Jump to content
nevermind, neoliberalism has had it

Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

Recommended Posts

Just now, Baracouda said:

The word 'deal', is key... I don't believe Russia will ever agree to a complete withdrawal without something for it. 

Which is precisely why Ukraine is being forced to resist their illegal invasion, and its allies are absolutely right to provide them with what they need to make that resistance successful. Sadly as it stands, Russian will need to be forced to retreat from Ukraine just as the Mujahedeen forced them to retreat from Afghanistan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, horsefly said:

Which is precisely why Ukraine is being forced to resist their illegal invasion, and its allies are absolutely right to provide them with what they need to make that resistance successful. Sadly as it stands, Russian will need to be forced to retreat from Ukraine just as the Mujahedeen forced them to retreat from Afghanistan. 

and to do that, you will need to send Nato troops. Russia is slowly pushing forward, very slowly but still its moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

and to do that, you will need to send Nato troops. Russia is slowly pushing forward, very slowly but still its moving forward.

You think that amounts to accurate military analysis do you? I suggest you have a look at the work of actual military strategists who know what they are talking about (people like prof. Michael Clarke).

Btw, NATO is an acronym, it's not "Nato".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Baracouda said:

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. 

Russia shouldn't even be in Crimea in the first place. Russia shouldn't be annexing part of the Donbas in the second place as both are Ukrainian territory. The fact that Russia annexed Crimea with relatively little interference (or go back and see South Ossetia / Abkhazia) emboldened Putin to try the same copybook on a larger scale, using a nuclear threat as the ultimate buttress.

Invasion of another sovereign state for no reason whatsoever should not be rewarded by gaining some of that state's terrain anyway.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Russia feels its justified. But I am not Russia or Russian. You understand the difference. 

 

Your use of Russia's "feeling" it is justified in its invasion of Ukraine, coupled with your insistence that Ukraine should give up territory that the Russian's "feel" it should take as of right,  de facto amounts to support for Russia's cause. Otherwise you would have to claim that Russia is wrong to feel it was justified in invading Ukraine, but nonetheless Ukraine should give them its sovereign territory. A somewhat absurd position.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Your use of Russia's "feeling" it is justified in its invasion of Ukraine, coupled with your insistence that Ukraine should give up territory that the Russian's feel it should take as right,  de facto amounts to support for Russia's cause.

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.

Edited by Baracouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

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.

Agree with the last line, and it shows how ridiculous the Putin position is. Accepting it would be appeasing a dictator. Which is not on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Russia shouldn't even be in Crimea in the first place. Russia shouldn't be annexing part of the Donbas in the second place as both are Ukrainian territory. The fact that Russia annexed Crimea with relatively little interference (or go back and see South Ossetia / Abkhazia) emboldened Putin to try the same copybook on a larger scale, using a nuclear threat as the ultimate buttress.

Invasion of another sovereign state for no reason whatsoever should not be rewarded by gaining some of that state's terrain anyway.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Russia wont give up land without something in return and Ukraine wont give it land. So, there is no option of peace. 

I give up trying to make you see sense. Russia is NOT being asked to "give up land". There is no possible interpretation of international law where a country can be asked to give up land that is not its own sovereign territory. Russia has INVADED another country's land and is required to vacate that land for control and use by its rightful owner. If Russia refuses to do that then the Ukraine has every right to do what it can (within the law) to drive them off their sovereign territory. There is absolutely no legal or moral requirement for the Ukraine to give up any part of its sovereign territory to achieve peace. There is every legal and moral requirement for Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian land. 

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

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. 

Gosh! thanks! None of us were aware of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agree with the last line, and it shows how ridiculous the Putin position is. Accepting it would be appeasing a dictator. Which is not on.

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. 

Edited by Baracouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

The whole point of me originally posting, was to clearly show just how dangerous the situation is. 

Really! Thanks again for that insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

The situation with Nato effectively, being at war with Russia.

It isn't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

If any troops were to actively take part in a military exercise it becomes a real war. 

It is a real war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

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. 

Operative word here is "was". Not now.

There's a whole swathe of Black Sea coast that's Russian, they could build one there.

9 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

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. 

 Russian (or perhaps more accurately, Putin's) views are illegal as they involve the illegal invasion of sovereign territory. Allowing Ukraine to simply get beat without support is leaving it to be martyred. Giving Putin any Ukrainian ground merely emboldens him.

We know how dangerous the situation is. And it's dangerous only due to the actions of a spastic Russian dictator. Everything else you see is simply a justified defensive reaction to it.

Edited by TheGunnShow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/06/2022 at 05:31, horsefly said:

Yep! You're an idiot; a Craig Murray mint sucked and spat out by Putin. Ukraine was nowhere near acceptance into NATO, just as it was nowhere near acceptance into the EU (At least Putin has helped them out in that latter case). Strange how the Na*zi West encouraged Ukraine to give up its (3rd largest in the world) nuclear weaponry in exchange for legally binding guarantees that Russia would not invade its sovereign territory. Obviously a clear indication that they, "have worked for too long to get at Russia by violent means". Idiot!

thanks, your eloquence speaks for itself, you ignorant ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sheva said:

https://news.sky.com/story/the-disappearing-ships-russias-great-grain-plunder-12639463
 

Russian invaders are stealing Ukrainian grain, again.

Last years harvest is rotting in warehouses with a new harvest on the way. Why do Ukrainian Comedians not like NATO to remove the mines off Odessa's coast so they can export, make money for the economy and space for the new harvest. Ukraine and Russia both supply roughly 30% of the world wheat, so why would they be stealing it, they got enough themselves. Any real evidence, pictures, videos? or is it just the usual war **** journalists from Sky/BBC/etc. spit out daily, regurgitated here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they're in the middle of a ****ing war and their main port would be a sitting duck to Putin's Na-zi scum attacks if it weren't. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Last years harvest is rotting in warehouses with a new harvest on the way. Why do Ukrainian Comedians not like NATO to remove the mines off Odessa's coast so they can export, make money for the economy and space for the new harvest. Ukraine and Russia both supply roughly 30% of the world wheat, so why would they be stealing it, they got enough themselves. Any real evidence, pictures, videos? or is it just the usual war **** journalists from Sky/BBC/etc. spit out daily, regurgitated here?

Jesus! Are you really that naïve? NATO ships sailing up to the Odessa coastline removing mines would be described by Putin as combatants. If NATO ships removing mines were to come under attack by Russian forces they would have to respond; I thought you were supposed to be the one desperately concerned to de-escalate the crisis, not provoke a massive escalation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Last years harvest is rotting in warehouses with a new harvest on the way. Why do Ukrainian Comedians not like NATO to remove the mines off Odessa's coast so they can export, make money for the economy and space for the new harvest. Ukraine and Russia both supply roughly 30% of the world wheat, so why would they be stealing it, they got enough themselves. Any real evidence, pictures, videos? or is it just the usual war **** journalists from Sky/BBC/etc. spit out daily, regurgitated here?

How naive can you possibly be in one post?

Staggering.

Here's a thought, why don't you apply your "logic" for Russia not needing to steal Ukrainian grain to Russia, the world largest country, not needing to annex Ukrainian territory?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2022 at 12:20, Baracouda said:

If any troops were to actively take part in a military exercise it becomes a real war. 

With all due respect, if your aim here was to join the thread to provide the most infantile analysis of the situation and then act as if it was some kind of profoundly significant insight that the rest of us ingrates hadn't yet grasped, then you succeeded.

It's like the Ladybird My First Book On Russian Fascism

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be the stupidest reply to a post yet,…either you don’t bother to look and read, are fully stupid or just here to try and cause trouble?

 

 

Edited by Sheva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Herman said:

But NATO is encroaching on Russia.  😭😂

 

Oophs, that is a real kick to Putin's nuts - I imagine he was pretty sure that Turkey wouldn't agree, certainly not immediately anyway.

Maybe Putin is going senile - for someone who, whatever we think of him, has played a pretty poor hand spectacularly well for most of his time in power, he has really screwed up big time with his Ukrainian war.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Oophs, that is a real kick to Putin's nuts - I imagine he was pretty sure that Turkey wouldn't agree, certainly not immediately anyway.

Maybe Putin is going senile - for someone who, whatever we think of him, has played a pretty poor hand spectacularly well for most of his time in power, he has really screwed up big time with his Ukrainian war.

Turkey was always going to agree, if Sweden and Finland agreed to what he wanted.

Sweden and Finland have agreed to full cooperation with Turkey in the fight against the Kurdistan Workers' Party and the lifting of the embargo on the supply of Turkish defence industry products. 

The Nordic states also confirmed that the PKK is "a proscribed terrorist organisation".

 

Edited by Baracouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Oophs, that is a real kick to Putin's nuts - I imagine he was pretty sure that Turkey wouldn't agree, certainly not immediately anyway.

Maybe Putin is going senile - for someone who, whatever we think of him, has played a pretty poor hand spectacularly well for most of his time in power, he has really screwed up big time with his Ukrainian war.

I still think this was all planned out for after a Trump win. Then assumed the west was still weak enough anyway and went for it. Nevermind.😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2022 at 12:18, horsefly said:

I give up trying to make you see sense. Russia is NOT being asked to "give up land". There is no possible interpretation of international law where a country can be asked to give up land that is not its own sovereign territory. Russia has INVADED another country's land and is required to vacate that land for control and use by its rightful owner. If Russia refuses to do that then the Ukraine has every right to do what it can (within the law) to drive them off their sovereign territory. There is absolutely no legal or moral requirement for the Ukraine to give up any part of its sovereign territory to achieve peace. There is every legal and moral requirement for Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian land. 

I hope that you supported Thatcher re-taking of the Falkand Islands given the statements you make here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...