Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Baracouda

  1. My understanding of the ruling was, it is not a ban on abortions but moreover a legal clamity. The supreme court ruled that it was not within the constitution. Therefore, it cant be ruled at the federal level and must be enforced at the state level.
  2. The whole point of me originally posting, was to clearly show just how dangerous the situation is. Whether people can see Russia's views or not. The situation with Nato effectively, being at war with Russia. In real terms, we are supplying arms, equipment, training to Ukraine to defeat Russia. Which makes it a 'proxy' war. If any troops were to actively take part in a military exercise it becomes a real war. But the mere fact, that we are in a proxy war with Russia. Russia is in a position that it wont back down and can't lose (its view point) and a Russian victory would be a defeat for Nato (i.e we failed to stop Russia). The risks are very high, if this war goes on for months and possibly years. Which is the likely impact of our weapons and equipment its going to extend the war if not create a stalemate. With no possible peace deal on the table or any conceivable circumstances where peace can be agreed. Then one side needs to win and one lose. The risk of drawing America, UK or Polish troops into the battle are significantly possible at a later stage. The risks of nuclear war grows each day.
  3. from a political view point Crimea makes perfect sense. It was the southern fleet of Russia... So whether it should have it or not. Russia was unwilling to accept not having a home for its southern fleet. Now, thats not me saying they were right. That is me commenting that was Russia strategic goal.
  4. no, I said that is the only terms that I can see a peace deal to happen. Again, I said I don't believe any peace deal will happen. Russia wont give up land without something in return and Ukraine wont give it land. So, there is no option of peace. I am not insisting anything should happen. But I am stating that is the only terms Russia will accept at this stage.
  5. and to do that, you will need to send Nato troops. Russia is slowly pushing forward, very slowly but still its moving forward.
  6. Russia feels its justified. But I am not Russia or Russian. You understand the difference.
  7. The word 'deal', is key... I don't believe Russia will ever agree to a complete withdrawal without something for it.
  8. I have and all the times you try twisting my view point. Making insults, claiming I am pro-putin. I try to say this is the view of Russia, this is the Ukraine position and this is Nato/America. Those obvious conflicts on their position wouldn't has no peaceful outcome. You obviously thinks this is a personal battle and one of us is right and the other is wrong.
  9. as i said before, I said I dont believe a peace deal is possible and any outcome leads to peace. That the war will be drawn outcome. Please don't think my personal opinion on what is happening or the reasons for it. Is me agreeing that something should happen or not. I am merely trying to look at all parties their views and try to understand sequences of events.
  10. I didn't say it was wrong, just leads to the obvious meat grinder and complete destruction of those areas.
  11. Makes perfect sense...Russia has terms it will accept, can claim victory and go home. Ukraine has no interest in entertaining those terms. If 'peace' deal for Ukraine means a complete withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine territory. Then it's not a peace deal, it's complete victory.
  12. That's true, but were they attempting a regime change or trying to force Kiev into accepting terms. And winning in a few days. I think they didn't expect the resolve of Kiev and thought, send a large army convoy to 'threaten' Kiev. I only think that as those convoys around Kiev, appear have significant logistics issues and/or underserved to ever be a significant military threat. Which indicates that it was either incompetence or it was never intended to be a military exercise. One can only guess as to their true motives in this regard. Yes they are overestimated, but much easier to control with puppets than the western regions that border Poland. Yes, the unfortunate situation. The more weapons we send Ukraine. The more it will be turned into a meat grinder. I believe the Russians were serious early on/before the war with the peace efforts, when it offered if Ukraine agrees to Minsk agreement, becoming a neutral state and demilitarises that a peaceful settlement could have been achieved. I haven't heard of any serious attempts by either side to entertain peace since those meetings.
  13. Thanks for acknowledging my view point... and i didn't say a Russia victory leads to peace. I just said a Russia defeat doesn't lead to peace. To be fair, I think I said I didn't see any peaceful outcome. Horsefly seems to think it is a so simple and that Russia can go home and there wont be any politically fallout. Putin and his allies will have to leave not just him. Everyone will be happy to do that. That Putin/his generals wont up the ante before that happens. At this stage, peace is unlikely on any outcome. Lets be honest, a peace deal isn't likely anytime soon. At this stage Ukraine/Nato have no desires where as I would suspect the Russians would love to have peace deal if it was on their terms. Therefore, I don't see any end to this conflict and it will last months and months, if not years and years. Who really knows what their overall goals are, I don't believe their ambitions are outside of the east. If they were planning on taking a country the largest in Europe, and with a population of 40m. They are not going to achieve it with 190k troops. You would need a substantially larger force than this. A proxy state like Belarus is unlikely, the west of ukraine would be hard to control. The east is significantly made up of ethnic Russians and alot easier to control. I don't believe they could achieve this in the west.
  14. That is not victory ffs stop twisting words... a peaceful comprise will lead to peace. And allow Russia to back down. Completely destroying them, will leave the Kremlin politician unsustainable and the country humiliated on the world stage. Again, I didn't say that Russia prevailing will lead to peace, Not sure that Nato will not intervene if Russia is going to prevail. Although, it depends on what you consider Russia prevailing is... the two region in the east and Russia will announce it has been successful.
  15. How much will you bet on total defeat of Russia, its economy destroyed. That Russia will not turn to nuclear weapons. You clearly must trust their restraint highly.
  16. Article5, is all out war. It doesn't mean we can't send 'volunteers' to be actively engaged in conflict.
  17. Ok, you really do eat up all the media talking points and are really just a waste of time in trying to have a decent conversation.You like to twist and manipulate answers to your own agenda. Where did I state, a Russia victory. I didn't. I made it very clear that a full Ukraine victory, removing Russia from all parts of Ukraine including Crimea, will be totally unacceptable to Russia and it will likely to nuclear war.
  18. Nato doesn't need article 5 to have Nato troops stationed in Ukraine. And we clearly have UK and US troops in Ukraine but they are training the Ukraine's so thats ok then... they are never going to be actively involved in military activities. How many times has this government lied to us on other matters, but just trust them we are only training soldiers.
  19. I don't think peace would ever be achieved by Ukraine prevailing, at which point they join Nato fully and Russia uses nukes. I believe, in the interest of peace we should have taken Russia concerns very seriously prior to arming and training Ukraine from 2014 to 2022. As well as doing join military exercises with them. It is not hard to see why Russia considered its relationship as a 'de-facto' member of Nato. It is not just Russian incompetence why Ukraine is doing so well, Ukraine has been trained and supplied by Nato.
  20. and you are sure we are not? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sas-troops-are-training-local-forces-in-ukraine-32vs5bjzb So, we have the SAS in Ukraine but they are only training. What is training standing next to someone and telling them to press fire? We publicly stated that 'volunteers' could go to Ukraine and fight. But what happens if a whole army regiment volunteers?
  21. Obviously you are unable to acknowledge different view points... But you are a de-facto member of Nato, when Nato is training troops and you are supplying military equipment. It is a military alliance, the only other requirement to be part of the alliance is signing papers and getting article 5.
  22. I think it was a clear strategic decision. Get a deal signed, have clauses that the could argue at a later date to then change the deal. I thought there would have been a large amount of manufacturing moving to NI to make use of being in the single market and getting the best of both worlds. It's probably the best NI has ever had it within the Union, lets be honest NI for a significant period of time has been underserved by Westminster. Was always going to happen and eventually UK/EU will pass a rule that conflicts with one another and at which point NI I assume would have to have a different law to the rest of the UK to maintain membership of the single market. Thus, becoming a defacto independent state. Not sure whether Ireland will reunify, or whether it will become independent but I fully expect it to leave the UK timescales impossible to tell and become a full member of the EU.
  23. Its not rocket science but deterrence only works when doing nothing has an advantage. I share his view points on the current conflict. That Nato and America have a large part to play in the conflict. You don't believe Ukraine was joining Nato, I believe that Ukraine was already a de-facto member of Nato. You had the deals signed by Britain about defence partnerships with Ukraine in 2020, 2021. You have nato arms deals with Ukraine in Nov 2021. https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-arms-sales-ukraine-spark-starts-war-russia How accurate that headline was. More over, it is probably the single biggest foreign policy mistake of the Americans (or you could argue creating the economy in china). Russia I have never considered to be a serious threat to Europe and certainly not America. To be a serious threat, you a) need a substantial economy to fund, develop and maintain a military b) you actually need to have a substantial military. Russia has neither. I believe Russia feels it has no choice (although I do acknowledge that Putin did declare war and he and his generals are responsible for the events within Ukraine). Whether we agree or disagree on that point, think we can both agree the events have now happened, and will continue to escalate. Russia will do everything and anything to be victorious. Nato has positioned itself on doing anything and everything on ensuring Ukraine prevails. China is the only country that is/will be superior to the Americans. Larger population, better manufacturing capabilities (at least in volume) and a larger economy. Huge countries like India/Pakistan on its borders and the largest energy supplier to the north. China is extensively building up trade with Russia, to ensure that Western Sanctions fail. I largely suspect that once the Oil & Gas deals with India, Pakistan and the increase in trade with China is completed, Russia will turn off supplies to Europe as response to sanctions. If we think inflation is bad now... I very much doubt this has a happy ending for the west.
  24. I suggest you watch some people who aren't the bbc and sky. But expects in the field.
  • Create New...