Zelenski Says Trump Can't Make Him Negotiate With Russia....Practically Admitting He's Not Trying To End It

[beagle9]

If there is a nuclear war, the Russian survivors of all the fallout will starve because all the decent farmland will be irradicated.

Yes, Russia is very cold for much of the year, so it wouldn't take much to upset it's ecosystem in such a way that mass starvation would definitely be a factor involved, especially in a nuclear fall out situation.

 

[Zavulon]

If there is a nuclear war, the Russian survivors of all the fallout will starve because all the decent farmland will be irradiated.

Of course no.
1) Contamination level after nuclear bursts (even ground nuclear bursts) will came to acceptable in a week.
2) Russia is big, there will be a lot of non-irradiated regions.
3) There are significant national reserves, including reserves of food, fuel, spare parts equipment, etc.
4) If Russia wins it can take food from both defeated enemies and impressed allies.

 

[Zavulon]

Yes, Russia is very cold for much of the year, so it wouldn't take much to upset it's ecosystem in such a way that mass starvation would definitely be a factor involved, especially in a nuclear fall out situation.

Of course no. Russia is vast, cold and agriculture here is gambling anyway. That's why the Russians had accustomed to it. Back in "The Time of Troubles", there were three years long volcanic winter. Three years without summer and, therefore - without harvest. But the main problem wasn't three-years long winter itself. Mostly it was Polish invasion and their genocide of Russians. Together, winter and Poland had killed more than 30% of the Russians. But Russia won the war, recuperated in few decades, and in another few decades became the Empire.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Ukraine Has Had Its Fill

With crucial territory and infrastructure falling to the Russians, Ukrainian public opinion is swinging precipitously against their leaders and the war.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Say goodnight Zelensky

 

[AZrailwhale]

Of course no.
1) Contamination level after nuclear bursts (even ground nuclear bursts) will came to acceptable in a week.
2) Russia is big, there will be a lot of non-irradiated regions.
3) There are significant national reserves, including reserves of food, fuel, spare parts equipment, etc.
4) If Russia wins it can take food from both defeated enemies and impressed allies.

You are appealing ignorant. The least dangerous radiation particles decay in weeks. The most dangerous ones last for decades. They are also cumulative. The non- irradiated portions are where no one lives. Your reserves are located in the highly populated areas and given the rampant corruption in Russia likely don’t exist. They were sold off on the black market decades ago IF they were ever established in the first place. Finally, there will be no food for you to steal. But that is Russia’s answer to every thing, steal it from those who have it. That is why all the ex-Soviet countries are so eager to join NATO rather than returning to the “benevolent” rule of Moscow/ St. Petersburg.

 

[beagle9]

You are appealingly ignorant. The least dangerous radiation particles decay in weeks. The most dangerous ones last for decades. They are also cumulative. The non- irradiated portions are where no one lives. Your reserves are located in the highly populated areas and given the rampant corruption in Russia likely don’t exist. They were sold off on the black market decades ago IF they were ever established in the first place. Finally, there will be no food for you to steal. But that is Russia’s answer to every thing, steal it from those who have it. That is why all the ex-Soviet countries are so eager to join NATO rather than returning to the “benevolent” rule of Moscow/ St. Petersburg.

So how does a nation that gave up so much in the way of it's governance or culture, and do so all in the hopes of internal reform and modernization to come, and yet become hated so badly by the liberal left of the United States of America ??? One would think that with all the progressive progress in Russia that it went through, that it would have gained some brownie points with the leftist, but nope it didn't.

 

[Zavulon]

You are appealing ignorant. The least dangerous radiation particles decay in weeks.

Higher level of radiation means shorter half-life time. The most dangerous particles of Aluminium are gone in minutes and hours.
Sr-90 and I-131 may be dangerous because they may be biologically important. But for the same reason the body can be easily protected by the pills.

The most dangerous ones last for decades. They are also cumulative. The non- irradiated portions are where no one lives.

It depends. In most of scenarios Americans act more or less rational (or, at least, not stupid) and use ground bursts almost exclusively to hit silos and other underground targets, and they use aerial bursts to destroy cities (just to increase immediate damage), and there are no fallouts from aerial bursts.

Your reserves are located in the highly populated areas and given the rampant corruption in Russia likely don’t exist.

They exist.

They were sold off on the black market decades ago IF they were ever established in the first place. Finally, there will be no food for you to steal. But that is Russia’s answer to every thing, steal it from those who have it. That is why all the ex-Soviet countries are so eager to join NATO rather than returning to the “benevolent” rule of Moscow/ St. Petersburg.

Bla-bla-bla.
Anyway, it's irrelevant. If we win - we have resources of the whole world for recuperation. If we lose - they are going to genocide us anyway.

 

[Zavulon]

So how does a nation that gave up so much in the way of it's governance or culture, and do so all in the hopes of internal reform and modernization to come, and yet become hated so badly by the liberal left of the United States of America ??? One would think that with all the progressive progress in Russia that it went through, that it would have gained some brownie points with the leftist, but nope it didn't.

Personally I hardly can see a difference between western "left" and "right", first of all both of them are "western" and political differences between them are mostly cosmetical. And, basically, "evil foreigners" (that the definition of the "evil foreigners") do understand only military force. The only thing that temporarily can deter western barbarians (no offence and nothing personal) is the fear of instant annihilation. If they have an illusion of the possibility of "victory" over Russia - they do attack. They always do it.

 

[beagle9]

Personally I hardly can see a difference between western "left" and "right", first of all both of them are "western" and political differences between them are mostly cosmetical. And, basically, "evil foreigners" (that the definition of the "evil foreigners") do understand only military force. The only thing that temporarily can deter western barbarians (no offence and nothing personal) is the fear of instant annihilation. If they have an illusion of the possibility of "victory" over Russia - they do attack. They always do it.

Was my post answered(?), because I'm not sure actually.

Well probably not, because it was directed mainly at the leftist here. So let's see here - a question for you then - Reagan said to Gorbachev "tear down this wall", and he did it. This is where the reforms began, and Russia supposedly joined the world from it's isolated walled off eastern blocked state of control correct ??

What happened to those reforms ? When looking to Russia in the year's of these later 2,000s, one can see many modernized mainstream businesses, it's military, and the modernized cities just like what we see all over the world. So what happened that it has plunged itself into war like we are seeing ? Makes no sense to me.

Best not to do war unless being literally attacked, because it's just no good and therefore leads to destruction of untold imagination, and this regardless of what leader thinks otherwise about it.

Peace not war, because differences can be worked through always. Let the leader's get into the ring in order to fight it out while we all pay to watch it.

 

[Zavulon]

Was my post answered(?), because I'm not sure actually.

I'm not sure either. Actually, I'm not sure that I understood your question at all. It seems that you ask as if Russians are not a horde of mindless goons, lead by a crazy dictator or hive-minded aliens driven by hunger and hate, but as if are actual human beings with their real motivations. But right after that assumption (I really value even attempt of this approach) you return to the poor propagadinst cliches.

Well probably not, because it was directed mainly at the leftist here. So let's see here - a question for you then - Reagan said to Gorbachev "tear down this wall", and he did it. This is where the reforms began, and Russia supposedly joined the world from it's isolated walled off eastern blocked state of control correct ??

Not exactly. First of all, Russia never saw itself as "isolated". (At least, not isolated by the wall). If Russia is "isolated" from other civilisations its more because of our cultural and linguistic differences rather than because of political decisions (as with any other civilisation). Second, every new leader do his own reforms. There were reforms of Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Kosygin, etc ... There was nothing actually new with Gorbachev about inner policy. In Russia everything changes in three years and nothing changes in three hundred years.
Third, Reagan-Gorbachev deal wasn't seen as "defeat". It was seen as an attempt to build mutually acceptable peace (without both NATO and Warsaw Pact, or, at least without NATO's expansion and discrimination and genocide of Russians) that was really "new thinking", and many Russians were very suspicious about those "new ideas". And, from the Russian point of view, the USA violated their part of the deal as early as in 1992 when they continued and even increased their support of genocidal and terroristic regimes and groups. And from the practical Russian point of view, there were no much difference between Reagan, Clinton and Bush.

What happened to those reforms ? When looking to Russia in the year's of these later 2,000s, one can see many modernized mainstream businesses, it's military, and the modernized cities just like what we see all over the world.

Actually, Moscow is better than anything you can see anywhere in the world (at least according opinion of many UN experts).

So what happened that it has plunged itself into war like we are seeing ? Makes no sense to me.

It's quite simple. If you want to be rich and safe - you have to fight those who want to kill you and take your property. Starting with fighting home criminals, radicals and terrorists and finishing with the most powerful foreign enemies. Appeasement doesn't work (as NATO's expansion clearly demonstrated). It helped to buy some forty years of "warm peace", and now there is the question how effectively sides used that time.

Best not to do war unless being literally attacked, because it's just no good and therefore leads to destruction of untold imagination, and this regardless of what leader thinks otherwise about it.

But we were literally attacked. Russians who live in Odessa or Chernigov are the same Russians who live in Moscow or Rostov.

Peace not war, because differences can be worked through always. Let the leader's get into the ring in order to fight it out while we all pay to watch it.

You know, it's not about entertaining, it's about survival.

 

[beagle9]

I'm not sure either. Actually, I'm not sure that I understood your question at all. It seems that you ask as if Russians are not a horde of mindless goons, lead by a crazy dictator or hive-minded aliens driven by hunger and hate, but as if are actual human beings with their real motivations. But right after that assumption (I really value even attempt of this approach) you return to the poor propagadinst cliches.

Not exactly. First of all, Russia never saw itself as "isolated". (At least, not isolated by the wall). If Russia is "isolated" from other civilisations its more because of our cultural and linguistic differences rather than because of political decisions (as with any other civilisation). Second, every new leader do his own reforms. There were reforms of Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Kosygin, etc ... There was nothing actually new with Gorbachev about inner policy. In Russia everything changes in three years and nothing changes in three hundred years.
Third, Reagan-Gorbachev deal wasn't seen as "defeat". It was seen as an attempt to build mutually acceptable peace (without both NATO and Warsaw Pact, or, at least without NATO's expansion and discrimination and genocide of Russians) that was really "new thinking", and many Russians were very suspicious about those "new ideas". And, from the Russian point of view, the USA violated their part of the deal as early as in 1992 when they continued and even increased their support of genocidal and terroristic regimes and groups. And from the practical Russian point of view, there were no much difference between Reagan, Clinton and Bush.



Actually, Moscow is better than anything you can see anywhere in the world (at least according opinion of many UN experts).


It's quite simple. If you want to be rich and safe - you have to fight those who want to kill you and take your property. Starting with fighting home criminals, radicals and terrorists and finishing with the most powerful foreign enemies. Appeasement doesn't work (as NATO's expansion clearly demonstrated). It helped to buy some forty years of "warm peace", and now there is the question how effectively sides used that time.



But we were literally attacked. Russians who live in Odessa or Chernigov are the same Russians who live in Moscow or Rostov.

You know, it's not about entertaining, it's about survival.

How has the Biden administration acted throughout all of this ? Give us your opinion of that.

 

[Zavulon]

How has the Biden administration acted throughout all of this ? Give us your opinion of that.

As I said, I don't see much difference between Biden, Obama, Trump, Bush, Reagan and anyone else. May be, it's just a bit above my level of expertise and/or my salary.
It's more about capabilities not about intentions, and it seems to me, that any POTUS is more like a banner (or brand) rather than an actual decision-maker.
Actually, they all acted in regime "march eastward until you are stopped by the military force". "Drung nach Osten" as the Krauts say.

Basically, the strategic logic of the current wave seems to be quite simple. They want to eliminate Russia, and they don't want to be eliminated in return. Therefore, one of the ways from the "MAD-stalemate" (for both sides) is the first counter-force attack from the short distance by the medium-range missiles. For this point the USA need Ukraine and Georgia (as one of necessary but insufficient steps).
The USA had the choice:
1) wait until both Russia and China achieve overwhelming nuclear superiority over them (which might allow to start and win a nuclear war against the USA). If you do nothing it will happen before 2030. And it will mean the end of the US domination.
2) try to defeat Russia and defeat her fast (and it means necessity to take Ukraine and take it fast).
3) distract Russia from Pacific theatre to Europe by creating relatively small, but annoying provocations (like Ukrainian conflict)
4) make a mutually acceptable peace (starting with de-natofication of the eastern Europe).

As much as I can understand options 1 and 4 are hardly acceptable to the USA. Option 2 was a plan "A" but it failed in 2023 and it seems they have no plan "B" for this option. Option 3, as I guestimate, is their actual strategy now. "Allow Russians take the Europe, but they should pay the price and they shouldn't take anything but the scorched land. They shouldn't have an opportunity to avoid European war and for this, Europe should attack them first."

How good was Biden in the realisation of this strategy and could anyone did it better? I dunno (but I doubt that his personal competence or incompetence matters). Will Trump continue this strategy or he'll make a reliable mutually acceptable peace (option 4) or increase attacks Russia directly (option 2)? I dunno either. And I'm almost sure that his personal intentions don't matter. My bet, that he'll continue current policy, but, may be, after Ukraine he'll try to use Baltic states, Poland or Germany.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Higher level of radiation means shorter half-life time. The most dangerous particles of Aluminium are gone in minutes and hours.
Sr-90 and I-131 may be dangerous because they may be biologically important. But for the same reason the body can be easily protected by the pills.


It depends. In most of scenarios Americans act more or less rational (or, at least, not stupid) and use ground bursts almost exclusively to hit silos and other underground targets, and they use aerial bursts to destroy cities (just to increase immediate damage), and there are no fallouts from aerial bursts.


They exist.


Bla-bla-bla.
Anyway, it's irrelevant. If we win - we have resources of the whole world for recuperation. If we lose - they are going to genocide us anyway.

You accept they exist because your government says they exist. The same government that claimed its reactive tank armor existed when it was wooden blocks and the plates in its personal armor were real.

 

[beagle9]

As I said, I don't see much difference between Biden, Obama, Trump, Bush, Reagan and anyone else. May be, it's just a bit above my level of expertise and/or my salary.
It's more about capabilities not about intentions, and it seems to me, that any POTUS is more like a banner (or brand) rather than an actual decision-maker.
Actually, they all acted in regime "march eastward until you are stopped by the military force". "Drung nach Osten" as the Krauts say.

Basically, the strategic logic of the current wave seems to be quite simple. They want to eliminate Russia, and they don't want to be eliminated in return. Therefore, one of the ways from the "MAD-stalemate" (for both sides) is the first counter-force attack from the short distance by the medium-range missiles. For this point the USA need Ukraine and Georgia (as one of necessary but insufficient steps).
The USA had the choice:
1) wait until both Russia and China achieve overwhelming nuclear superiority over them (which might allow to start and win a nuclear war against the USA). If you do nothing it will happen before 2030. And it will mean the end of the US domination.
2) try to defeat Russia and defeat her fast (and it means necessity to take Ukraine and take it fast).
3) distract Russia from Pacific theatre to Europe by creating relatively small, but annoying provocations (like Ukrainian conflict)
4) make a mutually acceptable peace (starting with de-natofication of the eastern Europe).

As much as I can understand options 1 and 4 are hardly acceptable to the USA. Option 2 was a plan "A" but it failed in 2023 and it seems they have no plan "B" for this option. Option 3, as I guestimate, is their actual strategy now. "Allow Russians take the Europe, but they should pay the price and they shouldn't take anything but the scorched land. They shouldn't have an opportunity to avoid European war and for this, Europe should attack them first."

How good was Biden in the realisation of this strategy and could anyone did it better? I dunno (but I doubt that his personal competence or incompetence matters). Will Trump continue this strategy or he'll make a reliable mutually acceptable peace (option 4) or increase attacks Russia directly (option 2)? I dunno either. And I'm almost sure that his personal intentions don't matter. My bet, that he'll continue current policy, but, may be, after Ukraine he'll try to use Baltic states, Poland or Germany.

I think you are a biased individual that is being fed information by your government. We are dealing with many issues regarding the previous administration. Trump is in no way like Biden or other's, so it best you get that one out of your heads.

 

[Zavulon]

You accept they exist because your government says they exist. The same government that claimed its reactive tank armor existed when it was wooden blocks and the plates in its personal armor were real.

It's not only because the government said it. It's quite common knowledge - during emergencies they often use those resources. And no, reactive armor is real.

 

[Zavulon]

I think you are a biased individual that is being fed information by your government.

Actually, I consume more information about the USA from your government.

We are dealing with many issues regarding the previous administration. Trump is in no way like Biden or other's, so it best you get that one out of your heads.

Yeah. They are different as Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola. Absolutely different things. (Sarcasm). They do more or less same things.

 

[Zavulon]

I think you are a biased individual that is being fed information by your government. We are dealing with many issues regarding the previous administration. Trump is in no way like Biden or other's, so it best you get that one out of your heads.

You see ... There is the logic of intentions and there is the logic of circumstances. And the logic of circumstances is always stronger.
Basically, in the current circumstances Trump have three choices:
1) Escalate;
2) De-escalate;
3) Stall for time.

With the current US military capabilities (first of all nuclear capabilities) he can't really escalate (because the USA can't win even a limited nuclear war with Russia).
With the current US economic capabilities (and significant Chinese lobbies) he can't significantly de-escalate. (Because China isn't interested in the defuzing the situation).
So, his only option is stall for time (may be, with some little de-escalation). It means that Russia will finish Ukraine and then Trump force Baltic states to attack Russians.

 

[beagle9]

You see ... There is the logic of intentions and there is the logic of circumstances. And the logic of circumstances is always stronger.
Basically, in the current circumstances Trump have three choices:
1) Escalate;
2) De-escalate;
3) Stall for time.

With the current US military capabilities (first of all nuclear capabilities) he can't really escalate (because the USA can't win even a limited nuclear war with Russia).
With the current US economic capabilities (and significant Chinese lobbies) he can't significantly de-escalate. (Because China isn't interested in the defuzing the situation).
So, his only option is stall for time (may be, with some little de-escalation). It means that Russia will finish Ukraine and then Trump force Baltic states to attack Russians.

Making Trump your enemy is a mistake. Trump has been through hell, and to try and make him a bad guy linked to the one's that gave him that hell is a mistake. New sheriff in town means the whole dynamic changes, so don't make a mistake by thinking that the USA will be the same after Trump takes over, because it won't be.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You see ... There is the logic of intentions and there is the logic of circumstances. And the logic of circumstances is always stronger.
Basically, in the current circumstances Trump have three choices:
1) Escalate;
2) De-escalate;
3) Stall for time.

With the current US military capabilities (first of all nuclear capabilities) he can't really escalate (because the USA can't win even a limited nuclear war with Russia).
With the current US economic capabilities (and significant Chinese lobbies) he can't significantly de-escalate. (Because China isn't interested in the defuzing the situation).
So, his only option is stall for time (may be, with some little de-escalation). It means that Russia will finish Ukraine and then Trump force Baltic states to attack Russians.

The USA may not be able to win a nuclear war with Russia, but it can ensure that Russia loses as well. I believe that Trump will give Putin a chance to negotiate a fair peace giving back most of the territory it has conquered, and when, as I am sure will happen, Putin refuses, Trump will ramp up support to Ukraine far beyond the total support Ukraine gets today from all parties combined. He will also ramp up the economic sanctions on both Russia and the kleptocrats running it.

You have the strange idea that the USA will limit retaliation to a small Russian strike. You might take a look at American history to see what a totally stupid idea that is. We joined the Triple Entante in destroying a Germany because of a telegram and a passenger liner being sunk. We totally destroyed Japan and Germany over a far off navy base being attacked. We toppled two governments because they supported the terrorists who flew hijacked airliners into three buildings and killed three thousand Americans. If you launch one nuke at any US possession , the president will launch a massive counter strike long before your missile lands. No American president could survive doing anything else. Even feckless Jimmy Carter finally launched a raid to recover our diplomatic personnel held by Iran. He just screwed it up.

 

[beagle9]

The USA may not be able to win a nuclear war with Russia, but it can ensure that Russia loses as well. I believe that Trump will give Putin a chance to negotiate a fair peace giving back most of the territory it has conquered, and when, as I am sure will happen, Putin refuses, Trump will ramp up support to Ukraine far beyond the total support Ukraine gets today from all parties combined. He will also ramp up the economic sanctions on both Russia and the kleptocrats running it.

You have the strange idea that the USA will limit retaliation to a small Russian strike. You might take a look at American history to see what a totally stupid idea that is. We joined the Triple Entante in destroying a Germany because of a telegram and a passenger liner being sunk. We totally destroyed Japan and Germany over a far off navy base being attacked. We toppled two governments because they supported the terrorists who flew hijacked airliners into three buildings and killed three thousand Americans. If you launch one nuke at any US possession , the president will launch a massive counter strike long before your missile lands. No American president could survive doing anything else. Even feckless Jimmy Carter finally launched a raid to recover our diplomatic personnel held by Iran. He just screwed it up.

It's doubtful that Russia will ever leave the boundaries of Ukraine, otherwise while conducting his special operation to topple the government of Ukraine (if that was his original goal), but he could if he is coaxed out due to extreme interference by third parties being involved against him with Zelensky.

If anything I surmise that he will focus on finishing the job in Ukraine by using all means at his disposal, and this after Ukraine became the bane within his eyesight for whatever reason that he has had against him..

In his thinking Zelensky had since gotten too cozy with the west, and right at the borderline with his Russia.. This among other things right ?

I surmise that if anyone gets in the way of Putins original goal, otherwise after all the blood and treasure he has spent, then it could escalate into an out of control situation that ends up spiraling way out of control, and therefore engulfing all who were poking their heads into the business of the two old and/or new enemies fighting one another.

Beware to all who poke their warmongering heads into something that could get them what they don't want if not careful.

World War !!

Make peace not war.. Haven't we ever learned that one yet ?

What do you all think ?