Ukraine war will end in 2025

[Hawkeye10]

I just heard Scott Ritter say that the Russians have set up the Federation financially for this conflict with America to go through 2027.

The latest Ask The Inspector.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Interestingly also Scott does not think that Russia will take Odessa militarily...they will instead make sure that as a part of the agreement with the Imperial Empire Odessa will have a referendum on which nation they will be a part of.

This is how the UN Charter suggests the question should be resolved.

 

[anonymoose]

Oh, I'm sure NATO nations, or just the U.S., could come up with some excuse for doing so.

Like Russia using them first for example?

The point is not whether NATO et al can come up with some reason for doing it, but that I think this is the direction this war is headed if the west wants to have any hope of not losing.

They’ve both already lost. Winning for Putin is annexation of all of Ukraine. Winning for Zelenskyy is reclaiming international recognition of pre 2014 borders. Highly unlikely. There are no winners and there won’t be.

Looks like you haven't heard about nuclear sharing.

Oh I have. I figured you’d come up with that strawman. Those countries do not have nukes.

But if you'd like to skip the article,

You didn’t have to post it. I read it before.

. Bottom line, NATO members can put its nukes on the territory of other NATO members.

Only those that participate in nuclear sharing. Five.

If Ukraine became a NATO member, I think you can connect the dots to what that means.

I can. They’d have as many as Lithuania or Poland, e.g. Zero .

 

[Scott]

I see. So the plan is for NATO nations to eventually nuke Russia. Unprovoked.

Oh, I'm sure NATO nations, or just the U.S., could come up with some excuse for doing so.

Like Russia using them first for example?

From Russia's past actions, I doubt they'd be the first ones to use nukes. What they -could- do is start bombing NATO nations with conventional weapons first, just as NATO nations are currently doing to Russia. That, in turn, could lead one or more NATO nations to decide to send a nuke Russia's way. And once -that- happens, the sky's the limit as to how far things will go.

 

[Scott]

The point is not whether NATO et al can come up with some reason for doing it, but that I think this is the direction this war is headed if the west wants to have any hope of not losing.

They’ve both already lost.

Based on what you say after this, it appears you're referring to Putin and Zelensky. In a way, I'd agree- both have lost a lot of citizens because of this war. But in another, I'd disagree. I'll get into that below.

Winning for Putin is annexation of all of Ukraine.

Even now, Putin has not said that he wants to annex all of Ukraine. Near the start of his military operation, he had been even more open to a peace that Ukraine could accept- he'd agreed to withdraw from all the territory they'd taken since the start of their operation in exchange for some very reasonable demands. Good article on that here:

The Lost Peace?

Russian-Ukrainian peace talks, February–March 2022.

www.thenation.com

That horse has left the barn, but I still strongly believe that Ukraine is better off coming to peace terms that Russia would accept then continuing this war.

Winning for Zelenskyy is reclaiming international recognition of pre 2014 borders. Highly unlikely.

Here, I agree. As one article I read recently put it, it'll be a cold day in hell before Russia cedes Crimea back to Ukraine. Ukrainians on the whole are the biggest losers. From what I've read, I think the Biden Administration knew this from the start. A saying has been made for this. The U.S. will fight Russia in Ukraine "to the last Ukrainian". An article/video on this from near the start of Russia's military operation in Ukraine:

US fighting Russia ‘to the last Ukrainian’: veteran US diplomat - The Grayzone

In Ukraine, the Biden administration is fighting Russia "to the last Ukrainian," retired senior US diplomat Chas Freeman says. Chas Freeman, a retired senior US diplomat, analyzes Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the US role, and the geopolitical fallout. "Everything we are doing, rather than...

thegrayzone.com

 

[Scott]

It sounds like you’re equating being a NATO member with possessing nuclear weapons aimed at Russia.
There are 32 nations in NATO but only three possess nuclear weapons.
When will the other 29 countries get them for the purpose of nuking Russia?

Looks like you haven't heard about nuclear sharing. Wikipedia has an article on it here:

Nuclear sharing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh I have. I figured you’d come up with that strawman. Those countries do not have nukes.

From the article you said you've read:
**
As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey have been hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy.[3][4]
**

But if you'd like to skip the article,

You didn’t have to post it. I read it before.

So you say, but it seems you've failed to understand its import.

Bottom line, NATO members can put its nukes on the territory of other NATO members.

Only those that participate in nuclear sharing. Five.

Currently, the U.S. is just sharing its nukes with 5 nations, yes.

If Ukraine became a NATO member, I think you can connect the dots to what that means.

I can. They’d have as many as Lithuania or Poland, e.g. Zero .

How are you so sure? In any case, Zelensky said he was thinking of getting nukes even -before- Russia started its military operation in Ukraine, and Putin responded that he took Zelensky's statement quite seriously. I sincerely doubt that this has changed.

 

[Hawkeye10]

From Russia's past actions, I doubt they'd be the first ones to use nukes. What they -could- do is start bombing NATO nations with conventional weapons first, just as NATO nations are currently doing to Russia. That, in turn, could lead one or more NATO nations to decide to send a nuke Russia's way. And once -that- happens, the sky's the limit as to how far things will go.

Almost certainly it would be America who uses Nukes first, conventually our forces are nowhere near up to dealing with China/Russia.....we would be facing the choice of escalate to nukes or admit defeat, and we have just watched the Imperial Empire face the choice escalate or admit defeat everyday in Ukraine and everyday we have chosen to escalate.

 

[Scott]

Almost certainly it would be America who uses Nukes first, conventually our forces are nowhere near up to dealing with China/Russia.....we would be facing the choice of escalate to nukes or admit defeat, and we have just watched the Imperial Empire face the choice escalate or admit defeat everyday in Ukraine and everyday we have chosen to escalate.

All we can hope for is that Trump realizes that getting out of Ukraine is a better choice than using nukes.