- 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
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:56 am to Realityintheface
Posted on 10/7/22 at 8:56 am to Realityintheface
quote:
What we need to do is get China and India to tell Putin that if he uses nukes that they will cut off all trade with Russia (ie: oil)
It doesn’t have to be public. It can be back channeled.
Edit: China and India would have to be guaranteed oil supply though from other countries. Should tell them we will open up production to the max to make up for lost Russian supply. They need the oil and need the guarantee.
I would agree maybe this would have some effect if it weren’t impossible to achieve right now. Oil is already high due to tight supply and cutting Russia off in Europe and the US. OPEC+ (including Russia) just announced a 2 mill bpd cut in production. This would never be achieved right now.
The main deterrent to use at this point would be a direct message from a United NATO that use of nuclear weapons of any kind in Ukraine will be met with immediate nuclear retaliation to mainland Russia as recognized prior to 2014. That’s going to make a lot of people nervous, even beyond OML, but it sends a clear message it will be met with much more difficult retaliation and not worth it to Russia. If they use them after that, they were always going to if things got tough and we’d be in the same position imo.
0
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Trump was non-interventionist. Why would Russia fear Trump not responding to their invasion of Ukraine, exactly?
I think your take on this is skewed...
Yes Trump was "non-interventionist".. however we already have (and had prior to Trump taking office...) an agreement with Ukraine due to them surrendering their nukes.. You are suggesting Trump would not have honored/adhered to the agreement with Ukraine and I completely disagree with that thinking..
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:16 am to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
America's leadership was inconsequential to Putin's ambitions.
I disagree.
Russia has had a pattern of testing presidents. Carter was weak and they knew it; thus they invaded Afghanistan.
They respected Reagan and looked what happened. He broke the USSR.
Obama was seen as weak. The Bear came out of hiding. Ttump takes over and they ease off.
I don’t think it’s an accident they invaded Ukraine proper once Biden took office.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:18 am to klrstix
quote:
You are suggesting Trump would not have honored/adhered to the agreement with Ukraine
Do you support our actions in Ukraine today?
That's not a gotcha, I may have misread your tone. My response was more for the people who think the US caused this and that we shouldn't give Ukraine any help. Those people are largely very pro-Trump, who believe Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine b/c of Trump. My comment was to have them clarify.
So if you aren't opposed to our aide in this conflict, then the tone of my question probably was not applicable to your POV.
If you are opposed to our aide in this conflict, then I don't see how you can justify a Trump intervention.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:22 am to Tigeralum2008
When Trump took out the entire battalion of hired Wagner mercenaries in Syria, Putin got the message loud and clear do not frick with Trump while he is in office.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Do you support our actions in Ukraine today?
My most accurate response to this is I support honoring our treaties and commitments...
When existing treaties no longer reflect our national interest, we should officially cancel them..
quote:
people who think the US caused this
People who think the US or NATO caused this are just silly... I personally will not waste my time arguing this point with them..
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:37 am to Chromdome35
quote:
Darth, do you have any interest in modeling modern weapon systems? I was thinking it would be interesting to build a series of kits representing the armor in this war.
It’s rare, but I do model some Cold War era stuff. I’ve also thought about perhaps doing some builds on this war.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:50 am to klrstix
quote:
People who think the US or NATO caused this are just silly... I personally will not waste my time arguing this point with them..
I’ve made it clear from the start I’m not pro-Russia. I look at this war from a completely rational standpoint based upon decades of deep study in history and geopolitical matters. Having said that, it cannot be denied the actions of NATO and the United States over the previous years did factor into the situation. I’m not saying we intentionally goaded Russia into invading Ukraine. But we did play a part. Let me explain.
I ascribe it mostly to ill-advised idealism by many politicians and leaders in the West who fundamentally do not understand Russia. There were lost opportunities to deescalate the situation and perhaps avoid this war. Those opportunities were lost though.
Now, none of this I say excuses Russia from their invasion. They made the choice to launch this war. They are the aggressor here. But remember, in war there’s always two points of view, yours and the enemy. When Japan attacked the US in December 1941, they did so because, from their point of view, they had no other choice. I’m not saying they were justified, Jair that this was their point of view.
The same is true in Ukraine. From the Russian point of view they had to invade. Is it right? Of course not. But the fact remains this is how they view it. The failure on the part of the West is we failed to realize the Russian point of view in time to avoid this war. I don’t think it was intentional. I don’t think anyone in the west wanted this war. Well, anyone besides defense contractors anyway. But there were opportunities to avoid the war. Sadly, those chances were missed.
This post was edited on 10/7/22 at 9:52 am
Posted on 10/7/22 at 9:53 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I ascribe it mostly to ill-advised idealism by many politicians and leaders in the West who fundamentally do not understand Russia. There were lost opportunities to deescalate the situation and perhaps avoid this war. Those opportunities were lost though.
Go on...
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:02 am to Darth_Vader
Putin perceived weakness with the US when Biden was elected. There were a LOT of factors that went into it. The US appeared to be in disarray.
Putin miscalculated BIGLY. Biden has shown that he is not following the passive gameplan from 2014 and Putin has lost much more than he bargained for.
Putin miscalculated BIGLY. Biden has shown that he is not following the passive gameplan from 2014 and Putin has lost much more than he bargained for.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:04 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Now, none of this I say excuses Russia from their invasion. They made the choice to launch this war. They are the aggressor here. But remember, in war there’s always two points of view, yours and the enemy. When Japan attacked the US in December 1941, they did so because, from their point of view, they had no other choice. I’m not saying they were justified, Jair that this was their point of view.
I was also going to make the Japan analogy but you sort of beat me to the punch. Like Japan and US relations pre-Pearl harbor, there may have been mutually antagonistic relations, but at the end of the day and in years to come, people will only remember that Russia, like Japan, decided to stupidly and recklessly launch a unilateral war.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:09 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
why are yall obsessing over this. A preemptive strike on Russian isnt happening. Like at all
B/c they are flailing for ways to say Biden is fricking up. Trying to turn him into a war monger over Putin invading Ukraine is part of that.
This post was edited on 10/7/22 at 10:10 am
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:10 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
But the fact remains this is how they view it.
Just like Putin views poisoning, imprisonment, and murder as the only way to deal with dissent.
You have to see that this cannot be a strong argument outside of an oppressive dictstorship. Otherwise, it could be used to justify literally any atrocities imaginable.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:11 am to klrstix
8 months into this war and we still have actual American citizens wringing their hands over sending weapons to an entity currently killing Russians, and quite efficiently.
You know why the rest of us think you’re seditious sacks of shite? Because we know thousands of Americans have died to Russian arms in our various conflicts over the last 80 years.
Not just Russian arms, but actual Russian pilots pretending to be Korean or Vietnamese at times.
Let’s be clear: geopolitics, treaties, whatever blah blah blah.
Dead Russians are a good thing and it’s well deserved for them to get murked by American hardware.
frick Russia. frick anyone who sympathizes with Russia.
You know why the rest of us think you’re seditious sacks of shite? Because we know thousands of Americans have died to Russian arms in our various conflicts over the last 80 years.
Not just Russian arms, but actual Russian pilots pretending to be Korean or Vietnamese at times.
Let’s be clear: geopolitics, treaties, whatever blah blah blah.
Dead Russians are a good thing and it’s well deserved for them to get murked by American hardware.
frick Russia. frick anyone who sympathizes with Russia.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:22 am to Highthoughts
quote:
Dead Russians are a good thing and it’s well deserved for them to get murked by American hardware.
That's more than a little too far.
I have always had respect for the positive aspects of Russian culture, and there are many. I spent a couple years trying to learn the complicated Russian language. The truth of Russian society is that outside of the cities, the population is common and undereducated. They are the perennial victims of state control and graft.
I don't cheer for their deaths on a personal level. When they are armed and invading another country, their deaths are necessary to resist the attempted invasion. But I would rather the average Russian be permitted to go back home and live.
Shame on Moscow for this unnecessary war.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:23 am to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
Go on...
There were a two main factors.
1. Ambiguity on the status of Ukraine when it comes to possible NATO membership. This was heightened by the fact so many former Warsaw Pact member were admitted to NATO.
I’m not saying it was bad or wrong to allow those countries, or even Ukraine, join NATO. All I’m saying, from the Russian point of view this was seen as a massive threat. We in the west know there would never be a NATO invasion of Russia. The Russians though have always feared this.
As Ukraine grew its ties to the west, Russian paranoia only grew. This was noted in the West, but largely ignored.
2. Nordstream 2. The president removing objections to this pipeline allowed Russia to bypass Ukraine in supplying natural gas to the lucrative European market. And thanks to decades of idiotic energy policies in Europe, Europe has become dependent on Russian energy. Russia, incorrectly mind you, assumed this dependence would keep Europe on the sidelines.
You can also add in the perceived weakness in the US. The fact is our president is not respected as a strong, decisive leader. The disaster that was the Afghan withdrawal, again from the Russian point of view, showed the US has no stomach for foreign wars. Furthermore, the US is widely viewed as a fractured county by most of the world, especially Russia. We’re more divided than we’ve been since the 1860s.
So, again from the Russian point of view, they saw years of NATO expansion, including two invasions of independent countries (Iraq & Afghanistan), and this expansion looked to them possibly reaching not only their doorstep, but areas they have viewed as, if not outright Russian, at least under their sphere of influence going back centuries. Along with this threat they saw, from their point of view a window of opportunity, thanks to perceived weakness in the US and dependance of European Russian energy, to move now to address the situation.
None of this is to justify Russia in any way. Let me state clearly, Russia had no right to invade Ukraine. I am only explaining their thinking.
This post was edited on 10/7/22 at 10:25 am
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:24 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I’ve made it clear from the start I’m not pro-Russia. I look at this war from a completely rational standpoint based upon decades of deep study in history and geopolitical matters. Having said that, it cannot be denied the actions of NATO and the United States over the previous years did factor into the situation. I’m not saying we intentionally goaded Russia into invading Ukraine. But we did play a part. Let me explain.
I ascribe it mostly to ill-advised idealism by many politicians and leaders in the West who fundamentally do not understand Russia. There were lost opportunities to deescalate the situation and perhaps avoid this war. Those opportunities were lost though.
Now, none of this I say excuses Russia from their invasion. They made the choice to launch this war. They are the aggressor here. But remember, in war there’s always two points of view, yours and the enemy. When Japan attacked the US in December 1941, they did so because, from their point of view, they had no other choice. I’m not saying they were justified, Jair that this was their point of view.
The same is true in Ukraine. From the Russian point of view they had to invade. Is it right? Of course not. But the fact remains this is how they view it. The failure on the part of the West is we failed to realize the Russian point of view in time to avoid this war. I don’t think it was intentional. I don’t think anyone in the west wanted this war. Well, anyone besides defense contractors anyway. But there were opportunities to avoid the war. Sadly, those chances were missed.
Good point, nice commentary.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:31 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
I ascribe it mostly to ill-advised idealism by many politicians and leaders in the West who fundamentally do not understand Russia. There were lost opportunities to deescalate the situation and perhaps avoid this war. Those opportunities were lost though.
No, I think the wing that suggested we sideline Russia after the fall of the USSR wasn't driven by idealism. They were driven by the fact that they could not assure that an enemy still bitter about their effective defeat would not remain a security threat. It wasn't as though we didn't approach Russia with investment either.
quote:
Now, none of this I say excuses Russia from their invasion. They made the choice to launch this war. They are the aggressor here. But remember, in war there’s always two points of view, yours and the enemy. When Japan attacked the US in December 1941, they did so because, from their point of view, they had no other choice. I’m not saying they were justified, Jair that this was their point of view.
There are far more than two points of view. Regardless, in what sense did they have no choice?
The reasoning of the Japanese High Command was to ensure no immediate American response to several offensives in Southeast Asia, all of which were started on December 8th, 1941, with the invasion of Thailand a week later.
quote:
The failure on the part of the West is we failed to realize the Russian point of view in time to avoid this war. I don’t think it was intentional. I don’t think anyone in the west wanted this war. Well, anyone besides defense contractors anyway. But there were opportunities to avoid the war. Sadly, those chances were missed.
There were plenty of opportunities for Russia to not be a bad actor. They were established as a semi-rogue state by 2005, and what kept them from being completely ostracized was the German approach of 'change through trade.' There were several overt acts they did that showed they weren't ever acting in good-faith. Like all things, the idea that Russia 'had' to invade suggests they were not also responsible for potential de-escalation.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:32 am to klrstix
quote:
When existing treaties no longer reflect our national interest, we should officially cancel them..
That's an insane approach to international politics.
Posted on 10/7/22 at 10:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Ok so early 90s. Before that, it was rare moving backwards.
The Iran/Iraq war of the 80s was a classical war of land conquest between peer nations with major militaries.
But it has been exceedingly rare, and that is one of the great success stories of the world order that emerged post WW2. The US and Soviet militaries so thoroughly dwarfed everyone else, most other nations largely disarmed and wars between mid major nations basically became a thing of the past.
There was no undercard to the great US v. Soviet Title Belt Fight. Just 50 years of weigh ins, promos, trash talk, scuffles amongst the entourage and commercials. And then the Soviet prize fighter withdrew.
Page 1904 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News