Russia, the king of the North, the Bear

[seanD]

I wish I could say "let's agree to disagree", but it's too late in the game to treat apathy like tolerance. I made concrete, either/or statements which must either be shown to be false or accepted. Og is a giant in Scripture based at the primordial waters at Hermon because he claimed to be the Gog of his time. Among other concrete statements I made. I despise 3 Resurrections because she ignores things that prove her nonsense false so she doesn't look like a huge idiot with her name "3 Resurrections". In other words, her entire self-identity and ego is at stake and truth takes a backseat to her if it matters at all at this point.

I appreciate the times we've allied against the preterists, sean, but I can't get on board "agree to disagree". I'm either correct or not and must be shown to be incorrect with evidence, not lazy handwaving or vague "coexist" statements. People's lives and souls are at stake.

I don't think disagreements on the interpretations of Ezekiel is that consequential. We agree things are going to get really bad, horrible, and we might even have to endure a post-apocalyptic existence for some time. Disagreements on how things will exactly play out will have little affect on that realization.

[Darfius]

I imagine you and I will disagree about quite a few things because there are things claimed by futurists I'm still unsure of, not that dogmatic about, or disagree entirely.

I wish I could say "let's agree to disagree", but it's too late in the game to treat apathy like tolerance. I made concrete, either/or statements which must either be shown to be false or accepted. Og is a giant in Scripture based at the primordial waters at Hermon because he claimed to be the Gog of his time. Among other concrete statements I made. I despise 3 Resurrections because she ignores things that prove her nonsense false so she doesn't look like a huge idiot with her name "3 Resurrections". In other words, her entire self-identity and ego is at stake and truth takes a backseat to her if it matters at all at this point.

I appreciate the times we've allied against the preterists, sean, but I can't get on board "agree to disagree". I'm either correct or not and must be shown to be incorrect with evidence, not lazy handwaving or vague "coexist" statements. People's lives and souls are at stake.

[seanD]

I am saying the final iteration of Gog will be after the Millenium when Satan (he will be Gog then) will gather all rebels against God for a final battle after 1,000 years of peace. It will be a physical battle. I am also saying there will be other physical battles before then beginning with the invasion of America. Not sure what you mean by too much symbolism. Do you agree that the Antichrist is called a "little horn"? Is he literally a horn on some creature's head? Or is it a title? So it is with Gog.

I imagine you and I will disagree about quite a few things because there are things claimed by futurists I'm still unsure of, not that dogmatic about, or disagree entirely.

[Darfius]

No offense Darfius, but that's way too much symbolism there for my taste. As a futurist I try and avoid as much symbolism as possible, though I don't deny there is some. But that's my biggest criticism of preterism. They have a habit of turning everything into vague symbolism, even instances that don't really require it. To me, I interpret Rev 21 in a pretty literal sense -- actual God actions that result in an actual physical reality existence.

I am saying the final iteration of Gog will be after the Millenium when Satan (he will be Gog then) will gather all rebels against God for a final battle after 1,000 years of peace. It will be a physical battle. I am also saying there will be other physical battles before then beginning with the invasion of America. Not sure what you mean by too much symbolism. Do you agree that the Antichrist is called a "little horn"? Is he literally a horn on some creature's head? Or is it a title? So it is with Gog.

[seanD]

sean, I know it's bros before you knows, but it's almost like you haven't read what I've said. Gog is a title. Titles can be borne by several different individuals. Gog is a title for the ruler of chaos/the rebel forces against God and His people. Chaos is symbolized in the Bible by "the sea." For example:

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 8

⁵ The Lord spoke to me again:

⁶ “Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,
⁷ therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Nahum 1

He rebukes the sea and dries it up;
he makes all the rivers run dry.
Bashan and Carmel wither
and the blossoms of Lebanon fade.

© Copyright Original Source

A big clue that Rev 20 is different from other Gog iterations is that this defeat of Gog results in "no more sea" (that is, no more rebellion against God) as can be seen in the very first verse of the next chapter:

Scripture Verse: Revelation 21

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

© Copyright Original Source

Which is one of many reasons 3 Resurrections' interpretation is cuckcoo for cocoa puffs. There is still plenty of rebellion after her version of "Gog and Magog". Also, her objection that the Gog war requires battle with literal swords instead of it meaning the well known motif of "fighting and dying by the sword" (violence in general) and/or "taking up arms" (not literal arms) is summarily dismissed, especially when she doesn't require literal fulfillment of angelic deliverers of judgment or literal fire from the mouth of the two witnesses. Get that inconsistent nonsense out of here.

I don't have space to detail the entire "chaoskampf" motif (I've explained much of it in other posts), but it can be seen in the very first chapter of Genesis:

Scripture Verse: Genesis 1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

© Copyright Original Source

Both "formless" and "deep" share the root "tohu" in Hebrew, which formed the basis of "the abyss" in Hebrew and other cultures, but also had the connotation of "chaotic" (formless). It was also portrayed as "water", which is why God "hovers" over it pre-creation.

Scripture Verse: Genesis 1

⁶ And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” ⁷ So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. ⁸ God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

⁹ And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. ¹⁰ God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

© Copyright Original Source

This represents God "bringing order from chaos" which was poetically stated as "vanquishing the sea monster" (Leviathan/Rahab/Tiamat). So again, "the sea" represents chaotic forces of rebellion to God's order in the Bible, which is why the beast comes out of "the sea":

Scripture Verse: Revelation 13

13 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

© Copyright Original Source

So Gog as Okeanos/Ogyges/Og represents the personified sea and/or the ruler of the sea/forces of chaotic rebellion. Necessarily more than one individual, as God and His people have had many enemies throughout history.

I also wanted to give more evidence that America is Israel (Ephraim) in one guise in Scripture and Babylon in another. Names in general were really more like titles to the ancients than labels meant to define one's "essence", since the ancients rightly believed one could change and no longer reflect a given title or require a new one (which is why Pharaoh gave Joseph a new name and Nebuchadnezzar gave Daniel a new one). It's also why we receive a white stone with our real name when we overcome. So it shouldn't be difficult to believe when I say that America is given multiple names/titles in Scripture. The common thread are the events depicted as coming upon this end days nation, including invasion by a coalition of nations "from the far north":

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 50

This is the word the Lord spoke through Jeremiah the prophet concerning Babylon and the land of the Babylonians:

² “Announce and proclaim among the nations,
lift up a banner and proclaim it;
keep nothing back, but say,
‘Babylon will be captured;
Bel will be put to shame,
Marduk filled with terror.
Her images will be put to shame
and her idols filled with terror.’
³ A nation from the north will attack her
and lay waste her land.
No one will live in it;
both people and animals will flee away.


⁴ “In those days, at that time,”
declares the Lord,
“the people of Israel [Ephraim/Christians] and the people of Judah [Jews] together
will go in tears to seek the Lord their God.
⁵ They will ask the way to Zion
and turn their faces toward it.
They will come and bind themselves to the Lord
in an everlasting covenant
that will not be forgotten.

© Copyright Original Source

Why would Jews living in Jerusalem need to "ask the way to Zion" or "turn their faces" to travel there? They wouldn't.

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 50

“My people have been lost sheep;
their shepherds have led them astray
and caused them to roam on the mountains.
They wandered over mountain and hill
and forgot their own resting place.

© Copyright Original Source

Mountains are symbolic of kingdoms/nations in Scripture. His people have been "lost sheep" (lost tribes of Israel) who have "wandered" through various nations and forgot their "resting place" (Zion).

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 50

⁸ “Flee out of Babylon;
leave the land of the Babylonians,
and be like the goats that lead the flock.
⁹ For I will stir up and bring against Babylon
an alliance of great nations from the land of the north.
They will take up their positions against her,
and from the north she will be captured.
Their arrows will be like skilled warriors
who do not return empty-handed.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 51

⁴ They will fall down slain in Babylon,
fatally wounded in her streets.
⁵ For Israel and Judah have not been forsaken
by their God, the Lord Almighty,
though their land is full of guilt
before the Holy One of Israel.


⁶ “Flee from Babylon!
Run for your lives!
Do not be destroyed because of her sins.
It is time for the Lord’s vengeance;
he will repay her what she deserves.

© Copyright Original Source

"Their land" is Babylon. That is, Israelites and Jews (America has the second largest number of Jews after Israel) are living in Babylon when it is judged and they are told to "flee" to Zion.

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 51

²⁷ “Lift up a banner in the land!
Blow the trumpet among the nations!
Prepare the nations for battle against her;
summon against her these kingdoms:
Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz.
Appoint a commander against her;
send up horses like a swarm of locusts.
²⁸ Prepare the nations for battle against her—
the kings of the Medes,
their governors and all their officials,
and all the countries they rule.
²⁹ The land trembles and writhes,
for the Lord’s purposes against Babylon stand—
to lay waste the land of Babylon
so that no one will live there.

© Copyright Original Source

Ararat, Minni, Ashkenaz = Russia and/or former Soviet bloc nations and Medes = Persia/Iran, the exact coalition detailed in Ezekiel. And the "flee from her, my people!" motif is repeated in Revelation to show it is an endtime event:

Scripture Verse: Revelation 18

⁴ Then I heard another voice from heaven say:

“‘Come out of her, my people,’
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
⁵ for her sins are piled up to heaven,
and God has remembered her crimes.

© Copyright Original Source

I didn't cite the entire chapters of Jeremiah 50 and 51 to save space, but they are well worth reading for the context.

No offense Darfius, but that's way too much symbolism there for my taste. As a futurist I try and avoid as much symbolism as possible, though I don't deny there is some. But that's my biggest criticism of preterism. They have a habit of turning everything into vague symbolism, even instances that don't really require it. To me, I interpret Rev 21 in a pretty literal sense -- actual God actions that result in an actual physical reality existence.

[Darfius]

Excellent. That's basically my view.

Now, if you hold the belief that the thousand year reign of Christ is future, then Rev 20:8-9 seems to plainly state that the war of Ezekiel 38 occurs after that period, not before, unless we assume the same thing happens a second time with the same exact players, which seems pretty contrived since that event is not described the same anywhere in the Olivet Discourse (i.e Luke 21:20) or anywhere else in the NT (i.e. Rev 11).

Also, Russia already has their hands full in Ukraine, and (barring a nuclear holocaust) Russia will undoubtedly win that war eventually, but so far it's a slow grind and they'll likely be so beaten up -- physically, emotionally, and economically -- that's it's extremely difficult to believe, even if they had help from other eastern countries, they'd actually go on to wage yet another war that would include the US and all other western allies against them. It just doesn't seem very plausible in our present time and situation.

sean, I know it's bros before you knows, but it's almost like you haven't read what I've said. Gog is a title. Titles can be borne by several different individuals. Gog is a title for the ruler of chaos/the rebel forces against God and His people. Chaos is symbolized in the Bible by "the sea." For example:

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 8

⁵ The Lord spoke to me again:

⁶ “Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,
⁷ therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Nahum 1

He rebukes the sea and dries it up;
he makes all the rivers run dry.
Bashan and Carmel wither
and the blossoms of Lebanon fade.

© Copyright Original Source

A big clue that Rev 20 is different from other Gog iterations is that this defeat of Gog results in "no more sea" (that is, no more rebellion against God) as can be seen in the very first verse of the next chapter:

Scripture Verse: Revelation 21

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

© Copyright Original Source

Which is one of many reasons 3 Resurrections' interpretation is cuckcoo for cocoa puffs. There is still plenty of rebellion after her version of "Gog and Magog". Also, her objection that the Gog war requires battle with literal swords instead of it meaning the well known motif of "fighting and dying by the sword" (violence in general) and/or "taking up arms" (not literal arms) is summarily dismissed, especially when she doesn't require literal fulfillment of angelic deliverers of judgment or literal fire from the mouth of the two witnesses. Get that inconsistent nonsense out of here.

I don't have space to detail the entire "chaoskampf" motif (I've explained much of it in other posts), but it can be seen in the very first chapter of Genesis:

Scripture Verse: Genesis 1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

© Copyright Original Source

Both "formless" and "deep" share the root "tohu" in Hebrew, which formed the basis of "the abyss" in Hebrew and other cultures, but also had the connotation of "chaotic" (formless). It was also portrayed as "water", which is why God "hovers" over it pre-creation.

Scripture Verse: Genesis 1

⁶ And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” ⁷ So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. ⁸ God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

⁹ And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. ¹⁰ God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

© Copyright Original Source

This represents God "bringing order from chaos" which was poetically stated as "vanquishing the sea monster" (Leviathan/Rahab/Tiamat). So again, "the sea" represents chaotic forces of rebellion to God's order in the Bible, which is why the beast comes out of "the sea":

Scripture Verse: Revelation 13

13 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

© Copyright Original Source

So Gog as Okeanos/Ogyges/Og represents the personified sea and/or the ruler of the sea/forces of chaotic rebellion. Necessarily more than one individual, as God and His people have had many enemies throughout history.

I also wanted to give more evidence that America is Israel (Ephraim) in one guise in Scripture and Babylon in another. Names in general were really more like titles to the ancients than labels meant to define one's "essence", since the ancients rightly believed one could change and no longer reflect a given title or require a new one (which is why Pharaoh gave Joseph a new name and Nebuchadnezzar gave Daniel a new one). It's also why we receive a white stone with our real name when we overcome. So it shouldn't be difficult to believe when I say that America is given multiple names/titles in Scripture. The common thread are the events depicted as coming upon this end days nation, including invasion by a coalition of nations "from the far north":

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 50

This is the word the Lord spoke through Jeremiah the prophet concerning Babylon and the land of the Babylonians:

² “Announce and proclaim among the nations,
lift up a banner and proclaim it;
keep nothing back, but say,
‘Babylon will be captured;
Bel will be put to shame,
Marduk filled with terror.
Her images will be put to shame
and her idols filled with terror.’
³ A nation from the north will attack her
and lay waste her land.
No one will live in it;
both people and animals will flee away.


⁴ “In those days, at that time,”
declares the Lord,
“the people of Israel [Ephraim/Christians] and the people of Judah [Jews] together
will go in tears to seek the Lord their God.
⁵ They will ask the way to Zion
and turn their faces toward it.
They will come and bind themselves to the Lord
in an everlasting covenant
that will not be forgotten.

© Copyright Original Source

Why would Jews living in Jerusalem need to "ask the way to Zion" or "turn their faces" to travel there? They wouldn't.

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 50

“My people have been lost sheep;
their shepherds have led them astray
and caused them to roam on the mountains.
They wandered over mountain and hill
and forgot their own resting place.

© Copyright Original Source

Mountains are symbolic of kingdoms/nations in Scripture. His people have been "lost sheep" (lost tribes of Israel) who have "wandered" through various nations and forgot their "resting place" (Zion).

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 50

⁸ “Flee out of Babylon;
leave the land of the Babylonians,
and be like the goats that lead the flock.
⁹ For I will stir up and bring against Babylon
an alliance of great nations from the land of the north.
They will take up their positions against her,
and from the north she will be captured.
Their arrows will be like skilled warriors
who do not return empty-handed.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 51

⁴ They will fall down slain in Babylon,
fatally wounded in her streets.
⁵ For Israel and Judah have not been forsaken
by their God, the Lord Almighty,
though their land is full of guilt
before the Holy One of Israel.


⁶ “Flee from Babylon!
Run for your lives!
Do not be destroyed because of her sins.
It is time for the Lord’s vengeance;
he will repay her what she deserves.

© Copyright Original Source

"Their land" is Babylon. That is, Israelites and Jews (America has the second largest number of Jews after Israel) are living in Babylon when it is judged and they are told to "flee" to Zion.

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 51

²⁷ “Lift up a banner in the land!
Blow the trumpet among the nations!
Prepare the nations for battle against her;
summon against her these kingdoms:
Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz.
Appoint a commander against her;
send up horses like a swarm of locusts.
²⁸ Prepare the nations for battle against her—
the kings of the Medes,
their governors and all their officials,
and all the countries they rule.
²⁹ The land trembles and writhes,
for the Lord’s purposes against Babylon stand—
to lay waste the land of Babylon
so that no one will live there.

© Copyright Original Source

Ararat, Minni, Ashkenaz = Russia and/or former Soviet bloc nations and Medes = Persia/Iran, the exact coalition detailed in Ezekiel. And the "flee from her, my people!" motif is repeated in Revelation to show it is an endtime event:

Scripture Verse: Revelation 18

⁴ Then I heard another voice from heaven say:

“‘Come out of her, my people,’
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
⁵ for her sins are piled up to heaven,
and God has remembered her crimes.

© Copyright Original Source

I didn't cite the entire chapters of Jeremiah 50 and 51 to save space, but they are well worth reading for the context.

[seanD]

I have never thought of the Ezekiel 38 war as happening after the millennium but I suppose it could when all the armies gather against Israel?

Russia was so quiet for so long it seemed impossible it could play a significant role let alone that of being the king of the north marching against Israel.

Rev 20:8-9 mentions the exact same war with Gog and Magog. The only logical conclusion for the premil is that either two Gog and Magog wars happen, or it's the same one. My main problem with the former argument is that this war is not mentioned anywhere else in the NT other than Rev 20:8-9.

[Esther]

Excellent. That's basically my view.

Now, if you hold the belief that the thousand year reign of Christ is future, then Rev 20:8-9 seems to plainly state that the war of Ezekiel 38 occurs after that period, not before, unless we assume the same thing happens a second time with the same exact players, which seems pretty contrived since that event is not described the same anywhere in the Olivet Discourse (i.e Luke 21:20) or anywhere else in the NT (i.e. Rev 11).

Also, Russia already has their hands full in Ukraine, and (barring a nuclear holocaust) Russia will undoubtedly win that war eventually, but so far it's a slow grind and they'll likely be so beaten up -- physically, emotionally, and economically -- that's it's extremely difficult to believe, even if they had help from other eastern countries, they'd actually go on to wage yet another war that would include the US and all other western allies against them. It just doesn't seem very plausible in our present time and situation.

I have never thought of the Ezekiel 38 war as happening after the millennium but I suppose it could when all the armies gather against Israel?

Russia was so quiet for so long it seemed impossible it could play a significant role let alone that of being the king of the north marching against Israel.

[tabibito]

The reason I said they'll likely "win" is because I really don't see any scenario where Russia retreats back to Russia and takes a humiliating defeat without taking desperate action if it comes to that.

I see only two end results in this war: Either Ukraine troops will whittle down to the point there's an eventual concession and ceasefire, but the toll on Russian will be too great to start another war with a western country and its allies. Or the war will grind on to the point Putin gets impatient and frustrated and uses a nuke, which will undoubtedly cause a chain reaction with NATO in response, and that's why I said "barring a nuclear holocaust." In the latter scenario everyone loses.

But, again, my main point is that in either scenario, I doubt Russia will be in any shape to mount a war described in Ezekiel.

On that last point - agreed. Assuming the reports are anywhere near reliable, it won't take much more to put Russia in a position where her ability to defend her own territory or even to hold Crimea will be compromised. The risk will come when the materiel and personnel losses have been recovered, and strategies developed to prevent a repeat of this debacle - but that might take less than twenty years.

[seanD]

You stated (in an earlier post) that you expected Russia to win in the war with Ukraine: a claim which I said I had assumed was correct "until today" (the day when I responded).

There - you see. No change to your post involved, and I made no change to the meaning of your post: nor does the above differ from the relevant section of the post in which I quoted the relevant section of your post.

You further stated that you believed the war would leave Russia critically weakened. I have no doubt that you are correct in that assessment.

The reason I said they'll likely "win" is because I really don't see any scenario where Russia retreats back to Russia and takes a humiliating defeat without taking desperate action if it comes to that.

I see only two end results in this war: Either Ukraine troops will whittle down to the point there's an eventual concession and ceasefire, but the toll on Russian will be too great to start another war with a western country and its allies. Or the war will grind on to the point Putin gets impatient and frustrated and uses a nuke, which will undoubtedly cause a chain reaction with NATO in response, and that's why I said "barring a nuclear holocaust." In the latter scenario everyone loses.

But, again, my main point is that in either scenario, I doubt Russia will be in any shape to mount a war described in Ezekiel.

[tabibito]

Editing someone's post and changing the text is dishonest, bro. Don't edit my posts again, period.

You stated (in an earlier post) that you expected Russia to win in the war with Ukraine: a claim which I said I had assumed was correct "until today" (the day when I responded).

There - you see. No change to your post involved, and I made no change to the meaning of your post: nor does the above differ from the relevant section of the post in which I quoted the relevant section of your post.

You further stated that you believed the war would leave Russia critically weakened. I have no doubt that you are correct in that assessment.

[seanD]

The claim that there was any dishonesty in my post is itself false, and the record is plain enough for anyone who wants to check it for themselves anyway. I confess to some confusion about why you should be falsely accusing me of dishonesty, but I'm sure you have your reasons.

Editing someone's post and changing the text is dishonest, bro. Don't edit my posts again, period.

[tabibito]

My argument was similar to yours about Russia and the war. The point I was making is irrelevant to whether they'll actually "win" in the end or not, so you editing out my comma was not just dishonest but pointless.

The claim that there was any dishonesty in my post is itself false, and the record is plain enough for anyone who wants to check it for themselves anyway. I confess to some confusion about why you should be falsely accusing me of dishonesty, but I'm sure you have your reasons.

[seanD]

With the part that I quoted underlined.

Nothing in what you posted in the following section changes the basic claim that Russia will win. I was responding strictly to that part of your post. No misrepresentation was conducted, nor even intended.

My argument was similar to yours about Russia and the war. The point I was making is irrelevant to whether they'll actually "win" in the end or not, so you editing out my comma was not just dishonest but pointless.

[tabibito]

No, you edited out my comma at the end of "eventually" and added a period. And I'm guessing you did that because you omitted the part where I pretty much conceded your argument about how Russia is doing in the war: "but so far it's a slow grind and they'll likely be so beaten up -- physically, emotionally, and economically."

Please don't be that slimy and dishonest. Thanks.

Also, Russia already has their hands full in Ukraine, and (barring a nuclear holocaust) Russia will undoubtedly win that war eventually, but so far it's a slow grind and they'll likely be so beaten up -- physically, emotionally, and economically -- that's it's extremely difficult to believe, even if they had help from other eastern countries, they'd actually go on to wage yet another war that would include the US and all other western allies against them. It just doesn't seem very plausible in our present time and situation.

With the part that I quoted underlined.

Nothing in what you posted in the following section changes the basic claim that Russia will win. I was responding strictly to that part of your post. No misrepresentation was conducted, nor even intended.