- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:54 am to VolSquatch
It would be good to point out that Trump is doing more than Biden to hasten Russia's economic demise. The globe has been getting around sanctions on oil for decades. The new LEGAL interdictions of tankers at Venezuela is hurting Russia. Sanctioning Russia oil companies directly also has had an impact.
Financial analysts have noted that Europe's economy came out of its 2022-2024 slump and that it doesn't actually need Russia's oil or natural gas. We know from a decade ago that "Green Energy" is a scam. I have personally visited a number of plants built under Obama's Green New Deal which were nothing moe than payola to Silicon Velley investors for their campaign financing in 2008, Citing Solyndra shows lack of depth of understanding of the scam. The renewable energy plants weren't even close to being economically viable even with grant money paying for some or all of their capital expense, like with DowKokam in Midland, MI. The new renewable hydrogen sounds great but is costly and isn't economically viable without heavy government support. For starters it is easy to damage the membrane filters, then there is the problem of how much can be mixed with natural gas. Finally, the water used has to be ultra pure and water treatment to get to that is costly AF. A client of mine in Minnesota has designed and built demonstration systems for small municipalities.
Financial analysts have noted that Europe's economy came out of its 2022-2024 slump and that it doesn't actually need Russia's oil or natural gas. We know from a decade ago that "Green Energy" is a scam. I have personally visited a number of plants built under Obama's Green New Deal which were nothing moe than payola to Silicon Velley investors for their campaign financing in 2008, Citing Solyndra shows lack of depth of understanding of the scam. The renewable energy plants weren't even close to being economically viable even with grant money paying for some or all of their capital expense, like with DowKokam in Midland, MI. The new renewable hydrogen sounds great but is costly and isn't economically viable without heavy government support. For starters it is easy to damage the membrane filters, then there is the problem of how much can be mixed with natural gas. Finally, the water used has to be ultra pure and water treatment to get to that is costly AF. A client of mine in Minnesota has designed and built demonstration systems for small municipalities.
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 7:58 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 8:06 am to CitizenK
FTR, I am NOT against NATO but as implemented it made Europe a welfare entity with US money. Not only has Europe relied on the US to provide military cover and financial support over and above what other nations have, there are special incentives for Europeans to invest in the US to boost their economies to pay their fair share yet they haven't for decades.
For example, the US has a number of military bases in France until De Gaulle asked the US to remove them in the mid 1960's. LBJ complied which was definitely a large financial burden lifted.
On a side note, I have known a few wives of soldiers stationed in France who were French, and definitely OO LA LA with the sexy accent to go with it. Their husbands had jobs like driving a milk truck to deliver door to door or mail carrier after military service.
For example, the US has a number of military bases in France until De Gaulle asked the US to remove them in the mid 1960's. LBJ complied which was definitely a large financial burden lifted.
On a side note, I have known a few wives of soldiers stationed in France who were French, and definitely OO LA LA with the sexy accent to go with it. Their husbands had jobs like driving a milk truck to deliver door to door or mail carrier after military service.
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 8:10 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 8:43 am to VolSquatch
quote:
The real question is "Do Russia's economic issues cause operational failures at the front before Ukraine's manpower issues do?" And the answer if people are being honest and objective is "we don't really know".
But it wasn’t long ago that many were saying it was inevitable that Russia would win. Remember? I do.
And your summation is right on. Good job of saying what I’ve been saying.
Thanks, you have a better way with words than I do.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 9:30 am to doubleb
quote:
But it wasn’t long ago that many were saying it was inevitable that Russia would win. Remember? I do.
I mean I think Russia will "win" eventually. But "think" is a key word there, and by "win" I mean be the side with the upper hand when this eventually gets negotiated to some sort of end (or pause). More of a winner in terms of "if we had to pick someone as the winner it would be them but both sides are kind of fricked".
Posted on 12/23/25 at 9:45 am to VolSquatch
quote:
I mean I think Russia will "win" eventually. But "think" is a key word there, and by "win" I mean be the side with the upper hand when this eventually gets negotiated to some sort of end (or pause). More of a winner in terms of "if we had to pick someone as the winner it would be them but both sides are kind of fricked".
Like you said, we really don’t know.
And like I’ve been saying, there will be no winner in this war. Both are losers.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:51 am to VolSquatch
quote:
Trends....
You call taking .77% of a country over the course of a year a 'trend'?? After taking roughly 400k casualties?? And after having similiar results the previous two years???
I'm sorry, yes, of course you do.
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 10:55 am
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:12 am to VolSquatch
quote:
I mean I think Russia will "win" eventually. But "think" is a key word there, and by "win" I mean be the side with the upper hand when this eventually gets negotiated to some sort of end (or pause). More of a winner in terms of "if we had to pick someone as the winner it would be them but both sides are kind of fricked".
Okay, I buy that. And I'm not entirely at odds with it.
But when we talk about winning, keep in mind the Russians, and Putin in particular, have consistently provided their definition of what 'win' means, and under specific conditions. The five goals that Putin gave when the war began, none of which have been achieved and at least one in particular that was complete BS, and then repeatedly saying that winning meant the complete capitulation of the Ukrainians.
Well, he's almost four years into this war and nowhere close to achieving any of that, and if anyone wants to think that the Russians are going to completely dominate Ukraine I've got some oceanfront property in Nebraska for you.
So while I share the whole 'they both lose' mentality, in terms of an actual military standard, Ukraine is winning this war and Russia is going to lose it.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:42 am to Leopold
Ukraine wins based on the type of creditors it will have as opposed to the type of rapacious creditors Russia will have.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:56 am to Leopold
So did you actually read my post this time, or did you just blindly rage at it like a toddler like the one from yesterday?
Posted on 12/23/25 at 11:59 am to doubleb
I mean there will be one side that comes out on top here even if it's messy. I think that based on the nature of this conflict and the fact that neither side seems interesting in conceding anything. Someone will be forced to say "uncle" unless someone starts changing their tune soon. Ukraine is looking down the manpower barrel and Russia the economic one.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:00 pm to Leopold
quote:
I mean I think Russia will "win" eventually. But "think" is a key word there, and by "win" I mean be the side with the upper hand when this eventually gets negotiated to some sort of end (or pause). More of a winner in terms of "if we had to pick someone as the winner it would be them but both sides are kind of fricked".
quote:
Okay, I buy that. And I'm not entirely at odds with it.
quote:
Ukraine is winning this war and Russia is going to lose it.
You just.... Say things.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 12:26 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
So did you actually read my post this time, or did you just blindly rage at it like a toddler like the one from yesterday
Read and quoted the thing, Vol.
Look, I get the point you're making, and it's a reasonable one. The problem with it is Russia. Russia isn't going to attempt to bring this thing to a close, especially while they are under the delusion that they are winning. So when you make a statement that seems completely sensible on the face of it:
quote:
and by "win" I mean be the side with the upper hand when this eventually gets negotiated to some sort of end (or pause)
you have to assume that Russia both a) wants the war to end and b) would be satisfied with just a part of Ukraine. Both of those statements are inherently false.
And, no, both sides have not refused to concede things. Ukraine has routinely offered concessions in an attempt to bring this war to a close; it's Russia that has routinely and absolutely looked at every one of those concessions as a weakness to be exploited. Again, this idea that they are both keeping this war going is absolute fiction.
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:11 pm to Leopold
quote:
Read and quoted the thing, Vol.
You quoted the one yesterday too and still didn't read it, apparently.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:24 pm to Leopold
quote:
you have to assume that Russia both a) wants the war to end and b) would be satisfied with just a part of Ukraine. Both of those statements are inherently false.
Russia would accept a deal where they were given Crimea and the Donbas as long as the Ukrainian government gave way to a pro Russian government, the Ukrainian military was kneecapped, and Ukraine was granted no protection from the west.
They would just rebuild and take Ukraine later.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:27 pm to doubleb
quote:
Russia would accept a deal where they were given Crimea and the Donbas as long as the Ukrainian government gave way to a pro Russian government, the Ukrainian military was kneecapped, and Ukraine was granted no protection from the west.
They would just rebuild and take Ukraine later
I think they want to have either Ukraine be unprotected going forward OR have a pro-Russian government installed. They don't really need both. The latter means the former won't happen anyway though.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 1:30 pm to doubleb
See, I tend to think this is true, that this would be the Russian end-around to take control over the Ukrainians, but I also wonder if the Ukrainians were to actually agree to something this stupid if the Russians would, again, just see that as weakness and then push for even more. Even if you gave the Russians everything they wanted, they would still, on principle, demand more.
Such is the greed and stupidity of the Russians.
Such is the greed and stupidity of the Russians.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 2:35 pm to Leopold
Very interesting. Not only personally contacted the heads of both the German and British intelligence services recently, but made this fact public knowledge five days ago. If he did this on his own account, he certainly wouldn't make it public.
Naryshkin and Putin are both from St. Petersburg, worked together in the St. Petersburg government and were fellow students at the KGB Higher School. But Naryshkin is most famous for being the target of a very public humiliation delivered by Putin personally at the start of this war.
This has got 'backchannel' written all over it. But Putin has repeatedly demonstrated no interest in a peace agreement or even a Christmas cease fire. So if it isn't Putin, who is Naryshkin representing? And who is protecting him? No, it has to be Putin. But why the public announcement? Did the British or Germans leak the contact?
Also, note that no mention of any contact with US intelligence agencies. But with Gabbard in that loop, what's the point?
Stay tuned.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
The head of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin, has renewed contacts with European intelligence agencies.
According to received information, last week Naryshkin held a telephone conversation with the head of Germany's Federal Intelligence Service. Just a little earlier, Naryshkin announced that he had spoken with the head of the United Kingdom's Foreign Intelligence Service.
It is currently unknown what Naryshkin discussed with the heads of the British and German intelligence agencies.
Naryshkin and Putin are both from St. Petersburg, worked together in the St. Petersburg government and were fellow students at the KGB Higher School. But Naryshkin is most famous for being the target of a very public humiliation delivered by Putin personally at the start of this war.
quote:
Days before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Naryshkin received widespread attention in the global press for visibly trembling and "stutter[ing] uncomfortably" as Putin humiliated him publicly for "fumbling" his response to the Russian President's questioning during a Security Council of Russia meeting concerning the abandonment of the Minsk agreements and recognizing the Russian-backed separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
This has got 'backchannel' written all over it. But Putin has repeatedly demonstrated no interest in a peace agreement or even a Christmas cease fire. So if it isn't Putin, who is Naryshkin representing? And who is protecting him? No, it has to be Putin. But why the public announcement? Did the British or Germans leak the contact?
Also, note that no mention of any contact with US intelligence agencies. But with Gabbard in that loop, what's the point?
Stay tuned.
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 12/23/25 at 2:49 pm to Coeur du Tigre
Posted on 12/23/25 at 4:54 pm to Coeur du Tigre
He's not wrong...
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Page 438 of 439
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News