Kremlin says Russia is open to dialogue with Trump on Ukraine

[kyzr]

The US will for very good reason, not allow that, but somehow Russia has to allow our missiles in their "neighborhood"? Learn the golden rule: Don't do unto others, what you don't want done to you.

No one said that NATO missiles need to be in Ukraine.
Ukraine, the US, Russia, and other NATO countries signed the Budapest Memorandum whereby Ukraine gave up its nuclear bombs for security "guarantees". That deal failed when Russia attacked Ukraine. Russia cannot be trusted.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We see how Russia keeps its treaties. Ukraine needs NATO protection, period.

Ukraine and NATO can put offensive weapons on the table and agree to keep them out of Ukraine for a peace deal.

 

[kyzr]

Much better than allow Ukraine in NATO (or NATO in Ukraine).

OK, that's Russia's current position, we'll see if Trump can work out a deal that's better than war.

It's a misconception. No, you are not. May be, the USA is at the table, but European part of NATO is definitely on the table.

NATO got lazy and complacent regarding military spending, they need to crank up military spending and production of war fighting material, Russia cannot keep up, which is why the USSR collapsed. You guys are slow learners.

I don't see any reason for it. May be, you can show even one?

If NATO abandons Ukraine you may be right, but I don't think they will. If NATO cranks up war production or not remains to be seen. That would be a very big bargaining chip for peace negotiations.

Its not about Hitler only. Russo-phobia is a part of their nature.

Russia attacked Ukraine, that proves that NATO needs to gear up for war until Russia accepts a peace deal.

Really? We'll see.

If Russia or China puts offensive weapons in our hemisphere they will be destroyed. Simple fact.

It's not a hole. It's a trench (or may be even a silo). And you guys, are walking in open, pretending that you are in safety, only because you are stoned as sh-t.

Ever play Poker? Know what a "bluff" is".
We know what Russia's economy is capable of, and what it is not capable of. Just sayin'

 

[Zavulon]

OK, that's Russia's current position, we'll see if Trump can work out a deal that's better than war.

Basically, he can do only two things: escalate or de-escalate. If he choose "de-escalate" - Russia will destroy Kievan regime and demilitirise and de-Nazificate Ukraine (and, likely, Baltic states). If he choose "escalate" Russia will destroy both Ukraine and the USA.

NATO got lazy and complacent regarding military spending, they need to crank up military spending and production of war fighting material, Russia cannot keep up, which is why the USSR collapsed. You guys are slow learners.

We don't need to play "arm's race". All we need - is to eliminate NATO. And, no, USSR "collapsed" because Russia decided that China and India (and, may be, the USA) are more useful as allies than Poland and Romania. Russia gave up part of Eastern Europe, but won 40 years of peace and new, more useful allies. You can try to fo the same thing.

If NATO abandons Ukraine you may be right, but I don't think they will. If NATO cranks up war production or not remains to be seen. That would be a very big bargaining chip for peace negotiations.

Its not a "chip". Russia is going to eliminate the vital threat, and you can choose are you part of the problem, or a part of its solution.

Russia attacked Ukraine, that proves that NATO needs to gear up for war until Russia accepts a peace deal.

Or, until military defeat of NATO countries and their unconditional surrender.

If Russia or China puts offensive weapons in our hemisphere they will be destroyed. Simple fact.

No. It's just your wishful thinking. The USA can't destroy both Russia and China simultaneously, even if you attack first. You simply doesn't have enough of nukes.

Ever play Poker? Know what a "bluff" is".
We know what Russia's economy is capable of, and what it is not capable of. Just sayin'

Yes. Obama and Biden also thought that they do know it. But they were wrong.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Zavulon]

You see, kyzr , you are making the same mistake that our dear friend rightwinger, which I already had explained. You (and almost all American "experts") think in thalassacratian logic of "maximisation profits and minimisation of loses". It's logic of an islander, planning sea raid into another country. If you meet a strong enemy beyond the sea - you just retreat and try in another place. Stronger enemy means more motivation to retreat and lesser motivation to fight.

Russia (and many other tellurocratian, continental states) is thinking in the logic of "elimination of the vital threats". There is no ocean or other natural barriers between you and your enemy. Usually, there is no possibility to run away (and then try to fight in other place) when the enemy is right near you. Therefore, the strong enemy means more motivation to fight him until his total annihilation or unconditional surrender. And stronger he is - the stronger is motivation to eliminate him.

 

[kyzr]

Basically, he can do only two things: escalate or de-escalate. If he choose "de-escalate" - Russia will destroy Kiev regime and de-militarize and de-Nazi Ukraine (and, likely, Baltic states). If he choose "escalate" Russia will destroy both Ukraine and the USA.

NATO will want to defend Ukraine to keep Russia in-check. They just want the US to pay for most of it. EU countries have the choice to pay for more war equipment or see Ukraine collapse, unless Trump can find enough sanctions to make Putin seek a peace deal.

We don't need to play "arm's race". All we need - is to eliminate NATO. And, no, USSR "collapsed" because Russia decided that China and India (and, may be, the USA) are more useful as allies than Poland and Romania. Russia gave up part of Eastern Europe, but won 40 years of peace and new, more useful allies.

Whether you call them "allies" or "business partners" depends on how you behave. If by allies you mean help Russia in Ukraine, I don't think that they want to be involved. If you mean business partners in competition with the US, like using BRICS instead of the dollar, that is a civilized business competition, good luck. The US was investing in Russia before the war, but not now.

Its not a "chip". Russia is going to eliminate the vital threat, and you can choose are you part of the problem, or a part of its solution.

If NATO countries crank up war production Russia can't do anything except go to war with NATO. Bad idea.

Or, until military defeat of NATO countries and their unconditional surrender.

Dream on.

No. It's just your wishful thinking. The USA can't destroy both Russia and China simultaneously, even if you attack first. You simply doesn't have enough of nukes.

If the US destroys weapons in South America or Cuba, neither Russia nor China will launch, that would be stupid, 1,400 nukes could do a lot of damage.

Yes. Obama and Biden also thought that they do know it. But they were wrong.

No clue what you mean about Obama and Biden.

 

[kyzr]

You see, kyzr, you are making the same mistake that our dear friend rightwinger, which I already had explained. You (and almost all American "experts") think in thalassacratian (sea based) logic of "maximisation profits and minimisation of loses". It's logic of an islander, planning sea raid into another country. If you meet a strong enemy beyond the sea - you just retreat and try in another place. Stronger enemy means more motivation to retreat and lesser motivation to fight.

Russia (and many other tellurocratian, "land based" states) is thinking in the logic of "elimination of the vital threats". There is no ocean or other natural barriers between you and your enemy. Usually, there is no possibility to run away (and then try to fight in other place) when the enemy is right near you. Therefore, the strong enemy means more motivation to fight him until his total annihilation or unconditional surrender. And stronger he is - the stronger is motivation to eliminate him.

You are really getting into the deep end of the pool using that impressive vocabulary. I can throw one more strategic concept, that of China. One of their most popular games is named "GO". It is a very strategic game of gaining small advantages until you strangle your opponent like an Anaconda.

The there are economic strategies, a well as arms race strategies, and probably even more strategies than those, including various combinations.

I agree that being between two oceans gives the US a quasi-isolationist feeling of security.
The US hasn't been attacked since 1812, probably because we keep our Navy adequate.
As for the US meeting a strong enemy and retreating or backing down, I'm not recalling that ever happening, except maybe when dealing with nuclear annihilation, when fighting means suicide, and diplomacy means survival.

Russian history suggests that using the weather to advantage, retreating until the winter hits, is a strategic advantage. That strategy doesn't work when ICBMs and submarines are involved. Diplomacy means survival.

 

[Zavulon]

NATO will want to defend Ukraine to keep Russia in-check. They just want the US to pay for most of it. EU countries have the choice to pay for more war equipment or see Ukraine collapse, unless Trump can find enough sanctions to make Putin seek a peace deal.

So, you mean "escalation". Basically, it means that Russia will eliminate NATO countries in war.

Whether you call them "allies" or "business partners" depends on how you behave. If by allies you mean help Russia in Ukraine, I don't think that they want to be involved.

Some of them, like North Korea, are involved. Another just help to win the war economically.

If you mean business partners in competition with the US, like using BRICS instead of the dollar, that is a civilized business competition, good luck. The US was investing in Russia before the war, but not now.

Thats your problem.

If NATO countries crank up war production Russia can't do anything except go to war with NATO. Bad idea.

If there is the choice between fighting the war and had NATO defeated, or allow NATO countries to discriminate, abuse and murder Russian people (or make those preparations by further NATO expansion) without the war, then, of course, the first option is preferred.
And no, NATO countries can't crank up the war production without significant raise of energy consumption. And increased energy consumption means higher gas and oil prices.

Dream on.

If the US destroys weapons in South America or Cuba, neither Russia nor China will launch, that would be stupid, 1,400 nukes could do a lot of damage.

Ok. Let's play the game:
1) Russia and/or China supply Cuba with, say, 200 IRBMs (and of course some conventional forces, including S-400 to cover them)
2) The USA find 100 of them and aggressively, without provication, attack Cuba with American nukes. "US counter-force strike". For those IRBMs are covered with S-400, dispersed and their exact position is not very certain, US need to use 4 warheads per target. Say, it means all 400 Minuteman III missiles with one warhead each.
3) Cuba (to be more specific, Russian and Chinese operators in Cuba) still has 100 IRBMs. Some of them attack US nuclear bases, other destroy, say, 30 largest American cities. "Cuba's combined (both counter-force and counter-value) retaliation strike".
4) The part of survived American SSBNs (say, two from six) retaliate against Cuban cities. "US retaliation counter-value strike". Forty missiles, 120 warheads. 30% of Cuban population is dead and wounded.
At this point nuclear exchange between US and Cuba is finished. America lost 5 mln civilians in 30 damaged cities and almost all nuclear forces. Cuba suffered terrible, but acceptable losses. Russia and China are untouched but lost their investments in Cuba (including 200 IRBMs).

Russia and China prevail, USA is no more a superpower, just another second league nuclear power France or England.

Is it exactly what do you want, suggesting such scenario?

View attachment 1071750

No clue what you mean about Obama and Biden.

They said that they tattered, destroyed and ruined Russian economy. They were wrong.

 

[kyzr]

So, you mean "escalation". Basically, it means that Russia will eliminate NATO countries in war.

Get real.

Some of them, like North Korea, are involved. Another just help to win the war economically.

You must be very proud of your NK ally. I saw the video of the beautiful white horse Vlad gave Kim Jung Un.

Thats your problem.

Actually its Russia's problem, your economy is flat or going down, not up, ever since you invaded Ukraine, funny how that works.
2024's GDP is projected to be about $2.2T, less than 2013. Horrible. No economic growth.

If there is the choice between fighting the war and had NATO defeated, or allow NATO countries to discriminate, abuse and murder Russian people (or make those preparations by further NATO expansion) without the war, then, of course, the first option is preferred.
And no, NATO countries can't crank up the war production without significant raise of energy consumption. And increased energy consumption means higher gas and oil prices.

Stop with the Russian propaganda, no Russians were murdered by NATO, and if Ukraine wants to join NATO as a sovereign nation that is their free choice. Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to reconstitute the old USSR as his legacy. He made a major blunder, his 3-day war is now more than 3-years old. No young Russians want to join the Russian military and die for nothing.

Ok. Let's play the game:
1) Russia and/or China supply Cuba with, say, 200 IRBMs (and of course some conventional forces, including S-400 to cover them)
2) The USA find 100 of them and aggressively, without provication, attack Cuba with American nukes. "US counter-force strike". For those IRBMs are covered with S-400, dispersed and their exact position is not very certain, US need to use 4 warheads per target. Say, it means all 400 Minuteman III missiles with one warhead each.
3) Cuba (to be more specific, Russian and Chinese operators in Cuba) still has 100 IRBMs. Some of them attack US nuclear bases, other destroy, say, 30 largest American cities. "Cuba's combined (both counter-force and counter-value) retaliation strike".
4) The part of survived American SSBNs (say, two from six) retaliate against Cuban cities. "US retaliation counter-value strike". Forty missiles, 120 warheads. 30% of Cuban population is dead and wounded.
At this point nuclear exchange between US and Cuba is finished. America lost 5 mln civilians in 30 damaged cities and almost all nuclear forces. Cuba suffered terrible, but acceptable losses. Russia and China are untouched but lost their investments in Cuba (including 200 IRBMs).
Russia and China prevail, USA is no more a superpower, just another second league nuclear power France or England.
Is it exactly what do you want, suggesting such scenario?

Russia and China would not be allowed to unload any IRBMs in Cuba. Game over.

They said that they tattered, destroyed and ruined Russian economy. They were wrong.

If you look at the Russian GDP numbers above again you will see that although the Russian economy is not technically in tatters, it is not keeping up with modern countries. Between Brazil and Mexico, nothing to brag about for an ex-superpower, huh?

 

[Zavulon]

Get real.

I'm real. Russia fights western barbarians at least twice a century. XXI century isn't exeptional, either.

You must be very proud of your NK ally. I saw the video of the beautiful white horse Vlad gave Kim Jung Un.

Why not? They gave us more shells than the whole NATO gave to Ukraine.

Actually its Russia's problem, your economy is flat or going down, not up, ever since you invaded Ukraine, funny how that works.
2024's GDP is projected to be about $2.2T, less than 2013. Horrible. No economic growth.
View attachment 1071785

Your problem is, that you are still thinking in the logic of virtual dollars. Virtual dollars/roubles/yuans is not "wealth". Its just ones and zeroes in the bank computers. True wealth is land with natural resources, its working people (not welfare earners, lawyers and prostitutes) it is your ability to defend your wealth.

Stop with the Russian propaganda, no Russians were murdered by NATO, and if Ukraine wants to join NATO as a sovereign nation that is their free choice.

NATO countries sponsored Maidan coup and NATO countries paid to pro-western nazi groups. NATO countries supported mass murders of Russian political activists in Donbass, Kharkov, Odessa (including open and demonstrative massacre in 2014).

Some of citizens of Ukraine - want to join NATO. Another - don't want. On the last more or less legal elections (in 2010) pro-Russian party was in majority.

And it was NATO who didn't accept free choice of Ukrainian citizens.

Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to reconstitute the old USSR as his legacy. He made a major blunder, his 3-day war is now more than 3-years old. No young Russians want to join the Russian military and die for nothing.

Nobody wants to die for nothing. But five million roubles is five million roubles. Its not "nothing". And, what is much more important - collective self-defense is one of the most important motivations for every human person. "There are we, and there are they. We are good, and they are bad. We are under attack and we need to fight back."

Russia and China would not be allowed to unload any IRBMs in Cuba. Game over.

Yop. Smart boy. You are starting to understand the logic of missile strategy. And to prevent the concealed deployment (as it was in 1962, when Russia was less than two weeks short from achieving credible first-strike capability) Cuba (and other LA states) should not be allowed to join any anti-American military organisation (or, at least, deployment of missiles should be limited by a real, reliable threaty).

Absolutely the same way, Ukraine won't be a part of NATO (even if it means the all-out nuclear war against the USA), and NATO's medium range missiles and other military infrastructure should be rolled back to, at least, 1997 borders.

If you look at the Russian GDP numbers above again you will see that although the Russian economy is not technically in tatters, it is not keeping up with modern countries. Between Brazil and Mexico, nothing to brag about for an ex-superpower, huh?
View attachment 1071790

As I said, formal numbers of GDP means nothing real. GDP PPP is a bit more demonstrative.
And, according it, Russia took the forth place, right after China, USA and India.

Land with its resources and population is the true wealth. Nukes and tanks is a true wealth. Ability to make nukes, shells, tanks and airplanes is a true wealth. Welfare and lawyer's salary isn't a wealth.

 

[kyzr]

I'm real. Russia fights western barbarians at least twice a century. XXI century isn't an exception, either.

Except if Putin presses that button Russia and many other countries would cease to exist as "countries".

Why not? They gave us more shells than the whole NATO gave to Ukraine.

If living under brutal dictators is your idea of "living", enjoy. Just know that in reality you are the "bad guys", like Hitler & Mussolini.

Your problem is, that you are still thinking in the logic of virtual dollars. Virtual dollars/rubles/yuan is not "wealth". Its just ones and zeroes in the bank computers. True wealth is land with natural resources, its working people (not welfare earners, lawyers and prostitutes) it is your ability to defend your wealth.

OK, even by your PPP metric Russia can't compete with NATO countries, and Trump is going to stop Russia's "black fleet" so even less revenue to continue the war.

NATO countries sponsored Maidan coup and NATO countries paid to pro-western Nazi groups. NATO countries supported mass murders of Russian political activists in Donbass, Kharkov, Odessa (including open and demonstrative massacre in 2014).

"After the breakup of the USSR Ukraine and several other countries became independent. The Maidan Coup was:
"The Maidan coup refers to the events of February 2014 in Ukraine, where widespread protests against President Viktor Yanukovych led to his ousting and the establishment of an interim government. This movement, known as the Revolution of Dignity, was sparked by Yanukovych's decision to reject a trade agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia."
The Odessa "massacre" was basically a riot/fight between opposing gangs, pro-Russia & pro-western, not NATO

2014 Odesa clashes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some of citizens of Ukraine - want to join NATO. Another - don't want. On the last more or less legal elections (in 2010) pro-Russian party was in majority.

Elections swing one way then another, currently the Ukraine doesn't want to be part of Russia.

And it was NATO who didn't accept free choice of Ukrainian citizens.

When? After Maidan Ukraine was united in opposing Russia

Nobody wants to die for nothing. But five million rubles is five million rubles. Its not "nothing". And, what is much more important - collective self-defense is one of the most important motivations for every human person. "There are we, and there are they. We are good, and they are bad. We are under attack and we need to fight back."

The war needs to stop, we'll see what happens next.

Yep. Smart boy. You are starting to understand the logic of missile strategy. And to prevent the concealed deployment (as it was in 1962, when Russia was less than two weeks short from achieving credible first-strike capability) Cuba (and other LA states) should not be allowed to join any anti-American military organization (or, at least, deployment of missiles should be limited by a real, reliable treaty).

Russia is surrounded by formidable countries who formed NATO to keep from being invaded. Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, it is a defensive organization. Ukraine is fighting to keep its independence. If Putin would have captured Kiev in 3-days it would have been a different story. The US apparently can enforce its will in our hemisphere better than Russia can in theirs.

Absolutely the same way, Ukraine won't be a part of NATO (even if it means the all-out nuclear war against the USA), and NATO's medium range missiles and other military infrastructure should be rolled back to, at least, 1997 borders.

NATO has kept the peace in Europe since WW2. Russia can't bully NATO, so better behave, no one wins WW3

As I said, formal numbers of GDP means nothing real. GDP PPP is a bit more demonstrative.
And, according it, Russia took the fourth place, right after China, USA and India.

OK, if Russia is 4th via PPP, or 11th via GDP, it needs to behave and not attack Ukraine, or bad things happen.

Land with its resources and population is the true wealth. Nukes and tanks is a true wealth. Ability to make nukes, shells, tanks and airplanes is a true wealth. Welfare and lawyer's salary isn't a wealth.

OK, if land and nukes makes you happy, enjoy. The final chapter is still unfolding.

 

[Zavulon]

Except if Putin presses that button Russia and many other countries would cease to exist as "countries".

It simply not truth. Any war can be won, even nuclear one. And, in the worst case we'll be in the good company in hell.

If living under brutal dictators is your idea of "living", enjoy.

Of course I prefer to live under "brutal dictators" rather than to be killed by "democratically elected" "good guys" (you know, Hitler was democratically elected). And, you know, government that don't allow me to speak my language, government that discriminate my religion, government that support mass murders of my people, government that abuse our people and supress their freedom - they are bad guys.

Just know that in reality you are the "bad guys", like Hitler & Mussolini.

I know, I know your point of view. But from our point of view - we are good guys, and you are bad guys. And we have pretty good reasons to think so.

OK, even by your PPP metric Russia can't compete with NATO countries, and Trump is going to stop Russia's "black fleet" so even less revenue to continue the war.

As I said - if you want to compare tank production you should compare actual tank production not some virtual GDPs. And Russia, (especially with her allies and economic partners) - produce much more tanks that the whole NATO combined.
Talking about black fleet... The piracy in high seas is the game for many players. If you really want to play it you should be ready for the consequences for your own sea trading.

"After the breakup of the USSR Ukraine and several other countries became independent. The Maidan Coup was:
"The Maidan coup refers to the events of February 2014 in Ukraine, where widespread protests against President Viktor Yanukovych led to his ousting and the establishment of an interim government. This movement, known as the Revolution of Dignity, was sparked by Yanukovych's decision to reject a trade agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia."
The Odessa "massacre" was basically a riot/fight between opposing gangs, pro-Russia & pro-western, not NATO

2014 Odesa clashes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NATO never fought defensive war. It is exclusively offensive alliance. Russians living on the NATO controlled territory are discriminated and opressed. "Pro-western gangs" were sponsored and backed by NATO countries. And if you pay for murders of Russian people - you are responsible for it, too.

Elections swing one way then another, currently the Ukraine doesn't want to be part of Russia.

Who said it? Illegal Kievan Junta? F#ck them. We are going to kill them all and then ask people.

When? After Maidan Ukraine was united in opposing Russia

It was "united" by brutal force, pure terror and western money. Stop funding them, eliminate SBU (heir of KGB and sister of FSB) and then ask people. My friends and relatives from Ukraine with whom I actually talk - are pro-Russian.

The war needs to stop, we'll see what happens next.

I'll tell you, what happens next. The war will be resumed at the next day. No one needs ceasefire. Kievan regime needs war to keep power and gather American money, Russia need long-lasting reliable peace (which is possible only after total de-nazification and de-militarisation of Ukraine).

Russia is surrounded by formidable countries who formed NATO to keep from being invaded.

That is exactly why Russia need to roll NATO back.

Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, it is a defensive organization.

Plain lie.

Ukraine is fighting to keep its independence.

Plain lie.

If Putin would have captured Kiev in 3-days it would have been a different story. The US apparently can enforce its will in our hemisphere better than Russia can in theirs.

Really? Right now Mexicans kill at least 100K Americans every year. It's more than Ukrainians kill Russians even during the special military operation. The main difference is that we are fighting back, and you are not. Not yet.

NATO has kept the peace in Europe since WW2. Russia can't bully NATO, so better behave, no one wins WW3

Plain lie. We have pretty good chances to win WW3.

OK, if Russia is 4th via PPP, or 11th via GDP, it needs to behave and not attack Ukraine, or bad things happen.

No. Really bad things happen if NATO comes in Ukraine.

OK, if land and nukes makes you happy, enjoy. The final chapter is still unfolding.

Ok. We'll see.

 

[kyzr]

It simply not truth. Any war can be won, even nuclear one. And, in the worst case we'll be in the good company in hell.

Is the United States Trying to Fight and Win Nuclear Wars?

In mid-2020, the Louisiana Tech Research Institute published Guide to Nuclear Deterrence in an Age of Great Power Competition, a twenty-three chapter handbook written by the country’s top nuclear experts, including former senior military commanders. Recently, Alan Kaptanoglu and Stewart...

nationalinterest.org

skipping down..."As for U.S. great power adversaries, both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have been talking about using limited nuclear strikes as a means of escalating or threatening to escalate conventional conflicts to the nuclear level to get the United States and its allies to preemptively surrender. General John Hyten called this an “escalate to win strategy.” Imagine how easy it would be for China and Russia to prevail if the United States stopped relying on its nuclear deterrent.
Kaptanoglu and Prager’s preferred deterrent strategy is apparently to hold an adversary’s cities at risk. But even when the United States and its allies respond to a nuclear attack from China or Russia with a retaliatory strike against only their cities—a highly immoral strategy—both China and Russia are certainly going to think that this is a matter of warfighting (as they see their cities burn to the ground) and not de-escalation. These two major powers are willing to kill tens of millions to stay in power and have military strategies that reflect that. The only deterrent option is to take down their remaining military power in the event of conflict."

Of course I prefer to live under "brutal dictators" rather than to be killed by "democratically elected" "good guys" (you know, Hitler was democratically elected). And, you know, government that don't allow me to speak my language, government that discriminate my religion, government that support mass murders of my people, government that abuse our people and suppress their freedom - they are bad guys.

Putin reminds me of Stalin, a brutal dictator, and I know that you must type glowing praise on Putin or risk a visit from the GRU.

I know, I know your point of view. But from our point of view - we are good guys, and you are bad guys. And we have pretty good reasons to think so.

NATO has never threatened Russia with invasion. NATO is an alliance of historically civilized nations. Russia is a dictatorship under the brutal dictator Putin. You may be good guys, but Putin is not.

As I said - if you want to compare tank production you should compare actual tank production not some virtual GDPs. And Russia, (especially with her allies and economic partners) - produce much more tanks that the whole NATO combined.
Talking about black fleet... The piracy in high seas is the game for many players. If you really want to play it you should be ready for the consequences for your own sea trading.

Tanks are death traps. In Ukraine they are easy targets for drones. Ukraine reminds me of the Spanish Civil War, which was used for testing weapons for the next war

How Spain was used as testing ground for Nazi weapons during civil war

Clips taken over the course of the brutal conflict show civilians running for cover as planes drop hundreds of bombs on Spanish cities

www.mirror.co.uk

NATO never fought defensive war. It is exclusively offensive alliance. Russians living on the NATO controlled territory are discriminated and oppressed. "Pro-western gangs" were sponsored and backed by NATO countries. And if you pay for murders of Russian people - you are responsible for it, too.

NATO never had to fight a war, period. Russia is deemed unstable under Putin, as shown by the invasion of Ukraine, many new nations joined NATO for fear of being attacked by Russia. Russia is surrounded by NATO countries, Ukraine is just one more, so Russia calling Ukraine a threat if it joins NATO is nonsense. NATO needs to keep the boundaries of Russia from expanding thru Force.

Who said it? Illegal Kievan Junta? F#ck them. We are going to kill them all and then ask people.

Kiev is the legitimate government of Ukraine, Russia's claim of illegitimacy is the LIE. Call it Russian propaganda.

It was "united" by brutal force, pure terror and western money. Stop funding them, eliminate SBU (heir of KGB and sister of FSB) and then ask people. My friends and relatives from Ukraine with whom I actually talk - are pro-Russian.

If you were correct the Ukrainian army would have collapsed long ago. Now they are lowering the draft age to 18 to keep up their armed forces. Killing millions in a brutal war is not productive. Putin needs to see the light of peace and prosperity or continued war and the slaughter of more young men on both sides.

I'll tell you, what happens next. The war will be resumed at the next day. No one needs ceasefire. Kievan regime needs war to keep power and gather American money, Russia need long-lasting reliable peace (which is possible only after total de-nazification and de-militarisation of Ukraine).

Very bad path forward. As the Brits would say, taking Kiev "was a bridge too far".

That is exactly why Russia need to roll NATO back.

Russia can't roll NATO back. I strongly recommend against trying.

Plain lies.

Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, it is a defensive organization, and Ukraine is fighting to keep their independence are undeniable truths.

Really? Right now Mexicans kill at least 100K Americans every year. It's more than Ukrainians kill Russians even during the special military operation. The main difference is that we are fighting back, and you are not. Not yet.

Not Mexicans, but drug cartels. I have a brutal view of drug deaths. We have an idiom that may not translate well but it is that "drugs are basically chlorine in the gene pool". (We use chlorine in our swimming pools, and people that use drugs must have defective genes.) Trump will attack the drug cartels, not sure how, but he will.

No. Really bad things happen if NATO comes in Ukraine.

Will war continue or will peace happen? We'll see if Trump can keep his promise of peace.

 

[Ringo]

Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, it is a defensive organization

Defensive? Only in Western propaganda. Arms manufacturers need an enemy to keep making and increasing profits. That's why NATO was not disbanded after the collapse of the USSR.

 

[kyzr]

Defensive? Only in Western propaganda. Arms manufacturers need an enemy to keep making and increasing profits. That's why NATO was not disbanded after the collapse of the USSR.

There are always uses for the military, especially NATO.
There were the Gulf Wars, Yugoslavia, and now Ukraine.

Can you show us where NATO launched an offensive attack on anyone?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. It's just your wishful thinking. The USA can't destroy both Russia and China simultaneously, even if you attack first. You simply doesn't have enough of nukes.

It doesn't take very many nukes to destroy China and the USSR.

 

[Zavulon]

Is the United States Trying to Fight and Win Nuclear Wars?

In mid-2020, the Louisiana Tech Research Institute published Guide to Nuclear Deterrence in an Age of Great Power Competition, a twenty-three chapter handbook written by the country’s top nuclear experts, including former senior military commanders. Recently, Alan Kaptanoglu and Stewart...

nationalinterest.org

skipping down..."As for U.S. great power adversaries, both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have been talking about using limited nuclear strikes as a means of escalating or threatening to escalate conventional conflicts to the nuclear level to get the United States and its allies to preemptively surrender. General John Hyten called this an “escalate to win strategy.” Imagine how easy it would be for China and Russia to prevail if the United States stopped relying on its nuclear deterrent.
Kaptanoglu and Prager’s preferred deterrent strategy is apparently to hold an adversary’s cities at risk. But even when the United States and its allies respond to a nuclear attack from China or Russia with a retaliatory strike against only their cities—a highly immoral strategy—both China and Russia are certainly going to think that this is a matter of warfighting (as they see their cities burn to the ground) and not de-escalation. These two major powers are willing to kill tens of millions to stay in power and have military strategies that reflect that. The only deterrent option is to take down their remaining military power in the event of conflict."

Yes, of course. We do prefer to pay high price for victory rather than to pay much higher price for defeat. And it is much better to lost tens of millions (and kill billions) rather than be genocided and lost 100% of population.

Putin reminds me of Stalin, a brutal dictator, and I know that you must type glowing praise on Putin or risk a visit from the GRU.

GRU doesn't work inside Russia. FSB do. And my humble person is much below their radars. Russia is rather free country. If you are not committing obvious crimes - you can say whatever you want. I don't like personally Putin (or, to be specific, his scenic image), I don't like a lot of things in Russia (but it is not place or time to discuss them), but his goal - wealth and safety of Russian people I do like.
And, BTW, USMB is restricted in Russia, so its not very loyal even to discuss here. That's why I prefer not to tell other people about it at all.

NATO has never threatened Russia with invasion.

Plain lie. NATO do pretend to conquere at least Crimea and Novorussia. And the only reason of NATO expansion - is preparation to attack Russia itself.

NATO is an alliance of historically civilized nations.

Plain lie. NATO is an alliance of genocidal barbarians.

Russia is a dictatorship under the brutal dictator Putin.

"Brutal dictators and brainwashed goons" is even less realistic conception than "Dark Wisards and Army of Zombies". Putin is just a man. As any other man he has as much power as people gives him.

You may be good guys, but Putin is not.

Putin do what Russians want him to do.

Tanks are death traps. In Ukraine they are easy targets for drones. Ukraine reminds me of the Spanish Civil War, which was used for testing weapons for the next war

How Spain was used as testing ground for Nazi weapons during civil war

Clips taken over the course of the brutal conflict show civilians running for cover as planes drop hundreds of bombs on Spanish cities

www.mirror.co.uk

But in a tank its anyway safer than without tank.

NATO never had to fight a war, period.

NATO and NATO members just commited numerous aggressions.

Russia is deemed unstable under Putin, as shown by the invasion of Ukraine, many new nations joined NATO for fear of being attacked by Russia. Russia is surrounded by NATO countries, Ukraine is just one more, so Russia calling Ukraine a threat if it joins NATO is nonsense.

Ukraine is a part of Russian world. And yes, its the point where appeasement of NATO is ended.

NATO needs to keep the boundaries of Russia from expanding thru Force.

And Russia needs to eliminate the NATO threat.

View attachment 1072131


Kiev is the legitimate government of Ukraine, Russia's claim of illegitimacy is the LIE. Call it Russian propaganda.

Zelenskiy is expired and this is plain fact. Stop funding him and his own people will leave him.

If you were correct the Ukrainian army would have collapsed long ago.

You pay them - they are fighting.

Now they are lowering the draft age to 18 to keep up their armed forces. Killing millions in a brutal war is not productive.

Of course killing millions or even billions in a brutal war is more productive than allowing them to kill us.

Putin needs to see the light of peace and prosperity or continued war and the slaughter of more young men on both sides.

Peace and prosperity are possible only in the situation of equal rights and equal safety. And it is possible after elimination of Ukrainian (and Baltic) nazies and rolling back

Very bad path forward. As the Brits would say, taking Kiev "was a bridge too far".

Russia can't roll NATO back. I strongly recommend against trying.

Of course we can and we will. One way or another.

Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, it is a defensive organization, and Ukraine is fighting to keep their independence are undeniable truths.

Plain lie.

Not Mexicans, but drug cartels.

As if drug cartels are not Mexicans.

I have a brutal view of drug deaths. We have an idiom that may not translate well but it is that "drugs are basically chlorine in the gene pool". (We use chlorine in our swimming pools, and people that use drugs must have defective genes.)

Actually, no. People who are genetically prone to addictions are not "defective". They are just prone for searching new and fast studying.

Trump will attack the drug cartels, not sure how, but he will.

Or, may be, he (as well as previous presidents) will continue support mass murders of his own people.

Will war continue or will peace happen? We'll see if Trump can keep his promise of peace.

I'm pretty sceptical about it. Trump is just a human being. Basically, he can do only two things "escalate" (and then we are in WW3) or "deescalate" (and then Russia is fighting anti-guerilla war in West Ukraine and support anti-Nazi rebellions in Baltic countries and Moldova). It might be better for the USA to make few steps back and rethink their further strategy, but there are too many influencers in his government.

 

[Zavulon]

It doesn't take very many nukes to destroy China and the USSR.

Really? What are your estimations?

 

[Zavulon]

There are always uses for the military, especially NATO.
There were the Gulf Wars, Yugoslavia, and now Ukraine.

Can you show us where NATO launched an offensive attack on anyone?

Yes. NATO countries hired Zelenskiy to attack DPR and LPR. The USA (and some other NATO members) illegally attacked Serbia in 1999 and Iraq in 2003.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really? What are your estimations?

The USSR is only slightly removed from the 19th Century; like in the 19th century, everything runs through Moscow.
You destroy communications - road, rail, data - into and out of Moscow, the country shuts down.
5 (out of 14) Ohio class SSBN on patrol,, 20 missiles, 12x100kt warheads each, - 1200 warheads.
More than plenty.

China's cannot defend its ports from 1st-world attack submarines. Declare blockades around the large and ports, sink a couple cargo ships to give it teeth, and external trade stops. Economic collapse follows.
No nukes required.