Amid the ongoing Ukraine conflict, the insights of a former US Marine Corps officer have exposed a disquieting reality that challenges the prevailing narrative in the Western world. After one year and nine months of relentless warfare, the Ukraine war remains shrouded in a fog of propaganda and uncertainty, leaving many to wonder about the true state of affairs and the extent of Ukraine’s success in safeguarding its sovereignty. A prevailing misconception persists in Western media, depicting Russia as faltering and its soldiers as casualties of this protracted struggle. Yet, beneath the surface, the question arises: is this portrayal an accurate reflection of the situation, or is there more to this complex narrative? Could international actors be influencing the information landscape to suit their geopolitical interests, thereby altering the very essence of truth? Hello and welcome.
With the voice of experience echoing through the corridors of geopolitical discourse, Scott Ritter, a distinguished former UN weapons inspector and an ex-US Marine Corps intelligence officer, unveils a stark truth that could hold the key to resolving the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. His pronouncement resounds with a sense of urgency and authenticity, as he lays bare the contention that NATO’s relentless expansion into Ukraine has sown the seeds of ceaseless strife and ravaged the region. It is becoming clearer in the complex fabric of this ongoing conflict that, had it been accepted, Ukraine’s choice to remain neutral may have been the pivotal point for bringing about a durable peace.
In the realm of informed commentary, Seymour Hirs, a well-respected American journalist, has brought to light a significant concern through his recent report. He highlights the formidable challenges confronting Zelinsky’s Army in their quest for victory in Ukraine. The hurdles they face are not merely substantial but appear almost insurmountable, shedding light on the harsh realities of warfare and geopolitics that have converged in this conflict. Hirs’ report forces us to confront the sobering truth that Ukraine’s path to triumph is an arduous one, raising doubts about the feasibility of a decisive victory.
Furthermore, the ramifications of the Ukrainian conflict extend far beyond the country’s borders, resonating within the echelons of power in the United States. Influential right-wing politicians are grappling with the intricate web of factors that define this situation, triggering a pertinent inquiry into the nation’s long-term strategy.
Following a meeting with Zelinsky, one of these politicians candidly shared their ongoing bewilderment, underlining the prevailing notion that the conflict has hit an impasse. This perplexing sentiment appears to mirror the current administration’s intent to allocate an additional hundred billion dollars in support of maintaining the existing status quo. In essence, it seems the United States is resolute in committing a substantial sum of $100 billion to Ukraine for a seemingly interminable war effort.
To decipher the underlying motives behind the substantial US investment in Ukraine, Scott Ritter has unveiled a perspective that challenges the conventional wisdom. While some may contend that the most straightforward solution to the Ukraine conflict involves Vladimir Putin withdrawing his troops, Ritter’s insight suggests that this proposition might not encapsulate the complexity of Russia’s stance. With historical roots reaching back to 1945, the conflict’s true intentions seem to transcend mere territorial disputes, making it an existential struggle. It appears that the ultimate objective revolves around the removal of Vladimir Putin, rendering the ongoing conflict a matter of existential significance. For Putin to withdraw from Ukraine without achieving a decisive victory would effectively embolden those who seek his ouster, potentially altering the power dynamics on the global stage.
In this complex international landscape, ending the Ukraine conflict presents a formidable challenge. A pivotal issue is Ukraine potentially joining NATO, a move staunchly opposed by Russia due to perceived security threats. But here’s the thing – some argue that Russia’s actions aren’t about aggression but self-preservation. They fear that if Ukraine joins NATO, it could create a direct route to Russia, a scenario Putin wants to avoid. From Russia’s standpoint, a neutral Ukraine appears to be the best way to safeguard its security.
In the year 2021, a pivotal summit took place in Geneva, where Russian President Vladimir Putin engaged in a crucial exchange of views with his American counterpart, President Joe Biden. During this diplomatic rendezvous, Putin made a resounding statement, articulating a persuasive argument aimed at encouraging the Ukrainian government to commit to the Minsk agreements as a potential means to bring an end to the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine. In response, President Biden pledged his commitment to exerting his influence on Ukrainian President Zelensky, to facilitate proactive steps on Ukraine’s part.
This momentous meeting occurred in the early days of June, setting in motion a timeline that unfolded over several months. In the subsequent months, including July, August, September, and October, Putin exhibited remarkable patience as he eagerly awaited progress on the Ukrainian front. It wasn’t until October that Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, convened a gathering with German representatives to reiterate the same plea articulated in Geneva – a fervent appeal for Ukraine to endorse the Minsk agreements. Nevertheless, as time elapsed, it became increasingly apparent that the Ukrainian leadership had little inclination to accede to the Minsk agreements, effectively signaling the conclusion of this particular diplomatic process.
Rather than swiftly opting for armed conflict, Russia pursued an alternative approach. On December 17th, 2021, the Russian government presented two significant agreements—one directed at NATO and the other targeting the United States. These accords aimed to foster diplomacy by instituting a fresh framework for European security. Russia strongly underscored the need for earnest negotiations, highlighting their sincere intention to avert military hostilities. Unfortunately, the United States decided to dismiss these propositions primarily due to their request for NATO to abstain from further involvement in Ukraine.
As the calendar transitioned from January to late February, Russia demonstrated a clear commitment to seeking peaceful resolutions in its interactions with Ukraine, openly articulating its distaste for armed conflicts. However, the situation took a significant turn on February 24th when it became evident that the Ukrainian military had amassed a formidable force ready to advance into the disputed Donbas (DBA) region. In response to this imminent threat, Russia invoked Article 51 of collective self-defense and took pre-emptive action. It’s important to note that Russia’s primary objective was not to conquer the Ukrainian military or seize control of the capital city, Kiev. Instead, the goal was to compel Ukraine to return to the negotiation table in the pursuit of a diplomatic solution.
Just six days after crossing the border, negotiations commenced in Gel, Belarus. This initial round was followed by three additional rounds of talks scheduled for early April in Turkey. During these diplomatic dialogues, both parties worked towards the formulation of a comprehensive treaty. By March, a tentative agreement was reached, awaiting ratification from both sides. The formal signing was slated for early April in Istanbul, representing a significant step forward in the potential resolution of the conflict. This series of diplomatic efforts marked a shift from the specter of armed conflict towards the promise of a negotiated settlement that could bring stability to the region.
According to Scott Ritter, Russia displayed a readiness to relinquish all recently occupied territory starting from February 24th. Their actions demonstrated sincerity, as they declared their intention to withdraw from Kiev, conditional on Ukraine’s agreement. Furthermore, they indicated their intention to retreat from both Kke and Ken. Ritter emphasized the misconception surrounding Russia’s true intentions, asserting that the initial objective was not capturing the capital but compelling Ukraine to engage in early negotiations. Russia only shifted to a phase 2 strategy when NATO’s counsel prompted Ukraine to refrain from pursuing negotiations, an unintended turn of events.
Russia’s strategy in the conflict can be delineated into two distinct phases. In the initial phase, they pinned their hopes on a specific outcome and deployed a formidable force numbering between 200,000 to 220,000 troops. This initial offensive caused significant harm to the Ukrainian forces, but Russia encountered a substantial setback that necessitated a transition into the second phase. This shift posed a significant challenge, as they faced an inadequacy in troop numbers for their intended liberation of DBA.
Moreover, Russia’s struggle with economic uncertainties, exacerbated by sanctions, added to the complexity of the situation. Vladimir Putin was hesitant to mobilize additional troops, fearing potential domestic unrest and the looming threat of foreign-driven regime change, a clear objective pursued by Western Powers. This delicate balance between the military strategy and internal political considerations further shaped Russia’s approach to the conflict.
Russia’s strategy in the conflict can be delineated into two distinct phases. In the initial phase, they pinned their hopes on a specific outcome and deployed a formidable force numbering between 200,000 to 220,000 troops. This initial offensive caused significant harm to the Ukrainian forces, but Russia encountered a substantial setback that necessitated a transition into the second phase. This shift posed a significant challenge, as they faced an inadequacy in troop numbers for their intended liberation of DBA.
Moreover, Russia’s struggle with economic uncertainties, exacerbated by sanctions, added to the complexity of the situation. Vladimir Putin was hesitant to mobilize additional troops, fearing potential domestic unrest and the looming threat of foreign-driven regime change, a clear objective pursued by Western Powers. This delicate balance between the military strategy and internal political considerations further shaped Russia’s approach to the conflict.
Meanwhile, Ukraine experienced a substantial boost in the form of $45 billion in Lind Le’s aid from the United States. This financial injection played a pivotal role in rebuilding its military, which had been severely weakened by Russia’s earlier actions. The revitalized Ukrainian armed forces leveraged this support to launch a highly effective counterattack in September. This strategic move placed immense pressure on Russian forces, forcing them to retreat and regroup, primarily adopting a defensive stance.
In response to Ukraine’s resurgence, President Putin initiated a partial mobilization effort. This initiative involved the enlistment of approximately 300,000 troops, accompanied by an additional 300,000 volunteers who stepped forward to join the conflict. In addition to these measures, several rounds of conscription were carried out, culminating in the assembly of a formidable force comprising around 720,000 dedicated personnel committed to the ongoing conflict. This marked a significant escalation in Russia’s military involvement, reflecting the seriousness with which they responded to Ukraine’s resurgent strength.
In stark contrast to Russia’s sustained military efforts, Ukraine faced severe losses, depleting its military capabilities significantly. From its initial force of 246,000 soldiers, Ukraine witnessed a staggering reduction of nearly 80% in its troop numbers. Scott Ritter emphasized this alarming statistic, underscoring the immense toll exacted on Ukraine’s armed forces. Despite subsequent mobilization attempts, Ukraine struggled to offset these losses, leaving them with limited resources and manpower to contend with. These substantial casualties shed light on the formidable challenges Ukraine confronted in the ongoing conflict. In the face of Ukraine’s dire situation, Russia’s ability to persist in the conflict becomes more apparent. Russia possessed the advantage of a robust defense industry and a consistent supply of resources, enabling them to maintain a position of strength.
The ongoing Ukraine war is a situation that hinges on the understanding that it may persist as long as the United States continues to provide financial and strategic support to Ukraine, effectively encouraging its military engagement. A pivotal solution lies in achieving a neutral status for Ukraine, which has been Russia’s objective from the outset of this conflict. Russia’s primary goal has been to secure Ukraine’s commitment to refrain from pursuing NATO membership. In return, Russia committed to relinquishing control over all disputed territories, including Lugansk and Donetsk, thereby restoring them to Ukrainian sovereignty. Additionally, a key element of this proposal was the demilitarization of the Donbas region, accompanied by a referendum under international supervision, ensuring the participation of displaced Ukrainians in the decision-making process. Russia also expressed its willingness to explore alternative security arrangements, fostering collaboration with the European Union, the United States, or Turkey, with the notable exclusion of NATO involvement.
Scott Ritter emphasized that had Ukraine accepted this proposition, it had the potential to avert the tragic toll of 400,000 Ukrainian lives lost and the displacement of 20 million people. Despite the rationality of the offer on the table, Ukraine’s decision was swayed by NATO’s influence, leading them to decline the terms. It was at this juncture that Ukraine, under the influence of the United States, opted to persist in the conflict. However, in doing so, Ukraine seemed to overlook the fact that this prolonged war exacted a heavier toll on their nation than any other.
A potential avenue to resolve the Ukraine war lies in soliciting China’s assistance. China has consistently expressed its stance in favor of a peaceful resolution between Ukraine and Russia, addressing the underlying cause of the conflict, which revolves around Ukraine’s desire for NATO membership. This aspiration poses financial and security challenges for Russia. Notably, President Zelensky has already reached out to President Xi Jinping, seeking China’s involvement in bringing an end to the war. If China is enlisted as a mediator for peace, it will likely adhere to a balanced approach, focusing on the essential steps required for resolution. This may entail severing the strings that bind Ukraine to its current course of war, allowing for a more effective and impartial mediation by China.
For China to effectively contribute to the peacemaking process, it is imperative to disentangle Ukraine from the factors that have propelled it to continue the conflict. These may include external influences and commitments. Only when these influences are removed or diminished can China assume a more influential and impartial role in mediating the peace negotiations.
Thank you for watching our video. What are your thoughts on the growing influence of China in global politics?