Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[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 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.

[Geronimo]

Iran and china treat Europe fairly on trade?

[N35t0r]

Where do I define it as can't do anything worse? Just needed that straw man?

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.

[dannubis]

Oppressive? No. But people really dislike being doubble crossed, especially when their very existence is on the line. Hence "bad guy" I guess.
I honestly don't care. the EU should flip the bird at the US, finally build up its military and start making its own god damn decisions. US wants a trade war ? US can get one. Iran and China will be more than happy to cover the hole left by the US.

[-Jrabbit]

Sophist BS that totally fails to refute Aeson's actual point (that being the last 3 sentences).

[Dauphin]

I know nothing about the Ottoman scenario, but based on the way it is described, I would call that fraudulent misrepresentation (as defined in quotes, using the civil law as a template) and hence that would make you a bad guy.

• A false representation was made to you;
• The person who made the statement either:
  • knew that it was false; or
  • had no belief in its truth; or
  • was reckless as to whether it was true or false
• The person who made the statement intended that you should rely on it
• You relied on the statement
• You would not have entered into the contract, but for the misrepresentation
• You have suffered loss or damage as a result of the misrepresentation

​

Not sure that holds in the Ukraine case.

[Geronimo]

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.

[Geronimo]

Also how much help did orlavs forces provide before they became the bad guys?

[Geronimo]

In 1770 there was a russian - ottoman war.

A guy named orlov came to Greece said rise up we got your back.
there was a big uprising in Greece against teh Ottoman empire. THe russians backed off left us dry, abandoned us

there was a huge massacre of greeks by the turks.

Were the russians the bad guys? they hadn't touched the hair on the head of a greek


yeah they were

Good analogy because I totally disagree and would have called the ottomans the bad guys for Greece. We can agree to disagree I guess.

Curious about whether you thought it was more important for the Greeks afterwards to counter orlavs faithless faction or the Ottoman empire in the aftermath. Which was the bigger threat? The bad guys or the Ottoman empire? Both? Divide resources evenly to oppose both?

[Geronimo]

If you want to define "the bad guys" as "can't do anything worse", then go ahead, but most of us think it's a bit reductionist.

Where do I define it as can't do anything worse? Just needed that straw man?

[Aeson]

The bad guys is a term borrowed from the language of commentary on fiction. Think of how it is used. The US foreign policy has become contemptible in its shallowness and fickleness but with respect the overall narrative of the misfortunes of Ukraine the US is not yet the bad guys.

No. Trump is acting like a street level mobster shaking down a convenience store. It's plenty to give us the appropriate label of the bad guys.

(Lying about who started the war, verbally attacking the victim, lying about how much aid was given, breaking treaties, pondering ethnic cleansing, and all the psychotic immigration crap is just extra levels of bad.)

[Aeson]

Is "we are the bad guys" really the way to convey that when discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine? I would say "we're not the good guys in Ukraine anymore. I'm no longer certain we won't be joining the bad guys". I just want to keep it grounded especially given the huge further moral declines in US statecraft that it has become all too easy to imagine this president leaping into.

No, we are the bad guys is pretty much it. You just can't help defend what even you call indefensible.

[Bereta_Eder]

Is "we are the bad guys" really the way to convey that when discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine? I would say "we're not the good guys in Ukraine anymore. I'm no longer certain we won't be joining the bad guys". I just want to keep it grounded especially given the huge further moral declines in US statecraft that it has become all too easy to imagine this president leaping into.

In 1770 there was a russian - ottoman war.

A guy named orlov came to Greece said rise up we got your back.
there was a big uprising in Greece against teh Ottoman empire. THe russians backed off left us dry, abandoned us

there was a huge massacre of greeks by the turks.

Were the russians the bad guys? they hadn't touched the hair on the head of a greek


yeah they were

[N35t0r]

If you want to define "the bad guys" as "can't do anything worse", then go ahead, but most of us think it's a bit reductionist.

[Geronimo]

Yes it does. YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO DEFEND OUR ACTIONS AS THOSE OF "NOT THE BAD GUYS".

The bad guys is a term borrowed from the language of commentary on fiction. Think of how it is used. The US foreign policy has become contemptible in its shallowness and fickleness but with respect the overall narrative of the misfortunes of Ukraine the US is not yet the bad guys.