Analysis of Prospects for WW3

Alecks gives a very very deep analysis, showing decision points and options.  I cannot recommend this highly enough.  Some may feel he shows pro-Russian bias.  In the case of this article, IMO it's only because such supposed 'bias' is closer to the truth in these matters.  And unlike the now retired The Saker, whom he admires, Alecks manages to keep peripheral religious and political matters, and Clash of Civilizations rhetoric, out of his discussion and focus on the facts as he sees them.

Although you must consider the other possibilities he also evaluates (a terrible 5% chance of nuclear annihilation, for example), Alecks feels WW3 will not be fought for Ukraine.  It will be settled in some fashion this year, he predicts, because it can't go on and nobody else is willing to get that seriously involved to continue the sham service to the US Oligarchy any longer.  It's really all about how the US holds countries and trade routes hostage to enforce its economic dominance, and everyone knows it now, he says [that's not what I hear from most of my friends, they're still talking about 'unprovoked aggression' which must be stopped as a moral issue--ie give war a chance*].  However, there is 10% chance of this not happening, either because of one possible outcome from 'the Odessa Moment,' or US attack from Romania (which probably leads to nuclear annihilation), as he outlines.

The real WW3 is China vs US, and will result in US being kicked out of it's position of Eastern Pacific Dominance.  China has been preparing for this, building the largest army the world has ever seen, as only they can do, to be fully operational by 2030.  Alecks predicts war by 2027.

*Sadly, the more the war continues, enabled by over $100B of military assistance, and intelligence and much else, the more it will be necessary for Russia to occupy.  The original possibility negotiated in Italy in early 2022 was much like Minsk II, now analysts like Alecks say it will be necessary to take Kyiv, since it is essentially impossible and useless anyway to negotiate with the endlessly aggressive and deal-breaking west.  Although the Russians haven't even taken the whole Donbas yet, once the Ukrainian army collapses, which Alecks predicts this year, there will be nothing stopping Russia from advancing to Kyiv, at least at 90%, with 5% nuclear annihilation and 5% some kind of direct western involvement.  Here I share MoonOfAlabama's analysis that no kind of western option short of nuclear could stop Russia from taking Kyiv.  NATO's thing is air power, quite often administered with troop carrying helicopters, which Russia could easily defeat.  (NATO was eventually defeated by Afghanistan too.)