- 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: Why is Trump playing hardball with Z but not Putin?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:09 am to crazy4lsu
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:09 am to crazy4lsu
quote:That "brief period" was a decade.
The brief period where we could have been allies
quote:Atlanticists call it strategic duplicity. "NATO won't move one inch eastward, Mr. Gorbachev" .... but, but, but that assurance was given to the USSR, not Russia. So yeah, we promised, but it doesn't count.
what they call 'Atlanticism.'
quote:
Why we have to pretend that they have no agency in choosing their own path is curious.
Of course they have agency. It's why Putin suggested Russia joining NATO. How did that agency work out?
1
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That "brief period" was a decade.
In geopolitical terms, that is almost nothing. During that time period, the US and Russia were constantly in negotiation, and the items that concerned the Russians, such as the ABM treaty and those negotiations ultimately went against Russian interest in every respect. They've been adversarial to 'Atlantic' interests for twice as long as there was potential for friendship and have been hostile since the date I mentioned.
quote:
Atlanticists call it strategic duplicity. "NATO won't move one inch eastward, Mr. Gorbachev" .... but, but, but that assurance was given to the USSR, not Russia. So yeah, we promised, but it doesn't count.
Atlanticists are no more or less duplicitous than anyone else in international relations. The US has given lots of assurances that we've ultimately reneged. That's the way geopolitics works.
quote:
Of course they have agency. It's why Putin suggested Russia joining NATO. How did that agency work out?
They had the same chance as every other nation in the Visegrad Group for example. Those member nations met all the requirements for ascension, which ultimately took 16 years from the first meeting in 1988 to ascension. I don't think it would have been possible for Russia to meet those requirements.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:30 am to joshnorris14
Trump believes that it is better to deal with the strong rather than help the weak in international affairs. It's a transactional mindset. There is very little upside to US interests really by supplying Ukraine other than mineral deposits that are supposedly in Eastern and Central Ukraine. Ukraine does not have nukes, nor does it have a population that can withstand a continuous onslaught if Russia all of a sudden becomes competent on the battlefield. Trump figures that sacrificing 20-25% of Ukraine.....if not more is an acceptable price to pay for peace. He believes that Putin would live up to a deal on paper because he believes that Putin wants minerals and access to the Western markets and western investment and that promise alone is enough to keep him behaving.
Of course right now, we've given him a winning hand in this poker game. We've asked nothing from him, no guarantees on action from their end. In fact we've allowed him to tell us what he won't allow. Meanwhile we think that having a few mining engineers and technicians in place will be enough of a carrot to slow Putin's roll.
Of course right now, we've given him a winning hand in this poker game. We've asked nothing from him, no guarantees on action from their end. In fact we've allowed him to tell us what he won't allow. Meanwhile we think that having a few mining engineers and technicians in place will be enough of a carrot to slow Putin's roll.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:32 am to TackySweater
Because zeinsky has lost. He has no leverage.
It’s really as simple as that. We are down to trying to limit how much and how badly zelensky loses.
It’s really as simple as that. We are down to trying to limit how much and how badly zelensky loses.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:36 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Good Lord
They had the same chance as every other nation in the Visegrad Group
What "chance did every other nation in the Visegrad Group have" of possessing half of the world's nuclear weapons, or the having capacity to incinerate entire nations at the push of a button?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:40 am to ole man
Why wouldn't he screw with Trump?
If he broke a deal, what's the downside for him at this juncture.
What threat would we put on the table to ensure even minimal compliance?
If he broke a deal, what's the downside for him at this juncture.
What threat would we put on the table to ensure even minimal compliance?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:41 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What "chance did every other nation in the Visegrad Group have" of possessing half of the world's nuclear weapons, or the having capacity to incinerate entire nations at the push of a button?
What requirements do you think I am referring to? What should have been sacrificed for Russia in particular? List them out for me.
The argument that concessions be made for Russia that undermine the point of either an internal market or a defensive alliance because they have nuclear weapons is an argument for mass nuclear proliferation. That's where this is going to end up, ultimately, as apparently we have to give in to the threat of Russia using nuclear weapons offensively, which is the exact reason the US was reticent to negotiate the ABM treaty, i.e. nuclear blackmail.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:41 am to TackySweater
quote:accurate context
What am I missing?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:43 am to KiwiHead
quote:You mean if Russian forces directly, deliberately attacked Americans and American owned assets? Is that what you're asking? Because it sounds like that's what you're asking.
If he broke a deal
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:07 am to crazy4lsu
quote:We both know what requirements you're referring to. The problem is the person referring to them, just a few posts earlier, was excusing malleability of truth as normal international interplay. Now you're attempting to argue that NATO, which had already duplicitously expanded, had no flexibility to alter requirements in Russia's case? Are you serious?
What requirements do you think I am referring to?
All at the same time many of the same players were bending over backwards to grant Communist China MFNTS?
That's your actual belief?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:07 am to TackySweater
Here’s your attention ;ussy. I know this will be hard but I’ll try
Im kicking your arse. You keep getting your friends to pay for you to get your arse beat by me. I dont need help to finish the job. Your biggest friend tells you to make peace with me because it’s never going to get better if you dont. You cry and ask why your friend is siding with me.
Im kicking your arse. You keep getting your friends to pay for you to get your arse beat by me. I dont need help to finish the job. Your biggest friend tells you to make peace with me because it’s never going to get better if you dont. You cry and ask why your friend is siding with me.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:08 am to TackySweater
quote:
He’s basically
Telling the truth.
/ thread
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:11 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Now you're attempting to argue that NATO, which had already duplicitously expanded, had no flexibility to alter requirements in Russia's case
Do you know why they weren't altered for other Eastern European countries? Because at the time the requirements were put forth, it was thought to be far too much for those nations to actually meet those requirements. There was a built-in excuse for the wing of NATO who cautioned against expansion.
Again, what requirements should have been altered for Russia? Apparently, you believe that Russia should always get its way because they can burn the world. That's not the argument you seem to think it is, but it seems to gain purchase with groups who can't see the forest for the trees.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:14 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
nuclear blackmail.
Reality is, well, reality.
Stick to studying viruses and what not. That’s your area of expertise. Geopolitics, not so much.
We should exit NATO and let Europe figure out who gets to rule over the ashes.
Given how far left Europe has swung, them going full on authoritarian is the least shocking thing ever.
Goose-steppers are going to goose-step. It’s what the left does.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:18 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Reality is, well, reality.
There is a reality with regard to Russia and their behavior has shown they see us as an antagonist. And given that nuclear blackmail seems to work so well, the US was completely right on not reworking the ABM treaty and ultimately leaving it in 2002.
quote:
Stick to studying viruses and what not. That’s your area of expertise. Geopolitics, not so much.
I've written far more about geopolitics on this board than I have about medicine.
quote:
We should exit NATO and let Europe figure out who gets to rule over the ashes.
Nah.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:20 am to TackySweater
holy shite you're stupid
I was your-level of stupid when I was 9
I was your-level of stupid when I was 9
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:20 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
I've written far more about geopolitics on this board than I have about medicine.
Probably for the best cause your medical advice is terrible
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:21 am to SDVTiger
Nah, it's pretty great.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:23 am to NC_Tigah
I'm asking that and if Putin decided that all of Ukraine East of the Dneister should be Russia as well. What in the deal is there to stop them? I mean, we are already showing that we are candyasses because " oh my Gawd he has nukes.....better not upset him"
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:24 am to TackySweater
Have we been fleeced to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars (with no end in sight) by Putin? Think, man! Think! 
Page 8 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News