Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Dinner]

You all don't see the stupidity of your arguments:

All of you would rather see a country in ruins for generations to come that is forced to declare neutrality - than a country choosing neutrality...

All just wishful thinking, lacking in any pragmatism or realistic understanding of the world.

But hey, to the last Ukrainian and all that...

[Was gonna say DP, but I've decided to keep it for emphasis]

The Comedian was cynically misled

Outlet never wanted neutrality for Ukraine. He wants to conquer Ukraine and all of his propaganda lies for years has been that Ukraine isn't really a country and should just be part of Russia. He has also said the same garbage about every post Soviet Republic.

​​​​​

[BlackCat]

Mobbys crazy "logic" reminds me of the american nutter Ned that thought that Belgium was responsible for the german attack on them during WWI. Not because they threatened the germans or like, no they just wanted to be neutral and considered it a bad idea to let the german army walk though their country and attack the french on the french-belgian boarder.

If you have forgotten who Ned was, then he was f.ex. a co-discoverer of a clean mineral secret.

[Geronimo]

You all don't see the stupidity of your arguments:

All of you would rather see a country in ruins for generations to come that is forced to declare neutrality - than a country choosing neutrality...

All just wishful thinking, lacking in any pragmatism or realistic understanding of the world.

But hey, to the last Ukrainian and all that...

[Was gonna say DP, but I've decided to keep it for emphasis]

The Comedian was cynically misled

Would you rather see your country occupied by the united states or at war with the United States? Do you fault Iraq for the 2003 invasion or the United States?

[Geronimo]

Victoria Nuland was literally recorded plotting it, among other things

The US has been desperate to maintain its hegemonic status. Russia has repeated its red lines about NATO expansionism since circa 2008, and complained it before then. What happened to Georgia in 2008 should have be a wake up call, but the fact of the matter is that the US doesn't give a **** about trashing any nations that happen to get sucked up and spat out along the way.

Ukraine is basically ****ed for our lifetimes, and for what? It won't have anything to show for it except a ruined nation and being in permanent debt to the US - it certainly won't be a member of NATO, which was surely the whole point of this utter folly...

Perhaps it's you guys being fed US propaganda, just like all the lies that emerged about Iraq like WMDs etc. How many of the usual suspects here got sucked in by that, I know I certainly wasn't. So yeah, my views have been remarkably consistent, actually.

Plenty of people have been warning about this **** for decades - when you back something dangerous in a corner, expect it to come out fighting, it's simply the laws of nature. I mean what else was Putin going to do?

That's not being an apologist - that's just being a realistic...

Could you clarify a few points for us?

Do you believe that every state has a responsibility to not provoke aggression from other states regardless or whether or not the provoked response would be a reasonable one? If other states provoke an unreasonable but promised response from a particular state does it then follow that the provoking states which provoked that response by disregarding the repeated unreasonable demands and ultimatums bear any responsibility for the provoked response? When do they bear responsibility for the unreasonable but promised response and when do they bear only partial responsibility? if they bear partial responsibility when does their responsibility approach zero and when (if ever) do they bear majority or even complete responsibility? In the case of the provoking states bearing complete responsibility let's agree that this would describe a situation in which we deem that the state that made unreasonable demands and carried out the promised unreasonable response could be said to bear zero responsibility for carrying out its promised response to its unreasonable demands.

Do you believe that demands by a state that one or more other states must never join one or more defensive alliances freely formed by freely signed treaties among the other states are reasonable demands? Would it be reasonable for the United states to make such a demand? which states, if any, would you agree that the United states could reasonably demand must never be allowed to join a defensive organization freely joined by all members? If you don't agree that the US could reasonably make such a demand which states, in your view, could reasonably make such demands and how are they different from the united states in such a way that it is reasonable for them to make such demands but not for the united states to make such demands?

Do you agree that military invasion is a reasonable response to a foreign sponsored coup in a country so long as the invading country views the sponsor of the coup as a rival or even hostile? When is a military invasion a reasonable response to a foreign sponsored coup in another country?

Does a military invasion of a country in response to a coup in that country sponsored by a country hostile to the invading country remain reasonable if several years have passed since the foreign sponsored coup and there have been multiple elections in the country since the coup which have been observed by international monitors and deemed to be fair and free of irregularities by such observers? When (if ever) would it stop being acceptable for a country to invade another country when a foreign sponsored coup is the justification for the invasion?

Finally how do you think exceptionally evil and powerful fascist countries such as the United States will react if it is established that so long as any state clearly states an ultimatum then the democracies and various non-evil responsible parties on the world stage who respect rule of law both domestic and international will advocate that everyone must respect the unreasonable ultimatums of any state and that they will advocate that countries which refuse to obey the unreasonable demands of the united states will bear much if not all of the responsibility for the aggression that results from failing to obey those demands? Do you think the United states will make fewer unreasonable demands and carry out fewer threatened reprisals than is currently the case or do you think that perhaps the (obviously fascist) united states might be emboldened to do so more often and even more brazenly? Do you think it will become easier or more difficult to discourage the united states from carrying out its evil fascist schemes?

I'm not being an apologist. I'm just being a realist.

[BeBMan]

I don't think neutrality is going to stop Putin from ruining Russia.

[giblets]

Good thing Manhattan is north of the tropic of cancer

[Dauphin]

So a fresh attack on Pearl Harbor won't trigger Article 5 then?

[N35t0r]

Also the attack would need to happen in Europe, North America, Turkey, the Mediterranean Sea, or the North Atlantic (above the tropic of cancer).

It's why Argentina's invasion of the Falklands didn't trigger it.

[BlackCat]

International law experts. How does article 5 work if Greece and NATO go to war and both claim that the other is the aggressor?
​​​​​​

Question doesn't make sense - NATO doesn't go to war on claims, there must be an attack on a member from a foe not a NATO member that are serious, ships sunk, flights shot down, military units killed etc. IIRC if both parties are member of NATO, then NATO uses only political weight.

[Geronimo]

International law experts. How does article 5 work if Greece and NATO go to war and both claim that the other is the aggressor?
​​​​​​

[Bereta_Eder]

Do you think Turkey and Greece wouldn't have been at war several times if neither was in NATO?​

I think that probably yes there would have been numerous greco turkish wars because there are not enough mature polititians in either side to prevent it.


Since both ARE in NATO though, this is the canary in the mines,


future NATO destruction will not happen with russia invading the baltics or poland but with a full blow greek turkish clash

Obviosuly I do not wish it
​

[N35t0r]

Do you think Turkey and Greece wouldn't have been at war several times if neither was in NATO?

[Bereta_Eder]

Also I think that at this point it's about china 100%.

[Bereta_Eder]

about NATO promising not to expand east ward it's so funny what actually happened


there was a so called verbal ok to the russian demands by a low level american diplomat (under bush). when the american administration read the minutes of the meeting, the highest echelons of their power (may ne nush himself) said screw that, we will give money whatever guarantess russia wants but not a limit to NATO that has worked so well in keeping peace in europe/US for so many decades

( I DONT AGREE WITH ALL THAT BUT THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED AND SAID)

so in future agreements and meetings there never was even an allusion that the US has promised to russia that there wouldnt be an eastward expansion


that is russian propaganda that is based ona grain of (irrelevent and somewhjat common in international meetings) instant misunderstanding

also ask the average baltic person what he wants, he wants to be a bot more safe vis a vis the russian bear

also

coming down to what I said before

Ukraine deserves to be free and european.....

free means free....



maybe i'm nore of the french ideological school that says that ideals are worth defending above all else


and mobius is more of the british pragmatic approach.


sill ukraine had a chance to be peaceful and udner putin's boot.


who would want that....

[N35t0r]

So then what you're saying to Russia is that we're still against you and we're going to keep expanding against you because you are the enemy. You know that Putin actually wanted to join NATO but was rebuffed, right?

​

Putin was told he was free to join if he followed the standard process. He expected to be treated like a princess, and when he wasn't he stormed off in a huff.

I don't remember Russia being overtly hostile towards Ukraine until the 2014 revolution and when all that **** kicked off, where Russia sought to defend its strategic assets in Crimea as a result.
​

​

Well, you could start with Viktor Yushenko, who ran on a pro-West platform and was poisoned (but survived) during the election campaign.
Although I guess you could classify that as being covertly hostile.
​