Negotiate Peace With Russia to Prevent War Over Ukraine

Nuclear war is preferable to surrendering.

My idea? I don't recall saying that.

I also don't recall rejecting it.

I offer no opinion on whether the use of tactical nukes will escalate to the use of strategic nukes.

If Russia nukes us, we'll nuke them back. If they don't nuke us, we won't nuke them back.

Whatever way it goes is up to them. I offer no predictions as to what they will decide to do.

It's a shame that Bush was defeated in 1992. Had he remained president until 1996 he would have steered NATO and Russia on a different path.

 

It will continue as long as Assad and Russia remain in Syria.

Wrong. It was Assad and Russia who propped up Islamic State.

The US and the Kurds destroyed Islamic State.

Assad never gives the Syrian people the chance to do that.

Good. The sanctions should stay in place until the UN Security Council agrees to refer the Syrian conflict to the International Criminal Court.

Nonsense. Sanctions are a perfectly acceptable response to genocide.

Wrong. Syrians are fighting and dying because Assad and Russia are committing genocide against them.

Islamic State is no longer in Syria. The US and the Kurds destroyed them.

Shame on them. I wish I could say that I'm surprised, but I am not.

The problems are wherever Assad and Russia are currently perpetrating their genocide against the Syrian people.

 

I wouldn't if it wasn't so ridiculous. As for 'anti-Russian' ? Not really. But if someone like 'DoI' consistently wants to make claims about a particular country (in this case Russia) that completely ignore basic facts I sort of feel they should be called on it lest others take them seriously.

 

The Chinese are having trouble finding Chinese women to marry (patriarchal society, one child policy etc ). So I don't see that as a likely solution. As for the rest? Despite all efforts to change the situation the Russian defense forces still rely on mass conscription for the bulk of their manpower, not motivated career soldiers. And the disparity between immigration and emigration rates? As I noted its small but also its been consistent for the best part of 20 years of so I believe.

And yes the birth rates has increased but still hasn't reached the replacement rates and is unlikely to do so, all other factors remaining equal.. The Russian Government (& most Western governments for that matter) simply haven't put in place the (large) financial incentives needed to encourage a higher birthrate. And in Russia's case at least (probably many western nations as well) I would question whether, given its budgetary problems it can afford to do so.

So taken all together? I simply don't see the SS Russia changing course any time soon, most of the momentum is all in the wrong direction.

 

I don't think the first nuclear strike will be on Britain or the EU. To destroy the EU, Russia has enough non-nuclear weapons.
But if the US intervenes and tries to attack Russia with missiles, then Russia's nuclear strike will be against the US. I think this fact is obvious to everyone who has a brain.

 

You really not understand? Or are you trolling?
1. The winner in a nuclear war (even if he has ruins on his territory) will preserve the state structure. This is number one in the end. And this will give a huge advantage over the losers.
And do not tell me banal phrases that there can be no winners in a nuclear war.
In any war there is always a winner and a loser. (Another question is at what cost is victory given. But this is a discussion for a separate post.)
And in a big war, Russia has a good chance of winning.
Now about the possibility of returning the original territories of the Russian Empire.
You ask the question - who will do it if you have to chop wood and hunt.
I will answer you - "chopping wood and hunting" for Russians will be those who want to have firewood, gas, oil, food .. and so on.
For example Poles, French, British...etc. (Of course, those who survived.)
Of course, they may prefer to die from hypothermia in a nuclear winter and further destruction of the remnants of their infrastructure .... or they will have to "cut wood" for the Russians.
You are a supporter of capitalism. You are a supporter of the free market. Is not it? Therefore, all the delights of the "free market", only on new conditions, you will feel for yourself. The free market is good when you're at the top of the pyramid, but you'll get a taste of what it's like when you're working for food, as Africans, Asians...and other colonies of Europeans have done for centuries. Feel for yourself, so to speak.
2. The Chinese cannot survive in Siberia. They understand this and therefore their entire expansion policy is directed to the south. After a nuclear war, when the population of China will decrease and become the same per square kilometer as in other countries, they will not have problems with the territory, and even more so, they will not even think about migration to Siberia. Do you understand it?
Or do you think that in the event of a nuclear war, China will remain on the sidelines? Do not make me laugh. The US is already ready to start with China today.
3. You constantly write about the reduction of the population in Russia. And what does that mean to you? Reduced - so what?
80 million people lived in the Russian Empire. Almost two times less than today in modern Russia.
But the territory of the Russian Empire was much larger. The Russian Empire included not only Ukraine and Kazakhstan and all the republics of the former USSR, but also other large countries. For example, Poland, Finland were part of the Russian Empire.
And 80 million people lived in these territories. And it was all right. They defeated both Napoleon, and Friedrich, and Wilhelm .... and the Turks and Persians. Developed industry. Created new technologies ... etc.
Today, with modern technology and robotics, a huge population is more of a problem than a benefit.
In a war, when unmanned tanks, planes, submarines (even with nuclear missiles on board, such as the Russian Poseidon) are being created, the number of people does not matter.
For the economy, when the market is global, it also does not matter - goods are sold to where there are many people and many buyers.
The only thing that matters is resources. But Russia has no problems with this.

By the way, political scientists and economists have long been saying that the planet is overpopulated and the ideal number of people is one billion people on the entire planet. The so-called golden billion. Maybe you have heard about it?

 

I'm going to address one point only your absurd claim that 'The winner in a nuclear war (even if he has ruins on his territory) will preserve the state structure. This is number one in the end. And this will give a huge advantage over the losers.'

In what reality can anyone preserve the structure of a State, any State falling a full scale nuclear war? All of the 'winners' largest cities and key infrastructure will be in ruins. There will be millions of survivors in desperate need of food and medical assistance with little or no capacity to provide it. The 'winners' ability to grow and distribute food to the survivors will be compromised almost as badly as the 'losers' will be as will his or hers ability to retain command an control over large tracks of their own territory. In fact given the likely climatic impacts of a full scale nuclear war that have been modeled Russia is far more likely to suffer adverse impacts than the US is simply because the bulk of its territory lies further north of the equator.

At best the winner has a marginal advantage over the loser, a matter of degree not scale.

And as for China joining in? Who does it attack you idiot? If the Russia and America launch nuclear strikes at each other and leave China untouched where's the advantage to them in joining in? For that matter better they stay out and then move into claim all the vast resources left east of the Urals once the Russian State is no more rather than try and sail across the Pacific to claim whats left of the USA. Much,much easier assuming they are in position to do so given every country on the planet would suffer collateral damage form such a war.

So your truly delusional if you think Russia or anyone else for that matter can 'win' such war. It's called MAD for a reason. Ask yourself, if the outcome was as certain as you seem to think why hasn't 'Mother Russia' launched such a war already? Your the expert, why hasn't it pushed the button'? After all according to you victory is certain.

Answer, it isn't and their sane while your not.

 

1. Russia is the most peaceful country in the world. It is a fact. Russia has not started a single war. Only defensive wars are waged by Russia.
2. After the collapse of the USSR, who began to expand NATO, and infringe on Russia in all matters. At the same time, directly deceive Russia. For example, it was promised not to expand NATO to the east. The West lied, taking advantage of Russia's weakness at the time.
3. Today, Russia has a clear advantage over NATO, including the US, in the field of new types of weapons. For example, in the field of hypersonic weapons and in the field of unmanned submarines with nuclear missiles on board.
.....etc. There are many points, but their retelling does not make sense, if you are interested, you can easily find this information.
Better turn on the logic and think about why Russia just now put forward an ultimatum to the collective West.
And also think - what response in case of failure to comply with the requirements of Russia may follow.
I think that Moscow set the maximum conditions on the basis that they would not be accepted by the West. What for? Then, what would to start deploying the military-technical infrastructure against NATO and the United States. The same “set of legal military-technical measures against a real security threat,” which Putin spoke about and repeats the Foreign Ministry Russia. The logic is this: we made our offer on security guarantees, you did not accept it and continue to threaten us, then we are forced to defend ourselves.
The whole question is what are these military-technical measures? The most realistic option is the installation of missiles on the territory of Belarus, where Lukashenko carefully preserved the Soviet missile infrastructure and which he hinted at in the fall. Such a move, of course, will frighten Poland, but from the point of view of strategic security, it will not upset the United States too much, since 500 kilometers back and forth is not important for the missile forces.
Therefore, it can be assumed that military-technical measures will not be limited to the promotion of infrastructure to Belarus. There are such wonderful countries as Cuba and Venezuela, there is the Arctic, through which we have a direct corridor to Russia “partners”, and, after all, there is outer space, where there are many interesting opportunities.
You can, of course, try to guess, since only a few have real information about this, or you can wait for official statements, which will most likely follow soon after the failure of the negotiations.
What do you think about it?

 

Yes .. there is no Sanity in MAD .. even if a command structure survived .. what is it commanding ? Those who manage to get to a border .. lucky for them ..come back in 20 years .. .. for the rest .. an ultimate game of survival .. a game which will likely kill far more than from the initial bomb blasts .. These folks have to hunker down for at least 30 days .. can't go outside ...stay put .. keep in mind the millions exiting the blast zones .. looking for a place to hunker down .. and best be quick about it .. because outside is killing you..

No communication - no power - gonna be using up that oat meal .. but no clean - non contaminated - drinking water .. this is problem .. for 30 days .. and then you can venture out into the apocalypse to find drinking water .. food .. trying not to be killed by the zombies .. half sick people .. desperately looking for food .. non contaminated water .. .. Oh the fun is just starting .. no transportation ... huge 100 meter deep divots in the Highway if you did have transport .. but you don't .. and no gas .. and no help comming .. for a long long time ..years ..

Hopefully doesn't happen in winter .. folks in the north will not survive ..

So whome ever comes out of the bunker in 20 years .. when folks can start to return to continental USA .. the ones who survived the zombie apocalypse .. .. how much water you got on hand .. 30 days worth ? .. and hope nobody finds your stash .. worth more than Gold.. but I digress .. Nothing left to command ... zombie land .. a divot in the History books .. regular "Sodom and Gomorrah" .. Country Style ..

Will be interesting to see who shows up to the party though .. 20 years is a long time .. the lucky refugees would have started new lives somewhere else .. a generation passed .. children born elsewhere ... and what is someone going to come back to.. a massive junkyard no infrastructure .. .. would be just a few colonies .. scope out some of the less contaminated areas that might be somewhat fit for habitation... .. Put the Flag in Ground "Land of Free - Home of Brave"

 

Russia started WW2 by invading Poland with their ally Germany.
Russia went on to creat an empire in Eastern Europe, and killed many people.
Lennin tried to start WW2 by invading Poland but he was beaten back.
I would not be surprised if Russia starts WW3 as it sinks into paranoia and
poverty with the loss of fossil fuel exports in years to come. It's history, as
Scholzenitzyn says, is steeped in blood.

 

I recall when the US put its missile defense system in Poland and Romania, (which will be under US command and can easily be converted to nuclear weapons), that Putin felt it was unfair to the people living there to have to suffer, rather than those who initiated the installment.

Considering this, it's doubtful they will be the sole target and not the US.

 

You two speak as though your wild fantasies are going to come true. You really should be speaking hypothetically, and then laughing at yourselves for even suggesting such things.

 

Wrong. Russia is currently aggressively invading both Ukraine and Georgia.

Other countries joining NATO does not infringe on Russia in any way.

Russia has no such advantage. Russia's alleged hypersonic weapons are just ordinary ballistic missiles. Russia's pathetic little tsunami torpedoes are tiny firecrackers compared to the designs the US worked on in the 1950s. There are no unmanned nuclear missile submarines. It is the US who is building unmanned stealth bombers.

That move would all but guarantee that we would place long range offensive missiles in Poland and Romania.

That move would all but guarantee that we would place long range offensive missiles in north-central Ukraine where a ballistic missile can strike Moscow in 90 seconds.

 

Easily converted to long range missiles that could hypothetically carry nuclear weapons.

But, the US has no such long range missiles at the moment.

We are planning to develop such long range missiles, but the long range missiles that we are planning to develop will be conventional only.

If we converted those ABM sites to long-range offensive missiles, then they would no longer be ABM sites, and we want those ABM sites for a good reason.

We may well station long range offensive missiles in Poland and Romania once we develop them, but they will be in addition to the ABM sites. They will not replace the ABM sites.

If Putin attacks the US, Russia will be destroyed.

 

What is this borders nonsense? The fallout will be everywhere on the planet. Borders will not matter.

And what is this 20 years nonsense? 20 years will wait out the cerium 144 and ruthenium 106, but the strontium 90 and cesium 137 will be around for 500 years.

Strontium 90 is chemically identical to calcium, so plants absorb it from the ground and animals absorb it from their food thinking that they are absorbing calcium. When you eat those plants and animals, you as well absorb it, and your body deposits it in your bones thinking that it is calcium. Once strontium 90 has become permanently deposited in your bones, it subjects your bone marrow to a continuous bath of beta radiation for the rest of your (now rather short) life.

Cesium 137 emits gamma rays so it doesn't need to be in your body to kill you. You just need to walk around outside. But it is chemically identical to potassium, so plants and animals do absorb it. And you will absorb it too when you eat those plants and animals. Then you will become a walking gamma emitter exposing both yourself and everyone around you to gamma rays. But don't worry about exposing other people. They as well will be walking gamma ray emitters. And there will be plenty of cesium 137 outside people's bodies to expose everyone to gamma rays as well.

What is this 30 days nonsense?

It may be impractical to stay underground for 20 years to wait out the cerium 144 and ruthenium 106, but you will be well advised to stay underground for four to five years so you can wait out the zirconium 95/niobium 95 cocktail.

Zirconium 95 is a strong gamma emitter with a 64 day half life. It decays into niobium 95, which is a strong gamma emitter with a 35 day half life.

Really, stay underground until all the zirconium 95 and niobium 95 have decayed.

It will happen in the winter. There will be a global nuclear winter for at least the next ten years.

There will also be strong ultraviolent exposure from the sun for a number of years. The heat in those nuclear fireballs combines oxygen and nitrogen into various nitrous oxides (very bad for the ozone layer) and then the rising fireballs lift them all to the top of the atmosphere where they can eat all the ozone.

Staying bunkered down for a full 20 years would be a good idea. But I'm not entirely sure that it is possible.

Cerium 144 has a half life of 285 days. Ruthenium 106 has a half life of 374 days. Both are gamma emitters, not as intense as the zirconium/niobium cocktail, but strong enough that you want to avoid exposure if you can.

Staying underground for 20 years also waits out the nuclear winter and the destruction of the ozone layer.

But, is it possible to stay underground for 20 years??

If you are able to stay underground for 20 years, you'll still have a shortened lifespan due to all the strontium 90 and cesium 137. But then so will everyone else for the next 500 years.

 

Did you ever hear of 'lebensraum'? Germany couldn't feed its large population and needed 'living space'. This was the only reason for WWII. Anyone who propagates differently, does so for their own political expediency.

Germany wanted the strain of rich black soil which runs through Eastern Ukraine and Western Russia. To get it though, they had to eliminate the populations - thus the genocide of the Slavic people. This is why the German army was lined up along the Russian border in what they called 'Operation Barbarossa'. Britain and the other nations entered the war only because of their alliances and the fear of German power.

Operation Barbarossa was the code name for the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and some of its Axis allies, which started on Sunday, 22 June 1941, during World War II. . The operation put into action Nazi Germany's ideological goal of conquering the western Soviet Union to repopulate it with Germans.

The German Generalplan Ost aimed to use some of the conquered people as slave labour for the Axis war effort while acquiring the oil reserves of the Caucasus as well as the agricultural resources of various Soviet territories. Their ultimate goal included the eventual extermination, enslavement, Germanization and mass deportation to Siberia of the Slavic peoples, and to create more Lebensraum (living space) for Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa​

The Soviet Union was created not by Russians, but by Marxist ideologues called Bolsheviks that came into Russia mostly from Poland and Germany. They overthrew the legit Russian government during WWI. They didn't want to create an Empire but a globalist one world government in the same way our Trotsky ideologues in Washington want to do.

After Lenin's death, Stalin took over rather than Trotsky. Trotsky's plans were to have continuous revolutions until the whole world became communist - which might account as to why Soros and the neo con ideologues in Washington keep creating chaos in other nations. Stalin though had made an agreement with Roosevelt in WWII that the Soviet system would not become globalist and would go no further than Eastern Europe.

Russia's history is steeped in blood because it had the Ottoman Empire on its Southern flanks enslaving the Christian populations, and on its Western flanks it had an aggressive West trying to take its land and put the Orthodox people under the Pope.

There are innate cultural differences between Russia and Western Europe since their foundation is different. Western Europe distrusts Russia because unlike them they aren't based on Frank/Latin Rome and therefore have different standards. It's based on the Greek/Latin Byzantine Empire.

This is the reason there's a divide in Europe called the Catholic/Orthodox divide. The Catholic and former Catholic nations tend towards the West, while the Orthodox tend towards Russia. Whenever the Catholic and former Catholic nations needed land and tried to put its Orthodox population under the Pope, Russia would rush to their rescue.

 

Of course borders will matter - The fallout will be far worse in some places than in others. Wrong again -- Tis you who speaks nonsense

 

What do you think about this, @Destroyer of illusions ?

 

I think you’re right. George H.W. Bush is the only Presidential candidate I’ve ever voted FOR. In every other election I’ve had to resort to voting for the lesser of two evils, not liking either candidate.

 

When you don't knowest what to say,

for ignorance in us dost lay.​

Then worry not and prickle them

with our attacks ad hominem.

- Jeannette


​

 

Just stop. You can't do poetry or prose well at all, neither do you seem to be able to use Middle English forms correctly.

"When thou knowest not" would be much more appropriate.

 

Kremlin baby nugget wants all Ukraine....not just another " chunk "? Kyiv is his prize.mother of all Russki cities?....as the Botox rodent claims?

 

He can't handle the existence of a successful democracy in Ukraine. It threatens his regime. Given this, yes, he might want Kyiv and enough of Ukraine to bring that to an end.

 

Ah yes, but then it wouldn't have the rhyme and rhythm and it would drive me crazy.

 

That's a distinction without a difference. The fallout will be unacceptably bad everywhere.

The destruction of the ozone layer will be unacceptably bad everywhere.

The nuclear winter will be unacceptably bad everywhere.

Nope. Everything that I've said is correct.

The dangers of cesium and strontium in global fallout are not even remotely nonsense.