Wow, your post is kind of all over the place!
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2702515]No, it is mental masturbation.
And if the Russians nuke the bridges, airports, and roads, how are all those munitions going to get into Ukraine? And do freedom loving nations seize assets based on nationality with no due process? Maybe we should round up all Russian-Americans and put them in concentration camps like we did with the Japanese in the 40's. Was that freedom loving?
And I do not get the whole concept of victory. The "experts" said the Russian army was going to take all over all of Europe and only the Polish army stood in the way. Then Ukraine was going to win. Now a week later Russia is going to win. What does winning even mean? Did we "win" in Afghanistan or Iraq?
We have this shooter in Buffalo who killed people that were his enemy based on race, and you expect the mentally ill to understand that killing based on race is bad but killing on nationality is good? I think that is confusing to sane people. The whole concept that killing can equal victory makes little sense to me..[/QUOTE]First of all, the map I posted that purports to be from Chinese media was intended as a dig at Pedro M, and anyone who thinks China gives a shit about Russia. It's purely reflective of someone's idea of what a disintegrated Russia might look like, and I took it as a tongue-in-cheek exercise, nothing more.
Second, you seem to take issue with my statement that:
"But only delusional fools think they can predict the future. I'm satisfied with accurately observing present realities and proposing reasonable extrapolations from that body of evidence.
And there is no reality-based scenario or extrapolation in which Russia wins. Meanwhile, Ukraine is being continually replenished and refreshed by the US, NATO, and a coalition of freedom-loving nations".
With which part do you have a problem? With my refusal to engage in predicting the future (and my criticism of those who do so engage)?
Or is it my statement that there is no reality-based scenario in which Russia wins?
Please specify, as I'm happy to defend both of those positions.
As for my statement about Ukraine being replenished, that's simply an observation of the current state of affairs. Could that change? Absolutely! Although I personally haven't seen any observers worried that Putin would use nukes specifically to stop replenishment. Most analyses I've read tend to think he'd only resort to nukes if he perceived an existential threat to Russia which, if Ukraine is only using weapons on its own territory, would seem to not cross those red lines.
But that's getting into the prediction business, isn't it? And that's where I've resisted going and criticized others for doing so. Putin has nukes, that's clearly true. And what's also true is that he can conjure up whatever excuse he wants, whenever he wants, to justify their use. Ukraine, and others, are betting that he's not a madman and they're refusing to allow him to use nuclear blackmail to get what he wants.
Is that the right course of action? Only time will tell. And that touches on your question about what constitutes a win. I would submit that only Russia and Ukraine can answer that. And also that any peace agreement can only happen when their two views get close enough to be within negotiating distance, which is nowhere close to happening.
As far as my statement that Russia has no winnable scenario, that's predicated on their false belief that Ukrainians would welcome them as liberators. With that notion debunked, what's left? Russia leaving Ukraine = defeat. Russia continuing to occupy all or part of Ukraine = continued sanctions + pariah status + impaired future prospects + similar items = more defeat. In other words, they're screwed whether they stay or go. That's not a prediction so much as it's an observation of how various end-game scenarios are likely to play out. If you see another possibility, by all means please share.
As for your comments about the Buffalo shooter and shale oil and Trump, it's my sense that you're venting more than making a specific, coherent argument.
Do you have a solution or prescription that you can articulate? Venting is understandable, as there are so many frustrating elements in the current situation, but what exactly do you think Russia and Ukraine should do?
You really need to get the doc to adjust your meds
[QUOTE=PedroMorales;2702937]I am only looking in here to laugh at you. Now that the rest of the Stupid Shit in Medellin is here, I will look in less.
Wikipedia is a quick fire reference, used by me to show you know nothing about Iran.
Looking at your Medellin buddies thinking Russia is imploding, LOL.
Zelensky has lost the war but won the billions. Fancy going to Cannes and seeing that creep on the screen. Stanford Uni. Zelensky, what a shit show.
Did you enjoy beating up those old ladies by the Damascus Gate?
Hopefully, there will be an all round day of reckoning.[/QUOTE]If Russia has won, why are they still fighting?
Once again, declaring that it's nighttime, when everyone else can clearly see that the sun is shining, just reveals to everyone what a delusional nutjob you are.
Delusion #2 is your obsession with the Medellin threads, and somehow believing that I frequent that forum. Never have, and never will. But that's ok, it's understandable if you can't think straight while engaged in a Dickipedia suck-session.
BTW, please keep us posted if there's anything of interest in the Medellin forums. From everything I can tell, you're the only one, in this forum, who spends time in that one. I guess that must be because of your obsession with transsexuals. Whatever floats your boat. Unless, of course, your boat is the Moskva!
Oh, wait. The Moskva didn't sink, because Russia is winning, right? It must have done a super-secret transformation into a submarine.
P.S. Please message the Kremlin ASAP and let them know they're misspelling the name of their own country. When writing in English, they've been mistakenly using the spelling "Russia" and that's clearly wrong! And we know this because the self-appointed "expert" called Pedro Morales has demonstrated that "Rusisa" is the TRUE spelling. Thanks so much for clearing that up! Oh, and while you're at it, make sure you also tell Dickipedia when you visit them tonight.
A lot depends on how one defines winning
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2702899]Well, first, there is the contradiction. No one knows what is going to happen but there is no way Russia "wins". IMO even if Putin negotiates peace, he is going to declare victory.[/QUOTE]It's possible to look at a chessboard and, from the positions of the pieces and how much material each side has lost, extrapolate various endgame scenarios. Making an observation that most, or even all, of those scenarios aren't favorable to one side is not the same as making a prediction.
Let me again state my position, as clearly as I can:
Scenario 1:
If Russia leaves Ukraine, either to the Feb 24th boundaries or further, that will be seen as a clear defeat by just about everyone, whether inside Russia or not.
Scenario 2:
If Russia conquers all, or part of Ukraine, then they'll need to occupy it. However, post-2022 occupation is likely to be different, and much more difficult, than it was in 2014. The regions that Putin believed were pro-Russian have resisted strongly and it's highly likely that an occupational force would need to deal with insurgencies and local hostility. Ukraine would continue to be viewed as a victim by many and sanctions would continue to be imposed by many. Compared to pre-invasion Russia, the post-invasion situation would be more isolated and with numerous countries minimizing or eliminating the ties and relationships they once had.
I have no doubt that Putin would call #2 a victory, and might even be able to sell that to the Russian people. But calling it a "win" doesn't make it so, and an objective definition of victory generally means that you've gained more than you've lost. Putin's scorched-earth tactics have essentially leveled entire cities, like Mariupol. If he ends up holding territory that he's ruined, populated by people who will have a blood-feud mentality for generations, and has simultaneously turned most of the world against him, it's hard to see how that can objectively be characterized as a win. But I'm not disputing the fact that Putin will declare victory, no matter what.
What real victory would have looked like can be discerned from what we've learned about the Russian mindset, and objectives, at the beginning of the war. From everything I've seen and read, Russia believed there was a significant proportion of the Ukrainian people who would welcome them as liberators and would have no problem if a pro-Russia government was installed. Had Putin's army marched into Kyiv, removed Zelensky, installed new leadership, controlled the media, and had that new reality been readily accepted by significant numbers of Ukrainians, that would absolutely have been worthy of being declared a true win. But that didn't happen.
To sum up, since the true and unequivocal victory didn't happen, every remaining scenario is some version of failure. And success vs failure can be judged by objective measures, irrespective of what one side or the other says. Monty Python's Black Knight can claim that he's only suffered a scratch, but the reality is evident.
Again, if you see any realistic endgame scenario which lends itself to being objectively classified as a true Russian win, I'm all ears.
Information + analysis re military situation and equipment
This first piece is a detailed look at Russia's military performance:
[URL]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2022.2078044[/URL]
One good feature of this analysis is that it discusses the implications of the current conflict for the future military balance of power in Europe. And it also raises the question of whether Western analysts, having overestimated Russia's capabilities, might be making similar errors with respect to their assessment of NATO and other Western forces.
And this one examines a weapons system that Ukraine may get in the near future, and why it may be a game-changer:
[URL]https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1531067601006301184.html[/URL]
Whether or not Ukraine will receive the weapons systems described is yet to be seen. But the author argues that at least one of the MLRS systems will be delivered. There's also a companion piece with a lot of background technical info about various MLRS systems. It's best suited for military geeks but, if you want to take a look, here's the link:
[URL]https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1531012132975910912.html[/URL]
Russia can stop anytime it wants
[QUOTE=DramaFree11;2703211]Nobody is winning, this is total mess. The longer this craziness continues, the world economy will tank, this is almost worst scenario, minus a Nuclear War.[/QUOTE]If your neighbor, with whom you've had strained relations for years, breaks down your fence, comes into your house, and starts shooting, who bears primary responsibility for that situation?
If, in response to being attacked, you barricade yourself in a room, get your own gun, and return fire to defend yourself, is that somehow blameworthy? Also, in the event people are killed in the cross-fire, is there any sense in pointing the finger at both, or should it be pointed squarely in the face of the instigator?
I've never been one to defend Ukraine against allegations that they've stirred up shit against Russia in past years. And, considering the fact that they've been fighting each other (directly and via proxies) since 2014, it doesn't surprise me that there's bad blood and lots of antagonism.
But Russia is the bigger and stronger country, and they made a conscious decision to invade, thinking they could swallow Ukraine and bully the West into inaction by virtue of nuclear threats. They were wrong.
Now the bully's nose has been bloodied. They can turn around and go home or double-down on their aggression. It's entirely up to Russia, no one else.
You mention USA, Ukraine, and Europe, but say nothing about Russia.
[QUOTE=Mike963;2703588]The first thing we need at when a war happens is who is benefitting! And did anyone do anything to stop it?
The US is not doing anything to stop the war for sure, who's industry is booming with this war!! Or special operation!!
What did we see?
Europe was not investing in military or weapons!!
Now, US has got multimillions $$ contacts for military equipment's from European countries.
Gas contacts for US companies, to mention few!.[/QUOTE]I'm sure there are plenty of ways to look at the situation, including views from 10,000 feet that focus on which players (countries and companies) might benefit from, or be taking advantage of, the conflict.
But it's hard for me to concern myself with such issues while Ukrainians are being killed, captured, tortured, and their cities reduced to uninhabitable rubble.
When confronted with that in-your-face reality, there are only a very few questions at the top level of priority:
Q: Who bears primary responsibility for the conflict?
A: Russia.
Q: Who is the only party with the ability to unilaterally bring an end to the conflict?
A: Russia.
Q: How can the conflict be stopped?
A: By Russia deciding to stop, either by their own independent decision, or as a response to external and (or) internal pressures.
While other questions and issues may be valid and worth exploring, they must necessarily take a back seat to the primary issues listed above. I'm certainly open to debating which countries might secretly, or not so secretly, be hoping for Ukraine to fail (Serbia, Hungary, Germany, etc.), or which countries are giving Ukraine their full support (Poland, Baltics, etc.), or which countries (USA, France, Italy, etc.) might be slow-walking assistance because they see upsides to a protracted conflict.
I have no illusions about the fact that there are plenty of bad actors who could, and should, be named and shamed. But Job #1 is ending the war, full stop. And that will only happen if Russia has a change of mind (unlikely), or if a combination of battlefield defeats, attrition, and pressures from within and without, cause them to have that change of mind.
