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?

[Geronimo]

If all countries had followed the US' example and sent mostly mothballed equipment and stuff destined for destruction and counted it at replacement price? Ukraine would probably be worse off.

Also without the likes of the UK, Netherlands and Denmark who constantly spearheaded new equipment and demonstrated that Russia's "Red lines" were just bluffs, there would still be no tanks or F-15s or cruise missiles.

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.

[N35t0r]

If all countries had followed the US' example and sent mostly mothballed equipment and stuff destined for destruction and counted it at replacement price? Ukraine would probably be worse off.

Also without the likes of the UK, Netherlands and Denmark who constantly spearheaded new equipment and demonstrated that Russia's "Red lines" were just bluffs, there would still be no tanks or F-15s or cruise missiles.

[Geronimo]

And you go and do it again when discussing the Greece/Ottomans/Russia scenario. Whatabouting Russia's behaviour by comparing to the Ottomans, and asking whether the Greeks should have diverted any resources, and asking which is the biggest threat.

It doesn't matter. The Russians where 'bad guys' in that scenario. The Ottomans can have been as well, it's not mutually exclusive.

Similarly, nowadays even though the fact that the sole responsible for the war lies at Russia's feet, that does not mean that the US' behavior hasn't been despicable, and it bears a lot of the responsibility for the probable upcoming rise in nuclear proliferation.

Hell, your answer to how the US is not the good guys for not respecting the Budapest memorandum was... that Russia respected it even less? What kind of argument is that? Congratulations, you've established that the US is not as bad as Russia, that is still balls-deep in 'bad guy' territory.

If a signatory state of the non-binding Budapest memorandum (not a treaty but a political declaration) over 3 years *gifts* conservatively over $180 billion in chiefly military assistance to Ukraine to fend off a full-scale invasion of Ukraine by another signatory guarantor, a declared nuclear power with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world (which continuously threatens nuclear retaliation for any interference) stops sending aid to Ukraine and verbally blames Ukraine for the war and even threatens economic normalization with the true aggressor, that state is not a bad guy in that context. To recognize this is not "whataboutism". If that's as far as things would go it would never be the bad guy. Not even offering to resume military aid at exorbitant prices to Ukraine would be enough to make that state the "bad guy" in that context.

Ok, so I absolutely stand by my insistence that it was inappropriate to call the US "the bad guy" in the Ukraine war and I reject any assertion that this was an argument based on "whataboutism" but rather the assertion was based on overall contribution of the US as a state to Ukraine in the conflict in combination with the terrible (from Ukraine and it's allies perspective) changes to that contribution by the US *not yet at that time* consisting of any intentional direct damage to Ukraine. I refuse to accept that ending any kind of generosity, even that pledged in a political declaration like the budapest memorandum is enough to qualify as "bad guy" in an open large scale existential military conflict related to it. My stance all along certainly can recognizes that Donald Trump is a bad guy in the context of the Ukraine war as the implementor of the extremely unfavorable to Ukraine changes in US generosity as a state, but *not* the US as a state itself.

An important key here is that I recognize that if the US were to grant basically any materially beneficial aid to Russia or tangible political action directly and actively against Ukraine or favoring Russia (excluding passive political action like voting against NATO membership but including perhaps a vote against Ukraine in the UNSC) or God forbid any kind of military action on any scale against Ukraine then yes, given no ongoing actions in Ukraine's favor at least as large to somehow counter all of that then the US would become at least briefly "a bad guy" in the Ukraine war. Although I'd argue becoming "*the* bad guys" in that conflict would still require either some kind of pact with Russia against Ukraine or US attacks on Ukraine of such a large scale as to surpass Russia's in damage to Ukraine.

That's key because I let myself drop out of the news cycle while on vacation the last 9 days apart from a couple occasions waiting in line for a ferry or security where rather than doing any number of more useful and less self-defeating things with my time, I checked out some Poly OT threads on my phone. When I returned yesterday, I let myself read a few headlines on DW and BBC news and got to feed my post-holiday blues by partially updating myself about Trump's latest trade-war antics. At this point I'm so appalled by Trump's overall trade policies that I need to take a break from trying to keep up on the news. While I suppose based on what I know so far there's no reason I should suspect that Trump probably has or will go far enough with respect to causing the US to directly harm Ukraine enough to make the US bad guys for Ukraine, his trade policies are so irrational that I certainly wouldn't want to bet against it and with such a thin margin established between US as bad guys in Ukraine (just one UNSC vote, one small delivery of arms to Russia, one sharing of US intelligence to Russia materially useful against Ukraine, etc along with negligible aid to Ukraine) and not bad guys I'm probably not going to follow up on this part of the thread much. That doesn't mean that I accept that the US has been meaningfully a bad guy in Ukraine even as recently as a couple of weeks ago when we started this. I do hope by now that you understand that my opposition wasn't based on "whataboutism" but on net and ongoing contributions of the US as a state to the war in Ukraine. If every country apart from Russia had mirrored US policy from the start of the full-scale invasion until a few weeks ago when everyone wanted to call the US as a state "the bad guys" in Ukraine in this thread, not only would Russia's invasion long since have been utterly repelled along with the Crimean occupation as well, but there would be zero damage to Ukraine apart from all of the countries now recanting and accusing Ukraine of having somehow started the conflict and starting to now talk about normalizing relations with Russia (which would probably have a truly ruined economy at this point). Net real damage by those countries mirroring US policy would be zero. That's not the record of a "bad guy" in the Ukraine war. no "whataboutism" required.

I really still don't see how anybody didn't get that, but I also fear it will soon, if not in the last week, be rendered moot by US policy actually making the current US a bad guy in the Ukraine war in current fact.

[Bereta_Eder]

well what netanyahu is doing is very difficult to defend. we're talking ethnic cleansing it seems


the average turk, I don't think we have something to divide and I'm sure noone wants war.

So it's hard to choose.

I say Turkey is worse but I'm not palestinian.

I also admire israel and the israelis/jews very much but I think what netanyahu does now is criminal

[The Mad Monk]

turkish press (which means the dioctaroship press) is having a nervous melt down right now

israel needs greece to keep turkey in check

turkey says it will erase israel from the map

so all is going as intended I guess

Which is worse in your opinion, Israel or Turkey?

[Bereta_Eder]

turkish press (which means the dioctaroship press) is having a nervous melt down right now

israel needs greece to keep turkey in check

turkey says it will erase israel from the map

so all is going as intended I guess

[Bereta_Eder]

the background is : a cable.

there is a huge electricity cable going from cyprus to crete.


turkey sent frigates to stop it.

greece decided no to send frigates (as it had in the past and sunk turksih frigates by gently touching them) because maybe NATO doesn't really need the final blow and the last nail to its coffin right now.

turkey has no problemin allowing this conenction IF greece asks. Greece will not ask since that would mean that it accepts territorial ambitions in international waters

anyway long story short Greece and Israel do share humungus common interests at the present time. also the cable starts from Israel.

[Bereta_Eder]

don't think you have the monopoly on moral repulsniveness btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3QXqovmZVU

(anti-turkish alliance no matter with who...)

[Bereta_Eder]

Also you lie, you haven't helped the most, you're second. European aid is larger.

Also there is on record (thanks to russian intelligence but still) your officials inciting revolt in ukraine and when asked wether that is a wise move or would it lead to russian invading and that europe would be angry if you pushed ukraine to war you replied literally fcvk the EU.

That is all on record, how then do you perceive yourself to be the biggest benefactor, escapes me.

Not saying that you invaded and not russia but saying you are the biggest cutest benefactor and now you're just being neutral is so off the charts it's mind boggling anyone would think like that

I won't even add your mafia president's antiques and the extortion that followed. That is beyond the pale morally


if you stuck to your guns (even if you lost), you could argue that hey we supported freedom and democracy in ukraine. The action that trump takes now completely destroys you in the eyes of anyone who cares about that part of the world and degrades the US to the worse back stabbing hypocritical monster since I don't know when

[Bereta_Eder]

If being the most generous benefactor literally on the world for Ukraine and then abruptly stopping and using offensively ambivalent language about the conflict makes the US the bad guys then the only difference between bad guys and neutrals (like literally almost every country outside NATO, and maybe Japan and Australia) is that neutrals never helped Ukraine while bad guys help them for 3 years and then join the neutrals sitting on their hands and using offensively neutral language to describe the cause and resolution of the conflict. I guess bad guys are just a variety of neutral state that used to be too generous to Ukraine.

If every country in the world apart from Russia were that kind of bad guy Ukraine would have annihilated the Russian invasion for more than a year ago.

you were not neutral. according to russian propaganda you pushed NATO eastwars. I don't buy that there was an agreement not to so we move on to things you did.

You did help and support an ousting of the (democratically deficient) ukranian leader. You did support and helped the maidan plaza revolt. You were not an inoccent bystander.

Like the russians to the greeks in 1770, you said to the ukranians: rise up and then you abandonned them

that makes you morally repehensible.

Also the US stood for something, and some people believed it. Now you stand for nothing. The world will treat you as such

[N35t0r]

If being the most generous benefactor literally on the world for Ukraine and then abruptly stopping and using offensively ambivalent language about the conflict makes the US the bad guys then the only difference between bad guys and neutrals (like literally almost every country outside NATO, and maybe Japan and Australia) is that neutrals never helped Ukraine while bad guys help them for 3 years and then join the neutrals sitting on their hands and using offensively neutral language to describe the cause and resolution of the conflict. I guess bad guys are just a variety of neutral state that used to be too generous to Ukraine.

If every country in the world apart from Russia were that kind of bad guy Ukraine would have annihilated the Russian invasion for more than a year ago.

If a really nice husband started hitting his spouse, would that then make him not that bad, because he was really nice before! That other guy has been hitting his wife for much longer, so it's really unfair to say they're both bad.

[dannubis]

Nice tangent.
But to answer, that will depend on how much the EU can make its own geopolictical decisions.

[Aeson]

Here's the thing so far the US bad guy impact to Ukraine is similar to if Putin had used a genie to magically make the us disappear for Ukraine. Doesn't seem especially oppressive to me.

No. No one would be accusing Ukraine of starting the war, trying to humiliate their leader, or trying to coerce the Ukrainian victims into paying $500 billion in protection money.

We are doing that. We are bad guys. You are trying to justify it, making you personally a bad guy.

[Ming]

No... bad guys break treaties... Use Mob protection racket tactics... Start Siding with the real bad guys... tells lies, blaming the good guys for what the bad guys did... and don't really care what Ukraine wants and instead, is trying to give Russia everything they want.

Trump is a total pond scum and is giving America a bad name around the world. How can any country ever trust us again.

Feel free to keep coming up with weird examples of why we aren't the bad guy here. We are, and that's a fact!