What are Putin's Options for Revenge that he has promised?

[Zavulon]

The results are the same, military people do what they are told to do.

Of course no. The results are very different when people fight willingly, for what is really important for them, and when they don't want to fight.

Most of the West has zero trust in what Putin says so the worry of a nuclear war is not seen as real over here.

And when they realise that it is real (like after elimination of HMNB Clyde) - will they escalate or de-escalate?

I have no reason to believe the attacks are anything but Ukraine striking military targets.

And Ukraine is, definitely, NATO's proxy weapon. You feed them - you are responsible for them. So, be prepared for proxy attacks against US strategic forces.

Considering how poorly Russia has done against tiny Ukraine, it would be stupid to take on a superpower when there is no existential threat to Russia.

Of course there is existential threat to Russia.

There is no stomach here to fight Russia, it is Russia that chooses to fight.

There is stomach to kill Russians. You just don't want to be killed in return. And this is exactly why Russia needs and Russia will bring the war in NATO (including US) military bases and civilian cities.

There is no NATO threat, certainly no short-term one. Without Putin's need to save face there is no need to push any button.

Of course there is. NATO's proxy attacks against Russian strategic nuclear forces is the vital threat. And while NATO is untruthworthy - any treaties are totally useless. The very presence of NATO's forces in Eastern Europe should be ended. And it will be ended, one way or another.

Who's running the economy now? A former KGB agent?

Of course no.

 

[alang1216]

Of course no. The results are very different when people fight willingly, for what is really important for them, and when they don't want to fight.

Are they? I think that is just your guess.

And when they realise that it is real (like after elimination of HMNB Clyde) - will they escalate or de-escalate?

I don't think anyone can know for sure. Russia will be kicking a hornet's nest.

And Ukraine is, definitely, NATO's proxy weapon. You feed them - you are responsible for them. So, be prepared for proxy attacks against US strategic forces.

We've been aiding Ukraine for years so this sounds like just another of Putin's imaginary red lines.

Of course there is existential threat to Russia.

Has Russia been invaded by NATO or anyone else? Going nuclear would be an existential threat.

There is stomach to kill Russians. You just don't want to be killed in return. And this is exactly why Russia needs and Russia will bring the war in NATO (including US) military bases and civilian cities.

Russians started getting killed when they entered Ukraine. If they never did that, no Russians would have died. It is Putin that doesn't care about killing Russians.

Of course there is. NATO's proxy attacks against Russian strategic nuclear forces is the vital threat. And while NATO is untruthworthy - any treaties are totally useless. The very presence of NATO's forces in Eastern Europe should be ended. And it will be ended, one way or another.

So far only talk and failed objectives, that is way we don't really take Russia seriously.

Of course no.

It is Putin and his oligarchs. The view here is that Russia is essentially run as a criminal empire. The Mafia would be proud.

 

[Zavulon]

Are they? I think that is just your guess.

Yes, they are. You can compare the difference in effectivness of American troops when they were fighting on American soil (against Brits or Confederacy) and their effectiveness in Vietnam or Afghanistan - there where they didn't understand what and why they are doing.

I don't think anyone can know for sure. Russia will be kicking a hornet's nest.

Ok. It means escalation. And it means that Russia has no reason to kick the hornet's nest. Russia will burn it. Sad, but you just didn't leave us any alternative.

We've been aiding Ukraine for years so this sounds like just another of Putin's imaginary red lines.

It's not "red lines". It means that we came to the level "proxy attacks against nuclear assets". And it means that US bombers or SSBNs will be attacked my "Mexicans", "Houthies", "Democrats", whoever else. Which, of course, will put both of us in the situation "use it or lose it" and direct exchange of nuclear strikes.

Has Russia been invaded by NATO or anyone else? Going nuclear would be an existential threat.

Yes. Russia was invaded and attacked. And no, not responding would be an existential threat. Preemption would be just gambling with very good chances to win.

Russians started getting killed when they entered Ukraine. If they never did that, no Russians would have died. It is Putin that doesn't care about killing Russians.

Of course no. Historically, Russians came on the territory of the modern Ukraine more than a thousand years ago. Talking about the post-Soviet Ukraine, Ukrainians (paid by Europeans and Turks) have been participating in Chechnya conflict, supplied Saakashvilly's regime with Buk SA-complexes (with the crews) and they started mass murders of local Russians just after their illegal coup (aka Revolution of Dignity).

So far only talk and failed objectives, that is way we don't really take Russia seriously.

Its ok. You just take Russian goodwill as a weakness. The graveyards of history are full of the nations who underestimated Russia. Looks like you'll be next.

 

[Deadstick]

I should have included the fact that the nuclear option is not available to the US/Nato. There's nothing to gain in that for either side. That then means that conventional warfare means will be looked to if Putin intends on keeping up the appearance of Russia's resolve that any interference with Russia's nuclear capabilities, will bring similar reaction coming from the Russian military.

Or has Putin's/Russia's bluffing now run it's course?

Does this mean that Russia is near accepting defeat?

Defeat what the arrogant West never get is that Russia losing is just not an option for them because Russia would be finished, just like losing to Hitler was never an option.

 

[Deadstick]

Are they? I think that is just your guess.


I don't think anyone can know for sure. Russia will be kicking a hornet's nest.


We've been aiding Ukraine for years so this sounds like just another of Putin's imaginary red lines.


Has Russia been invaded by NATO or anyone else? Going nuclear would be an existential threat.


Russians started getting killed when they entered Ukraine. If they never did that, no Russians would have died. It is Putin that doesn't care about killing Russians.


So far only talk and failed objectives, that is way we don't really take Russia seriously.


It is Putin and his oligarchs. The view here is that Russia is essentially run as a criminal empire. The Mafia would be proud.

Putin doesn't have any Oligarchs unlike that piss head Yeltsin Putin ended their power and the real mafia state that existed under Yeltsin and his Western Corporate jackals looting Russia, that's why they hate Putin because he stopped their criminal project, a project that has been going on for centuries.

 

[GLASNOST]

Yes, they are. You can compare the difference in effectivness of American troops ..... in Vietnam or Afghanistan.

>>> I am a Vietnam veteran. I try stay out of discussions about the Vietnam war but there are a few issues when I must speak up. You talk about the "effectiveness"of American troops in Vietnam. I don't know if I understand your point but I'll say what I have to say anyway. We (the soldiers in Vietnam) knew something was wrong - something was not right. Some guys blamed our "effectiveness"on POLITICS. They were right but they were looking at if from the wrong angle. Our "effectiveness" wasn't hampered by POLITICS ..... or should I say that it was?

If we are going to speak about "effectiveness" we must speak of it in the context of goals. We (everyone) was told a lie. The goal was a lie. Most people believe we lost in Vietnam, that our goal was not achieved. That is not true. The goal was achieved when the first shot was fired. That was when the cash started to flow in for the MIC and for the politicians who were corrupted by it. Every shot that was fired since then was a win for the MIC. We were sent to Vietnam to kill and to die in pre-determined numbers - not more - not less. So, our "effectiveness" was perfect. We killed plenty of Vietnamese but not enough to exterminate them. And we? We died in numbers that didn't fully deplete a generation. That was the plan: To carry on the war indefinitely. To keep the flow of cash to the MIC. So, if you want to talk about "effectiveness" then you should be more specific. I am sure we will come to an agreement but probably not on the terms you are thinking of.

 

[GLASNOST]

Defeat what the arrogant West never get is that Russia losing is just not an option for them .......

I realize how pompous that sounds but it is true. Russians don't quit. They don't cry and go home. "The last man standing" seems to be ingrained in their phycological DNA. They don’t quit. They just don’t.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I realize how pompous that sounds but it is true. Russians don't quit. They don't cry and go home. "The last man standing" seems to be ingrained in their phycological DNA. They don’t quit. They just don’t.

Explain Afghanistan then.

 

[Zavulon]

>>> I am a Vietnam veteran. I try stay out of discussions about the Vietnam war but there are a few issues when I must speak up. You talk about the "effectiveness"of American troops in Vietnam. I don't know if I understand your point but I'll say what I have to say anyway. We (the soldiers in Vietnam) knew something was wrong - something was not right. Some guys blamed our "effectiveness"on POLITICS. They were right but they were looking at if from the wrong angle. Our "effectiveness"wasn't hampered by POLITICS ..... or should I say that it was?

If we are going to speak about "effectiveness" we must speak of it in the context of goals. We (everyone) was told a lie. The goal was a lie. Most people believe we lost in Vietnam, that our goal was not achieved. That is not true. The goal was achieved when the first shot was fired. That was when the cash started to flow in for the MIC and for the politicians who were corrupted by it. Every shot that was fired since then was a win for the MIC. We were sent to Vietnam to kill and to die in pre-determined numbers - not more - not less. So, our "effectiveness" was perfect. We killed plenty of Vietnamese but not enough to exterminate them. And we? We died in numbers that didn't fully deplete a generation. That was the plan: To carry on the war indefinitely. To keep the flow of cash to the MIC. So, if you want to talk about "effectiveness"then you should be more specific. I am sure we will come to an agreement but probably not on the terms you are thinking of.

It's not that I agree with your explanation about American goals in Vietnam, but I'm not going to discuss (at least because I'm not competent enough) it. But yes, I agree that effectivness depends on the definition. In my previous messages I saw effectiveness in the most simple way - amount of people and equipment, necessary to achieve a goal.
Like, if capturing of a fortification demands 100 of well motivated soldiers, it demands 300 (or more) of badly motivated soldiers, for, say, badly motivated soldiers prefer not to fight, but to hide behind each other.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... effectivness depends on the definition.

 

[Zavulon]

Explain Afghanistan then.

Afghanistan wasn't vital, military and geopolitical goals were more or less achieved, and if the locals don't want to build socialism or people's democracy, and in 1989 Russians already were not really enthusiastic about building socialism in Russia, and were pretty enthusiastic about Gorbachev's "New Thinking" and "Cooperation with the USA".

 

[luiza]

None other than his stated goals.

Exactly ----- he does not need any .

Pooter's army are slicing through Ukey Land with the EU blustering but incapable of anything .
And Nazisrael is committing suicide and inviting the US to do the same .

Meanwhile the naive and stupid left wing in America is trying to wreck itself and American Cities .

P.S. I said many times over the last year that Carriers and Tanks are old time weapons and the US barely has any carriers --- 5/6 constantly in dry dock and the crippled SS Harry Truman is spending its summer scuttling away to avoid Houthi Tooty missiles .

Meanwhile Mr P is probably relaxing with a huge smile

 

[alang1216]

Afghanistan wasn't vital, military and geopolitical goals were more or less achieved, and if the locals don't want to build socialism or people's democracy, and in 1989 Russians already were not really enthusiastic about building socialism in Russia, and were pretty enthusiastic about Gorbachev's "New Thinking" and "Cooperation with the USA".

Afghanistan wasn't vital? A country that bordered the USSR and was a haven for Muslim fundamentalism. Seems as dangerous as Ukraine but what do I know.

 

[Zavulon]

Afghanistan wasn't vital? A country that bordered the USSR and was a haven for Muslim fundamentalism. Seems as dangerous as Ukraine but what do I know.

Muslims are not a vital threat. They can cause some harm, of course, but they didn't have nukes. Even NATO wouldn't be a vital threat if it were still staying beyond Elbe.

 

[alang1216]

Muslims are not a vital threat. They can cause some harm, of course, but they didn't have nukes.

Do you seriously think the British, French, or Americans want a nuclear war??

Even NATO wouldn't be a vital threat if it were still staying beyond Elbe.

I guess you miss having East Germany as a puppet state. Do you really wonder why so many countries in Eastern Europe want to join NATO? Putin's dream of recreating the Russian Empire is a nightmare for his neighbors.

 

[Litwin]

Do you really wonder why so many countries in Eastern Europe want to join NATO? Putin's dream of recreating the Russian Empire is a nightmare for his neighbors.

+1

Gulag - The Story | Part 3: Peak & Death - 1945-1957​

 

[AZrailwhale]

Exactly ----- he does not need any .

Pooter's army are slicing through Ukey Land with the EU blustering but incapable of anything .
And Nazisrael is committing suicide and inviting the US to do the same .

Meanwhile the naive and stupid left wing in America is trying to wreck itself and American Cities .

P.S. I said many times over the last year that Carriers and Tanks are old time weapons and the US barely has any carriers --- 5/6 constantly in dry dock and the crippled SS Harry Truman is spending its summer scuttling away to avoid Houthi Tooty missiles .

Meanwhile Mr P is probably relaxing with a huge smile

Putin has increased his Ukrainian territory by about one percent in the last three years while losing six hundred thousand troops, thousands of tanks and APCs and tens of thousands artillery pieces and soft skinned vehicles.

 

[GLASNOST]

Exactly ----- he does not need any .

True

Pooter's army are slicing through Ukey Land with the EU blustering but incapable of anything .

True

And Nazisrael is committing suicide and inviting the US to do the same .

The sooner, the better.

Meanwhile the naive and stupid left wing in America is trying to wreck itself and American Cities .

I have no idea what they are trying to do.

Meanwhile Mr P is probably relaxing with a huge smile

I have no doubt that he is laughing his ass off. I think that's why his face looks rather haggard lately - his facial muscles must be worn out from the comedy show emanating from the West.

 

[Zavulon]

Do you seriously think the British, French, or Americans want a nuclear war??

Yes. Likely, not an actual nuclear war, when Russia can retaliate, but they do want genocide Russians. And this is exactly why they need Ukraine and Finland - to achieve a Credible First Strike Capability, i.e. capability to eliminate significant part of the Russian nuclear forces by their first strike.

I guess you miss having East Germany as a puppet state.

No. May be Putin and some of his friends have some personal feelings about Germany, I don't. My personal opinion about Germany is simple - if they are threat they should be eliminated (not occupied). If they are not a threat - let them live (or die) as they want. "Occupation is a privilege, it should be earned".

Do you really wonder why so many countries in Eastern Europe want to join NATO?

Because the USA pays them (directly or indirectly)? Or because nobody have actually asked people.

Putin's dream of recreating the Russian Empire is a nightmare for his neighbors.

If they are anti-Russian, yes, they should be scared. And, of course, occupation is not the worst thing that could happen with them. But, if they are not anti-Russian, if they don't discriminate and kill Russians and if they are not members of the anti-Russian alliance - we can be good friends and to be pretty cooperative. Like with Mongolia, North Korea, Iran, etc... Cooperation is usually more profitable than hostility.

 

[alang1216]

Yes. Likely, not an actual nuclear war, when Russia can retaliate, but they do want genocide Russians. And this is exactly why they need Ukraine and Finland - to achieve a Credible First Strike Capability, i.e. capability to eliminate significant part of the Russian nuclear forces by their first strike.

In the US the cold war is over, we have moved on. No one thinks or cares about Russia until it tries to influence our election or invades another country. The view from here is that it is a nuclear armed, third-world country.

No. May be Putin and some of his friends have some personal feelings about Germany, I don't. My personal opinion about Germany is simple - if they are threat they should be eliminated (not occupied). If they are not a threat - let them live (or die) as they want. "Occupation is a privilege, it should be earned".

I doubt Ukraine feels privileged.

Because the USA pays them (directly or indirectly)? Or because nobody have actually asked people.

A very Russian delusion, void of facts.

If they are anti-Russian, yes, they should be scared. And, of course, occupation is not the worst thing that could happen with them. But, if they are not anti-Russian, if they don't discriminate and kill Russians and if they are not members of the anti-Russian alliance - we can be good friends and to be pretty cooperative. Like with Mongolia, North Korea, Iran, etc... Cooperation is usually more profitable than hostility.

In other words, you miss having control of your neighbors.