Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Berzerker]

You will notice the FBI is still blocking the release of the actual videos of events claiming it would reveal the identity of to many FBI agents and confidential sources. On the record the FBI said they had between 100-200 agents and informants in the house that day. That means a very large percentage of the "insurrectionists" were Feds. Probably most of the instigators were Feds and the video they are hiding would likely prove this. What do you want to bet the people who removed the traffic barriers and opened the doors were Feds?

After the whole set up about Gretchen Witmer where 13 of the supposed 17 "conspirators" were all feds can you really blame anyone for demanding hard evidence?

I can understand the feds wanting to protect the identities of their undercover people but I saw video on TV/internet of capital cops guarding a locked door ushered away by 2 men dressed like protesters. Those guys were not MAGA, they were fed assets opening the door and inviting people in. The Democrats and security state wanted a riot to further attack Trump. Now that takes hutzpah after supporting hundreds of riots before the election to hurt Trump.

BLM 500 > MAGA 1

Camel > gnat

Secret Service had 100-200 but much of that was tied to protecting Trump at his rally, not sure how active they were at the capital. Jan 6 was a scaled up version of the Whitmer fraud, that too was meant to damage Trump. The FBI and security state is rotten to the core and the people responsible get jobs at news stations telling us what to believe.

[pchang]

I would be careful. Extreme paranoia appears to be a major side effect.

[BeBMan]

Someone has leaked crucial info about Patriot systems on the intarweb:

[Geronimo]

Didn't you keep invoking little green men to justify Azov shelling the Donbas for 8 years? If Russia was removed entirely from this scenario I'd still be left pondering the question, 'who started it?' Obama did, we either requested a massacre or at the very least embraced the coup and then armed Azov to shell the Donbas for 8 years.

The violence made him flee and informed everyone else in the country they better not complain because the CIA knows who's been naughty or nice. You dont think that violence had coercive effects?

Actually I never conceded that they shelled "the Donbas". I think it's total BS that they were targeting the region like some sort of ww2 bomber Harris campaign. They were indeed attempting to shell and defeat the separatist armed formations.

The question "who started it?" required context. Who started what? inter Ukrainian political conflict? inter Ukrainian violence? Inter Ukrainian armed forces conflict? Russian intervention across the Ukrainian border? I maintain that for everything about the current special operation between Russia and Ukraine that Russia totally and exclusively "started it". Then you go off on some tangent about "coups" and CIA funding of sniper ops against police and protestors as if that is even remotely relevant to Russia invading Crimea in 2014 let alone 2022.

I also totally diasgree that the "violence made him flee" what a bullcrap joke Berz. How many times has Zelensky been forced to flee by Russian violence?

[Dauphin]

Many coups merely drive the leader(s) out of office or the country

I think JFK was a coup

Silly definition, any government collapse is a coup by that metric. They happen all the time in parliamentary democracies.

Is it a coup if the electorate drive someone out of office?

[Ming]

Somehow. Amazingly a handful of 'seditionists' were able to weave their way thru a crowd of govt assets numbering in the hundreds to foil the mighty United States...

A handful
Weave their way thru a crowd of govt assets

Can I get some of what you are smoking

[Dinner]

You will notice the FBI is still blocking the release of the actual videos of events claiming it would reveal the identity of to many FBI agents and confidential sources. On the record the FBI said they had between 100-200 agents and informants in the house that day. That means a very large percentage of the "insurrectionists" were Feds. Probably most of the instigators were Feds and the video they are hiding would likely prove this. What do you want to bet the people who removed the traffic barriers and opened the doors were Feds?

After the whole set up about Gretchen Witmer where 13 of the supposed 17 "conspirators" were all feds can you really blame anyone for demanding hard evidence?

[Berzerker]

In hindsight an organized failed coup can be much harder to prove than a successful one. Just because the FBI didn't think they had enough evidence to treat the entire incursion of protestors and rioters as an organized coup does not mean there is a lack of convincing evidence that at least some of them wanted to prevent the transfer of power. Do you really believe the shouts to hang Mike pence weren't driven by opposition to the certification of votes?

Believing the capital incursion 06jan2021 was an attempted (if weakly organized and supported) coup is perfectly reasonable. Hardly "drinking the Kool aid".

Not in this day and age when damn near everything is recorded. Ofc some (all?) wanted to "Stop the Steal". Yes, they were protesting Pence, even had a mock gallows. I think calling it a coup is hyperbole, especially in the face of an actual coup in Ukraine supported by Obama and Biden. You see, I've learned I can depend on Democrats to reveal their sins and crimes by the accusations they make of others. While they were accusing Trump of conspiring with Putin to interfere in our election they were actually working with Ukrainians for years to bring down Trump.

Before Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden's connection to Burisma and a fired prosecutor Senate Democrats told Ukraine to investigate Trump over Russiagate. Well, Russiagate was a scam to frame Trump and Obama knew it months before the election and his FBI took those lies to a Fisa court to spy on Trump. That one will be at or near the top of the list of MAGA grievances for Jan 6. Anyway, the forces gathered together to defeat Trump should be alarming. People who wanted this war are in charge and do not want it to stop.

[Dinner]

Nice little Perun video

Yep, I watch him every Sunday.

[Dinner]

There have been some great explanation videos of how stuff works in authoritarian dictatorships with low rule of law. Basically, 3veryone wants to export, steal, or embezzle as much as possible as quickly as possible then transfer the money abroad to some where safe where corrupt officials can't reach it.

[BeBMan]

Nice little Perun video

I'm sure Russia intercepted them. After all they managed to hit HIMARS hidden on the second floor of some building

[Berzerker]

Uhhhh... they tried to stop the legal transfer of power. That was an attempted coup. FACT.

They protested certification and it turned into a riot... Somehow. Amazingly a handful of 'seditionists' were able to weave their way thru a crowd of govt assets numbering in the hundreds to foil the mighty United States... and it worked. These guys successfully stopped the legal transfer of power. Not sure if they really stopped anything, they had to forgo a ceremony but I thought it was a symbolic gesture by that point. I wonder if those govt assets are getting punished or rewarded for their inability to stop a half dozen Oathkeepers from pissing on Biden's parade.

People rioted at Trump's inaugural and BLM spent months rioting across the country before the election, Jan 6 is the proverbial gnat in comparison. Other than the riot delaying certification (if that) the 'coup' appeared to be a legal means of challenging the results by getting a few states to investigate their elections before re-certification. It was self serving like when Gore wanted a recount in Florida counties with more Democrats. Maidan rioters trying to oust the leader didn't commit the coup in 2014, the snipers and backers of the massacre of police and protesters were responsible for that.

[Berzerker]

Oh good, because Azov didn't need to be setup either so I guess now you'll stop invoking them to justify everything Russia does.

The victims don't need to be politicians but the crimes against the victims do need to be politically coercive if they are not. Violence as deception would not count. You need to understand that if force=violence, your Webster definition starts to include scenarios that do not even remotely resemble a coup. The definition is clearly using a narrower sense of the word "force" than just "violence". Dictionaries don't work if you don't use some critical thinking.

Didn't you keep invoking little green men to justify Azov shelling the Donbas for 8 years? If Russia was removed entirely from this scenario I'd still be left pondering the question, 'who started it?' Obama did, we either requested a massacre or at the very least embraced the coup and then armed Azov to shell the Donbas for 8 years.

The violence made him flee and informed everyone else in the country they better not complain because the CIA knows who's been naughty or nice. You dont think that violence had coercive effects?

[pchang]

I was not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with Serb's interpretation.

[Geronimo]

I'm using the definition I posted and you keep ignoring it. There's no requirement for a coup to arrest anyone. They murdered his cops and framed him for a massacre. That was a violent alteration of the existing govt, the very definition of 'coup'. You keep making up criteria that aren't in the definition. So now you're claiming they massacred a bunch of people for no reason other than they're violent people? Ofc that had a coercive effect, many... The new govt buried what happened and the right wing ran amok with our help. The post coup government agreed to Minsk and ignored it. Please stop with the analogies.

If we agree with your definition every transfer of power is a coup. Violence never ceases anywhere and it can always be said to influence the legal process. Somehow according to you and Serb it then also follows that therefore no treaties are valid and all governments are illegitimate.

I make no claims about why they massacred anyone. I simply claim as performed it was in no meaningful way an act of force. Terrorism surely, but not an act of force.

I have also even called it a "coup" in the past not because I agreed in the slightest that it should be called a coup but because you and Serb call it that and I recognize that whether or not it is a "coup" by any definition has absolutely no relevance to treaty obligations to Ukraine or to its territorial integrity.

Analogies are absolutely essential to avoid the extremely common problem of reinterpreting and even redefining every principle to serve their desired angle on the each every situation. If someone makes one assertion in defence of something in one context that assertion had better sure as hell hold up in other contexts real and hypothetical. People who run from analogies generally are trying to hide absurdities in their reasoning.

Furthermore, your entire campaign to drag Websters out and attempt to characterize euromaidan as a "coup" is effectively a giant appeal to analogy isn't it? If you can call Euromaidan "coup" and we all agree that coups are bad then Ukraine is the bad guys and the Separatists and Russian armed forces are just working to oppose a "coup" and oppose the bad guys.

that's what is total bullcrap Berz. That is also why I'm throwing these analogies at you. If we accept your definition of a "coup" then it can be shown that "coup" doesn't necessarily describe any similarity to other commonly recognized "coups" and whether or not you can redefine Euromaidan as a "coup" in this way is totally irrelevant.