Kremlin says Russia is open to dialogue with Trump on Ukraine

[kyzr]

But we can eliminate them, if necessary.

...and they can eliminate Russia if necessary.

Of course not. Nukes are just weapons. They can't be "civilised" or "uncivilised". The way we use it can be civilised or uncivilised.

There is no civilised way to use a nuke.

Its better to kill enemies rather than allow them to kill us.

Only Nazis killed whole populations of Jews and gypsies in gas chambers. Russians are becoming Nazis threatening mass murder of Ukrainians for wanting to be free of Russian rule. Mass murderers = Nazis = Russians?

Neo-Nazi gangs, delivered from the other regions, attacked peaceful Russian protesters. It is unacceptable. We want them (Nazies) dead. As Kievan regime protect them - we need the Kievan regime dead (and it will be dead). If NATO really wants to protect Kievan regime - NATO is dead either. If NATO and NATO members want to survive - they better think about the future system of equal rights and equal safety, in which Kievan regime and Neo-Nazi groups are killed, and both Russian and American people live in safety. You can do it by yourself, or we can denazificate both NATO and Ukraine.

The real "Odessa Massacre" happened in 1941 when over 100,000 Jews were murdered. In 2014 in the Odessa protests 48 people died during fights by competing gangs of protesters. There has been no "ethnic cleansing" of Russians since, so your bluster is misplaced. You should be against Putin's unjust invasion of Ukraine. Kiev is no threat to Russia, and neither is NATO. War is not the answer.

We can take control of another country because they want to be a part of anti-Russian alliance. It is what we actually do.

Lets see how long it takes Russia to take control of Ukraine. Tick-Tock.

And we want to live in safety, without discrimination and murders. And for our safety we want to push NATO back, to, at least, 1997 borders.

You can't push NATO anywhere. I recommend against trying.

Of course, they are dying for pretty good reason. They are dying defending their own kind from the western barbarians. Saying that Russian soldiers are dying for no reason you mean that the Russians have no right for self-defense, that Russians are sub-humans, they have no moral, intelligence or education. And, obviously, by saying it you just paint yourself as a Nazi.

Putin's war is not a good reason to die, which is why so many Russians fled military service and why Putin had to ask North Korea for soldiers. What western barbarians? Ukraine didn't attack Russia, no one did, Russia invaded Ukraine, so Russian soldiers are the invaders and the Ukrainians claim self-defense. You have that backwards. There you go with the Nazi propaganda about sub-humans again. You seem to like Nazi propaganda and mass murdering people. We defend people, so who is more of a Nazi? Looks like Russians.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Who told about blitzkrieg, Mr. In-a-hurry? We are not going to repeat your mistake of Iraq, where you killed Saddam, but left his soldiers alive (and gave a lot of them to Iran). When we finished with Ukraine there will be no more Banderlogs at all. And, in the practical terms, it's more convenient to kill them in the open fields rather then searh for them in mountains and forests of Western Ukraine, or, even worse, in cities, where there might be hiding among loyal pro-Russian civilians.

And, talking about the fleet... Do you know how many SSBNs do you have in Atlantic right now? After Feb 1 and returning USS Maryland in the base, its just two. USS Rhode Island and USS Alaska, one of them is playing fish in a barrel in western Mediterranean (and being tracked by any fisherman or freighter, say nothing about attacking submarines) and waiting to be eliminated by the first strike. And one submarine's salvo might not overwhelm Moscow's ABD. Guys, you are a bunch of junkies, jumping on the very thin ice, and the ice isn't getting thicker, it's getting thinner.

Iraq? Where the US won the land battle in less than a month, while you have been spinning your wheels for three years?

We lost Iraq because we did not invest the people into the outcome. If we had paid them $15 an hour to rebuild the country instead of the crazy salaries to contractors, the Iranians would have been sucking our dicks in two years.

 

[Zavulon]

There are no positives to a nuclear war. With hyper-sonic missiles now in use the emphasis will be on "use them or lose them" leaving only seconds to decide whether to launch or not after detecting and confirming a launch by the other side.

"Launch under attack" never was really reliable conception. And it's not reliable now. And it means, that one who shoot first - have good chances to laugh last (by suffering relatively low losses). We'll be those losses "acceptable" and even "preferred" - depends on possible alternatives.
Vietnam doesn't worth even one million killed. Crimea and Novorussia for Russia, as well as Alaska and California for the USA worth more than 20 mln killed.

 

[Zavulon]

...and they can eliminate Russia if necessary.

Yep. They are trying to do it, that's why they need Ukraine. The menace is real, that's why we prefer to fight back.

There is no civilised way to use a nuke.

Of course there are. Ever heard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If you had the bomb in 1944, wouldn't you drop on Berlin?

Only Nazis killed whole populations of Jews and gypsies in gas chambers.

Other people killed whole populations of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Celtics, Indians, Assirians and whoever else by very different tools. That's not exclusively Nazi thing.

Russians are becoming Nazis threatening mass murder of Ukrainians for wanting to be free of Russian rule. Mass murderers = Nazis = Russians?

No. We are not going to kill people for wanting to be free of Russian rule. We are killing people for joining anti-Russian alliance and attacking Russians. Their freedom to swing their fists is ended at the tip of our nose.

The real "Odessa Massacre" happened in 1941 when over 100,000 Jews were murdered. In 2014 in the Odessa protests 48 people died during fights by competing gangs of protesters.

First of all, you know nothing about what was happened. Second - the question is not only how many were killed. The question is why they were killed, who killed them and what was reaction of the "government" (in fact - illegal junta) and their foreign masters on it. Do you remember BLM protests in the USA? And now imagine, what could happened if those protests were drowed in blood (and finalised by demonstrative burning alive dozens of Negroes) by the armed squads of white suprematists, and after that the President of the United States said: "Good job, my boys. I order all true patriots of America to kill every freaking treasonous unruly n-gger at the spot. US Army, National Guard and FBI should help them in taking back our God-blessed White America."
You'd had civil war, as well as Ukraine had.
"You attack one of us, you attack all of us"
If you don't understand it, and say that it was a trifle (as well as shelling of Donbass or mass murders in Dniepropetrovsk and Kharkov) - then, there is no way to come to mutually acceptable peace agreement.

You should be against Putin's unjust invasion of Ukraine.

I'm for safety of Russians. And this safety is impossible until de-nazification of Ukraine, Europe and America.

Kiev is no threat to Russia, and neither is NATO.

Of course both of them are.

War is not the answer.

Sometimes it is the only answer you understand.

Lets see how long it takes Russia to take control of Ukraine. Tick-Tock.

We are not talking about Ukraine only, and we are not talking about "taking control". We are talking about elimination of the threat.

You can't push NATO anywhere.

Of course we can, we push back western barbarians at least twice a century. May be, this time it will be time of final solution of European problem.

I recommend against trying.

It's not that there is a lot of options.

Putin's war is not a good reason to die, which is why so many Russians fled military service and why Putin had to ask North Korea for soldiers.

Oh, my.... Did anybody really saw a North Korean soldier there?

What western barbarians?

You are western barbarians.

Ukraine didn't attack Russia, no one did,

Plain lie. More you are lying (first of all to yourself) - less possible is the peace.

 

[kyzr]

"Launch under attack" never was really reliable conception. And it's not reliable now. And it means, that one who shoot first - have good chances to laugh last (by suffering relatively low losses). We'll be those losses "acceptable" and even "preferred" - depends on possible alternatives.
Vietnam isn't worth even one million killed. Crimea and Novorussia for Russia, as well as Alaska and California for the USA worth more than 20 mln killed.

1. I hope Russia isn't just looking at the US nuclear response. NATO members do have nuclear weapons as well. But to your point, hyper-sonic missiles are close to NATO countries, so your shoot first-laugh last makes some sense there. But the US missiles are thousands of miles from Russian missiles, so they will not be knocked out and should make a serious deterrent. Not to mention all of the US weapons on duty around the world. So in reality it is best not to shoot first.

2. There is no NovoRussia, its name is Ukraine, it is a sovereign country. It does not belong to Russia.

3. Russia already has Crimea. End the illegal war and celebrate a victory. Don't be stupid and start a nuclear war or continue the slaughter in Ukraine.

 

[Zavulon]

Iraq? Where the US won the land battle in less than a month, while you have been spinning your wheels for three years?

You didn't eliminate Iraqi Army.
They just preferred to surrender and participate in the building of "New Iraq".

We lost Iraq because we did not invest the people into the outcome. If we had paid them $15 an hour to rebuild the country instead of the crazy salaries to contractors, the Iranians would have been sucking our dicks in two years.

There were a lot of mistakes you made in Iraq. But the first one and the most important - you didn't eliminate Iraqi Army and didn't kill all potentially anti-American young man, able to fight back and wishing to take their country back.

 

[kyzr]

Yep. They are trying to do it, that's why they need Ukraine. The menace is real, that's why we prefer to fight back.

NATO is not trying to eliminate Russia. They even tried buying gas and oil from Russia but Russia took their money and built up their military and invaded Ukraine. Proving Russia is an aggressor that can't be trusted. The NATO menace is only if Russia invades other countries. You are not fighting back, you are invaders.

Of course there are. Ever heard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If you had the bomb in 1944, wouldn't you drop on Berlin?

Truman had a serious decision whether or not to nuke Japan. Not to use it meant a million lives lost by invading Japan. Using it meant half a million lives lost. No doubt that Hitler would have nuked London and New York and Moscow if he had nukes and V2s with the range. So you are in evil company, with Nazis and Hitler as a country who would use nukes 1st. The more we talk the more Nazi you look. NATO would NEVER use nukes 1st.

Other people killed whole populations of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Celtics, Indians, Assyrians and whoever else by very different tools. That's not exclusively Nazi thing.

I'm talking recent history. My dad fought in WW2. Mass murder by gas chambers was as recent as WW2. The "ethnic cleansing" mass murders in Yugoslavia was more recent than WW2. Now you are promoting 1st use of nuclear weapons, the ultimate mass murder weapon. We have them as deterrents. You are bragging about the coming mass murders in Ukraine, that is as barbaric as people get.

No. We are not going to kill people for wanting to be free of Russian rule. We are killing people for joining anti-Russian alliance and attacking Russians. Their freedom to swing their fists is ended at the tip of our nose.

They are not swinging at Russia, Russia invaded them. Joining NATO is not a threat to Russia it guarantees that Russia will not invade them again. You should get your noses and your asses out of Ukraine.

First of all, you know nothing about what happened. Second - the question is not only how many were killed. The question is why they were killed, who killed them and what was reaction of the "government" (in fact - illegal junta) and their foreign masters on it. Do you remember BLM protests in the USA? And now imagine, what could happen if those protests were drowned in blood (and finalised by demonstrative burning alive dozens of Negroes) by the armed squads of white supremacists, and after that the President of the United States said: "Good job, my boys. I order all true patriots of America to kill every freaking treasonous unruly n-gger at the spot. US Army, National Guard and FBI should help them in taking back our God-blessed White America." You'd have a civil war, as well as Ukraine had. "You attack one of us, you attack all of us"
If you don't understand it, and say that it was a trifle (as well as shelling of Donbass or mass murders in Dniepropetrovsk and Kharkov) - then, there is no way to come to mutually acceptable peace agreement.

Your exaggerations do not reflect anything close to reality in Ukraine. The Maidan revolt was also a brutal repression of Ukrainian free speech by Pro-Russian thugs. Your "civil war" scenario in the US was a widespread version of the BLM riots to the point where the white majority took up arms and eliminated minorities with help from the government. Nothing close to that happened in Ukraine. Here is the US when protesters threaten riots again we say that we have the "Rittenhouse Solution" to their threats.
So to reply to your post Ukraine did NOT have anything close to a CIVIL WAR before Russia invaded.

I'm for safety of Russians. And this safety is impossible until de-nazification of Ukraine, Europe and America.

Good luck with that.

Of course both of them are. (Kiev is no threat to Russia, and neither is NATO.)

Only if Russia invades, otherwise they live in peace.

Sometimes war is the only answer you understand.

Same for Russia

We are not talking about Ukraine only, and we are not talking about "taking control". We are talking about elimination of the threat.

Good luck with that.

Of course we can, we push back western barbarians at least twice a century. May be, this time it will be time of final solution of European problem.

There you go again using Nazi slogans like a real Nazi. Good luck with your "Final Solution"

Oh, my.... Did anybody really see a North Korean soldier there?

Sure, we even saw the white horse Putin paid Kim with...

You are western barbarians.

Name calling isn't proving what you say, its Russian propaganda. NATO has been a perfect neighbor to Russia as long as Russia doesn't invade anyone. I'm talking since 2014 there has been nothing to justify the invasion of Ukraine.

Plain lie. More you are lying (first of all to yourself) - less possible is the peace.

Since the 2014 lines were established, Ukraine didn't attack Russia, no one did, is an absolute fact.
Calling it a lie without proving it is uncivil. You apparently can't justify the invasion because it was Putin's order on a whim.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You didn't eliminate Iraqi Army.
They just preferred to surrender and participate in the building of "New Iraq".


There were a lot of mistakes you made in Iraq. But the first one and the most important - you didn't eliminate Iraqi Army and didn't kill all potentially anti-American young man, able to fight back and wishing to take their country back.

So you are going to kill all the young Ukranian men.

That mind set is why you are losing the war.

 

[Zavulon]

So you are going to kill all the young Ukranian men.

That mind set is why you are losing the war.

This mindset is why we are going to win peace . We are going to kill those young Ukrainian men, who simultaneously can't live with Russians, and doesn't want to leave Ukrainian land. And it's hardly 10% of Ukrainian young men population even in Western regions of former Ukraine. Of course, you need act smart to see the difference between good guys and bad guys in this scenario to not harm much so far loyal people and minimise collateral damage. But, given that Ukrainians are a part of Russian world - its not that difficult. Simplier than to find all Republicans in California or all BLM-activists in Portland.

And this mind set is the reason for why Chechnya now is one of the most loyal regions of Russian Federatio (and, generally, why Russia is the largest state on the planet). There are simple rules and following them is what makes things smoother: 1) Generous reward to those who are with us; 2) Certain death to those who are against us; 3) Don't bite more than you can chew at a time; 4) Know human material you are working with.

 

[Zavulon]

NATO is not trying to eliminate Russia. They even tried buying gas and oil from Russia but Russia took their money and built up their military and invaded Ukraine. Proving Russia is an aggressor that can't be trusted. The NATO menace is only if Russia invades other countries. You are not fighting back, you are invaders.

Of course they tried. They always do it. Buying Russian gas and oil for cheap wasn't enough for them, and they wanted to take it for free (and kill all Russians).

Truman had a serious decision whether or not to nuke Japan. Not to use it meant a million lives lost by invading Japan.

Actually, the USA has a choice:

1) Don't fight the war and allow Japanese to dominate in the Pacific.
2) Nuke Japan and coerce them them into mutually acceptable but US-prefered peace.
3) Invade Japan islands, suffer significant casualties and then coerce them into US-prefered peace.

Absolutely the same choice Russia has now:
1) Don't fight the war and allow NATO dominate in the world.
2) Nuke NATO (or just few NATO members) and coerce them in mutually acceptable but Russia-prefered peace.
3) Invade Europe, suffer significant casualties and then coerce them into Russia-prefered peace.

Option "1" was unacceptable for the USA, and it is unacceptable for Russia.
So, all what we have now (of course if you are not ready to build the system of equal safety and equal rights) - are options "2" and "3".

What is more humane - to destroy few French and British nuclear bases (and sink two their SSBNs) with total military casualties in twenty thousand soldiers and sailors and almost no civilian causualties or to fight a conventional war with incredible civilian suffering and destruction?

Using it meant half a million lives lost. No doubt that Hitler would have nuked London and New York and Moscow if he had nukes and V2s with the range. So you are in evil company, with Nazis and Hitler as a country who would use nukes 1st. The more we talk the more Nazi you look. NATO would NEVER use nukes 1st.

The USA already used nukes first.
And yes, more we are talking - more you seems like a Nazi, too.

I'm talking recent history. My dad fought in WW2. Mass murder by gas chambers was as recent as WW2. The "ethnic cleansing" mass murders in Yugoslavia was more recent than WW2. Now you are promoting 1st use of nuclear weapons, the ultimate mass murder weapon. We have them as deterrents.

And we have them as deterrents. But there are different types of deterrence. "Deterrence type two" (by Herman Kahn), aka "multi-stability" in modern US books, is the ability to attack opponent's nuclear forces in response on his extremely provocative actions (which are, meanwhile not his attack against our nuclear forces). This deterrence depends on how good is our first strike and how many opponent's civilians survived it (and became our hostages for the potential third strike, to prevent his retaliation striks). More of his weapons destroyed, more of his civilians survived, more of our nuclear weapon saved (for the potential third strike), better is our capability to defend from his retaliation strike and alleviate its consequences - better is the deterrence.

"You shouldn't do this extremely provocative thing, because if you do, we are going to nuke you". To be effective - the deterrence should be believable and to be believable it should be not-suicidal.

You are bragging about the coming mass murders in Ukraine, that is as barbaric as people get.

No. War is not about death and destruction. War is about life and pleasure. Its about the reliable and long lasting peace we are going to achieve.

They are not swinging at Russia, Russia invaded them.

No. Its NATO came in Ukraine and started to kill Russians, and making preparations to kill Russians in Russian Federation.

Joining NATO is not a threat to Russia it guarantees that Russia will not invade them again. You should get your noses and your asses out of Ukraine.

Shouldn't have you to get your noses out of Hawaii and California back in 1941?

.

Only if Russia invades, otherwise they live in peace.

Of course no. It were NATO countries who committed hundreds of agressive wars.

More you say, that NATO is not a threat, that NATO countries never ever commited aggressions against other countries - there are less chances to achieve mutually acceptable peace. There is nothing to negotiate with reality denial barbarians.

If you want a constructive dialogue - you have to accept few simple statements:
1) Russians aren't subhumans. Russians are civilised, smart, educated, well-informed and high-moral people. If they do something - they have pretty good (at least from their point of view) reasons to do it.
2) NATO countries (especially the USA and Germany) commited numerous acts of unprovoked aggresions in past, and there is no any possible reason to think that they won't commit them in future.
3) To prevent further escalation we need to build the system of equal rights and equal safety (at least for the USA and the Russian Federation), respecting each others spheres of influence.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Zavulon's mindset is typical Mongolian/Tatar/Rus.

 

[kyzr]

Of course they tried. They always do it. Buying Russian gas and oil for cheap wasn't enough for them, and they wanted to take it for free (and kill all Russians).

Nonsense. NATO never had aggressive offensive plans against Russians. They just want Russians to stay in their own borders.

Actually, the USA has a choice:

1) Don't fight the war and allow Japanese to dominate in the Pacific.
2) Nuke Japan and coerce them them into mutually acceptable but US-preferred peace.
3) Invade Japan islands, suffer significant casualties and then coerce them into US-preferred peace.

Absolutely the same choice Russia has now:
1) Don't fight the war and allow NATO dominate in the world.
2) Nuke NATO (or just few NATO members) and coerce them in mutually acceptable but Russia-preferred peace.
3) Invade Europe, suffer significant casualties and then coerce them into Russia-preferred peace.

Option "1" was unacceptable for the USA, and it is unacceptable for Russia.
So, all what we have now (of course if you are not ready to build the system of equal safety and equal rights) - are options "2" and "3".
What is more humane - to destroy few French and British nuclear bases (and sink two their SSBNs) with total military casualties in twenty thousand soldiers and sailors and almost no civilian casualties or to fight a conventional war with incredible civilian suffering and destruction?

Option-1 is fine for the USA, except NATO doesn't dominate anyone, NATO is a defensive alliance by economically developed countries. NATO does not "dominate" anyone. NATO remembers how brutally Russia dominated East Germans and want no part of that. Option-2 is Russian suicide, so that one looks bad. Option-3 looks stupid. Russia can't even beat Ukraine, and NATO conventional forces are much tougher.
Let's try an option-4, Russia ends the war, celebrates the victory of gaining Crimea and Donbas, and we all live in peace.

The USA already used nukes first.
And yes, more we are talking - more you seems like a Nazi, too.

We used nukes to end the war, you want to use nukes to eliminate Ukrainians.

And we have them as deterrents. But there are different types of deterrence. "Deterrence type two" (by Herman Kahn), aka "multi-stability" in modern US books, is the ability to attack opponent's nuclear forces in response on his extremely provocative actions (which are, meanwhile not his attack against our nuclear forces). This deterrence depends on how good is our first strike and how many opponent's civilians survived it (and became our hostages for the potential third strike, to prevent his retaliation strike). More of his weapons destroyed, more of his civilians survived, more of our nuclear weapon saved (for the potential third strike), better is our capability to defend from his retaliation strike and alleviate its consequences - better is the deterrence. "You shouldn't do this extremely provocative thing, because if you do, we are going to nuke you". To be effective - the deterrence should be believable and to be believable it should be not-suicidal.

You like reading fiction. There are no second or third strikes, both countries would launch all nukes in response to a 1st strike. After that there are no countries, just a few survivors. Nuclear war is ALWAYS suicidal.

No. War is not about death and destruction. War is about life and pleasure. Its about the reliable and long lasting peace we are going to achieve.

Tell that to the 700,000 Russian casualties of the Ukraine war.

No. Its NATO came in Ukraine and started to kill Russians, and making preparations to kill Russians in Russian Federation.

NATO never went into Ukraine. NATO gave Ukraine armaments to defend themselves from Russian aggression.

Shouldn't have you to get your noses out of Hawaii and California back in 1941?

They were US states, who voted to join the USA. Unlike Ukraine's people who voted NOT to be part of Russia.

Of course no. It were NATO countries who committed hundreds of aggressive wars.

The time frame we are discussing is since 2014. Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO did nothing against Russia before that.

More you say, that NATO is not a threat, that NATO countries never ever committed aggression against other countries - there are less chances to achieve mutually acceptable peace. There is nothing to negotiate with reality denial barbarians.

NATO countries helped Russia survive during WW2. Since then Russia has been the barbarian. That is reality. NATO has never attacked Russia.

If you want a constructive dialogue - you have to accept few simple statements:
1) Russians aren't subhumans. Russians are civilised, smart, educated, well-informed and high-moral people. If they do something - they have pretty good (at least from their point of view) reasons to do it.
2) NATO countries (especially the USA and Germany) committed numerous acts of unprovoked aggression in past, and there is no any possible reason to think that they won't commit them in future.
3) To prevent further escalation we need to build the system of equal rights and equal safety (at least for the USA and the Russian Federation), respecting each others spheres of influence.

1. Good until you invade another sovereign country. That's bad.
2. The USA never committed aggression against Russia.
3. This is the crux of the matter, "spheres of influence". Russia claims Ukraine as theirs, NATO and the USA say it is not based on Ukraine being a sovereign country. Its a matter of how long will the war last and what will be the final outcome? Will there be a negotiated peace, or will the war continue indefinitely?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Zavulon is a cazrist Putinista.

Their turn comes with the overthrow and New Russia.

 

[Hollie]

Except for the things he fixed.

 

[Zavulon]

Nonsense. NATO never had aggressive offensive plans against Russians. They just want Russians to stay in their own borders.

First of all, of course they have plans. Military men have a lot of plans, including even the plans of total elimination of humanity (if necessary). What is even more important NATO countries commited a lot of acts of unprovoked agressions against other countries. And one of EU officially declared goals is "decolonisation" of Russian Federation. On NATO controlled territories of Baltic and Ukraine Russians are officially discriminated and supressed. So, NATO is not friendly organisation, anyway and we have good reasons to eliminate it. Second - we have different understanding of "Russian borders". Actually, there is a popular opinion that Russia doesn't have borders, only horizons. Third - Russia is a global power, and any attempts of "containment" of Russia are totally unacceptable will face military response.

Option-1 is fine for the USA, except NATO doesn't dominate anyone, NATO is a defensive alliance by economically developed countries.

It wasn't acceptable for US administration and American people back in 1941. Actually even Japanese domination in China and Indo-China was unacceptable. Thats why they didn't finished they war of Japan-prefered terms.
And in 1945 the USA have only two acceptable choices:
1) Bomb Japan in unconditional surrender.
2) Invade Japan until they surrender.

The same choice Russia has about Europe. If Europe don't surrender Russia can a) nuke Europe b) invade Europe.

Option-2 is Russian suicide, so that one looks bad.

Of course no. Its not suicide in any meaningful sense.

Option-3 looks stupid. Russia can't even beat Ukraine, and NATO conventional forces are much tougher.

We'll see how "tought" they'll be after elimination of the most critical European infrastructure. And no, Russia doesn't "beat" Ukraine. Russia is "gently slapping" her.

Let's try an option-4, Russia ends the war, celebrates the victory of gaining Crimea and Donbas, and we all live in peace.

No. It's not about territory and never have been. Leaving Odessa and Kharkov under the yoke of Kievan regime and even worse - allowing NATO forces in Ukraine - is totally and absolutely unacceptable. Leaving Russian people under control of Neo-Nazi Baltic states, allowing NATO build new bases in Finland and Sweden is unacceptable, either.

We used nukes to end the war, you want to use nukes to eliminate Ukrainians.

Of course no. No one suggested usage of nukes against Ukrainian cities. We suggest usage of nukes against French, British and, if necessary, American nuclear bases. And only if they retaliate - then there will be counter-value strike (against British, French and, if necessary - American cities).

You like reading fiction. There are no second or third strikes, both countries would launch all nukes in response to a 1st strike. After that there are no countries, just a few survivors. Nuclear war is ALWAYS suicidal.

I like reading non-fiction either. Of course no. A limited nuclear war is not suicidal at all, and even an all-out nuclear war is gambling, not "suicide".

Tell that to the 700,000 Russian casualties of the Ukraine war.

Its the price we ready to pay (say nothing that this number is totally wrong).

NATO never went into Ukraine. NATO gave Ukraine armaments to defend themselves from Russian aggression.

Long-range weapons is guided, maintained and controlled by NATO-coutries. And we see it not as a faciliation, but as a participation.

They were US states, who voted to join the USA. Unlike Ukraine's people who voted NOT to be part of Russia.

On the last more or less free Ukrainian elections, in 2010, more than a half of Ukrainian citizens (especially in south-eastern regions) voted to stick with Russia. After liberation of Kherson and Zaporozhye regions (ok, parts of them) most of people voted to join Russia. I'm absolutely sure, that if there will be a free choice between "join Russia" and "stay independent, but Russia-friendly" (and there will be no option "join NATO or NATO countries") many former Ukrainian regions will vote for joining Russia.

The time frame we are discussing is since 2014. Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO did nothing against Russia before that.

You are discussing it. I believe that the leopard can't change its spots and prefer to discuss it since first Northern Crusades.

NATO countries helped Russia survive during WW2.

Most of now NATO countries fought against Russia in WWII.

Since then Russia has been the barbarian. That is reality. NATO has never attacked Russia.

Of course you do. Long-range weapons was operated by NATO forces.

1. Good until you invade another sovereign country. That's bad.

No. When Russian people defend themslves its good. When foreigners steal Russian property - its bad. And, as for me, after normalisation of Russia-italian relationships, I'm going to visit Italy and send one local rat to swim in concrete flippers. Bigger guys have bigger job to be done.

2. The USA never committed aggression against Russia.

Of course you did. ATACMS are controlled and operated by Americans.

3. This is the crux of the matter, "spheres of influence". Russia claims Ukraine as theirs, NATO and the USA say it is not based on Ukraine being a sovereign country. Its a matter of how long will the war last and what will be the final outcome? Will there be a negotiated peace, or will the war continue indefinitely?

The war won't continues "indefinitely" anyway. Either it will be finished by building of system of equal rights and equal safety, or, what seems much more likely - it will escalate to the level of regional (limited nuclear) war against France and Britain, or to the level of large-scale war (all-out nuclear, chemical and biological) against all NATO+ countries (first of all, of course, the USA) which will be ended with your unconditional surrender.

Right now we suggest you the great opportunity - to pay the fines, withdraw your forces from eastern Europe and f#ck off without losing US territories and/or US population.
If you force us to launch a limited counter-force strike against your nuclear forces the price of peace will be higher - Alaska and California becomes Russia, say nothing against Montana and Wyoming depopulated because of radioactive fallouts.
If you try to retaliate - we'll destroy seven your cities for one our and then we'll demand conditional surrender.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Zavulon must be sent to the Hague when Russia collapses.

 

[kyzr]

First of all, of course they have plans. Military men have a lot of plans, including even the plans of total elimination of humanity (if necessary). What is even more important NATO countries committed a lot of acts of unprovoked aggression against other countries. And one of EU officially declared goals is "decolonisation" of Russian Federation. On NATO controlled territories of Baltic and Ukraine Russians are officially discriminated and suppressed. So, NATO is not friendly organisation, anyway and we have good reasons to eliminate it. Second - we have different understanding of "Russian borders". Actually, there is a popular opinion that Russia doesn't have borders, only horizons. Third - Russia is a global power, and any attempts of "containment" of Russia are totally unacceptable will face military response.

Politicians say things all the time. Litwin is always pushing for decolonisation of Russia by agitating separatists to go independent, like Russia is doing in Ukraine and other Baltic countries, so Baltic countries are clamping down and not allowing Russian agitators. It's in their "sphere of influence" to keep Russians inside their BORDERS. Russia doesn't have the economy to be a "global power"

It wasn't acceptable for US administration and American people back in 1941. Actually even Japanese domination in China and Indo-China was unacceptable. Thats why they didn't finish the war of Japan-preferred terms.
And in 1945 the USA have only two acceptable choices:
1) Bomb Japan in unconditional surrender.
2) Invade Japan until they surrender.
The same choice Russia has about Europe. If Europe don't surrender Russia can a) nuke Europe b) invade Europe.

Good luck with that. Just like Hitler and his Nazis used to think.

We'll see how "tough" they'll be after elimination of the most critical European infrastructure. And no, Russia doesn't "beat" Ukraine. Russia is "gently slapping" her.

Talk,talk,talk,talk,talk...

No. It's not about territory and never has been. Leaving Odessa and Kharkov under the yoke of Kievan regime is even worse - allowing NATO forces in Ukraine - is totally and absolutely unacceptable. Leaving Russian people under control of Neo-Nazi Baltic states, allowing NATO build new bases in Finland and Sweden is unacceptable, either.

Plain lies. NATO forces are not in Ukraine, it is about territory, Russians are in Russia, Russians are not in Ukraine or other Baltic States. They are citizens of those countries or they are free to leave and go back to Russia, they chose to stay.

Of course not. No one suggested usage of nukes against Ukrainian cities. We suggest usage of nukes against French, British and, if necessary, American nuclear bases. And only if they retaliate - then there will be counter-value strike (against British, French and, if necessary - American cities).

Good plan...the suicide of Russia.

I like reading non-fiction either. Of course no. A limited nuclear war is not suicidal at all, and even an all-out nuclear war is gambling, not "suicide".

Its suicide.

Its the price we ready to pay (say nothing that this number is totally wrong).

Russian casualties is a big number, so is the number of Ukrainian casualties. For what? Wearing down both militaries.

Long-range weapons is guided, maintained and controlled by NATO-countries. And we see it not as a facilitation, but as a participation.

Giving armaments to Ukraine is part of a security guarantee signed by all countries as the Budapest Memorandum, including Russia, Ukraine, and many NATO countries. Russia knew that NATO would help defend Ukraine, invading was a dumb idea.

On the last more or less free Ukrainian elections, in 2010, more than a half of Ukrainian citizens (especially in south-eastern regions) voted to stick with Russia. After liberation of Kherson and Zaporozhye regions (ok, parts of them) most of people voted to join Russia. I'm absolutely sure, that if there will be a free choice between "join Russia" and "stay independent, but Russia-friendly" (and there will be no option "join NATO or NATO countries") many former Ukrainian regions will vote for joining Russia.

Ukraine is fighting Russia. They won't vote to join Russia, they prefer to join NATO.

You are discussing it. I believe that the leopard can't change its spots and prefer to discuss it since first Northern Crusades.

Recent history is since 2014. Before that is history. There is no justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Most of now NATO countries fought against Russia in WWII.

Plain lie. Germany and who else? Out of 37 or so NATO countries the vast majority were allied with Russia.

Of course you do. Long-range weapons was operated by NATO forces.

Plain lie. Not true.

No. When Russian people defend themselves its good. When foreigners steal Russian property - its bad. And, as for me, after normalisation of Russia-Italian relationships, I'm going to visit Italy and send one local rat to swim in concrete flippers. Bigger guys have bigger job to be done.

Invading another country is not defending yourself. No foreigners stole Russian property. Rat disposal happens all over.

Of course you did. ATACMS are controlled and operated by Americans.

No. They are operated by Ukrainians.

The war won't continues "indefinitely" anyway. Either it will be finished by building of system of equal rights and equal safety, or, what seems much more likely - it will escalate to the level of regional (limited nuclear) war against France and Britain, or to the level of large-scale war (all-out nuclear, chemical and biological) against all NATO+ countries (first of all, of course, the USA) which will be ended with your unconditional surrender.

Right now we suggest you the great opportunity - to pay the fines, withdraw your forces from eastern Europe and f#ck off without losing US territories and/or US population.
If you force us to launch a limited counter-force strike against your nuclear forces the price of peace will be higher - Alaska and California becomes Russia, say nothing against Montana and Wyoming depopulated because of radioactive fallouts.
If you try to retaliate - we'll destroy seven your cities for one our and then we'll demand conditional surrender.

Here you go again with your nonsense. Russia is in no position to threaten anyone. You have a second rate military, a third world economy, and nuclear weapons. Shove them up your ass.

 

[Zavulon]

Politicians say things all the time. Litwin is always pushing for decolonisation of Russia by agitating separatists to go independent, like Russia is doing in Ukraine and other Baltic countries, so Baltic countries are clamping down and not allowing Russian agitators. It's in their "sphere of influence" to keep Russians inside their BORDERS. Russia doesn't have the economy to be a "global power"

Of course Russia have, if we count economy in real things, not in virtual dollars (especially if we count not only Russian, but the whole BRICS economy, especially if we count it in PPP). And if the EU wants decolonisation of Russia, we, just as a form of self-defense, need to eliminate the EU.

Good luck with that. Just like Hitler and his Nazis used to think.

They were wrong. We are right.

Talk,talk,talk,talk,talk...

Rather sooner than later those talks will become actions.

Plain lies. NATO forces are not in Ukraine, it is about territory, Russians are in Russia, Russians are not in Ukraine or other Baltic States. They are citizens of those countries or they are free to leave and go back to Russia, they chose to stay.

Many of them decided to go back to Russia and take their land with them. Many of them will decide to join Russia after elimination of Kievan regime.

Good plan...the suicide of Russia.

Its suicide.

If your decision-makers actually believed that all-out nuclear exchange means suicide (little hint - they don't) it's pretty safe for Russia be as provocative as the Russians want to be, including, say, limited nuclear attack agaisnt British and French military bases.

Russian casualties is a big number, so is the number of Ukrainian casualties. For what?

For protection of Russian people and safety of Russian Federation.

Wearing down both militaries.

Giving armaments to Ukraine is part of a security guarantee signed by all countries as the Budapest Memorandum, including Russia, Ukraine, and many NATO countries. Russia knew that NATO would help defend Ukraine, invading was a dumb idea.

We are not dumb. We knew that NATO would help Ukraine and we invaded exactly because you would help them. Tellurocratian logic - the threat should be eliminated before it became too strong.

Ukraine is fighting Russia. They won't vote to join Russia, they prefer to join NATO.

Joing NATO is no more option for them. So, the only choice they will have after inevitable defeat of Kievan regime - is to join Russia as a part of Russia (like Crimea and Novorussia), to be a Russian ally with pro-Russian policy (like Belarus) or to be neutral and demilitirised country with equal rights for Russians and laymen of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (like Georgia).

Recent history is since 2014. Before that is history. There is no justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

No. Recent history is since 1025.

Plain lie. Germany and who else? Out of 37 or so NATO countries the vast majority were allied with Russia.

Are you banned in Google?

Invading another country is not defending yourself.

Of course it is. At least sometimes.

No foreigners stole Russian property.

Of course you do.

No. They are operated by Ukrainians.

Plain lie.

Here you go again with your nonsense. Russia is in no position to threaten anyone. You have a second rate military, a third world economy, and nuclear weapons. Shove them up your ass.

We'll use them to burn your asses. If you want war - there will be war. If you want peace - do few steps back and then we'll discuss the system of equal rights and equal safety for everyone.

 

[kyzr]

Of course Russia have, if we count economy in real things, not in virtual dollars (especially if we count not only Russian, but the whole BRICS economy). And if the EU wants decolonisation of Russia, we, just as a form of self-defense, need to eliminate the EU.

You never replied to my question of why, if the war is so popular in Russia, that when Prigozhin was rolling toward Moscow people were cheering him on? Russians appear to have had quite enough of Mr. Putin and his war. BRICS is stepping into the economic ring with the US, good luck. You and I both know what happens if Russia attacks a NATO country.

Hitler and the Nazis were wrong. We are right.

We learned never to let aggressors win. If you want Ukraine, take it or back off.

Many of them decided to go back to Russia and take their land with them. Many of them will decide to join Russia after elimination of Kievan regime.

If Russians live in other countries that is their free choice, that does not give Russia any claims.

If your decision-makers actually believed that all-out nuclear exchange means suicide (little hint - they don't) it's pretty safe for Russia be as provocative as the Russians want to be, including, say, limited nuclear attack against British and French military bases.

Bad idea.

For protection of Russian people and safety of Russian Federation.

Russian casualties are dying for Putin's ego and ambition, nothing more.

We are not dumb. We knew that NATO would help Ukraine and we invaded exactly because you would help them. Tellurocratian logic - the threat should be eliminated before it became too strong.

Looks like you are too late, or maybe should not have invaded?

Joining NATO is no more option for them. So, the only choice they will have after inevitable defeat of Kievan regime - is to join Russia as a part of Russia (like Crimea and Novorussia), to be a Russian ally with pro-Russian policy (like Belarus) or to be neutral and demilitirised country with equal rights for Russians and laymen of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (like Georgia).

We'll see which option Zelensky chooses at the peace negotiations.

We'll use them to burn your asses. If you want war - there will be war. If you want peace - do few steps back and then we'll discuss the system of equal rights and equal safety for everyone.

We don't want war you do. You keep talking tough and threatening everyone. Maybe nuclear weapons are a "wasting asset"? Putin said to Trump that he'd like to reduce the number of nuclear weapons because maintaining them is getting too expensive. Maybe they will become useless or less effective soon?

 

[Zavulon]

You never replied to my question of why, if the war is so popular in Russia, that when Prigozhin was rolling toward Moscow people were cheering him on?

Not many people were cheering him, and its not because he wanted to "stop the war", but because he wanted to "fight it more effectively".

Russians appear to have had quite enough of Mr. Putin and his war.

Absolutely wrong.

BRICS is stepping into the economic ring with the US, good luck. You and I both know what happens if Russia attacks a NATO country.

Nothing special will happen. You'll knee and gobble.

We learned never to let aggressors win. If you want Ukraine, take it or back off.

Its not about Ukraine only. Its about the system of equal safety and equal rights.

If Russians live in other countries that is their free choice, that does not give Russia any claims.

And if Russians living in other countries make their free choice to join Russia - it gives Russia pretty good claim.

Bad idea.

Russian casualties are dying for Putin's ego and ambition, nothing more.

And once more you are returning to your Nazi-rhetoric that Russians are sub-humans, who can't understand what and why they are doing.

Looks like you are too late, or maybe should not have invaded?

Likely, we should have invaded a bit earlier, but its quite good either.

We'll see which option Zelensky chooses at the peace negotiations.

Zelenskiy is nobody. He is expired. Whatever he "choose" it means nothing. The only one who's position means something in the West is mr Trump. And he has basically only two choices - "escalate" or "deescalate". As far as I can see - he choose "escalate", and it, basically means that we are in a larger nuclear war in a year or two.

We don't want war you do.

If you don't want the war - pay fines and f#ck off. Its that simple.

You keep talking tough and threatening everyone. Maybe nuclear weapons are a "wasting asset"?

No.

Putin said to Trump that he'd like to reduce the number of nuclear weapons because maintaining them is getting too expensive. Maybe they will become useless or less effective soon?

No. They are going to be more effective soon.