Negotiate Peace With Russia to Prevent War Over Ukraine

You really haven't studied history have you? And to clarify when I say 'history' I mean the aspects of that subject that weren't included in the Soviet era text books that seem to be your only source of knowledge.

To be clear Russia is not 'the most peaceful country in the world' unless your definition of peaceful refers to the lack of an effective political opposition in which case its extremely peaceful. But back to my point.

Russia is not and never has been the 'most peaceful' country (on the globe?) and it has as much blood on its hands as any other major extant nation. I'm not going to argue it has more blood on its hands than other countries mind you (although perhaps others would make that claim) but I'm not going to argue it has less either. It also has a long history including wars of expansion, wars when it was defending its territory and internal revolutions and uprisings when it's people fought and/ persecuted each other. That is fact end of story. So I'm just going to note that Russian are a people no different to any other and therefore are just as capable of expressing all of humanities negative and positive traits as anyone else. All of which means they are not saints as much as you might like to believe it.

The difference between us seems to be that while I also love my country and can see all of the positives in its history and culture unlike you I am not blinded to its flaws and faults.

For the rest? Of course Russia has certain advantages in any military confrontation with the West and yes some of these are geographical and some are technology related but here's the thing you constantly fail to grasp - the West has advantages to. Lots of them including, but not limited to economic power, leads in some (not all) areas of military technology and superiority at sea. The whole point however, regardless of what specific advantages either side may or may not have is that military power is balanced enough that neither side either wants or can afford to fight a major war. It would be MAD to do so. But then you seem to think Russia would have no problem winning such a war so apparently you are - mad that is.

 

When he looks, he is going to see NATO heavy forces stationed in Poland ready to repel Russia's invasion.

If Russia invades the Baltics they will lose Kaliningrad, because Kaliningrad will be in the way of NATO forces when they push north to repel the invasion. NATO won't give it back, either.

It will probably be awhile, though, before Putin has enough time to look in the direction of the EU. The world will be supplying Ukraine with lots of weapons to defend themselves with. Russia is going to have their hands full in Ukraine for a long time.

 

We don't need to build any more nukes cause we have enough to destroy both China and Russia .. is what I said .. 1000 for Russia - 1000 for China ... Do try a bit harder to keep up from one sentence to the next mate.

 

You are wrong. We do not have that many nukes deployed.

The current arms treaty limits our deployment to 1550 warheads.

You cannot get "1000 + 1000" out of 1550.

The current arms treaty also unacceptably constrains our number of delivery vehicles.

Like I said before, it sounds as if you agree with me on the need to step back to the previous treaty.

I keep up just fine. You are just wrong about the number of nukes that we have deployed.

 

People generally prefer fiction over non-fiction. Be it books or multimedia entertainment, emotionally compelling fiction is MUCH more popular.

 

And today we have the main stream media and they all write the same things, and they all leave out the same things. Now why do you think that is? Well because they are all owned by 6 corporatiions, thanks to Bill Clinton. And these 6 corporations are the ones who support our candidates for the president, senate and representatives - which means our government does what the corporations tell them so that the media and our government lies are one and the same thing.

Exactly, and that is why I believe and trust Vladimir Putin, because I have never found anything he said to go against my own beliefs, nor anything that he did that would go against what he said. While at the same time I have heard one lie after another lie from our State department.

Last week our Secretary of State Blinken said that Russia attacked Georgia when even the EU investigators said it was Georgia that attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers in S. Ossetia as well as ciivilians.

The second lie was that Russia invaded Ukraine yet Spiegel wrote that Gen. Breedlove's sanity was questioned by the German Intelligence agents because they couldn't see any Russian troops and tanks entering Ukraine.

The third lie was when Blinken said that Russia has not complied with the Minsk II agreement, when Russia is not part of the Minsk II agreement.

Then Blinken went on to say about Kazachstan that when Russian troops enter a country they never leave, yet the Russian troops are now leaving Kazachstan - while at the same time our troops are still in Syria stealing their oil when no one invited them into Syria and they refuse to leave. Our troops are also still in Iraq even though they have been asked to leave many times - and I could go on and on.

The world will live in peace only when my country stops the lies and hypocrisy and goes back to the Christian and moral nation it once was. From the time that Bill Clinton went against the UN and entered the civil war in Serbia to support the KLA terrorists and bomb Belgrade for 78 days we have invaded and destroyed one nation after another.

First of they are not rebels. They are freedom fighters who oppose the fascist regime that Washington installed in Kiev with a coup. As for the tanks and artillery, they are Soviet tanks and artillery that were made in Ukraine. When the freedom fighters would run out of ammunition they would get more whenever the Ukrainian army surrendered - which they did quite a few times.

When did Russia invade Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan? Crimea was under Ukrainian occupation from 1995. In 2014 they declared their independence and asked the Russian troops to protect them until they could hold a referendum.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/03/28/so-who-annexed-crimea-peninsular-then/

As for Belarus, they invited the Russian troops to protect them from Nato, and in Kazachstan the president asked for help from the CSTO nations which they are all obligated to do by treaty. Unlike us and Nato, Russia has never gone against international law - while we and Nato have broken the law and went against the Security Council over and over again. Which you can see by all the destruction in the Middle East. Who do you think supports the terrorists?

 

Blather .. you brought up the number 2000 .. I have been using this number in a number of posts and the lady did not protest and we are talking hypotheticals in any case .. Now you whine .. waaaahhahhaha its only 1550 .. as if this makes a big difference to the overall equation .. 750 each is plenty to wipe out both nations .. after retaliation by your estimation the world is over anyway .. so what difference does it make .. sleep well knowing we could end the world .. no need to be able to do it 5 times ...

 

It's because they report the truth and disregard Russian lies.

Blinken told the truth. The EU investigators were repeating Russian lies.

Also not a lie. Russia invaded Ukraine.

The world will live in peace when Russia is destroyed.

Stealing Kosovo from Serbia was unfortunate. It undermined our standing to complain about Russia's invasions of Ukraine and Georgia.

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014.

 

What lady are you talking about?

The number of warheads in our arsenal is not hypothetical.

Pointing out that you are wrong is not whining.

Wrong. That number is not sufficient. The US will not be renewing the current arms treaty when it expires.

Like I already told you, China being damaged by the fallout from Russia's destruction is not the same as China being destroyed by direct attack.

 

Yeah, I remember the same arguments written in communist newspapers - corporations write only what serves interests of the ruling capitalists while the soviet press represents intereses of working people. Yes, American press has an agenda but:
they don't kill or imprison journalists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

there more than 6 corporation which produce newspapers and TV programs

If an American newspaper publish something against government or president - they are not declare as 'foreign agents' and usually nobody is imprisoned.

You have a right to believe in every word of President Putin, but I think president Putin is a liar, not even a good one. I didn't believe Putin when he said the Russian army was not involved in Crimea or Donbas - the only way rebels in Donbas could get artillery, missiles or tank if they were transferred from Russia. And I have no doubt that Putin lied when he said the 'green people' in Crimea are not Russian soldiers.

Yeah, yeah, the only difference between your words and the soviet propaganda are the words 'my country', except of these it is the same - USA is blame for everything bad and the Soviet Union is fighting for peace.

Yep! Washington installed a fascist regime in Kiev, even so Ukrainian people love previous president Viktor Yanukovych so much, who did so much for Ukrainian people:

And poor president Viktor Yanukovych had to escape to Russia, because he was afraid Ukrainian people will hag him to death.

Soviet Union collapsed and many republics became an independent countries, the only one which Russia conquered was Chechnya, but now after Russia became stronger, Putin is trying to reconquer some of the 'lost' territories. He reconquer Crimea, has a stake in Donbas and lets see what will happen in February-March. According to many observers nothing will happen, Russia may gain some Ukrainian territories, but will be affected by sanctions and other countries like Finland or Sweden will feel threaten and will join NATO. So logically it didn't make any sense to put huge army on the Ukrainians border,

 

Went with your number above .. 2200 .. I rounded it to 2000 .. as we are speaking hypothetical.. using that number for 5 or 6 posts... saying 1000 each would do China/Russia.

you want to make it 1500 . doesn't matter .. is plenty to take out China and Russia. and after retaliation .. the world is destroyed according to you.. .. so no worries .. Russia not gonna be sending nukes your way thinking we don't have enough .. Sleep well

 

2200 deployed warheads was the limit of the previous treaty.

1000 each should be sufficient. Barely.

I don't want to make it 1550 deployed warheads. It is 1550 deployed warheads. That is the limit of the current treaty, which also limits delivery vehicles.

Wrong. It is not. The US will not be renewing the current treaty when it expires.

The previous treaty should be sufficient however.

China being damaged by the fallout from Russia's destruction is not the same as China being destroyed by direct attack.

Russia being damaged by the fallout from China's destruction is not the same as Russia being destroyed by direct attack.

Russia will not nuke me because the US military will avenge me if they do so.

 

Staraya pesna (same old tune), all this talk of big, bad Russia nuking America. We had years of this nonsense online during the Obama years as well. Seems to be what Russia's propaganda agents do now -- spread doom-and-gloom messages on English-speaking fake news and social media sites. It kind of reached a fever pitch during the 2016 campaign, too, when there were shrill voices screaming that Clinton would start a war with Russia.

 

Zalekbloom - I'm sorry, but nothing you say is based on reality. Your opinions have been formed by the spins and lies in the press, so unless you cleanse and open your mind, I don't see the point in discussing anything further. What I will say though is that the Soviet Union didn't die, it came to the US. We are its inheritors.

Many of the ideologues in Washington today are Trotskyites and the Great Reset is just another name for the globalist One World Government similar to the Soviet Union but under corporate ownership rather than government ownership.

 

I have seen no errors in his posts.

 

Hillary would have already run Russia out of Ukraine and Georgia by now if she were president.

Not that I'm an outright Hillary fan. I have strongly mixed feelings about all politicians. They always manage to do something that I dislike.

 

I don't know. Easier said than done.

 

How strange that you can't foresee a world war when it's obvious to so many people in the world. Europe as usual will self-destruct, but our destruction will be geological.

Get back to me in 2 years and let's see if I, or rather if the Saints were wrong.



Yipes! Take cover!

 

A world war because Russia expands their invasion of Ukraine? No.

The world will keep supplying Ukraine with weapons to kill Russians with, but that will hardly make for a world war.

A world war because Russia invades the EU? Such an invasion would certainly count as a world war. But Russia is a paper tiger. As much as they might wish that they could do so, they can't pull off such an invasion and they know it.

A world war because China invades Taiwan... now that's a problem.

 

Russia's weakness remains their obsession to be accepted by the West. Absent that inferiority complex, they would have everything to be the top economic, political, and military power in the world, especially if they focused on learning from the areas where the West has seriously failed as opposed to confusing that issue with attaching themselves with some of its most obnoxious byproducts and reactionary elements.

As for Russia being the most "peaceful country on earth", besides not being such a complement focusing even merely in the direction that comment has more merit (the West), the notion is simply absurd. Russia doesn't hold sway over such a huge landmass because they were bequeathed these territories by noble right. My own country, Iran (aka Persia), lost a good chunk of territories it used to hold sway as a result of the Russo-Persian war of 1804-1813 and Russo-Persian war of 1826-28

 

What are you doing to prepare for the imminent world war? I'm going to continue to bet against it.

You've been around longer than I have. You no doubt have memories of the Cold War. How worried were you then? Were you as hysterical as you seem now?

 

I remember the Cold War. It wasn't nice living with the knowledge that you and everyone you know could suddenly have just a half hour left to live. But there wasn't much that could be done about it so people just tried not to think about it. When the Cold War ended it was like a sudden weight had been lifted from everyone.

The first few years after 9/11, when we didn't know if another major attack was coming, were something like living during the Cold War, except a major terrorist attack would have been nowhere near as devastating as 6000 half-megaton+ warheads landing on America all at once.

 

What economic collapse of Russia are you talking about? Western sanctions are ridiculous sanctions. They will not affect the Russian economy in any way. But maybe you mean the fact that the EU will refuse to buy Russian gas and, to the detriment of Russia, the Europeans will decide to freeze to death at the same time killing their industry? Maybe the State Department will decide to ban the purchase of Russian titanium and bankrupt Boeing, Lockheed and other American enterprises - to the detriment of the Russians?

 

....Why were one and a half million deported? Why not one and a half trillion? And the number of those killed is somehow not impressive. It was necessary to write, as is customary among Russophobes, that one hundred thousand million Poles were killed personally by Comrade Stalin.
By the way, do you have any proof of your figures? Or is it not customary for you to confirm your statements?

 

In the current confrontation, Russia is the victim of the greedy policy of the collective West.
Did the West promise not to expand NATO to the east? Promised.
Did the West promise not to accept countries of the former USSR into NATO? Promised ..... The West promised not to arrange provocations in the zone of Russian interests? Promised. ....etc.
That is, the West deliberately lied.
Now the Russians have drawn a red line after which the war will begin. The West ignores this.
Russia will be forced to defend itself. And this will inevitably lead to nuclear war.
The statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to include Ukraine and Georgia in the alliance can be seen as a de facto declaration of war.
I is convinced that the West is aware of the possible consequences of such actions and that the entry of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO is a fundamentally unacceptable scenario for Russia, which means that they are absolutely consciously escalating.
This is not about some foreign policy accident or misunderstanding of partners. All the messages were formulated by Moscow quite clearly. The deployment by the alliance in Ukraine of a certain type of weapon is in itself the outbreak of hostilities. Not only against the pro-Russian Donbass, but already against Russia itself as a state. And it is impossible for Russians to sit back in this situation - from the elementary positions of common sense.
Russia is also freed by the fact that the majority of residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics have Russian citizenship, for whom the country must also ensure security.
Brussels cannot fail to understand this. The West is simply creating a situation in which Russia has no choice.
Given the fact of the economic superiority of the collective West over Russia, the Russians will simply be forced to equalize the economic opportunities of the West and Russia. How to do it instantly, I hope you do not need to explain.
Therefore, a nuclear war in the event of the start of real hostilities is almost inevitable.
Who is to blame? Obviously one who makes promises. but then deliberately breaks these promises. Is not it?

I am not a military strategist, but in my opinion, today the Russian Federation needs to land a peacekeeping landing force in Pridnestrovie, which, for example, can amount to ten thousand military personnel and at the same time not violate any international legal norms....However, .... perhaps the required number of military personnel has long been in Transnistria.