- 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: How many of you will be upset if/when Ukraine thwarts Russia?
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:43 pm to Bass Tiger
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:43 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
that doesn’t benefit street level Americans.
You don't think street level Americans have been affected by the higher gas prices as a result of the Russian invasion?
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You think because Russia has Nukes and Ukraine doesn't, that Russia would use Nukes against Ukraine?
No.
If Ukraine had nukes, Russia wouldn't invade out of fear Ukraine would use them.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We literally dealt with Russian-led areas denuclearize previously. shite, and somewhat ironically, if that had gone slightly different (and Ukraine kept its nukes), Russia for sure wouldn't be invading today Having to do this again, with a much stronger international community than in the 90s, isn't scary to me.
You get half of it right here, the half you believe in and like. Yes, we have a pretty strong international community right now, probably more committed and cemented than in the early 90s. However, I would argue that cracks are starting to appear in this system and as push comes to shove, rubber meets road, etc, these dynamics are going to be a factor. 75K people recently protested in Prague against Russian sanctions on energy. And I would also note that China today is a completely different animal than it was back in the early 90s.
But the real part that I would argue is the dynamics on the Russian side are wholly different than the early 90s. Surely you must see it’s apples to oranges from Russia in the early 90s (when they were dependent on what was then considered a massive amount $1.6B aid package from us to survive) to Russia today and Yeltsin to Putin?
I would argue that you can’t take your post (we helped denuclearize them in the early 90s so I’m not worried about nuclear today) as a solid indicator on today’s current predicament.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:46 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
They'd do that because they assume the US and NATO "would be too big of pussies to do anything to them"?
If Russia destabilizes the world to the point of using nukes, all bets are off in terms of response.
Russia may be ending the world with this insane course of action. I'm not disagreeing.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I hope you're kidding, else you think BamaAtl posts are quality reads.
Shocking considering the only news I read is posted on this board
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You don't think street level Americans have been affected by the higher gas prices as a result of the Russian invasion?
Are you a full believer in #Putin’sPriceHike?
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:NO shite!
If Russia destabilizes the world to the point of using nukes, all bets are off in terms of response.
NOW THEN, you want to rethink how confident you are about the possibility of WWIII and its aftermath?
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don’t really give a flying frick what happens over there as far as winners and losers. I would prefer to see less loss of innocent life. The United States could help realize that goal by cutting off the flow of taxpayer money and weapons. The U.S. and UK could also mind our own business by butting the frick out and encouraging both sides to come to the negotiating table instead of actively working to prolong the war.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If Ukraine had nukes, Russia wouldn't invade out of fear Ukraine would use them.
Yet you don’t fear Putin would use them, which I find odd.
Or you concede he may use them in a moment of emotional insanity, but war for Ukraine is still worth that danger, which I find even more odd.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:53 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
Yet you don’t fear Putin would use them, which I find odd.
We aren't invading Russia so it's not comparable
Posted on 10/2/22 at 3:55 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
but war for Ukraine is still worth that danger
If opposing Russian invasion of a nation that didn't pose any threat to Russia isn't worth the risk, what is?
I ask for the fifth time I believe.
NC just avoided answering when given 2 chances
Posted on 10/2/22 at 4:00 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
NOW THEN, you want to rethink how confident you are about the possibility of WWIII and its aftermath?
Then that is either an inevitability or Russia will do whatever the frick it wants anywhere and we can't respond.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 4:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Are y'all happy with having to spend so much of the SPR to keep oil prices at a level that doesn't destroy our economy?
The oil costs alone of this war are almost assuredly larger than what we've sent Ukraine. Imagine that in perpetuity.
The rise in oil and prices are the direct result of Mr. Biden's energy policies. It has nothing to do with Russia.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 4:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
It’s in the United States best interests for Ukraine to “win,” however that is defined.
A weakened Russia is a positive.
We should send $1T and 100k ground troops.
A weakened Russia is a positive.
We should send $1T and 100k ground troops.
This post was edited on 10/2/22 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 10/2/22 at 4:06 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
The rise in oil and prices are the direct result of Mr. Biden's energy policies. It has nothing to do with Russia.
It's both. Biden for sure could have helped maintain policies that would help with gas prices moving forward.
He has, likely stupidly, drained our SPR to keep prices lower
Posted on 10/2/22 at 4:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You do not understand risk-reward. That surprises me.
Then that is either an inevitability or Russia will do whatever the frick it wants anywhere and we can't respond.
Again, just as a perspective setter, we lost <150K lives in the WWII European theater.
Russia lost ~ 27 MILLION lives in the WWII European theater.
Russia has significant interest in land buffers.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 4:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
I would argue the situation can’t be dismissed.
Putin’s view of Russia’s security and survival exists within this realm.
I know you dismiss Russian concern over NATO growth and encroachment as a mere talking point but I cannot express how fundamentally wrong you are in that commitment. It is a very real fear, rational or irrational, in the minds of Russian power players and ordinary Russians as well. And it runs deep.
Not only do ordinary Russians I know have a strong distrust of NATO but I will also relay a little csb right now. Back in the 90s I had the opportunity to have a sit down with a Russian general in England (semester abroad). It was a small gathering, about 20 people if I correctly remember. The discussion revolved around Russia and its then current financial issues and future with the West, etc. I asked him what he thought Russia’s greatest challenge was. He pulled out a map and unfolded it, held it up, and said “NATO.” On the map were marked all of NATO’s bases in Europe. “NATO is surrounding and suffocating my land. You should give thanks America is where it is. What we would give to have only Canadians and Mexicans near us. Don’t quote me, I don’t want to offend Canada and Mexico.”
Putin’s view of Russia’s security and survival exists within this realm.
I know you dismiss Russian concern over NATO growth and encroachment as a mere talking point but I cannot express how fundamentally wrong you are in that commitment. It is a very real fear, rational or irrational, in the minds of Russian power players and ordinary Russians as well. And it runs deep.
Not only do ordinary Russians I know have a strong distrust of NATO but I will also relay a little csb right now. Back in the 90s I had the opportunity to have a sit down with a Russian general in England (semester abroad). It was a small gathering, about 20 people if I correctly remember. The discussion revolved around Russia and its then current financial issues and future with the West, etc. I asked him what he thought Russia’s greatest challenge was. He pulled out a map and unfolded it, held it up, and said “NATO.” On the map were marked all of NATO’s bases in Europe. “NATO is surrounding and suffocating my land. You should give thanks America is where it is. What we would give to have only Canadians and Mexicans near us. Don’t quote me, I don’t want to offend Canada and Mexico.”
Posted on 10/2/22 at 4:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You do not understand risk-reward. That surprises me.
I do. You don't accept the costs of this Russian invasion on the world.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 4:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Russia has significant interest in land buffers.
But that's a terrible argument. The chance of a land invasion from the Eastern European Plain into European Russia is so remote that it beggars belief. The Russian elite are fearful of it, but there is another side too, as in what situation would actually spark an invasion that would make a buffer necessary. Not only that, given that Finland and Sweden are going to join NATO (despite Turkey's protestations, because the Turks just want some other concession), the security situation is such that Russian access to the Baltic is limited, to Kaliningrad is limited, and to the Med is limited by NATO powers, in addition to having a 800 mile border region added to the border on the European Plain.
The problem is that the Russian elite are always looking backward while everyone else has moved forward.
Posted on 10/2/22 at 4:12 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
He pulled out a map and unfolded it, held it up, and said “NATO.”
Popular
Back to top



3




