Hard on the heels of the US appeal for a ceasefire, or possibly just before it, we have Scott Ritter providing what he himself terms a “radical reassessment” of the shape of things in Ukraine.
Might I suggest that Putin has achieved all his initial aims. This said, he may find it in his interest to maintain the status quo indefinitely, as it seems to provoke the opposition to act irrationally.
Really interesting interview. My takeaway is the question "Why have the Russians failed to interdict the arms shipments?" Should not be difficult given their capabilities. Not doing so leads to much greater potential headaches. But is a full mobilization of Russian forces immediately needed for Ukraine or in the eventuality that Finland becomes part of NATO? I am skeptical.
I found it especially interesting when Ritter says that China would prefer not ever having to go to war over Taiwan as long as it does not decide to declare independence - and that the status quo is mutually beneficial for both of them. Based on history and other readings I believe him. If China controls the seas in the region (and it is well on its way) it will also control Taiwan. I also agree the Chinese have thrown their lot in with Russia. Seems quite clear and is logical given the Biden admin actions and stated intent.
I am really having a hard time thinking that 99 not so mobile howitzers are going to make a big difference. For starters you’ve got to get a lot of ammunition over to them and of course I remember somebody commenting that once you make a firing solution, you better move fast because it’s coming right back at you. I can’t find it right now but I did see a picture of a GPS assisted Howitzer and a non-assisted one implying that the ones that just got delivered don’t have the electronic guidance assist. Of course it could be all a misdirect.
It may be the weather around here, 106F today, anyway I am really burning with rage lately. The insaneocracy that controls the "west" have completely lost touch with reality. The Swedes and Finns are nuts to think that becoming NATOstans makes any short or long term sense.
Ritter may not see that V. Putin is conducting a type of siege against the "west". . . Putin's strategy is to put the "west" through a humiliating economic collapse similar to that which Russia suffered after the Soviet union collapsed. I don't think that the 155's will be operational for long, Russia has counter battery capacities, not to mention the ability to interdict supply lines. The ability to continue to supply Ukraine with expensive war material is not unlimited, time is on Russia's side.
I fear that much of the US strategic doctrine is at best outdated, while aircraft carriers are still useful in some cases, it appears that our adversaries can easily neutralize them. Force projection is best done using weapons that the US does not possess yet, if we do not get to work soon we may be unable to produce badly needed hypersonic missiles. The most desperately needed weapons are long range and intercontinental range air launched and submarine launched hypersonic missiles. Such weapons must be developed that can be launched from cargo aircraft as well as bombers, the F-35 program must be cut if not terminated.
I think your last paragraph is spot on. As for Putin's plans, whatever strategic options he may have formulated it is worth noting that the trigger for any kind of economic "siege" on his part was pulled by the west instituting the sanctions against Russia and freezing Russian funds.
Thanks, SCT! Ritter's being pretty (and maybe overly) dramatic here but I think essentially (from a sane point of view) he is right. Finland by joining NATO is extending the frontier with Russia and signing up to be a potential belligerent in a war not of its choosing at some point in the future - could be six months from now, could be 10 or 20 years from now. Where is the benefit to them vs. the risk they are taking? They must have had a lot of pressure put on them by the Biden admin somehow.
Here is a quote that illustrates this idea:
“The US, our NATO allies, Ukraine, and Russia are now locked into long-term hostility. It is entirely possible that the conflict in Ukraine’s east and south, like that between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, will sustain warfare for decades to come. If so, there will be a constant danger of an outbreak of hostilities on Europe’s eastern frontiers and of escalation to direct conflict between Russia and the United States, including a possible nuclear exchange,” he said.
“Given the absence of any serious diplomatic dialogue between Washington and Moscow,” said Freeman, “it is far from obvious how such escalation can be prevented.”
The quote is from this essay, which is interesting also as a description of the Dems political landscape regarding support for the war in Ukraine:
The prez is pretty obviously not a happy camper. He pointedly says that he hadn't felt threatened by Russia before and still doesn't, BUT ...
He says it's hard to be "non-aligned" nowadays in Europe. I take that to mean that Finland was heavily pressured into making this decision, and he's unhappy about that.
The tweets suggest that a senior American GENERAL by the name of Eric Olson has been captured. I'd want to see proof, of course. Several replies state that the "Eric Olson" is a reference to ADMIRAL Eric Olson. These are two different men, believe me. They also both share a middle initial "T" and very similar middle name as well, the General Eric THORNE Olson, and the Admiral Eric THOR Olson. A quick search shows that there is a SgtMaj Eric Olson, a Chaplin Eric Olson and perhaps others.
While I cannot categorically rule out the Admiral (retired, as is the General), I would be very surprised if he was involved.
I'm still thinking over Scott's change of tune. Did he get a visit from the TNI (trusted news initiative)? A while back I had posted a link to one of Scott's early vids on KD's site and unbeknownst to me another poster mentioned that Scott had a couple of issues with the law. After looking it up, I deleted the post I had made there and I think I made one here and deleted it as well. I wouldn't be surprised if he was threatened to knock it off or they would really burn him. Or, Maybe I'm all wet, but his tone is different now. ???
My thoughts exactly Mike. Compare Ritter's sudden disparagement of Russian strategy and battle situation with those of Andrei Martyanov, The Duran, Larry Johnson to name a few. There's no indication that any significant amount of weapons or resupply are reaching the front lines. Just the opposite. All indications are that Ukronazi counterbattery fire is minimal compared w a month ago; the Ukies are out of gas and diesel; they are using passenger vehicles to transport soldiers due to lack of military vehicles and the risk of aerial bombardment.
Ritter sounds...phony. He claims time isn't on Russia's side, for example. Wrong. Their methodical, grinding approach has just about broken the morale of the Ukronazis w very low casualties of Russian forces. Russia's economy and trade balance keep improving while NATO and the US are careening off an economic cliff. Why would Russia want to speed things up? Ritter sounds like a Pentagon mouthpiece in the video. Throw in the call from Austin and Ritter sounds off base. Very strange.
I'd read that somewhere too and it indicated something of a criminal nature but can't verify. In any event, when someone turns their opinion so significantly and into the same direction as The Approved Narrative, it's a big fat flag.
Indeed he did--read his Wiki bio. There's no two ways but that he knows his stuff, has the background. Can he be pressured, blackmailed? He chose not to plead guilty and spent two years in jail.
Here's Mercouris. I've cued this a bit early--he'll be talking about the economic front at first, but he'll get into the business about NATO supplied weapons in about 5 minutes:
I agree. That's one of my reservations about Ritter's panicky reassessment. I do agree that Russia should not be allowing this to go on forever. But you don't rebuild a modern military overnight, and as for insurgency--there are important differences between Ukraine and other places.
Might I suggest that Putin has achieved all his initial aims. This said, he may find it in his interest to maintain the status quo indefinitely, as it seems to provoke the opposition to act irrationally.
One thing Ritter is certainly right about: Putin has not achieved the goal of de-militarization of Ukraine.
There may be flexibility for interpreting that, but letting the howitzers be deployed is not moving in that direction.
Really interesting interview. My takeaway is the question "Why have the Russians failed to interdict the arms shipments?" Should not be difficult given their capabilities. Not doing so leads to much greater potential headaches. But is a full mobilization of Russian forces immediately needed for Ukraine or in the eventuality that Finland becomes part of NATO? I am skeptical.
I found it especially interesting when Ritter says that China would prefer not ever having to go to war over Taiwan as long as it does not decide to declare independence - and that the status quo is mutually beneficial for both of them. Based on history and other readings I believe him. If China controls the seas in the region (and it is well on its way) it will also control Taiwan. I also agree the Chinese have thrown their lot in with Russia. Seems quite clear and is logical given the Biden admin actions and stated intent.
China seems to really believe in the strategy of winning without firing a shot.
It sure seems to be working for them. Hard too imagine they will always have adversaries as narcissistic and short sighted as America.
I am really having a hard time thinking that 99 not so mobile howitzers are going to make a big difference. For starters you’ve got to get a lot of ammunition over to them and of course I remember somebody commenting that once you make a firing solution, you better move fast because it’s coming right back at you. I can’t find it right now but I did see a picture of a GPS assisted Howitzer and a non-assisted one implying that the ones that just got delivered don’t have the electronic guidance assist. Of course it could be all a misdirect.
It may be the weather around here, 106F today, anyway I am really burning with rage lately. The insaneocracy that controls the "west" have completely lost touch with reality. The Swedes and Finns are nuts to think that becoming NATOstans makes any short or long term sense.
Ritter may not see that V. Putin is conducting a type of siege against the "west". . . Putin's strategy is to put the "west" through a humiliating economic collapse similar to that which Russia suffered after the Soviet union collapsed. I don't think that the 155's will be operational for long, Russia has counter battery capacities, not to mention the ability to interdict supply lines. The ability to continue to supply Ukraine with expensive war material is not unlimited, time is on Russia's side.
I fear that much of the US strategic doctrine is at best outdated, while aircraft carriers are still useful in some cases, it appears that our adversaries can easily neutralize them. Force projection is best done using weapons that the US does not possess yet, if we do not get to work soon we may be unable to produce badly needed hypersonic missiles. The most desperately needed weapons are long range and intercontinental range air launched and submarine launched hypersonic missiles. Such weapons must be developed that can be launched from cargo aircraft as well as bombers, the F-35 program must be cut if not terminated.
I think your last paragraph is spot on. As for Putin's plans, whatever strategic options he may have formulated it is worth noting that the trigger for any kind of economic "siege" on his part was pulled by the west instituting the sanctions against Russia and freezing Russian funds.
I watched this after I posted the above comment: Scott Ritter; Ukraine, Finland and Nato, a Warning to the People of Finland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciUNBIKNxMw
Ritter was really on a roll from about 37:00 until the end!
Thanks, SCT! Ritter's being pretty (and maybe overly) dramatic here but I think essentially (from a sane point of view) he is right. Finland by joining NATO is extending the frontier with Russia and signing up to be a potential belligerent in a war not of its choosing at some point in the future - could be six months from now, could be 10 or 20 years from now. Where is the benefit to them vs. the risk they are taking? They must have had a lot of pressure put on them by the Biden admin somehow.
Here is a quote that illustrates this idea:
“The US, our NATO allies, Ukraine, and Russia are now locked into long-term hostility. It is entirely possible that the conflict in Ukraine’s east and south, like that between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, will sustain warfare for decades to come. If so, there will be a constant danger of an outbreak of hostilities on Europe’s eastern frontiers and of escalation to direct conflict between Russia and the United States, including a possible nuclear exchange,” he said.
“Given the absence of any serious diplomatic dialogue between Washington and Moscow,” said Freeman, “it is far from obvious how such escalation can be prevented.”
The quote is from this essay, which is interesting also as a description of the Dems political landscape regarding support for the war in Ukraine:
https://asiatimes.com/2022/05/biden-and-the-democrats-pivot-to-proxy-war/
The video linked here, of the Finnish prez, is quite interesting:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/05/15/sunday-talks-finland-president-sauli-niinisto-indicates-a-global-cleaving-behind-decision-to-join-nato/
The prez is pretty obviously not a happy camper. He pointedly says that he hadn't felt threatened by Russia before and still doesn't, BUT ...
He says it's hard to be "non-aligned" nowadays in Europe. I take that to mean that Finland was heavily pressured into making this decision, and he's unhappy about that.
I’m surprised by Finland’s actions, but my batting average on this Ukraine Russia mess has been horrible.
My read is that they were heavily pressured by NATO/EU.
The tweets suggest that a senior American GENERAL by the name of Eric Olson has been captured. I'd want to see proof, of course. Several replies state that the "Eric Olson" is a reference to ADMIRAL Eric Olson. These are two different men, believe me. They also both share a middle initial "T" and very similar middle name as well, the General Eric THORNE Olson, and the Admiral Eric THOR Olson. A quick search shows that there is a SgtMaj Eric Olson, a Chaplin Eric Olson and perhaps others.
While I cannot categorically rule out the Admiral (retired, as is the General), I would be very surprised if he was involved.
The post did say "unconfirmed".
I'm still thinking over Scott's change of tune. Did he get a visit from the TNI (trusted news initiative)? A while back I had posted a link to one of Scott's early vids on KD's site and unbeknownst to me another poster mentioned that Scott had a couple of issues with the law. After looking it up, I deleted the post I had made there and I think I made one here and deleted it as well. I wouldn't be surprised if he was threatened to knock it off or they would really burn him. Or, Maybe I'm all wet, but his tone is different now. ???
My thoughts exactly Mike. Compare Ritter's sudden disparagement of Russian strategy and battle situation with those of Andrei Martyanov, The Duran, Larry Johnson to name a few. There's no indication that any significant amount of weapons or resupply are reaching the front lines. Just the opposite. All indications are that Ukronazi counterbattery fire is minimal compared w a month ago; the Ukies are out of gas and diesel; they are using passenger vehicles to transport soldiers due to lack of military vehicles and the risk of aerial bombardment.
Ritter sounds...phony. He claims time isn't on Russia's side, for example. Wrong. Their methodical, grinding approach has just about broken the morale of the Ukronazis w very low casualties of Russian forces. Russia's economy and trade balance keep improving while NATO and the US are careening off an economic cliff. Why would Russia want to speed things up? Ritter sounds like a Pentagon mouthpiece in the video. Throw in the call from Austin and Ritter sounds off base. Very strange.
Tom Luongo mentioned on a podcast Scott Ritter had some legal issues and was convicted, that made his statements a bit questionable.
I'd read that somewhere too and it indicated something of a criminal nature but can't verify. In any event, when someone turns their opinion so significantly and into the same direction as The Approved Narrative, it's a big fat flag.
Indeed he did--read his Wiki bio. There's no two ways but that he knows his stuff, has the background. Can he be pressured, blackmailed? He chose not to plead guilty and spent two years in jail.
Just add a comment on top of yours. If they’re really out of fuel, they’re toast. Game over
Dear Scott, please shut your pie hole or we’ll cancel all those options that we gave you.
Love the military industrial complex
Here's Mercouris. I've cued this a bit early--he'll be talking about the economic front at first, but he'll get into the business about NATO supplied weapons in about 5 minutes:
https://youtu.be/jkBc0SiHDkg?t=721
Good to see Mercouris threw cold water on Ritter's odd analysis.
Mark, based on your link that you provided I would like to revise my speculation from TNI to MIC. Thanks
I suspect that the call for cease fire is intended to allow us time to build up the strategic depth that Ritter describes.
The $33B isn't already there; it's on its way.
Russia has failed to prevent the rearmament, so the U.S. smells blood. Perhaps Putin doesn't have the stomach for all-out war.
I agree. That's one of my reservations about Ritter's panicky reassessment. I do agree that Russia should not be allowing this to go on forever. But you don't rebuild a modern military overnight, and as for insurgency--there are important differences between Ukraine and other places.