- 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 1/8/25 at 1:31 pm to Chromdome35
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:31 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
We are entering the 3rd year of the war, and Russia hasn't won yet, they haven't lost, but they haven't won either.
I think you guys get too hung up in the timeline, when those who share the opinion that Russia will win are more focused on the fact that it is an inevitability in our eyes. The actual timeline doesn't really matter to me at all, I'm fairly certain Russia will win but pinning a specific date on when is kind of pointless.
quote:
What does winning for Russia look like?
We will never get a fair assessment of this from anyone, including myself. Russia will spin any way this ends as a victory, as will Ukraine assuming they still exist.
The posters here will retreat back to their positions of comfort.... the Ukraine-Maxers will say Ukraine merely existing still is a victory, and those who felt a Russian victory was inevitable will say we could have just given up the land they end up getting on day 1 and avoided the loss of life and resources. Both will be right in some sense because its a matter of opinion until we can look back decades (if not longer) after this is over and accurately assess the results.
3
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:41 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
those who felt a Russian victory was inevitable will say we could have just given up the land they end up getting on day 1 and avoided the loss of life and resources.
I've been saying this since very on in this conflict.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:41 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Years ago, Russia would have been just fine with just the regions between mainland Russia and Crimea. I'm betting they would still be fine with that now, but after years of unnecessary conflict it's hard to say whether that will be enough for them now. I hope so.
I think Ukraine will have to give up the land they still hold in Kursk and parts of the Donbass. That would be a best case scenario for them at this point of the war. I don't think that Ukraine will be willing to give Russia land that Russia doesn't currently control (or take control of before the negotiation starting). For instance, Kherson and Odesa, I don't think Ukraine will surrender those cities to Russia in exchange for a ceasefire.
I do think that regarding any ceasefire that Putin holds the upperhand in the negotiations. The real wildcard in all of this is how Trump responds if Putin wants to play hardball. Will Trump follow-through on his previous statements of providing greater support to Ukraine?
Its obvious Trump wants to negotiate an end to this and that he understands Russia's red line on NATO membership. If Trump proposes that Russia keep what it has, gets back the parts of Kursk it lost control of, and Ukraine doesn't get NATO membership...will that be enough "win" for Putin? If it's not, what is Trump's response? Time will tell.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:49 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
I think you guys get too hung up in the timeline
You are probably right on this. When the war started, I assumed Russia would shock, awe, and steamroll Ukraine. Then Ukraine's will to survive met up with Russia's incompetence and here we are 2 years later.
From a Ukrainian perspective a ceasefire that freezes the lines where they currently are would be considered a win for Ukraine in my opinion. I don't think that freezing the lines where they are would be considered a win for Russia, but you are correct, Russia will spin any settlement as a win...they have to.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:49 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
I think Ukraine will have to give up the land they still hold in Kursk and parts of the Donbass. That would be a best case scenario for them at this point of the war. I don't think that Ukraine will be willing to give Russia land that Russia doesn't currently control (or take control of before the negotiation starting). For instance, Kherson and Odesa, I don't think Ukraine will surrender those cities to Russia in exchange for a ceasefire.
Ukraine is at the full mercy of Russia and will give them anything the USA and our allies allows them to give.
quote:
Will Trump follow-through on his previous statements of providing greater support to Ukraine?
He said he would continue to support Ukraine. He didn't say he's going to send billions more to Ukraine. He's also said it's possible we will provide less military support to Ukraine, which I'm sure he's using as a negotiating tactic. He's playing this as mediator, which is how we always should have (if we were going to be involved at all).
quote:
Its obvious Trump wants to negotiate an end to this and that he understands Russia's red line on NATO membership. If Trump proposes that Russia keep what it has, gets back the parts of Kursk it lost control of, and Ukraine doesn't get NATO membership...will that be enough "win" for Putin? If it's not, what is Trump's response? Time will tell.
Not much time. It'll be solved this year, and probably very quickly. Thank goodness we have competent leadership again.
This post was edited on 1/8/25 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:52 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
From a Ukrainian perspective a ceasefire that freezes the lines where they currently are would be considered a win for Ukraine in my opinion.
Ukraine will definitely call that a win, but it would be hard to look at this as anything but a loss. Essentially, they'd be ceding control of the areas Russia always said this was about. If Ukraine didn't want those areas, there was never any reason for them to go to war.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:54 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
I've been saying this since very on in this conflict.
Is this thought limited only to the situation in Ukraine?
Should the Russians have capitulated to the Germans when the Germans invaded Russia? Should the US have capitulated immediately after Japan seized the Philippines? Should South Korea have surrendered after North Korea invaded? Should the US have stood down after 9/11?
In those cases, many lives and resources would have been saved if the country being attacked had just capitulated at the start.
This post was edited on 1/8/25 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:06 pm to VolSquatch
This thread has completely fallen apart. The Ukraine sunshine pumping has deluded into a bleak sunset.
As everyone predicted.
As everyone predicted.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:09 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
Is this thought limited only to the situation in Ukraine?
Should the Russians have capitulated to the Germans when the Germans invaded Russia? Should the US have capitulated immediately after Japan seized the Philippines? Should South Korea have surrendered after North Korea invaded? Should the US have stood down after 9/11?
In those cases, many lives and resources would have been saved if we had just capitulated at the start.
All of those conflicts were between powers who had similar strengths and resources, or in some cases the outright advantage. The Russians were the first ones to make it to Berlin. The US nuked Japan twice and were beating the Japanese even before that. There wasn't the eventuality of the same outcome you could get if you negotiate from the start with any of those. Saying that maybe in this situation that a country needs to be realistic about its capabilities doesn't mean every country who is ever attacked should just surrender.
As for 9/11, are you saying you support the war in Iraq?
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:12 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Not much time. It'll be solved this year, and probably very quickly. Thank goodness we have competent leadership again.
Yes, thank god Joetato is headed to pasture, his administration completely shite the bed regarding Ukraine. I pray that Trump can bring this thing to a close quickly.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:15 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
Is this thought limited only to the situation in Ukraine?
Yes. Ukraine is not our ally and cannot compete with Russia. We are not the world police and there is not a one size fits all solution to every conflict.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:17 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
As for 9/11, are you saying you support the war in Iraq?
Hell no, the war in Iraq was a massive mistake. I supported the early years of our Afghanistan invasion, but it never should have turned into nation-building.
quote:
All of those conflicts were between powers who had similar strengths and resources, or in some cases the outright advantage. The Russians were the first ones to make it to Berlin. The US nuked Japan twice and were beating the Japanese even before that. There wasn't the eventuality of the same outcome you could get if you negotiate from the start with any of those. Saying that maybe in this situation that a country needs to be realistic about its capabilities doesn't mean every country who is ever attacked should just surrender.
When Germany invaded Russia, Russia was MUCH weaker than Germany. It took them a couple of years to build their military up to a point be able to push Germany back on the battlefield.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:29 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
quote:
Is this thought limited only to the situation in Ukraine?
Yes.
Fair enough.
I never said Ukraine was our ally and that we should be the world police.
So to clarify that I understand what you are saying, When a stronger country invades a weaker country, the weaker country should surrender immediately? Therefore if Russia invades Georgia or one of the Stans, the country being invaded should surrender immediately because the end result is inevitable?
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:41 pm to imjustafatkid
They look up to Liz Cheney, Victoria Nuland, and Adam Kinsinger. They believed in the "Ghost of Kiev" and compared the rat Zelenskyy to Churchill
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:59 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
Therefore if Russia invades Georgia or one of the Stans, the country being invaded should surrender immediately because the end result is inevitable?
Do you think they have a chance of stopping Russia?
\If no, then you have to do some "Would I rather have x% less land, or be dead?" calculus.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 3:05 pm to VolSquatch
You are right, it is a simple decision tree.
It is a good thing the American colonists didn't adopt this mindset with the British.
Texans at the Alamo probably should have.
It is a good thing the American colonists didn't adopt this mindset with the British.
Texans at the Alamo probably should have.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 3:09 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
When a stronger country invades a weaker country, the weaker country should surrender immediately?
I didn't say that. I wish Ukraine all the best.
My only concern is our country's involvement and complete waste of resources on a conflict that doesn't involve us or any of our allies. The only reason I care about that conflict, at all, is because we inserted ourselves into it.
quote:
Therefore if Russia invades Georgia or one of the Stans, the country being invaded should surrender immediately because the end result is inevitable?
As long as they don't count on us to bail them out, they are free to do whatever they want.
This post was edited on 1/8/25 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 1/8/25 at 3:10 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
It is a good thing the American colonists didn't adopt this mindset with the British.
They did the calculus and decided that they could win. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. I think Ukraine is wrong. Maybe they won't be, we will see.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 3:33 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
My only concern is our country's involvement and complete waste of resources on a conflict that doesn't involve us or any of our allies. The only reason I care about that conflict, at all, is because we inserted ourselves into it.
...
As long as they don't count on us to bail them out, they are free to do whatever they want.
I agree with your perspective. The US needs to stop being the world's policeman.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 3:36 pm to VolSquatch
I wonder what the other countries of Europe thought when the American Colonies went to war against the British. I'm sure the prevailing thoughts were that the British would crush the colonies. I am glad France decided to help us even though we had no chance against the mighty British empire.
Page 4395 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News