The predictions thread

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:54
VIEWED: 144481
PAGE 55 of 127

No, you maroon. You said Ukraine already did. Defeat a Russian "invasion", that is.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No, you maroon. You said Ukraine already did. Defeat a Russian "invasion", that is.

---

Russia has invaded Ukraine but nobody here claimed it was with everything they had. No, no, instead what Putin did was use just enough Russian involvement to steal Crimea, and at the same time strip more freedoms from the Russian people as their attention is focused on the Ukraine and elsewhere.

G has you pegged troll. You misrepresent the truth no matter what it is. It could be with what you claim to be facts, or in improperly interpreting what others post.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

THGRRI: "You think what I said is the same thing as saying that the Ukraine could defeat Russia in an all out war."

SIGNYM: "No, you maroon. You said Ukraine already did."

---

Sig, why is it that after having debated the Ukraine conflict AT LENGTH, you are still coming out with idiotic strawmen like the above? You really think that anyone believes Russia is waging an all out war against Ukraine?

I understand that you see a constant stream of negative messaging against Russia that you want to counter, but is this the best you can do?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"So far it doesn't look as though the Ukraine needs much help against Russia."

Let's parse this quote, ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES.

Against Russia: well against Russia - what? Against that invasion you THREESTOOGES keep claiming Russia did. I don't think ONEOFTHREESTOOGES meant against Russia - dancing. Or against Russia - imports. Or against Russia - language. No. Unless you want to pretend to be really, really stupid - and that's not beneath you for sure - it means against the Russian 'invasion'.

So, Ukraine hasn't needed much help (that's discounting the help the US and NATO provided, btw) against the Russian invasion.

That's the claim ONEOFTHREESTOOGES made that THETHREESTOOGES together seem bent on pretending wasn't made.

---

---

---

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

In looking for something else, I found this little gem from KRAPO

Quote:

---

"Peace has broken out in Syria" was the prediction -

---

Apparently, events phrased in the past tense are considered "predictions" by KRAPO

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Signy: "I would not be surprised to find the USA State Department accepting and even touting Al Nusra as a peace partner."

---

US Asks Russia to Not Hit Nusra Front in Syria, Moscow Says

Quote:

---

Russia's foreign minister said Washington has asked Moscow not to target the al-Qaida's branch in Syria, the Nusra Front, but the U.S. insisted Friday that it only wants Russia to carefully select it targets to avoid hitting civilians and legitimate opposition groups.

Sergey Lavrov said that Russia has long insisted that the moderate, U.S.-backed opposition groups should leave the areas occupied by Nusra. He said in televised remarks that Russia and the U.S. have engaged in close dialogue on how to secure a cease-fire in Syria, but added that fighting the Islamic State group and Nusra should be a top priority.

"They are telling us not to hit it (Nusra), because there is 'normal' opposition next .. to it," Lavrov said. "But that opposition must leave terrorists' positions, we long have agreed on that."

---

Please Don’t Attack Al-Qaeda

Quote:

---

In the weeks leading up to the agreed upon cessation-of-hostilities (CoH) agreement between the US and Russia, it was John Kerry’s diplomacy that was instrumental in “downgrading” the truce from a more forceful and legally binding ‘ceasefire’ agreement to the less intensive ‘cessation-of-hostilities’ now taking effect.

... According to the 29-year career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, India’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan and Turkey M. K. Bhadrakumar, it is plainly because “the Russian military operations have met with devastating success lately in strengthening the Syrian regime and scattering the Syrian rebel groups,” leading “the US and its regional allies” to “stare at defeat.” Therefore, they “forthwith need an end to the Russian operations so that they can think up a Plan B. The Geneva talks will not have the desired outcome of President Bashar Al-Assad’s ouster unless the tide of war is reversed.” Therefore, “a cessation of hostilities in Syria is urgently needed.”

Judging by the fact that top US officials began announcing that Russia would break the deal immediately after it was agreed upon while calling for further measures to “inflict real pain on the Russians”, Bhadrakumar’s assessment that a pause, and not a permanent halt, was sought in order to regroup and eventually reverse the tide of war seems to be quite apt. As well there has been an almost ubiquitous media campaign in the US to prime the public for accusations of a Russian infraction, from which a breakdown of the deal would follow; the narrative portrayed is filled with “doubts” and “worries” and “statements from US officials” about how Russia isn’t serious and will likely break the agreement.

Furthermore, outwardly Russia is much more optimistic and invested in the deal, President Putin hopefully promoting it while engaging in a blitz of diplomacy to support it, while on the other hand the US has been less vocal and much quicker to doubt its outcomes.

However, this downgrading from a ‘ceasefire’ to a ‘cessation of hostilities’ actually violates past agreements.

In UN Security Council Resolution 2254, in which it was articulated that member states be committed to the “sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic,” while calling on them to suppress ISIS, al-Nusra, and “all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL”, it was also agreed upon that the Security Council “expresses its support for a nationwide ceasefire in Syria.” (emphasis added)

Given the about-face, Lavrov was visibly agitated, stating that “Resolution 2254 talks about the ceasefire only. This term is not liked by some members of the International Syria Support Group. What I’m referring to is how something that has been agreed upon should be implemented rather than try to remake the consensus that has been achieved in order to get some unilateral advantag

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME