- 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
1
Posted on 10/18/22 at 10:26 am to Chromdome35
quote:
Been spending time with the grandkids...flying home tomorrow. Is anything happening in the War?
heard some talk that RU is cracking down on their Mil bloggers, even the big ones like rybar and girkin (SP?), in the last week and honestly, and ironically, that was where we were getting most of the up to date info on what was going on around the front. Ukraine has been very successful in keeping a complete black out on their end not reporting victories till long after they have actually happened. Hopefully we will still be able to get decent information on the situation at the front.
Does seem to be a bit of a lull right now but also the Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities seems to to be taking up all the oxygen in the news space for at least the last week.
Hopefully UKR realizes nothing gins up support for them like battlefield success, and there is a limit on sympathy moving the needle (and we are fast approaching that limit as ppl have war crime fatigue).
Posted on 10/18/22 at 10:35 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
"Intentional" would imply Putin not attempting to cajole with cheap diplomacy that which he'd then have to conquer at a cost of blood, treasure, and international alienation.
I don't think it was intentional.
I think his decision to invade was directly linked to those first negotiations with Zelensky and Zelensky signing the NSC document with the plan to de-occupy the Crimea. Russia's own 2035 strategy was delayed from 2020 to 2021 to account for Ukraine's stance. In support of this, Russia's first troop build-up started from April of 2021. The later negotiations were thus just for show, and the sheer fact that Russia wanted all their claims redressed immediately should show how unserious they were about negotiations, because Russia most of all knew that to address those claims would take years of negotiation. Here is an article addressing some of those demands. LINK
Here is a link to the draft treaty released by the Russian government in December of 2021.
LINK
Several of these are complete non-starters for the US. Again, Russia cannot dictate security terms to other powers. That position makes Russian demands completely unreasonable from any point of view. These aren't serious terms for any treaty. That these articles make several demands of the West without any regard for what the West may want in return is an indication that Russia was never serious about negotiations, and indeed, begs the question as to why they need a buffer state to begin with.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 10:39 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Im not i have said he wants the resources since day 1 which is the case. Many of your liberal rags have said as much
But the initial invasion pattern suggests something else entirely.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 10:42 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:aka OML
posters here who were hoping that lots of Europeans would freeze to death this winter.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 10:49 am to TideCPA
quote:
#Ukraine: A Russian T-80BV tank was hit by Ukrainian fire, losing a track and with the crew killed/wounded- but the engine was still running, leading to a never ending collection of circles.
Then once it came to rest, a Russian soldier made the deadly mistake of checking on the tank/crew without first scanning the skies above.
Jeez
Posted on 10/18/22 at 10:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Putin is many things. He is ruthless, duplicitous, calculating, almost certainly a murderer. He's also a pragmatist though. He is not "crazy." He doesn't do things willy-nilly. Actions he takes are purposeful. They're designed to maximize benefit for effort/cost.
Putin and the Russian body politick knew the international cost of Ukrainian invasion would be huge. e.g., Much more so than a similar move into the more lucrative, less populated territory of Kazakhstan. What made that cost/risk/effort of Ukraine War worthwhile IAW Russian perception?
I've rarely ever seen revisionist history kick in so quickly and so thoroughly.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 10:54 am to WestCoastAg
Dara Massicot, who studies the Russian military with Rand, from an op-ed on the military implications of the mobilization on the near future of the war:
LINK
quote:
They join an army already degraded in quality and capability. The composition of Russia’s military force in Ukraine — as much of its prewar active duty personnel has been wounded or killed and its best equipment destroyed or captured — has radically altered over the course of the war. The Russian military leadership is unlikely to know with confidence how this undisciplined composite force will react when confronted with cold, exhausting combat conditions or rumors of Ukrainian assaults. Recent experience suggests these troops might abandon their positions and equipment in panic, as demoralized forces did in the Kharkiv region in September.
That does not bode well for Russia’s plans on the battlefield. Right now, Mr. Putin seems to have two immediate goals: to sustain control of as much of the occupied Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions as he can (with Russia’s desired boundaries not yet defined); and to freeze the front line, establishing a frontier Ukrainian forces cannot broach, possibly sealed by a cease-fire. That would enable a more sustainable defense, as well as allow the military to rotate troops and regenerate its forces. Ukraine and its supporters, of course, have made it clear that neither of these conditions is acceptable. And as the Ukrainians’ continued headway in the south suggests, it’s far from clear that Russia will be able to attain either aim.
In that case, Mr. Putin could lash out more broadly against Ukraine. The attacks of the past week — particularly striking critical civilian infrastructure — could be expanded across Ukraine if missile supplies hold out, while Russia could directly target the Ukrainian leadership with strikes or special operations.
The Kremlin, reticent so far to escalate the war beyond Ukraine, could also aim to directly disrupt or deter foreign military assistance to Kyiv. Such efforts might involve attacks on NATO satellites or other reconnaissance assets, jamming or “sensor blinding” them to render them temporarily or permanently inoperable. To inflict domestic costs on Kyiv’s supporters, Russia could also conduct cyberattacks against Europe or the United States, targeting critical infrastructure like energy, transportation and communications systems. The war then would no longer be confined to the borders of Ukraine.
LINK
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:01 am to SDVTiger
quote:
He wants the Donbas for the minerals and resources
Which is why he went for Kyiv and called to "denazify" (aka regime change) the Uke government right?
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:05 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The ability to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, and to clear aging weapons, ordnance, and supply from NATO inventory pleases western warhawks to no end.
An endless stream of Russian talking points.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:14 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
quote:
posters here who were hoping that lots of Europeans would freeze to death this winter.
aka OML
If OML were only 10% right on his predictions, this world would have been destroyed 5 times over by now.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:21 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Why? What is the benefit?
Several of these are complete non-starters for the US
Why do we need NATO forces massed beyond the 1997 extensions? You cannot rationally argue that "need," and concomitantly discount Russian concerns of a threat.
Russia's WWII losses exceeded ours in the European Theater 230-fold. That is the kind of national trauma seared into a people's psyche. They have no tolerance for risking the same thing again.
Russia views NATO as its adversary and as a distinct threat. They would view NATO in Ukraine in the same way the Israelis viewed Arab actions in 1967, i.e., a prelude to inevitable war. It's why Russia says granting Ukraine membership of NATO will guarantee the beginning of WWIII.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:31 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Russia views NATO as its adversary and as a distinct threat.
Russia has a long history of unjustly invading and interfering in NATO countries. Not the other way around.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:37 am to TBoy
quote:You left off Iranian supporter, Putin lover, supporter of atrocity and torture, and probably racist somehow. There! FIFY. Do you feel better?
An endless stream of Russian talking points.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:40 am to REG861
quote:
Russia has a long history of unjustly invading and interfering in NATO countries.
First off, with regard to our interference in Russia, that's false of course.
Regarding Russia, you mean interference prior to NATO memberships?
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:44 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why do we need NATO forces massed beyond the 1997 extensions? You cannot rationally argue that "need," and concomitantly discount Russian concerns of a threat.
We don’t need them but if you haven’t noticed that post-USSR countries clamored to get into NATO for protection from Russia, then you have your head buried in the sand.
quote:
That is the kind of national trauma seared into a people's psyche.
Some abused children grow up to be abusers. Most don’t. It’s not what happens to you in life that counts, it’s how you deal with it.
Russia cannot abuse its neighbors because they suffered trauma in WWII.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:47 am to BrianKellyRespecter
quote:
Apparently Zap offensive is imminent
To be so pro-Russian, you are really wanting this Zap offensive to happen. I highly doubt that you truly believe that Russia and it’s T62s will stop the Ukrainians. So what gives? Are you wanting to lure the Ukrainians into a trap where Russia uses a tactical nuke or do you think that Russia will use a Ukrainian offensive as cover for the Russians to cause a meltdown at the ZNPP? Are you just trying to hype up an imaginary offensive so that when nothing happens you can count it as a glorious Russian victory?
This post was edited on 10/18/22 at 11:58 am
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why? What is the benefit?
Firstly, the policy of the US has been to promote itself as the lone superpower. It has continued this policy and will not yield to any demands unless forced to in some direct way. A war in Ukraine isn't enough to change that policy. Secondly, again these demands need concensus inside NATO as well, as several involve NATO powers and their own desires. Getting all member states to agree with it is a complete non-starter. The Baltic states will never agree to that, nor will Turkey, which houses US nuclear weapons aimed toward Russia. For example, the Eastern European states have been warning about Russia for a long time. Here's an extremely relevant quote from the WaPo:
quote:
Their warnings about Russian aggression and calls for stronger Western action to deter Putin were long brushed aside by many in Europe, even after Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia and the Kremlin’s 2014 invasion and annexation of Crimea.
“One lesson from this war is we should have listened to those who know Putin,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in her State of the European Union speech last month. “They have been telling us for years that Putin would not stop.”
That group made up one wing of NATO who never wavered in their belief that Russia was attempting to undermine their sovereignty and the alliance itself. France and Germany took a softer approach, which yielded absolutely no results, as the Russians took German trade interest as naivety.
Russia does not have the leverage to even get one of these demands, and the Russians know it. I could go article by article to point out in more detail why these demands are so insane if you'd like. They are not a reasonable basis for negotiation regardless.
quote:
Russia views NATO as its adversary and as a distinct threat. They would view NATO in Ukraine in the same way the Israelis viewed Arab actions in 1967, i.e., a prelude to inevitable war. It's why Russia says granting Ukraine membership of NATO will guarantee the beginning of WWIII.
A defensive alliance for the purpose of integrating European armed forces while also serving as a conference for Europe-wide security issues is a good thing. Russia sees it as a threat because they do not have unfettered access to what they consider their sphere of influence. But Turkey has as much claim to the Balkans and the Black Sea. Why do we have to take the Russian claims seriously, and not the Turkish ones, which have been stated in this very conflict? I'm confused as to why we have to acquiesce to Russian demands at all. They are the ones who are attempting to dictate security policy to several states, which is nonsensical. Those states chose to join NATO and the EU and no amount of Russian rhetoric about their own security will change that.
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:53 am to Kentucker
quote:There was no request for NATO to disavow their membership, i.e., their protection under a nuclear umbrella and defense treaty would remain.
We don’t need them but if you haven’t noticed that post-USSR countries clamored to get into NATO for protection from Russia
quote:Wow.
Russia cannot abuse its neighbors because they suffered trauma in WWII.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Can you not understand how a country being entwined by a NATO military python would feel threatened?
Posted on 10/18/22 at 11:54 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Regarding Russia, you mean interference prior to NATO memberships?
No, Russia spy agencies have been repeatedly attempting to interfere in European politics since 2000. The Latvian state security apparatus released a report which stated that Russian agents were a primary threat. The Baltic states are so keen on the threat that former Lithuanian president Grybauskaite said that “the likelihood [of Russian invasion] is high if we don't constantly defend ourselves." At some point we have to listen to the people most experienced with Russia and not people who take releases from the Kremlin without a grain of salt.
Page 2022 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News