Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Berzerker]

Here's what I said:

"One of my heroes died recently, Daniel Ellsberg exposed the war machine's lies in Vietnam. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, there's a few more. People who paid the price for exposing our torture program."

Ellsberg cited Assange and Manning as 2 of his heroes and I'm sure he thinks highly of Snowden, Greenwald, Mate and the people exposing the torture program - thats parts of what his heroes did. I think Ellsberg gave lengthy interviews to both Greenwald and Mate, so I dont know who on the list is this insult to his memory. I mean, it aint like I voted for the people persecuting Ellsberg's heroes.

[-Jrabbit]

Dude, the Pentagon papers was over 50 years ago. It was a discrete, specific revelation of a brave and committed man of principle.
Comparing your stable of contemporary, scattergun conspiracy theorists and whatabout artists to Daniel Ellsberg is an embarrassing insult to the memory of a man you claim as a personal hero.

[-Jrabbit]

Well, I will agree that it's hard to believe.

[Berzerker]

Do you think Daniel Ellsberg demonstrated his honesty and incorruptibility?

[Berzerker]

None of that establishes any of them as having enhanced credibility rather they are all established as having an axe to grind against the US. I want to hear about how your news journalists stories demonstrate their honesty and incorruptibility.

The axes followed the punishment for telling the truth which is how they demonstrate their honesty and incorruptibility

[Geronimo]

None of that establishes any of them as having enhanced credibility rather they are all established as having an axe to grind against the US. I want to hear about how your news journalists stories demonstrate their honesty and incorruptibility.

[Berzerker]

Tell us your sources sob stories that show you they must be credible.

How far back would you like to go? One of my heroes died recently, Daniel Ellsberg exposed the war machine's lies in Vietnam. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, there's a few more. People who paid the price for exposing our torture program.

[BeBMan]

Russia has failed to get re-elected as a member of the UN's human rights council.


The state was expelled from the top human rights body last April after its forces invaded Ukraine. It had hoped getting a fresh three-year term would highlight divisions between UN member states over whether or not to keep supporting Ukraine.

But Bulgaria and Albania won the two seats allocated for Eastern European countries instead. The vote came days after a Russian missile attack that killed 52 people in the north-eastern Ukrainian village of Hroza.

Russia received 83 votes in favour from the UN's 193 general assembly members, while Bulgaria got 160 and Albania got 123.

Earlier, Albania's ambassador Ferit Hoxha had said it was important for member states to show it was not ready to "take an arsonist for a firefighter".

Russia had promised to find "adequate solutions for human rights issues" and said it wanted to stop the body becoming an "instrument which serves political wills of one group of countries" - understood to be a reference to the West.

Diplomats said it was hoping to regain some international credibility after being accused of widespread rights abuses in Ukraine and inside its own borders.

Russia had claimed it would win the votes of many member states - particularly developing nations - in the secret ballot, suggesting they privately sympathised with Moscow but avoided doing so in public to avoid angering Western states.

Russia is said to have campaigned aggressively, offering small countries grain and arms in return for their votes.

Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, accused the US of leading a campaign to stop them from returning to the council.

The state was suspended from the human rights council in April 2022 with 93 members of the UN general assembly voting in favour, 24 against and 58 abstaining.

The council will consist of the following countries from 2024, for three years: Albania, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, China, the Ivory Coast, Cuba, Dominican Republic, France, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait, Malawi and the Netherlands.
​

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67071697

[pchang]

Munitions shortages only really apply to artillery shells. This is because the West is supplying Ukraine which is fighting Russia style. If the West were to get directly involved, they would fight NATO style. This would greatly reduce the emphasis on artillery.

[Dauphin]

meh...just a thought exercise, but I will address the reasoning behind it.

China/Russia and company all have expressed a desire to create a "new world order" where the West is supplanted by their group. Acting alone, none of these would be undertaken by rational actors. Taken as a part of an overall plan to engage the U.S. in ever deepening conflicts around the globe then some rationality may be present. It is clear that Western arms production is not currently capable of entertaining long and protracted high intensity combat at this point. This is merely a "what if" the U.S. was called to either fight or sustain third parties in such a situation. Is it posssible that this, or some somewhat similar, chain of events could lead to the new world order? That is the thought exercise...not evaluating each actors motivation in a vacuum. So do you have any thoughts there or are you going with the "To unlikely to happen" response? Either is okay and is an answer.

Not too unlikely to happen, but as a concerted direction of travel to supplant existing world order, I think you'd need to win the economic power struggle, and have a unified bloc that is doing the supplanting. The West is generally aligned in its political and socio-economic objectives. I don't think China, Russia, India, etc, have much in common. Sure you can give a headache through draining or diverting Western spending to munitions productions to keep down some unruly rebellions, or some other similar dampener on the current world orders control, but unless you have some assymetric cost-benefits then you won't win unless you have a larger economy.

Russia can drain the West's munitions, but I'm pretty sure it is spending more on the war than the West is.

China could invade Taiwan, but I'm pretty sure it would spend more than the West would in aiding Taiwan.

NK could cause havoc attacking SK, but how much funding drain would that place on the sponsoring state (who would no doubt be sanctioned by the West in response), and so would need a stronger economy to win out.

Africa, quite frankly, if vast swathes became lawless states then all that happens is that everyone loses.

If China wants to supplant the West, it needs to sort out its economy. With a declining population, its future is not one of growth.

Insert other scenario - needs to be a big payoff / cost to the West for low cost to the upstart nations.

[Geronimo]

He's not one of my sources and none of that happened to him, he got sued and lost... My worldview is doing fine, I didn't buy it when Reagan and Obama told us they were arming freedom fighters and moderate rebels and I've seen far too many Nazi symbols and salutes from our allies to believe we aren't arming nasty people. Hard to believe, but we woke one day to learn we have to arm Nazis half way around the world so they can tell the people of the Donbas what to do.

Tell us your sources sob stories that show you they must be credible.

[Berzerker]

Dude if someone has no integrity then getting jailed, banished, exiled, and fired or forced to resign is par for the course. Think Alex Jones. If your journalistic criteria for acceptance is that they must be jailed, banished, exiled, and fired or forced to resign then no wonder your worldview is so f-ed up

He's not one of my sources and none of that happened to him, he got sued and lost... My worldview is doing fine, I didn't buy it when Reagan and Obama told us they were arming freedom fighters and moderate rebels and I've seen far too many Nazi symbols and salutes from our allies to believe we aren't arming nasty people. Hard to believe, but we woke one day to learn we have to arm Nazis half way around the world so they can tell the people of the Donbas what to do.

[PLATO]

Some of those what ifs fall outside the bounds of rationale actors. While these things could happen, why would those actors make the decisions to act in the way you describe. What do they gain, what might they lose, what is their perception of the likelihood success, and what is their idea of success?

For example, I don't see it as that likely hat NK, Belarus or Iran get involved in direct wars. Their leaderships will perceive they have more to lose than to gain. And what does Egypt have to gain, considering they will if nothing else risk losing billions in US military aid straight off the bat.

For Africa, I think you are describing business as usual, just a variant reason. Tinpot dictators and militias on rampage are ten a penny.

meh...just a thought exercise, but I will address the reasoning behind it.

China/Russia and company all have expressed a desire to create a "new world order" where the West is supplanted by their group. Acting alone, none of these would be undertaken by rational actors. Taken as a part of an overall plan to engage the U.S. in ever deepening conflicts around the globe then some rationality may be present. It is clear that Western arms production is not currently capable of entertaining long and protracted high intensity combat at this point. This is merely a "what if" the U.S. was called to either fight or sustain third parties in such a situation. Is it posssible that this, or some somewhat similar, chain of events could lead to the new world order? That is the thought exercise...not evaluating each actors motivation in a vacuum. So do you have any thoughts there or are you going with the "To unlikely to happen" response? Either is okay and is an answer.

[Dauphin]

Some of those what ifs fall outside the bounds of rationale actors. While these things could happen, why would those actors make the decisions to act in the way you describe. What do they gain, what might they lose, what is their perception of the likelihood success, and what is their idea of success?

For example, I don't see it as that likely hat NK, Belarus or Iran get involved in direct wars. Their leaderships will perceive they have more to lose than to gain. And what does Egypt have to gain, considering they will if nothing else risk losing billions in US military aid straight off the bat.

For Africa, I think you are describing business as usual, just a variant reason. Tinpot dictators and militias on rampage are ten a penny.

[PLATO]

Interesting thought on logistics and military production capacity:

2022 - Russia invades Ukraine.
2022-2023- Russian, China, Iran, and North Korea grow closer.
2023 - West begins to talk about ammunition shortages.
2023 - Hamas launches largest attack on Israel in 50 years.

Now the "What if"

2023 - Hezbollah launches attack on Northern Israel
2024 - Iran joins war on Israel. Belarus joins war on Ukraine
2025 - North Korea launches massive attack on South Korea. Threatens nuclear use if its territory is invaded. Russia states any "existential" threat to North Korea would justify its use of nuclear weapons. U.S. ground forces become involved.
2025 - Syria joins attack on Israel. Egypt vows to help defend any Arab territory invaded by Israel.
2026 - Africa explodes as Russian (Wagner) backed Muslim governments and militias launch attacks on "Western influenced Christian" areas.
2027 - China launches attack on Taiwan.

No attack on NATO and the West's "arsenal of democracy is depleted". New world order?