Are you forgetting who invaded whom here? What did the US have to do with any of that?

Also who fired the nuclear-class missile…

Why does it matter if it is "nuclear-class"? Were there any actual nukes? No. Then who cares?

> Why does it matter if it is "nuclear-class"? Were there any actual nukes? No. Then who cares?

Because you don’t know it’s not nuclear tipped until it lands. A nuclear-capable missile streaking West out of Russia looks identical to a first strike on early warning radars.

Russia could bring a tactical nuke and use that with no warning. If they want to nuke Ukraine they can do it without "nuclear class" missiles.

If they didn't, people would be talking about how their red lines are bluffs. The Russians are being given two options by the US - surrender or escalate. They aren't going to surrender. I'm not sure what people expect to happen but given the strategic madness out of the west we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted.

Whoever thought it was a good idea to try and turn Iraq 2 into WW3 really should be relieved of their power to make decisions. Russia was behaving well within international norms established by the US's actions until the west got involved in Ukraine. Now we've seen orders of magnitude more casualties for nothing, and the risk of nuclear war are off the hitherto plotted charts.

> Russians are being given two options by the US - surrender or escalate

Or consolidate. Or negotiate. Also, you’re collapsing surrender into zero dimensions when in reality it’s multidimensional. Nobody expects unconditional surrender, for example.

Putin is playing a stupid game. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. If Putin gets territory out of this, however, it wasn’t a stupid game. Invading and annexing countries by force is back in play and the post-WWII consensus, including the international rules of war, are renegotiable. If that’s true, I’d say America should pick up some Pacific islands.

What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?

> What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?

In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine. In exchange, Russia joins America against China and brings Pyongyang with them. (Also sanctions relief. Maybe also have Russia leave OPEC+.)

If Trump weren't President, the concessions would be sanctions relief, recognition of Russia's pre-2022 claims on Ukrainian territory (subject to plebescite and compensation to Kyiv) and a treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO.

> Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine.

When did the US make that offer? I missed it.

> When did the US make that offer? I missed it

You asked "what concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?" Not what concessions has the U.S. made.

Russia isn't negotiating. Only fools negotiate against themselves.

Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that, Wikipedia suggests [0] the Russians just wanted a de-facto pullback. Why do you think the US would have changed their stance? If they were willing to offer anything like that I doubt the war would have happened at all.

This kinda goes to my main point. If the US was willing to do anything even a little bit like that at all, this could all have probably been avoided. You're suggesting a sane offer - I too think a sane offer would allow things to wind down fairly quickly. The issue is that after 3 years of war it is clear that the US is not willing to make a deal like that.

Trump might be able to change that, I hope he can, but the odds seem stacked against him. He is in a key position buy doesn't have that much negotiating power; what you're suggesting looks to me like an unconditional US fold. Trump'd quite possibly end up in a lot of trouble. And there is no way it has been an option open to the Russians for the last 3 years.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_December_20...

> Russia's pre-war demands were less extreme than that

Than what? I gave two scenarios.

The requirements "that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997," "any NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia" and "a requirement that both side's nuclear weapons only be deployed on national territory" are non-starters across the board.

They're the equivalent of requiring Russia withdraw entirely from Africa and the Middle East and stop selling weapons to India.

The US de-facto leaving NATO is a bigger concession than Russia asked for pre-war. Maybe do a little reset here to just one probable-case scenario? What concessions do you see the US making in a negotiation?

I don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus. If the US de-facto is out of NATO it has no business in any of those places. Unless you mean de-facto the US stays in NATO and de-jure leaves it as some sort of fake concession.

And requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense. We shouldn't need Russia to ask for the US to agree to that, everyone should start from that point. Forget a Russian ultimatum, the US should be doing that if it isn't already. If that is an unacceptable point I condemn the US for it and their pigheadedness, although I assume it is actually acceptable.

More than half of the US nuclear arsenal is submarine based. Its central to US strategic deterrence and has been for decades.

So we’re ignoring that multiple pre-war demands by Moscow are obvious non-starters. Including for Moscow?

> don't understand how you can suggest "America de facto leaves NATO" as an option but also commit to NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus

I didn’t.

Hypothetical versus reality. Normative versus positive.

> requiring that everyone keeps nuclear missile deployments on their own territory is just common sense

This is the sort of nonsense that gives countries like China and Russia the upper hand. Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs. Or the fact that Russia invaded Europe the last time it didn’t have a nuclear umbrella.

I don't think any of them are non-starters, indeed I think one should have been given immediately without Moscow asking. But this is obviously going to be a long thread and that isn't the area that is most interesting to me about your opinions.

> I didn’t.

This on the other hand is. So what concessions do you think the US is willing to make if Moscow negotiates? Because the last time I asked I got a "In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine". And there is no way that that is something the US is going to offer, since that is more than Putin was asking to before the war started. Even the mildest options on your list were things like "treaty guarantee Ukraine wouldn't be admitted into NATO" which was asked for in pre-war negotiations and rejected by NATO - people made a big deal about how no, if Ukraine want they are eventually going to join NATO and there is nothing the Russians could do about it. The NATO negotiators would much rather have this war happen & continue than make concessions like that - we can tell because that is what they did and are doing.

If you don't think these suggestions are serious - I'm struggling to understand your position here but it seems that you might be just throwing out ideas - what do you think is on offer at the negotiating table? Russia tried negotiating and it doesn't cut much ice with NATO, that is why we have this stupid war. I assume I'm misinterpreting your comment on the topic, so hopefully some exposition and clarification by yourself will help.

I reiterate that I think Russia is being offered, to a first approximation anyway, "give up, admit defeat and let the US do what it wants". I'm interested to see what you think the Russians can get from negotiating that they can't get from effectively surrendering.

> Armchair generals in the voting public forgetting about SLBMs.

My armchair staff were of the opinion that SLBM were not part of the conversation since they were deployed at sea rather than to nations. I'd be happy if everyone abided by that condition if it does include SLBM, it seems like a good idea to me. Those things nearly triggered a nuclear exchange in the Cuban Missile Crisis, they are too risky and will, literally, eventually get us all killed. And while avoiding nuclear war might give Russia and China the upper hand, I've been pointing out for years that the US's industrial and financial policies are going to put it at a major material disadvantage to anyone who adopts more competent policies. Their foreign policy is also on that list of things they are screwing up.

>In reality? Publicly announce the U.S. will not honour Article V if Russia leaves un-annexed portions of Ukraine. Basically, America de facto leaves NATO and Russia leaves most of Ukraine.

I want some of what this guy is smoking. If you think the US will ever offer to leave NATO, you aren't living in reality. Not going to happen, and specially not after the invasion of Ukraine.

> we're probably doing well if we get all the way through this without London being targeted.

Putin might be stupid, but you think too lowly of him.

You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There is no reason to escalate by creating a humanitarian crisis if you're not already prepared to deal with the consequences (a-la Nagasaki/Hiroshima). The first attacks are tactical and therefore negligible in civilian damage and controversial to discuss. They will certainly be condemned globally, but no one smart enough to stockpile tactical nukes is going to use it somewhere with reprehensible civilian harm. It is both more valuable, smarter, and less costly to deploy it tactically against enemy installations or materiel.

If London is "targeted" then Russia is going to find out just how fucking bad Europe hates them. The nuclear dance is about riding the threshold of plausible escalation without revealing desperation and giving your enemies casus belli.

The Russians have figured out that the Europeans hate them, that is why we're all on day >1,000 of the current war and they're firming up relations with Asian powers in a way that is a net loss to the rest of us.

> You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction.

There have already been what are basically missiles targeting Moscow, any compunction about targeting Russia itself have been overcome and those storm shadows the other day were a pretty inflammatory gambit. It isn't there yet, but extrapolate forward 12 months and I think some sort of strike on the UK is on the cards. May as well be London. The British aren't going to stop until something stops them, if they don't see a red line at hitting Russia proper then they probably don't see any at all anywhere. And Russia has been pretty clear through their targeting in Ukraine that they are happy to go for civilian infrastructure.

Fingers crossed they run out of money or steam before the situation gets much worse, I suppose.

> British aren't going to stop until something stops them

Yup. That’s why London folded after Hitler’s blitz.

Putin is a weak man. His hold on power depends on this war. He’s smarter than this comment because he knows a strike on London of any kind would result in Europe arming Ukraine for a kill versus the current strategy of keeping a low summer.

The UK was pretty much overwhelmed by the blitz; and the war overall broke them as a world power and they were forced to rely on foreign support to keep them fighting. That was all locked in very early on. And they only have a fraction of the staying power that they did the 1940s now, they can't handle that sort of pressure any more. Particularly since there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war, they're basically in it for bloodymindedness.

And this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy. If anything, China is more likely to back Russia to avoid being encircled by the US.

> UK was pretty much overwhelmed by the blitz

But unified by it. Broadly speaking, the idea that missile blitzes and bombarding a population into submission from the air is as popular by aggressor's as it is proven failed by history.

> there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war

There was no upside to fighting Hitler, either. For Poland. For France. For the U.K. When fighting a nearby aggressor you're mitigating downside.

> bloodymindedness

Yes, the peaceful Russians absolutely not sending their non-ethnic Russian boys to the meat grinder.

> this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy

They're also not fighting one of the world's largest industrial economies. Russia is no Nazi Germany.

Nothing, if you assume Putins decisions are made in a vacuum.

If on the other hand you grant that he might observe the leaders of world super powers, you’ll notice a striking connection between the change of power in America and the launch of his invasion of Ukraine.

And of course you can assume all of Netenyahoo’s decisions are made in a vacuum too, or you can open your eyes.

You mean "Commander-in-Chief" or "head of state".

Yes. I can’t edit unfortunately.

> How many humans have died from this administration?

400K russians (the enemy, remember?)...plus not as many Ukrainians which seem to have been ok-ish with it so far.

You waiting for January?...another 40k+ at current rates...if that clown doesnt owe Putin too much hell be wise to keep the massacre ongoing

^ great example of the evil-Biden mentality I described above. I wonder, do the folks who are opposed to my viewpoint generally support this narrative?

Ah, anon downvotes but no vocal support. Aka: that sentiment looks awful and I won’t put my name to it, but also fuck you, you aren’t toeing the liberal party line if you question it.

Disgusting.

you are one of those wholl be queuing to fight the evil enemy if your leader says so, fine (or send your sons to do so, depending on your age)...thats all well an dandy. Myself and every other reasonable individuals will prefer the evil enemy bleeds itself into nonexistence before that is needed.

> Human lives...

are you kidding!? these guys are after us and wont stop until their stopped

They’re after you, are they? Those people who you’ve never met, never once interacted with? Who have never made any attack on US soil? Who instead are facing attacks from US weapon systems onto their soil? Those guys, are “after” you?

Absolutely wild mentality.

Its very easy: who is pointing their weapons towards you? those are your enemies...make no mistake, Russia is our enemy. Not because its Russia but because the nuthead they have as president.

Those 400k humans were pointing their guns at you? And they deserve to die because of it? And the 400k humans on the other side too? Wild. Wild.

Do you feel the same about the Iraqis, I wonder?

im talking about nukes man...irakis dont have them...you have to open your eyes, do you want to be a saint or something? your discourse doesnt add up, have you heard about self-defense? its in your genes: somebody hits you or threatens you, youll instantly be either running or fighting, its a reflex

Again, looking for a third party to confirm this is inline with the modern liberal groupthink and not just the rantings and ravings of some particularly murderous extremist.

> rantings and ravings of some particularly murderous extremist

LOL

You laugh, yet you laugh alone. Look in a mirror.

you have to decide mate...are you looking for that third party to confirm shit or are you into a flame war with me?

I’ve held the same position on that since the beginning.

It’s a good thing Iraqis never faced a false accusation about WMD, painting them as the enemy and fair target for defense. Otherwise you might look really silly.

Biden, on his best days, cant hardly remember his name mate… if you think Biden is making these decisions I have some Enron stock options to sell to you

Synecdoche.

So it's "evil" to help a democratic country defend itself against genocide?

I guess then it's "good" when the coming administration will point the military against its own people and put them in camps?

>I guess then it's "good" when the coming administration will point the military against its own people and put them in camps?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what brainwashing due to propaganda exposure looks like in real life.

It can indeed be considered propaganda when you listen to what they themselves are saying.

If they end up doing it and to what extent is an open question though.