- 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 5/27/25 at 11:27 am to Auburn1968
Posted on 5/27/25 at 11:27 am to Auburn1968
2
Posted on 5/27/25 at 12:17 pm to PoppedRiser
quote:
There goes yesterday's cope.
No, the removal of range restrictions is still accurate, Merz just wanted to announce them yesterday as this policy has already been in place for quite some time but was not public knowledge. Nor was there a pressing need for this to be announced as long range ( >500km) cruise missles were not in the UKR inventory before.
There is a reason he made this public yesterday and we all know what that is.
quote:
After yesterday's statement about the lifting of range restrictions, Merz today takes one step backwards and says at a press conference in Finland that this has already been a reality for months.
This supports a statement by Germany's Vice Chancellor and Minister of Finance Lars Klingbeil, who said at a press conference yesterday that there is no new agreement that goes beyond what the previous government (under Olaf Scholz) had (already) done.
LINK
Posted on 5/27/25 at 12:38 pm to Coeur du Tigre
quote:
the removal of range restrictions is still accurate, Merz just wanted to announce them yesterday as this policy has already been in place for quite some time but was not public knowledge. Nor was there a pressing need for this to be announced as long range ( >500km) cruise missles were not in the UKR inventory before. There is a reason he made this public yesterday and we all know what that is.
So you were coping on old irrelevant news. You need help.
Posted on 5/27/25 at 1:09 pm to PoppedRiser
Posted on 5/27/25 at 1:12 pm to PoppedRiser
quote:
Look here, you mouthy twat, since his tax dollars are going to it, he has a say. Now shut your ukrainian trap.
Brah, I'm American. It is my money too and I want it to go to Ukraine. Apparently the poster I'm responding to is from Trinidad? No idea but go back to dreaming about trans people ya weirdo.
Posted on 5/27/25 at 1:15 pm to PoppedRiser
quote:
Several of these trolls are Ukrainian for sure, but they could be migrants living in US or EU.
Lmao. Several regular posters in this thread are longtime members. Your presence, on the other hand, is quite curious, given when you signed up for the site.
Posted on 5/27/25 at 1:41 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
That is the same thing, as capitulation now would be a very poor negotiating position.
quote:
None of that matters with respect to Russian goals unless they actually win in a massive way on the battlefield. They have parts of four oblasts now but they want far more. We've seen that economies can be resilient to sanctions, but Russia has to produce meaningful gains, which hasn't occurred in at least two years
Couple of things here
1) If capitulating now to avoid collapse later is such a poor position for Ukraine, that would point to Russia making gains tactically, logistically, and/or strategically even if they haven't shown up in terms of territorial gains. We have hundreds of years of evidence of Russia being fine with this kind of attritional conflict. The West typically isn't because we see a soldier as a person instead of as an asset like the Russians do and have for centuries. We are looking at the conflict in fundamentally different ways from them because we don't think like they do... maybe we don't drink enough vodka to get it.
2) I think we are still underselling and frankly just not yet grasping the impact of drones on warfare, from both sides. I think its sort of the old "Swiss guy with a machine gun guarding a mountain pass" problem where you can have a smaller force that punches way up because a few drones can take out entire groups of men or vehicles and not even be close to the front, and there is little recourse in terms of a counter strike to be had to kill the operators. But Russia isn't conducting some massive offensive either.. they are killing plenty with drones themselves. So we have this neo-WW1 trench warfare style conflict.
Until there just aren't enough bodies to defend parts of the line this will remain true. But one side will likely continue to have bodies along their lines and one side eventually won't. Russia is chipping away at some tactically important areas, but it has taken them a LONG time to even get close to taking them. If they can actually do it you might actually start seeing more movement. Apparently they are massing troops in certain areas as well, but I've just not been able to follow this as closely as I used to.
Posted on 5/27/25 at 1:52 pm to PoppedRiser
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Another Cope melt of unhinged posts incoming.
Posted on 5/27/25 at 1:53 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
1) If capitulating now to avoid collapse later is such a poor position for Ukraine, that would point to Russia making gains tactically, logistically, and/or strategically even if they haven't shown up in terms of territorial gains. We have hundreds of years of evidence of Russia being fine with this kind of attritional conflict. The West typically isn't because we see a soldier as a person instead of as an asset like the Russians do and have for centuries. We are looking at the conflict in fundamentally different ways from them because we don't think like they do... maybe we don't drink enough vodka to get it.
This was true in WWII. Stalin didn’t care about lives, and as long as Russia eventually ein it didn’t matter.
But what about their other wars? Didn’t they give up depending on their success?
Posted on 5/27/25 at 2:12 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
We are looking at the conflict in fundamentally different ways from them because we don't think like they do
That might be true, but in terms of a negotiating position, no side has an advantage where something can be given up in exchange for something else. What I mean is that both sides can push maximalist demands because the battlefield is relatively static. There is no reason in the world anyone, in any other situation, would approach a tense negotiation where everything is framed as 'all or nothing.'
quote:
Until there just aren't enough bodies to defend parts of the line this will remain true. But one side will likely continue to have bodies along their lines and one side eventually won't.
Well in that sense, eventually someone's narrative that one side will collapse will turn out to be true. We've had lots of people suggest that both sides are on the verge of collapsing numerous times, enough to suggest that the battlefield claims that are being made on both sides are closer to fiction than they are reflective to reality.
Both sides have particular advantages and disadvantages, but for meaningful negotiation to occur, it has to be tied to a major battlespace development.
Given the scenario, the West should just put everything behind Ukraine, or rather, take the notion that there is a specific timetable to Western aid off the table. Once that notion is gone, we can see what the Russians demand in reality.
The Russians are underestimating the degree to which this war is vital for Central, Eastern and Baltic European security. If Ukraine becomes a rump state, we are assuring that there will be a major conflict in those aforementioned regions at some point. Ukraine is about 800 miles from one end to the other. That distance, from the Western edge of Ukraine, nearly reaches Paris. I'm not suggesting that Russia is going to invade Paris. What I'm suggesting is that policymakers in Europe will see that and react accordingly. If we want lasting peace, Ukraine is the place to do it. If we don't want our sons to fight another war in the 40's (this time the 2040s instead) then Ukraine should be the line we draw.
I write all this to suggest that removing one possible offramp for Russia, which is the belief that the West will tire of supporting Ukraine, will give us a realistic view of their position and might entice them to have more realistic demands in negotiations. As it stands, their demands are not realistic. Once support for Ukraine is assured, and it turns out that the Russians still want to fight, then Europe should prepare, as it will take a European effort to see this out.
This post was edited on 5/27/25 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 5/27/25 at 2:20 pm to John Barron
Posted on 5/27/25 at 3:00 pm to John Barron
Posted on 5/27/25 at 3:01 pm to StormyMcMan
Posted on 5/27/25 at 3:16 pm to StormyMcMan
Trump is a fighter.
Posted on 5/27/25 at 3:32 pm to John Barron
Ukrainian citizens are fighting back against Zelensky’s Thugs. If Rob Lee and the Kyiv Independent are reporting this. You know it must be bad
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 5/27/25 at 3:34 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Given the scenario, the West should just put everything behind Ukraine, or rather, take the notion that there is a specific timetable to Western aid off the table. Once that notion is gone, we can see what the Russians demand in reality.
The Russians are underestimating the degree to which this war is vital for Central, Eastern and Baltic European security. If Ukraine becomes a rump state, we are assuring that there will be a major conflict in those aforementioned regions at some point. Ukraine is about 800 miles from one end to the other. That distance, from the Western edge of Ukraine, nearly reaches Paris. I'm not suggesting that Russia is going to invade Paris. What I'm suggesting is that policymakers in Europe will see that and react accordingly. If we want lasting peace, Ukraine is the place to do it. If we want our sons to fight another war in the 40's (this time the 2040s instead) then Ukraine should be the line we draw.
I write all this to suggest that removing one possible offramp for Russia, which is the belief that the West will tire of supporting Ukraine, will give us a realistic view of their position and might entice them to have more realistic demands in negotiations. As it stands, their demands are not realistic. Once support for Ukraine is assured, and it turns out that the Russians still want to fight, then Europe should prepare, as it will take a European effort to see this out.
I think all of that is fair and well thought out in terms of being possible, even if I disagree with a fair chunk of it.
We have no idea what a post-Putin Russia will look like. Does another strongman step up, or is the chair too big for anyone to fill? Does it get filled by committee?
I am skeptical of the "we have to fight this war to prevent this other war" thinking. We kind of saw that in WW1. Would the world be very different today had Germany win WW1? Obviously. Would it be a worse place? I'm not so sure. I am sure we wouldn't have had a conflict on the scale of WW2. But all of the propaganda told us that Germany was killing babies and was going to conquer the world... which we all know now was probably bullshite. We probably have more monarchies still around than we would have otherwise
What you're laying out could work. It also could backfire and cause a larger conflict now. Russia would certainly lose, but they do have nukes....
In my estimation your scenario also resembles what happened to Germany post-WW1. Russia will be facing economic hardships and need to rebuild. By the time they do in the 2040s you'll have a leader who has this conflict and the aftermath as one of their formative experiences politically, where they see it as the West bullying a Russia who, in their view, isn't some imperialist state... its just a state that finally had enough of western interference. Their military will be rebuilt and modernized by then in all likelihood. They will almost assuredly have the most first hand experience in the 'new age" of warfare of any major nation.
So if your rationale in supporting Ukraine unconditionally until the end is "preventing our kids from fighting in a war in 2040", I'm not sure that accomplishes it. I'm kind of the opposite side of the same coin I guess, I think your solution either starts a broader conflict sooner or just delays an existential one for a few decades, while if Russia kind of "wins" and gets a few oblasts it keeps them ultimately weaker long term because they won't fundamentally change their broken system and it doesn't set up any "cornered animal" types in the future.
At least you have an honest view of it outside of "I just like Ukraine" or "I just like Russia". I can respect that.
Posted on 5/27/25 at 3:36 pm to doubleb
quote:
This was true in WWII. Stalin didn’t care about lives, and as long as Russia eventually ein it didn’t matter.
But what about their other wars? Didn’t they give up depending on their success?
They've been using similar tactics across different styles of warfare since they were fighting Napoleon, if not earlier than that.
Posted on 5/27/25 at 3:43 pm to cypher
Despite Kremlin claims, 82% of Russian-speaking Ukrainians view Russia negatively, poll shows
by Tim Zadorozhnyy May 27, 2025 10:37 PM
A vast majority of Russian-speaking Ukrainians — those how primarily speak Russian at home — view Russia negatively, according to a survey published on May 27 by Kyiv-based think tank Razumkov Center in cooperation with the Kyiv Security Forum.
The poll, conducted between April 24 and May 4, 2025, surveyed 2,021 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older in territories under Ukrainian government control. According to the survey, only 11% of respondents said they primarily speak Russian at home.
Of those, 82% said they had a negative view of Russia.
The results come as Russia continues to invoke the supposed plight of Russian-speaking communities to justify its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But the data suggests this narrative is widely rejected by those it claims to defend.
As recently as May 23, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed Moscow "cannot leave" Russian-speaking residents in Kyiv-controlled areas and would "protect them."
The Kyiv Independent
by Tim Zadorozhnyy May 27, 2025 10:37 PM
A vast majority of Russian-speaking Ukrainians — those how primarily speak Russian at home — view Russia negatively, according to a survey published on May 27 by Kyiv-based think tank Razumkov Center in cooperation with the Kyiv Security Forum.
The poll, conducted between April 24 and May 4, 2025, surveyed 2,021 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older in territories under Ukrainian government control. According to the survey, only 11% of respondents said they primarily speak Russian at home.
Of those, 82% said they had a negative view of Russia.
The results come as Russia continues to invoke the supposed plight of Russian-speaking communities to justify its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But the data suggests this narrative is widely rejected by those it claims to defend.
As recently as May 23, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed Moscow "cannot leave" Russian-speaking residents in Kyiv-controlled areas and would "protect them."
The Kyiv Independent
Posted on 5/27/25 at 3:46 pm to VolSquatch
Posted on 5/27/25 at 4:09 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
They've been using similar tactics across different styles of warfare since they were fighting Napoleon, if not earlier than that.
They beat Napoleon by fighting strategic battles and then retreating. The Russians in fact let the French take an empty Moscow.
It was never a war of attrition. Armies maneuvered and attacked in the tradition of the day. Russia didn’t win by throwing massive numbers at the French; instead they relied on the weather and logistical problems for the French.
Page 4899 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News