At what point the USA would accept peace?

At what point the USA should recognise their defeat and accept Russian peace offer?

  • The USA should accept Russian terms of peace before first nuke is launched

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • The USA should accept Russian terms of peace after Russian counter-force strike

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The USA should accept Russian terms of peace after counter-value strike

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The USA should not accept Russian terms of peace at all and fight until the last man.

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • The USA should attack Russia first, even if it means almost certain US annihilation

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Total voters
    7

Zavulon

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2024
2,056
459
178
Moscow
As we all know, at November 19, year of our Lord 2024, the USA attacked a target in Russia, and, de-facto started the war between the USA and Russia. It means that Russia, definetely, will soon attack an American base on American soil and then, situation will escalate until the USA accepted Russian peaceful proposals.

Right now, before Russia is forced to nuke American nuclear forces, effectively decreasing their retaliation capability, the terms are pretty generous:
------
1) The USA leave Ukraine and remove (or sell to local governments) all US military installations on the new (since 1997) NATO territories, withdraw their forces from Kosovo and demand from Baltic regimes to grant the equal rights for the local Russian-speakers.
2) Russia doesn't nuke USA.
------
If the USA chooses not to accept this generous offer, the situation will escalate to Russian counter-force strike against US nuclear forces. At this point, after effective degradation of US retaliation capability Russia will suggest other, more expensive peace terms:
----------
1) The USA don't retaliate.
2) The USA return to Russia Alaska and California.
3) The USA have no right to send their forces anywhere in the world or produce nukes without Russian permission.
4) The USA is still sovereign country and even keeps their place in SC UN.
5) Russia doesn't nuke US cities.
------
If the USA retaliate, then Russia, may be after a short humanitarian pause, will destroy US infrastructure (counter-value strike) and will demand unconditional surrender of the USA. If refused Russia will kill at least 90% of Americans and the territory will be occupied by international forces

Another option for the USA is to attack Russian nuclear forces first. Highly likely it means Russian retaliation and almost certain annihilation of the USA.
 
As we all know, at November 19, year of our Lord 2024, the USA attacked a target in Russia, and, de-facto started the war between the USA and Russia. It means that Russia, definetely, will soon attack an American base on American soil and then, situation will escalate until the USA accepted Russian peaceful proposals.

Right now, before Russia is forced to nuke American nuclear forces, effectively decreasing their retaliation capability, the terms are pretty generous:
------
1) The USA leave Ukraine and remove (or sell to local governments) all US military installations on the new (since 1997) NATO territories, withdraw their forces from Kosovo and demand from Baltic regimes to grant the equal rights for the local Russian-speakers.
2) Russia doesn't nuke USA.
------
If the USA chooses not to accept this generous offer, the situation will escalate to Russian counter-force strike against US nuclear forces. At this point, after effective degradation of US retaliation capability Russia will suggest other, more expensive peace terms:
----------
1) The USA don't retaliate.
2) The USA return to Russia Alaska and California.
3) The USA have no right to send their forces anywhere in the world or produce nukes without Russian permission.
4) The USA is still sovereign country and even keeps their place in SC UN.
5) Russia doesn't nuke US cities.
------
If the USA retaliate, then Russia, may be after a short humanitarian pause, will destroy US infrastructure (counter-value strike) and will demand unconditional surrender of the USA. If refused Russia will kill at least 90% of Americans and the territory will be occupied by international forces

Another option for the USA is to attack Russian nuclear forces first. Highly likely it means Russian retaliation and almost certain annihilation of the USA.


Nobody wins in a nuclear war. America loses Los Angeles and Washington, Russia loses Moscow and St.Petersburg. This would be at a minimum. This isn't a game of chess, these are millions of souls gone, the most offensive smack in the face to G-d and his creations.

Putin understands that Trump will be in office in two months. If he and Zelensky were wise they would call each other and agree to a ceasefire. If both sides decide to expand or try and gain leverage before the negotiations, it more than likely extends the war and ties Trumps hands as he would face heavy resistance to a peace deal.

Putin may think "hey I better get the best negotiating situation." All that will do is draw Europe into the fight if they believe their safety is threatened. The help from the Finnish reserve army alone could hold off Russia for another two years if needed.

I understand Russias position more now than in the past. The reality is, the world needs peace. Russia has many wealthy oligarchs, some who might demand he goes further, but others who have billions locked up. They just want to drink their famous vodka, chase women and gamble in fancy casinos while they float their yachts around the world.

If the West decides to fund the defense of Ukraine, a real possibility if Russia is determined to take all of Ukraine, well, how will the oligarchy respond domestically to their billions disappearing?

The correct path is a peaceful one. Anyone believing otherwise is playing, aptly enough, Russian Roulette.

We all bleed red. The common Russian, or the Chinese aren't my enemies. Those who are fixated and war and death just might be.
 
Right now, before Russia is forced to nuke American nuclear forces, effectively decreasing their retaliation capability, the terms are pretty generous:

Right now, Putin realizes he would not only lose a conventional war with the west, but a nuclear war.

He is praying that he can get out of the Ukraine debacle with his ass intact and be able to maintain captured territory without further retaliation from Ukraine.

I see no reason for Ukraine to accept that

They have poked the Bear and found him to not be that ferocious
 
Nobody wins in a nuclear war.
Its not true.

America loses Los Angeles and Washington, Russia loses Moscow and St.Petersburg.
Then Russia destroy ten more American cities and America, who can't retaliate, unconditionally surrender. Russia won, while the price of victory is high, but acceptable and more than compensated by trophies from pillaged European cities. And, likely, twenty years after, another colonel Skalozub will say about destroyed and rebuilt Moscow "The fire significantly improved Moscow".


This would be at a minimum. This isn't a game of chess, these are millions of souls gone, the most offensive smack in the face to G-d and his creations.
Thats what the term "war" means. Tens of millions were killed back in WWII, but it was the price, which was necessary to pay.

Putin understands that Trump will be in office in two months. If he and Zelensky were wise they would call each other and agree to a ceasefire.
No need. Russia doesn't need ceasefire. Russia needs denazification, demilitarisation and neutral status of Ukraine.


If both sides decide to expand or try and gain leverage before the negotiations, it more than likely extends the war and ties Trumps hands as he would face heavy resistance to a peace deal.
As I said in another thread - I don't believe in goodwill of the Western politicians. I believe in fear and deterrence.

Putin may think "hey I better get the best negotiating situation." All that will do is draw Europe into the fight if they believe their safety is threatened. The help from the Finnish reserve army alone could hold off Russia for another two years if needed.
No. Regional war is a nuclear war (by definition). And Finnish Army (as most of others) will be burnt down pretty quickly.

I understand Russias position more now than in the past. The reality is, the world needs peace.
F#ck the world. Russia needs safety. And safety means pushing NATO back to 1997 borders.


Russia has many wealthy oligarchs, some who might demand he goes further, but others who have billions locked up. They just want to drink their famous vodka, chase women and gamble in fancy casinos while they float their yachts around the world.
Its all becomes boring pretty soon. Actually its just a label of status. Moral satisfaction. But, there are ways to achieve much better satisfaction. Instead of "I bought a brand new yacht" you say "I equiped a whole battaion with brand new UAVs". What is yacht? Just a mere piece of aluminium. And equipped battalion is saved our lives and killed enemies. Besides it means gratitude from the governors and decision-makers. Its much more satisfactory than gambling in casinos.

If the West decides to fund the defense of Ukraine, a real possibility if Russia is determined to take all of Ukraine, well, how will the oligarchy respond domestically to their billions disappearing?
Why dissapering? New lands means new billions. And if you keep all your money in western banks and trust them - ok, your foolishness deserved to be punished.

The correct path is a peaceful one. Anyone believing otherwise is playing, aptly enough, Russian Roulette.
Peace is a good thing, but it comes with a price. So, sometimes war is just "lesser evil".
We all bleed red. The common Russian, or the Chinese aren't my enemies. Those who are fixated and war and death just might be.
And those common Ukrainian Banderovci, who burnt alive dozens of unarmed Russian protesters who just wanted to speak freely their language (google Odessa massacre) are they your friends or enemies?
 
Right now, Putin realizes he would not only lose a conventional war with the west, but a nuclear war.

He is praying that he can get out of the Ukraine debacle with his ass intact and be able to maintain captured territory without further retaliation from Ukraine.

I see no reason for Ukraine to accept that

They have poked the Bear and found him to not be that ferocious
Does it mean the choice 2) - America should wait until Russian counter-force strike, and then, when whey found that Russian bear is exactly that ferocious accept Russian peace offer and lost Alaska and California or the choice 3) If Russian bear attacked only military targets he is not "that ferocious" and the USA should wait until counter-value strike and then unconditionally surrender?
 
Its not true.


Then Russia destroy ten more American cities and America, who can't retaliate, unconditionally surrender. Russia won, while the price of victory is high, but acceptable and more than compensated by trophies from pillaged European cities. And, likely, twenty years after, another colonel Skalozub will say about destroyed and rebuilt Moscow "The fire significantly improved Moscow".



Thats what the term "war" means. Tens of millions were killed back in WWII, but it was the price, which was necessary to pay.


No need. Russia doesn't need ceasefire. Russia needs denazification, demilitarisation and neutral status of Ukraine.



As I said in another thread - I don't believe in goodwill of the Western politicians. I believe in fear and deterrence.


No. Regional war is a nuclear war (by definition). And Finnish Army (as most of others) will be burnt down pretty quickly.


F#ck the world. Russia needs safety. And safety means pushing NATO back to 1997 borders.



Its all becomes boring pretty soon. Actually its just a label of status. Moral satisfaction. But, there are ways to achieve much better satisfaction. Instead of "I bought a brand new yacht" you say "I equiped a whole battaion with brand new UAVs". What is yacht? Just a mere piece of aluminium. And equipped battalion is saved our lives and killed enemies. Besides it means gratitude from the governors and decision-makers. Its much more satisfactory than gambling in casinos.


Why dissapering? New lands means new billions. And if you keep all your money in western banks and trust them - ok, your foolishness deserved to be punished.


Peace is a good thing, but it comes with a price. So, sometimes war is just "lesser evil".

And those common Ukrainian Banderovci, who burnt alive dozens of unarmed Russian protesters who just wanted to speak freely their language (google Odessa massacre) are they your friends or enemies?
You think the U.S with all of it's allies in close proximity to Russia is just going to stop with two cities?

All around the world America has bases and G-d knows what at their disposal. Russia would be isolated without a friend in the world. Not even China or N Korea would be willing to risk their civilizations for Russia, that's the fact.

So speak about war as if it's a video game. Hopefully the more sane and logical Russians will prevail.

Trump is the best ally Russia could hope to find at this point. Putin I'm sure is smart enough to take the offramp and the world can hopefully return to a time of peace.
 
You think the U.S with all of it's allies in close proximity to Russia is just going to stop with two cities?
I don't know when exactly the USA and their "allies" will be stopped. May be, they prefer to fight until the very last man, woman and transgender. May be, they will accept defeat even before first nuke fall.
That's why I started the poll.

All around the world America has bases and G-d knows what at their disposal. Russia would be isolated without a friend in the world. Not even China or N Korea would be willing to risk their civilizations for Russia, that's the fact.

So speak about war as if it's a video game. Hopefully the more sane and logical Russians will prevail.

Trump is the best ally Russia could hope to find at this point. Putin I'm sure is smart enough to take the offramp and the world can hopefully return to a time of peace.
I don't care about personalities. What I care about is deterrence.
 
It means "never".

Does it mean choice "3" - the fight until last American man, woman and transgender?

What it means is Russia has no path to victory as long as NATO supports Ukraine

Putin started a war and quickly figured out how weak his Russian Army really was.

He is now begging N Korea to save him
 
As we all know, at November 19, year of our Lord 2024, the USA attacked a target in Russia, and, de-facto started the war between the USA and Russia. It means that Russia, definetely, will soon attack an American base on American soil and then, situation will escalate until the USA accepted Russian peaceful proposals.

Right now, before Russia is forced to nuke American nuclear forces, effectively decreasing their retaliation capability, the terms are pretty generous:
------
1) The USA leave Ukraine and remove (or sell to local governments) all US military installations on the new (since 1997) NATO territories, withdraw their forces from Kosovo and demand from Baltic regimes to grant the equal rights for the local Russian-speakers.
2) Russia doesn't nuke USA.
------
If the USA chooses not to accept this generous offer, the situation will escalate to Russian counter-force strike against US nuclear forces. At this point, after effective degradation of US retaliation capability Russia will suggest other, more expensive peace terms:
----------
1) The USA don't retaliate.
2) The USA return to Russia Alaska and California.
3) The USA have no right to send their forces anywhere in the world or produce nukes without Russian permission.
4) The USA is still sovereign country and even keeps their place in SC UN.
5) Russia doesn't nuke US cities.
------
If the USA retaliate, then Russia, may be after a short humanitarian pause, will destroy US infrastructure (counter-value strike) and will demand unconditional surrender of the USA. If refused Russia will kill at least 90% of Americans and the territory will be occupied by international forces

Another option for the USA is to attack Russian nuclear forces first. Highly likely it means Russian retaliation and almost certain annihilation of the USA.
I see yer bias. Bullets from the US have been sent to Ukraine fer years and yet you think that a missile is needed to start a war that has already started?
 

Forum List

Back
Top