Russia Dismisses Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Offers 3 Day Ceasefire

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

It all seems silly to me.  Take a look, sometime, at a map of Russia.  Twelve time zones?  They have all the land and resources they need.  The last thing they want is a European entanglement.  They tried that before and it turned out badly.

 

It's simple. Russia wants a buffer zone.  It doesn't want NATO missiles in areas where those missiles can pose a threat to the Russian strategic defense system.  And yet the warmongers in the West want the war in Ukraine to continue.  Big $$$$$ kickbacks.  All paid for by the Western taxpayers, of course, who are now having trouble paying for basic necessities such as housing and food.

 

 

Finland is now in NATO. Look at a map. It's not about NATO. It's that Putin can't accept a Russian empire without Ukraine.

[rough diamond]

53 minutes ago, johng said:

How do you know that that Putin's replacement wouldn't be a hardline

anti westerner  hell bent on all out war ?

 

I never said anything about

"Putin's replacement wouldn't be a hardline

anti westerner  hell bent on all out war ?"

Please redirect your post.

[dinsdale]

37 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

What an intellectual response!

Thank you. Maybe you can learn from those of us on here who have indivdual thought and critical thinking skills.

[LosLobo]

46 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Yeh I'm with you. The line fed to and absorbed by the sheeple. Reminds me of get vaccinated to save granny.

 

Yes, all those sheeple. Baaa-rilliant.

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, rough diamond said:

Explain!

I suggest you research US involvent in NATO. Obviously your knowledge in this is lacking.

[rough diamond]

4 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Thank you. Maybe you can learn from those of us on here who have indivdual thought and critical thinking skills.

A response without an out and out insult, but alas no useful or factual information as usual.

please try and do better with your next response if you insist on inflicting one on your unappreciative so called audience!

[rough diamond]

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

I suggest you research US involvent in NATO. Obviously your knowledge in this is lacking.

55555

So is your missing answer to my question!

[rough diamond]

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

I suggest you research US involvent in NATO. Obviously your knowledge in this is lacking.

A totally pointless response making comments regard a poster's "experience" with no foundation to make the baseless comments on! 

Pure conjecture, no facts!

If you look back to some recent previous "interchanges" between us on a different theme you might just find that I might just have hinted at just such some knowledge! 

I therefore suggest that you go back and read what I asked of you and if at all possible provide a rational and non insulting response, if that is at all possible.

Good night!

[jas007]

37 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Finland is now in NATO. Look at a map. It's not about NATO. It's that Putin can't accept a Russian empire without Ukraine.

Historically, no major invasions of Russia have come through Finland.  They all come rough Ukraine. The last time Finland and Russia had a conflict, Russia didn't exactly win. So I'd say Finland doesn't really count, at this point. Putin's focus is elsewhere.  

 

Longer term, who knows?  I'd say NATO may cease to exist.  And even if they do, Scandinavia will be the least of Russia's worries. 

[dinsdale]

55 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

Yes, all those sheeple. Baaa-rilliant.

Nice. Each sheep should have MSM on them.

[dinsdale]

27 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Historically, no major invasions of Russia have come through Finland.  They all come rough Ukraine. The last time Finland and Russia had a conflict, Russia didn't exactly win. So I'd say Finland doesn't really count, at this point. Putin's focus is elsewhere.  

 

Longer term, who knows?  I'd say NATO may cease to exist.  And even if they do, Scandinavia will be the least of Russia's worries. 

Sort of agree. I don't think Russia will have any worries after this is settled. The biggest threat has been for a long time and still is China.

[zmisha]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Finland is now in NATO. Look at a map. It's not about NATO. It's that Putin can't accept a Russian empire without Ukraine.

On the Victory Day Russia and its Z leader cannot accept anything other than unconditional surrender.  We know that Trump tolerates Nazis and fascists. He hired Elon Musk. Russian leader Vladimir is completely intolerant of fascism - and especially on Victory Day. 

[dinsdale]

57 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

A totally pointless response making comments regard a poster's "experience" with no foundation to make the baseless comments on! 

Pure conjecture, no facts!

If you look back to some recent previous "interchanges" between us on a different theme you might just find that I might just have hinted at just such some knowledge! 

I therefore suggest that you go back and read what I asked of you and if at all possible provide a rational and non insulting response, if that is at all possible.

Good night!

Relax man. If I haven't answered your questions could you please repost them and show how I didn't answer them otherwise this is just straw manning and deflection which of course is a tactic used by those who know they are wrong and simply won't admit it or too stupid to know they are wrong. You talk about facts Please repost all of your posts that are referenced. How's that for deflection.

[candide]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

It all seems silly to me.  Take a look, sometime, at a map of Russia.  Twelve time zones?  They have all the land and resources they need.  The last thing they want is a European entanglement.  They tried that before and it turned out badly.

 

It's simple. Russia wants a buffer zone.  It doesn't want NATO missiles in areas where those missiles can pose a threat to the Russian strategic defense system.  And yet the warmongers in the West want the war in Ukraine to continue.  Big $$$$$ kickbacks.  All paid for by the Western taxpayers, of course, who are now having trouble paying for basic necessities such as housing and food.

 

 

Yet no missiles have been put closer to Russia after Eastern Europe countries joined NATO. They have been left where they were when the Soviet Union collapsed. On top of it, considering the missiles' range, it would make no difference if they were placed in Poland rather than in Ukraine.

[rough diamond]

29 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Relax man. If I haven't answered your questions could you please repost them and show how I didn't answer them otherwise this is just straw manning and deflection which of course is a tactic used by those who know they are wrong and simply won't admit it or too stupid to know they are wrong. You talk about facts Please repost all of your posts that are referenced. How's that for deflection.

For probably the first time ever you have actually told the truth!

Perfect deflection!

It follows therefore that as usual you have no real answers.

What a charlatan!

Which, as we all know, makes it, as is normal from you, a totally pointless post!

I will not bother to ask you questions to clarify your false statements in future!

Instead I will just post the real facts and let you try and explain to others what a confounded liar you habitually are!

[dinsdale]

34 minutes ago, candide said:

Yet no missiles have been put closer to Russia after Eastern Europe countries joined NATO. They have been left where they were when the Soviet Union collapsed. On top of it, considering the missiles' range, it would make no difference if they were placed in Poland rather than in Ukraine.

Nukes don't need to be moved closer. The whole tactical vs strategic nuke missile is a misconception. Sure one has a shorter range than  the other but under MAD it doesn't matter. It's a nuke. Launch a nuke be it tactical or strategic and that's it. The end. This is why the mad men in Iran should never be allowed nukes, The end for them is going to a place where virgins are waiting for them. Religious nutters. Putin won't launch and neither will anyone else.

[dinsdale]

18 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

For probably the first time ever you have actually told the truth!

Perfect deflection!

It follows therefore that as usual you have no real answers.

What a charlatan!

Which, as we all know, makes it, as is normal from you, a totally pointless post!

I will not bother to ask you questions to clarify your false statements in future!

Instead I will just post the real facts and let you try and explain to others what a confounded liar you habitually are!

Again this reads like AI and AI that's not quite native English. Translator? So you say you're going to post the real facts. Ok. Let's see.

 

[johng]

2 hours ago, rough diamond said:

I never said anything about

"Putin's replacement wouldn't be a hardline

anti westerner  hell bent on all out war ?"

Please redirect your post.

So you don't want Putin replaced you just want him to make some reforms and efficiency in the Russian way of doing things ???

[rickudon]

Currently the war is at a stalemate, Without the help from Iran and North Korea. there would be no movement on the front lines. Russia has manpower, but precious little else in its favour. The first year of the war saw massive Russian incompetence, which resulted in the mauling of their experienced troops. They have lost 75% of their tanks, and significant amounts of Infantry fighting vehicles and artillery. This is why now most of their fighting is with Infantry (mostly untrained). Only the winter of 2022 gave them a breathing space.

 

The Russian military industrial complex is broken. Massive corruption means that factories are inefficient and missing many of the more sophisticated elements they need. Production of complex weapons happens at a snails pace, and doesn't keep up with the rate of loss. Infantry these days attack in civilian cars, ATVs, motor bikes and even on bicycles. As long as they are available, drones, artillery and mines take care of most of them. Successes are rare, but Ukraine has insufficient troops to stage major counter attacks. Russian losses are now believed to exceed one million men killed or wounded - because casualty evacuation is rare, mainly killed. Men have been sent into the attack on crutches!

 

Russian strengths are manpower, shahed drones, ballistic missiles and to a lesser extent, artillery. Glide bombs were a problem but are now less useful. Their 'meat attacks' result in heavy losses, but Putin doesn't care about Russian losses. However, the cost of this war is collapsing the Russian economy, inflation is at about 20%, and civilian infrastructure is not being maintained. If Ukraine can keep up its defence, Russia will probably run out of steam in 2026 - 1917 again? In 1916, Russia was having great success with the Brusilov offensive, which inflicted heavy losses on the Austrians and Germans. But it left Russia so weak that it's armies collapsed a year later.

 

Ukraine is now fighting a war of attrition. In defence, their casualties are much lower, they can trade a kilometre here and a kilometre there, but are bleeding Russia dry militarily and financially. But Putin is greedy, he wants everything, he may end up with nothing if he doesn't do a deal.

 

Tom Cooper's military blog on Sarcastosaurus has given a real insight to this war.

[rough diamond]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

So you say you're going to post the real facts. Ok. Let's see.

Re read my post please if you can!

I know it is difficult for you to understand but I cannot post the real facts to a post you have made until you actually make the said post!

I would call you a complete pr!ck but as I keep asking you not to use insults I will not do so on this occasion.

So over to you for your next, as usual, fatuous statement(s) containing terminological inexactitudes that will be requiring my correction(s)!

 

Better still; Do everyone a favour by not bothering to respond to my, or anyone else's  posts!

[rough diamond]

3 minutes ago, rickudon said:

But Putin is greedy, he wants everything, he may end up with nothing if he doesn't do a deal.

Let us all hope so and that he ends up with nothing, which is the least he deserves!

[jas007]

11 hours ago, candide said:

Yet no missiles have been put closer to Russia after Eastern Europe countries joined NATO. They have been left where they were when the Soviet Union collapsed. On top of it, considering the missiles' range, it would make no difference if they were placed in Poland rather than in Ukraine.

Apparently, it's not quite that simple.  Sure, missiles can be launched from anywhere, but for Russia and its strategic defense setup, time is critical.  Shorter range missiles would arrive at their targets more quickly and therefore pose a greater threat.  And once missiles start to fly, it's a game of "use them or lose them."  

[jas007]

10 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Nukes don't need to be moved closer. The whole tactical vs strategic nuke missile is a misconception. Sure one has a shorter range than  the other but under MAD it doesn't matter. It's a nuke. Launch a nuke be it tactical or strategic and that's it. The end. This is why the mad men in Iran should never be allowed nukes, The end for them is going to a place where virgins are waiting for them. Religious nutters. Putin won't launch and neither will anyone else.

It makes a difference to Russia because shorter range missiles can shorten the time Russia would have to assess and react to an attack.  Short and intermediate range missiles close to western Russia (containing parts of their early warning systems) would therefore have a destabilizing effect.  MAD may be a good deterrent when rational players are involved,  but only if there's a level playing field, so to speak.  Short and intermediate range missiles close to Russia's western border make outcomes less predictable and would give the West a strategic advantage.  

[dinsdale]

2 minutes ago, jas007 said:

It makes a difference to Russia because shorter range missiles can shorten the time Russia would have to assess and react to an attack.  Short and intermediate range missiles close to western Russia (containing parts of their early warning systems) would therefore have a destabilizing effect.  MAD may be a good deterrent when rational players are involved,  but only if there's a level playing field, so to speak.  Short and intermediate range missiles close to Russia's western border make outcomes less predictable and would give the West a strategic advantage.  

Still doesn't matter. A nuke is a nuke be it strategic or tactical. Let either off and that's the end.

[ChicagoExpat]

17 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Wow! You've been going on for hours. The syndrome is strong with you. One thing I've not seen so far in any of your posts is at least Trump is trying. Old sleepy Joe who, according to all your lot on the looney left was fit to be POTUS, didn't even speak to Putin to seek a resolution indeed it could be, has been and is being argued was happy to see it continue as was the EU. Calling Trump a dictator, which is implicit in your comment, simply shows you do not know what a dictator is and then calling Trump "a pansy, a cuck, a simp, a chump" just goes to show that the mind virus runs deep within you. HE'S TRYING TO END THE WAR yet all you can do is criticise with maximum hate. Pitiful. 

A weird comment to make as you have also been going on for hours.  You're either incredibly stupid or purposefully obtuse as to why we who oppose fascism aren't swooning for Trump -- "HE'S TRYING TO END THE WAR" on Russian terms.  Are you really that dumb to think that peace at any price is a worthwhile goal?  I can't believe you are.  "Syndrome"?  "Virus"?  Those words describe people who cheer on Russia in its mindless quest to kill and add land to the Empire, who love and support a man who poisons his enemies, pushes them out of windows, crushes all personal liberties, and sentences hundreds of thousands to death for his own hubris.

[jas007]

Just now, dinsdale said:

Still doesn't matter. A nuke is a nuke be it strategic or tactical. Let either off and that's the end.

It absolutely does matter. The point is that the last thing the world needs is a destabilized situation in that part of the world.  MAD only makes sense if both "players"  possess an equal ability to attack and destroy the other. 

 

Do some research on game theory and why and how MAD works. 

 

In game theory, MAD is a situation where the only way to win is to not play the game. Correct? 

 

But, once the situation is destabilized by the introduction of short and intermediate range missiles close to Russia's western border and to critical parts of their early warning systems, that would give the West an advantage and make war more likely.  In other words, it would be stupid to create such a situation in the first place.  MAD needs a level playing field to be effective.   And so yes, it really does matter where missiles are placed. 

[ChicagoExpat]

9 hours ago, rough diamond said:

Let us all hope so and that he ends up with nothing, which is the least he deserves!

He deserves the same fate as Saddam, Ghaddafi, or Mussolini.

[dinsdale]

7 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

A weird comment to make as you have also been going on for hours.  You're either incredibly stupid or purposefully obtuse as to why we who oppose fascism aren't swooning for Trump -- "HE'S TRYING TO END THE WAR" on Russian terms.  Are you really that dumb to think that peace at any price is a worthwhile goal?  I can't believe you are.  "Syndrome"?  "Virus"?  Those words describe people who cheer on Russia in its mindless quest to kill and add land to the Empire, who love and support a man who poisons his enemies, pushes them out of windows, crushes all personal liberties, and sentences hundreds of thousands to death for his own hubris.

Again with the fascism thing. Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. As for cheering on Russia, assessing the battlefield i.e. Russia is winning, is simply a matter of fact.

[ChicagoExpat]

12 hours ago, dinsdale said:

The biggest threat has been for a long time and still is China.

On this, at least, you are 100% correct.  And it is one of Russia's many blind spots, perhaps its worst.  China has been robbing Russia blind in resources for decades through corrupt local officials allowing the Chinese to mine and take timber illegally, all while building up a military many times more powerful than Russia's.  The idea that China will not lay a claim to much of Russia's east at some point is a fantasy, and they will take it.

[ChicagoExpat]

12 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Again with the fascism thing. Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. As for cheering on Russia, assessing the battlefield i.e. Russia is winning, is simply a matter of fact.

Little man, I would match my understanding of ANY aspect of this issue against yours anytime, and I'd win.  Oh, wait, I've already been doing that.  Huzzah for me, beating an unarmed man in a war of intelligence.

 

If you want to show you're NOT cheering on Russia, and just want peace -- go ahead and condemn the invasion itself, even if your only point is that Russia's victory is inevitable.  Or condemn that DAILY missiles fired into apartment buildings.  Or any of the many examples of Russian brutality and aggression.

 

We'll wait.