- 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: Putin Orders Third Troop Expansion Of War, Making Army 2nd Largest After China's
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:12 am to BigPerm30
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:12 am to BigPerm30
quote:he could just go home and it would all be done.
Back the guy into a corner that has 1,000 nukes. Seems really rational behavior.
1
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:13 am to Night Vision
quote:
Putin Orders Third Troop Expansion Of War
A war against a country smaller than Texas.
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
What’s shameful is I think you know better, but take up the statist angle for whatever reason.
But even if we didn’t know any details, you seriously think a state actor as large as Russia would invade for “no rational reason”? It’s virtually impossible for that to be the case.
As much as I think invading Iraq and Afghanistan were illogical disasters, somewhere high up in the state department and other halls of power there were people who had rationalizations for why they were doing it. And I think they had much weaker cases than Russia currently has.
But even if we didn’t know any details, you seriously think a state actor as large as Russia would invade for “no rational reason”? It’s virtually impossible for that to be the case.
As much as I think invading Iraq and Afghanistan were illogical disasters, somewhere high up in the state department and other halls of power there were people who had rationalizations for why they were doing it. And I think they had much weaker cases than Russia currently has.
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:15 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
A war against a country smaller than Texas.
Or preparation for a broader war with more belligerents
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There's nothing really there for this latest invasion. The little bit of territory they likely end up with as satellite states aren't THAT productive.
The Mineral value of the area being fought over in Ukraine is estimated at $14 Trillion.
Now you know what this war is about
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:16 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
Putin cares very much about Ukraine becoming part of NATO
Putin says this so NPCs repeat it.
NATO does nothing for Putin/Russia.
Now the EU? He cares a great deal about that. That's why he started this whole thing in 2014.
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:18 am to Loserman
quote:
The Mineral value of the area being fought over in Ukraine is estimated at $14 Trillion.
Now you know what this war is about
Plus lots of contracts already promised
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:18 am to OBReb6
quote:
but take up the statist angle for whatever reason.
"Statist" angle?
Silly description.
quote:
you seriously think a state actor as large as Russia would invade for “no rational reason”? It’s virtually impossible for that to be the case.
I think they thought this would go like 2014 and severely miscalculated the international response this time.
They're not going to get any long-term benefit and the costs are (and will continue to be) immense. What is the rationality in that calculation?
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:23 am to narddogg81
quote:
he could just go home and it would all be done.
You probably think his invasion was “unprovoked” like the MSM and MIC tell you.
Let China set up a base in border city in Mexico and see how that goes.
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:30 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
quote:
They can probably get one for NATO, but nobody actually cares about Ukraine being in NATO
Putin cares very much about Ukraine becoming part of NATO
So much so that his actions led to two long-standing neutral countries - one that has a longer and more indefensible border with Russia than Ukraine and another that is a pitching wedge from Russian territory, and who also both happen to be a hell of a lot more economically powerful and technologically advanced than Ukraine - joining NATO.
Some brilliant geopolitical strategist, that one.
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:31 am to BigPerm30
quote:you're a retard
BigPerm30
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:35 am to BigPerm30
quote:
Let China set up a base in border city in Mexico and see how that goes.
This is still such a dumb comparison.
Mexico wouldn't do that because they are our one of our closest allies (it may be #1). Why? Because we trade with each other in fair ways that benefit both parties.
Mexico would not risk pissing us off by putting a "Chinese bad" near our border, just as we wouldn't do something similar to them. That's because we have an organic, positive relationship. We also have an understanding of a common defense, because an attack on the US would tank Mexico (and vice versa to an extent).
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:36 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
So much so that his actions led to two long-standing neutral countries - one that has a longer and more indefensible border with Russia than Ukraine and another that is a pitching wedge from Russian territory, and who also both happen to be a hell of a lot more economically powerful and technologically advanced than Ukraine - joining NATO.
Some brilliant geopolitical strategist, that one.
Unless Putin is retarded, and nobody really argues that, it's clear NATO was not his actual focus, because he's in a much worse position re: NATO post-invasion, even if Ukraine joined.
This post was edited on 9/17/24 at 9:37 am
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:41 am to SlowFlowPro
It may be an unrealistic comparison but it’s not dumb.
What about if a completely fictional would never happen in real life but what if someone like the old Soviet Union set up missiles on an island very close to the US? I don’t know somewhere like Cuba for instance.
What about if a completely fictional would never happen in real life but what if someone like the old Soviet Union set up missiles on an island very close to the US? I don’t know somewhere like Cuba for instance.
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Mexico would not risk pissing us off by putting a "Chinese bad" near our border, just as we wouldn't do something similar to them. That's because we have an organic, positive relationship. We also have an understanding of a common defense, because an attack on the US would tank Mexico (and vice versa to an extent).
Why are we funding Ukraine’s war? Why is this so important to us?
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:46 am to BigPerm30
I know SFP hates the Mexico analogy, but imagine if Russia or China ran a coup in Mexico 10 years ago; you had the equivalent of Graham, McCain, and Biden visiting every month and meddling; and they admitted to putting a dozen spy bases on the border. We would have started WWIII over that, as you said with Cuba. I saw recently somebody described Ukraine as a giant CIA base masquerading as a sovereign country.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:47 am to BigPerm30
quote:
It may be an unrealistic comparison but it’s not dumb.
It is dumb because it completely ignores how countries develop real relations with each other, especially via trade. Trade is prosperity. Trade is development. Trade is peace.
We weren't always allies or close to Mexico, but we are now, because of trade and mutually-beneficial relations.
Russia and China don't operate like this. That's why they're the paranoid weirdos who do aggressive shite and pretend like they have justifications for them.
quote:
What about if a completely fictional would never happen in real life but what if someone like the old Soviet Union set up missiles on an island very close to the US? I don’t know somewhere like Cuba for instance.
The Cuban Missile Criss was like 80 years ago.
The USSR then is not Russia today (and even then, the USSR acted more rationally than Russia is acting currently).
The international/global economy did not exist in the same way in the early 60s that it does post-Soviet collapse (when it exploded and the world developed more and faster than it had ever). We do not exist in the global economy of the 60s, today.
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:48 am to Bunk Moreland
The simple answer of the “rationality” he’s looking for is national security.
But there are a lot of other layers to this as well
But there are a lot of other layers to this as well
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:48 am to BigPerm30
quote:
What about if a completely fictional would never happen in real life but what if someone like the old Soviet Union set up missiles on an island very close to the US? I don’t know somewhere like Cuba for instance.
Then i imagine when we told that story we would pretend it was russian aggression and not the USA putting missiles in Turkey first, and Russia reacting to that. We love to frame these stories to the put the US in the best light. Then wonder why the rest of the world see us as imperialists.
Posted on 9/17/24 at 9:49 am to OBReb6
quote:
Why are we funding Ukraine’s war? Why is this so important to us?
Russia's invasion was an expensive, negative externality in the global economy that's cost trillions globally.
The US is the largest beneficiary of the global economy, and one of our closest economic partners (the EU) is really impacted.
Now you can argue what we have spent is more than the impact of the negative externality, and you may be correct, but ultimately that's the discussion. What option, ultimately costs us more, in the end?
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News