Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[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.

[N35t0r]

Can we all at least agree that Kursk has been a total failure?

Igor Girkin doesn't seem to agree:

“In general, in the first ten days of October nothing unexpected (for me) happened: the enemy left part of the city of Ugledar, which became too difficult for them to defend (due to the bypass of the northern flank). Again the enemy retreated on his own, without being defeated or surrounded.
…
There is very little time left before the autumn thaw begins and, it seems, the summer-autumn campaign can be considered over. We can summarize some results (although, perhaps, the Ukrainians could come up with something else before the season of “autumn thunderstorms”):
1) in general, the campaign was a “draw” from the military point of view. The Russian Armed Forces were unable to create the so-called "buffer zone" in the Kharkov region and break through the enemy's defenses there. It was not possible to capture even the immediate target of the offensive, the city of Volchansk, and create a stable bridgehead around it to threaten Kharkov. On the other hand, during the summer we managed to advance the front in the direction of Donetsk by 20-25 km and (in some places) deeper, clearing a fairly large area from the enemy. In turn, the Ukrainian Armed Forces invaded the Kursk region, capturing Sudzha (a village-regional center), which “nullified” all our successes and created a vast new area of armed confrontation. Thus, “our gains” are Ugledar and about 40 more settlements, while our “losses” are one and a half districts of the Kursk region occupied by the enemy. It looks like a “tactical draw”.

2) However, this “draw” is only “apparent”. In fact, we (Russia) suffered a strategic military failure this summer/autumn. WE DID NOT REALIZE the plan for a large-scale offensive on Kharkov, for which we had been preparing forces, equipment and reserves for a year. And then we “missed” a not too strong, but very painful blow with the transfer of ground operations to our territory. But THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE LOST TIME. Which is now both for us and for the so-called “Ukraine” (which, as a result, won it) “worth its weight in gold”. The enemy had time to prepare additional forces and reserves and demonstrated the impossibility of defeating them with the “set of tools” that Russia can use within the Northern Military District without switching to a full-scale war and full mobilization to achieve victory. That is: the enemy achieved his goals during the summer-autumn campaign: 1) repelled our offensive with small territorial losses; 2) launched a strong counterattack; 3) kept unused reserves to continue active defensive and offensive operations; 4) sustained in its population and army the belief in victory and the willingness to endure hardships in the hope of it. But we (Russia) did not achieve our goals at all: 1) our attack on Kharkov was “blocked” with very insignificant territorial successes; 2) our offensive in the Donetsk People’s Republic only “shifted” the enemy front, but did not even come close to crushing it; 3) our reserves were spent on repelling the enemy invasion of the Kursk region (which was never completely repelled after 2 months of heavy fighting); 4) what to do now with the enemy army and the war in general – in the framework of the continuation of the special military operation is not entirely clear…”


Also, with NK sending troops to Ukraine, there's high chances of SK sending equipment and ammunition.

Who had proxy Korean war in Europe on their bingo card for this year?

[giblets]

Would be a shame if the Korean troops defected

[Dinner]

That's different because Israel/Zionists have been deliberately targeting/cleansing/genociding Palestinians since, basically 1919. One could argue they're acting in self-defence...

But that is some pretty entertaining chutzpah that you're using the Gaza situation for your Whataboutery 😁🙌

You've really become delusional. No, there is no genocide and I do not feel sorry that Islamic terrorists started a war that they are now losing. It is absolutely perverse how you are supporting the Islamic militants who actually are trying to commit genocide. Just a complete reversal from reality.

[Geronimo]

Good grief, y'all are ****ing deranged! 😅

Mad Monk is the clear winner, wanting to start an unprovoked overt (instead of in the shadows, as it already is) NATO war with Russia and therefore the very probably use of nuclear weapons...

But then, NATO has form on unprovoked wars: Iraq, Serbia, Libya etc... 👍

You're a ****ing lunatic! 🤣🤣🤣

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.