Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[MOBIUS]

That's a lot of what-ifs based on a very shaky premise (that we can take Putin's promises at face value).

It's not about Putin at this point, it's about the rest of the world, that would have surely walked away from him if he'd still attacked despite Ukraine agreeing to back down and become neutral. Then I think he would have failed.

People seem to think Putin is irrational. I think he's proved the exact opposite.

Either way, you have to admit that the probability of no war is preferable to the opposite!

Anyway, adiós!

[MOBIUS]

In 2008 Putin said Russia would never permit Georgian or Ukrainian membership in NATO. So what? How does that possibly explain the special military operation? Ukraine and Georgia were both much further from NATO membership throughout every year after 2014 than they were in 2008. Your next point suggests you should already understand this.



You're saying that it was obvious that Putin was going to invade Ukraine because just before the special military operation he recognized that he would need to invade Ukraine so that it wouldn't have territorial integrity and therefore would no longer be a potential candidate to join NATO? News flash. Putin already occupied (and claimed) all of Crimea. How in the hell could Ukraine have had territorial integrity just before the special military operation?? Did he reason they were about to sign away Crimea? nobody has said that. is that your reasoning? explain Mobius.


Russia did not "try" to join NATO. Russia never officially announced interest in joining NATO unlike every other member that has ever joined NATO. West Germany might have been the most ambivalent before joining of any member and even they made their declaration of intent much clearer than Putin's Russia. Putin only casually, verbally asked if Russia might join NATO in a conversation with Clinton to which Clinton replied "why not?". Putin later consistently clarified in various conversation that Russia's path to NATO membership should consider its unique security concerns and strategic interests. Russia never took a single official step to join NATO.

Sorry, I forgot about replying to this: 'explain MOBIUS'

Easy: your pathetically poor reading comprehension skills and, I'm assuming, memory, meant that you completely misunderstood my point*, because obviously Russia had already broken Ukraine's territorial integrity. I was explaining that's exactly what it did to **** Georgia's (and Moldova's) ambitions to join NATO. That's why I explained in an earlier post that it was just ****ing semantics, so there was nothing to be lost in dropping that ambition, because it couldn't be achieved in the first place without Russian cooperation (leaving Ukraine), or a war, e.g. taking sides, which Russia took umbrage over...


*You're like an illiterate version of that guy in the movie Memento... No wonder you're considering voting for Trump 🤦♂️

[N35t0r]

That's a lot of what-ifs based on a very shaky premise (that we can take Putin's promises at face value).

[MOBIUS]

Here's the thing:

1) While a nation does not have control of its borders and is in armed conflict with another nation - IT CANNOT JOIN NATO - END OF STORY!

Someone replied about Georgia in 2008 when they said they were going to join NATO. Putin invaded Georgia on the pretext of helping the South Ossetians and Abkazian separatists who the Georgia were fighting at the time. An internal matter, you say? Well so was Kosovo, but that didn't stop NATO from ****ing the Serbs. Kosovo is a 'country' still not recognised as such by the Council of Europe or indeed most countries in the world. It is also home to a massive US military base. So basically NATO set the precedent for Putin to attack Georgia and aid the Donbas region of Ukraine in 2014.

2) If Ukraine had backed down:

Putin would have not had the excuse he gave to invade and so would have had to back down as he would have achieved what he demanded. He would not have had the support he enjoys from the Global South had he still attacked, and therefore would have likely failed.

The West could have continued arming and training the Ukrainian army as it had been for the last decade.

Navalny would probably still be alive.

Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people would still be alive and the country would not be smashed into smithereens, saddled with generations of debt...

3) Instead, Russia will win. It's only a matter of time and the longer it takes for Ukraine to admit they're already beaten, the worse it is going to be for them.

At some point they will be forced to declare their neutrality - at which point people will say why the **** didn't they do that in the first place, as they will be in the same position, but now with a shattered and partitioned country.

The question now will be how much territory will they be forced to give up? Lines frozen at ceasefire? The 4 oblasts in their entirety - or if their army is broken on the battlefield, all the majority Russian speaking oblasts, including places like Odessa...?

And for what, some pointless toxic concept of pride...? 🙄

It's sad, because I think the Ukrainians genuinely thought the US had their back, when in actual fact they've hung them out to dry, much like Afghanistan and allies in Syria, Libya etc. Sadly the US has form... 😢

What else? Russia gets to genuinely enhance its territory with valuable lands and resources, completely securing its Black Sea port, massively improving its armed forces with key experience and equipment, military industrial complex, massively improving cooperation and ties with China, NK, Iran etc., who all gain valuable things in return...

A key vulnerability has been exposed in NATO and western armies: lack of ammunition and materiel production. Russia alone being able to produce more of both than the whole of NATO combined, with Israel's genocide further depleting stocks.

Yes, China you can be sure, has been taking notes.

Far from beating down their enemies, the West has emboldened and strengthened them...

Anyway, fully expecting this post to somehow be mysteriously deleted as well...

This is my parting shot. I won't be replying further.

[Geronimo]

But it's cool to read predictions on how irrational actors would do.

I hope you're agreeing that nobody should be putting any stock into such predictions.

[pchang]

While they have not tested a nuke, they did just test a new nuclear missile. However, it blew up on the test pad.

[BeBMan]

But it's cool to read predictions on how irrational actors would do.

[The Mad Monk]

dude if Russia will very probably respond to a Nato Invasion of Ukraine by Nuking in spite of knowing full well that this would result in Russia getting nuked then they aren't rational actors and there is no point in trying to treat them as such. If Russia is willing to endure nuclear armageddon for anything less than a regime change invasion of Russia then there is no point in trying to placate them. As irrational actors they would be just as likely, or perhaps even more likely, to nuke without "provacation" as with. Since they are undeterred from using nukes by nuclear retaliation they might even be more likely to try to the "unprovoked" first strike "for the element of surprise!".

Using WMD against countries with WMD is irrational. It is also irrational as a state possessing nukes of your own to restrain your non-nuclear "provocations" in response to nuclear threats to not do so because if you do it will become essential for every country to acquire a credible nuclear stockpile for making their own nuclear demands. That's totally unacceptable. Russia's nuclear blackmail threats have to be blatantly disregarded because:

A: if they are not then every state needs to stockpile nukes, cue end of world countdown.

B: because Russia is either bluffing or bat**** crazy and totally detached from reality in which case it doesn't really matter what you do because there will be no modeling the bat**** crazy actor's responses anyway. So disregard their loony ravings and stick to doing what makes sense regardless.

Russia is bluffing.

Nuclear weapons are expensive to maintain, with the United States spending fifty billion dollars per year to keep it's 5,000 warheads up to date. This includes replacing the tritium load every five to ten years in every warhead, because tritium's half life renders it unusable in that time, at roughly $100,000 per shot. Then there's testing and replacement of shaped charges, worn out electronics (due to radiation exposure), and other maintenance. This doesn't even count maintenance and replacement of the missles that carry them. Fifty billion dollars.

Russia claims to have 5,600 warheads.

It spends sixty billion dollars per year.

On its Entire Military.

Not even accounting for corruption.

...and they haven't done a single nuclear test in thirty years.

[BeBMan]

Putin felt he was backed into a corner and gave an ultimatum that was ignored since before 2008, so that reaction shouldn't have come as a surprise.

Moby the mindreader.

We've been over this a billion times. His response therefore was 'understandable' and the tactics used (with resulting war crimes - not to be condoned - but certainly to be predicted!) expected.

And you're still repeating bull**** as factual. At this point it looks you're making up stuff on purpose.

That is why the war had to be avoided at all costs and why by not avoiding it, the West and Zelensky have done the people of Ukraine a great disservice, to put things extremely mildly... 😢

And that is how you constantly try to shift the blame from the aggressor to the victim.

[giblets]

Ukraine should have avoided war at all costs, by accepting a Russian puppet as their president, because anything else would be seen as leaving the door open for someday joining NATO

[Bereta_Eder]

snip snip

[Geronimo]

There is pragmatism and then there is ideology

when greece declared independence, we pretty much thought we were gonna get slaughtered.

even europe had said that all insurrections are demonic (it was after napoleon) and would not support anything


that's why our national motto is freedom or death (it can be spelled in our blue and white stripes in our flag)


we pretty much thought it was going to be death

why would urkaine accept living under the boot of ANY dictator?

maybe it should. pragmatically


but people aren't always "logical"

Serb, Berz and I guess mobius all maintain that Ukrainians oppose Russia because they are "puppets" of the US and their puppet master forces them to. I don't think the Ukrainians are ready to let their national government be "puppets" of any kind.

[Bereta_Eder]

snip snip

[The Mad Monk]

Well, they should have also declared war on the Soviets, by that logic 😉

Churchill probably wanted that, and it would have been a good move, geopolitically speaking.

[Geronimo]

Also, as I've repeatedly said: just because I can see the logic of a side's action or that it's 'understandable'...

DOESN'T MEAN I ****ING SUPPORT IT!!! 🙄🙄🙄

It simply means I see why they did that.

I don't support Russia, BUT I see why they did what they did.

I firmly believe that Ukraine wouldn't be suffering this terrible war if it backed down from its unrealistic ambition of joining NATO. This war is basically down to toxic pride 👎

Just *why* do you believe this? every year since 2014 Ukraine has been much further from possible NATO membership than it was in any of the years preceding "the coup". Since Russia never invaded during those dangerous years of possible NATO membership why was it obvious he would invade when NATO membership had become an absurd pipe dream for Ukraine?