Yeah, let's play a game

[kyzr]

Ok. We'll see. And of course, there are significant forces in Romania and Kosovo (which is a part of Serbia).

True, but not on Russia's border.

Necro-, paedo-, zoo-, rapists. Ever heard about Epstein files?

Too fucked up for me to post about...

Two sides of the same coin.

You are very wrong again. Rs & Ds are very different.

And, in fact, there are all empty words for both "parties". In fact your Republicans are worshiping Satan, they have a Cuban migrant for secretary of state, they destroy law and inspire civil disorders, and oligarchs' has very little to do with "capitalism".

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Republicans are generally Christians of various flavors, Marco Rubio is a US citizen who I hope to vote for president some day. Democrats do "civil disorder".

Her genes are not "good" neither in pure biological sense (for she didn't give birth) nor in racist sense (for she is "mixed race" - just look at her face). And if she is an actress - she is whore, and if she is a whore - she can't be loved by a "conservative guys" (in the traditional American understanding of the word "conservative").

You are wrong again...wrong, wrong, wrong...her boyfriend is Scooter Braun, a music exec. She's making too much money to stop for kids. Who knows, she may say she has enough money and gets married and has kids.
You can say the same criticisms about Taylor Swift, except she is a typical democrat.

All About Sydney Sweeney's Parents, Steven and Lisa Sweeney

Here's what to know about Sydney Sweeney's parents, Steven and Lisa Sweeney.

people.com

If you can win a war - yes, it is. But if you can't (as in described example) it means that American decision-makers will prefer losing Alaska and California (and not retaliate) to suicidal retaliation.

With 1,770 nuclear warheads ready to fire, the only nuclear suicide would be by Russia. Better think twice.

Allowing anybody to kill your people and steal your assets is not a way to grow your economy to prosper. It's something quite opposite.

No Russians were killed, they were ~48 insurrectionists in Ukraine, meh. As for stealing assets, Russia gave them away with that stupid invasion from Belarus. War is not Putin's best strategy, in chess, I'd say change from risky openings and reckless attacks, and play the "long game" like China, work on developing a world class economy.

C'mon. Even 1941, when Russia lost more than 3 mln soldiers killed and significant territories occupied, wasn't really "disaster".

Russia losing 27 million people in WW2 was a disaster.

It never was "MAD". It was a "threat of unacceptable losses". And what losses are "acceptable" depends on alternative scenarios.

You mean "wishful thinking". MAD works, always has. If some of your stupid war planners say otherwise send them to the gulag.

Pushing a nuclear bomb to destroy, say, French and British bases, won't destroy civilisation. And then it will be your choice - attack Russia and lose the USA, or don't attack and survive.

NATO Article 5 says we attack. So don't push any buttons you will regret pushing.

 

[Zavulon]

True, but not on Russia's border.

As if Russian forces on Cuba, in Venezuela or in Grenland waters are on the US borders.

Too fucked up for me to post about...

Just an illustration that they all lie in the same bed (or tube filled with blood).

You are very wrong again. Rs & Ds are very different.

For somebody who never tried whisky, Pepsi-Cola and Coca-cola are very different, too.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Republicans are generally Christians of various flavors,

C'mon. A Christian can't be an Environmentalist, or another Paganist. He can't believe in Krishna, Zeus, or Global warming. And most of your elites do believe in Global Warming or Nuclear winter. It definitely makes them non-Christians, for Evironmentalism is a form of Satanism. There is an old rule: "The nature is a Church of Satan". If you love "nature", you hate God. Did you read Roderick Nash "Wilderness and the American mind"? A "Bible" of Environmentalists.

Marco Rubio is a US citizen who I hope to vote for president some day.

Not very conservative (in traditional American meaning of the word), isn't it?

Democrats do "civil disorder".

Both parties do it.

You are wrong again...wrong, wrong, wrong...her boyfriend is Scooter Braun, a music exec. She's making too much money to stop for kids.

Woman making money instead of kids? Isn't really conservative.

Who knows, she may say she has enough money and gets married and has kids.
You can say the same criticisms about Taylor Swift, except she is a typical democrat.

As I said - they are pretty the same. Same Hollywood for plebs, same Epstein Island for elites, same lies instead of science, same money instead of traditional values.

All About Sydney Sweeney's Parents, Steven and Lisa Sweeney

Here's what to know about Sydney Sweeney's parents, Steven and Lisa Sweeney.

people.com

With 1,770 nuclear warheads ready to fire, the only nuclear suicide would be by Russia. Better think twice.

And I repeat once more. It is not relevant how many nukes you have during time. What is important - is how many of them will survive the first Russian strike.

No Russians were killed, they were ~48 insurrectionists in Ukraine, meh.

Thousands and Russians were killed, and what is even more important - NATO expansion is a preparation to kill tens of millions of Russians. Not the thing we can allow.

As for stealing assets, Russia gave them away with that stupid invasion from Belarus.

Of course no. We'll have them back (with fines for your behaviour) one way or another.

War is not Putin's best strategy, in chess, I'd say change from risky openings and reckless attacks, and play the "long game" like China, work on developing a world class economy.

Yep. As I said earlier, Putin prefer long games with special military operations and other low-violent stuff. "Better bend than broke", he said. But even the most pacifistic "coercers" can't rule out possibility of a war.

Russia losing 27 million people in WW2 was a disaster.

No. It was victory, expensive , but victory. Much lesser evil, given the nature of our European neighbours.

NATO Article 5 says we attack. So don't push any buttons you will regret pushing.

Of course it doesn't say it. What is even more important, even if your decision-makers believe that Europe is more important than America, it doesn't mean that they should immediately, without any preparations, attack Russia. Negotiations might be more effective than immediate nuclear attack to defend both Europe and America.

 

[kyzr]

As if Russian forces on Cuba, in Venezuela or in Greenland waters are on the US borders.

We were discussing Putin's demands for a peace deal in Ukraine.

For somebody who never tried whisky, Pepsi-Cola and Coca-cola are very different, too.

Very poor comeback for how different Rs & Ds are. I explained it in detail.

C'mon. A Christian can't be an Environmentalist, or another Paganist. He can't believe in Krishna, Zeus, or Global warming. And most of your elites do believe in Global Warming or Nuclear winter. It definitely makes them non-Christians, for Evironmentalism is a form of Satanism. There is an old rule: "The nature is a Church of Satan". If you love "nature", you hate God. Did you read Roderick Nash "Wilderness and the American mind"? A "Bible" of Environmentalists.

Is that Jewish babble? Republicans are generally Christians, fact.

Marco Rubio is Not very conservative (in traditional American meaning of the word), isn't it?

He's conservative enough. We want "populists" who can win elections, not conservatives that lose.

And I repeat once more. It is not relevant how many nukes you have during time. What is important - is how many of them will survive the first Russian strike

True. Don't be too optimistic in your war planning.

Thousands and Russians were killed, and what is even more important - NATO expansion is a preparation to kill tens of millions of Russians. Not the thing we can allow.

Where and when were thousands killed. I was referring to the Odessa "massacre".

Of course no. We'll have them back (with fines for your behaviour) one way or another.

Nope. They are scrap metal, except the ones that your guys surrendered to us, fully functional

Yep. As I said earlier, Putin prefer long games with special military operations and other low-violent stuff. "Better bend than broke", he said. But even the most pacifistic "coercers" can't rule out possibility of a war.

My favorite Putin saying is "play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Our similar term is FAFO. "**** around...find out"

No. It was victory, expensive , but victory. Much lesser evil, given the nature of our European neighbours.

We would call WW2 a "Pyrrhic victory" for Russia.

Of course it doesn't say it. What is even more important, even if your decision-makers believe that Europe is more important than America, it doesn't mean that they should immediately, without any preparations, attack Russia. Negotiations might be more effective than immediate nuclear attack to defend both Europe and America.

OMG, you think that you can nuke the EU and nothing happens?
NATO decisions would happen in very few minutes, and then boom.

 

[Zavulon]

We were discussing Putin's demands for a peace deal in Ukraine.

And those demands are quite reasonable and modest. Much lesser than Trumps demands about Venezuela, Greenland or Iran.

Very poor comeback for how different Rs & Ds are. I explained it in detail.

I do know how are they different. Comparing with Russia, they are not different at all. Russia, in Parliament has "United Russia" party, Communist Party, "Justful Russia" party, Liberal-Democratic Party and "New People" party with really different pictures of world and different opinions about ways of problem solutions. Nor of their ideas, including better centralisation of America, can't even be discussed in American Parliament. Your "differences" (even in the words) are lesser than the differences between the members of single party in Russia. Difference between real actions - are much more significant. When we welcome migrants we sign laws and agreements about free borders. When we need less of them, or better control over them, we automatically add them in the list of controlled persons, and guys with expired permission to work can't even drive cars or use bank cards or be hired until they came to police and solve the problem (or leave Russia). You (both of the parties) have a lot of loud words about migrants, but you do practically nothing neither for their legalization nor for their deportation.

Is that Jewish babble? Republicans are generally Christians, fact.

There is the difference between calling yourself a Christian, and been seen as "Christian" by other people, especially by other Christians. If one say: "I do believe that Christ existed, but I don't believe that he was God and Son of God. I believe he was a prophet and the last true prophet was Muhammad", Christians won't say "You are a Christian." They will say: "C'mon, looks like you are a Muslim". If one say "I don't belive in God, I believe in Carma Law" Christians might say: "Hey, you can't be a Christian without believing in God. If you believe in something else, you are a Pagan".

Not everyone who pretends to be a Christian is trully a Christian (in the traditional understanding of the word).

What kind of "Christian" do you think you are?

He's conservative enough. We want "populists" who can win elections, not conservatives that lose.

I meaning you not very Conservative. Like in the traditional English meaning of the word. How Kipling wrote?
---------------------
As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
2
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
3
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
4
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
5
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
6
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
7
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
8
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four–
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
9
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
10
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
----------------

Do you believe it?

True. Don't be too optimistic in your war planning.

We always have at least three scenarios: optimistic, realistic and pessimistic.

Where and when were thousands killed. I was referring to the Odessa "massacre".

And I was referring to the whole campaign of anti-Russian terror, started by the illegitimate Kievan Junta.

We would call WW2 a "Pyrrhic victory" for Russia.

It wasn't Pyrrhic, because after it Russia won campaigns in North Korea, Hungary, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia and many others.

OMG, you think that you can nuke the EU and nothing happens?

I don't think that nothing happens. I think we might find some peace deal after nuking the EU. May be, we'll need nuke the USA, too, to coerce your in mutually acceptable peace.

NATO decisions would happen in very few minutes, and then boom.

There is one thing you'll never do - nuking our cities without previous evacuation of your own population (at least, the most valuable part of it). So, we'll definitely have more than "very few minutes".

 

[kyzr]

And those demands are quite reasonable and modest. Much lesser than Trumps demands about Venezuela, Greenland or Iran.

Trump's demands are also reasonable. Greenland is fine now. Venezuela will be de-criminalized, and Iran will not have nuclear weapons, period.

I do know how are US political parties are different. Comparing with Russia, they are not different at all. Russia, in Parliament has "United Russia" party, Communist Party, "Justful Russia" party, Liberal-Democratic Party and "New People" party with really different pictures of world and different opinions about ways of problem solutions. Nor of their ideas, including better centralisation of America, can't even be discussed in American Parliament. Your "differences" (even in the words) are lesser than the differences between the members of single party in Russia. Difference between real actions - are much more significant. When we welcome migrants we sign laws and agreements about free borders. When we need less of them, or better control over them, we automatically add them in the list of controlled persons, and guys with expired permission to work can't even drive cars or use bank cards or be hired until they came to police and solve the problem (or leave Russia). You (both of the parties) have a lot of loud words about migrants, but you do practically nothing neither for their legalization nor for their deportation.

So when Putin "retires" who are you betting on to be the next president, and will he serve a 6-year term or be another dictator? Will he be more militant, like Putin, or more of an economist or socialist?

There is the difference between calling yourself a Christian, and been seen as "Christian" by other people, especially by other Christians. If one say: "I do believe that Christ existed, but I don't believe that he was God and Son of God. I believe he was a prophet and the last true prophet was Muhammad",

Which is what Jews say, at least the ones I went to college with.

Christians won't say "You are a Christian." They will say: "C'mon, looks like you are a Muslim". If one say "I don't believe in God, I believe in Carma Law" Christians might say: "Hey, you can't be a Christian without believing in God. If you believe in something else, you are a Pagan".

No. Christians are taught "judge not lest you be judged".

Not everyone who pretends to be a Christian is truly a Christian (in the traditional understanding of the word).

To be a "Christian" all you need to do is believe in Jesus Christ. Even if your worship services are different, such as Baptists, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Mormons, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.

What kind of "Christian" do you think you are?

Byzantine Catholic

I mean you not very Conservative. Like in the traditional English meaning of the word. How Kipling wrote?

One of your better posts, thank you. Those damn "immutable consequences" are difficult to deal with...yes I believe that civilized people need to stay civilized to prosper. Here is what the poem means according to "experts":
Enduring Truths Vs. Progress
Kipling contrasts transient modern doctrines with enduring moral truths. Personifying optimistic "Gods of the Market Place" and the old, pragmatic "Gods of the Copybook Headings," the poem argues that fashionable ideals—utopian peace, easy wealth, novel social experiments—repeatedly fail, and immutable consequences reassert themselves. It warns that ignoring perennial realities leads to collapse and violent correction, asserting a cyclical return to basic human instincts and punishments

We always have at least three scenarios: optimistic, realistic and pessimistic.

True. But SECDEF Rumsfeld further refined those by saying that there are:
"known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, when it comes to military planning"
All it takes is one miscalculation for disaster to happen.

And I was referring to the whole campaign of anti-Russian terror, started by the illegitimate Kiev Junta.

OK, but you do know that "thousands of Russians" were not killed at Odessa. The number was 48 killed by unity militias not Kyiv, since Kyiv wasn't independent yet.

It wasn't Pyrrhic, because after it Russia won campaigns in North Korea, Hungary, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia and many others.

OK. But 27 million people is a lot to lose.

I don't think that nothing happens after nuking the EU. I think we might find some peace deal after nuking the EU. May be, we'll need nuke the USA, too, to coerce your in mutually acceptable peace.

Nuking the EU and the US are very stupid ideas, but some people always need to learn the hard way.

There is one thing you'll never do - nuking our cities without previous evacuation of your own population (at least, the most valuable part of it). So, we'll definitely have more than "very few minutes".

So when we see your cities being evacuated we get ready for a nuclear attack? OK, not a surprise then is it?

 

[Zavulon]

Trump's demands are also reasonable. Greenland is fine now. Venezuela will be de-criminalized, and Iran will not have nuclear weapons, period.

We'll see. But it is quite unlikely that Russia start a nuclear war because of Venezuela (unlike the Ukraine and Eastern Europe) It's not vital.

So when Putin "retires" who are you betting on to be the next president, and will he serve a 6-year term or be another dictator?

I barely can see the difference between American presidents. You, watching them through TV-screens of Fake Media, won't be able to see difference at all. Whoever is a leader of Russia, your media will call him "evil dictator" anyway.

Will he be more militant, like Putin, or more of an economist or socialist?

It depends on the situation, of course. As for me, I love America and I wish to have a part of it (like Alaska and California) as a part of the Russian Federation. The very process of their integration will give Russia additional challenges and skills.

Which is what Jews say, at least the ones I went to college with.

Of course not. The Jews donysee Mohammed as a prophet. Muslims do.

No. Christians are taught "judge not lest you be judged".

To be a "Christian" all you need to do is believe in Jesus Christ.

And to be a woman, all you need to do is to declare yourself "women". Right?
Conservatives (as far as I know) don't think so. If you have a dick and balls, and Y-chromosome, but declare yourself a "woman", it doesn't really "make" you a woman. It makes you a "perverted man" in the eyes of Conservative guys.

Even if your worship services are different, such as Baptists, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Mormons, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.

Conservatives, as far as I know, don't see Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as "Christians". And as they see "trans-women" as "perverted men", same way, they see some cultists as "disguised Satanists/Pagans".

Byzantine Catholic

Are you Ukrainian or something?

One of your better posts, thank you. Those damn "immutable consequences" are difficult to deal with...yes I believe that civilized people need to stay civilized to prosper.

Do you believe in those "Old Truths"? I think no.

True. But SECDEF Rumsfeld further refined those by saying that there are:
"known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, when it comes to military planning"
All it takes is one miscalculation for disaster to happen.

And there are "known knowns", like shelters and evacuation and reliability of missiles.
So, if we are playing a "Smart Pearl Harbor-type Attack (Russia attack first), avoiding cities and suggesting generous peace terms", there are following scenarios:
1) Optimistic scenario: Russia attack first, America doesn't retaliate, accept Russia's peace terms. Russia wins (but, given that Americans agreed with our peaceful terms, they were too generous, and we won lesser than could - America still exist as an independent and nuclear state and will try to take Alaska and California back later).
2) Realistic scenario: Russia successfully attack first, hit silos, hit bombers and submarine bases, but America didn't accept Russia's term, and launch limited suicidal retaliation strike. Less than one million of Russian civilians killed (for most of them have been evacuated and sheltered before our strike), but after this, most of Americans were killed by Russian counter-value strike.
Russia won with minimal loses.
3) Pessimistic scenario. Something goes terribly wrong, and America managed to commit launch-under-attack retaliation strike with most of its nukes. Counter-value, of course. Same do Russia. But Russian population is sheltered and American is not. Russia lose twenty million top, and America lose one hundred million at least in the first days of the war, and, likely, unconditionally surrender soon after it. Russia won suffering terrible, but acceptable danage.

But also we should calculate possible consequences for the scenario when Russia doesn't want to attack America first:
1) Optimistic scenario. The war in Europe continues as conventional and Russia is forced to ask help from Middle Asia countries, China, India. It will allow defeat Europe conventionally, but when it cames to fighting against the USA - America will nuke Russia (and the whole Eurasian alliance). What is worse - in this situation Russia became unprivileged member of the world's community.
2) Realistic scenario: NATO countries militarise their economies and conventionally defeat Russian on battlefield, which force Russia to use nukes without proper prepation, as the last hope, and Russian loses will be significantly higher than in "well prepared smart attack".
3) Pessimistic scenario: NATO nuke Russia's nuclear forces first and then genocide all civilians.

And it returns us the the simplest truism - it's better to attack first and the attack better to be well-prepared.

OK, but you do know that "thousands of Russians" were not killed at Odessa. The number was 48 killed by unity militias not Kyiv, since Kyiv wasn't independent yet.

Kiev was already under control of pro-Westerb Junta, and thousands were killed in whole Ukraine. Anyway, it doesn't matter. You attacked one of us - you attacked all of us, and we'll beat you until you understand that you shouldn't attack Russians.

So when we see your cities being evacuated we get ready for a nuclear attack? OK, not a surprise then is it?

When you see, that Russians start big military and emercon drills, you should decide - do you believe that Russians are preparing nuclear attack or they are just bluffing and are you really ready to fight a nuclear war because of Ukraine. If you believe and you are not ready - you should alleviate (as you did in Vietnam and Afghanistan and many other places). If you believe and ready - you should start your own preparations and attack Russians first, suffering in realistic and pessimistic scenarios some damage (and you should decide what damage you see as "acceptable"). And only if you don't believe and see Russian preparations as "bluff" - there will be need in actual nuclear attack.

 

[kyzr]

I barely can see the difference between American presidents. You, watching them through TV-screens of Fake Media, won't be able to see difference at all. Whoever is a leader of Russia, your media will call him "evil dictator" anyway.

It depends if the new Russian president is elected and leaves after his term is over, and what his policies are, like invading Russia's neighbors. Killing political opponents is not popular in the US media, like Putin kills them.

And to be a woman, all you need to do is to declare yourself "women". Right?
Conservatives (as far as I know) don't think so. If you have a dick and balls, and Y-chromosome, but declare yourself a "woman", it doesn't really "make" you a woman. It makes you a "perverted man" in the eyes of Conservative guys.

True. Democrats refuse to define what a "woman" is.

Conservatives, as far as I know, don't see Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons as "Christians". And as they see "trans-women" as "perverted men", same way, they see some cultists as "disguised Satanists/Pagans".

Google says Witnesses are Christians, we do see "trans-women" as men. Cultists believe what they believe.

Are you Ukrainian or something?

Somewhat, but my ancestors "country of origin" was Austria.

Do you believe in those "Old Truths"? I think no.

Putin is living/pushing those "immutable consequences" the rest of us are for "utopian peace and easy wealth".

And there are "known knowns", like shelters and evacuation and reliability of missiles.
So, if we are playing a "Smart Pearl Harbor-type Attack (Russia attack first), avoiding cities and suggesting generous peace terms", there are following scenarios:
1) Optimistic scenario: Russia attack first, America doesn't retaliate, accept Russia's peace terms. Russia wins (but, given that Americans agreed with our peaceful terms, they were too generous, and we won lesser than could - America still exist as an independent and nuclear state and will try to take Alaska and California back later).

You and Zelenskyy are really talented comedians.

2) Realistic scenario: Russia successfully attack first, hit silos, hit bombers and submarine bases, but America didn't accept Russia's term, and launch limited suicidal retaliation strike. Less than one million of Russian civilians killed (for most of them have been evacuated and sheltered before our strike), but after this, most of Americans were killed by Russian counter-value strike. Russia won with minimal loses.

More funny jokes from a talented comedian.

3) Pessimistic scenario. Something goes terribly wrong, and America managed to commit launch-under-attack retaliation strike with most of its nukes. Counter-value, of course. Same do Russia. But Russian population is sheltered and America's is not. Russia lose twenty million top, and America lose one hundred million at least in the first days of the war, and, likely, unconditionally surrender soon after it. Russia won suffering terrible, but acceptable damage.

"acceptable damage" is not realistic in a nuclear war

But also we should calculate possible consequences for the scenario when Russia doesn't want to attack America first:
1) Optimistic scenario. The war in Europe continues as conventional and Russia is forced to ask help from Middle Asia countries, China, India. It will allow defeat Europe conventionally, but when it comes to fighting against the USA - America will nuke Russia (and the whole Eurasian alliance). What is worse - in this situation Russia became unprivileged member of the world's community.

Back to your comedian routine. China and India fight NATO for Russia?? Seriously? Put the vodka down.

2) Realistic scenario: NATO countries militarize their economies and conventionally defeat Russia on battlefield, which force Russia to use nukes without proper preparation, as the last hope, and Russian loses will be significantly higher than in "well prepared smart attack".

This would only happen if Russia invades a NATO country.
Except, why in your "Russia loses" scenarios does Russia not negotiate a reasonable peace deal?
Its always push the nuclear war button

3) Pessimistic scenario: NATO nuke Russia's nuclear forces first and then genocide all civilians.

Never.

And it returns us the the simplest truism - it's better to attack first and the attack better to be well-prepared.

First or second doesn't matter, civilization ends either way.

Kiev was already under control of pro-Western Junta, and thousands were killed in whole Ukraine. Anyway, it doesn't matter. You attacked one of us - you attacked all of us, and we'll beat you until you understand that you shouldn't attack Russians.

There is a difference between "Russian citizens" and Ukrainian citizens loyal to Russia. Traitors, insurgents, insurrectionists, etc.

When you see, that Russians start big military drills, you should decide - do you believe that Russians are preparing nuclear attack or they are just bluffing and are you really ready to fight a nuclear war because of Ukraine. If you believe and you are not ready - you should alleviate (as you did in Vietnam and Afghanistan and many other places). If you believe and ready - you should start your own preparations and attack Russians first, suffering in realistic and pessimistic scenarios some damage (and you should decide what damage you see as "acceptable"). And only if you don't believe and see Russian preparations as "bluff" - there will be need in actual nuclear attack.

We always need to be careful about unintentionally starting a nuclear war. There have been many times already where situations, such as "false launch" detections, or other false triggers that could have led to a nuclear war.

Nuclear close calls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Zavulon]

True. Democrats refuse to define what a "woman" is.

Yep. And same way, instead of acting according the will of your Mother Church, who has a pretty nice definition of who "Christians" are, you prefer to repeat "progressive agenda" or something.

Google says Witnesses are Christians, we do see "trans-women" as men. Cultists believe what they believe.

Are you a Googloist or Catholic? Because if you are Catholic, all you need to know about who is a Christian and who is not, is opinion of Mother Church. And this opinion is quite simple - No, they are not Christians. They don't believe in things Christians should believe. If you don't believe in things a Christian should believe and do believe in things a Christian should not believe - you are not a christian.

The Catholic Perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Discover the Catholic viewpoint on Jehovah’s Witnesses, exploring beliefs, differences, and insights into their teachings and practices.

christianpure.com

"acceptable damage" is not realistic in a nuclear war

Of course it is. Actually, it is the only reason why deterrence is working at all. To be effective, a threat should be realistic. To be realistic, it should be believable. To be believable, nuclear war should be survivable and winnable.

Back to your comedian routine. China and India fight NATO for Russia?? Seriously?

Yep. Because NATO will definitely retaliate not only against Russia, but against China and India too.

This would only happen if Russia invades a NATO country.

Or if NATO invaded or attacked Russia (which already happened).

Except, why in your "Russia loses" scenarios does Russia not negotiate a reasonable peace deal?

Because if you want reasonable deal which will lead to a reliable lasting peace - you can always alleviate and roll back to, at least, 1997 borders. But, you didn't invest $300+Bn (and almost ruined dollar) just to take a part of Ukraine. Nothing in Ukraine worth it. If there is ceasefire - there will be NATO forces in Ukraine. If there are NATO forces in Ukraine - they will attack Russia or Russians.

Its always push the nuclear war button

Because if you don't alleviate, nuclear war is inevitable. And if nuclear war is inevitable, the only chance is to shoot first.

There is a difference between "Russian citizens" and Ukrainian citizens loyal to Russia. Traitors, insurgents, insurrectionists, etc.

Russians are Russians. Whatever is their citizenship and wherever they live.

We always need to be careful about unintentionally starting a nuclear war.

First of all, you should be careful about not being too provocative to force Russians start a nuclear war intentionally.

There have been many times already where situations, such as "false launch" detections, or other false triggers that could have led to a nuclear war.

And there were situations where nuclear strike should have been launched intentionally. Like, say "The lost chance of Khrushchev".

 

[kyzr]

Yep. And same way, instead of acting according the will of your Mother Church, who has a pretty nice definition of who "Christians" are, you prefer to repeat "progressive agenda" or something. Are you a Googleist or Catholic? Because if you are Catholic, all you need to know about who is a Christian and who is not, is opinion of Mother Church. And this opinion is quite simple - No, they are not Christians. They don't believe in things Christians should believe. If you don't believe in things a Christian should believe and do believe in things a Christian should not believe - you are not a christian.

OK, I stand corrected. Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian.

Of course there can be "acceptable damage". Actually, it is the only reason why deterrence is working at all. To be effective, a threat should be realistic. To be realistic, it should be believable. To be believable, nuclear war should be survivable and winnable.

Actually to be believable nuclear war has to be too horrible to consider a realistic option.

Yep. Because NATO will definitely retaliate not only against Russia, but against China and India too.

Wrong. NATO wouldn't retaliate because India and China are too smart to attack NATO.

Or if NATO invaded or attacked Russia (which already happened).

When? Where? Link please, and not 500 years ago, recent history, post WW2.

Because if you want reasonable deal which will lead to a reliable lasting peace - you can always alleviate and roll back to, at least, 1997 borders. But, you didn't invest $300+Bn (and almost ruined dollar) just to take a part of Ukraine. Nothing in Ukraine worth it. If there is ceasefire - there will be NATO forces in Ukraine. If there are NATO forces in Ukraine - they will attack Russia or Russians.

Wrong. No one in NATO wants to attack Russia. Prosperity is better than war.

Russians are Russians. Whatever is their citizenship and wherever they live.

That is not how countries view citizens within their sovereign borders, subject to their laws.

 

[Zavulon]

OK, I stand corrected. Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian.

Ok. But, this example was not about convincing you who are and who are not Jehavah's Witnesses. It was just an illustration that there are very different things:
1) Who you truly are;
2) Who you believe you are;
3) Who you pretend you are;
4) How your friends see you;
5) How other people see you.

And how other people see you, depends mostly on your behaviour. "By their fruits you will know them" (Mattheew 7:20).

If a person say that he believes in God, belives that Christ is a God himself and Son of God; but worship to Satan, most of Christians won't consider him as a Christian.
------
Talking about fruits, there is a little homework for you: find out (by reading or asking your priest) can a Vegetarian be a Christian from the point of view of Byzantine Catholic Church. (He can't be from the Orthodox point of view, and can be from Catholic point of view).
-----
And we are returning to our sheeps (and goats) and fruits of the faith.

From the Orthodox Christian point of view, only Orthodox Christians are "True Christians", and, the most powerful Christian state in the world (mostly fulfilled by Pagans, Muslims, Schizmatics and Heretics), protector of the Mother Church, is Russia. That's our spiritual mission (from the point of view of Orthodox Christians) - to defend the Last Stronghold of True Humanity from Evil Hordes of Western (or Eastern) Satanists. And the main goal of all Satanists is destruction of Russia and Russian Orthodox Church.

If you, as the EU did, declare, that Russian Orthodox Church should be destroyed, Russians don't start thinking that they are evil. They start thinking that you are Satanists. And the only question they have - are you "Moderate Satanists" who just peacefully gather in your own Wilderness and rape, kill and eat your own children, or you are "Radical Satanists" who are ready to sacrifice your whole country and even civilization in the attempt to destroy Orthodox Christianity and bring antichrist to Earth (with further destruction of the Universe).

Actually to be believable nuclear war has to be too horrible to consider a realistic option.

No. It works for the deterrence type I (reliable capability of the second strike). But it doesn't work for the deterrence type II - preventing extremely provoking behaviour (which is not direct attack on nuclear forces).
"Too horrible" things are not believable to be used as a tool of active foreign policy.

Wrong. NATO wouldn't retaliate because India and China are too smart to attack NATO.

C'mon. When the all-out nuclear war is started it's not about being good or bad, or about who pushed the button first. It is about who will recuperate first, because the one who recuperated first, is the one, who will dominate in the post-WWIII world. If you don't nuke China - China will dominate the world.

When? Where? Link please, and not 500 years ago, recent history, post WW2.

Nov. 11, 2024. ATACMS attack on Voronezh. The difference between facilitation and participation is quite arbitrary, and in this conflict the line was drawn at long-range (more than 300 km) weapons. Since then, Russia and the USA are in direct, but concealed, conflict.

Wrong. No one in NATO wants to attack Russia. Prosperity is better than war.

You already did. And allowing anybody to steal our assets and killing our people is not the way how one can achieve peace and prosperity.

That is not how countries view citizens within their sovereign borders, subject to their laws.

I believe that government should work for people, not people should change themselves for the government. That's what democracy means. And when people say "We are under attack", government should make some actions to defend people, or people will have another government, one way, or another. And if, say, Canadian pro-Chinese Junta, in the campaign of "De-Americanisation", started a systematic terror against White English-speaking Canadians, there is no way how official Washington can prevent Ordinary Americans from going to Canada and fighting to protect their brothers. And for every politician in the USA, the easiest way to show himself and earn some political points, will be support (real or declarative) to English-speaking Canadians.

 

[kyzr]

Ok. But, this example was not about convincing you who are and who are not Jehavah's Witnesses. It was just an illustration that there are very different things:
1) Who you truly are;
2) Who you believe you are;
3) Who you pretend you are;
4) How your friends see you;
5) How other people see you.
And how other people see you, depends mostly on your behaviour. "By their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:20).
If a person say that he believes in God, believes that Christ is a God himself and Son of God; but worship to Satan, most of Christians won't consider him as a Christian.
Talking about fruits, there is a little homework for you: find out can a Vegetarian be a Christian from the point of view of Byzantine Catholic Church. (He can't be from the Orthodox point of view, and can be from Catholic point of view).

Yes by both Byzantine and Russian Orthodox, especially during fasting days.

And we are returning to our sheep (and goats) and fruits of the faith.
From the Orthodox Christian point of view, only Orthodox Christians are "True Christians", and, the most powerful Christian state in the world (mostly fulfilled by Pagans, Muslims, Schizmatics and Heretics), protector of the Mother Church, is Russia. That's our spiritual mission (from the point of view of Orthodox Christians) - to defend the Last Stronghold of True Humanity from Evil Hordes of Western (or Eastern) Satanists. And the main goal of all Satanists is destruction of Russia and Russian Orthodox Church.
If you, as the EU did, declare, that Russian Orthodox Church should be destroyed,

The EU didn't ban the Russian Orthodox church, Ukraine did because they were politically pro-Moscow.

Russians don't start thinking that they are evil. They start thinking that you are Satanists. And the only question they have - are you "Moderate Satanists" who just peacefully gather in your own Wilderness and rape, kill and eat your own children, or you are "Radical Satanists" who are ready to sacrifice your whole country and even civilization in the attempt to destroy Orthodox Christianity and bring antichrist to Earth (with further destruction of the Universe).

Step back off the ledge and take your meds zav. That was crazy.

No. It works for the deterrence type I (reliable capability of the second strike). But it doesn't work for the deterrence type II - preventing extremely provoking behaviour (which is not direct attack on nuclear forces)."Too horrible" things are not believable to be used as a tool of active foreign policy.

OK, Putin already proved that.

C'mon. When the all-out nuclear war is started it's not about being good or bad, or about who pushed the button first. It is about who will recuperate first, because the one who recuperated first, is the one, who will dominate in the post-WWIII world. If you don't nuke China - China will dominate the world.

If you use too many nukes there is no survivable world, unless you have a "doomsday shelter"

Nov. 11, 2024. ATACMS attack on Voronezh. The difference between facilitation and participation is quite arbitrary, and in this conflict the line was drawn at long-range (more than 300 km) weapons. Since then, Russia and the USA are in direct, but concealed, conflict.

Russia said they shot all 4 down, so even if they were US made, they were used by Ukraine, as we agreed to provide security guarantees in the Budapest Memorandum.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-says-ukraine-fired-us-made-atacms-missiles-voronezh-2025-11-19/

You already did. And allowing anybody to steal our assets and killing our people is not the way how one can achieve peace and prosperity.

NATO did not attack Russia, they gave Ukraine weapons to defend themselves from Russia.

I believe that government should work for people, not people should change themselves for the government. That's what democracy means. And when people say "We are under attack", government should make some actions to defend people, or people will have another government, one way, or another. And if, say, Canadian pro-Chinese Junta, in the campaign of "De-Americanisation", started a systematic terror against White English-speaking Canadians, there is no way how official Washington can prevent Ordinary Americans from going to Canada and fighting to protect their brothers. And for every politician in the USA, the easiest way to show himself and earn some political points, will be support (real or declarative) to English-speaking Canadians.

In that case the Canadian government would put down, violently if necessary, the "pro-Chinese Junta" as insurrectionists.
No need for US "volunteers" to get involved in Canada's affairs.

 

[Zavulon]

Yes by both Byzantine and Russian Orthodox, especially during fasting days.

Wrong again. Apostolic rule 52. "If a cleric or a layman refuse to eat meat, drink wine or have relationships with women not because piety, but because he doesn't like it, he should be expelled." In practical terms, typical Vegetarian can't be an Orthodox Christian. Roman Catholics are weaker, they follow only first 50 Apostolic rules (of 85) but it mostly ritual part of Church life, so, may be, they allowed expel Vegetarians, too.

The EU didn't ban the Russian Orthodox church, Ukraine did because they were politically pro-Moscow.

The EU officially recognised Russian Orthodox Church as a tool of "Russian propaganda".

What does PACE's recognition of Russian Orthodox Church as a tool of Kremlin propaganda mean?

The PACE recognized the Russian Orthodox Church as a tool of the Kremlin propaganda and influence. What does it mean?

insightnews.media

Of course, it is equal to the declaration themselves as the enemies of Mother Church, and, therefore, enemies of the God Himself (i.e. confession in being Satanists). They shouldn't be surprised that Russians see them as Satanists.

OK, Putin already proved that.

Actually, Putin already proved quite opposite.

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russia-not-exist-without-nuclear

-----------
In November 2024 head of the NATO Military Committee Admiral Rob Bauer highlighted the key role played by Russia’s nuclear forces in deterring the Western world from initiating an open conflict with Moscow directly. He stated that Russia’s nuclear arsenal was the central factor distinguishing it from the Taliban in Afghanistan regarding its ability to combat NATO forces. “I am absolutely sure if the Russians did not have nuclear weapons, we would have been in Ukraine, kicking them out,” he added. A year later in November 2025 former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed that the unacceptable risk of open conflict with a nuclear armed Russia was the primary factor preventing Western Bloc states from a more direct intervention in the Ukrainian theatre against Russia.
--------------

Deterrence type II. "If you do something extremely provicative, we'll nuke you. And we can do it, because we'd suffer significant, but acceptable damage". And NATO believe us.

If you use too many nukes there is no survivable world, unless you have a "doomsday shelter"

Well, to make the world unhubitable, you need much more than few thousands of nukes. Many millions of them, may be.

Russia said they shot all 4 down, so even if they were US made, they were used by Ukraine, as we agreed to provide security guarantees in the Budapest Memorandum.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-says-ukraine-fired-us-made-atacms-missiles-voronezh-2025-11-19/

It doesn't matter. You asked, when the USA attacked Russia directly, and since when we are in direct conflict - I answered. Say nothing about recent attack of US Navy ship on Russia-flagged ship.

NATO did not attack Russia, they gave Ukraine weapons to defend themselves from Russia.

And Russia didn't attack the USA. We just gave Latin Americans money and weapons to attack the USA.

In that case the Canadian government would put down, violently if necessary, the "pro-Chinese Junta" as insurrectionists.
No need for US "volunteers" to get involved in Canada's affairs.

Yep. They can't just say that it's just "not American business" and ignore anti-American government in Canada. But America might decide to start with lower level of violence.

 

[kyzr]

Wrong again. Apostolic rule 52. "If a cleric or a layman refuse to eat meat, drink wine or have relationships with women not because piety, but because he doesn't like it, he should be expelled." In practical terms, typical Vegetarian can't be an Orthodox Christian. Roman Catholics are weaker, they follow only first 50 Apostolic rules (of 85) but it mostly ritual part of Church life, so, may be, they allowed expel Vegetarians, too.

Where the did you dig those up from? I never heard of them before. I don't think we follow any.

Apostolic Canons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Acceptance and Recognition​

• The Apostolic Canons were approved by the Council in Trullo in 692 but faced rejection by Pope Sergius I.
• In the Western Church, only fifty canons circulated, translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus around 500 AD.
• The canons have been historically viewed with suspicion, and many theologians have questioned their apostolic origin.

Current Status​

• The Apostolic Canons are not part of the official canon law of the Catholic Church today.
• They are considered apocryphal by many in the Western tradition and are not used as authoritative texts in contemporary church governance.
• However, they remain a significant historical document reflecting early Christian practices and beliefs.

In summary, while the Apostolic Canons are acknowledged for their historical value, they are not actively used in the governance of the Catholic Church today.

The EU officially recognised Russian Orthodox Church as a tool of "Russian propaganda".
Of course, it is equal to the declaration themselves as the enemies of Mother Church, and, therefore, enemies of the God Himself (i.e. confession in being Satanists). They shouldn't be surprised that Russians see them as Satanists.

Bad policy mixing religion and politics. Here in the US we have "Freedom of Religion" interpreted as "Freedom from Religion" by democrats. Its a stretch saying that any Christian religion is Satanic because of politics.

Deterrence type II. "If you do something extremely provocative, we'll nuke you. And we can do it, because we'd suffer significant, but acceptable damage". And NATO believe us.

I interpret the NATO explanation of why they did not send troops into Ukraine to throw Russia out is that it was simply "an unacceptable risk" of triggering a nuclear war. "Deterrence" works because of the "unacceptable risk" of starting a nuclear war. To think that anyone could actually "win" a nuclear war is insane.

Well, to make the world uninhabitable, you need much more than few thousands of nukes. Many millions of them, may be.

My link said over 100 makes Earth uninhabitable for humans, no crops, nuclear winter, etc.

It doesn't matter. You asked, when the USA attacked Russia directly, and since when we are in direct conflict - I answered. Say nothing about recent attack of US Navy ship on Russia-flagged ship.

It wasn't the USA who attacked Russia, it was Ukraine using weapons made in the US. A big difference.

And Russia didn't attack the USA. We just gave Latin Americans money and weapons to attack the USA.

Actually your weapons didn't work so well when we arrested Maduro, thankfully.

Yep. They can't just say that it's just "not American business" and ignore anti-American government in Canada. But America might decide to start with lower level of violence.

Getting back to Ukraine, Russian loyalists in Ukraine can't oppose Kyiv and support Russia when Kyiv is fighting a against a Russian invasion. National sovereignty says those "insurrectionists" need to be arrested as traitors.

 

[Zavulon]

Where the did you dig those up from? I never heard of them before. I don't think we follow any.

Apostolic Canons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Acceptance and Recognition​

• The Apostolic Canons were approved by the Council in Trullo in 692 but faced rejection by Pope Sergius I.
• In the Western Church, only fifty canons circulated, translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus around 500 AD.
• The canons have been historically viewed with suspicion, and many theologians have questioned their apostolic origin.

Current Status​

• The Apostolic Canons are not part of the official canon law of the Catholic Church today.
• They are considered apocryphal by many in the Western tradition and are not used as authoritative texts in contemporary church governance.
• However, they remain a significant historical document reflecting early Christian practices and beliefs.

In summary, while the Apostolic Canons are acknowledged for their historical value, they are not actively used in the governance of the Catholic Church today.

If this is true, Roman Catholic church is even more "progressive" than I thought. And it makes another reason for Orthodox guys consider Roman Catholics as Satanists as well.

Bad policy mixing religion and politics. Here in the US we have "Freedom of Religion" interpreted as "Freedom from Religion" by democrats. Its a stretch saying that any Christian religion is Satanic because of politics.

Any Christian religion in West is Satanic, because of politics, to be specific.

I interpret the NATO explanation of why they did not send troops into Ukraine to throw Russia out is that it was simply "an unacceptable risk" of triggering a nuclear war. "Deterrence" works because of the "unacceptable risk" of starting a nuclear war. To think that anyone could actually "win" a nuclear war is insane.

Western politicians decided that they can't send their forces in Ukraine, because Russians might start a nuclear war. And why did they think that Russian might start a nuclear war? Because it was not suicidal for Russians.

My link said over 100 makes Earth uninhabitable for humans, no crops, nuclear winter, etc.

You link lies, and I already had explained why. And, to be correct, it wasn't what was written in the article. What actually was written there, is that one hundred of nuclear bursts in cities might affect agriculture. There is a huge difference between "affecting agriculture" and "making Earth uninhabitable".

It wasn't the USA who attacked Russia, it was Ukraine using weapons made in the US. A big difference.

No. The weapon was not only made, but also operated, guided and controlled by Americans. As I said, the difference is quite arbitrary, but, may be, you've payed for this strike by half of Los-Angeles, burnt down by well-trained Mexicans.

Actually your weapons didn't work so well when we arrested Maduro, thankfully.

If you think that Rodriguez is somehow better, think one more time. Your obsession with personalities is quite funny.

Getting back to Ukraine, Russian loyalists in Ukraine can't oppose Kyiv and support Russia when Kyiv is fighting a against a Russian invasion.

Of course they can, and they do. Russians are human beings and we have all human rights.

National sovereignty says those "insurrectionists" need to be arrested as traitors.

And the right for rebellion says that any discrimative, abusive and genocidal government can be overthroned. "Sovereignity" is just a fancy word in a dictionary between "sober" and "sozzled". If anybody think that it gives him a right to abuse and kill Russians, he should think one more time.

 

[kyzr]

If this is true, Roman Catholic church is even more "progressive" than I thought. And it makes another reason for Orthodox guys consider Roman Catholics as Satanists as well. Any Christian religion in West is Satanic, because of politics, to be specific.

You throw the word "Satanist" around very easily, like you throw the word "Nazi" around, so much so that they become meaningless, since they are obviously misused nonsense. Did you hear the pope is American?? I wonder if Pope Leo and Patriarch Kirill will ever meet?

...A close ally of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Kirill has described Putin's rule as "a miracle of God

Western politicians decided that they can't send their forces in Ukraine, because Russians might start a nuclear war. And why did they think that Russian might start a nuclear war? Because it was not suicidal for Russians.

Why did they think Russia might start a nuclear war? Because Putin is desperate enough to use them, since his army sucks.

Your link lies, and I already had explained why. And, to be correct, it wasn't what was written in the article. What actually was written there, is that one hundred of nuclear bursts in cities might affect agriculture. There is a huge difference between "affecting agriculture" and "making Earth uninhabitable".

I don't want to find out if it lies or not. That is what sane people with a 3-digit IQ call an "unacceptable risk"

What Would Happen in a Nuclear War? Effects, Casualties & Survival | Defcon Level

What would actually happen in a nuclear war? Detailed analysis of immediate effects, casualties, nuclear winter, and long-term survival scenarios.

www.defconlevel.com

No. The weapon was not only made, but also operated, guided and controlled by Americans. As I said, the difference is quite arbitrary, but, may be, you've payed for this strike by half of Los-Angeles, burnt down by well-trained Mexicans.

Nope, Ukrainians were trained how to use them. Besides, your S-500 shot them all down, no problem.

Of course they can, and they do. Russians are human beings and we have all human rights.

True, but governments have laws that need to be obeyed.

And the right for rebellion says that any discriminating, abusive and genocidal government can be overthrown. "Sovereignty" is just a fancy word in a dictionary between "sober" and "sozzled". If anybody think that it gives him a right to abuse and kill Russians, he should think one more time.

Sovereignty means obey the government's law or face the consequences.
Anarchy is also just a word in a dictionary, between anarchist and anarthria.
Russians live in Russia, Ukrainians live in Ukraine.

 

[Zavulon]

You throw the word "Satanist" around very easily, like you throw the word "Nazi" around, so much so that they become meaningless, since they are obviously misused nonsense.

As I said, it all depends on definitions.
Oversimplificating, one can say that Nazies are "guys who hate Russians", and Satanists are "guys who hate Russian Orthodox Church". And there are a lot of such guys in the West.

Did you hear the pope is American?? I wonder if Pope Leo and Patriarch Kirill will ever meet?

View attachment 1215703...A close ally of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Kirill has described Putin's rule as "a miracle of God

So what? They tell it about every government. "There is no authority except from God"

Why did they think Russia might start a nuclear war?

Because it wouldn't be suicidal. Because they know, that from the Russian point of view, nuclear war is both survivable and winnable. It is a dangerous gambling, but not certain suicide.

Because Putin is desperate enough to use them, since his army sucks.

It is not a reason to commit suicide. And what is more important, other Russians are not brainless zombies to follow him in suicide.

I don't want to find out if it lies or not. That is what sane people with a 3-digit IQ call an "unacceptable risk"

What Would Happen in a Nuclear War? Effects, Casualties & Survival | Defcon Level

What would actually happen in a nuclear war? Detailed analysis of immediate effects, casualties, nuclear winter, and long-term survival scenarios.

www.defconlevel.com

Some risks are less acceptable than others. And, from the Russian point of view, risks of NATO forces in Ukraine is definitely much higher than the risks of the Russian well prepared attack against the USA.

Nope, Ukrainians were trained how to use them. Besides, your S-500 shot them all down, no problem.

You can say that it were Ukrainians. And we'll say, that it were Mexicans who nuked Chicago.

True, but governments have laws that need to be obeyed.

And government should obey to the people.

Sovereignty means obey the government's law or face the consequences.

And democracy means that if a government discriminate, abuse and genocide people, this government might be eliminated.

Anarchy is also just a word in a dictionary, between anarchist and anarthria.

I'm not an anarchist. I prefer to consider myself as a "cynical selfish liberal". If a government wants me to do something, it should pay for it.

Russians live in Russia, Ukrainians live in Ukraine.

And in North Dacota state live only Dacota people, right?

 

[kyzr]

As I said, it all depends on definitions.
Oversimplifying, one can say that Nazis are "guys who hate Russians", and Satanists are "guys who hate Russian Orthodox Church". And there are a lot of such guys in the West.

That's not oversimplifying, that's flat wrong.
Nazism, formally named National Socialism, is the far-right totalitarian ideology associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany.
Satanism refers to a group of religious, ideological, or philosophical beliefs based on Satan—particularly his worship or veneration. Because of the ties to the historical Abrahamic religious figure, Satanism—as well as other religious, ideological, or philosophical beliefs that align with Satanism—is considered a counter-cultural Abrahamic religion.
So Satanists are "anti-Jews"
Mixing in political propaganda to redefine "hot button" terms is flat wrong.

Because nuclear war wouldn't be suicidal. Because the EU knows, that from the Russian point of view, nuclear war is both survivable and winnable. It is a dangerous gambling, but not certain suicide.

Wrong, it is certain suicide. But if Russia wants to be "decolonized" a nuclear war is a good place to start.

It is not a reason to commit suicide. And what is more important, other Russians are not brainless zombies to follow him in suicide.

I hope you are right. Prosperity beats devastation.

Some risks are less acceptable than others. And, from the Russian point of view, risks of NATO forces in Ukraine is definitely much higher than the risks of the Russian well prepared attack against the USA.

Bad logic. Ukraine is not different strategically than Poland, or Sweden, or any other border country. You aren't worried about those risks, only Ukraine. That sounds more like propaganda than truth.

You can say that it were Ukrainians. And we'll say, that it were Mexicans who nuked Chicago.

Yes, but we'd be telling the truth and you would be lying.

And government should obey to the people.
And democracy means that if a government discriminate, abuse and genocide people, this government might be eliminated.

The people elect a government, and then follow the laws they make. Otherwise its mob rule by oligarchs.

I'm not an anarchist. I prefer to consider myself as a "cynical selfish liberal". If a government wants me to do something, it should pay for it.

Ok, here you'd be a democrat.

And in North Dakota state live only Dakota people, right?

North Dakota isn't a country, the USA is.
Ukraine is a sovereign country, Russia has no right to meddle in internal Ukraine squabbles with dissidents.

 

[Zavulon]

That's not oversimplifying, that's flat wrong.
Nazism, formally named National Socialism, is the far-right totalitarian ideology associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany.

If somebody looks like a Nazi (wearing Nazi outfits and symbols of Nazies and Nazi-collaborants), speaks like a Nazi - parroting Goebbels-style propaganda that Russians are Untermenchen (and could be abused, discriminated and, eventually, genocided), proclaiming himself as ideological heirs of Bandera and other Nazi-collaborants, and act like Nazies - killing Russians, including demonstrative mass murders, they are definitely Nazies.

Satanism refers to a group of religious, ideological, or philosophical beliefs based on Satan—particularly his worship or veneration. Because of the ties to the historical Abrahamic religious figure, Satanism—as well as other religious, ideological, or philosophical beliefs that align with Satanism—is considered a counter-cultural Abrahamic religion.
So Satanists are "anti-Jews"
Mixing in political propaganda to redefine "hot button" terms is flat wrong.

Yep. Of course, Satanists are (among other things) "anti-Jews" (and, widely, anti-human), but many Jews (according Christian and Muslim beliefs) will see anti-Christs as "True Messiah".

Like, there is a nice Muslim book (among many others): "The Army of Christ (Issa, peace him) in the battle against the army of antichrist Al-Mashih ad-Dajjal",

one of authors - General-Leitenant Alautdinov. In this book authors try to prove that true Christians and true Muslims should fight together against pure Satanic Western evil.

Say nothing about almost open Satanism symbolic in the Western countries.

Wrong, it is certain suicide.

It is not.

I hope you are right. Prosperity beats devastation.

And to be prosperous we should always kill those guys who tryed to kill our people and steal our assets.

Bad logic. Ukraine is not different strategically than Poland, or Sweden, or any other border country.

It is different. But we, of course, worry about Poland and Sweden, too.

You aren't worried about those risks, only Ukraine. That sounds more like propaganda than truth.

We worry about them, too, but it's not urgent now. They can wait a bit until the end of de-nazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, and after that, we'll continue our work with them, coercing them in Russia-acceptable weapon-control treaty.

Yes, but we'd be telling the truth and you would be lying.

Of course no.

The people elect a government, and then follow the laws they make. Otherwise its mob rule by oligarchs.

Germans elected Hitler, you know. And no, to be acceptable, elections should be democratical. There should be freedom of speech and other things. When Junta's goons murder everyone who said a word against "western choice" (and in 2010 most of Ukrainians voted for the Party of Regions), then elections couldn't be called "free". When Ukrainians had a choice between a Ukrainian Poroshenko, with his nationalistic motto "Army. Language. Faith" and a Russian-speaking Jew Zelenskiy (with his motto "Let's make peace and respect everyone's right") 75% of Ukrainians voted for peace and equal rights.

But, after elections, Zelenskiy just said "f#ck you, fools" and sold Ukrainians as cannon fodder.

Ok, here you'd be a democrat.

Hardly. American dems are barely different from American Republicans. And, as far as I understand, they love conceptions of "more government" and "support disgusting perversions". But, if it is necessary for my business, I can use rhetoric for both sides.

North Dakota isn't a country, the USA is.
Ukraine is a sovereign country, Russia has no right to meddle in internal Ukraine squabbles with dissidents.

Is Canada a sovereign country? Can Canadian Junta genocide English-speaking Canadians and deploy Chinese nuclear missiles? Oh, wait! They can't even freely make business with China and have trading agreements they want.

And no. Ukrainians sold their sovereignity on Maidan. Since they decided to become NATO's ram against Russia and Russians, they lost their right to be independent.

 

[Darkwind]

Man, can't we just blow some shit up and call it a day?

 

[kyzr]

Man, can't we just blow some shit up and call it a day?

Where? Iran? VZ? Mexico? Cuba? Columbia?