- 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 2/22/25 at 3:37 pm to Stinger_1066
Posted on 2/22/25 at 3:37 pm to Stinger_1066
quote:
And how do you propose Putin be disposed of?
Kick john barron or texfag in the jaw. Should lead to catastrophic blood loss in the femoral area of putin.
0
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:23 pm to Stinger_1066
A couple days ago Trump claimed that Zelensky is widely unpopular in Ukraine and that his approval rating is 4%. The very next day the MSM collectively called Trump a liar and they all parroted the same number, Zelensky has a 57% approval rating.
CNN brought out their little fact checker...57%. ABC, CBS...57%.
So I look up where this number came from. It came from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. Guess when they released their poll results. The day after Trump made his claim. ??
I went to their website and it's barely functional but there was a note about who USED TO FUND them. Check out the picture below. You are going to laugh.??
I also checked out another polling company that does work in Ukraine called SOCIS. They've done most of the exit polling on all the major elections in recent years in Ukraine and they have Zelensky at 16%, claiming that he would not win an election if there was one.
Think about this. We don't even have an accurate number of the death toll in Ukraine from the war. No media outlet knows, it's all a guess. We do know that tens of thousands of people have gotten caught trying to flee Ukraine. (It's illegal for men ages 16-60 to leave.) But nobody has a clue what's really going on there and yet a few hours after Trump says something the entire MSM ecosystem states as a fact what Zelensky's approval rating is. 57%. Our media can't even agree on what Trump's approval rating is.
CNN brought out their little fact checker...57%. ABC, CBS...57%.
So I look up where this number came from. It came from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. Guess when they released their poll results. The day after Trump made his claim. ??
I went to their website and it's barely functional but there was a note about who USED TO FUND them. Check out the picture below. You are going to laugh.??
I also checked out another polling company that does work in Ukraine called SOCIS. They've done most of the exit polling on all the major elections in recent years in Ukraine and they have Zelensky at 16%, claiming that he would not win an election if there was one.
Think about this. We don't even have an accurate number of the death toll in Ukraine from the war. No media outlet knows, it's all a guess. We do know that tens of thousands of people have gotten caught trying to flee Ukraine. (It's illegal for men ages 16-60 to leave.) But nobody has a clue what's really going on there and yet a few hours after Trump says something the entire MSM ecosystem states as a fact what Zelensky's approval rating is. 57%. Our media can't even agree on what Trump's approval rating is.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:24 pm to Lee B
quote:
How is anybody going to do a little mining when Russia occupies most of the land with the rare earth minerals?
So they own the valuable minerals and the strategic port they wanted?
What happened to measuring success by raw land area taken?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:25 pm to Stinger_1066
quote:
Please try to stay on topic.
It’s all related.
You apparently are an isolationist which is fine, but that ship sailed along time ago. We have a global economy now, we have global interests, and the need to build and operate outposts around the world to defend our interests and our own country.
You can argue that Ukraine is not vital to our interests, but the problem is if we bail on them it will only encourage more aggression and eventually our national interests will be affected.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:26 pm to doubleb
quote:
their Condtituyion died not provide for this.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:40 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
So they own the valuable minerals and the strategic port they wanted?
"occupies" does not equal "own"
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:47 pm to Stinger_1066
quote:
And how do you propose Putin be disposed of?
Let him read this thread from the beginning. He’d die of laughter.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:48 pm to doubleb
quote:
but the problem is if we bail on them it will only encourage more aggression and eventually our national interests will be affected.
*In your very much opinion. Forgot that part
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:52 pm to Lee B
quote:
occupies" does not equal "own"
Okay, "occupies and soon will almost assuredly own".
Posted on 2/22/25 at 4:53 pm to texag7
quote:
*In your very much opinion. Forgot that part
He has an issue discerning between fact and opinion. Maybe that's why he can't answer a yes or no question
Posted on 2/22/25 at 5:31 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Okay, "occupies and soon will almost assuredly own".
Does that apply to Kursk?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 5:41 pm to Lee B
US mineral deal offers no security guarantees for Ukraine, NYT reports
by Abbey Fenbert February 23, 2025 12:57 AM
The current U.S. proposal regarding Ukraine's critical minerals seeks 50% of revenues from Ukraine's natural resources while offering no security guarantees in return, according to a draft of the agreement seen by the New York Times (NYT).
The U.S. and Ukraine have been working intensively over the past few days to hammer out the details of a revised version of the agreement. Ruslan Stefanchuk, speaker of Ukraine's parliament, said Kyiv aims to conclude the agreement on Feb. 24, the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion.
The terms of the revised draft are virtually the same as those of an earlier version rejected by President Volodymyr Zelensky, the NYT reported, citing a draft of the agreement dated Feb. 21. In some cases, the U.S. demands are even more stringent.
The agreement demands 50% of revenues from Ukraine's natural resources, including critical minerals, oil, and gas, as well as stakes in ports and other key infrastructure through a joint investment fund.
The new version says that the U.S. would hold a 100% financial interest in this fund, and that Ukraine should contribute to the fund until it reaches $500 billion.
This amount vastly exceeds Ukraine's actual resource revenues, which totaled $1.1 billion in 2024, and is over four times the value of U.S. aid to Kyiv.
That $500 billion figure was not listed in the original proposal presented to Zelensky by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Feb. 12. U.S. President Donald Trump has cited the number in public comments, claiming on Feb. 10 that Ukraine had "essentially agreed" to a $500 billion resource deal.
When Zelensky then refused to sign the proposed agreement on the grounds that it offered no security guarantees, Trump lashed out at the Ukrainian president, echoing Kremlin talking points by calling him an "unelected dictator."
The Kyiv Independent
by Abbey Fenbert February 23, 2025 12:57 AM
The current U.S. proposal regarding Ukraine's critical minerals seeks 50% of revenues from Ukraine's natural resources while offering no security guarantees in return, according to a draft of the agreement seen by the New York Times (NYT).
The U.S. and Ukraine have been working intensively over the past few days to hammer out the details of a revised version of the agreement. Ruslan Stefanchuk, speaker of Ukraine's parliament, said Kyiv aims to conclude the agreement on Feb. 24, the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion.
The terms of the revised draft are virtually the same as those of an earlier version rejected by President Volodymyr Zelensky, the NYT reported, citing a draft of the agreement dated Feb. 21. In some cases, the U.S. demands are even more stringent.
The agreement demands 50% of revenues from Ukraine's natural resources, including critical minerals, oil, and gas, as well as stakes in ports and other key infrastructure through a joint investment fund.
The new version says that the U.S. would hold a 100% financial interest in this fund, and that Ukraine should contribute to the fund until it reaches $500 billion.
This amount vastly exceeds Ukraine's actual resource revenues, which totaled $1.1 billion in 2024, and is over four times the value of U.S. aid to Kyiv.
That $500 billion figure was not listed in the original proposal presented to Zelensky by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Feb. 12. U.S. President Donald Trump has cited the number in public comments, claiming on Feb. 10 that Ukraine had "essentially agreed" to a $500 billion resource deal.
When Zelensky then refused to sign the proposed agreement on the grounds that it offered no security guarantees, Trump lashed out at the Ukrainian president, echoing Kremlin talking points by calling him an "unelected dictator."
The Kyiv Independent
Posted on 2/22/25 at 5:48 pm to doubleb
quote:
You apparently are an isolationist which is fine
Not an isolationist. Non-interventionist.
Ukraine is not vital to our interests.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 6:07 pm to cypher
quote:
US mineral deal offers no security guarantees for Ukraine, NYT reports
by Abbey Fenbert February 23, 2025 12:57 AM
The current U.S. proposal regarding Ukraine's critical minerals seeks 50% of revenues from Ukraine's natural resources while offering no security guarantees in return, according to a draft of the agreement seen by the New York Times (NYT).
The U.S. and Ukraine have been working intensively over the past few days to hammer out the details of a revised version of the agreement. Ruslan Stefanchuk, speaker of Ukraine's parliament, said Kyiv aims to conclude the agreement on Feb. 24, the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion.
The terms of the revised draft are virtually the same as those of an earlier version rejected by President Volodymyr Zelensky, the NYT reported, citing a draft of the agreement dated Feb. 21. In some cases, the U.S. demands are even more stringent.
The agreement demands 50% of revenues from Ukraine's natural resources, including critical minerals, oil, and gas, as well as stakes in ports and other key infrastructure through a joint investment fund.
The new version says that the U.S. would hold a 100% financial interest in this fund, and that Ukraine should contribute to the fund until it reaches $500 billion.
This amount vastly exceeds Ukraine's actual resource revenues, which totaled $1.1 billion in 2024, and is over four times the value of U.S. aid to Kyiv.
That $500 billion figure was not listed in the original proposal presented to Zelensky by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Feb. 12. U.S. President Donald Trump has cited the number in public comments, claiming on Feb. 10 that Ukraine had "essentially agreed" to a $500 billion resource deal.
When Zelensky then refused to sign the proposed agreement on the grounds that it offered no security guarantees, Trump lashed out at the Ukrainian president, echoing Kremlin talking points by calling him an "unelected dictator."
The Kyiv Independent
I guess Trump is just using a negotiating tactic by picking a really, really big number that is unrealistic and then accepting lower counteroffers?
Funny how he starts off with giving Putin everything he wants right away...
Posted on 2/22/25 at 6:25 pm to Stinger_1066
So you proved Trump exaggerated???
Posted on 2/22/25 at 6:25 pm to Lee B
quote:
according to a draft of the agreement seen by the New York Times (NYT).
Posted on 2/22/25 at 6:37 pm to texag7
quote:
Sorry for the grammatical error we’re taking incoming Ukrainian fire as I speak.
Since there are 0 commercial flights in or out of Ukraine, i assume it's your Russian buddies targeting your civilian bus
Posted on 2/22/25 at 7:24 pm to MoarKilometers
for those who like to read think-pieces and... uh... think... otherwise, downvote and move along
Noahpinionblog: America is being sold out by its leaders
If Trump and Elon think they can forge a grand right-wing alliance with China and Russia, they're heading for trouble.
Imagine, for a moment, that the U.S. lost a major war against a coalition of China and Russia. What would the victorious coalition force our country to do, as the terms of our surrender?
Noahpinionblog: America is being sold out by its leaders
If Trump and Elon think they can forge a grand right-wing alliance with China and Russia, they're heading for trouble.
Imagine, for a moment, that the U.S. lost a major war against a coalition of China and Russia. What would the victorious coalition force our country to do, as the terms of our surrender?
Posted on 2/22/25 at 7:26 pm to Lee B
^ the theories in that piece are the only way Rubio's "multipolar world, with different spheres of influence" make any sense...
Posted on 2/22/25 at 8:08 pm to Lee B
but I will say that I don't really see China's future being as bright as this guy...
Page 4581 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News