• 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?

DesertHarp said:
The U.S. and Britain didn't surrender to Germany because they were on the winning side. You don't have to surrender when you are winning the war. Ukraine is not winning against Russia. The longer Ukraine fights, the more territory it loses and the more soldiers it buries.
Click to expand...
Britain was not in a winning position early in the war..... or even the middle of the war. But they stood strong. So did the USSR. America was never really at threat, and didn't join till later lets not forget. Should Britain and the USSR have surrendered during their darkest hour or should we heed churchill's word...? " If you're going through hell, keep going" or how about "Nations that went down fighting rose again, but those which surrendered tamely were finished" and here's one for Europe "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last."

Even for a 30 day ceasefire, Putin asks for concessions that are tantamount to surrender while providing nothing substantial himself. Ukraine has no choice but to fight in the current enviroment, because there's no talking to Putin without surrendering.

Yes, they are not winning, but they are not losing either, they've actually taken the initiative in some areas in the south recently, if you've been paying attention. Seems like diversion in Kursk achieved one its goals at least. Whether the operation on a whole was worth its cost can be debated, but its true that Russia has lost a lot of momentum recently. And from a strategic level, they haven't had much since 2022. They has some on a tactical/operation level a bit later '24 early '25 but that has not been sustained.
 
Last edited:
Señor Moreno said:
Ukraine needs to surrender asap. It's a big honour what they have done, they have fought so bravely, they didn't allow Russia to take Kiev and rule the place; they still have a chance of being a (very relatively) sovereign nation, like many other european ones But, if they don't surrender they will lose their future, they won't be able to be a viable state if they keep fighting, as they will lose more territories and even their access to the Black Sea. If they lose Odessa they are done as a viable state cause they won't be able to export their grain and minerals: the economy would be destroyed, and when economy falls politics can't save a nation.
Ukraine would become a weird kind of polish protectorate supervised by NATO.
At this point, "ukranian victory dreamers" are the biggest enemy of the nation's single goal: keep fucking existing
Click to expand...

I kinda doubt that NATO will ever be supervising Ukraine. The whole reason Russia invaded Ukraine was to back NATO out of there.

I understand the argument that a sovereign country should be free to make any alliances it desires. That's how things would go in an ideal world. But we have to live in reality.

Any country that sends soldiers to help the Ukranians will immediately be at war with Russia. Any country the flies over Ukraine will be at war with Russia. Russia has stated that, and they weren't kidding. This is why Trump told Britain and France that there will be no U.S. backup, if they go into Ukraine. They quit some of their big talk, but they still equivocate.

People need to look at Russia's history of being invaded by western European armies. It's the easiest thing to march from Ukraine right into Russia. It's one big sprawling plain - the steppes. 27 million Russians died in WW2. Putin's grandmother was killed by the Nazis. His father fought the Nazis, died, and his body was never recovered. When the Nazis captured Ukranian soldiers, they offered them jobs. Some Ukranians took those jobs - as guards at concentation camps . . . as soldiers in the German army. Fascistic elements in Ukraine truly do exist.
 
Pickledlemons said:
Britain was not in a winning position early in the war..... or even the middle of the war. But they stood strong. So did the USSR. America was never really at threat, and didn't join till later lets not forget. Should Britain and the USSR have surrendered during their darkest hour or should we heed churchill's word...? " If you're going through hell, keep going" or how about "Nations that went down fighting rose again, but those which surrendered tamely were finished" and here's one for Europe "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last."

Even for a 30 day ceasefire, Putin asks for concessions that are tantamount to surrender while providing nothing substantial himself. Ukraine has no choice but to fight in the current enviroment, because there's no talking to Putin without surrendering.

Yes, they are not winning, but they are not losing either, they've actually taken the initiative in some areas in the south recently, if you've been paying attention. Seems like diversion in Kursk achieved one its goals at least. Whether the operation on a whole was worth its cost can be debated, but its true that Russia has lost a lot of momentum recently. And from a strategic level, they haven't had much since 2022. They has some on a tactical/operation level a bit later '24 early '25 but that has not been sustained.
Click to expand...

Russia took a savage beating in WW2. 27 million dead. They are refusing to ever go through that again. They now have something they didn't have back then - nuclear armed missiles.

Ukraine is running out of men. Russia is advancing slowly. They don't have to rush. They could have made Kiev look like Gaza, if they wanted to. They have held back.

So how do you see Ukraine driving Russia out? This is not the 1940s. Before Russia will let the West march across its frontier, like the Nazis did in operation Barbarossa, it will launch nuclear missiles. That is reality! What is your plan then?

We in the West also have nuclear missiles. If Putin puts one Russian toe into the Baltics or Poland, a U.S. led NATO will immediately pound Russia. Russia knows that. The population of the E.U. is about 450 million people. A Russia of 146 million people can not conquer an E.U. of 450 million, especially since countries in he E.U. have nuclear bombs. Belgium, Germany, Italy, France and the U.K. all have nuclear weapons within their countries (sometimes owned by the U.S.) So please tell me how Russia will invade all over Europe, like the Nazis did? The world has changed. There are new realities.
 
DesertHarp said:
They don't have to rush.
Click to expand...
Actually they kinda do have to, since the national wealth fund doesn't last forever, its more liquid assets have pretty much already been spent and running a deficit in Russia is not as cheap and easy as running one in the US or some other stable rule of law country. And the price for people willing to die is getting ever higher while the number of applicants keeps dropping. Also the petroleum industry ( the only industry to bring in foreign capital) seems to be... experiencing some problems. Thats gonna mean.... even more inflation, and Russia already has the third highest inflation in the G20, and those are Russian numbers so who knows what the real number is. That might start meaning the war takes on more of a personal and not so academic meaning among the citizenry.

Meanwhile europe and especially germany have plenty of fiscal space and Ukraine is very good at using money wisely. Look at their drone production. Best in the world, value per dollar. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say.

Like I said, not winning, but not losing either.
 
Señor Moreno said:
If they lose Odessa
Click to expand...
Russia taking odessa by force at this point in the war is about as likely as ukraine taking back sevastopol by force. Keep fighting and Russia may find itself in some kind of crisis, a financial crisis or a power struggle. Like I said, if Ukraine surrenders, it agrees to terms that neuter it completely. So surrendering defacto means Odessa is Russian. Keep fighting and they have a chance. This is what they mean when they say they have no choice but to fight. Without security guarantees, or nukes, Russia's right at nato's border. Every thing that comes out of Putin's mouth is a bated Trap and Trump is... well, he's an idiot. Does not understand the situation in the slightest.

Taking over the civilian nuclear power plants... wonder where he got that idea. Wonder if he even knows why its significant.
 
Last edited:
Pickledlemons said:
Actually they kinda do have to, since the national wealth fund doesn't last forever, its more liquid assets have pretty much already been spent and running a deficit in Russia is not as cheap and easy as running one in the US or some other stable rule of law country. And the price for people willing to die is getting ever higher while the number of applicants keeps dropping. Also the petroleum industry ( the only industry to bring in foreign capital) seems to be... experiencing some problems. Thats gonna mean.... even more inflation, and Russia already has the third highest inflation in the G20, and those are Russian numbers so who knows what the real number is. That might start meaning the war takes on more of a personal and not so academic meaning among the citizenry.

Meanwhile europe and especially germany have plenty of fiscal space and Ukraine is very good at using money wisely. Look at their drone production. Best in the world, value per dollar. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say.

Like I said, not winning, but not losing either.
Click to expand...

The Ukranian troops in Kursk are surrounded and trapped. Trump has asked Putin to be merciful toward them. That kinda sounds like losing to me.
 
DesertHarp said:
The Ukranian troops in Kursk are surrounded and trapped. Trump has asked Putin to be merciful toward them. That kinda sounds like losing to me.
Click to expand...
Geeze did you yank those words right out his lying mouth or something? That is not the situation at all. Did you think Ukraine actually wanted to conquer bits of kursk? It was for two things, diverting troops to help slow momentum and potentially being something to trade.

Like I said - accomplished one of its goals at least. They've been surrounded for nearly this entire time. Doesn't mean there was an impending slaughter, a nice killzone was created by Ukraine and has been well exploited. If Putin had that ability to slaughter everybody, you'd think he would have used it some time in the last 8 months.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine is losing
Pickledlemons said:
Russia taking odessa by force at this point in the war is about as likely as ukraine taking back sevastopol
Click to expand...

The only reason of why Odessa isn't Russia already is because that was not the plan.
Kiev, Jarkov... could be destroyed to the core, just like Alepo in 2015 without even sending troops there.
Western media narrative is that both nations are fighting full force. Wrong: Ukraine has sent to the trenches all what they received and all what they had, down syndrom dudes included. Russia has not.
Ukraine is totally devastated, under martial law, with 75% of its population suffering power, gas, med aid, even food privation.... while average russian citizen is not. Ukraine has its existence jeopardized while Russia is carrying an "special operation".
Dead people from both sides are in the same condition but living folks are not. Such is the extent of the truth.
Ukraine is already defeated and has lost the territories that Russia wanted.
Kursk has not diverted shit from the Dombass front. Russia advances miles and takes dozens of village every week, while western media remains silent; Ukraine may occupy a village or two ( for a couple of days) and you will be reading that " promising things" are happening in the south. Bullshit.
 
Señor Moreno said:
The only reason of why Odessa isn't Russia already is because that was not the plan.
Click to expand...
It was tho. And if Putin got all the Ukraine, he would most likely just come up with new target. Putin is megalomaniac sociopath/psychopath that started this war because their only joy in life is associating greatness of Russian empire to their self-worth and distracting people with war; basic politics. They just fucked it up as institutionalized power for various reasons, beginning from corruption and incompetence to fact that it is much easier to defend land than conquer land and the fact that Ukraine has wide support from various countries, even if it was really half-assed sometimes. I guess I could meet halfway through and agree that Putin might be fine with just dragging war forever without progression to any direction because that is still way to distract their nation and manipulate politics, but I am pretty much convinced Putin wants at least something little, even if it was not Odessa, he will not just retreat without achieving anything because it would be too bad hit for Putins ego.

This is also really common pattern in world politics and has been for as long as there has been human communities. Can you argument as to why your narrative is more likely to be true? Or if I have mistaken at some point interpreting your approach... I am just assuming that if you state that Putins goal was not reaching Odessa, that you are trying to say Russia is having some kind of defensive battle.
 
No, Odessa wasn't part of the plan. Odessa may be important from a nostalgic perspective into russian imoerialist minds, but only that. The strategic, non negotiable point was Crimea and they took it as soon as 2014. The plan was to connect Dombass with Crimea by land, and not to 100% rely on the Kerch brigde. This is the only real plan, that and to keep Ukraine out of NATO.
The first is achieved, and we will have to wait to see what happens with the second.


Pissed_and_messed said:
. Can you argument as to why your narrative is more likely to be true? Or if I have mistaken at some point interpreting your approach... I am just assuming that if you state that Putins goal was not reaching Odessa, that you are trying to say Russia is having some kind of defensive battle.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't really have a narrative, I only have opinions. And my opinion is that we need to be objetive: we can't keep playing the " until Putin invaded the place all was happines and flowers" because it was not.
I don't know if you are familiar with the OSCE work in Ukraine. You can read their reports on cease fire violations, and you can read their experts' opinions on who was violating it. It's very illustrating.
I allways read how Putin is this and Putin is that, and I may agree that he is, but I don't remember many voices raising to blame Poroshenko and later Zelenski for the thousands of people killed in Dombass before february 2022. Or burning alive in Odessa, if you remember.
I allways read how Putin is a dictator, and I agree, but I don't read that often about of the 11 (ELEVEN) forbidden parties, wich represented millions of ukrainian citizens, under Zelenski regime. I don't read about the millions of people who saw their mothertongue outlaw, who lived under appartheid in their own country.
So, do I think my opinion is more likely to be truth? Well, everybody does, that's why people choose an opinion over another, cause they think it's more likely to be truth, don't you think?
Truth belongs to everybody and also to no one.

But I really think that my opinions, from the very first day (it's all wroten and never deleted a single post) are often more objetive.
I do read western media in English or Spanish, but I also read russian media ( forbidden in the West) but not in Latin America, where freedom of speech has not been banned, (look how primitive they are!) so I am able to read russian point of view in Spanish and Portuguese. I also read arabic and iranian media. Because you can bet I am not a fan of Putin, but I have never been a western hooligan willing to think that, somehow- someway, we allways are right and they ( Russia, China, Brazil, islamic nations ..) are wrong

To be honest, I don't think that too many of us are taking the effort of listening to both sides before elaborating and opinion and posting it.
But I do, and that's why I think that my "narrative" if not more likely to be truth, at least it's much more objetive than 90% of what I read here
 
Señor Moreno said:
The only reason of why Odessa isn't Russia already is because that was not the plan.
Click to expand...
Yeah it was. Did you forget about them pushing for it early days in the war via land from once occupied Kherson but not quite getting there...? Why did they take snake island? There was gonna be a landing, hence all those mines that had to be cleared for the grain deal.

Odessa was a main target, but the sinking Moskva (and since, most of the black sea fleet) kinda put a damper on that one.

Oh yeah and did you forget about Lukashenko's map? Clearly showing Odessa in red, then linking up with Transnistria.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah and did you forget about Lukashenko's map? Clearly showing Odessa in red, then linking up with Transnistria.
[/QUOTE]

Maaan, no, no!! War isn't only about weapons it's also about disinformation.
Look, I have been in Moldova, the two of them.
There is a river called Prut, in the western side lies the historic region of Moldova, in Romania; in the eastern side, from the Prut to the Dniester, it keeps being Moldova but this time under the historic name of Basarabia, in the Moldova republic. Both are the same people and have the same flag, language and coat of arms. They are all romanians.
The eastern side of the Dniester, as we all know, is what we call Transnistria, bit its people call it Pridnestrovia.
Transnistria isn't russian, it's slavic: it is populated both by russians and by ukrainians.
Do you know the entire population of Transnistria? Not even half a million. But more important, do you know how many russian soldiers are there? 2000!! Only two miserable thousands of soldiers. How in hell would they be able to reach Odessa, aprox 200 miles away?? They would be destroyed before they notice.
The whole Transnistria bullshit serves both Russia and the West:
-Russia uses its ridiculous military presence there to pretend that they could do something, so they keep the Chisinau govmt away from NATO.
- The west uses the russian presence in Moldova to: a) feed the russian danger ghost everywhere and b) and more important, to prevent the reunification of both Moldovas into a greater Romania, because the current smaller Romania can and is a NATO member, with the eastern side of the Prut and its slavic population, it couldn't be in NATO.
Just check facts out: a guy called Calin Georgescu won the presidential elections in December. He is a far right nationalist, he doesn't want problems with Russia and he wants the reunification of Romania and Basarabia and the resulting greater Romania out of NATO. He fucking won!. But what happened? For the first time in a UE nation, elections were invalidated, they will carry out new elections in May and Georgescu has been banned.
 
Señor Moreno said:
Oh yeah and did you forget about Lukashenko's map? Clearly showing Odessa in red, then linking up with Transnistria.
Click to expand...

Maaan, no, no!! War isn't only about weapons it's also about disinformation.
Look, I have been in Moldova, the two of them.
There is a river called Prut, in the western side lies the historic region of Moldova, in Romania; in the eastern side, from the Prut to the Dniester, it keeps being Moldova but this time under the historic name of Basarabia, in the Moldova republic. Both are the same people and have the same flag, language and coat of arms. They are all romanians.
The eastern side of the Dniester, as we all know, is what we call Transnistria, bit its people call it Pridnestrovia.
Transnistria isn't russian, it's slavic: it is populated both by russians and by ukrainians.
Do you know the entire population of Transnistria? Not even half a million. But more important, do you know how many russian soldiers are there? 2000!! Only two miserable thousands of soldiers. How in hell would they be able to reach Odessa, aprox 200 miles away?? They would be destroyed before they notice.
The whole Transnistria bullshit serves both Russia and the West:
-Russia uses its ridiculous military presence there to pretend that they could do something, so they keep the Chisinau govmt away from NATO.
- The west uses the russian presence in Moldova to: a) feed the russian danger ghost everywhere and b) and more important, to prevent the reunification of both Moldovas into a greater Romania, because the current smaller Romania can and is a NATO member, with the eastern side of the Prut and its slavic population, it couldn't be in NATO.
Just check facts out: a guy called Calin Georgescu won the presidential elections in December. He is a far right nationalist, he doesn't want problems with Russia and he wants the reunification of Romania and Basarabia and the resulting greater Romania out of NATO. He fucking won!. But what happened? For the first time in a UE nation, elections were invalidated, they will carry out new elections in May and Georgescu has been banned.
[/QUOTE]

Very informative post.
 
All the propaganda; all the lying politicians. If any of you US citizens believe you nation is good, wake the hell up! US foreign policy is psychopathic! All for personal gain and without empathy!
 
Last edited:
www.businessinsider.com

Ukraine says it's ready to pay up to $50 billion to the US for more air defenses and aid

"If you want it in a fund or if you want us to pay you directly, it doesn't matter to us," Zelenskyy said on Wednesday.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

Finally, something we can work with. Something at last substantial to make this worth our time

I’d be so much more inclined to take this guy serious if he didn’t just beg for hand-out after hand-out like some unemployed hippie from San Francisco lol
 
Voxide said:
www.businessinsider.com

Ukraine says it's ready to pay up to $50 billion to the US for more air defenses and aid

"If you want it in a fund or if you want us to pay you directly, it doesn't matter to us," Zelenskyy said on Wednesday.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

Finally, something we can work with. Something at last substantial to make this worth our time

I’d be so much more inclined to take this guy serious if he didn’t just beg for hand-out after hand-out like some unemployed hippie from San Francisco lol
Click to expand...
He didn't beg for handouts. The "help" he gets is all accumulated debt supposed to be repaid (assuming there is an Ukraine left). What Trump does here is ripping off his former allies by grabbing what is of value in Ukraine all for himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top