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

[AZrailwhale]

No. If Russia strike first, US retaliation won't cause losses more significant than Russia had already suffered during WWII.
Anyway, the price of victory will be significant for Russia, but definitely lesser than the price of defeat.



If Trump choose "radically escalate" Russia will radically escalate either. In the current circumstances it, likely, means counter-force strike against the US nuclear forces.


Hey, but why do you think that Russia won't retaliate to your small strikes? Of course, Russia will retaliate.



Bla-bla-bla. Read something about Russian military history, and you'll see that Russia is more inevitable than the USA.


No. Russia won't launch "one nuke". Russia will destroy 500 targets. And then US retaliation capabilities will be more than "limited". They will be "degraded to the acceptable level".


Not our problem if Trump can't survive. It's not about personalities. Anyway, any survived high-rank American general can sign unconditional surrender. Rules are simple:
1) F#ck off now - and the USA (but not necessarily NATO) continue their existence in the current borders.
2) Our counter-force strike and the price of peace will be Alaska and California (but the USA will be still more or less independent country).
3) If you retaliate and we start counter-value bombing - we'll demand your unconditional surrender.
4) If you don't surrender even during massive counter-value bombing campaign - you are extincted. We'll grieve (for we don't want to genocide Americans), but it's acceptable for us.

Russia CAN NOT STRIKE FIRST. It can launch first, but the US, UK and France will counter launch as soon as the satellites spot the Russian launches. It will be a "use it or lose it" proposition for the WAllies. They will launch all the land-based missiles, scramble as many bombers as possible and get the launch orders to the SSBNs and SSGNs by VLF radio. The Russian strike will hit empty silos while the US/French/British strikes hit Russian cities and military bases. Game over for Russia. Unless Russia launches without any increase in international tensions, a "bolt from the blue" launch all the B-2s and B-1Bs will be dispersed and loaded to prevent being destroyed on the ground.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I don't think he has a choice. He has to de-escalate. Russia won't continue pulling its punches for much longer ... and Trump knows it.

Russia hasn't been pulling its punches. It's been using everything it has short of nukes.

 

[beagle9]

As almost any other country, China is playing it's own game. And in practical terms China is interested in the more "close" relationships (and in the better terms of it) with Russia. And the best way to push Russia to China, is to force all concealed Chinese assets in America to force America to escalate (or, at least, not to de-escalate). Yes, in public they will support Russian demands for equal-safety peace, but in private they will demand from their assets to escalate. More hostilities between Russia and the USA, means more profits for Chinese business.
Every American-made Patriot destroyed in Ukraine won't defend the sky of Taiwan.

That's why Americans won't be serving in Ukraine on the ground ever.

 

[beagle9]

Russia CAN NOT STRIKE FIRST. It can launch first, but the US, UK and France will counter launch as soon as the satellites spot the Russian launches. It will be a "use it or lose it" proposition for the WAllies. They will launch all the land-based missiles, scramble as many bombers as possible and get the launch orders to the SSBNs and SSGNs by VLF radio. The Russian strike will hit empty silos while the US/French/British strikes hit Russian cities and military bases. Game over for Russia. Unless Russia launches without any increase in international tensions, a "bolt from the blue" launch all the B-2s and B-1Bs will be dispersed and loaded to prevent being destroyed on the ground.

Makes sense to me... Russia will be limited to operations in Ukraine, and if that fails, then they will have to retreat from their attempt at whatever it was that they were trying to do in Ukraine.

 

[Zavulon]

Good luck with that. The only way that Russia can defeat nato is to go Nuclear and only a complete madman uses that option.

Yeap. Regional war is a nuclear war by definition. But nuclear victory is much better than conventional defeat (at least when the vital interests are involved). And no, only complete madmen attack nuclear superpower directly or indirectly.

 

[Zavulon]

That's why Americans won't be serving in Ukraine on the ground ever.

There are Americans on the ground (while they may not be official US military). And yes, Russia consider ATACMS launches as the difference between facilitation and participation.

 

[Zavulon]

Russia CAN NOT STRIKE FIRST. It can launch first, but the US, UK and France will counter launch as soon as the satellites spot the Russian launches.

Ask Admiral Rockwell Tory , and he can tell you, that captains of SSBNs doesn't have access to the raw SBIRS data. They have their orders. And both French and British SSBNs are under control of their governments, not under control of POTUS. And launch under attack demands at least some time and, as it is written in the official US nuclear posture - its not reliable. And French and England have their independent nuclear command exactly to defend their nations, not America. If Russia already launched her first counter-force strike and if it was at least partially effective, it means that the USA already lost the war and it's no more the second superpower in the world. Highly likely, that in this situation (as it is written in US nuclear posture) the USA will negotiate about the best peace terms possible (and hold retaliation). And in this circumstances neither France, nor the UK will launch their counter-value strikes against Russia just for the justure. If Russia, after counter-force strike suggests 24-hour long "humanitarian pause" without nuking the cities (to at least evacuating and sheltering people) and peace negotiations, highly likely America (as well as France and England) will agree.

It will be a "use it or lose it" proposition for the WAllies. They will launch all the land-based missiles, scramble as many bombers as possible and get the launch orders to the SSBNs and SSGNs by VLF radio.

And all of this in less than 5 minutes? Are you kidding?

The Russian strike will hit empty silos while the US/French/British strikes hit Russian cities and military bases. Game over for Russia. Unless Russia launches without any increase in international tensions, a "bolt from the blue" launch all the B-2s and B-1Bs will be dispersed and loaded to prevent being destroyed on the ground.

As I said, it all depends on who launch first. The one who launch first is the one who laugh last. And to make proper preparations for the nuclear war US military leadership must, for starters, decide if the game worth it. Under some circumstances the USA can win a war, but they can't win it without paying more than 50 mlns of US citizens lives (and losing its leading position, and Ukraine anyway lose its "independence"). And Ukraine doesn't worth it. America (including leadership) isn't ready to lose even one million of Americans in this game.

 

[Zavulon]

Russia CAN NOT STRIKE FIRST.

Russia can and Russia will. It's how the Deterrence Type II works. And we see that it works now.

It can launch first, but the US, UK and France will counter launch as soon as the satellites spot the Russian launches.

How many active SBIRS-HEO sats (to detect the launch from the polar region) the USA have now? Little hint - zero.

It will be a "use it or lose it" proposition for the WAllies. They will launch all the land-based missiles, scramble as many bombers as possible and get the launch orders to the SSBNs and SSGNs by VLF radio.

You need to prepare to it before the actual Russian launch, and the very preparations are too provocative, if you are trying to avoid the nuclear war.

The Russian strike will hit empty silos while the US/French/British strikes hit Russian cities and military bases.

You launch all your missiles and then, surprise-surprise, you have China and even DPRK to challenge your "global leadership". And what will you give them to avoid their nuclear attack? For the very starters you'll lose Taiwan and South Korea.

Game over for Russia. Unless Russia launches without any increase in international tensions, a "bolt from the blue" launch all the B-2s and B-1Bs will be dispersed and loaded to prevent being destroyed on the ground.

If the USA believes that Russian preparations are real - they will prefer acquittal. If they doesn't believe that the Russian preparations are real (consider it as bluff), and continue their extremely provocative behaviour, then Russia have time and opportunity to point the gun and pull the trigger, and good luck with dodging the bullet, mate.

 

[beagle9]

Yeap. Regional war is a nuclear war by definition. But nuclear victory is much better than conventional defeat (at least when the vital interests are involved). And no, only complete madmen attack nuclear superpower directly or indirectly.

Who attacked who ?

Otherwise based upon the history between the two that are currently fighting each other.

 

[Zavulon]

Who attacked who ?

NATO's proxies (Ukrainian Nazies) attacked Russian people in Russian allied states - DPR and LPR.

Otherwise based upon the history between the two that are currently fighting each other.

It's not just about Russia and Ukraine. It's about NATO's expansion, NATO's violation of the international laws and discrimination of Russians in NATO controlled territories of Ukraine and Baltic. No more appeasement of NATO. NATO should stop and make few steps back, or be eliminated.

 

[beagle9]

NATO's proxies (Ukrainian Nazies) attacked Russian people in Russian allied states - DPR and LPR.

It's not just about Russia and Ukraine. It's about NATO's expansion, NATO's violation of the international laws and discrimination of Russians in NATO controlled territories of Ukraine and Baltic. No more appeasement of NATO. NATO should stop and make few steps back, or be eliminated.

Most Americans have no idea what you are talking about much less the history involved.

 

[Picaro]

x.com

Zelenskyy in Ukraine Radio interview: "The US cannot force us to sit and listen at the negotiating table. We are an independent country,”

This is an admission that the has no intention of ending the war for his own reasons, be it financial or otherwise.

Would you surrender when you know what the Russian thugs are going to do when they occupy you? I don't blame him one bit for not being a fucking moron and getting slaughtered like a sheep. It's absurd to think otherwise.

 

[Picaro]

NATO's proxies (Ukrainian Nazies) attacked Russian people in Russian allied states - DPR and LPR.

It's not just about Russia and Ukraine. It's about NATO's expansion, NATO's violation of the international laws and discrimination of Russians in NATO controlled territories of Ukraine and Baltic. No more appeasement of NATO. NATO should stop and make few steps back, or be eliminated.

Rubbish. There wouldn't be a NATO without a belligerent expansionist Russia, which is why NATO grows instead of shrinks, but morons keep bleating as if Putin is a hippie Ghandi or something.

 

[Picaro]

Too much is at stake for everyone. Putin cannot go home without a "win".

Zelensky cannot just give in.

It is up to the world to demand peace talks.

It's up to us to honor our defense agreements, otherwise Ukraine would still have its nukes and Putin wouldn't have invaded when democrats put a weak anti-American piece of shit in the White House.

 

[AZrailwhale]

NATO's proxies (Ukrainian Nazies) attacked Russian people in Russian allied states - DPR and LPR.

It's not just about Russia and Ukraine. It's about NATO's expansion, NATO's violation of the international laws and discrimination of Russians in NATO controlled territories of Ukraine and Baltic. No more appeasement of NATO. NATO should stop and make few steps back, or be eliminated.

They were part of Ukraine, NOT Russia. It was an internal Ukrainian matter. In fact Russia created the problem by creating an insurrection where none had existed. You will go to the ends of the earth to find excuses for Russian aggression.


NATO has done nothing to violate international law, but Russia has ever since April 1945.

 

[Vrenn]

1 million? Why not 10 millions? Operating this ridiculous figure shows how you immensely deluded.

The facts do get in the way or your narrative.

 

[Vrenn]

Yes. Regional war is a nuclear war by definition. But nuclear victory is much better than conventional defeat (if we are talking about vital interests of the nuclear state). And no, only complete madmen attack nuclear states directly or indirectly.
Can you imagine circumstances under which the USA would prefer returning to its 1820 borders to a nuclear attack agaisnt Mexico and/or Latino-American Alliance/Russia/China, whoever support those freaking "decolonisators"?

I have years in SAC and are more versed that there are no winners, only losers, in a Nuclear exchange. It's not winning, it's whom loses the least and who loses the most. When the Us will lose almost a 1/4 of it's population in the first few minutes of a Nuclear exchange, that's not winning losing about 90 million people in minutes. Then there is the aftermath which the total population will end up being about 85%. Sounds like the USA would be the big loser. Nope, not even close. Our population is scattered throughout our entire nation. Russia and China has a more condensed population in the more habitable regions. Their losses will end up being closer to 95% in the first year. No one wins.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I have years in SAC and are more versed that there are no winners, only losers, in a Nuclear exchange. It's not winning, it's whom loses the least and who loses the most. When the Us will lose almost a 1/4 of it's population in the first few minutes of a Nuclear exchange, that's not winning losing about 90 million people in minutes. Then there is the aftermath which the total population will end up being about 85%. Sounds like the USA would be the big loser. Nope, not even close. Our population is scattered throughout our entire nation. Russia and China has a more condensed population in the more habitable regions. Their losses will end up being closer to 95% in the first year. No one wins.

I’ve tried to make that point to Zavulon but he refuses to recognize reality. I suppose that is what they teach Russians in school. Fortunately, I think the Russian generals are aware of that and aren’t going to allow Putin to murder the Motherland in his quest for glory. Putin isn’t Stalin and doesn’t have the same grip on his generals.

 

[Zavulon]

Most Americans have no idea what you are talking about much less the history involved.

May be, it's for best. Less publicity - easier to good-willing government (if we consider Trump as good-willing) to solve the problem without unnecessary obstacles. Anyway - lesser the Americans are interested in the survival of Kievan Nazi regime - less chances that Trump will escalate to nuclear-war level.

 

[mudwhistle]

Would you surrender when you know what the Russian thugs are going to do when they occupy you? I don't blame him one bit for not being a fucking moron and getting slaughtered like a sheep. It's absurd to think otherwise.

Since the little prick is totally independent, he can do whatever the heck he wants, right?

The point here is that this war is more about money than anything else.

Some people in Ukraine are doing quite well, especially since they've taken all of this cash from the US and bought several expensive properties and yachts to have bikini parties on.