At what point the USA would accept peace?

[Moonglow]

Carry on Russia .
America does not know what winning is any more .

Dismantle the illegal US bases in Syria and the US will not know what to do --
Left or right?
Up or down?
Syria or Lebanon ?
Syria or Odessa?

If only the Ruskies had the balls.

 

[Moonglow]

NATO is a DEFENSIVE organization. Don't try to take another's national territory and you don't have to worry about being nuked back to the Stone Age.

The Ruskies should be happy with what they have and stop attacking nations.

 

[Zavulon]

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

Of course Russia has a path to victory. If NATO really supports Ukraine - this path lay through elimination of NATO.

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

It was not Russia, who started the war. It was USA.

He is now begging N Korea to save him

Does it mean, that North Korea, who support Russia is stronger that the whole NATO, supporting Ukraine?

 

[Zavulon]

If only the Ruskies had the balls.

Yes, they have.

 

[Moonglow]

Yes, they have.

The evidence clearly points to a neutered status.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course Russia has a path to victory. If NATO really supports Ukraine - this path lay through elimination of NATO.

You do realize NATO has ten times the military strength of Russia?

 

[Zavulon]

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?

You see... There is the difference between Russian missiles, shooting down American planes in the sky of Vietnam, and Russian missiles destroying American bases on American soil. First is a "proxy" (peripheral) war. Latter is a "direct" (central) war.

 

[Zavulon]

You do realize NATO has ten times the military strength of Russia?

No. NATO (even with the USA) are weaklings. Most of NATO countries doesn't even have nukes.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

No. NATO (even with the USA) are weaklings. Most of NATO countries doesn't even have nukes.

Good luck with that

Russia's Strategic Nuclear Weapons are Complete Duds

The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction remains a prominent part of America’s nuclear deterrence strategy for the Soviet Union’s successor, the Russian government.

nationalinterest.org

 

[Zavulon]

Good luck with that

Russia's Strategic Nuclear Weapons are Complete Duds

The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction remains a prominent part of America’s nuclear deterrence strategy for the Soviet Union’s successor, the Russian government.

nationalinterest.org

The doctrone of MAD became obsolete in 1960s. And even then it was more a wishful thinking rather the actual strategy. If Russia strike first and if the Russian strike is precise (as it was demonstrated with Oreshnik strike) USA lost all their silos, all bombers and more than half of SSBNs. Few survived SSBNs won't be able to cause "unacceptable damage" to well-prepared Russia. Therefore, after Russian counter-force strike you either accept Russian peaceful proposals (and lost only Alaska and California) or retaliate, kill, may be one million of Russians, but then, after their counter-value strike you'll be forced into unconditional surrender or virtually total annihilation.

 

[rightwinger]

No. NATO (even with the USA) are weaklings. Most of NATO countries doesn't even have nukes.

Now you are acting Goofy

 

[Zavulon]

Now you are acting Goofy

Yeah. We are acting. But it might be useful to find the common understanding on the beach - like, do you really wanna to stake Alaska and California against Crimea and Novorussia? And should we give you a "humanitarian pause" (and will few days be enough?) after the first counter-force strike to evacuate and shelter your population and think about our peaceful proposals?

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah. We are acting. But it might be useful to find the common understanding on the beach - like, do you really wanna to stake Alaska and California against Crimea and Novorussia? And should we give you a "humanitarian pause" (and will few days be enough?) after the first counter-force strike to evacuate and shelter your population and think about our peaceful proposals?

I understand your desire to spread propaganda on behalf of your country.
But you missed that bus years ago.

We may have feared the Russian military three years ago. But once you chose to display it for the world to see, we realized what a Paper Tiger your military was.
Looked good on paper but in practice your military equipment is poorly made, not maintained. Your troops are poorly trained and lack motivation. Your leadership is inept.

NATO has nothing to fear

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The doctrone of MAD became obsolete in 1960s. And even then it was more a wishful thinking rather the actual strategy. If Russia strike first and if the Russian strike is precise (as it was demonstrated with Oreshnik strike) USA lost all their silos, all bombers and more than half of SSBNs. Few survived SSBNs won't be able to cause "unacceptable damage" to well-prepared Russia. Therefore, after Russian counter-force strike you either accept Russian peaceful proposals (and lost only Alaska and California) or retaliate, kill, may be one million of Russians, but then, after their counter-value strike you'll be forced into unconditional surrender or virtually total annihilation.

You have DECADES old nukes and not well maintained. They'll blow up on launch

 

[rightwinger]

You have DECADES old nukes and not well maintained. They'll blow up on launch

Under MAD, I thought Russia was on par with us in its nuclear capability.

Based on their poor maintenance record on ships, aircraft, helicopters and tanks……it is doubtful if their nuclear arsenal is technologically up to date and maintained

They would lose badly in an exchange .

 

[whitehall]

Russian disinformation? We still have a freaking president the last time I looked. What does Biden think? Why should the U.S. be responsible for "accepting peace"? Where the hell is NATO and where the hell does the U.N. stand in this mess?

 

[sparky]

I'll wager the average Ukrainian could care less if they assumed their old soviet block status

so why should we?

~S~

 

[Zavulon]

I understand your desire to spread propaganda on behalf of your country.
But you missed that bus years ago.

We may have feared the Russian military three years ago. But once you chose to display it for the world to see, we realized what a Paper Tiger your military was.
Looked good on paper but in practice your military equipment is poorly made, not maintained. Your troops are poorly trained and lack motivation. Your leadership is inept.

NATO has nothing to fear

And if NATO has nothing to fear, do you mind to cast your vote above?
If the Russians actually launched counter-force strike - what will you say then?

- I was wrong and we have to fear possible Russian counter-value strike. Lets make peace and give them Alaska and California.

- Ha-ha! Look, this is only one thousand of 100 kt warheads, hitting exclusively military installations. Less than one million of American civilians are dead! Where are their gigaton-class Poseidon torpedoes and city-fubaring ICBMs? And their "humanitarian pause" is just bluffing. Don't leave cities! Russia exposed herself as a paper tiger and we should retaliate - with all our two survived SSBNs and defeat them!

 

[sparky]

Lets make peace and give them Alaska and California.

why would Russia want them Zeb?

~S~

 

[Zavulon]

Russian disinformation?

No. Just possible choices. I believe in democracy and I believe that people are responsible for their own future.

We still have a freaking president the last time I looked. What does Biden think? Why should the U.S. be responsible for "accepting peace"?

Russia suggested peace terms. You can accept them - and then, there will be de-escalation and, may be, even peaceful cooperation or not accept them - and then there will be escalation, eventually coming to counter-force strike of one of the sides.

Where the hell is NATO and where the hell does the U.N. stand in this mess?

UN as an effective international organisation was destroyed by the USA back in 1999 and 2003. NATO allies in this scenario are waiting for American decision. If America launch retaliation strike, they, may be, will join you (but more likely, no). If America won't launch retaliation strike and will accept Russian peace proposals - ok, there is no reason for them to die for nothing.