- 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: Russia says any peacekeeping troops must be from Non NATO Countries
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:24 pm to John Barron
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:24 pm to John Barron
How about a cease fire ……and then we dont need “peace keeping forces”
0
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:28 pm to John Barron
thats that 60% intellect at work there bedpan,,, I ain't mad
we are all laughing at you
part time murse full time Russian bot
we are all laughing at you
quote:lol
China
quote:lol lol
Vietnam is pro-Russian
quote:lol lol lol
Saudi's
quote:,,, yeah Good idea you stupid bitch let's put more American troops at risk along the D M Z because we've taken South Korean troops away from the border to put them at the Russian Ukrainian border
South Korea
quote:ohh that's really smart let's take allies out of the Pacific Theater with China threatening to invade Taiwan brilliant geopolitical thinking
Japan and Australia
quote:Yeah terrific idea with Pakistan falling into civil war and Revolution you went to remove allies from the region for nuclear arms could fall into the hands of bad actor nations
India,,
part time murse full time Russian bot
This post was edited on 3/16/25 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:35 pm to omegaman66
quote:
How about sign a peace deal and no peace keeping troops.
There’s something with this whole affair that is “off”, to say the least.
Smells like BIDEN
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:36 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:These two were mine, and, in my defense, I preceded my suggestion with the disclaimer that I didn't have the full geopolitical knowledge to make an informed decision, and essentially pulled those names out of a hat to humor the OP, after he asked a couple times.
Japan and Australia
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:40 pm to HeadCall
quote:
Why does there have to be a peacekeeping army to stand in between Ukrainians and Russians in the first place?
Good question. I think Putin is calling Europes bluff. Ukraine has lost the War, they are low on Manpower so U.K. and France plan is to provide troops as "peacekeepers". Putin calls their bluff and says the peacekeepers have to be Non NATO countries now Europe will deny this request and out themselves to the rest of the World. Then Putin gets to continue killing the Nazis
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:42 pm to northshorebamaman
bedpan mentioned Australia in the first post in this thread,, and I mention them together only because it's the same reason not to use one or the other,and most especially both
But I certainly don't include you in the mocking you haven't come in here and acted like you know anything unlike bedpan
So my apologies if my comment seemed abrupt..
It might not be a bad idea to include Japan Since their ground troops are trained in peacekeeping missions, but with the threat of China I think the country would be hard-pressed to make a multi-year commitment
I can see the reason of including Australia and or New Zealand because they have cooperation agreements and you're not using navies on a large scale, Although any real peacekeeping agreement would include ships on the Black Sea
It's unrealistic to think that it can't be done without European countries involved because as I've already mentioned they would be the only ones that would have a self interest in keeping the peace
I mentioned Poland although not going to say Russia would be happy with it but they already share a border so let's just say there's a comfort level with each other
familiarity
And I not so jokingly mentioned Canada,, about time they put skin in the game,, would be doable ,, since the citizens are so concerned about Ukranian safety
In short I reject the premise because America doesn't step when Russia barks
But I certainly don't include you in the mocking you haven't come in here and acted like you know anything unlike bedpan
So my apologies if my comment seemed abrupt..
It might not be a bad idea to include Japan Since their ground troops are trained in peacekeeping missions, but with the threat of China I think the country would be hard-pressed to make a multi-year commitment
I can see the reason of including Australia and or New Zealand because they have cooperation agreements and you're not using navies on a large scale, Although any real peacekeeping agreement would include ships on the Black Sea
It's unrealistic to think that it can't be done without European countries involved because as I've already mentioned they would be the only ones that would have a self interest in keeping the peace
I mentioned Poland although not going to say Russia would be happy with it but they already share a border so let's just say there's a comfort level with each other
familiarity
And I not so jokingly mentioned Canada,, about time they put skin in the game,, would be doable ,, since the citizens are so concerned about Ukranian safety
In short I reject the premise because America doesn't step when Russia barks
This post was edited on 3/16/25 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:45 pm to OWLFAN86
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:46 pm to Lord of the Hogs
quote:
but they would be more trustworthy than any NATO force. Which is sad.
Umm how?
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:49 pm to John Barron
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:50 pm to northshorebamaman
And again do double down on the distinction if Putin is so hard driven to avoid European troops Canadian troops is the most obvious answer to American interests
And Ukraine would likely sign off on it because of their relationship with Canada
And since Russia and Canada kind of share a border Artic /North Pole sometimes it's better /easier with a Govt while not an ally is not a beligerant
and as Previously mentioned it would allow for some easing and cooperation in tariffs if Canada was picking up the slack militarily so the U S didn't have to
The Mexico part was kind of a joke since they're going to need their own troops to fight the cartels as opposed to us putting US boots on ground in country
And Ukraine would likely sign off on it because of their relationship with Canada
And since Russia and Canada kind of share a border Artic /North Pole sometimes it's better /easier with a Govt while not an ally is not a beligerant
and as Previously mentioned it would allow for some easing and cooperation in tariffs if Canada was picking up the slack militarily so the U S didn't have to
The Mexico part was kind of a joke since they're going to need their own troops to fight the cartels as opposed to us putting US boots on ground in country
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:51 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:Also- ^^^ this is the only correct response.
In short I reject the premise because America doesn't step when Russia barks
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:52 pm to John Barron
so because vlad says so......?
Why are you so weak it's because you're a murse and have been surrounded by women the whole time or did you go into mursing because you're a pussy?
Sincere question I want to know which line of mocking I want to focus on
Why are you so weak it's because you're a murse and have been surrounded by women the whole time or did you go into mursing because you're a pussy?
Sincere question I want to know which line of mocking I want to focus on
Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:53 pm to John Barron
So this has consistently been Russia's position. It is funny to watch the U.K. and Europe get continously bitch slapped by Russia 
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 3/16/25 at 9:57 pm to John Barron
russia isnt winning,,, neither is the ukraine But God forbid had Kamala won and the Ukraine still had US military supply support
the cock u love to suck Putin would have been shite out of luck
and united western Europe is effectively the same
we don't need to settle on his terms..we don't even have to negotiate on his terms,, all this noise is just bluster
a negotiation tactic from the Cold War which as an ex-KGB op is putins playbook/indoctrination
the cock u love to suck Putin would have been shite out of luck
and united western Europe is effectively the same
we don't need to settle on his terms..we don't even have to negotiate on his terms,, all this noise is just bluster
a negotiation tactic from the Cold War which as an ex-KGB op is putins playbook/indoctrination
This post was edited on 3/16/25 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 3/16/25 at 10:01 pm to John Barron
I know no one here wants to hear this but the “peace keeping” force needs to be American.
We’re the only real option. We’ve supported Ukraine financially and militarily throughout the war but Trump is also seen as being closer to Putin and is obviously pissed at Zelensky. US troops will probably be the only option that both the Ukrainians and Russians would begrudgingly accept.
Now, I don’t think there needs to be ground troops standing between the two armies. But lots of military inspectors on both sides keeping an eye on things. A no-fly/drone zone over most of Ukraine and the territory that is ceded to Russia in the deal enforced by the Air Force and the Navy watching the Black Sea. Any aggressive actions by either side would be dealt with equally.
We’re the only real option. We’ve supported Ukraine financially and militarily throughout the war but Trump is also seen as being closer to Putin and is obviously pissed at Zelensky. US troops will probably be the only option that both the Ukrainians and Russians would begrudgingly accept.
Now, I don’t think there needs to be ground troops standing between the two armies. But lots of military inspectors on both sides keeping an eye on things. A no-fly/drone zone over most of Ukraine and the territory that is ceded to Russia in the deal enforced by the Air Force and the Navy watching the Black Sea. Any aggressive actions by either side would be dealt with equally.
Posted on 3/16/25 at 10:07 pm to HeadCall
I don't think it needs to be American troops and I highly doubt trump will put them on the ground in the Ukraine that would defy all reason and would probably specifically irk putin
The regions rebuilding will need a police force simply to protect the foreign investment and workers that are brought into the country to rebuild the Ukraine which is amongst the most valuable contracts and we need to make sure American companies get their cut because that's how you get back the investment that and the agreements for exporting minerals
many of you might find it distasteful so be it. The Reality is that is the reason wars are fought
that is the reason the US made the investment in the Ukraine it certainly wasn't to defend democracy
Make our money back and defend the general peace so we don't have to get involved in a hot war
that should be the priorities not one and two
one both being equal
The regions rebuilding will need a police force simply to protect the foreign investment and workers that are brought into the country to rebuild the Ukraine which is amongst the most valuable contracts and we need to make sure American companies get their cut because that's how you get back the investment that and the agreements for exporting minerals
many of you might find it distasteful so be it. The Reality is that is the reason wars are fought
that is the reason the US made the investment in the Ukraine it certainly wasn't to defend democracy
Make our money back and defend the general peace so we don't have to get involved in a hot war
that should be the priorities not one and two
one both being equal
This post was edited on 3/16/25 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 3/16/25 at 10:17 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
I don't think it needs to be American troops and I highly doubt trump will put them on the ground in the Ukraine that would defy all reason and would probably specifically irk putin
Yeah I don’t think there needs to be ground troops at all really with the exception of observes that can travel around and monitor troop movements on both sides.
Posted on 3/16/25 at 10:28 pm to HeadCall
Well the valid point you're making reminds and kinda gets back to the last time bedpan shared his 60% intelligence rate it was the European military leaders disinviting the US from a planned conference
We need to have a voice and an influence in whatever is designed and we need to have an consultants voice in however it's implemented for the simple fact that if they frick it up it falls to us to clean it
And I would say it's not hard to imagine that a very big part of the peacekeeping effort moving forward will be the use of drones in place of troops
and how much of that technology do you want to share with any country who is not a close ally who probably already has a good deal of the technology /training
again we don't need russia dictating terms,, they did not win this war
We need to have a voice and an influence in whatever is designed and we need to have an consultants voice in however it's implemented for the simple fact that if they frick it up it falls to us to clean it
And I would say it's not hard to imagine that a very big part of the peacekeeping effort moving forward will be the use of drones in place of troops
and how much of that technology do you want to share with any country who is not a close ally who probably already has a good deal of the technology /training
again we don't need russia dictating terms,, they did not win this war
Posted on 3/16/25 at 10:41 pm to OWLFAN86
Brazil could provide close cover for land troops with the A-29 Super Tucano
the US Border Patrol just received 45 of these bad boys for the Southern Boarder
a pal He's coming out of retirement to do some training at Ellington
fingers crossed I might get a ride eventually,, prop planes,,,low and slow when they have to be,, can be fitted with an array of weapons
the US Border Patrol just received 45 of these bad boys for the Southern Boarder
a pal He's coming out of retirement to do some training at Ellington
fingers crossed I might get a ride eventually,, prop planes,,,low and slow when they have to be,, can be fitted with an array of weapons
Posted on 3/16/25 at 10:44 pm to John Barron
"11 Years Since Crimea’s Historic Return to Russia
On March 16, 2014, the people of Crimea and Sevastopol overwhelmingly voted in a referendum to reunite with Russia, with 96.77% of Crimean voters and 95.6% of Sevastopol voters supporting the decision.
This came after the Western-backed coup in Kiev in February 2014, which saw ultra-nationalist forces seize power and move to suppress Russian language rights and Russian-speaking populations across Ukraine. The new regime immediately signaled its hostility toward Crimea’s population, many of whom were veterans and descendants of those who defended the peninsula against Nazi Germany in 1941–44.
Crimeans, seeing what was unfolding in Kiev and across Ukraine, acted swiftly. They refused to recognize the coup regime and opted to rejoin Russia, a decision formalized on March 18, 2014, when President Vladimir Putin signed the treaty officially welcoming Crimea back into the Russian Federation.
The years that followed have only validated Crimea’s choice. Ukraine, under Western control, has continued its descent into extremism, glorifying Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera, banning opposition parties, and violently persecuting Russian-speaking citizens—just as Crimeans feared.
Crimea’s return was not only a democratic expression of self-determination but a decisive escape from the chaos, repression, and war that later engulfed Donbass and the rest of Ukraine. Today, 11 years later, the decision to return home to Russia stands stronger than ever."
On March 16, 2014, the people of Crimea and Sevastopol overwhelmingly voted in a referendum to reunite with Russia, with 96.77% of Crimean voters and 95.6% of Sevastopol voters supporting the decision.
This came after the Western-backed coup in Kiev in February 2014, which saw ultra-nationalist forces seize power and move to suppress Russian language rights and Russian-speaking populations across Ukraine. The new regime immediately signaled its hostility toward Crimea’s population, many of whom were veterans and descendants of those who defended the peninsula against Nazi Germany in 1941–44.
Crimeans, seeing what was unfolding in Kiev and across Ukraine, acted swiftly. They refused to recognize the coup regime and opted to rejoin Russia, a decision formalized on March 18, 2014, when President Vladimir Putin signed the treaty officially welcoming Crimea back into the Russian Federation.
The years that followed have only validated Crimea’s choice. Ukraine, under Western control, has continued its descent into extremism, glorifying Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera, banning opposition parties, and violently persecuting Russian-speaking citizens—just as Crimeans feared.
Crimea’s return was not only a democratic expression of self-determination but a decisive escape from the chaos, repression, and war that later engulfed Donbass and the rest of Ukraine. Today, 11 years later, the decision to return home to Russia stands stronger than ever."
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. 
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News