- 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: Putin’s “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine has passed an important milestone
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:11 am to czechtiger
Posted on 1/12/26 at 7:11 am to czechtiger
quote:
Is it possible that the Russians have:
1) spent the last several years grinding the Ukraine military down to the point that now it is not capable of resisting much longer?
2) Successfully avoided an all out conflict w NATO during a period where they were not prepared. Now they are prepared. I don’t think NATO wants any part of the Russian military right now.
3)Thru Putin’s cautious and limited approach won over much of the public around the world. The majority of the planet sees the USA as the aggressive, imperial force endangering sovereignty around the globe.
4) The longer he resists an overreaction the weaker the American position becomes. China/Russia/India/Brazil are no longer interested in the post WWII world order.
This will not end well for the US.
First, this has already ended well for the US. While Russia has been attrited, the US and Israel have affected regime change in russia’s client state, Syria, and are about to attempt Iran. We have decapitated the Russian ally Venezuela, and we now have our sights set on Cuba.
I would seriously rebut your second point but I’m currently laughing too hard. To paraphrase Bismark, if we get into a war with the Russian military we could just sent the NYPD to arrest them.
1
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:38 am to czechtiger
quote:
Is it possible that the Russians have:
1) spent the last several years grinding the Ukraine military down to the point that now it is not capable of resisting much longer?
2) Successfully avoided an all out conflict w NATO during a period where they were not prepared. Now they are prepared. I don’t think NATO wants any part of the Russian military right now.
3)Thru Putin’s cautious and limited approach won over much of the public around the world. The majority of the planet sees the USA as the aggressive, imperial force endangering sovereignty around the globe.
4) The longer he resists an overreaction the weaker the American position becomes. China/Russia/India/Brazil are no longer interested in the post WWII world order.
This will not end well for the US.
Alternatively, Putin is repeating the mistake of his predecessors by engaging in a protracted conflict that is bleeding Russia the same way Afghanistan bled the Soviets.
Moreover, the Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years and it completely broke their country. The U.S. was in Afghanistan for 20 years, and we just motored right on after it was over, stronger than ever.
One day he will be gone and we might be able to move past Soviet-era doctrine, since it's become obvious it represents a failed system and failed philosophy borne of 19th century economic inequity.
Crawl back under your rock.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:42 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
I never want to hear anyone say that Russia is a major threat to either the US or NATO ever again.
Maybe thats why Denmark (and other NATO people) are talking a big game.
They realize the Russians arent about to roll across Europe and our bases arent needed anymore.
Good news for the US.. Close the bases and bring our troops home. Leave Europe for the Muslim hordes to take over.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:44 am to alphaandomega
Is Putin losing any valuable special forces type troops in this thing? Seems like they were using a lot of released prisoners and other ne'er-do-wells. Plus burning through older equipment.
Not sure what his actually land gain objectives were but the other objective was to get NATO to stop adding more countries
Not sure what his actually land gain objectives were but the other objective was to get NATO to stop adding more countries
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 10:46 am
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:18 am to Cosmo
quote:
Is Putin losing any valuable special forces type troops in this thing? .
Yes, especially at the beginning of the “operation.”
quote:
Not sure what his actually land gain objectives were but the other objective was to get NATO to stop adding more countries
The objective was to gain all of Ukraine which is why they attacked the capital st the beginning but got pushed out.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:36 am to RollTide1987
This is why the current European hysteria is all complete horseshite
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:12 pm to Cosmo
quote:
the other objective was to get NATO to stop adding more countries
He failed at that as well. Finland and Sweden have joined since his Ukrainian misadventures started.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:28 pm to Penrod
“First, this has already ended well for the US. While Russia has been attrited”
Thanks for having the courtesy to try and make a point.
As far as I can make out the Russian army is bigger and better equipped now than at the beginning of the war.
Isn’t that the opposite of “being attrited”?
Thanks for having the courtesy to try and make a point.
As far as I can make out the Russian army is bigger and better equipped now than at the beginning of the war.
Isn’t that the opposite of “being attrited”?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:31 pm to czechtiger
quote:
As far as I can make out the Russian army is bigger and better equipped now than at the beginning of the war.
Eh. Aren’t the Russians pulling out 70 year old T-55s from storage to throw into this meat grinder?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:42 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Not sure what his actually land gain objectives were but the other objective was to get NATO to stop adding more countries
Well that didn't work. Putin's invasion led to the most significant expansion of NATO since 2004, with Sweden and Finland joining. This includes a new 830-mile border with NATO and one of the more major naval powers in the northern water access of Russia.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:43 pm to Darth_Vader
LINK
Don’t think there is evidence that the Russian army has been attrited.
Don’t think there is evidence that the Russian army has been attrited.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:48 pm to czechtiger
Found Putins alter.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:50 pm to CaptainsWafer
Comments like that don’t really qualify as making an argument.
Neither do the little laughing emoticons.
Try and use your intellect and make point.
Neither do the little laughing emoticons.
Try and use your intellect and make point.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:52 pm to subMOA
quote:
I know they won’t run out of money- but at what point in time does it become not feasible anymore to keep throwing shite at Ukraine?
10 minutes after the end of Putin's funeral. This war is not stopping until Putin dies of natural causes.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:52 pm to czechtiger
quote:
Try and use your intellect and make point.
War is won in the air and at sea. Ukraine has neither. Russia is shitty in the sea and mid (at best) in the air.
Adding a couple hundred thousand old people to the front lines is pre-WW2 thinking, which Russia is fond of. It means little in warfare going against an actual opponent like the US.
If the US engaged, it could have destroyed Russia's operation without a boot on the ground, and there is nothing Russia could have done about it. Their new jets suck and would be blown out of the sky by our new F-15s, likely (we won't even get to the F22s or F35s, which Russia's jets wouldn't be able to see).
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:53 pm to WeeWee
quote:
10 minutes after the end of Putin's funeral. This war is not stopping until Putin dies of natural causes.
Pretty sure the oligarchs will kill him if they "lose"
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
Ok, regarding what would happen if the US engaged….
the US cannot engage directly w/o risking nuclear war. How is in the US interest to risk nuclear war over Ukraine? The risk/reward just misses the mark by miles and miles.
the US cannot engage directly w/o risking nuclear war. How is in the US interest to risk nuclear war over Ukraine? The risk/reward just misses the mark by miles and miles.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:01 pm to czechtiger
quote:
Ok, regarding what would happen if the US engaged….
the US cannot engage directly w/o risking nuclear war.
So you want to talk about what happened if the US engaged, and then dismiss any talk about what would happen if the US engaged.
And Russia didn't do shite when we bombed Iran or when we took out Maduro, and they won't do shite when we act in Iran shortly. The "Russia will use nukes" is an argument for dumb MAGA-tards to do what you did above (dismiss any rational conversation by steering the conversation to the histrionic and fantastical).
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
Wow. The last point I made was regarding whether or not the Russian army had been attrited.
I see no evidence that this has happened.
What are you referring to about me bringing in the US military?
The post above mentioned what would happen if the US engaged.
My point is the US CANNOT directly engage w/o risking nuclear war. This will not happen.
Iran & Venezuela will not illicit a response from Russia but direct engagement by US forces against the Russian military in Ukraine would.
I dont think you made a very cogent point there.
I see no evidence that this has happened.
What are you referring to about me bringing in the US military?
The post above mentioned what would happen if the US engaged.
My point is the US CANNOT directly engage w/o risking nuclear war. This will not happen.
Iran & Venezuela will not illicit a response from Russia but direct engagement by US forces against the Russian military in Ukraine would.
I dont think you made a very cogent point there.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:13 pm to czechtiger
quote:
Iran & Venezuela will not illicit a response from Russia but direct engagement by US forces against the Russian military in Ukraine would.
I dont think you made a very cogent point there.
There would be a direct non-nuclear engagement, or an attempt to do so. No guarantee they could actually engage our air/sea capabilities.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News