- 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 5/16/23 at 9:06 am to SirWinston
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:06 am to SirWinston
They aren't ghey, they are kissing each other's icons in the trenches. They aren't ghey, they just love anal sex with recruits in training.
0
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:08 am to StormyMcMan
quote:
I mean Xi has
Putin has, but said Ukraine has to withdraw from all of the new Russian land first
Zelensky has, but said Russia has to withdraw from all of Ukrainian land first.
So what's your peace plan given the abov
Presumably that the US should be pushing for a compromise that is unsatisfactory for both sides to save lives and treasure?
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:16 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Presumably that the US should be pushing for a compromise that is unsatisfactory for both sides to save lives and treasure?
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. They met very little resistance in Crimea. They faced some in the Donbas.
In 2022 they pushed for more. They took more of the Donbas abd parts of Southern Ukraine.
Exactly why would they compromise? They are winning.
This post was edited on 5/16/23 at 9:22 am
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:19 am to Pettifogger
How about some squatters take 2 rooms in your home and trash the rest. Are you soy boy enough to compromise? I'm not.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:25 am to CitizenK
I'm filling in the blank of what SirWinston said. I didn't say it was my proposal.
But since you asked, it's not my house and it's not yours either, even setting aside that you've taken up at the conflict between two countries you've never set foot in as your religion, so much so that you're tossing around "soy boy" insults on the internet.
This thread never ceases to provide amazing displays of childish hubris. It should, in actuality, be on the More Sports Board, whereby you can deck yourself out in the colors of your chosen team and cheer on competition from a distance.
But since you asked, it's not my house and it's not yours either, even setting aside that you've taken up at the conflict between two countries you've never set foot in as your religion, so much so that you're tossing around "soy boy" insults on the internet.
This thread never ceases to provide amazing displays of childish hubris. It should, in actuality, be on the More Sports Board, whereby you can deck yourself out in the colors of your chosen team and cheer on competition from a distance.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:28 am to doubleb
quote:
Exactly why would they compromise? They are winning.
Maybe. I don't know the truth of that but I'm not adamant that you're incorrect.
But whether or not Ukraine is winning is presumably not the only calculation that should go into the formulation of US policy. Winning how, by what metric, and on what time table? At what cost? To us, and to them, and to Russia and potential risks to the region?
Of course, it also doesn't mean that Ukraine would concede to our pressure/influence, but that reality also shouldn't dictate our position, IMO.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:31 am to Camp Randall
LOL
Policy discussion that questions US involvement - "Political talk!"
Clarence Thomas barbs, extensive policy discussion in favor of US involvement, pro-Ukraine memes - "Tactical discussion about the conflict."
Policy discussion that questions US involvement - "Political talk!"
Clarence Thomas barbs, extensive policy discussion in favor of US involvement, pro-Ukraine memes - "Tactical discussion about the conflict."
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:33 am to Pettifogger
I concur with you, discussion of Ukraine peace proposals/initiatives is ok in my mind.
The Clarence Thomas comment was pure politics.
The Clarence Thomas comment was pure politics.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:39 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Maybe. I don't know the truth of that but I'm not adamant that you're incorrect.
How can anyone say otherwise? Russia is holding onto more of Ukraine than they started with.
quote:
But whether or not Ukraine is winning is presumably not the only calculation that should go into the formulation of US policy. Winning how, by what metric, and on what time table? At what cost? To us, and to them, and to Russia and potential risks to the region?
My comments are in response to a suggested compromise, not US policy. Russia has no reason to compromise right now. That is obvious.
This post was edited on 5/16/23 at 9:41 am
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:39 am to Chromdome35
FWIW I'm not even advocating for SirWinston's proposal, just filling in the blanks of what I perceive it to be.
But I don't think "Ukraine may be winning, Russia is bad, Ukraine doesn't want to compromise and neither does Russia" really answers that question.
Or, at least, it probably shouldn't if we're actually committed to saving lives. I suspect Ukraine is winning, at least in a sense, the US sees a longer conflict as in its interest and has little intention of bridging the entrenched positions of both countries at the moment. I think, based on reading this thread frequently, that most pro-Ukraine folks would more or less agree with that.
But certainly that raises a lot of questions about our position on a moral/ethical level, and even if you believe that near term compromise won't provide lasting peace and that a more definitive win for Ukraine could save lives in the aggregate/long term, I think there is plenty of gray area there and ulterior/self-interested motives for the US that honest brokers would have to admit muddy the waters quite a bit.
But I don't think "Ukraine may be winning, Russia is bad, Ukraine doesn't want to compromise and neither does Russia" really answers that question.
Or, at least, it probably shouldn't if we're actually committed to saving lives. I suspect Ukraine is winning, at least in a sense, the US sees a longer conflict as in its interest and has little intention of bridging the entrenched positions of both countries at the moment. I think, based on reading this thread frequently, that most pro-Ukraine folks would more or less agree with that.
But certainly that raises a lot of questions about our position on a moral/ethical level, and even if you believe that near term compromise won't provide lasting peace and that a more definitive win for Ukraine could save lives in the aggregate/long term, I think there is plenty of gray area there and ulterior/self-interested motives for the US that honest brokers would have to admit muddy the waters quite a bit.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:49 am to Pettifogger
quote:
FWIW I'm not even advocating for SirWinston's proposal, just filling in the blanks of what I perceive it to be. But I don't think "Ukraine may be winning, Russia is bad, Ukraine doesn't want to compromise and neither does Russia" really answers that question. Or, at least, it probably shouldn't if we're actually committed to saving lives. I suspect Ukraine is winning, at least in a sense, the US sees a longer conflict as in its interest and has little intention of bridging the entrenched positions of both countries at the moment. I think, based on reading this thread frequently, that most pro-Ukraine folks would more or less agree with that. But certainly that raises a lot of questions about our position on a moral/ethical level, and even if you believe that near term compromise won't provide lasting peace and that a more definitive win for Ukraine could save lives in the aggregate/long term, I think there is plenty of gray area there and ulterior/self-interested motives for the US that honest brokers would have to admit muddy the waters quite a bit.
If it were all about saving lives Ukraine should have surrendered on day one. Would you advocate that they had?
Does avoiding war at all cost mean surrendering your freedom as a nation?
As for the US, if other nations see that our promises and guarantees are worth nothing what does that mean the next time we agree to support, and protect another nation? Should we just say never mind any time we so choose?
We decided that the world would be a safer place if Belarus and
Ukraine gave up their nukes. To get them to do this we made promises. In my opinion it’s important for Russia, China and the world to know that when our government makes a promise we keep it.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:50 am to Chromdome35
Nothing is going to happen with any peace proposal until Putin is willing to give up on his idea of conquering the rest of the Donbas. Everything that everyone has said is that he is currently in no way shape or form ready to consider giving up that dream.
The question is whether a successful Ukrainian offensive would change his mind on that and make him ready to negotiate ... and most everything that I have read still says no. If Ukraine conducts a successful offensive, he will double down yet again by doing another mobilization, etc.
Most of the Russia experts that I have read say that it would take the loss of Crimea, Mariupol, or one of the big cities in the Donbas to persuade him to alter course.
What will be interesting is what happens we finally do get to the point where Putin wants the war to end and for Russia to simply keep what it's already conquered, because that's when Xi will pounce, and many in the West will join him.
That's also when Ukraine will see Russia's weakness and want to push Russia back to the 1991 borders, and it will be interesting to see how Biden/Scholz/Macron react: whether they continue to support a full Ukrainian victory, or whether they push Ukraine to make a deal.
But it's pointless to talk about now. Both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian experts think that Putin is nowhere near ready to stop trying to finish the conquest of the Donbas.
The question is whether a successful Ukrainian offensive would change his mind on that and make him ready to negotiate ... and most everything that I have read still says no. If Ukraine conducts a successful offensive, he will double down yet again by doing another mobilization, etc.
Most of the Russia experts that I have read say that it would take the loss of Crimea, Mariupol, or one of the big cities in the Donbas to persuade him to alter course.
What will be interesting is what happens we finally do get to the point where Putin wants the war to end and for Russia to simply keep what it's already conquered, because that's when Xi will pounce, and many in the West will join him.
That's also when Ukraine will see Russia's weakness and want to push Russia back to the 1991 borders, and it will be interesting to see how Biden/Scholz/Macron react: whether they continue to support a full Ukrainian victory, or whether they push Ukraine to make a deal.
But it's pointless to talk about now. Both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian experts think that Putin is nowhere near ready to stop trying to finish the conquest of the Donbas.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:50 am to Chromdome35
Nothing like some good old infighting from the Russians
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1658409825431089153
And a response from the front
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1658412971855605760
Translated video of the response in link
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1658409825431089153
quote:
Russian parliament member and former General of the Russian army, Viktor Sobolev, says that any PMC (mercenary company) in Russia is illegal, demanding anyone joining Wagner or any other PMC to face 15 years in prison.
Unlikely that he will succeed, for now, but rifts are clear.
And a response from the front
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1658412971855605760
Translated video of the response in link
quote:
In return to Russian MP Viktor Sobolev's threat to indict mercenaries, Wagner mercs threaten to kill him. At one point Wagner mercs will eventually will snap at Russian politicians. The powder keg has been filled since the beginning of the war and it takes only one spark. The feud between Prigozhin and Shoigu is only the most prominent one.
The only reason why PMCs are still roaming around is the fact that everyone does it. Shoigu has PMC Patriot. Oleg Deripaska and Gazprom have PMC Redut etc. It is a cancerous system of warlords which controls Russia.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:57 am to doubleb
quote:
If it were all about saving lives Ukraine should have surrendered on day one. Would you advocate that they had?
Well I'm not sure that's true. Appeasement has a cost, immediate or future.
I don't propose avoiding war at all costs.
quote:
As for the US, if other nations see that our promises and guarantees are worth nothing what does that mean the next time we agree to support, and protect another nation? Should we just say never mind any time we so choose?
I think this is both valid and the type of institutional policy thinking that has cost America quite a bit in the long term (in particular because we selectively apply it). I'm not sure what promises or obligations were need to fulfill to Ukraine, however.
These arguments are reasonable and go into the soup, IMO. But they're also somewhat romanticized and skip over that US motives may have little to do with Ukraine's freedom, saving lives, etc.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:59 am to doubleb
quote:
How can anyone say otherwise? Russia is holding onto more of Ukraine than they started with.
In the fall of 1918, Germany was holding onto more of France and Belgium than they started with. Yet somehow it was a complete and total disaster… why?… bc the costs of those gains couldn’t be sustained.
Today in Ukraine we have a similar conflict (tho obv much smaller in scale)… a ground war of attrition. The side that wins will be the side that can sustain. Just bc Russia holds land today is has very little bearing on the overall outcome.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:10 am to Pettifogger
quote:
But whether or not Ukraine is winning is presumably not the only calculation that should go into the formulation of US policy.
US policy has been clear since the end of WWII. European security has been paramount to US security strategy and will always be paramount.
quote:
Winning how, by what metric, and on what time table? At what cost?
Given that the US initially gave recommendations to the Ukrainains on insurgency tactics, the time table seems to be infinite. What I mean is that even if the Ukrainains lose in a direct conflict, that doesn't mean the conflict will be over. Given how resource intensive an occupation will be for the Russians, and how terrible their security situation is on their Western side, there isn't hope of any long-term peace.
There are few downsides to US aid. The US gets to test weapons systems in battlefield conditions against a near peer rival, gets to degrade the military capabilities of that rival and gets increased security spending all throughout Europe.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:18 am to Chromdome35
PMC's are illegal in Russia.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 11:02 am to crazy4lsu
I think you pretty much nailed it… to emphasize, occupation is extremely labor and resource intensive (US should know better than anyone)… with an organized and outside-aided insurgency a near certainty (already taking place in Donbas).
This ‘special military operation’ is already a disaster for Russia… tens of thousands of troops dead or wounded, losses in military hardware that will take decades to replenish, loss of international prestige, expansion of NATO, etc.
Putin has no choice but to continue this campaign… his regime likely doesn’t survive if it fails. Even if it somehow’ wins’ a negotiated settlement on favorable terms, the overall failures won’t be ignored.
This ‘special military operation’ is already a disaster for Russia… tens of thousands of troops dead or wounded, losses in military hardware that will take decades to replenish, loss of international prestige, expansion of NATO, etc.
Putin has no choice but to continue this campaign… his regime likely doesn’t survive if it fails. Even if it somehow’ wins’ a negotiated settlement on favorable terms, the overall failures won’t be ignored.
This post was edited on 5/16/23 at 11:06 am
Posted on 5/16/23 at 11:03 am to CitizenK
The Telegraph has the deets on the new British attack drones.
LINK
They actually sound very similar to the Iranian Shahed drones.
Also, delivered "in the coming months" does not sound particularly imminent.
LINK
quote:
The kamikaze drones have a range of more than 125 miles – more than twice as far as the highly successfully Himars – and complement the long-range Storm Shadow missiles the UK donated to Ukraine last week.
quote:
Defence sources conceded to the Telegraph that the drones were “one-way”, adding that they had a “primary goal to carry munitions”.
“They’ve been rapidly developed and adapted at significantly lower costs than others,” they said, adding that “they have a comparable effect to an artillery shell”.
The source said that the secrecy was because of commercial confidence as the drones were still going through the later stages of procurement, before adding: “They will be delivered in the coming months.”
quote:
Earlier this year QinetiQ, the Hampshire-based defence technology company, worked with the Ministry of Defence on a drone programme to “provide recommendations for uncrewed aircraft systems that could be deployed readily by the Ukrainian military”.
According to QinetiQ, one of the test projects included a 3D-printed delta-wing “suicide” drone. There was no indication that this was the weapon procured for Ukraine.
In February, Mr Sunak pledged that the UK would supply Kyiv with longer-range capabilities that would “disrupt Russia’s ability to continually target Ukraine’s civilian and critical national infrastructure and help relieve pressure on Ukraine’s front lines”.
Earlier this month, Ukraine was forced to deny involvement in a drone attack that struck the Kremlin, with Western officials unclear on the source of the drones. In granting Ukraine drones on Monday, No 10 was clear they were to be used only on Ukrainian soil.
They actually sound very similar to the Iranian Shahed drones.
Also, delivered "in the coming months" does not sound particularly imminent.
Page 2736 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News