Russia issues list of demands it says must be met to lower tensions in Europe

[Baron]

the US-centered World is over, the US must understand and accept its place of regional power and stick to North American continent.

If USA wouldn't be run by morons both Russia and the US became allies

 

[ESay]

Classic Chess move....

I doubt the Russians are going to play chess here. Actually, I don't see a way how these negotiations can be successful. And that is not about Nato's widening to the East. Compromise on this part can be reached.

But what is more important, Russia wants to dictate what weapons can be placed on certain parts of Nato's territory. Basically, this demand undermines the very reason of Nato's existence.

I think the West will make similar demands. For example, turning Kaliningrad oblast into some kind of demilitarized zone. And that is where it will get to know how 'non-negotiable' Russia is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do they have 700 military bases around US?

Does it matter? US history shows us the US only attacks weak countries. Russia is far too strong for the US to even consider getting into a war with. When Russia annexed the Crimea, the US did nothing. Why?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually, mostly Ossetians and Abkhazians were encouraged by the Georgian policy "Georgia for the [ethnic] Georgians". Nobody wants to be killed or expelled.

There's a lot of stuff going on, and a lot of it is emotional. Russia and the US know how to manipulate people's emotions.

 

[Silver Cat]

Does it matter? US history shows us the US only attacks weak countries. Russia is far too strong for the US to even consider getting into a war with. When Russia annexed the Crimea, the US did nothing. Why?

The discussions about a logic of intentions are almost useless. What is much more important - it's the logic of possibilities and circumstances.
The USA, back in 1962, didn't care if Khrushchev had _intention_ to attack American missile bases. They cared if he was just _acquiring_ the Credible First Strike Capability. It was much safer to start a war (even nuclear) in October of 1962, than allow the Soviets prepare their missiles to counter-force strike by March 1963.

And yes, the very history of the USA was started with their war against the most powerful state in the world (at time) - the British Empire.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The discussions about a logic of intentions are almost useless. What is much more important - it's the logic of possibilities and circumstances.
The USA, back in 1962, didn't care if Khrushchev had _intention_ to attack American missile bases. They cared if he was just _acquiring_ the Credible First Strike Capability. It was much safer to start a war (even nuclear) in October of 1962, than allow the Soviets prepare their missiles to counter-force strike by March 1963.

And yes, the very history of the USA was started with their war against the most powerful state in the world (at time) - the British Empire.

I don't really get what you're saying.

In the Cold War people didn't know what was going to happen because everything was new. There had never been such a war in the History of the world before.

Right now it's totally different. This is conventional warfare and Putin is making stuff up in order to deflect from what he's actually doing, which is trying to make himself look like a strong leader by taking land from other countries.

 

[Ringo]

Putin is making stuff up in order to deflect from what he's actually doing, which is trying to make himself look like a strong leader by taking land from other countries.

Do you still not understand that Russia is now, for the first time in history, stronger than both the United States and NATO? Even if NATO strikes first, Russia's retaliatory strike will destroy the enemy before US missiles reach targets in Russia. Yes, it will still be guaranteed mutual destruction, but only now NATO and the United States do not even have a theoretical chance to win.

 

[Silver Cat]

I don't really get what you're saying.

It's quite simple. There are three basic types of deterrence -
1) Deterrence Type I - prevents direct attack against your country. It depends on how many of your nukes will survive after enemy's attack, how many of them will be delivered to his cities, and how acceptable will be caused damage. If your enemy believes, that he can destroy all (or almost all) your nukes by his first strike, intercept part of leftovers and alleviate the damage of remaining warheads to the acceptable level... Well, you don't have the Deterrence Type I.
2) Deterrence Type II - prevents extremely provocative action which is not direct nuclear attack against your country. It depends on your 'Credible First Strike Capability' - your possibility to destroy his nuclear forces, and alleviate possible damage to the acceptable level. If you can do it - your enemy won't do anything really stupid and provocative.
3) Deterrence Type III - ability to fight in a limited nuclear war.


------
So, when the Russians deployed their missiles in Cuba with an order to be ready to attack American missile bases and bases of missile submarines - they almost achieved The Credible First Strike Capability, and the Americans were ready to do literally anything to prevent such a possibility.
Same way, the Russia is ready to do almost anything to prevent further militarisation of Ukraine.
For example, today, Russian minister of Defense accused the USA of deployment of chemical weapon in Ukraine. Obviously, they search an excuse to attack Ukraine and/or the USA.

In the Cold War people didn't know what was going to happen because everything was new. There had never been such a war in the History of the world before.

In fact, no. They thought about possibility of the thermonuclear war pretty often, because they didn't consider it as 'unthinkable'. Modern politicians are pretty irresponsible and accident-prone.

Right now it's totally different. This is conventional warfare and Putin is making stuff up in order to deflect from what he's actually doing, which is trying to make himself look like a strong leader by taking land from other countries.

Russians have never live as well, as they do under Putin. They don't need to be deflected or something. They really consider militarisation of Ukraine as a treat.

 

[Silver Cat]

Do you still not understand that Russia is now, for the first time in history, stronger than both the United States and NATO? Even if NATO strikes first, Russia's retaliatory strike will destroy the enemy before US missiles reach targets in Russia. Yes, it will still be guaranteed mutual destruction, but only now NATO and the United States do not even have a theoretical chance to win.

Actually, there are no such thing as a _guaranteed_ mutual destruction. There is always a chance of an effective counter-force strike with successful alleviation of consequences. Yes, right now chances of Russia to win a nuclear war are much better, that American ones - Russian nukes are new, Russian Emercom (MChS) is great, Russian National Guard looks like more effective in preventing the post-attack disorder...
And yes, I think, that the Russian proposal is quite good. But, there is always a chance, you know:

 

[Ringo]

Actually, there are no such thing as a _guaranteed_ mutual destruction. There is always a chance of an effective counter-force strike with successful alleviation of consequences

That's stinking capitalism for you - we are talking about good outcomes of nuclear war... Capitalism = war, modern war = end of civilization. Therefore, the slogan of the day is Death to capitalism!

 

[Silver Cat]

That's stinking capitalism for you - we are talking about good outcomes of nuclear war... Capitalism = war, modern war = end of civilization. Therefore, the slogan of the day is Death to capitalism!

Actually, there were wars before Capitalism, and there were wars between socialistic states, too (for example Sino-Vietnamese War). And yes, even all-out nuclear war isn't equal to the end of the civilisation - there will be only Dark Age even in the worst case.
And yes, the main question is "Do we need the world without Freedom (i.e. without the USA)?" Many people believe that it's much better to die for the Freedom, that live on their knees.

 

[Ringo]

And yes, the main question is "Do we need the world without Freedom (i.e. without the USA)?" Many people believe that it's much better to die for the Freedom, that live on their knees.

Many believe that a man can marry another man and that toilets in schools should be shared. There are many perversions and lies in the world. And one of the lies is the modern USA = Freedom.
There were times a long time ago when, against the background of feudal monarchies, the capitalist USA could be considered as the "kingdom of freedom". (even then, it was hypocritical nonsense, given slavery and the genocide of the Indians).
Today, when the United States presents itself as the leader of decaying capitalism, who believes that the whole world should belong to them and he, this world, should live according to the laws and instructions from the White House, one can only talk about Freedom sarcastically. The Americans have gone too far in their impunity and related arrogance. They need to take into account that the situation has changed and the United States is no longer the leader of the unipolar world. You need to learn how to negotiate or ... the fate of many collapsed empires that aspired to world domination gives an example.

 

[Baron]

Do you still not understand that Russia is now, for the first time in history, stronger than both the United States and NATO?

Whom you're talking to?
NATO is being run by satanic imbeciles with zero brain capacity

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you still not understand that Russia is now, for the first time in history, stronger than both the United States and NATO? Even if NATO strikes first, Russia's retaliatory strike will destroy the enemy before US missiles reach targets in Russia. Yes, it will still be guaranteed mutual destruction, but only now NATO and the United States do not even have a theoretical chance to win.

Russia is not stronger than the US or NATO.

MAD has always kept countries at bay. Russia can't go to war with the US, because it'll lose. If it's along side China, it might stand a chance, but China isn't going to go to war with Russia, unless Russia wants to invade Taiwan.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's quite simple. There are three basic types of deterrence -
1) Deterrence Type I - prevents direct attack against your country. It depends on how many of your nukes will survive after enemy's attack, how many of them will be delivered to his cities, and how acceptable will be caused damage. If your enemy believes, that he can destroy all (or almost all) your nukes by his first strike, intercept part of leftovers and alleviate the damage of remaining warheads to the acceptable level... Well, you don't have the Deterrence Type I.
2) Deterrence Type II - prevents extremely provocative action which is not direct nuclear attack against your country. It depends on your 'Credible First Strike Capability' - your possibility to destroy his nuclear forces, and alleviate possible damage to the acceptable level. If you can do it - your enemy won't do anything really stupid and provocative.
3) Deterrence Type III - ability to fight in a limited nuclear war.


------
So, when the Russians deployed their missiles in Cuba with an order to be ready to attack American missile bases and bases of missile submarines - they almost achieved The Credible First Strike Capability, and the Americans were ready to do literally anything to prevent such a possibility.
Same way, the Russia is ready to do almost anything to prevent further militarisation of Ukraine.
For example, today, Russian minister of Defense accused the USA of deployment of chemical weapon in Ukraine. Obviously, they search an excuse to attack Ukraine and/or the USA.



In fact, no. They thought about possibility of the thermonuclear war pretty often, because they didn't consider it as 'unthinkable'. Modern politicians are pretty irresponsible and accident-prone.

Russians have never live as well, as they do under Putin. They don't need to be deflected or something. They really consider militarisation of Ukraine as a treat.

Well, Russia is more about sphere of influence. It sees the Ukraine going the same way as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Russia sees those as their own and was angry they joined NATO and the EU. Not because of the threat it poses, there hasn't been a threat at all, but because Putin is power hungry.

He doesn't want the Ukraine to be NATO. But he's pushing the Ukraine towards NATO. Being a complete fucking bastard has the tendency of doing that.

Russians are better than ever under Putin, and yet many Russians know they'd be much better off if they moved to the EU. The world is getting more convenient. Not because of Russia, but because of the EU and US technology. Even China is going to be more important than Russia.

Like like how Kim Jong-Un likes to provoke to get noticed, so too does Putin.

 

[Siberian]

Russia is not stronger than the US or NATO.

MAD has always kept countries at bay. Russia can't go to war with the US, because it'll lose. If it's along side China, it might stand a chance, but China isn't going to go to war with Russia, unless Russia wants to invade Taiwan.

why can't Russia go for war with the US?
if Russia destroys all hundreds of US bases abroad, what will the US do?
destroy all Russian 1,5 base abroad?
whiping out 10 tons of US influence in the World in exchange of losing 0,1 tons of Russian influence in the World - whose victory is it?
and what next, the US attacks Russian territory to provoke nuclear war?

 

[Siberian]

Well, Russia is more about sphere of influence. It sees the Ukraine going the same way as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Russia sees those as their own and was angry they joined NATO and the EU. Not because of the threat it poses, there hasn't been a threat at all, but because Putin is power hungry.

He doesn't want the Ukraine to be NATO. But he's pushing the Ukraine towards NATO. Being a complete fucking bastard has the tendency of doing that.

Russians are better than ever under Putin, and yet many Russians know they'd be much better off if they moved to the EU. The world is getting more convenient. Not because of Russia, but because of the EU and US technology. Even China is going to be more important than Russia.

Like like how Kim Jong-Un likes to provoke to get noticed, so too does Putin.

the EU is going to disintegrate very soon, within 10 years, probably within 4-5years.
Not because of Russia, but because EU economic model is deeply flawed. It is based on destruction of South European industry for sake of industry of stronger North Europe in exchange of credits.

Debt crisis of PIIGS of 2011 is no resolved, it is temporarily frozen.

Now absolute bankrupts Greece and Italy pay the same super low interest rate on debt as solvent Germany - but only because European central bank prints money to cover all deficites and finance low interest rate. But such insane money emission accelerates inflation.
2022 or 2023 Western Central banks will have to either stop money emission and face total bankruptcies of their economies or keep printing money and face hyperinflation, i. e. total destruction of world trade and their economies.

look at debt to GDP ratios, Greece is between Sudan and Lebanon (already defaulted), Italy is right after Lebanon...

giant debts, giant current account deficites, giant budget deficites - the US, Japan, Europe, actually the Whole West is a walking dead. In 2 years the death will be acknowledged.

Heatmap - Economic Indicators By Country

Trading Economics provides data for 20 million economic indicators from 196 countries including actual values, consensus figures, forecasts, historical time series and news. Heatmap - Economic Indicators By Country - was last updated on Monday, April 15, 2024.

tradingeconomics.com

and look at Russia's debt to GDP ratio, on current account...

 

[Siberian]

Do you still not understand that Russia is now, for the first time in history, stronger than both the United States and NATO? Even if NATO strikes first, Russia's retaliatory strike will destroy the enemy before US missiles reach targets in Russia. Yes, it will still be guaranteed mutual destruction, but only now NATO and the United States do not even have a theoretical chance to win.

Ringo, don't listen to Russian propaganda too much
we are not stronger than NATO, we are just undefeatable in certain circumstances (in Russian territory, in nuclear conflict - which the West thinks is not going to happen). But in other aspects, in conventional weapons NATO is 4-6 times stronger than Russia, depending on kind of weapons.
How many Kinzhals do we have (with little ability to deliver them close enough to American ships) ? Armatas? No Zirkons yet, no 5th generation fighters at all (except flying prototypes) !!!
Our propaganda talks too much...
The only superiority we have is in modern nuclear weapons but the West thinks we are not going to use them. And obviously we are hardly to use them in regional conflicts.

So, there are wars we can win, there are wars we will definitely lose.
In Ukrane the only conventional war we can win is total destruction of Ukraine from the distance, American style, without any occupation. And only if we promise to retaliate with nukes for every Western conventional missile hitting our territory.

Generally speaking, we can win any conventional regional war adjacent to our territory, which we will fight from our territory. All other wars depend on the will of Putin to use nuclear weapons.
So far he is сопли жуёт, but let us be hopeful...

 

[frigidweirdo]

why can't Russia go for war with the US?
if Russia destroys all hundreds of US bases abroad, what will the US do?
destroy all Russian 1,5 base abroad?
whiping out 10 tons of US influence in the World in exchange of losing 0,1 tons of Russian influence in the World - whose victory is it?
and what next, the US attacks Russian territory to provoke nuclear war?

Russia can do whatever it likes. And others can retaliate against that. Russia isn't going to destroy all of the US's bases abroad because this would mean massive diplomatic issues with loads of countries and cause Russia loads of problems.

Also they'd have to know they were going to win. Otherwise Putin know he's dead at the very least. The US also has nukes and it could wipe out half of Russia just as easily.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the EU is going to disintegrate very soon, within 10 years, probably within 4-5years.
Not because of Russia, but because EU economic model is deeply flawed. It is based on destruction of South European industry for sake of industry of stronger North Europe in exchange of credits.

Debt crisis of PIIGS of 2011 is no resolved, it is temporarily frozen.

Now absolute bankrupts Greece and Italy pay the same super low interest rate on debt as solvent Germany - but only because European central bank prints money to cover all deficites and finance low interest rate. But such insane money emission accelerates inflation.
2022 or 2023 Western Central banks will have to either stop money emission and face total bankruptcies of their economies or keep printing money and face hyperinflation, i. e. total destruction of world trade and their economies.

look at debt to GDP ratios, Greece is between Sudan and Lebanon (already defaulted), Italy is right after Lebanon...

giant debts, giant current account deficites, giant budget deficites - the US, Japan, Europe, actually the Whole West is a walking dead. In 2 years the death will be acknowledged.

Heatmap - Economic Indicators By Country

Trading Economics provides data for 20 million economic indicators from 196 countries including actual values, consensus figures, forecasts, historical time series and news. Heatmap - Economic Indicators By Country - was last updated on Monday, April 15, 2024.

tradingeconomics.com

and look at Russia's debt to GDP ratio, on current account...

Sure it is. They've been saying that for a long time, and it's not really happening.