Judging Freedom - Is the U.S. forcing Putin_s hand in the Ukraine War_ Scott Ritter

Episode Date: February 3, 2023

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, February 3rd, 2023. It's about one o'clock in the afternoon here on the East Coast of the United States. Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, it's a pleasure. Thanks for coming back to the show. Thanks for having me. We're now in the 12th month of the war. Another two weeks, it'll be exactly a year. Another 10 days, it'll be exactly a year.

And almost everything that you and Colonel McGregor have predicted has come to pass, that the Russians would adapt to their strategy, recognize their weaknesses, compensate for their faults, and move slowly and inexorably toward their goal. The West, on the other hand, continues to supply material. We'll talk in a few minutes about the tanks. We'll talk in a few minutes about bombs. We'll talk in a few minutes about F-16 jets. What is NATO's goal? Is it to allow Ukraine to exist in some form, not the same as 2014, not the same as 2022, but in some form, or is it to expel all Russians from all the area that Ukraine claims belongs to it? I think we need to be very clear here. Neither NATO, the European Union, nor the United States care about Ukraine. Literally, they don't. If they did-

Say that again, please. Neither NATO, the European Union, or the United States care about Ukraine. If they did, they wouldn't be enacting these policies. The policies that we are engaged in, we being the United States, are policies that are sacrificing Ukraine as a viable, modern nation state. That has been sacrificed already. Ukraine is destroyed, it's dismembered, and it will only be further destroyed and dismembered going forward. There is no reversing this. Nobody believes that Ukraine can win. I'll say that one more time. Nobody believes Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't even believe that Ukraine can win. What they're hoping for right now is, and we got an insight, I think we might've talked about this earlier, I've talked with someone else, the Harvard professor kenner kenneth rogoff at davos uh saying that economic sanctions was about regime change so now we know what the

goal is not regime change in ukraine we don't care about ukraine we're going to sacrifice ukraine regime change in moscow to put pressure using economic sanctions and to make the cost of military intervention ukraine so high that the Russian people rise up and move against Putin. It's about regime change. That's failed. Putin is stronger than he's ever been. He ain't going away. Nothing you can do can change that. So do they care about Ukraine? No. Ukraine will not exist when this is done, and that's okay for NATO, the European Union, and the United States, so long as we hurt Russia. But that's okay. And for NATO, the European Union and the United States, so long as we hurt Russia, but here's the newsflash. We've only made Russia stronger.

Russia has solved a whole host of issues that it would not have been aware of if it weren't for NATO escalation, like mobilization. You know, if we ever have a conflict with Russia now, understand this, it can mobilize that quick. We just made it the most efficient mobilization process the world has ever seen. So they will go from zero to 60 while we're still figuring out how to get, you know, tanks out of the garage. All right. All right. So just as we know this from history, war improves medicine because of the improvisation needed on the battlefield when the war is over. I mean, the medical industry and profession in America was vastly better in 1946 than it was in 1939. War improves armies. It forces them to improvise.

It makes them work harder, and it makes them push more to acquire their strength. And we now know that this war has made the Russian military a better military. Is that a fair statement? It's the most accurate statement there is. All right. And then is it also fair to say NATO's goal, Washington's goal, the CIA's goal is regime change in Moscow? They couldn't care less about Kiev. No, 100%. We don't care about it.

If we did, this wouldn't be happening. Do they really think, after all the objective evidence, the polls taken by various non-Russian entities showing President Putin's popularity, the land acquired and defended by the Russian military, the gross national product of the Russian economy. In spite of all of this, does NATO, Washington, and Langley, by Langley, of course, I mean our friends in the CIA, still think they can push Putin from office via this war in Ukraine? Well, here's the deal. If you ask an individual, I'll give you the biggest hint what the answer is. Rand Corporation in 2019 wrote a study that justified, that

basically said the best way to dismember Russia was to go after Ukraine. And therefore, that's our policy. RAND Corporation just finished a study saying, we got to get out of here now. We got to run. So RAND is sort of the canary in the coal mine, so to speak. And basically RAND is saying, we're done. We can't win. No long war. We got to cut. We got to run. Let's do it. And if R's saying it's because someone told Rand, write the paper that says that so we can influence policy. Policymakers become, they double down on stupid. That's one of the big problems with America is we can never admit that we made a mistake. And so we are committed to a policy direction of regime change, and we're doubling down, putting in places that, but we know it's not going to work. If you ask the analysts right now, they're going to tell you, no, we can't win. This is what happened with Afghanistan. We kept doubling down, even

though everybody knew early on, it's over. It is immoral to continue doubling down when you know it's going to be fruitless, wasteful, and destructive of innocent human life. It is profoundly immoral to do that by any objective Judeo-Christian right versus wrong standard. Am I right? You're 100% right, but they don't, we've never, let's put it in terms that Americans can understand. I mean, I'm not saying your audience, I'm saying, you know, American politicians don't care about morality. They don't, but they do claim to care about national security. And all we've done right now is make Russia stronger and NATO weaker. I'll say that one more time. We've made Russia stronger,

and I'm talking about not just incrementally stronger, orders of magnitude stronger. 1.5 million people, expanded army, defense industry running on all cylinders. They are improving their weaponry, they're training their organization. They are a completely different military today than they were a year ago. And we've made NATO in the United States orders of magnitude weaker. And if you're an American who cares about national security, this should enrage you. Now, if you're an American who has any moral principle, you should be enraged. I have a lot more questions from you, but I just have to deviate from the serious stuff for a minute. I don't always read.

In fact, I rarely read aloud the messages that we get. But two people have said, I'm not watching unless Maverick makes an appearance. Don't. Don't. Don't wake sleeping dogs. Don't wake sleeping dogs. All right. William Burns, sleeping dogs. All right. William Burns, the director of the CIA.

Boy, I'd love for him to come on, but he wouldn't come on judging freedom anyway. He told an audience at the Georgetown University, one of their favorite outlets for this kind of stuff, that the next six, and you may agree with him on this the next six months uh will tell the tale we it'll be obvious how this is going to end or it will have ended in the next six months he wasn't more specific than that agree or disagree agree but here's the caveat to believe what he says means that he believes something will be published in six months that'll give us the answer. Hey, Newsflash William Burns, Russia done wrote the book. It's already there.

And in six months, it's going to be the same book. It's already been decided, Mr. Burns. We lost. They won. And there ain't nothing that's going to happen in the next six months that's going to change that. That's the harsh reality. Here's a clip from my former colleagues at Fox. The questioner is Trey Yinkst. He's talking to President Zelensky about the problems

with tanks. Take a listen. Ukraine will be receiving German-made Leopard 2 tanks and US-manufactured M1 Abrams tanks. Did the delivery of those tanks come with any conditions? Did you have to make any promises to your Western allies about where you would use those tanks? I'm not giving any promises. We're grateful for the tanks. We appreciate this assistance. But if Russia has deployed 1,800 tanks or more, then it sounds funny that someone is

willing to give us 10 or 15 tanks to fight against them. I know that some of the countries don't have a lot of tanks, but it's not about giving us two or three or four tanks. It's about training. It's about special groups. It's always about money. Then there has to be maintenance. You can't do all of that for the sake of 15 leopards, for example. It's not going to work. A, I thought that was a great question. And B, he might have some understanding of this. He knows how expensive and tedious it is to maintain tanks. I know you're not a tank guy.

That's McGregor's field. But what did you think about that question and that answer? In the answer, I see a complaint. 15 tanks is peanuts. We need 1,500. That's the way I read it. Oh, no, I see a complaint. 15 tanks is peanuts. We need 1,500. That's the way I read it. Oh, no, you're absolutely correct. First of all, as you point out, maintenance, the effort and the expense that's going to go into maintaining 15 tanks isn't worth it.

The juice ain't worth the squeeze. And then the other thing is, you know, 15 tanks, that's a company. Okay. The frontage of a company, you can ask McGregor about this, about a kilometer and a half on the attack. We're talking about a thousand miles of frontage and we're getting 15 tanks that allows them to impose their will on a kilometer and a half. And these are 15 tanks that Russia has spent the last 20 years building weaponry and tactics specifically to defeat them. So when they show up on the battlefield, Russia's not going to go, oh, my God, the Leopard 2. Russia's going to go, bring it here, buddy. We got the solution.

You bring in the Leopard, we got the gun. You bring in the Abrams, we've been training to kill you. You're not taking the Russians by surprise, and you don't have enough tanks to have any meaningful impact on this battlefield. That's the truth. I wonder if the globalists and Putin haters in the West Wing are thinking about F-16s, but here's, again, on Fox News, Trey Yankst asking President Zelensky about F-16 jets. In December, you met with President Biden at the White House. On Monday, just steps away from where he greeted you, he told reporters that he will not provide Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets.

When you heard that, what was your reaction? Well, I'll keep asking him for these F-16 fighters. This is my job. This is my opportunity. This is what I'm doing for the Ukrainian people to survive. Well, I guess he's right again. This is his job. But an F-16 jet would enable them what? To attack Moscow? First of all, the F-16 jet's not going to get off the ground.

Remember, they're going up against the most sophisticated integrated air defense system in the history of the world. In the history of the world. If F-16 takes off, it'll be shot down either by Russian interceptors or Russian air defense. But the other thing is, it's not the fighter, it's the pilot. And you got to train these guys. And, you know, the U.S. Air Force runs a six-month program in South Carolina, Air National Guard does it, to transition former Warsaw Pact MiG pilots into F-16 pilots because we're selling Bulgarian and other nations' F-16s.

It's a six-month program. The trainers have said one thing, oh, if the pilot has any time, any competency in a MiG, this training program doesn't work because you cannot transition somebody who is programmed for Soviet avionics and everything into an F-16 pilot to two totally different systems. It doesn't work. It only works if the pilot never flew a MiG. And the problem with the Ukrainians, they've all been flying MiG-29s. We can't train these guys.

If we put them in the airplane, they're all going to get shot down. You said something earlier that is still in my head, that the most sophisticated air defense system in the history of the world is not in North America. It's in Russia. How did the Russian air? We know it's not in North America, but some sort of a Chinese balloon over Montana and they don't know what to do with it or what it's doing there. Another story for another. You can't make this up. Another story for another time. But how sophisticated in the air defense system do the Russians have? How did it get that sophisticated? And I'm assuming the answer, or part of the answer is, it's to the credit of President Putin. Well, the credit of President Putin and also the credit of the West. First of all, understand that Moscow is just a stone's throw away from NATO. I mean, so to protect Moscow, to protect St. Petersburg, to protect Russian industry in the Tula area, Bolgorod, Kursk, et cetera,

you have to have an air defense network because NATO aircraft are just hours away from being able to strike. So you're literally naked if you don't have an air defense system. So the Russians have put in place the most extensive integrated air defense that covers everything from low level to high level, reaches out and touches you deep into NATO territory. And they've been doing this for years and they've been improving it so today again this is what i bring up about the tanks ain't nothing going to take them by surprise they are fielding now s 400 s 500 systems s550 systems that are designed to take on not just f-15s but f-35s f-22s b-21s they're ready for the stealth they've got the answer there um and that's the

fact what happened with nato nato has been doing nothing for 20 years literally nothing the united states was in afghanistan and iraq the last thing we're doing is building an air defense system in nato and we what's the proof when the russians started flying these drones combined with caliber cruise missiles into kiev devastating everything including the air defense that we tried to install, Europe had an emergency meeting because they realized they don't have an air defense system. There's literally nothing. If Russia flew those same drones and same missiles at Florida or New Jersey, would we have the air defense system to stop them before they got here? We got nothing, literally nothing. Oh, and the Pentagon knows this.

Sure, but they don't feel there's a threat. All right, here's a Pentagon spokesman, not Admiral Kirby, it appears to be an Air Force general. It's a very interesting, subtle answer. The reporter asks, you're sending these new bombs with a new caliber that can reach Crimea. Do you expect the Ukrainians to do that? Question and answer. The small diameter bomb in the latest Ukraine aid package has the potential to target Crimea. Is that the intent behind providing it now? So thanks for the question, Joe.

So yes, as part of the USAI package, we will be providing ground launch small diameter bombs to Ukraine. This gives them a longer range capability, long range fires capability, that will enable them again to conduct operations in defense of their country and to take back their sovereign territory in Russian occupied areas. When it comes to Ukrainian plans on operations, clearly that is their decision. They are in the lead. That was just 15 or 20 minutes ago. So we're sending them equipment with which they can bomb Crimea. But it's their decision as to what they want to do with the equipment. That's how I read it. Although the first word out of his mouth after he thanked the reporter for the question was a response to the question, which asked, do you expect them to go after Crimea, with the word yes? Yeah. Let me tell you how grossly stupid and irrespective, and I'll emphasize stupid.

Do we know who he is? Do we know who this general is? Yeah, he's a press spokesman, but he doesn't make policy. I mean, I feel sorry for him because he's merely the spokesperson. This is the secretary, Lloyd Austin. This is Jake Sullivan. This is, you know, Tony Blinken. These are the dumbest people on the planet. Let me tell you what's going to happen. First of all, there's no such thing as a magic weapon. Please, people, understand that. There's no magic weapon out there. The Russians know we have this weapon. They understand it. They are never going to be afraid of it. Here's the deal though. Russia has said, and understand Russia is going to win this thing. They're not just going to have protect the territory. They are going to ensure that when

this war is over, Ukraine will never be able to fire an artillery piece or a rocket system that can reach Russian territory. So right now, Ukraine can reach out about 80 miles. So at a minimum, Russia is saying, we're going 80 miles past the borders of the new territories, and we're going to occupy that. And we have to make adjustments and all that. Now, what we just did is tell the Russians, no, you got to go 150. And they will. All we did by doing this, General Pat Ryder, is guarantee the dismemberment of Ukraine. You are a moron. You are an idiot.

You are irresponsible. You have no heart. I just pissed off my dogs. Excuse me. There's Maverick again. Now, who is Pat Ryder and what is his relationship to Maverick? I have to be careful not to yell. My dog's got excited.

Pat Ryder's just the press spokesperson. He doesn't make policy. Okay. Okay. Okay. Back to William Burns, who says this will be over in the next six months, or we,

I gotta be fair. We will know with, with certainty or much probability, which direction it's going to go. In other words, they'll admit in six months they were wrong or they'll declare victory and go home, you know, whatever Washington does. But my question has to do with the six months. Do you agree with that? And if you don't, what is Burns trying to peddle? Remember who he is. He's the head of the CIA. Yeah. Well, I've said many times, and I think I might've said it on this show as well, but I'll say it again. The ground part of this war will be over by the end of summer,

early fall. The war will be over. Russia will win. So six months, it's February now, add six, that's eight, that's August. You know, who else said August? Interestingly enough, Zelensky. Zelensky said, if I don't have the Abrams tanks by August, it's too late. And what does he mean too late? Because it's over.

They know what Russia's getting ready to do. They know what the Russian potential is. Doesn't the Pentagon know how long it will take to build the tanks, train them to use them, get them there, and that the war will be over by the time the tanks arrive? And if the answer to that is yes, is the Pentagon just deluding Zelensky, you know, pretending to punch your opponent with one hand and then apologizing to the gallery with the other hand for hitting too hard i think this is literally a political cover first of all the number of tanks are just stupid zielinski said it don't give me 15 give me 1500. uh don't give me 30 give me 300. um so we're giving them tools that

are insufficient to the task before them and we're not giving them in time and what does that tell you it means that we know because i can guarantee you even Pat Ryder, who is an Air Force guy, will know that 300 or 30 tanks isn't going to have any impact on the battlefield. So why are we doing it? Political cover. Judge, I'm here to tell you right now, Biden knows, Austin knows, Sullivan knows, they all know, the war's over. Burns knows. The war's over. I'll say it one more time. The war's over.

So they are creating the ability to look the American people in the eye and say, we did everything possible to help Ukraine, but it wasn't enough. The Russians are just too evil, too big, too mean, whatever. But the fact is, we're not even trying. Now we come back to what we talked about at the beginning. We are literally sacrificing Ukraine, the Ukrainian people, and the Ukrainian army, sacrificing them. One of our regular viewers who admires you greatly has said, Judge, I'm not sure you're going to read this, but it seems that Ukraine has still not given up on Bakhmut, despite what some folks have said not long ago. Can you ask Scott why this has changed? No, it hasn't changed. I mean,

Bakhmut's been a meat grinder since May, all right? Ukrainians throw 14 to 20 brigades in there. You think they're just going to walk away from that I mean doubling down on stupid as an art go to Las Vegas and watch somebody get to the crap table or or blackjack and start losing and see how they keep reaching their pocket keep going why aren't they walking away from the table because they're too deeply committed mortgage college tuition whatever on the table gone that's what's happening here with Ukraine they are committed to this battle politically they can't lose this battle. If they lose this battle politically, that will be an extraordinarily demoralizing moment for the Ukrainian military and for Zelensky.

He will lose a lot of face. So they continue the double down on stupid. And the Russians are just like, you're going to feed me raw meat. Just keep feeding me raw meat just keep feeding me raw meat and what's your best uh guess as to whether uh old joe uh and uh tony blinken and lloyd austin and jake sullivan um are hearing what you're saying is anybody saying this to them or is william burns i don't know if he personally controls what the president hears, the head of the CIA, only telling Joe the globalist nationalist version of things, keep it up, keep sending the material, we're going to win. I mean, at some point, they cannot deny objective, not subjective, objective evidence.

No, I think what we're seeing right now is, first of all, we see a shift, and it's not a gradual shift. It's a dramatic shift in the mainstream media's approach to this. No longer are they talking about pie-in-the-sky stuff. People are talking about how difficult the situation is, and people are starting to say that this thing could be over by August. So there's a growing recognition that ukraine's not on the right side of history right now uh while they may not come straight out and say ukraine's going to lose there's a recognition that the russians are getting ready to do something big and there really isn't a solution to it and i think biden's being briefed on that um i i just

would have to believe that the day of we you know look there was a time back in september when i think we actually believed that the the the ukrainian military could could beat the russians because it looked good man they took over kharkov they took over the right bank it looked good but anybody who knew it went uh that's a lot of flash no substance but nothing's going to look good for ukraine again they're never going to be able to repeat that and i think there might be some people saying if we can just do this just do that just do this uh ukraine might be able to stymie or have limited success but even miley and everybody else is saying uh they're not going to be able to retake any meaningful territory this year the

best they can hope for is you knowemate. And I tell you, Russia doesn't play the stalemate game. That's not going to happen. This is going to be the offense like we haven't seen since World War II. And it's going to be devastating for the Ukrainians. And it's going to be the most tragic thing from a humanitarian standpoint people could possibly win. Ukraine's lost over 300,000 troops, dead, 300,000. They're going to lose another 300,000 in the next couple months. And none of it was necessary. None of it was necessary.

All could have been avoided. Scott Ritter, always a pleasure. Have a great weekend, my friend. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.