Ukraine’s Defence Minister believes Ukraine to win war by next summer and join NATO

[skye]

Oleksii Reznikov, Defence Minister of Ukraine, believes that by next summer, Ukraine will win the war and can be admitted to NATO in July 2024.

Source: Reznikov in an interview with CNN

Details: The minister said that he considers the NATO summit in July next year to be a possible moment for Ukraine to join the Alliance.



"Who knows, maybe it will be a very important day for Ukraine. It is just my forecast," Reznikov said.

He acknowledged that Ukraine will be able to join the Alliance only after the end of the war, because during the fighting "we have no options to have a unanimous vote."

When asked if he thought the war would be over by next summer, he quickly replied: "Yes. We will win this war. "

MSN

A bold statement, but the entre civilized world hopes he is right.

 

[Deadstick]

LOL!!

 

[Ringo]

The more weapons the US Gov't sends to Ukraine, the more money american citizens put into the pockets of the Defense contractors, who give money back to the politicians or promise them jobs and the more ukrainians that die fighting this proxy war, that the US provoked.
The System

 

[Deadstick]

The more weapons the US Gov't sends to Ukraine, the more money american citizens put into the pockets of the Defense contractors, who give money back to the politicians or promise them jobs and the more ukrainians that die fighting this proxy war, that the US provoked.
The System

You got it, why so many of the herd don't get it is a mystery, maybe they don't want to get it otherwise they would have to face the reality of the bunch of criminal morons who Govern them, after a lifetime of brainwashing and being told they are the ones in the white hats their brains would implode, so better to go on living a lie .

 

[ESay]

First off, you can't end the active fighting unless Russia agrees to end the active fighting; otherwise Ukrainian forces would just be overrun, so you have to factor in what demands Russia would make to end the fighting. That means that even if you don't sign papers, you will have to negotiate and come to an agreement with Russia that will make the effective ceasefire line a de facto border, and Russia will promptly annex all Ukrainian territory on its side of the de facto border, declare it part of Russia, and move its short and intermediate nuclear missiles up to that border, posing an increased threat to some of the nations Ukraine is counting on for support. Another concern is that millions of Ukrainians who are not pro Russian will be forced to live under Russian rule and to endure the animosity of Russians and pro Russian Ukrainians.

But suppose Russia agrees to end the fighting and to allow the diminished state of Ukraine build barriers along the de facto border without interference and to drop its objections to the western allies arming Ukraine and providing security guarantees, when Bush was in the WH, Iraq had iron clad security guarantees and special access to the WH and Pentagon, but when Obama was elected, those guarantees were taken away. Obama said, it looks pretty peaceful over there, so there is no need for our troops to stay there or for there to be special access for the Iraqi government. What if some German president says, it looks pretty peaceful in Ukraine, so why deprive ourselves of cheap Russin oil and why not sell Russia dual use electronics it may use to build advanced weapons. There are no reliable long term security guarantees without membership in NATO, and Ukraine will never become a member unless it is able to drive the Russians from its land.

It's possible it would work, but if it doesn't, it would be very difficult to rebuild the coalition that is supporting Ukraine today.

I am against any agreements with Russia. They are meaningless. Why should Ukraine sign anything? The AFU with modern weapons, air defence systems, engineered defence lines. Only that can guarantee the Russians won't move westward.

About the occupied territories, yes, Russia will hold them for a certain period of time. But I don't expect Ukraine just sitting and watching how Russia is building military infrastructure there. Various strikes are imminent.

NATO membership as a security guarantee? Dude, we both understand that vague statements about Ukraine's NATO membership 'some day after the war' is nothing more than a polite refusal. Your leaders didn't even have guts to issue a formal invitation (without any commitments and time frame) for Ukraine. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Silver Cat]

I am against any agreements with Russia. They are meaningless. Why should Ukraine sign anything? The AFU with modern weapons, air defence systems, engineered defence lines. Only that can guarantee the Russians won't move westward.

About the occupied territories, yes, Russia will hold them for a certain period of time. But I don't expect Ukraine just sitting and watching how Russia is building military infrastructure there. Various strikes are imminent.

NATO membership as a security guarantee? Dude, we both understand that vague statements about Ukraine's NATO membership 'some day after the war' is nothing more than a polite refusal. Your leaders didn't even have guts to issue a formal invitation (without any commitments and time frame) for Ukraine. What the hell are you talking about?

First - you can't build effective defense from "any possible attack" - you have too long border and too many "internal enemies". Second - you can't expect that even current cash flow from the West (mostly from the USA) will be endless (actually, you already need to think how to pay your debts). Third - one more year and you won't have Ukraine at all (even as a zombie-state).

 

[Deadstick]

Meanwhile British MSM caught lying once again with their propaganda, it was actually a Leopard tank incinerated by a lancet Drone, they just can't stop their bullshit.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I am against any agreements with Russia. They are meaningless. Why should Ukraine sign anything? The AFU with modern weapons, air defence systems, engineered defence lines. Only that can guarantee the Russians won't move westward.

About the occupied territories, yes, Russia will hold them for a certain period of time. But I don't expect Ukraine just sitting and watching how Russia is building military infrastructure there. Various strikes are imminent.

NATO membership as a security guarantee? Dude, we both understand that vague statements about Ukraine's NATO membership 'some day after the war' is nothing more than a polite refusal. Your leaders didn't even have guts to issue a formal invitation (without any commitments and time frame) for Ukraine. What the hell are you talking about?

With respect to an agreement with Russia, I was referring to the process of ending active fighting; what if Ukraine stops active fighting but Russia doesn't, then Ukrainians troops will gradually be pushed back and the fighting will continue, and Ukraine will never get the chance to build the defenses along the ceasefire line.

If my voice meant anything, Ukraine would have become a NATO member back in 2008, but it is not realistic to expect it to become a member during this war since it would have committed other NATO members to immediately send troops to the front and very few, if any, were willing to go to war with Russia right now. NATO members have committed to send weapons, training, etc., but not troops, and even a path to membership before this war has been won, might be seen as committing other NATO members to send troops into battle against Russia. I have no doubt Ukraine will be invited to join NATO once the Russians withdraw or are driven out of Ukraine, but I do doubt that its western allies will continue to supply Ukraine with the tools to drive the Russians out if it is perceived as having given up trying to.

 

[luiza]

With respect to an agreement with Russia, I was referring to the process of ending active fighting; what if Ukraine stops active fighting but Russia doesn't, then Ukrainians troops will gradually be pushed back and the fighting will continue, and Ukraine will never get the chance to build the defenses along the ceasefire line.

If my voice meant anything, Ukraine would have become a NATO member back in 2008, but it is not realistic to expect it to become a member during this war since it would have committed other NATO members to immediately send troops to the front and very few, if any, were willing to go to war with Russia right now. NATO members have committed to send weapons, training, etc., but not troops, and even a path to membership before this war has been won, might be seen as committing other NATO members to send troops into battle against Russia. I have no doubt Ukraine will be invited to join NATO once the Russians withdraw or are driven out of Ukraine, but I do doubt that its western allies will continue to supply Ukraine with the tools to drive the Russians out if it is perceived as having given up trying to.

Have not heard fantasy like that since Walt Disney . Competely and utterly loopy .

 

[ESay]

With respect to an agreement with Russia, I was referring to the process of ending active fighting; what if Ukraine stops active fighting but Russia doesn't, then Ukrainians troops will gradually be pushed back and the fighting will continue, and Ukraine will never get the chance to build the defenses along the ceasefire line

This line of reasoning would make sense if this war could lead to a destruction of Russia. Or more correctly, to Russia's fragmentation in say a dozen independent states.

Otherwise, if Ukraine even pushes Russian troops out of Ukraine, what is a reason to believe that Russia 'stops' fighting? That they won't regroup, mobilize additional reserves and begin another offensive in say 3 or 5 years? There will be the same long border as it is now.

If my voice meant anything, Ukraine would have become a NATO member back in 2008, but it is not realistic to expect it to become a member during this war since it would have committed other NATO members to immediately send troops to the front and very few, if any, were willing to go to war with Russia right now

Yeah, and what makes you think they will have such desire in 3, 5 or 10 years?

I have no doubt Ukraine will be invited to join NATO once the Russians withdraw or are driven out of Ukraine, but I do doubt that its western allies will continue to supply Ukraine with the tools to drive the Russians out if it is perceived as having given up trying to

Then stop this 'support' right now. You are wasting your money and recourses.

 

[AlexanderPK]

ESay
Something's changing in your attitude. Not that I'm gloating but shouldn't you be careful with sharing thoughts like that? With cannon fodder shortage don't you run the risk of being grabbed on the street and thrown into the meat grinder?

 

[luiza]

I am against any agreements with Russia

Hilarious .Russia would not listen to any , let alone make any. They are obliterating the third Nazi army and are gearing up to take back another four regions -- Kharkov , Zaporozhye , Kherson and Odessa which they will easily achieve based on the last 17 months . And every time the US and UK get their proxy stooges to annoy the Bear , they get mauled . Agreement ? Rofl .

 

[Deadstick]

This line of reasoning would make sense if this war could lead to a destruction of Russia. Or more correctly, to Russia's fragmentation in say a dozen independent states.

Otherwise, if Ukraine even pushes Russian troops out of Ukraine, what is a reason to believe that Russia 'stops' fighting? That they won't regroup, mobilize additional reserves and begin another offensive in say 3 or 5 years? There will be the same long border as it is now.



Yeah, and what makes you think they will have such desire in 3, 5 or 10 years?


Then stop this 'support' right now. You are wasting your money and recourses.

What makes you so toxic you would like to see the destruction of Russia, what have they done to you or your Country?

 

[Deadstick]

Hilarious .Russia would not listen to any , let alone make any. They are obliterating the third Nazi army and are gearing up to take back another four regions -- Kharkov , Zaporozhye , Kherson and Odessa which they will easily achieve based on the last 17 months . And every time the US and UK get their proxy stooges to annoy the Bear , they get mauled . Agreement ? Rofl .

There had been agreements long before we got to this stage, they were called Minsk one and two, the Nazis and their backers trashed both, so now there will be no talking until the Kiev Regime packs it in or are taken down, it will be settled on the battlefield.

 

[ESay]

ESay
Something's changing in your attitude. Not that I'm gloating but shouldn't you be careful with sharing thoughts like that? With cannon fodder shortage don't you run the risk of being grabbed on the street and thrown into the meat grinder?

My attitude remains the same. I am just amused by some staunch 'supporters'.

 

[toomuchtime_]

This line of reasoning would make sense if this war could lead to a destruction of Russia. Or more correctly, to Russia's fragmentation in say a dozen independent states.

Otherwise, if Ukraine even pushes Russian troops out of Ukraine, what is a reason to believe that Russia 'stops' fighting? That they won't regroup, mobilize additional reserves and begin another offensive in say 3 or 5 years? There will be the same long border as it is now.



Yeah, and what makes you think they will have such desire in 3, 5 or 10 years?


Then stop this 'support' right now. You are wasting your money and recourses.

Well, you are an outlier, but if the majority of Ukrainians believed as you do, Ukraine would never have been the recipient of any of the aid. You don't believe Ukraine can win, but the Ukrainian leadership believes Ukraine can win, and all the countries supporting Ukraine now believe it can win and there are no indications the Ukrainian people share your beliefs: that's why the aid hasn't stopped.

The problem is you just haven't thought any of this through. The "Korean model" and "end active fighting" are just rhetorical flourishes and have no real meaning at all. On the one hand, you say you want the "Korean model" but the Korean war ended by a negotiated agreement with NK and you say you won't negotiate with Russia, so you don't want the "Korean model" at all.

You say you want to end "active fighting" but what the hell does that mean? If the Russians continue to attack and capture some more land, does that mean Ukraine won't counterattack to win it back? That's a formula for losing all the rest of Ukraine.

And you continue to refuse to address the abandonment of the millions of Ukrainians in the east despite knowing the terrible abuse they would suffer at the hands of the Russians and Russian militias.

You say you wouldn't sign any agreements with the Russians as if that is some sort of accomplishment, but all it means is that you are unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of your "plan".

 

[ESay]

Well, you are an outlier, but if the majority of Ukrainians believed as you do, Ukraine would never have been the recipient of any of the aid. You don't believe Ukraine can win, but the Ukrainian leadership believes Ukraine can win, and all the countries supporting Ukraine now believe it can win and there are no indications the Ukrainian people share your beliefs: that's why the aid hasn't stopped.

The problem is you just haven't thought any of this through. The "Korean model" and "end active fighting" are just rhetorical flourishes and have no real meaning at all. On the one hand, you say you want the "Korean model" but the Korean war ended by a negotiated agreement with NK and you say you won't negotiate with Russia, so you don't want the "Korean model" at all.

You say you want to end "active fighting" but what the hell does that mean? If the Russians continue to attack and capture some more land, does that mean Ukraine won't counterattack to win it back? That's a formula for losing all the rest of Ukraine.

And you continue to refuse to address the abandonment of the millions of Ukrainians in the east despite knowing the terrible abuse they would suffer at the hands of the Russians and Russian militias.

You say you wouldn't sign any agreements with the Russians as if that is some sort of accomplishment, but all it means is that you are unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of your "plan".

Yeah, lecture me what the Ukrainians think. It would be amusing.

And nevertheless, you refuse to answer my questions.
1. If Ukraine wins this war and pushes the Russian troops out of all Ukrainian territory. What makes you think that Russia won't mobilize its reserves, regroup its troops and won't start new offensive in 3, 5 or 10 years?

2. If after the 'win' Ukraine becoms a NATO member. What makes you think that NATO members will be eager to wage a war against Russia in 3, 5 or 10 years?

 

[Silver Cat]

My attitude remains the same. I am just amused by some staunch 'supporters'.

They are not 'supporters'. No sane person could support corrupted, discriminative and abusive Kievan regime per se. They just want to pay you for killing some Russians (from both sides), no matter what's the price for Ukrainian people. Actually, the most stupid of them believe that they can even return their money (from the remaining parts of former Ukraine).

 

[Silver Cat]

Well, you are an outlier, but if the majority of Ukrainians believed as you do, Ukraine would never have been the recipient of any of the aid.

Kievan regime have nothing to do with Ukrainian people.

You don't believe Ukraine can win, but the Ukrainian leadership believes Ukraine can win, and all the countries supporting Ukraine now believe it can win and there are no indications the Ukrainian people share your beliefs: that's why the aid hasn't stopped.

No. Ukrainian leadership believes that they can steal enough of Western money and then run away from Ukraine (as did the leaders of Democratic Afghanistan or Southern Vietnam). They simply don't care about poor simple Ukrainians.

The problem is you just haven't thought any of this through. The "Korean model" and "end active fighting" are just rhetorical flourishes and have no real meaning at all. On the one hand, you say you want the "Korean model" but the Korean war ended by a negotiated agreement with NK and you say you won't negotiate with Russia, so you don't want the "Korean model" at all.

You say you want to end "active fighting" but what the hell does that mean? If the Russians continue to attack and capture some more land, does that mean Ukraine won't counterattack to win it back? That's a formula for losing all the rest of Ukraine.

And you continue to refuse to address the abandonment of the millions of Ukrainians in the east despite knowing the terrible abuse they would suffer at the hands of the Russians and Russian militias.

He knows, that the Ukrainians won't suffer 'the terrible abuse' (as well as English-speaking Canadians won't suffer 'the terrible abuse' if Canada annexed by the USA). Actually, Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture are much more protected in the Russian Federation than Russian language in Ukraine or. French or Spanish in the USA.

You say you wouldn't sign any agreements with the Russians as if that is some sort of accomplishment, but all it means is that you are unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of your "plan".

 

[Silver Cat]

What makes you so toxic you would like to see the destruction of Russia, what have they done to you or your Country?

He just knows that Russia won't tolerate neither further genocide of the Russian people in Ukraine not their attempts to join any hostile alliance.