Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[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.

[Dauphin]

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

[giblets]

Good thing Manhattan is north of the tropic of cancer

[BeBMan]

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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[BeBMan]

I remember him, he had his own verse, which conveniently was called the Nedaverse

[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.

​​​​​

[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]

Oerdin is always wrong. Therefore I am right.

Oerdin being wrong dosen't mean that you are right, just that Oerdin is wrong.

I rest my case 🙂

Sure you do dear Mr Chamberlain

[Dinner]

Spell checker strikes again. Mobius is still a Putin lackey though.

[Lorizael]

We reject your premise. The only "neutrality" Putin would have ever accepted from Ukraine was Ukraine never doing anything Putin didn't approve of. Ukrainians won their freedom and independence from Russian imperialism 30 years ago, and it boggles my mind you think them foolish for fighting to preserve that freedom and independence now.

[pchang]

Even Serb rejects Mobius’ premise.

[BeBMan]

Anticipation is growing in Ukraine over the imminent delivery of Western-made F-16 fighter jets. Kyiv says the aircraft will be a game changer in its defense against Russia's invasion. Now, speculation is rife as to where they will be stationed.

The long wait is almost over. After months of intense training and preparations, F-16 fighter jets are about to touch down in Ukraine.
And they can't come soon enough for Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy. He says the planes are a game changer and they'll give Kyiv the chance to break Russia's dominance of Ukraine's airspace.

But keeping the jets safe will now be a priority — and speculation is rife over where they will be stationed.

Ukraine has not confirmed where they are going to park the aircraft, but many experts say one air force base in western Ukraine is an ideal candidate.

The Starokostiantyniv base is located roughly halfway between Kyiv and Lviv. It's home to Ukraine's 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade and with its Soviet-era underground shelters — it's a logical option.

But in the town of Starokostiantyniv just across the river, people are concerned. Many locals say they appreciate all the support Ukraine gets from abroad — but they increasingly fear being caught in Moscow's crosshairs.

Olena Shpachenko, guide and interim director of the museum: "Concentrating such high-powered weapons in one place means that the enemy will seek to destroy these weapons. So for us, as residents of the town, this is a high risk factor. We are very worried."

Starokostiantyniv has often felt Russia's wrath in this conflict.

In August 2023, Ukrainian authorities say Moscow bombed a corn storage facility in the region.

And as recently as mid-July, Kyiv says it shot down 5 Russian cruise missiles and 11 drones targeting Starokostiantyniv.

Air defence forces in the region say that Russia has been stepping up its attacks over the past month — trying to find weaknesses and experimenting with new techniques.

Anatoliy, commander of mobile anti-aircraft brigade: "At the moment, they are increasing the power of the explosive charge on their drones. They are modernising their cruise missiles with fragmentation munitions that damage light armoured vehicles."

Not everyone believes the F-16s will be able to turn the tide in this war. But at least they will also give Ukraine a chance to try something new.
​

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-set-to-receive-f-16s-from-the-west/video-69797163

Re the "gamechanger or not" bit -- as far as my superior web-based expertise goes I think that depends on the package, not only numbers, but for example what types of ammo/missiles are provided with them etc. and how that is sustained long-term. But in the end we simply don't know at this point, so let's see...

[Serb]

You think Ukraine could have maintained full independence if it wasn't for US hawks? What do you think should have been done in the years since Russia annexed Crimea and took over a secessionist uprising in the Donbas?

Ukraine was fully independet since 1991, sumsidized by Russia for over the 200+ BILLION USD during all the years of their independence since 1991 up to 2014 (and this is just a DIRECT SUBSIDIES via the low gas prises, not the total volume of our investments into this ****hole, to make their lives better there).

You (USA) have invested 5 billion USD (according to Viki Nuland) via your Soros NGOs to create a NAZI anti-Russian regime there. Those NGOs have printed a history textbooks for decades, make a pseudo-histrical TV-shows, whitwashing Ukranian Nazi-collaborators and so on!

You have raised a whole new generation of Nazi-imbeciles over there, who honestly belive that the history of Ukranian Nation starts 140 000 years ago (befor the Hoposapiens), while in reality the word "Ukraine" was introduced into pulic by Austro-Hungrians in late 18'th sentury to separate Malorossia from Russia.

And that is why your Coup on 2014 (and your president Obama later confessed that it was done by his administration (I can find you a link for that), that is why that Coup was under the slogans: KIFE THE RUSSIANS, HANG THE RUSSIANS!!!

Those 0.02% of popultaion at Kiev's Maidan have turned the country into a comple concentration camp by YOUR DESIRE!, YOUR DIRECT INVOLMENT AND YOUR DIRECT WILL!!!
You have created this Nazi-regime!
YOU FREAKING MADE THIS!!!
YOU AND ONLY YOU!!!

Kiev was the capital of Russia since 10th century!
(up to the Mongol invasion in the 13th century)

Crimea was the place where the first Christian prince of Russia (prince Valdimir) has been baptised in 988 and he later baptised the rest of Russia.

So, Crimea is the cradle of Russian Christian civilization since the 10th century!


IT IS OUR LANDS, **********ers!!!


"Malorossia", which now calls itself a "Ukraine" (a "border land" both in Russian and Polish languages), originally means "MicroRussia", which means "the ORIGINAL RUSSIA".

The Origianl Russia, the place where Russia came from!!!

Simple as that!

IDIOTS!

You don't know a sh!t about our history, because you are ignorant, brainwashed imbciles, who divide the World on black and white, as your propaganda brainwashing machine forces you to do so!

You are pathetic, Americans!

And you have started this war, NOT US!!!

But we will finish it, even if it will tak to completely exterminate you!

p.s. Because you freaking never learn!!!​

[Lorizael]

It never ceases to amaze me how people think conflating etymology with ontology is a winning argument.