- 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 6/5/25 at 1:05 pm to John Barron
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:05 pm to John Barron
quote:
I respect Putin, Putin respects me — Trump
Newsweek: Russian State TV Airs Melania Trump's Nudes on Prime Time
1
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:09 pm to dagrippa
quote:
it's weird that the video from the Russian soldier that solovyov wants put to death shows all the black smoke and burning.
Tires burning will be all black smoke. Why put tires on useful aircraft.
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:16 pm to Lee B
quote:
Newsweek: Russian State TV Airs Melania Trump's Nudes on Prime Time
Dummy they weren't nudes, just Melania's official model photoshoot for magazines.
It's public information.
quote:
Back to top Posted on 6/5/25 at 12:59 pm to CitizenK quote: Let's face it the part to thwart Russia was always the USA. West Germany wasn't a charter member and had no military until it joined NATO. Thus NATO was actually all about stopping war between European nations who signed on. Umm... respectfully, NO! NATO was to unify Europe as human shields against the westward march of the Soviet Union. Sure, the pitch was that they all became security partners and no longer needed to fight each other over that reason (and Globalism took away the incentive to seize territory for resources by making it cheaper to trade for them)... but who did it ultimately benefit? The US... we couldn't ignore their Wars any longer, sure... but we didn't want the USSR swallowing the entire continent and sitting on the Western shore or Europe. And considering that internally every European nation already have avid Communists vying for power, by subsidizing the continent's security we allowed them to institute generous Social spending and castrate the appeal of Communism as a cure to those problems. So you may be right about it being our priority, but it is also chiefly WHY we set up NATO... we needed Europe unified for our purposes. And the idea's origin goes back exactly to Stalingrad, when we watched Russian peasants march into battle in great numbers with little chance of survival, and we realized "crap... these people are like a collectivist cult or something, like the Japanese. This is going to be a problem for us in one way or another after this is done." If we screwed one giant thing up, it's that we did not institute the same generous Social spending here, for whatever reasons. That created the situation where once the Iron Curtain fell American workers instantly felt that they'd been shafted when the great common boogie man vanished into thin air. America in the mid and late 70s was in an economic recession, but Reagan came along and reminded people of the Red Scare - and framed it as a moral fight we should prioritize - and people forgot it, instantly... until the Iron Curtain fell and the country was instantly pissed at George W. Bush.
Complete lack of understanding in geopolitics or history.
This post was edited on 6/5/25 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:18 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
I'm not sure if you specifically have said this, but we hear over and over in here about how Russia is a paper tiger on the nuclear front, they dont have nearly as many as they say they do and most of the ones they do have won't even work if it came down to that... ok, if that is true, The UK and France have something like 450-500 nukes combined. And if I were a betting man I'd say all of them work. That is plenty enough as a nuclear deterrent even without the US arsenal.
You reminded me of having read this...
Politico: Macron’s wrong to think France’s nuclear umbrella can protect Europe
Break it gently to the French president, but it will take more than the French and U.K. nuclear deterrents to defend the Continent without the U.S.
I dunno... how many high yield nukes is enough to ensure that everything on the planet dies eventually?
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:19 pm to PoppedRiser
Have you considered suicide?
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:23 pm to PoppedRiser
quote:
Complete lack of understanding in geopolitics or history.
Where did you study geopolitics and history?
I studied it at LSU.
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:27 pm to Lee B
quote:
Where did you study geopolitics and history?
I studied it at LSU.
Lisichansk State University? You silly Ukrainian troll.
quote:
Have you considered suicide?
Only homicide.
This post was edited on 6/5/25 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:30 pm to PoppedRiser
quote:
Lisichansk State University? You silly Ukrainian troll.
No seriously... where did you go to college?
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:33 pm to Lee B
quote:
No seriously... where did you go to college?
No seriously, you're a Ukrainian troll who I can't take seriously.
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:34 pm to PoppedRiser
quote:
Dummy they weren't nudes, just Melania's official model photoshoot for magazines.
It's public information.
That wasn't how the Russians presented or described them...
and they are NSFW, and they did not blur or cover anything... in Prime Time.
it was done to humiliate him in the country.
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:37 pm to Lee B
Actually a pretty interesting article, though I would trust Macron's knowledge of France's capabilities stacked up against Russia's over what the author thinks.
Yeah I think if multiple countries are throwing nukes around at each other its probably already over for us by that point
It seems like the title of the article is misleading, because he is mostly talking about an extinction level event at the beginning and then goes into tactical nukes
From nuggets we've gotten from world leaders to the best of my knowledge, they haven't explicitly said that use of a tactical nuke would trigger a nuclear response in kind. As the war winds down, we (NATO) need to have a response ready to go, whatever it may be. I'm assuming that scenario has already been wargamed extensively.
quote:
For one, if Russia believed the U.K. had launched a nuclear attack on its cities, it would be highly likely to retaliate by launching a similar attack on the U.K. Also, the very act of a Vanguard submarine launching a Trident missile would risk revealing its location — information that could give Russia’s forces the opportunity to destroy it. And since the U.K. would likely have only one nuclear-armed submarine at sea, it could end up sacrificing its ability to respond to or deter a nuclear attack on its own shores
Yeah I think if multiple countries are throwing nukes around at each other its probably already over for us by that point
It seems like the title of the article is misleading, because he is mostly talking about an extinction level event at the beginning and then goes into tactical nukes
quote:
Current Russian doctrine holds that lower-yield tactical (or battlefield) nuclear weapons are “a controllable means of achieving battlefield results and an end to hostilities.” According to recently leaked Russian documents, even the loss of conventional military assets, such as airfields, in a conflict could trigger a tactical nuclear response by Russia. And just a couple weeks ago, the Kremlin announced tactical nuclear weapons exercises to improve their readiness for combat.
This was a clear response to comments made by Macron and U.K. Foreign Minister David Cameron. Cameron had said it was up to Ukraine whether it used U.K.-donated weapons to hit targets in Russia, and Macron had floated the possibility of NATO troops fighting in Ukraine.
But as it stands, France doesn’t have its own tactical nuclear weapons to provide a limited or graduated response to the use of such weapons by Russia — perhaps the reason why Macron ruled out any battlefield use of these weapons, and any graduated response to nuclear aggression, in his 2020 speech.
From nuggets we've gotten from world leaders to the best of my knowledge, they haven't explicitly said that use of a tactical nuke would trigger a nuclear response in kind. As the war winds down, we (NATO) need to have a response ready to go, whatever it may be. I'm assuming that scenario has already been wargamed extensively.
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:37 pm to PoppedRiser
quote:
No seriously, you're a Ukrainian troll who I can't take seriously.
I could care less how you take me...
but I am a real, actual LSU grad. And I took a lot of history and poli sci classes and did well in them, at LSU.
So if you're saying I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd like to know where you took classes that contradict what I say.
This post was edited on 6/5/25 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:40 pm to John Barron
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:40 pm to Lee B
quote:
And I took a lot of history and poli sci classes and did well in them, at LSU.
So if you're saying I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd like to know where you took classes that contradict what I say.
I think some of your takes are dated and ideological, but I don't think you're flinging shite at the wall either.
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:42 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
From nuggets we've gotten from world leaders to the best of my knowledge, they haven't explicitly said that use of a tactical nuke would trigger a nuclear response in kind. As the war winds down, we (NATO) need to have a response ready to go, whatever it may be. I'm assuming that scenario has already been wargamed extensively.
Yeah, Biden's big thing he kept repeating was that if Russia used a tactical nuke, NATO would frick them up with conventional warfare means... destroying their airforce and Navy... but Russian doctrine says that is a reason to launch full on nuclear retaliation, so...
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:43 pm to Lee B
quote:
I could less how you take me...
but I am a real, actual LSU grad. And I took a lot of history and poli sci classes and did well in them, at LSU.
So if you're saying I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd like to know where you took classes that contradict what I say.
You're a basic bitch with 12 grade level education based on your comprehension of world history, European or American history. Sitting for a couple of months in a 3 credit course doesn't mean you understand anything, and you're the proof.
quote:
That wasn't how the Russians presented or described them...
and they are NSFW, and they did not blur or cover anything... in Prime Time.
it was done to humiliate him in the country.
You're only humiliating yourself now.
This post was edited on 6/5/25 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:44 pm to John Barron
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:45 pm to PoppedRiser
You won't answer the question.
Says it all.
Says it all.
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:47 pm to Lee B
Posted on 6/5/25 at 1:51 pm to John Barron
quote:
[embed]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GsssNYqWgAAb02Q?format=jpg&name=900x900[/embed]
So central frontline. Nice.
Page 4965 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News