• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Russo-Ukrainian War v. World War 3?

Just for a little context... the servant of the people's party has 250 seats in parliament and the next biggest party 'For Life' has 37 ( which is who I guess you're talking about? ). Anyway its an openly Pro-Russian party, and Russia invaded their country. You think they let confederates into the government during the civil war? You think Stalin let Nazis walk around his cabinet after Hitler invaded? No. Its a necessary measure in times of war. The existence of the state is at risk, there could be no bigger stake.
Yeah, except this political party exists for a reason, that being Ukraine has always had a Russian population and ties with Russia owing to its history. It's not like the political party is an invading entity.

And if we're going to talk about context then let's not pretend that the USA and UK weren't dicking around in Ukraine and instigated the 'revolution' back in 2014, because they most certainly did. That is the actual origin story of where we are now, versus the 'pUtIn iS a NaZi' idea which is about as deep as a frisbee.

How many times have we been here before, where the West has been deliberately arming and manipulating a nations politics only to turn around later and go "wE muSt gO to wAr!!". It's so obvious man, come on. Anyone who can't see that repeating pattern by now just has their head up their ass and is in denial over what the West is actually about, specifically what the USA is about - do I need to list the number of nations invaded and/or destabilized by CIA operations?
 
Yeah, except this political party exists for a reason, that being Ukraine has always had a Russian population and ties with Russia owing to its history. It's not like the political party is an invading entity.

And if we're going to talk about context then let's not pretend that the USA and UK weren't dicking around in Ukraine and instigated the 'revolution' back in 2014, because they most certainly did. That is the actual origin story of where we are now, versus the 'pUtIn iS a NaZi' idea which is about as deep as a frisbee.

How many times have we been here before, where the West has been deliberately arming and manipulating a nations politics only to turn around later and go "wE muSt gO to wAr!!". It's so obvious man, come on. Anyone who can't see that repeating pattern by now just has their head up their ass and is in denial over what the West is actually about, specifically what the USA is about - do I need to list the number of nations invaded and/or destabilized by CIA operations?
Have you've seen the maidan revolution, how many people there were? You can't wip a crowd like that up with a little foreign meddling, trust me. They had good reason to be upset.
 
Yeah, except this political party exists for a reason, that being Ukraine has always had a Russian population and ties with Russia owing to its history. It's not like the political party is an invading entity.

And if we're going to talk about context then let's not pretend that the USA and UK weren't dicking around in Ukraine and instigated the 'revolution' back in 2014, because they most certainly did. That is the actual origin story of where we are now, versus the 'pUtIn iS a NaZi' idea which is about as deep as a frisbee.

How many times have we been here before, where the West has been deliberately arming and manipulating a nations politics only to turn around later and go "wE muSt gO to wAr!!". It's so obvious man, come on. Anyone who can't see that repeating pattern by now just has their head up their ass and is in denial over what the West is actually about, specifically what the USA is about - do I need to list the number of nations invaded and/or destabilized by CIA operations?
Yes Ukraine shares a history with Russia. Thats no reason to leave a party with Kremlin ties in your government, while that government, is invading your country, not if you want to remain a state anyway. By the way, that party, only won 13% of the vote. The only other candidate with a chance of winning in the presidential election was Poroshenko who is also anti-Moscow and an independent. This 'biggest opposition party' thing was a little overplayed. Ever since Yanukovych did his thing and Putin invaded, the Pro-Moscow vote has been diminished greatly. It will fall even more after the traumatic events of this year. And it has very little to do with what language they speak.
 
How many times have we been here before, where the West has been deliberately arming and manipulating a nations politics only to turn around later and go "wE muSt gO to wAr!!"

US doesn't have to do any manipulating to get Ukraine to want to defend itself. And the US isn't just serving up weapons out of the blue, its providing some, but far from all of the items that the Ukrainians are asking for. And the US is not at war, or seeking a war. Its only answering calls for help, which is in its interest of course. I just think this is a little hyperbolic. Nobody important is asking to go to war.


It's so obvious man, come on. Anyone who can't see that repeating pattern by now just has their head up their ass and is in denial over what the West is actually about, specifically what the USA is about

I'm far from pro-US and frankly, you need to switch to a different lens to understand this conflict, its not domestic policy.

do I need to list the number of nations invaded and/or destabilized by CIA operations?

Um no, because I'm not defending the US here, I wasn't born there, I don't live there and I'm happy about that. But right now, I'm concerned about the survival of Ukrainian state. Maybe we can talk about the things the cia did and didn't do however many years ago in some other thread.
 
US doesn't have to do any manipulating to get Ukraine to want to defend itself. And the US isn't just serving up weapons out of the blue, its providing some, but far from all of the items that the Ukrainians are asking for. And the US is not at war, or seeking a war. Its only answering calls for help, which is in its interest of course. I just think this is a little hyperbolic. Nobody important is asking to go to war.
Lmao. Right, so given the USA has a dominating stake in NATO what on earth is it doing continuing to expand NATO to encroach Russia if it is interested in the opposite of war. What is it doing fermenting revolution in Ukraine via the CIA (and UK via MI6), if NATO is not interested in war but peace. What is it doing blowing up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which itself is an act of war - also attacking a supposed ally's infrastructure. Those are not the actions of a state interested in peace. Those are the actions of a state that wants war.

I'm sorry but the USA has a clear and demonstrable history of instigating conflict and war over the past century. It has even gone so far as to manufacture war via deception (Vietnam). If you're actually going to argue the case the USA doesn't want war then you're going to have a real uphill battle trying to justify that position - know them by their fruits.

There has been 0% effort, or even a mention of, peace. It's all pointing in one direction.

"It's only answering calls for help". Absolute rubbish. The USA and UK have manufactured this situation. You've just bought into the propaganda that this is some attempt by Putin at Russian imperialism. You can't ignore the history of the USA (and UK) if you want to understand the situation, it is all very much relevant context to the situation.

I find it laughable that anyone could honestly believe the USA (and UK) are just silent parties defending democracy. Would you like me to walk you through Iraq? Or how about Libya? This entire situation is geopolitical. The MSM might try to convince you of some narrow perspective about Putin but anyone with two brain cells can immediately know why that is propaganda.
 
Lmao. Right, so given the USA has a dominating stake in NATO what on earth is it doing continuing to expand NATO to encroach Russia if it is interested in the opposite of war. What is it doing fermenting revolution in Ukraine via the CIA (and UK via MI6), if NATO is not interested in war but peace. What is it doing blowing up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which itself is an act of war - also attacking a supposed ally's infrastructure. Those are not the actions of a state interested in peace. Those are the actions of a state that wants war.

You really got to get out of the US is everything state of mind. Finland is its own country, Finland applied to join nato because after the Russian invasion, the prospect of an invasion became much more real. Deny Finland, which would be a valuable ally, so that Russians feel more safe? Why? Lots of countries don't have defensible borders, and nobody is entitled to them. The best way to avoid war, is to always be prepared for it. This is a lesson that had been forgotten since the cold war, and suddenly countries all over the world are remembered. Blah blah the CIA I don't care. I don't really don't care about he US. I care about Ukraine.

I'm sorry but the USA has a clear and demonstrable history of instigating conflict and war over the past century. It has even gone so far as to manufacture war via deception (Vietnam). If you're actually going to argue the case the USA doesn't want war then you're going to have a real uphill battle trying to justify that position - know them by their fruits.

I think the biggest difference here is that Russia is a nuclear power. but again I really don't want to get into defending the US because I know they have a pretty tainted reputation and again I'm not even American.

There has been 0% effort, or even a mention of, peace. It's all pointing in one direction.

Well thats probably because the western governments tried to broker a peace in 2014 and all it did was lead to another war. 'Negotiation' is just another tool Putin uses to get what he wants, which in this case is the erasure of the Ukrainian state. So why should some foreign power come into the picture and tell Ukraine to stop defending itself? Nobody has that authority and honestly its not their place anyway. What message would that send to China? We are stuck between a rock and hard place here. European leaders want business as usual, they want Russian gas, they want Ukrainian grain, but are starting to realize if they don't start smartening up, foreign policy and national security wise, they could be next. This war is really in nobody's interest, except for maybe the arms manufacturers, but there's a lot of moving pieces here. Its not as simple as you make it sound. Yeah peace is great, so Churchill should have surrendered to Hitler in order achieve it? Lincoln should have surrendered to the confederates to achieve it?

""It's only answering calls for help". Absolute rubbish. The USA and UK have manufactured this situation. You've just bought into the propaganda that this is some attempt by Putin at Russian imperialism. You can't ignore the history of the USA (and UK) if you want to understand the situation, it is all very much relevant context to the situation."
I really don't want to go down this rabbit hole but it just isn't true. How much has this war disrupted? As for supply chains, the energy market, the grain market, how much has this changed the geopolitical landscape? All the Nuclear rheotoric coming from Moscow? Western leaders want business at usual, they don't want this. But they don't have much of an option here. The only person with the power to end the war with the stroke of a pen, and without sacrificing his own country is Putin, and he aint interested.
 
Last edited:
You really got to get out of the US is everything state of mind. Finland is its own country, Finland applied to join nato because after the Russian invasion, the prospect of an invasion became much more real. Deny Finland, which would be a valuable ally, so that Russians feel more safe? Why? Lots of countries don't have defensible borders, and nobody is entitled to them. The best way to avoid war, is to always be prepared for it. This is a lesson that had been forgotten since the cold war, and suddenly countries all over the world are remembered. Blah blah the CIA I don't care. I don't really don't care about he US. I care about Ukraine.

This is the thing I don't get about the whole situation. Nobody is forcing countries to join NATO. If a country wants to join NATO, why shouldn't they be able to? After Russia's actions invading Georgia/Moldova/Crimea over the past few decades, is it any wonder that its neighbors would want to join NATO? It's only sensible, in my mind. Instead of sitting there hoping Russia doesn't invade you, instead you get the security of knowing that someone has your back if it happens.

The US is certainly guilty of its own imperialist efforts. But imagine yourself as Ukraine, or Finland, or whoever... if there is an option that exists to add to your security, wouldn't it be something you would want to take? It makes no sense to me to say they shouldn't be able to join an organization if they want to... are they not free agents with the right to make their own decisions? Now, if I were to find out that NATO was holding a knife to their throats and forcing them to join, or whatever, that's a different scenario. But none of us here are privy to the factors that lead these countries to choose to join NATO... in the absence of that knowledge, Occam's Razor points to the most obvious reason. Past precedent shows that Russia's neighbors might have cause to worry about invasion, and the most powerful military partnership in the world will help them should that happen, if they join it. Seems like a no-brainer. That's what I'd do.
 
Blah blah the CIA I don't care. I don't really don't care about he US. I care about Ukraine. ...

I really don't want to go down this rabbit hole but it just isn't true. How much has this war disrupted? As for supply chains, the energy market, the grain market, how much has this changed the geopolitical landscape? All the Nuclear rheotoric coming from Moscow? Western leaders want business at usual, they don't want this. But they don't have much of an option here. The only person with the power to end the war with the stroke of a pen, and without sacrificing his own country is Putin, and he aint interested.
You've got blinders on and are choosing to deliberately frame the context of this war as a consequence of Putin.

You can not ignore the US/UK (and their military/intel) meddling in Ukraine, and the actions of NATO expansion, if you want to understand the entire context. It is disingenuous to do so. It is what the MSM have done, presenting a completely one-sided western narrative of the situation. If the west wants business as usual, then why bother trying to frame the narrative in such a way? Why is the western media (and by whom) following this script to frame the situation as such? We've been here before, in case you've forgotten the past two decades (and before), of deliberately curating a narrative that helps foster war/conflict. It's what we do.

If the west wants business as usual then why did the USA/UK blow up the Nordstream pipeline? Why did Boris Johnson help to scupper a peace deal back in April last year? These are not the actions of a benign western force, but the actions of a malevolent western force that clearly has other agendas at play. Britain in particular has had a curious relationship to Russia for a long time, and Germany, because both are key nation states within its own geopolitical game for imperialistic domination.

The west wants to win. It is written all over the rhetoric coming out of British and American politicians mouths. Did you not hear Biden's speech in Poland?

You're perspective on this situation is not aligned with reality.
 
You've got blinders on and are choosing to deliberately frame the context of this war as a consequence of Putin.

Because it is.

You can not ignore the US/UK (and their military/intel) meddling in Ukraine
I don't.
and the actions of NATO expansion

Nato hadn't expanded much in recent history. There was a big push in the 90s and early 00s, and those were the ones close to Russia. Since then? A couple of insignificant Balkan countries that are mostly away from Russia. It only started expanding again as a result of Putin's invasion, who has scared everybody straight. But I think that actually misses the most important part of this which is, sovereign nations, have the right to choose their own military alliances.

Nato protection is not something that is forced on you. Its something you have to apply for, and that you only get if every existing nato member agrees and unless you're already compliant you have to completely restructure your military. Putin tries to frame this as if, nato membership is a hostile takeover or something, it is not. The real reason he doesn't like it is because he's lost influence, but nato isn't the reason, nato is the end result. If Putin wants influence he has got to focus less on guns and more on building symbiotic relationships. Actually the US has some work to do there too. But point being - nobody owes Moscow a thing, Moscow is in no place to tell other nations who they should and shouldn't align with. Its none of their business.

if you want to understand the entire context. It is disingenuous to do so.

I promise you, I am being 100% sincere.

It is what the MSM have done, presenting a completely one-sided western narrative of the situation. If the west wants business as usual, then why bother trying to frame the narrative in such a way? Why is the western media (and by whom) following this script to frame the situation as such? We've been here before, in case you've forgotten the past two decades (and before), of deliberately curating a narrative that helps foster war/conflict. It's what we do.

Its in the West's interest to not have a war break out at all. However, in the event that war starts, in the wests interests to make sure the hostile power is not successful. Thats what I meant. It depends on situation. And right now, since the war has already started, against the will of the west, its interest is to back Ukraine. Especially considering that other powers are watching. They'll be watching what happens to a country like Ukraine when it gives up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees that may not amount to much. They'll be watching how successful Russia is in changing its borders through brute force. The course of the 21st century history is being decided here. Its not just something happening far far away. Its very important.



If the west wants business as usual then why did the USA/UK blow up the Nordstream pipeline?

Thats conjecture. And if thats how you build your worldview, well I think I'm starting to understand the situation a little better.
 
^ it's not conjecture. Also, it was the CIA & Sweden/Norwegian govt. involved; basically EU, governmental authorities.

The Rainbow fiasco, is the engineered, divisive, propaganda & ideology that has smoke-screened pop media from focusing on this.


https://www.commondreams.org/news/seymour-hersh-nord-stream
Yes I've read the report, and not just an article referencing it. And there's some interesting information there. But its far from conclusive. No doubt we will find out the truth in a few years. Until then, I'm going to treat statements like 'why did the USA blow up the Nordstream pipeline?" as conjecture, that is, drawing a conclusion without all the information necessary. Sweden and Denmark have concluded investigations. But they haven't made them public yet, why? Is it because the US was behind it all along? Well, perhaps. Also possible, is that its Putin and acknowledging it would force decisive action, which democracies aren't always the best at doing. Especially when nukes are involved. Either way, until the information is in, I'm not going make such broad statements like 'Why did Russia blow up Nordstream 2?" Because it would be irresponsible.

Another thing to consider... Who makes the riskiest decisions in war? Is it those who are in a strong position? Or those who are in a weak position? Food for thought anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yes I've read the report, and not just an article referencing it. And there's some interesting information there. But its far from conclusive. No doubt we will find out the truth in a few years. Until then, I'm going to treat statements like 'why did the USA blow up the Nordstream pipeline?" as conjecture, that is, drawing a conclusion without all the information necessary. Sweden and Denmark have concluded investigations. But they haven't made them public yet, why? Is it because the US was behind it all along? Well, perhaps. Also possible, is that its Putin and acknowledging it would force decisive action, which democracies aren't always the best at doing. Especially when nukes are involved. Either way, until the information is in, I'm not going makes such broad statements like 'Why did Russia blow up Nordstream 2?" Because it would irresponsible.

Another thing to consider... Who makes the riskiest decisions in war? Is it those who are in a strong position? Or those who are in a weak position? Food for thought anyway.
Honestly? Are you even conscious (with due respect)?
 
Yes I've read the report, and not just an article referencing it. And there's some interesting information there. But its far from conclusive. No doubt we will find out the truth in a few years. Until then, I'm going to treat statements like 'why did the USA blow up the Nordstream pipeline?" as conjecture, that is, drawing a conclusion without all the information necessary. Sweden and Denmark have concluded investigations. But they haven't made them public yet, why? Is it because the US was behind it all along? Well, perhaps. Also possible, is that its Putin and acknowledging it would force decisive action, which democracies aren't always the best at doing. Especially when nukes are involved. Either way, until the information is in, I'm not going makes such broad statements like 'Why did Russia blow up Nordstream 2?" Because it would irresponsible.
Why would Russia blow up its own infrastructure. It wants to make money, especially when the west is turning the screws on it economically. It is literally in no ones interest within the involved business parties (Russia, Germany, etc) to blow it up. The only parties who stand to gain anything from it are the USA and UK.

We have Biden, and another US politician I forget the name of, openly admitting that they would stop Nordstream one way or another. We have Liz Truss (UK PM at the time) saying "It's done" in an intercepted message to USA Secretary of State Anthony Blinken immediately after the explosion.

The technical ability required to blow up that pipeline rests with only a handful of countries on the planet. Two half ton explosions, piercing incredibly thick steel pipes encased in concrete, all taking place at about 80m depth. And doing so without being detected.
 
Why would Russia blow up its own infrastructure.

The same reason it does pretty much anything right now, to divide the allies, which is its best chance at coming away with something that could at least be passed off as a win.

It wants to make money, especially when the west is turning the screws on it economically.
Sure Putin wants to make money, but that is lower down on his priority list than you might think. His primary concern is staying in power, and that hinges on, coming away from the war.... with something that looks like a win. Recall that when these pipelines were blown up, they already weren't running anyway. #2 had never even started operations and #1 was running at like 10% capacity to put political pressure on Germany to stop supporting Ukraine. If Putin cared more about money than victory, you'd think he never would have limited flows.

It is literally in no ones interest within the involved business parties (Russia, Germany, etc) to blow it up. The only parties who stand to gain anything from it are the USA and UK.
Well I'm not claiming to have the answers but in my head it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the US to do it. I mean if Germany found out, the alliance would fracture, if the public found out, Bidens re-election (if there is one) would be challenged. And at the time, US had already taken all of Russia's oil and gas business in Europe.

Right around now is when Ukraine was absolutely demolishing Russia on the battlefield. I just don't see the risk/reward being there for the US. Their side was already winning. They already took the oil business, so risk both of those by blowing up a pipeline? Doesn't make sense to me. Russia on the other hand, WAS in the dire enough straits to take a risk like that. But again, that's just my thinking surrounding the incident I am not pretending to know the answer. Nobody really knows except for maybe a select few in Sweden/Denmark's intelligence agencies and whoever did it.

"If the west wants business as usual then why did the USA/UK blow up the Nordstream pipeline?"

Is a damn loaded question if I've seen one.

We have Biden, and another US politician I forget the name of, openly admitting that they would stop Nordstream one way or another.
Yup, Biden did say that, before the war mind you. The whole point of not wanting Nordsteam 2 opened was to prevent Russia from using it as leverage over Germany. In 2022, that ship had kind of already sailed.

The technical ability required to blow up that pipeline rests with only a handful of countries on the planet. Two half ton explosions, piercing incredibly thick steel pipes encased in concrete, all taking place at about 80m depth. And doing so without being detected.

Yeah it would have been difficult to pull off, thats for sure.


Screenshot-2023-02-24-143744.png
 
As in, am I being honest in my convictions? Yes.
Fair dues to you & you are right, insofar as we are only as informed as the info we have. Unfortunately, that means we are all stuck in a deficit. How and ever, I still can agree (with certainty) that all democracies involved, are being royally fucked by propaganda(ists) syphoning; quality of life, finances and intelligence, from all 'so called' democracies, involved in this fabricated, shit-storm.
 
Why would Russia blow up its own infrastructure. It wants to make money, especially when the west is turning the screws on it economically. It is literally in no ones interest within the involved business parties (Russia, Germany, etc) to blow it up. The only parties who stand to gain anything from it are the USA and UK.

We have Biden, and another US politician I forget the name of, openly admitting that they would stop Nordstream one way or another. We have Liz Truss (UK PM at the time) saying "It's done" in an intercepted message to USA Secretary of State Anthony Blinken immediately after the explosion.

The technical ability required to blow up that pipeline rests with only a handful of countries on the planet. Two half ton explosions, piercing incredibly thick steel pipes encased in concrete, all taking place at about 80m depth. And doing so without being detected.
For sure, also the gigantic, LNG profits the US has made, in Europe; following the sabotage of the NS.
 
For sure, also the gigantic, LNG profits the US has made, in Europe; following the sabotage of the NS.
Those profits were being made before the sabotage of NS, as I already said, since one of them wasn't operating and the other one was operating at something like 10% capacity. Blowing up an allies pipelines to gobble up some business that you already have, doesn't quite add up to me. If Putin didn't invade, he would be making those profits. He miscalculated, its really that simple. He thought his stranglehold over the EUs energy supply would mean there would be no united response, and he was wrong. He thought Ukrainians wouldn't fight back, he was wrong.

And did the US did benefit in some way because of this? Yes. But nordstream didn't have to blown up for the pieces to fall that way. And still, I am convinced that with all the other baggage and tension that comes along with a crisis like this, world leaders would have much preferred none of this to happened at all, and for business to continue as usual.
 
Top