Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Berzerker]

OMG. you think not seeing billionaires makes your sources less corruptible? harder to bribe? really Berz?

Yup, I know they are. I've watched them pay a price for keeping their integrity, jailed, banished, exiled, and fired or forced to resign. If they did a 180 and started pushing corporate narratives it would become obvious. How many times does the billionaire class and the political establishment have to lie us into wars for the woke to wake up? The Atlantic Council took Burisma's $$$ to smear the Ukrainian prosecutor Biden fired. Oh yeah, so did Joe, he took their money too. I wonder if Obama was letting all that happen without getting a cut of the action. Barack gave Joe's corrupt deal cover - he protected Joe from the prosecutor. What did Biden say when Ukraine balked at the idea of firing Shokin? He told them to ask Obama.

[Berzerker]

I voted against Trump. Both choices were terrible, but Trump was the worst.
Usually, given two bad choices, I vote for Mickey Mouse. But this time, it was critical to keep Trump out of the White House again.

And none of that changes the fact that you seem to parrot conspiracies from highly biased videos that have little basis in fact or reality.

What specific conspiracies/videos are you talking about?

[Berzerker]

I didn't vote for either Biden or Trump, I have no dog in this fight. But I know which one was the lesser evil and I know it makes little difference, the wars go on as scheduled. Well, no, Trump would have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine whereas Biden wanted it. Maybe small differences in evil do matter.

[Berzerker]

Kiev propaganda outlet on yahoo says Poland leader is upset the attack in Israel is taking attention away from Ukraine

[Berzerker]

https://youtu.be/JrYdLX8KF2I

Thanks to a law passed in 2020 western conglomerates are buying up Ukrainian farmland and sending the grain westward driving local producers out of business then buying up their land

I dont like where the world is headed, fascism was ugly before Hitler

[Berzerker]

according to Jeffrey Sachs Poland has been instructed to send 155mm shells destined for Ukraine to Israel

that could spell a bit of trouble for the Ukrainian black market depending on us for their profits

[Berzerker]

and that might explain the Polish leader's concern the attack in Israel is distracting from Ukraine

[Geronimo]

Yup, I know they are. I've watched them pay a price for keeping their integrity, jailed, banished, exiled, and fired or forced to resign. If they did a 180 and started pushing corporate narratives it would become obvious. How many times does the billionaire class and the political establishment have to lie us into wars for the woke to wake up? The Atlantic Council took Burisma's $$$ to smear the Ukrainian prosecutor Biden fired. Oh yeah, so did Joe, he took their money too. I wonder if Obama was letting all that happen without getting a cut of the action. Barack gave Joe's corrupt deal cover - he protected Joe from the prosecutor. What did Biden say when Ukraine balked at the idea of firing Shokin? He told them to ask Obama.

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

[Ming]

I didn't vote for either Biden or Trump, I have no dog in this fight. But I know which one was the lesser evil and I know it makes little difference, the wars go on as scheduled. Well, no, Trump would have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine whereas Biden wanted it. Maybe small differences in evil do matter.

So much total BS... Please show ANY PROOF that Biden wanted it or that Trump could have stopped it. Oh that's right, you can't. You just pulled it out of your ass or you are parroting yet another non factual biased video you saw online.

[Geronimo]

If Biden wanted war there is no way in hell he would have pulled out of Afghanistan like that.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[-Jrabbit]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.