Bitcoin has no top because fiat money has no bottom.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
You don't even know how to calculate what is profit or loss here. Lol
Until 2014, 100% of Ukraine was Russian-allied territory.
With the coup that overthrew the pro-Russian government, 100% of Ukraine became NATO-allied anti-Russian territory.
So Putin launched the war to disarm and overthrow the new Ukrainian regime in order to recover the territory lost to the NATO alliance.
At the moment, the score is:
NATO-Ukraine 83% vs Russia 17%.
If Russia loses these 17%, it loses all the objectives of the war. Not a stalemate, but a major Russian defeat. And a NATO alliance victory.
But your lack of culture and inability to see the big picture doesn't allow you to understand this.
How wrong and ignorant you are. Lol
The anti-Russian NATO alliance is holding a profit of 83% of the Ukrainian territory since the 2014 regime change.
Russia has only regained 17% of territory but has been at a loss since 2014.
Before the coup, 100% of the territory was pro-Russian.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Let's see where you went wrong this time...
Your friend's house is not your house. An Russian-allied Ukraine is not a part of Russia.
That's moving the goalpost. The 2014 coup was indeed a Western victory, however, we are talking about the 2022-present war. We are talking about how Russia fights. Russia's failure to prevent the Western coup in Ukraine was a complete disaster, but this war is not; this war achieves only positive for Russia.
Once again, your friend's house is not your house. Not all friends are loyal. This one betrayed Russia and is getting parts of his house confiscated for it. NATO does not own any territory; it is a club which countries are free to apply to.
1. Counting a 2014 coup is moving the goalpost. This is the current war.
2. Even then, allied territory is not territory you own; allied land is a much lesser asset than your own land.
3. I'll just repost this until you can understand:
"Absolutely wrong. If I take 17% of your house and you keep 83%, you didn't win 83% and I win 17%. I won 17% and you lost 17%. This is a victory based on the "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" concept. Second time I told you this cus you missed it the first time. If you don't believe me, you put $1,000 on the table. I take $170 and you keep $830. You win 83% and I won only 17% so it's good for you, right? We can do this as many times as you want so you can keep winning. How's that? STEM PhD logic."
1. For this conflict, it would be a stalement.
2. For your moving-the-goalpost conflict to include 2014, it would be Russia's loss of an ally. It is a diplomatic defeat, not a loss of self.
3. If you arbitrarily expand this discussion further in history, then you can expand it to the founding of Russia over 1,000 years ago and since then, Russia has gained more territory than any other country on earth.
Really? This is an hominem and not only that, it's a previously defeated ad hominem that led you to attack the entire forum as low culture because of the overwhelming support I got on my posts over yours. Why would a person who so often previously denounced ad hominems and said that he would not engage in them, suddenly start? Desperation and frustration for losing the discussion is the only answer.
Except everyone judges it the opposite of you LOL. Have you ever attended a debate? Do you know how debates are scored? By audience/judge voting. Not by either competitor.
There is no land owned by an alliance. The land is owned by Ukraine. NATO owns no land.
The size of Russia increased by 18% the size of Ukraine since 2014. Losing your friendship to a person does not mean you lost his house or that you ever owned it.
Russian and pro-Russian are not the same. There is Russian territory and Ukrainian territory. Russia suffered a diplomatic defeat in losing an ally 10 years ago but today, its military victory is increasing Russia's owned territory.
If your logic of what constitutes land gain were to be accepted, then bribing a country into becoming your temporary ally would count as increasing the size of your nation by that nation's size. It would mean that if a small country like the Solomon Islands ditches the ROC and becomes pro-PRC, then the Solomon islands just gained the size of China while losing the size of Taiwan island because it just increased the size of pro-Solomon Islands territory in the world by that profit.
This shows that you are coming to terms with the fact that Ukraine lost territory and Russia gained territory so you are trying to escape from that by trying to change the definition of what it means to gain territory.
Last edited:
Mexico is not losing generals to cartels... Or 10 000s of men. You're in denial of reality.
You've fallen for his sad propaganda which just exists to save face. Why were the retreats in Gaza and Lebanon necessary if the trades were favorable? Even now there is no return of settlers to the north, showing that Hezbollah has achieved a stalemate again, like in 2006.
Israel has killed more resistance generals than the other way around, but neither side has come close to impacting the other's overall command, hence neither side can gain ground.
Syria was Turkey and Russia's diplomatic play, unrelated to Israel. If Hezbollah really was weakened by it, Israel should have used the opportunity to occupy Lebanon. Instead, they were unable to sustain their military presence.
There's plenty of people unhappy with the likes of AIPAC that didn't exist prior to October 7. Even the mood in Israel itself sours against Netanyahu, because he could not deliver victory and also represents a repressive government policy.
I used to believe that Israel could win quickly because after all Palestine is a small nation, but there are many surprises, especially the retreat from Lebanon. Even when the news dropped, I was sure that Israel would attack in a few days again and that it was a ploy. But it has now been more than a month.
this is factually false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations
Ukraine has been western aligned since 2003:
Proof 1: it invaded Iraq alongside NATO despite having 0 relation or dispute with Iraq.
Proof 2: it attacked Russia economically in 2005-2006 through nonpayment
Proof 3: it began applying for NATO in 2008 with support of George W. Bush and Barack Obama
Russia actually lost nothing, as Ukraine was at best in dispute since at least 2003, based on previous evidence that it was already western aligned at that time.
2003-2008: 100% of Ukraine was pro west, invading Iraq alongside NATO, had population of 50 million and was already applying to NATO.
2024: 83% of Ukrainian territory remains, it is highly unlikely to project power like it could in 2003, it has population <35 million, is now the poorest country in Europe, and it is still applying to NATO.
But according to you, Ukraine is winning.
It is a very unusual definition of winning when Ukraine can no longer project power like it could 20 years ago, lost 1/3 of its population to displacement or conquest, and diplomatically has not improved even 1% since 2008.
You are the one who changed the goalpost here.
It is the same war since 2014, as the Russians themselves say.
And the war is not about territory but about influence and power in the region.
Putin promised to disarm and overthrow the new regime in Ukraine and is failing at that at the moment.
Before, 100% of Ukrainian territory was under Russian influence. Now, only 17% is controlled by Russia.
If you do not see a loss by Russia here since 2014, you are just an idiot who joins the others who think that Israel is also losing instead of facing reality.
False comparison, because at that same time Russia and Putin were also NATO aligned.
Putin himself also said he was interested in joining NATO:
Things actually only changed in 2008, after the issues in Georgia.
But until 2014 the territory of Ukraine was still governed by pro-Russian governments. Russia used Ukrainian engines, inputs and the majority of the population of eastern Ukraine has always been Russian and pro-Russian.
Not admitting the loss of Russia's influence in this area is just trying to hide the truth.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
LOL Russians say? Which Russians say? Did some Russians not say? Did I say? If I didn't say, how did I change the goalpost?
Owning territory is the ultimate influence over it. Allied territory is of questionable influence since alliances change and often, they do without any war. You're expanding a discussion about war to escape into all means of creating temporary alliances when the best, most dominant outcome of war is always to seize territory from your opponent and make it your own and that is what Russia is doing.
That would be a partial mission failure, but the bigger success is the annexation of land. Permanent ownership always supercedes temporary alliances.
So before, 0% was controlled by Russia, 100% controlled by Ukraine and now, 18% is controlled by Russia and 82% by Ukraine and Russia's expanding that number. Influence is a very weak word; just like the term, "Social inflencers." They don't control anything, do they? And if Russia's influence over Ukraine was really worth anything, Ukraine would not have become pro-Western, would they? So it's a catch 22 for you. If Russian "influence" is powerful, then Ukraine would not have shifted away from such influence; if "influence" was not powerful, then it's not much of a loss at all.
1. Did you not read this? 2014 was a loss of a friend. 2022 is an increase to Russia's self. Other people are idiots but you can't parse that?
2. Oh here we go again. Sudden desperate ad hominems with the tantrum that if everyone thinks you're wrong then we're all idiots of low culture and you're the only one who's not LOL. You win the debate cus you judge your own debate, right? Have you seen The Dictator? Aladeen got gold medals in every sporting event in his country by judging them himself LOL He also awarded himself best actor of the year every year! But he's a king so that's not gonna be a viable route for you unfortunately.
No, I don't think Israel is losing and the others who are making that comparison to you are showing you that Russia is winning just like Israel, not that Israel is actually losing.
Last edited:
Just capturing a small territory is not the same as winning a war. You have to be really stupid to think that.
Winning a war is defeating the enemy and achieving all published goals.
So you are just changing the goalpost.
South Korea increased its territory by almost 4% in the Korean War, and even then the result was a stalemate.
At the moment, Russia has not managed to increase its territory by even 1% while continuing in a net loss in Ukraine for NATO and you call it a victory. Lol
Last edited: