Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Aeson]

I said that when it comes to the arithmetic of the election outcome a vote motivated by the first values would make as much difference as a vote determined by the second values. I find it incredibly revealing that for you that observation means that "You equate your daughter being excited to see misogynistic glass ceiling fall with people who hate women, make derogatory comments about women because they are women, and would never vote for a woman." Not even close Aeson. Maybe you are one of those people who thinks with their gut and judges based on your general impressions?​

The claim was misogyny was significant enough to cover the spread.

You responded by saying your daughter was excited to see a woman elected. And that such sentiment would somehow counterbalance the misogyny on the other side. You were trying to "whataboutism" misogyny.

They do not belong on the same balance. Not even in the same discussion. Misogyny is a horrible stain on human history. Any morally or ethically esteemable person would be excited to see such a glass ceiling fall. It doesn't make a person sexist, it means they understand how evil sexism is.

[Aeson]

I accept that Ukrainians are dying because of Trump's decisions in the same manner that Europeans in World War 2 were dying because Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler rather than confronting him.

No. It would be like if the British had convinced Poland to give up all their guns, tanks, and ammunition in return for a security guarantee. Then as the Germans invaded, killing the Polish, broken the treaty and berated Poland for starting a war with Hitler. Trying to get Poland to sell everything they had dirt cheap.

It's levels deeper evil than just appeasement.

[Aeson]

Where pray tell do I imply that the changes Trump is making to US statecraft are defensible on any level?

In the following sentence:

I simply point out that neither Trump nor the US is meaningfully "the bad guy" in Europe.

We are the bad guys here.

[Aeson]

there is zero logic in that stance. Regardless of what the US did or did not do under Trump this Term the only countries that might possibly be justfied in seeking nukes who wouldn't before would be US allies. For everyone else the logic for getting nukes may actually be weaker now that the US will apparently be faithless to all of its allies.

No. Everyone has to have nukes now. It's clear the US guarantees in various nonproliferation acts are worthless. We will just let any free democratic society (or any other) be run under by aggressive neighbors.

It won't happen all at once, because it's economically difficult, but we just decided nonproliferation is dead.

[Aeson]

We got the Ukrainians to disarm under a treaty where we guaranteed their protection. Then we broke the treaty and are letting the Russians kill them. We are the bad guys.

[Geronimo]

You keep trying to minimize the betrayal. Our betrayal of Ukraine was to get them to disarm so they couldn't defend themselves, by convincing them we would guarantee their safety.

Stop quibbling about "attack" or whatever. YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ME IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT THAT UKRAINIANS ARE DYING BECAUSE WE LIED TO THEM, GOT THEM TO DISARM UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, AND THEN BETRAYED THEM. WE DID THAT.

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU THAT OUR POSITION IS IN ANY WAY DEFENSIBLE MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR EVEN GEOPOLITICALLY. WE HAVE MADE ALL HUMANS, OURSELVES INCLUDED, LESS SAFE.

I accept that Ukrainians are dying because of Trump's decisions in the same manner that Europeans in World War 2 were dying because Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler rather than confronting him. Where pray tell do I imply that the changes Trump is making to US statecraft are defensible on any level? I simply point out that neither Trump nor the US is meaningfully "the bad guy" in Europe. Only Putin could currently wear that hat. Trump's foreign policy being inexcusable and wrong does not make the US an aggressor outside of the trade war context. Trade wars are stupid but they are not comparable in moral weight to actual warfare.

As much as I might be disappointed in the legacy of Neville Chamberlain I certainly won't let anyone allow any of Hitler's colossal guilt for World War 2 to be offloaded from Hitler to his shoulders.

Trump is doing tremendous indirect harm with his neo-isolationism but it's indirect harm and indirect harm and direct harm is a crucial distinction. probably the most crucial.

[Geronimo]

The only logical course of action going forward is for all nations to seek a nuclear deterrence of their own. We cannot be relied upon. This will exponentially increase the risk of nuclear exchanges in the future. We did this.

there is zero logic in that stance. Regardless of what the US did or did not do under Trump this Term the only countries that might possibly be justfied in seeking nukes who wouldn't before would be US allies. For everyone else the logic for getting nukes may actually be weaker now that the US will apparently be faithless to all of its allies.

[Geronimo]

I find you detestable. You equate your daughter being excited to see misogynistic glass ceiling fall with people who hate women, make derogatory comments about women because they are women, and would never vote for a woman.

​You equated those values. I did not. I said that when it comes to the arithmetic of the election outcome a vote motivated by the first values would make as much difference as a vote determined by the second values. I find it incredibly revealing that for you that observation means that "You equate your daughter being excited to see misogynistic glass ceiling fall with people who hate women, make derogatory comments about women because they are women, and would never vote for a woman." Not even close Aeson. Maybe you are one of those people who thinks with their gut and judges based on your general impressions?​

You equate someone deciding what to buy and what not to buy based on moral or ethical grounds with Trump starting trade wars, attacking allies, pondering ethnic cleansing.

Mass boycotts *are* just as harmful as trade wars. Sure, I'll agree that you feel large, organized boycotts against a state are always benign or at least are good against the US currently while I feel that just like trade warfare, they inevitably do collateral damage. When I didn't answer the rest of your post, I didn't see anything there about that, however.

​
At least the mindless sycophants really believe Trump is doing something good. They are just wrong. You on the other hand clearly understand that Trump is a horrible, awful person, clearly not fit for office, but constantly still try to defend him, undermine and deride resistance to him, "whataboutism", etc.

If you want to agree with me, you're going to have to admit you are wrong, and change your stances to those I actually agree with. I have no patience for apologists for misogynists, racists, traitors, xenophobes, or fascists.

Wow. Just wow. Every time I "defend" Trump it's because I know the misguided and potentially demonstrably false attack will only further increase the difficulty of resisting him. I personally blame you and all those who think as you do as making a huge contribution to Trump being re-elected. In this awful first-past-the post defacto 2-party system in the US your constant willingness to overlook anything inaccurate so long as it was against Trump seems to have given serious ammunition to his campaign and help destroy trust and credibility in his opposition.

[Aeson]

Where do you disagree Aeson?

...

Trump should feel very guilty for the consequences of his terrible leader decisions but not the same guilt as if he had ordered a US attack on Ukraine of any kind. If we agree about that what use was the rest of your post that I was "handwaving"? What was the substantial disagreement?

You keep trying to minimize the betrayal. Our betrayal of Ukraine was to get them to disarm so they couldn't defend themselves, by convincing them we would guarantee their safety.

Stop quibbling about "attack" or whatever. YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ME IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT THAT UKRAINIANS ARE DYING BECAUSE WE LIED TO THEM, GOT THEM TO DISARM UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, AND THEN BETRAYED THEM. WE DID THAT.

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU THAT OUR POSITION IS IN ANY WAY DEFENSIBLE MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR EVEN GEOPOLITICALLY. WE HAVE MADE ALL HUMANS, OURSELVES INCLUDED, LESS SAFE.

[Aeson]

The only logical course of action going forward is for all nations to seek a nuclear deterrence of their own. We cannot be relied upon. This will exponentially increase the risk of nuclear exchanges in the future. We did this.

[Aeson]

The US is *NOT* the "Bad guys" in the Ukraine war. Not yet. It is certainly reprehensible for the US to ignore its political declarations under the Budapest memorandum including to refrain from "Economic Coercion​" as the memorandum prohibited economic coercion designed to subordinate Ukraine's sovereignty or secure advantages inconsistent with its independence. However, the US failing to meet its declared intent under the Budapest memorandum is not a treaty violation. Russia on the other hand broke several binding treaties and directly attacked Ukraine it violated at least 4 actual treaties:

1. United Nations Charter
2. Helsinki Final Act (1975)
3. Minsk Agreements
4. Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership (1997)

To have the US serve as "the bad guys" in this war the US would need to at minimum directly aid and abet the still ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine or would have to initiate its own campaign against Ukraine that would not mostly offset or otherwise counter Russia's campaign or would have to aid and abet another separate state in doing the same.

To see if we can ever really be on the same page in this regard consider the following.
In 1939 the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact split Poland between the Third Reich and the USSR and both aggressively invaded and conquered about half of the country. In this case I think we are comfortable asserting that in 1939 Poland both the third Reich and the USSR were "the bad guys".

Now imagine a different scenario. Imagine that instead Stalin had refused to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and instead when the third Reich invaded Poland that Stalin had responded by pouring military aid into Poland until it looked as if Poland might halt the Nazi advance with a loss of only about 20% of polish territory and observers began to think that the Nazi assault might collapse within a year hopefully allowing the poles to drive them back out of the country. Certainly, at this point the Nazis are the bad guys and the USSR are not. Let's then imagine that a disgruntled soviet rival deposed Stalin and announced that the war in Poland would need to be ended and demanded a ceasefire from both parties. For a few weeks a reduced level of Soviet military aid to Poland continued but at one point in association with the new soviet leader's demand for a cease fire all soviet aid and cooperation with the polish government ceased. The new soviet leader suggested that in exchange for payment from Poland for prior aid more military aid might be considered for Poland. In the meantime, the Nazis persisted in their relentless campaign to conquer more polish territory and met with representative of the new soviet leader to discuss Nazi demands in the absence of any representation by Poland or its allies.

Tell me, in this scenario who are the "bad buys" in Poland? would it be the Nazis and the Soviets or would it still just be the nazis?

​Would it be the soviets for tricking Poland into relying on unlimited indefinite Soviet military aid?
​​

If Poland had had nukes, and only gave up nukes because Russia guaranteed their safety, then yes, Russia would have been the bad guys if they did not uphold their end of the bargain.

Ukraine could have kept their nukes and been safe. We convinced them not to. Now we are breaking that treaty and because of our betrayal they are in an unwinnable situation. Not only that, but we are now lying about the very nature of the conflict, berating them, and trying to profiteer off the situation we caused.

We are the turncoat that opened the gates and welcomed in the enemy. It doesn't matter if we actively killed them or not, they are dying because of our betrayal.

It is a betrayal not just to the Ukrainians, but to the whole world who bought our anti proliferation stance over the decades. We have sold out all of humanity.

[Geronimo]

Go read the response. Here's one of the many disagreements:

You claim Trump was not a stranger to the situation. I say he was. We do not agree.

You can't just handwaved away my disagreement and claim I agree with you.

When I say he was no stranger to the situation that simply means that he was introduced to the situation directly through his role as head of the organization. *NOT* some random "stranger" randomly harming the victim in whatever lamented manner. Talking like he was this random attacker dropping in to loot the victim in any of the metaphors or analogies being made is ridiculous. There was an organization massively helping the stabbing victim (Ukraine) in the original metaphor by Paik. the organization got a new leader. Maybe the new leader was a "stranger" just before he got the role (although in Trump's case he was leader before the prior leader and had some limited dealing giving limited assistance through the organization to the victim prior to the big assault on the victim under his organizations next leader). How do you figure it is meaningful or helpful to characterize Trump as a stranger in this relationship? Circumstances were going to insert Trump and his judgement into US-Ukraine relations regardless of his choices or experiences. He was not meaningfully a "stranger" when we want to construct illustrative metaphors to describe his appalling changes to US policy towards Ukraine and its defence. If you want to say "Trump is a stranger because it wasn't his idea to help Ukraine a lot" or words to the same effect, so what? Isn't that generally true for leaders who take over from prior leaders? I'm *not* saying that the characterizations of Trump as being like a vicious attacker or looter on a victim are inaccurate because Trump's office make prior help to the victim Trump's brainchild or any such nonsense, I'm merely observing that Trump's office means that he can speak for the organization in addition for speaking for himself in relation to that role. Trump as the leader of the organization could say crap like "Where's the gratitude for all the help we've given you! You'd be dead 3 years ago if it wasn't for our help!" Even though he personally is the first to agree that he wasn't in charge 3 years ago. I *do* agree that the standard Trump uses for when he's speaking of his own personal attributed actions and those of the organization should be consistent and Trump instead just distinguishes based on what he thinks will be rhetorically convenient or simply easier on his ego but that does not make him some random stranger who jumped Ukraine out of nowhere to make a victim of them. Where do you disagree Aeson? Did you just think I was trying to say that Trump was really in charge when Ukraine was assisted during the Biden administration or that more than a relatively small fraction of overall aid to Ukraine was approved when Trump was President? No I don't think that. I think Biden was president when the overwhelming majority of US aid to Ukraine was authorized. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Trump would never have authorized massive military aid to Ukraine. Duh. That doesn't make him in any way like an attacker on Ukraine or make his grossly misguided attempts to recoup for the organization that he leads some kind of payment for assistance that the organization he leads provided to the victim under the prior leadership some kind of "attack" either.

I wasn't handwaving anything I was just giving you credit for accepting that diplomatic debts of almost every kind carry over between presidencies even though personal debts for personal decisions obviously do not since, duh, the presidents are different persons. Trump should feel very guilty for the consequences of his terrible leader decisions but not the same guilt as if he had ordered a US attack on Ukraine of any kind. If we agree about that what use was the rest of your post that I was "handwaving"? What was the substantial disagreement?

[Aeson]

ok where do you feel we still disagree about diplomatic debt and its transference between presidencies?

Go read the response. Here's one of the many disagreements:

You claim Trump was not a stranger to the situation. I say he was. We do not agree.

You can't just handwaved away my disagreement and claim I agree with you.

I find you detestable. You equate your daughter being excited to see misogynistic glass ceiling fall with people who hate women, make derogatory comments about women because they are women, and would never vote for a woman.

You equate someone deciding what to buy and what not to buy based on moral or ethical grounds with Trump starting trade wars, attacking allies, pondering ethnic cleansing.

At least the mindless sycophants really believe Trump is doing something good. They are just wrong. You on the other hand clearly understand that Trump is a horrible, awful person, clearly not fit for office, but constantly still try to defend him, undermine and deride resistance to him, "whataboutism", etc.

If you want to agree with me, you're going to have to admit you are wrong, and change your stances to those I actually agree with. I have no patience for apologists for misogynists, racists, traitors, xenophobes, or fascists.

[Geronimo]

No, we disagree on a lot. You apparently do not understand what you or I are saying because I specifically disagreed with and refuted you on many, many points.

ok where do you feel we still disagree about diplomatic debt and its transference between presidencies?

[Geronimo]

We lied to Ukraine. We got them to give up their nukes by guaranteeing their safety. Then we broke that treaty.

We took away their ability to defend themselves, and now are berating them for starting a conflict they didn't start.

Your continual inability to grasp that we are the bad guys here, that Ukrainians are DYING BECAUSE WE ARE LIARS WHO TRICKED THEM INTO RELYING ON US, is pathetic.

Now the whole world has to begin building nuclear stockpiles, because our word is worthless. Everyone in the world is less safe because of our actions. It wasn't just an attack on Ukrainians, it was an attack on the future of humanity.

The US is *NOT* the "Bad guys" in the Ukraine war. Not yet. It is certainly reprehensible for the US to ignore its political declarations under the Budapest memorandum including to refrain from "Economic Coercion​" as the memorandum prohibited economic coercion designed to subordinate Ukraine's sovereignty or secure advantages inconsistent with its independence. However, the US failing to meet its declared intent under the Budapest memorandum is not a treaty violation. Russia on the other hand broke several binding treaties and directly attacked Ukraine it violated at least 4 actual treaties:

1. United Nations Charter
2. Helsinki Final Act (1975)
3. Minsk Agreements
4. Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership (1997)

To have the US serve as "the bad guys" in this war the US would need to at minimum directly aid and abet the still ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine or would have to initiate its own campaign against Ukraine that would not mostly offset or otherwise counter Russia's campaign or would have to aid and abet another separate state in doing the same.

To see if we can ever really be on the same page in this regard consider the following.
In 1939 the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact split Poland between the Third Reich and the USSR and both aggressively invaded and conquered about half of the country. In this case I think we are comfortable asserting that in 1939 Poland both the third Reich and the USSR were "the bad guys".

Now imagine a different scenario. Imagine that instead Stalin had refused to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and instead when the third Reich invaded Poland that Stalin had responded by pouring military aid into Poland until it looked as if Poland might halt the Nazi advance with a loss of only about 20% of polish territory and observers began to think that the Nazi assault might collapse within a year hopefully allowing the poles to drive them back out of the country. Certainly, at this point the Nazis are the bad guys and the USSR are not. Let's then imagine that a disgruntled soviet rival deposed Stalin and announced that the war in Poland would need to be ended and demanded a ceasefire from both parties. For a few weeks a reduced level of Soviet military aid to Poland continued but at one point in association with the new soviet leader's demand for a cease fire all soviet aid and cooperation with the polish government ceased. The new soviet leader suggested that in exchange for payment from Poland for prior aid more military aid might be considered for Poland. In the meantime, the Nazis persisted in their relentless campaign to conquer more polish territory and met with representative of the new soviet leader to discuss Nazi demands in the absence of any representation by Poland or its allies.

Tell me, in this scenario who are the "bad buys" in Poland? would it be the Nazis and the Soviets or would it still just be the nazis?

​Would it be the soviets for tricking Poland into relying on unlimited indefinite Soviet military aid?
​​