- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:Yeltsin didn’t last.What an interesting observation.
As interesting as your theory that Russia would have been an asset to NATO.
quote:
it is apparent that Russian moves towards a democracy and a capitalist economy didn’t last at allWhy?
My opinion? Russia is a flawed nation run by kings and dictators. They don’t have democratic traditions. I could go on, but you should know ego thry are.
quote:
Russia would have been a cancer in NATOFacts not in evidence. In fact, it is very likely that given an inclusive "Marshall Plan" extended to Yeltsin at the conclusion of the Cold War, Putin would have never happened. We cannot unwind that clock, but we can learn from the outcome.
My opinion. Your opinion differs but is really ridiculous. A Marshall Pkan for Russia? Come on man. How stupid can you be?
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:27 am to VolSquatch
quote:
a narrow if not nonexistent path to victory for Ukraine.
What does a "nonexistent path to victory for Ukraine" mean ?
Ukraine doesn't have to win this thing. Russia started it. They're the ones who have to win it. Ukraine just has to not lose.
Ukraine can't totally win on the battlefield. I think everyone knows that. But the Viet Cong didn't defeat the US on the battlefield. The Taliban didn't defeat the US or Russia on the battlefield. Ukraine has to convince Russia that Russia can't win. Then let the internal politics of Russia eat itself up.
Russian political upheaval and revolution is way more "inevitable" than conquering Ukraine is
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:41 am to No Colors
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:41 am to doubleb
quote:You are correct of course. There were no guarantees. Instead, there were solid verbal assurances. But as those were issued to the USSR, they were technically nonbinding re: Russia.
You believe Russia was guaranteed that NATO wouldn’t move eastward.
quote:A "peace deal that everyone agreed to"? Why all the weasel words?
You believe that there was a peace deal that everyone agreed to, but the West stopped it.
In April 2022, peace talks had reached an advanced point. According to parties from all sides, had Johnson not interceded, the war would almost certainly have ended at that point.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:48 am to No Colors
quote:
Ukraine doesn't have to win this thing. Russia started it. They're the ones who have to win it. Ukraine just has to not lose.
You guys are already bending over backwards to make it look like Ukraine will have "won" when they in all likelihood lose at the very least the eastern provinces and Crimea after saying "not an inch". I think if you fail in your own admitted tactical objective, that is a loss.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:48 am to doubleb
quote:Interesting response.
A Marshall Pkan for Russia? Come on man. How stupid can you be?
Upon conclusion of the Cold War, why would an economic support and recovery plan aimed toward Russia's totalitarian conversion and democratization be "stupid"?
This post was edited on 5/17/24 at 10:50 am
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:52 am to VolSquatch
quote:What was Russia's tactical objective? In February of 2022 that objective was to take the entire country.
I think if you fail in your own admitted tactical objective, that is a loss.
So 4 minor provinces with no major cities seems like a failure. Maybe both sides lose according to your definition? In that case, we have hundreds of thousands dead, and trillions of damage done. And both sides lose.
Who's idea was this thing anyhow? (In before CIA MIC)
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:56 am to doubleb
quote:
It’s not their only goal and you know that.
Then don't say things like
quote:
Ukraine wins if they survive as an independent nation.
You're essentially saying its their only goal
quote:
You believe Russia was guaranteed that NATO wouldn’t move eastward
I believe the notion that they were guaranteed that has real consequences on the world today because there are a TON of Russians who believe it.
It is a verifiable fact that it was brought up in the initial talks but it didn't get written in ink, so its void in terms of US obligation.
I do understand the confusion a bit from some Russian points of view, but I don't even think written documents bind us (or anyone else) to anything so why would I be so adamant about a handshake behind closed doors that maybe happened?
quote:
You believe that the CIA overthrew the Ukraine government
Its just a fact that we helped install the pro-US government
quote:
You believe that there was a peace deal that everyone agreed to, but the West stopped it.
Because by all accounts there was. The only people not saying its true are the ones who would look bad if it is
quote:
But really is there is a signed agreement that Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and you ignore that.
How do I ignore that?
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:58 am to VolSquatch
quote:
How do I ignore that?
Because you never criticize Russia and completely accept all the ptopaganda they put out.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:59 am to StormyMcMan
quote:
Again, 2 parties have to agree for their to be a peace deal and Russia is on record saying it wasn't signing that deal because it mentioned security guarantees. No matter Ukraines opinion on this matter it was never happening, so there was no peace deal to take
I think we are talking about two separate deals.
quote:
FWIW I do agree with your next post about Russia on the face of it, but I do think Russia has tried and failed to take more territory. The defensive lines in this conflict are truly WWI impressive and the front lines probably won't move too too much with meat wave attacks sadly. But neither side seems ready to throw in the towel so we are where we are.
I do think if the front lines could freeze where they are and allow the countries to go about their way, that would be the best but that proposal has a snowballs chance in hell of being signed by either belligerent right now.
Yeah it really is a meat grinder. If Russia is mostly content to sit there it would take a lot of resolve from the west for Ukraine to be able to outlast them and win (whatever definition of that we are using today ITT)
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:02 am to doubleb
quote:
Because you never criticize Russia and completely accept all the ptopaganda they put out.
We have literally thousands of comments in here criticizing Russia
The prevailing position ITT is overwhelmingly in favor of seemingly endless Ukraine aid.
In my view a more productive debate is "How much and for how long?".
What I don't find productive is putting blue and yellow flags in my X bio and virtual signaling to you strangers that I would rather Ukraine wipe the floor with Russia and get every inch of their land back than any other outcome. But I deal in realism, and I just don't see it.
And I would say you completely accept any propaganda the US and Ukraine put out, but we both know those statements aren't really true for either of us and we are just flinging shite at each other via text.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:05 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
nteresting response. Upon conclusion of the Cold War, why would an economic support and recovery plan aimed toward Russia's totalitarian conversion and democratization be "stupid"?
Because we had already provided them with Billions of dollars of aid in WWIi and instead of joining the community of nations and acted like good citizens; they kept their massive armies in conquered nations, they built more and better rockets and bombs , and actively fought our people in Korea.
It appears to me that giving them more money would be pointless. They would just use it to reinvigorate their armies and pocket the rest.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:06 am to No Colors
quote:
So 4 minor provinces with no major cities seems like a failure
I think Putin would tell you its a failure.
He isn't going to publicly because propaganda and morale concerns.
I think Zelensky would tell you they have failed.
He isn't going to publicly because propaganda and morale concerns.
And FWIW I think the whole "we aren't giving up an inch" and "we are taking the entire country" statements are just morale boosting attempts that neither man actually means. I think Putin would accept the Eastern provinces and Crimea but would take more if its attainable, and Zelensky would give up Crimea and maybe some of the east.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:06 am to VolSquatch
quote:
We have literally thousands of comments in here criticizing Russia
Duh, my comments are directed at you.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:09 am to doubleb
quote:
Duh, my comments are directed at you.
Why is it so important that I praise Ukraine and criticize Russia (which I have done the latter, btw)?
Would it mean that much to you if I called Putin a murderous thug again? Or call them inept militarily?
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:33 am to doubleb
quote:By "them," you're referring to communist USSR under Stalin, rather than the fledgling democratized Russian Federation under Yeltsin?
Because we had already provided them
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:38 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
By "them," you're referring to communist USSR under Stalin, rather than the fledgling democratized Russian Federation under Yeltsin?
By them I mean Russia.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:38 am to ColtRange
Oh shite, Russia can lot missiles into Texas now?
Posted on 5/17/24 at 12:27 pm to doubleb
quote:Your comparative references were to the USSR.
Because we had already provided them with Billions of dollars of aid in WWIi and instead of joining the community of nations and acted like good citizens; they kept their massive armies in conquered nations, they built more and better rockets and bombs , and actively fought our people in Korea.
--------
'By "them," you're referring to communist USSR under Stalin, rather than the fledgling democratized Russian Federation under Yeltsin?
--------
By them I mean Russia.
Page 3797 of 3846
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News