US Boards Tanker Number Three En Route to Venezuela

No one shoots straighter or more accurately than the US military.

It is simply not true. New Russian warheads (as it was demonstrated by Oreshnik strike at Yuzmash) has miss lesser than one meter (3 feet) from a designated targeting point. Actually, with accuracy like this, Russia can hit and destroy US MM3 siloes even with non-nuclear projectile. But nukes, of course, better.
And if it turns out that Venezuela does not have WMDs, you will need to public say, "I was wrong."
Yes, of course.

Russia doesn't have 30% of Venezuela's oil.
Of course, we can't be sure about heroes and zeros, say Elliott Abrams said that Russia controls 70% of Venezuela's oil, but it is, I think, exaggeration.
IMG_20251223_213232.webp





If Russia wants peace then withdraw your forces from today.
We do want peace, we don't want to commit suicide by allowing NATO in Ukraine. You can say, that we want peace only on Russia-acceptable terms (demilitarisation, denazification and neutral statis of Ukraine).

No one is going to help Russia. Russia has spent the last 700 years making enemies of every country bordering them.
Many countries already help Russia. Anyway, it is more about Russia helping them to fight Americans.

That would be a big mistake.
Really? There may be freedom of navigation for everyone. Or there won't be freedom of navigation for anyone (especially for American ships). There will be no situation in which America enjoys freedom of navigation all over the world and all others have to ask American permission to deliver their cargo. As I said - ocean is big, and you can't control it all. Even if you try - even the worst enemies of Russia will make situative alliance with us.
How many NATO allies supported your claims? Even Britain is against you in this venture.
 
Tomohawk is a ship killer. Ask Iran

As far as I know, RGM/UGM-109B (TASM) was withdrawn from service in 1994, and first MST (lesser than one hundred of them) were planned to be delivered to US Navy in this September, but I didn't see any publication that it actually happened. Did you?
 
Tomohawk is a ship killer. Ask Iran
Did somebody use a tomahawk to take out a tanker ship? I don't think so. We boarded on. I don't think we have ever used a tomahawk missile to take out a ship we have boarded and taken control of.
 
It is simply not true. New Russian warheads (as it was demonstrated by Oreshnik strike at Yuzmash) has miss lesser than one meter (3 feet) from a designated targeting point. Actually, with accuracy like this, Russia can hit and destroy US MM3 siloes even with non-nuclear projectile. But nukes, of course, better.
So you're where the US was 30 years ago in the first Iraq war. Congratulations. But the next war won't be fought with missiles. Drones are cheaper and can swarm any target.

Of course, we can't be sure about heroes and zeros, say Elliott Abrams said that Russia controls 70% of Venezuela's oil, but it is, I think, exaggeration.
Elliott Abrams stated that Russian companies handle more than 70% of Venezuelan oil. Not "control". But even if you are right and Russia controls Venezuelan oil, that all the more reason to block them from exporting it.

We do want peace, we don't want to commit suicide by allowing NATO in Ukraine. You can say, that we want peace only on Russia-acceptable terms (demilitarisation, denazification and neutral statis of Ukraine).
Ukraine will not demilitarize, that would be suicide for them. And Ukraine joining NATO would not affect Russia in any way.

Many countries already help Russia. Anyway, it is more about Russia helping them to fight Americans.
I count 4 or 5 countries. Most of which can barely help themselves let alone help Russia.

Really? There may be freedom of navigation for everyone. Or there won't be freedom of navigation for anyone (especially for American ships).
Especially? More like especially for countries that don't have strong blue water navies but depend on imports (yes I'm looking at you Xi).

The US is self-sufficient in food and energy. We need Chinese rare earths until we ramp our domestic production back up, and we need Taiwanese chips. Other than that, it's other countries that need to worry about freedom of navigation without the US keeping the seas safe.

There will be no situation in which America enjoys freedom of navigation all over the world and all others have to ask American permission to deliver their cargo. As I said - ocean is big, and you can't control it all. Even if you try - even the worst enemies of Russia will make situative alliance with us.
Sure they will. We will always provide military support for our allies shipping.

How many NATO allies supported your claims? Even Britain is against you in this venture.
So go to the UN and demand a vote. Russia is on the Security Council but won't even do that.
 
So you're where the US was 30 years ago in the first Iraq war. Congratulations. But the next war won't be fought with missiles. Drones are cheaper and can swarm any target.
Here is the big difference in guiding sub-sonic cruise missiles and ICBMs. American ICBMs still have CEP more than 100 meters.

Elliott Abrams stated that Russian companies handle more than 70% of Venezuelan oil. Not "control". But even if you are right and Russia controls Venezuelan oil, that all the more reason to block them from exporting it.
And this is exactly why Russia will fight the USA.

Ukraine will not demilitarize, that would be suicide for them.
Yep. And refuse of Ukraine's demilitarisation will be suicide both for America and Ukraine. Think, what is more important for you.

And Ukraine joining NATO would not affect Russia in any way.
Plain lie. NATO support genocide of Russians (actually, it is officially declared goal of the EU), and allowing them deploy military units in Ukraine would be a suicide.

I count 4 or 5 countries. Most of which can barely help themselves let alone help Russia.
Really? And is this why Russia, with its economy in tatters, easily wins a war of attrition with the whole NATO?

Especially? More like especially for countries that don't have strong blue water navies but depend on imports (yes I'm looking at you Xi).
As I said - ocean is big. And if Shanghai block start making their own sanction lists and seizing cargo ships... Ok, you won't operate in Eastern Hemisphere at all.

The US is self-sufficient in food and energy. We need Chinese rare earths until we ramp our domestic production back up, and we need Taiwanese chips. Other than that, it's other countries that need to worry about freedom of navigation without the US keeping the seas safe.
No. Other countries will join for the elimination of the US piracy threat.

Sure they will. We will always provide military support for our allies shipping.
Even your best allies prefer to have freedom of navigation for everyone rather than permissions from the USA.

So go to the UN and demand a vote. Russia is on the Security Council but won't even do that.
No need. Looks like, the failure of Russia-American negotiations just made victory of "eliminators" in Russian discussions. "There is nothing to talk about. There is no reason to talk. And there is nobody to talk with. Let's just kill them all."
 
Yep. And refuse of Ukraine's demilitarisation will be suicide both for America and Ukraine. Think, what is more important for you.
If Russia won't accept a demilitarized Ukraine, then they will just keep bleeding each other bone dry. Russia will probably win that fight since it has more manpower, but the Russians will be that much weaker and less able to start another war.

I don't see how it harms America to see Russia made more impotent.

Plain lie. NATO support genocide of Russians (actually, it is officially declared goal of the EU), and allowing them deploy military units in Ukraine would be a suicide.
That is a lie. NATO's official goals are collective security, not the "genocide of Russians"

Russia has a GDP about the size of Italy's. NATO could spend Russia into the poor house militarily speaking.

Really? And is this why Russia, with its economy in tatters, easily wins a war of attrition with the whole NATO?
They would not. See above.

As I said - ocean is big. And if Shanghai block start making their own sanction lists and seizing cargo ships... Ok, you won't operate in Eastern Hemisphere at all.
I don't think China wants to get into a tit-for-tat with the US on seizing cargo ships. China depends on trade for its very existence. Without constant imports 500 million Chinese would starve within a year.

No. Other countries will join for the elimination of the US piracy threat.
Uh huh. Sure they will. Any day now.

Even your best allies prefer to have freedom of navigation for everyone rather than permissions from the USA.
Again, I'm not hearing the outrage from our allies. Just our enemies.

No need. Looks like, the failure of Russia-American negotiations just made victory of "eliminators" in Russian discussions. "There is nothing to talk about. There is no reason to talk. And there is nobody to talk with. Let's just kill them all."
In that case, we have nothing left to discuss. Thank you for the stimlulating conversation.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, if you continue to do this, China, Russia and many other guys will start arresting (or torpedoing) US ships in high seas, too.

So, six or more countries are all going unite to start a war with the USA killing Americans and sinking their vessels for the USA merely stopping a few tankers at sea whom are operating against lawful sanctions?

Good one. :lmao:

Here's a thought: if any of them need oil that bad, just give Trump a call and he will sell you all the oil you need.
 
If Russia won't accept a demilitarized Ukraine, then they will just keep bleeding each other bone dry. Russia will probably win that fight since it has more manpower, but the Russians will be that much weaker and less able to start another war.

I don't see how it harms America to see Russia made more impotent.


That is a lie. NATO's official goals are collective security, not the "genocide of Russians"

Russia has a GDP about the size of Italy's. NATO could spend Russia into the poor house militarily speaking.


They would not. See above.


I don't think China wants to get into a tit-for-tat with the US on seizing cargo ships. China depends on trade for its very existence. Without constant imports 500 million Chinese would starve within a year.


Uh huh. Sure they will. Any day now.


Again, I'm not hearing the outrage from our allies. Just our enemies.


In that case, we have nothing left to discuss. Thank you for the stimlulating conversation.
The pleasure is all mine. Anyway, we tried.
 
If Russia won't accept a demilitarized Ukraine, then they will just keep bleeding each other bone dry.

To be sure, the whole matter with Ukraine seems to go back more than 13 years to the EU and USA both pressing for Ukraine to join NATO, which as a clear treaty violation. Russia does not want NATO against its borders anymore than America would want China or Russia against our border.

Look how we hated it with Cuba and Cuba is well off our coast.

Frankly, I see Ukraine as a lost cause and see Russia inevitably doing what it wants because, Ukraine is RIGHT THERE on Russia's border whereas it is on the other side of the world to us.

So I expect that Zelenskyy will never accept any compromise, people will still keep fighting and dying, and probably the EU will keep spending money, but I don't see Trump going along forever.
 
So, six or more countries are all going unite to start a war with the USA killing Americans and sinking their vessels for the USA merely stopping a few tankers at sea whom are operating against lawful sanctions?
Not necessarily. First of all, they will create their own sanction lists. Second - they will give letters of marque to private companies for seizure of American ships. And only then, they will use military ships (including auxiliary cruisers, made of civilian ships and disguise as them) under their own flags to attack US civilian ships. And, taking the wider picture, it is just the twentieth step on the escalation ladder (by Herman Kahn), and last of non-nuclear. Twenty-first is a demonstrative nuclear strike. (If all sides play by book).

Good one. :lmao:

Here's a thought: if any of them need oil that bad, just give Trump a call and he will sell you all the oil you need.
First of all, it is not just about oil (as Ukraine is not about gas, amber or rare earths). Second one - it was a threat of oil embargo, that forced Japan to attack the USA back in 1941.
Let's play a game. There is a nuclear blast over Chicago. What you can say certain - it's yield is 10 Mt (and, therefore it is definitely not a regular Russian or Chines bomb) its height is about 5 km over earth surface. No radioactive fallouts, but the whole agglomeration is destroyed. 9 mln killed and injured. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and others started mobilisation and evacuation. Latinoamerican gangs started civilian disturbance and attacks against Federal government, white supematists, law enforcement units (mostly in Republican controlled areas). After four hours, your experts told you something like this: It is not a regular bomb (you already know it), with 80% probability it was made from Japanese Plutonium (rectified by unknown, but probably South Korean developed process), with 70% probability its Uranium was mined in East Germany, and rectified in France or Russia. FBI believes that Venezuela's (and some others) carthels were somehow linked with it, because their members left Chicago few hours before the burst.

Russia and China already have their nuclear forces cocked and loaded, and in less than one day they'll finish partial evacuation and sheltering of their cities. And they say you calm down, and don't attack Venezuela before international investigation is ended. For start of the investigation they suggest all SSBNs (of all sides) to surface and turn on geoposition services (which would significantly decrease US capability to retaliate, if Russia and China decide to attack first). Or you can try to attack their cities first, before they finished evacuation. You are not prepared to commit really effective counter-force strike right now. Oversimplificating, you have a choice - surrender, murder-suicide or wait.

What actions would you prefer?
 
Last edited:
To be sure, the whole matter with Ukraine seems to go back more than 13 years to the EU and USA both pressing for Ukraine to join NATO, which as a clear treaty violation. Russia does not want NATO against its borders anymore than America would want China or Russia against our border.

Look how we hated it with Cuba and Cuba is well off our coast.

Frankly, I see Ukraine as a lost cause and see Russia inevitably doing what it wants because, Ukraine is RIGHT THERE on Russia's border whereas it is on the other side of the world to us.

So I expect that Zelenskyy will never accept any compromise, people will still keep fighting and dying, and probably the EU will keep spending money, but I don't see Trump going along forever.
Perhaps, but we can make taking Ukraine so costly that Russia will be enervated for a generation, unable to attempt any further conquests. By which time their collapsing demographics will render Russia incapable of fielding an army.

Take a look at the demographic map. Russia is not only in full-on demographic collapse, they are the TERMINAL collapse! They don't have enough child-bearing aged women to replenish their numbers. Most of the population will be over 50 in a decade and you can't fight wars of conquest with 50 year olds.

iu
 
Perhaps, but we can make taking Ukraine so costly that Russia will be enervated for a generation, unable to attempt any further conquests. By which time their collapsing demographics will render Russia incapable of fielding an army.
In fact, if Special Operation became more costly, that potential result of end of NPT (something like one million killed) Russia will simply escalate from the level of "de facto local war", to the level "de facto regional war" with active usage of nukes.

Take a look at the demographic map. Russia is not only in full-on demographic collapse, they are the TERMINAL collapse! They don't have enough child-bearing aged women to replenish their numbers. Most of the population will be over 50 in a decade and you can't fight wars of conquest with 50 year olds.

iu

If we win - we'll take as many widows and orphans from Ukraine and other Slavic countries as we ready to feed. If we lose - we'll be genocided by European Nazies.
 
Twenty-first is a demonstrative nuclear strike. (If all sides play by book).

Knock yourself out. Go to nuclear war with the USA because it stopped a couple of oil tankers (some of them empty) for violating an embargo and see where it gets you.

Or you could do the sane thing and just get your oil legally from a non-embargoed country.
 
Perhaps, but we can make taking Ukraine so costly
We? This is Ukraine's war not mine. I don't give two shits about Zelenskyy.

Russia is not only in full-on demographic collapse, they are the TERMINAL collapse!
No idea what that chart is supposed to be telling me, all I can say is that if I know Russia, they are most dangerous when their back is against the wall.

It would be so much better for all parties involved to just settle the matter and go back to peaceful trade supporting each other rather than trying to always conquer each other.
 
Knock yourself out. Go to nuclear war with the USA because it stopped a couple of oil tankers (some of them empty) for violating an embargo and see where it gets you.
No. We both know that it is not just about two tankers. It is about freedom of navigation, it is about right of self-defense, and it is about American "right" to control global sea-trade and rewrite international rules. And nuclear war is definitely better than Pax Americana.

Anyway, it is all just a part of the game escalation - de-escalation. When Trump was elected we were at fourteen step of the ladder. Now, we are at twentieth. And if American decision-makers ready to escalate that high and ready to destroy the whole system of free navigation, beneficial for America, it is definitely not about few tankers with oil. It means, that the USA are preparing nuclear attack against Russian Federation. And the only thing we can do to prevent it - attack first.

Or you could do the sane thing and just get your oil legally from a non-embargoed country.
We are getting our oil legally and from not-embargoed country. You can roll your "sanction list" and shove it deep into your asshole. The USA have no right to declare what is legal, and what is not. Not in the Eastern Hemisphere, not in Western Hemisphere.
 
15th post
We? This is Ukraine's war not mine. I don't give two shits about Zelenskyy.
He doesn't want to save Ukrainians nor Zelenskiy. He just want to kill some random Russians.
It would be so much better for all parties involved to just settle the matter and go back to peaceful trade supporting each other rather than trying to always conquer each other.
The matter is simple. West should recognise that Russians are human beings, and they have right to live and defend themselves. That's the most important and the most difficult for western mindset part.
 
Nothing of it is my intention. I don't even tell you not commit illegal and unprovoked acts of aggression and piracy (for you are definitely not one of deep state decision-makers). It's your funerals, after all. I just want you not be surprised when those oppressed, weak, raped and robbed strike you back.


I'm an ordinary man, just trying to improve my English skills by pleasant chat and trying to observe things from other point of view. I'm deeply sorry if anything from my clumsy remarks pissed you off. Do you want to know more?
If you want a “pleasant chat “ change the subject.
 
If you want a “pleasant chat “ change the subject.
Why? May be, I enjoy your fear, your hatred, your bewilderment... Just joking. I need English not only for small talks, I need it mostly for negotiations in conflict situations and for interrogations. And Chemical Scouts are not some nice FSB or GRU guys who usually have plenty of time for playing their games. We need to disembowel our tongues fast, and accurate. And for this, a certain degree of animosity and alienisation is required.

That's why, talking Japanese I rarely use 私 (watashi) for "I". And, of course, not watakushi. It is 俺 (ore), more often 自分 (jibun), and, sometimes, in informal speach - 余 (yo) just to show that I'm a typical villain from manga. And, of course, I miss "desu" as much as it grammatically possible.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom