- 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: Ukraine’s ‘victory plan’ is delusional
Posted on 9/30/24 at 5:31 pm to LSUnation78
Posted on 9/30/24 at 5:31 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
So your claim is that russia has more land now than two weeks in?
In a war of attrition casualties and equipment losses are all that matters. Ukraine is losing like 7-8 to 1 and Russia will end up with however much of Ukraine as they want. The area they control right now produced something like 75% of Ukraine's GDP before the war started (Blackrock hardest hit).
This post was edited on 9/30/24 at 5:32 pm
1
Posted on 9/30/24 at 5:44 pm to 94LSU
quote:
In a war of attrition casualties and equipment losses are all that matters. Ukraine is losing like 7-8 to 1 and Russia will end up with however much of Ukraine as they want. The area they control right now produced something like 75% of Ukraine's GDP before the war started (Blackrock hardest hit)
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 5:46 pm to djmed
Everything having to do with the defense of Europe is based on the US backstopping it. That is a fact. Their militaries largely suck and they would rather spend money on massive social programs. Why wouldn’t they? The US pays everyone’s bills.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 9:05 pm to doubleb
quote:
Russia had ample time to plan their special operation. They launched it in February of 2022. It has been two years and seven months since then. What is taking Russia so long? You say it’s not bad tactics. You say it’s not because Russian units are imploding. So why was Russia pushed back and why can’t the finish Ukraine off?
2.5 years isn’t very long in terms of military operations. Ukraine is being flooded with US military aid to keep their scam of a country going as corrupt political figures in America are trying to buy time to keep their honey pot operation over there running until they figure out their next move.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 9:07 pm to Lynxrufus2012
quote:
Nobody wins in this situation. Russia has lost more in blood and treasure than the area is worth
It’s worth not having a NATO military base on Russia’s border down the road. Which would have eventually happened if Russia didn’t invade.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 9:18 pm to TheWhiteRider
quote:
It’s worth not having a NATO military base on Russia’s border down the road.
NATO has bordered Russia's most vital strategic naval region since the day NATO was formed. NATO has bordered Russia's southern flank since the mid-fifties. NATO bordered the Warsaw pact for 70 years. NATO has bordered Russia proper in eastern Europe for twenty years, and has surrounded Kaliningrad for the same time frame. And now, Russia's 800 mile border with Finland. Russia's Baltic fleet lives in a NATO lake. Bordering NATO on a map is not the issue, and never has been.
Influence in regions that Russia considers culturally Russian is the issue. And there is some merit to that argument. The Rus originated in Ukraine and modern Belarus.
NATO is just a convenient excuse.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 10:37 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
NATO has bordered Russia's most vital strategic naval region since the day NATO was formed. NATO has bordered Russia's southern flank since the mid-fifties. NATO bordered the Warsaw pact for 70 years. NATO has bordered Russia proper in eastern Europe for twenty years, and has surrounded Kaliningrad for the same time frame. And now, Russia's 800 mile border with Finland. Russia's Baltic fleet lives in a NATO lake. Bordering NATO on a map is not the issue, and never has been. Influence in regions that Russia considers culturally Russian is the issue. And there is some merit to that argument. The Rus originated in Ukraine and modern Belarus. NATO is just a convenient excuse.
You’re flat out incorrect about this. Watch this short YouTube video.
LINK
Russia has been pretty cooperative with the expansion of NATO but has also openly stated their discouragement of pushing East and making Ukraine a NATO base FOR DECADES. The entire theme of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine being the beginning of Russian’s invasion into more of Western Europe is Western media bullshite fed to people bc Ukraine has been utilized as a funnel for money laundering and God knows what else for the last 3 decades by Western powers, namely the United States.
This post was edited on 9/30/24 at 10:46 pm
Posted on 9/30/24 at 10:38 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Bordering NATO on a map is not the issue, and never has been.
Didn't Putin specifically say that Ukraine as a NATO member was a problem in the past.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 10:51 pm to DMAN1968
quote:
Didn't Putin specifically say that Ukraine as a NATO member was a problem in the past.
He’s been voicing his discontent with them joining NATO for 2 decades.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 10:54 pm to doubleb
quote:
Really?
After 20 years the taliban runs Afghanistan.
And you kept harping about 2 years.
So yes really.
Oh and btw, we weren’t fighting the west.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 11:05 pm to Lynxrufus2012
quote:
Nobody wins in this situation. Russia has lost more in blood and treasure than the area is worth and can expect resistance for years. Ukraine is a wreck and a generation lost on the battlefield. Anyone talking about Ukraine winning is delusional. The best thing is peace and survival for both. Trump will bring that about and the war profiteers hate that.
“Peace” of some type will come eventually, whether in months, years, or decades. Regardless, Ukraine is trying to put themselves in as strong of a position as possible, which increases their chance at reaching an acceptable solution. Right now, that means they need to do whatever it takes to ensure continued support from the west.
Also, I think it’s relevant to note that Trump’s success on the international stage didn’t come from him appeasing bad actors - Trump was unpredictable, and as the commander of the largest and most powerful military in the world, made certain people behave, for lack of a better word. So while I agree that Trump may be able to find an acceptable solution the the conflict, I don’t think it definitely means that the US will completely cease supporting Ukraine. Only time will tell.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 11:21 pm to TheWhiteRider
quote:
You’re flat out incorrect about this.
What part, specifically? I'm not watching your YouTube video. speak for yourself.
quote:
has also openly stated their discouragement of pushing East and making Ukraine a NATO base FOR DECADES
For the exact reason that I stated. Russia considers Ukraine (and Belarus) inherently, culturally, and historically Russian.
quote:
The entire theme of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine being the beginning of Russian’s invasion into more of Western Europe is Western media bullshite
Completely agree and have never said otherwise. Its their faux-justification for doing so that I am saying is not the truth. They aren't scared of NATO bordering Russia. They want Ukraine to be Russia because they think it IS Russia. Again, that isn't a totally unreasonable historical position. But they aren't doing it because Moscow is scared of NATO.
Posted on 9/30/24 at 11:39 pm to djmed
I really am curious about just what is in Zelensky's "victory plan". Even at a high level.
He's been adamant that he'll sacrifice every single Ukrainian man and boy before he let's Russia keep a square inch of Ukrainian territory. I just don't see any way that is possible without NATO directly intervening.
He's been adamant that he'll sacrifice every single Ukrainian man and boy before he let's Russia keep a square inch of Ukrainian territory. I just don't see any way that is possible without NATO directly intervening.
Posted on 10/1/24 at 12:00 am to Indefatigable
quote:
What part, specifically? I'm not watching your YouTube video. speak for yourself.
Fine, don’t. It’s an 80 second video detailing the expansion of NATO with a timeline map. It’s just a time management thing rather than typing paragraphs about dozens of countries over decades of time that I’m not about to type out when a simple video exemplifies it.
Posted on 10/1/24 at 12:03 am to TigerFanatic99
quote:
I really am curious about just what is in Zelensky's "victory plan". Even at a high level. He's been adamant that he'll sacrifice every single Ukrainian man and boy before he let's Russia keep a square inch of Ukrainian territory. I just don't see any way that is possible without NATO directly intervening.
He doesn’t have one. They cannot beat Russia. It’s a money laundering scheme until they can figure out how to allocate foreign assets (mostly United States) out of the country before it’s taken.
Posted on 10/1/24 at 12:05 am to TheWhiteRider
quote:
It’s an 80 second video detailing the expansion of NATO with a timeline map. It’s just a time management thing rather than typing paragraphs about dozens of countries over decades of time that I’m not about to type out when a simple video exemplifies it.
I'm not an idiot, so I am already fully aware of the history of NATO expansion, and when and where it happened. I've already addressed every single stage of NATO expansion in my prior posts, along with an explanation for why Russia's concern with Ukraine is not NATO itself, but instead an internal belief that Ukraine should be a part of Russia. Moscow regrets turning them loose.
That concern would exist regardless of NATO's expansions---none of which have encroached on lands that Russia considers its own to this point. And that is without even getting into the fact that Ukrainian membership in NATO is laughable at best. They don't meet the requirements, and they absolutely would never get past the membership requirements (such as unanimous acceptance). NATO isn't the problem, or the reason.
This post was edited on 10/1/24 at 12:07 am
Posted on 10/1/24 at 12:08 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Completely agree and have never said otherwise. Its their faux-justification for doing so that I am saying is not the truth. They aren't scared of NATO bordering Russia. They want Ukraine to be Russia because they think it IS Russia. Again, that isn't a totally unreasonable historical position
I also agree. Where I disagree is I believe it’s a combo of the two. Russia doesn’t want NATO in Ukraine and also believes it has a right to Ukraine. I wouldn’t use the word “scared” of NATO in Ukraine, more like they’d rather not have NATO there. Your previous example of other neighboring countries in NATO isn’t quite the equivalent analogy you think it is in comparison to Ukraine for obvious reasons.
Posted on 10/1/24 at 12:14 am to TheWhiteRider
quote:
our previous example of other neighboring countries in NATO isn’t quite the equivalent analogy you think it is in comparison to Ukraine for obvious reasons.
The best part of it all is how stupidly Russia went about it. They have all but assured Ukrainian admission to the EU at this point, even if it is in the form of a rump state. It will include Kiev.
Russia will get its permanent Black Sea access, but it drove Sweden and Finland into NATO and irreparably destroyed any attachment it had to Ukraine and Europe generally west of the Dnieper. They'll win this war, but they won't have gained anything.
This post was edited on 10/1/24 at 12:14 am
Posted on 10/1/24 at 12:14 am to Indefatigable
quote:
And that is without even getting into the fact that Ukrainian membership in NATO is laughable at best. They don't meet the requirements, and they absolutely would never get past the membership requirements
You lost me here. It’s been well documented they’re on their way there.
LINK
They’ve been pushed into serious NATO talks since 2021. It’s easily researched and documented.
Posted on 10/1/24 at 12:17 am to TheWhiteRider
quote:
ou lost me here. It’s been well documented they’re on their way there.
No they aren't. They aren't even eligible for membership at the moment due to the conflict.
Hungary and Turkey had to be bribed to let Sweden---Sweden---into the alliance. You think they or any of the other Brussel-skeptic states in NATO are going to vote Ukraine in? Hell, that wouldn't even pass the US Congress.
quote:
It’s easily researched and documented.
Yes, I know that heads of state and foreign ministers have said things at press conferences. The reality of the 32 member nations separately extending an invitation to Ukraine is currently 0%, and everyone on earth knows that.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News