratically elected president (again, much more complicated - do some ****ing reading up! *cough* Nuland *cough**cough*). Russia reacted again to secure its 200+ year old naval base.

NATO/CIA acts; Russia reacts - not the other way around.

Just ****ing read up on the history, and stop willfully ignoring my points, FFS! 😅

I don't actually care whether you do or not, because Ukraine being destroyed is the outcome of taking sides (NATO).

My alternative solution would have been to maintain neutrality. There would have been no war, as Putin would not have had the provocation to attack. Unfortunately you can't undo what has been done, but you can act to end the stupidity...

It literally is that simple. 🙄

Also you're clearly getting your news from Western propaganda sources. Ukraine's armed forces are in very deep **** indeed - the desperate gamble of Kursk has greatly accelerated that! They're losing on all fronts, and pretty soon if the current rate of attrition is continued they will break - then Russia will be able to move on objectives unopposed👎

But yeah, feel free to carry on ignoring reality! 😅

Keep talking out of your ass.

Putin, who has said that there is no such thing as the nation of Ukraine, was not going to leave Ukraine be.