I'm not saying they will, but I am noticing some attempts to change the goal posts or the subject. What do you think the response will be like?
Comments (58)
sorted by:
They'll never know. Just like they don't know about "sudden" deaths, migrant crime, etc. If their media doesn't report it it doesn't exist to them.
Wouldn't it just fit perfectly if something provokes action between the US and China just as the fighting in Ukraine started wrapping up?
Yeah. Distract from the "bad" ending of Current Thing with the new Current Thing.
Just floating some ideas out there?
If a conflict occurs between the US and china, I strongly recommend that you dodge the draft so that the regressive leftists get drafted instead.
I don't think Russia is going to take over Ukraine, and I dont' think they want to. This will end in some sort of negotiated peace. And then both sides can claim victory. They're just working on the terms.
For instance, Ukraine has been claiming that Russia wants Kiev, right, along with their US media stooges. If they decide to give up territory, after all, they can just say "well we protected Kiev".
If Russia gives up on Donbas, they'll probably keep Crimea, and they can get the Ukies to agree to some terms about not bombing ethnic Russians.
It's easy to paint a false picture of the war when you lied about how it started and about what's at stake.
It seems inevitable to me that Russia will end up controlling everything east of the Dnieper and the only question is how many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die for nothing because the US is still being run by the same people who pathologically hated the Soviets in 1980.
May be hard for Ukraine to spin that as a win, but they will still have a country at least.
To be fair, the entire "war" could be 100% fake and most of us wouldn't know. There's no way to determine what's real when they can easily fake video footage and hire actors.
Yea, I pretty much stopped following news regarding the conflict. Western media has spread so many lies and outright propaganda that there's no point in reading what they report. Russian media is probably inclined to do the same. So it's pointless to follow any of it as there's no way to tell what's fact or fiction.
I fully expect them to push for our troops to be sent. The fervor has been raised too high and they are to cowardly to fight themselves so they will support us doing something drastically stupid like drone strikes and a naval presence. The only thing that is guaranteed is the left will be pushing war with Russia regardless of outcome.
They will claim victory when Ukraine isn't fully annex but only the eastern region.
Oh, definitely. As long as there is an entity called 'Ukraine', they'll claim victory. WE DID IT REDDIT! WE SAVED LWOW AND ENVIRONS! Who wanted Kiev anyway?
I'll add that if Russia loses, pro-Russia will also cope by saying things like: well, at least they kept Crimea. Or claim that Ukraine entering NATO is now off the table and that this is therefore a super-secret Russian victory.
this conflict is permanent - the GAE will never recognize Russia's conquests, Russia wont give them up because it has physical control - NATO members won't accept ukraine while a conflict is ongoing which was one of Russia's original objectives
there might be a negotiated de-escalation like no more tanks or artillery
things will "normalize" at the conflict level of israel and palestine, no more major operations, probably not even with regular troops from the ukie side
but there will be "terrorist" strikes from ukies into russian conquered territory, and Russian retaliation with "justification" and it will go on forever
Same way they responded to Afghanistan falling after 20 years of telling everyone that women's rights there is the most important thing: instantly forget about it and find some other way to virtue-signal.
It will disappear overnight and they will be obsessed with something else.
Neither side can lose. Which is why it's slowly escalating into a whole ass world war
As for the left. I mean look at their current track record of accepting fault. They'll nuke all of us and themselves just to "save face"
Likewise they'll destroy the planet if it means Russia can't have it.
And why do they hate Russia? Because they believed their own lie about him helping trump win. "The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back" said Obama to Romney.
MAD. the perfect acronym
Depends on what the TV tells them to do.
The normies will most likely move on to the next thing a couple of weeks later when their attention is drawn away to the next big thing. There will be the occasional "Putin bad" but theres already waning attention spans regarding the whole war anyway.
As for the lefty elites? I'd bet mission accomplished, granted they didn't stick it to Putin or keep their puppet in office. But track record wise the US isn't particularly good at it. So as for spending billions in weapons (most likely filling their pockets in handouts from the manufacturers) they'll get to retire rich.
Realistically all I see this entire war is a big money laundering psyop, I don't care for either side. From what I've read what Ukraine has done to the Russians in their country deserves some form of backlash (War is a bit extreme imo) But neither side is squeaky clean and it makes me seethe everytime i see the Ukrainian actor pop up in the news begging for more weaponry, if he really wanted to stop an invasion. They would've joined Nato. Reap what you sow.
As soon as it drops off the news, nobody will care anymore. Just like Saint Floyd, Thunberg and Hunter Bidens laptop.
Trying to join NATO, and allying with the CIA / allowing US to run black ops through their country is a large part of what started this conflict back up again. The 2014 revolution was sponsored by CIA.
nato should have disbanded when the wall fell
My man, they STILL haven't full accepted they lost: Afghanistan Libya Syria
The only one they accepted quick was Hong Kong, which is why it's a good thing Taiwan is built around military defence..
blame it on trump
Found the correct and only answer. They blamed every fucking thing that has gone wrong on Trump. They are blaming train derailments and attacks on the energy grid, black people attacking whites, all on Trump. These fucking people are insane.
When, not if, WHEN Ukraine loses.
Cognitive dissonance for a little while, then sliding right back into their world of lies. Remember, we're talking about people who think that ownership is theft and labor has value. There is no lie they won't gobble up with a smile.
I don't think either side really wants the war to end though. In russia's case the longer it goes the more territory they can claim before negotiations, in the left's case the longer it goes the more money they can milk from world governments to fund it.
Look at it this way: they spent 20 years in the middle east when the war was "over" within 3, and kept making excuses as to why (they have nuclear weapons hidden somewhere, us being there keeps everyone safe but just ignore 9/11 happening in the middle of that). This is effectively a repeat, only that there's more people milking that teet.
It won't lose, not enough to make them reverse course like they did in Afghanistan.
Even if Ukraine looses Donbass, "something something holding back the Russian horde" and "something the long-term victory is inevitable", and "won the argument". Whatever stupid cope.
Russia isn't going to install a puppet government that can control Western Ukraine, so we get stuck with the Left explaining how they're not retarded for blowing out all of our money out their own asses to fund their own pocketbooks and domestic political campaigns with stolen war-profiteering money, all so that China can benefit more than anyone.
Hell, they'll start another war somewhere else to cover over their loses in Ukraine if they need to.
Their russophobia will spike harder than when the war started, and they will call for an immediate NATO annexation of Russia with the objective to execute Putin and massacre his supporters along with anyone else they blame for the war.
At first I was going to say that they'd whine about it non-stop for decades like the "Free Tibet" trend, but given how utterly insane and clownworld things and how much zealotry leftists have today, I more likely suspect they'll resort to promoting, funding, and maybe actively engaging in guerilla/terrorist attacks against Russia.
To even begin to answer that question we'd need a definition of 'losing'. The war could end about a dozen different ways, or, hell, it could simply not end and technically go on forever like the Korean War, or hotter like the Israel/Palestine conflict.
I think what you may be seeing from leftists right now is "Ukraine fatigue." Most drone leftists don't have the attention span to focus on a single campaign for too long and are instead at the mercy of their NPC cause-of-the-month programming (aka, useful idiots).
"A tactic that drags on too long is a drag" — Saul Alinsky
The glorious American Empire (tm) will continue to pump up the corpse of Ukraine till Russia runs out of bullets.
Russia has run out of bullets and still won...
I've heard stories about German soldiers using off millions of oncoming Soviet troops. It sounds glorious, until you realize the country fell anyway.
Throw young men at it. It's what they've been craving since it started.
Do Russia shills really have to cope so openly? I have never seen anyone move goal posts except the Russia supporters trying to save face for Russia's military defeat and inability to advance and conquer more territory.
The most likely outcome is roughly the status quo in terms of territory because the Russians are very dug in now and its unlikely Ukraine will pull off any big breakthroughs like they did by Kharkiv. The second most likely is systemic collapse of the Russian forces after continued unsustainable attrition over a prolonged period. The longer the war drags on, the more likely #2 becomes over #1.
I don't know how you can say Ukraine "loses" when Russia tried to conquer Ukraine and made a huge effort to blitz Kiev that utterly failed. The best Russia could do is hold on to some land in the south that was undefended very early in the war. But I don't care. The truth is you losers will proclaim victory no matter what the situation is, and nobody in the West (and almost nobody anywhere else) will believe you. Hell, you won't even believe it yourselves. This is how you come off in all your posts and comments about the war.
But while Russia supporters are OBSESSED with declaring Russia a "winner" even under the laughable status quo where Russia got its ass beat throughout the war in every actually defended area, Ukraine supporters don't care about face-saving bullshit, they care about watching Russia bleed out. Every day is more Russian soldiers dead forever, wounded forever, maimed and never able to fight again.
So keep coping, Russia shills. Russians will keep dying. Russian generals and ammo dumps will keep getting blown up with HIMARS. Russian military equipment will keep getting destroyed beyond replacement level:
Keep shoving your people into the meat grinder and gain nothing from it, Putin.
The difference between this war and the Winter War, is that the Finns eventually ran out of ammunition and were forced to capitulate. Ukraine won't be doing that. Ukraine also won't be making peace, and the West won't cut off its aid to Ukraine.
If the conflict lasts 5 more years and costs the US taxpayer $100 billion, it will be worth it to permanently end and crush Russia. Russian "offensives" this year have been pathetically small in size and scope.
Really? I don't see how "crushing" Russia benefits me in any way. Are they the ones causing mass immigration, tranny grooming, "nation of renters" WEF bullshit, black crime, etc. ?
I'd like this answered as well. If anything, it will embolden the regime.
Oh, Ukrainian data says that? Must be accurate! No conflict of interest there! Verified by a nation that is backing them too! Double accurate!
Don't need to read any further.
Didn't the Germans try to capture the Norwegian government when they invaded? It's pretty crazy to argue that just because a coup de main with a woeful number of soldiers fails, Russia cannot beat a corrupt puppet shithole non-country propped up with 100-200 billion worth of regime supplies and funds.
Let's see, Russia has more territory than it started with and it wasn't Russia that got wrecked. It's sad that Little Russia did, but that's the way of war unfortunately.
Huh, I just told someone that I've never seen you gloat over dead Russians. I guess I was wrong.
lol, permanently end Russia.
The invasion by the Third Reich ended with Russia being more powerful than ever. If that didn't do it, what makes you think the collection of worms and insects you call Western leaders will? You think Justin Trudeau is going to end Russia? It's a shame that your Cold Warrior, Baltic-tier Russophobia is such that you actually cheer Justin Trudeau the tyrant.
Germany successfully conquered Norway quickly. They didn't conquer it partway and then were forced to retreat from large sections of it a month later.
Ukraine has gotten nowhere near $100 billion. The authorizations passed by the US Congress "for Ukraine" actually only earmarked a small portion of that money for Ukraine itself, with the vast majority of the money instead going to the US military and State Dept.
The way military aid is calculated is grossly inflated because it assumes the full sticker price for a brand new item, when what is actually being sent might be refurbished and 30 years old, and in actuality worth far, far less than the dollar amount indicated. Politicians lie, and one of the big lies has been to try to exaggerate both the aid given as well as the severity of the sanctions.
I'm not talking about whether "Russia cannot beat" or not in the text you're responding to. I'm talking about how pro-Russia types try to spin the status quo as already being a victory, which I think is silly.
Laughably low bar. It paid an absurdly high price for that territory, and that territory is only temporarily occupied with a large opposing army locked with Russia in a hot war aiming to take it back. The occupation and defense of that territory requires a cost many many times higher than that territory is worth.
It was. Everyone in the world outside of the Russian government puts the K:D ratio in lives and equipment strongly in Ukraine's favor. Russia was forced to retreat from the north of Ukraine in late March 2022, and then defeated in both the Kharkiv & Kherson sectors. And all Russia has to show for an enormous sacrifice around Bakhmut is that it took a handful of villages and a small amount of territory without being able to take Bakhmut itself.
I wouldn't gloat over CIVILIANS, but pointing to military losses is perfectly fine. Russia can't win this war if it keeps losing the war of attrition, and it has been losing that war the whole time with possibly a small exception during its peak artillery phase in May/June 22.
End Russia as a military threat, not as a country, obviously.
Only because the rest of the world helped the Soviet Union (not Russia, even though the USSR was actually just a Russian empire masquerading as something else) weaken and defeat Germany, which allowed the USSR to sweep through and conquer eastern europe. Over the long term it couldn't hold its empire together and this ended up being an unsustainable drain on Russian resources and prosperity. It is often true that holding onto an imperial possession can be unprofitable and cost you more than you can extract from it.
lol I never mentioned Trudeau, are you gay for him or something?
Germany wasn't stupid enough to invade with 160,000, in the hopes that Norway would see reason...
Who cares what it's 'worth'? If you send a 30 year old Mercedes that works as well as a new one, does that make a dime's worth of difference?
Also, doesn't seem to me that the pols are trying to exaggerate how much they help that shithole. Especially considering that they do nothing for their own country except allowing toxic fumes to engulf East Palestine. It's an embarrassment, and even your friend Eyepatch McCain was trying to downplay it.
I'm definitely not happy, but let's be real. Russia has more territory than it started with. Ukraine is in ruins. It's a clear Russian victory so far. Now, should they continue and end the mistake of Ukrainian statehood? Absolutely. But I'll grant a pro-Russian rump Galicia.
Who's lost more though? The prostitute of the West. So... still a good deal, as sad as I am that anyone has to die over Western machinations.
I'm sure those governments and OSINT cretins you believe credulously are very objective and impartial...
Ukrainian casualties in Bakhmut are said to be massive.
Pointing, yes. Gloating, no.
Like the Wehrmacht did. And at the end of the 4 years, despite staggering, unbelievable losses, the USSR was at the height of its power.
I can't believe you wrote a paragraph with which I wholly agree.
Too old. But you're bragging about how the corrupt West is defeating RUSSHER. So why are you taking pleasure in the supposed achievements of Trudeau the Tyrant?
The height of its mobilized power, yes. The height of its potential power? No. The USSR lost enormous amounts of manpower, enough to demographically warp the country for generations. Russia also suffered enormous GDP and economic damage: "As result of the German invasion of World War II, the Economy of the Soviet Union suffered punishing blows, with Soviet GDP falling 34% between 1940 and 1942.[3] Industrial output did not recover to its 1940 level for almost a decade."
Just because the USSR hit peak tank production in 1944, doesn't mean it was at the "height of its power". Mobilization is cannibalistic, it is the conversion of sustainable civilian economic power to temporary warmaking power. Communists are uniquely good at full mobilization. The United States was able to mobilize to a far lesser degree than the USSR, so its economy recovered faster.
Also worth mentioning (because its forgotten by many people talking about WW2 Soviet Union): They were a major recipient of Lend Lease. Over half of their locomotives and rolling stock, almost 3/4 of their trucks, most of their uniforms, and almost all of their aviation-grade fuel was made by the US. Zhukov is on record on multiple occasions saying that he could only do things like Deep Battle because his army was moving with American trucks. Hell, one of their most iconic weapons of the war was typically mounted on an American truck. Guess what Russia doesnt have anymore, and hasnt since 1945. And this is before we get to some of the heavier shit (like Soviet pilots preferring the American P-39/63, and loving the British Valentine and American Sherman tanks).
The simple fact of the matter is, A lot of people, on both sides of the old Iron Curtain, still base their view of Russia off of a combination of bad Soviet propaganda and misremembered facts. And considering that Russias latest attempt at a mobilization resulted in mass citizen flight and a failure to meet the mobilization goal, call me skeptical that Russia can do another "Throw bodies at the problem" solution to the war.
Excellent point! However, it shows what a juggernaut Russia/USSR is when it is mobilized. My only worry is that they will pussy out and not mobilize sufficiently to take down te West's prostitute as thoroughly as I'd like.
I mean, 34% is shockingly low, considering that the Germans controlled what were the most productive and populated areas of the USSR, even accounting for the insane transportation of factories to the Urals.
The US had nothing to recover from. It also had a little to do with not losing 27 million people and not having the entire West of your country devastated.
Putin's Russia 2022 is nothing compared to Stalin's Russia of 1941. Stalin had total, absolute power over the whole Soviet population. Putin's power is very weak by comparison. The dissent seen against Putin would be unthinkable under Stalin. Putin would have called for total mobilization from the start if he could. The reason he did not isn't because he was a nice guy, or because he was so overconfident, it was because he lacked the power to do so.
Putin was unable to call for mobilization until after Ukraine's successful offensives. This means it took clear proof Russia was losing before Putin could sell his elites on partial mobilization and obtain their consent to it.
They won't because they can't, not because Putin lacks the intent or will to do so. He doesn't do it because his elites are telling him that if he does, they won't support him, and if they don't support him, the people will begin to be allowed to rise up, cracks will appear in state propaganda, and so on. Putin is not Stalin. He cannot simply make a list of a million people he suspects and have them all Gulaged. His order to do so would not be obeyed if he tried. Putin sits at the top of a whole corrupt apparatus of oligarch elites who he needs and relies on to control the country. It's more like a weak King and his court of corrupt Nobles, than an absolute dictator.
Putin basically conned his Oligarchs into support for his war because he tricked them into thinking it would be an easy win, with tons of opportunities for profit. Instead, it's been a quagmire and the Oligarchs want off, but are stuck in the same mindset the US had under Nixon in Vietnam where they want it to be over, but they don't want to lose. So they agree to allow Putin to escalate just enough to stave off defeat, but not enough to win.
Well Germany took all the best agricultural areas, but not the best industrial & resource areas, never having taken the oil fields, mines, etc. And as you said, the Soviets did everything they could to strip the area under threat of all of its industrial resources (and a lot of its skilled population) before Germany could occupy it.
The US still have some mobilization which meant a lot of civilian factories got gutted and repurposed to military production, all of which needed to switch back after the war, which is expensive. But since the US had a far more limited transformation than the USSR (or Japan), it could switch back to a civilian economy much, much faster.
To use your own terminology, you're only taking mobilized power rather than potential power. And I find it quite amusing that whenever you talk about Stalin, you sound like a hardcore Stalinist of the highest order. I would almost believe that you are Russian, given the reverence Russians now have for Stalin...
NO WAY! A successful politicians wasn't a nice guy? Dekachin is learning stuff!
So he is not a 'dictator' but just an oligarch, just like Western leaders. Only a good deal more competent and with better effects for his country. Good to know.
Sounds pretty dumb. But here you accept that if Russia counter-escalates enough, it will win, because it outclasses your corrupt puppet shithole non-country by orders of magnitude.
As far as I know, the most industrialized areas of the USSR (at least in tsarist times) were the Ukraine and the Baltic area. All areas lost very early on. How much of this was salvaged, I don't know, but only a 1/3 decline is pretty incredible. That's about the same as the decline Russia suffered under the USAID-written constitution in the 1990s.
Sure, but it's way different from having half of your country be wrecked, and in fact, wrecked to such an extent that people were starving even after the war (while Stalin was exporting food).
The only people who care less about russian conscripts dying than the average propaganda fed retard is the russian government. Why do you think "lives lost" matters to them?
There are some GAE apologists who, when called out on how poorly the GAE did in Afghanistan, claimed that the Russians did worse.
Well, let's see: they stayed for 10 years, and the government they supported lasted for 3 years afterwards.
The Americans stayed for 20 years, and their government fell before they had withdrawn.
Even though their government was a supposed democracy that supposedly reflected the will of the Afghan people, while the government of the Russians was a communist despotism.
Ah the "scandal free presidency" tactic, where you make up an arbitrary moral bar that the otherside is held to and then declare that as the truth of the matter.