- 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
re: Peace in Ukraine ... an exercise in how it might look
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:40 pm to texas tortilla
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:40 pm to texas tortilla
I think Putin pretty much has the territory he wants - Crimea/Sevastopol, water resources for Crimea, and the Russian majority areas of the Donbas. The only thing he's waiting on now is the dissolution of the Ukraine government, and a new one formed that's willing to join his EAEU.
Of course Trump has cards. The US military could give Ukraine the ability to devastate Putin's front lines in Ukraine. But Trump won't dare threaten Putin, he only kicks runts around.
quote:
But, he has no cards.
Of course Trump has cards. The US military could give Ukraine the ability to devastate Putin's front lines in Ukraine. But Trump won't dare threaten Putin, he only kicks runts around.
1
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:43 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:I am HOPING that you understand the difference between (a) our having done something in the past, that Russia did not like and specifically against their stated wishes and (b) doing the same thing now with Russia's (grudging) explicit acceptance as part of a peace treaty to secure more territory for themselves and to end the loss of lives of their young men.
So do more of the very thing that’s pissed Russia off for the last 30 years?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I am HOPING that you understand the difference between
quote:
(a) our having done something in the past
quote:
(b) doing the same thing now
By your own admission, there’s no difference no matter how you dress it up.
Russia will never agree to Ukraine being allowed in NATO.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:57 pm to ibldprplgld
Jesus, you ARE an imbecile.
In the first scenario, NATO did something in the past (admitting former Warsaw and Soviet states) that Russia opposed.
In the second, NATO would (hypothetically) be doing something (admitting Ukraine) to which Russia (reluctantly) AGREED, in exchange for acceptance of its territorial expansion and an end to a war.
This thread DOES NOT propose admitting Ukraine to NATO without Russian explicit acquiescence. It is examining a POSSIBLE, HYPOTHETICAL solution to the current impasse.
SMH. It is RIGHT THERE in the OP. ("What if all parties agree ...")
In the first scenario, NATO did something in the past (admitting former Warsaw and Soviet states) that Russia opposed.
In the second, NATO would (hypothetically) be doing something (admitting Ukraine) to which Russia (reluctantly) AGREED, in exchange for acceptance of its territorial expansion and an end to a war.
This thread DOES NOT propose admitting Ukraine to NATO without Russian explicit acquiescence. It is examining a POSSIBLE, HYPOTHETICAL solution to the current impasse.
SMH. It is RIGHT THERE in the OP. ("What if all parties agree ...")
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 3/3/25 at 1:58 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
Is there anyone who really doesn't understand why any nation would not agree to these terms? Do we really expect Ukraine to just roll over?
If Ukraine wants to survive as a country, yes, they should roll over. Your understanding of patrotism is blurred by your status as an American with military might. Sure, we'd all fight if America was invaded, because the odds are, we'd kick their asses.
Whereas, if you are runt of the litter, you cut your losses if a big dog is feociously aggressive and there's not another big dog coming to your defense. Or stick it out, just on patriotic principle, and get obliterated off the face of the erth. There's a reason Ukraine is arresting conscipt-dodgers. Every dodger knows this is a meaningless & inevitable meat-grinder if they don't get some big dog to fight Russia for them.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:10 pm to LSUFreek
quote:
If Ukraine wants to survive as a country, yes, they should roll over.
I disagree, that's barbarism.
I am generally against barbarism.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:13 pm to LSUFreek
How would North America look today, if France had not allied itself with the newly-declared nation in 1778.
Yorktown would have gone VERY differently, I suspect. If we had lasted THAT long.
Yorktown would have gone VERY differently, I suspect. If we had lasted THAT long.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Ukraine gets to join NATO
Kills the deal.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:20 pm to Harry Boutte
Then you (if you are speaking as Ukrianian) would have no self-preservation instinct. That's cool, too. It's your choice. Your principled "I'll fight for my land til my last breath" will be realized six-feet under. But you'll at least have your principles.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:23 pm to TheHarahanian
quote:Perhaps.quote:Kills the deal.
Ukraine gets to join NATO
But NATO is already on Russia's border. Norway has been there since the organization was founded.
More importantly, new member Finland is literally a stone's throw (less than 200 miles) from St. Petersburg ... easily Russia's most-important city after Moscow. Things have changed since 2022.
Do we KNOW that Putin would not accept the reality of an expanded NATO in order to secure (a) international recognition of his acquisition of Crimea and Donbas(plus) and (b) and end to the loss of life?
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
How would North America look today, if France had not allied itself with the newly-declared nation in 1778.
Yorktown would have gone VERY differently, I suspect. If we had lasted THAT long.
Ah yes, the appeal to patriotism. Ukraine would be JUST LIKE the fledgling United States.
"All we need is a chance and a strong ally, bro. Just another shipment of Javelins, bro. Trust me, bro. We won't sell them to the Sinaloa cartel, bro. We have no idea how Hamas ended up with the M4s you sent us."
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:26 pm to VoxDawg
quote:Not remotely my point.
Ah yes, the appeal to patriotism. Ukraine would be JUST LIKE the fledgling United States.
My POINT is that smaller and weaker nations OFTEN must rely upon larger and stronger friends.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:27 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
Putin’s red line
Exactly. That would be like saying Trump would be okay with the Chinese having military installations along the Mexico border.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:28 pm to AggieHank86
Then let Ukraine rely on its neighbors. There's a much larger stake in the matter for them as it is.
The bottom line is that if Ukraine is granted membership in NATO, the United States should withdraw IMMEDIATELY.
Just because they choose to start WWIII, that doesn't mean we have to participate.
The bottom line is that if Ukraine is granted membership in NATO, the United States should withdraw IMMEDIATELY.
Just because they choose to start WWIII, that doesn't mean we have to participate.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:33 pm to VoxDawg
JFC, the hypothetical here is that Russia AGREES to Ukraine/NATO in order to end a war and to gain international recognition of its territorial gains of the last decade.
If they AGREE, how the Hell does that start WW3?
If they AGREE, how the Hell does that start WW3?
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:35 pm to AggieHank86
Never. Going. To. Happen.
The entire "exercise" is a Kum Bah Yah masturbatory fantasy.
The entire "exercise" is a Kum Bah Yah masturbatory fantasy.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Jesus, you ARE an imbecile. In the first scenario, NATO did something in the past (admitting former Warsaw and Soviet states) that Russia opposed. In the second, NATO would (hypothetically) be doing something (admitting Ukraine) to which Russia (reluctantly) AGREED, in exchange for acceptance of its territorial expansion and an end to a war. This thread DOES NOT propose admitting Ukraine to NATO without Russian explicit acquiescence. It is examining a POSSIBLE, HYPOTHETICAL solution to the current impasse. SMH. It is RIGHT THERE in the OP. ("What if all parties agree ...")
You’re proposing a hypothetical that won’t happen because Russia will not accept Ukraine’s admission to NATO.
Name calling doesn’t make your hypothetical anymore realistic.
The West has been force feeding Russia shite for 30 years by expanding NATO East over and over again, and now your hypothetical is instead of force feeding Russia shite, we’re going to scoop that shite on a toasted sesame seed bun and serve it with a side of fries so maybe Russia will acquiesce to eating the shite.
You sound as ridiculous as that metaphor.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:41 pm to AggieHank86
Putin has already stated that he would use nukes to prevent Ukrainian NATO membership. That's a negative, groom rider.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:42 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:OR
The West has been force feeding Russia shite for 30 years by expanding NATO East over and over again, and now your hypothetical is instead of force feeding Russia shite, we’re going to scoop that shite on a toasted sesame seed bun and serve it with a side of fries so maybe Russia will acquiesce to eating the shite.
I don't much like sauerkraut (neighbors in NATO), but I LOVE corned beef, swiss cheese, thousand island dressing and rye bread (international recognition and peace). You MIGHT be able to get me to eat sauerkraut (Ukraine in NATO), if you put it on a Reuben sandwich (give me a bunch of that stuff that I like). Hell, you saw me eat some kimchi yesterday (Finland and Sweden in NATO), so you have some recent evidence that my position on fermented cabbage may have softened.
(Note the helpful parentheticals)
No way to know, until you try. And there is no harm in asking, no matter how many times I've told you that I don't like sauerkraut.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Without NATO membership (or something very much like it), what is the guarantee against future Russian aggression?
What on earth is in it for us?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News