- 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 2/22/23 at 2:05 pm to DabosDynasty
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:05 pm to DabosDynasty
quote:
Hypothetically this is true, is this a strategically sound move for Ukraine? Diverts forces to do this, but I haven’t seen anything changing the around 8K Russian troops in Transinistra so proportionately it shouldn’t take much from Ukrainian forces to achieve this and secure their arse end flank from a Russian buildup. Just curious what some of the vets and more knowledgeable think of this possibility for each side. I sort of get why each side would chose to move on Transinistra and/or Moldova as a whole, just curious if some of you guys think it’s worth it tactically. Again, hypothetical. I shared because on of our regular accounts finally commented on it.
If you’re talking about actual Russian forces there it’s actually 1,500. If you factor in the Transnistria militia I guess you could get to to 8k but they are in sorry shape. Personally I think they should. It wouldn’t take that many Ukrainian troops to roll through them and in fact I wonder if they would even fight back. I think the appeal for Ukraine is the ammunition depot there which is the largest in Eastern Europe.
1
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:11 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
We've been fricking up Ukraine's shite some they split from the Soviet Union.
Oh did we try and assassinate a presidential candidate (who won, by the way)?
Nope, that was Russia. Why can’t you bring yourself to mention that? Russia literally tried to kill the Ukrainian president in 2004. Something stopping you from acknowledging that?
Facts - all but one Ukrainian president since the split has been Western-friendly. All but one. who now lives in Russia. Ukraine has been steadily breaking away from Russian orbit since the USSR dissolved and aligning with the West. No country wants to be part of Russia's shite economy. Every country under Russia's grasp is shite. Moldova, Belarus, etc. No wonder Ukraine wanted to get away. Putin can't handle that fact. That's all this war is about.
This post was edited on 2/22/23 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:12 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I let out an audible laugh on this one, nurses here were amused.
Oh no, are you back in rehab?
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:17 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
But some of us who can actually read know what has happened. It's called history.
And that is we have tried to control Ukraine since they gained independence.
But how. You said no one including you knows what's going on. So we do know what's going on or do we not? Because now apparently we can actually know what's going on and have opinions but before no one knows what's going on and can't have them.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:21 pm to philter
quote:
but it's not as if it's disputed we promised this verbally to Gorbachev DIRECTLY
You do realize that it is indeed very much disputed on what exactly was and was not promised.
He'll Gorbachev himself said it WASNT promised
LINK
quote:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:23 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
But how. You said no one including you knows what's going on.
You don't understand the difference between present and past, obviously.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:25 pm to REG861
quote:
Oh no, are you back in rehab?
He fakes having cancer from time to time on here.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:26 pm to REG861
quote:
no, are you back in rehab?
Chemo, but I can see where common sense seems like gibberish to you.
This post was edited on 2/22/23 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:26 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Neither do we
Correct, and I was someone that questioned the Iraq War from the get and wrote a college essay about legal and philosophical absurdity of the Bush Doctrine, which argued for preventive war as a justifiable means of applying unilateral military power against other sovereign nations that had not met the internationally agreed upon pre-condition for justifiable pre-emption. I doubt you can say the same and demonstrate proof.
It's a cute parlor trick that Russian apologists on the right, Chapo Traphouse-syle leftists, and horseshoe liberals like Glen Greenwald try to do. Where they point out historical American hypocrisy(often things they once supported, like certain Republicans and Glen Greenwald supporting the Iraq War), as if just holding that hypocrisy up somehow insulates another sovereign nation from committing an equally egregious act(often one they have bizarre sympathies or blindspots to). Or that America, for some absurdist reason, must permanently refuse to come to the aid of allies that are being victimized under unjust wars of aggression.
The realpolitik reason for supporting Ukraine likely has to do less with moral imperative and more to do with the fact that allowing such brazen behavior as Putin desperately tries to shape his legacy through an attempt at reuniting many USSR countries under his thumb, is that it risks a Chamberlain effect that would signal to bad actors like Russia, China, North Korea, amongst others, that they can act with impunity toward sovereign nations if it suits their interests or ambitions, likely destabilizing Europe and Asia and essentially mute international law and much of the post-WWII order.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:28 pm to Burhead
quote:
If you’re talking about actual Russian forces there it’s actually 1,500. If you factor in the Transnistria militia I guess you could get to to 8k but they are in sorry shape. Personally I think they should. It wouldn’t take that many Ukrainian troops to roll through them and in fact I wonder if they would even fight back. I think the appeal for Ukraine is the ammunition depot there which is the largest in Eastern Europe.
That’s what I figured but have no military background. Makes sense for each side to want that. Seems relatively easy for either side to do so, so it becomes a race to be first. Wasn’t aware of the ammo depot, so that’s a big win for either really.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:36 pm to DabosDynasty
It's devolved into a Western Front type situation. The guy who runs out of men first loses.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:36 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification.
And we did exactly this, breaking the verbal agreement.
Now, do I think gorb should have demanded it in writing? Maybe, he didn't have any bargaining power.. and we knew this. Such is the benefits of winning the cold war.
It's a shitty situation all around.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:39 pm to LookSquirrel
quote:
Surprisingly (or not), this is a concept quite alien to the standard Western nous; their countries were never involved in a civilizational, existential war of extinction.
What is "western" in this context? If France is "western" (as it is today), this is totally false.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:42 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. …
NATO expansion was not discussed at all,
quote:
Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification.
“Military structures would not advance”, did that mean NATO couldn’t expand?
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:43 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
He fakes having cancer from time to time on here.
Man that would be embarrassing. Almost as embarrassing as being a neurotic soy boy.
This post was edited on 2/22/23 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:49 pm to Bronc
quote:
It's a cute parlor trick that Russian apologists on the right, Chapo Traphouse-syle leftists, and horseshoe liberals like Glen Greenwald try to do. Where they point out historical American hypocrisy(often things they once supported, like certain Republicans
Why only point to Republicans who supported the war? Why are you not calling out the Democrats that supported the war as well?
And you speak of hypocrisy?
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:49 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Might want to cover your name, my dude.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:49 pm to TideCPA
I did, with my middle finger
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:49 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Sorry for your troubles RTS. I fundamentally disagree with your take on Russia/Ukraine but I am sorry for the situation you’re in.
Posted on 2/22/23 at 2:50 pm to LSUCanFAN
No worries, I'm kicking arse. 5th of 6 cycles today. Haven't missed work once.
Page 2443 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News