- 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 5/17/25 at 2:01 pm to PoppedRiser
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:01 pm to PoppedRiser
I will correct your misuse of the English language:
Apparently, that is what you were trying to say.
quote:
Ukraine would have been far better off if they were conquered in 3 days and not 3 years
Apparently, that is what you were trying to say.
0
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:14 pm to doubleb
quote:
It’s not as simple as a win or a loss,
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:17 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
Any chance of anyone taking you seriously has gone out the window after this exchange
Year 3 of the 3 day war.
“The outcome hasn’t changed”
It hasn't, not one of you will lay out exactly how it has.
Russia is asking for the same things it was asking to in 2022.
Neither side will budge, so We are still headed for that outcome.
The "3 day operation" line was from a US general's assessment and not the actual Russian exception, but don't let facts hit your arse on the way out bud
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:19 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
In terms of what we would call 'modern warfare,' they are not excelling.
Didn't say they were.
Russia obviously didn't live up to what most expected out of them.
What I'm asking is, outside of some weird attempted gotcha or cope from Ukraine fanboys, how is still talking about that relevant today?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:20 pm to PoppedRiser
quote:
I'd like to see someone else flawless "combine arms" assault in the age of satellites, AA systems, remote mining, DJI Mavic 3's and 4s, and an FPV that has an RPG charge zip tied to it which can kill a tank or wreck an APC. Because conventional warfare tactics had to changed both improvised to high speed low number infantry infiltration assaults often on bikes, quads.
That's a good point
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:21 pm to doubleb
quote:
You are right. I’m illiterate, so explain this please so a 5th grader would understand.
So are you going to let your 5th grade grandkids read it and then try to dumb it down even further so you can understand?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:23 pm to CitizenK
quote:
The US ALWAYS obtains air dominance
Who have we fought that could have legitimately challenged our air dominance?
Charlie going to shoot down a F22 with an AK?
Maybe ISIS could try to parachute onto one with an IED strapped to themselves
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:24 pm to CitizenK
quote:
The US ALWAYS obtains air dominance
Incorrect According to the NYT we couldn't do it against the Houthis. That is why Trump canceled the operation after 1 month
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:36 pm to PoppedRiser
quote:
Against Serbia or Iraq/Afghanistan, which were joint operations? Sure. But that's not saying much.
Your hate of Russia and Russians cloud your assessment. You never underestimate your opponent, although I don't think Russia should be US' opponent. Even with their post soviet brain drain, they still have great minds there in the military-industrial sector.
Beginning in WWII, send a shell or bomb instead of a tank or a soldier has been the US modern way of war for almost 100 years now.
The Russians have been overrated not underrated. The US military tech being used in Ukraine is 40 years old and very little of it at that. New Russian military tech is less reliable than the T-34 which usually needed an overhaul at 100 miles of use. That's why Russian troops preferred Shermans. You goofballs didn't even use blowout preventers to drill oil/gas wells!
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:41 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
So are you going to let your 5th grade grandkids read it and then try to dumb it down even further so you can understand?
Certainly. I’ve got some really smart grandkids.
Btw, your failure to understand that the outcome of this war is going to be way different now than what it could have been three years again if it would have ended quickly is puzzling.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:45 pm to CitizenK
quote:
Beginning in WWII, send a shell or bomb instead of a tank or a soldier has been the US modern way of war for almost 100 years now.
Putin and his generals made that mistake dealing with Ukrainians early on, brotherly nation and whatnot. They've since adopted a US policy.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 2:47 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
What I'm asking is, outside of some weird attempted gotcha or cope from Ukraine fanboys, how is still talking about that relevant today?
Because I was asking why the Russians couldn't impose their will on the battlefield, openly questioning their ability, as of today, to take any other region of Ukraine other than the ones they hold currently. At this point, all the answers I've seen post nothing about Russian capability, but rather post about continued US support. If Russian ability is dictated by how interested each US administration is, then I'm suggesting their position, on the battlefield or otherwise, is not as strong as it appears.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:04 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:04 pm to John Barron
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:09 pm to John Barron
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:10 pm to John Barron
How big is this “settlement”? More than 488 people? I googled it and couldn’t find it.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:10 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Who have we fought that could have legitimately challenged our air dominance?
That's been the direct aim of US procurement post-Vietnam. We don't want anyone to challenge it.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:12 pm to John Barron
quote:
Incorrect According to the NYT we couldn't do it against the Houthis. That is why Trump canceled the operation after 1 month
The US was incapable of establishing air dominance, or the US didn't want to use the necessary resources to establish it? Two totally different things.
The US could have easily flooded the airspace and established dominance, but the risk of loosing 20 fighter jets / pilots wasn't worth it to Trump.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:15 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
Who have we fought that could have legitimately challenged our air dominance?
Judging by Israel's fricking up iran, repeatedly, with us aircraft, it certainly is not gonna be Russia
This post was edited on 5/17/25 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 5/17/25 at 3:15 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Because I was asking why the Russians couldn't impose their will on the battlefield, openly questioning their ability, as of today, to take any other region of Ukraine other than the ones they hold currently. At this point, all the answers I've seen post nothing about Russian capability, but rather post about continued US support. If Russian ability is dictated by how interested each US administration is, then I'm suggesting their position, on the battlefield or otherwise, is not as strong as it appears.
Not really. If Ukraine stops receiving US intel, weapons and logistics, they collapse very fast. If it continues they get ground down slow with their bottlneck being diminishing manpower and dropping quality of their infantry and officers due to attrition.
quote:
Russians couldn't impose their will on the battlefield
Literally won every major battle in this war- Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Severodonetsk and Sudzha/Kursk which lasted for 8-9 months. Bakhmut and Avdiivka Ukraine controlled for 9-10 years are called them "fortresses". Ukrianians always try to hold on as long as possible, then retreat when it's too late.
Page 4856 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News