Judging Freedom - Russia Targets Kyiv with More Drones - Scott Ritter

Episode Date: December 14, 2022

#scottritter #Ukraine #russia #warSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace.

Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship,

or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com.

Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, December 14th, 2022. It's a little after 11 o'clock in the morning here on the east coast of the United States. Our guest today, of course, no stranger to the Judging Freedom audience, Scott Ritter. Scott, it's always a pleasure. Since you were last with us, a number of events have happened with respect to the military involvement in Ukraine, and I appreciate you jumping on with such little notice because I want to talk to you about them. So we understand because the White House hasn't denied this and it's all over the press that the United States is about to send, President Biden is about to approve the transmission of Patriot missiles to Ukraine.

How significant are they? How do they work? What do they do? Is this a game changer? I mean, no, it's not a game changer. Let's just be straight up and honest here. The provision of the Patriot air defense system to Ukraine will not change the outcome of this conflict. Ukraine's going to lose lose and they're going to lose badly um in fact i mean i would actually say that the provision of the patriot air defense system to ukraine will um actually impede their combat capability you know air defense is air defense is a sophisticated thing the the basic infrastructure defense infrastructure of ukraine uh is a sophisticated thing. The basic infrastructure, air defense infrastructure of Ukraine is a Soviet era air defense system that blends the S-300 with the Buk, which, frankly speaking, is still up and operating to this day, even though it's suffered casualties. Now, when you start to fold in systems that aren't designed to interact with these,

to work, for instance, like the NASAMS, the National Air Defense System that the United States and Norway developed that protects the U.S. capital. We provided several of these to the Ukrainians. The Germans have provided the IRIS-T. The British have provided other systems. They're not designed to operate with one another. Now you're plugging them into a Soviet-era integrated air defense system that can't communicate. You actually complicate things.

Is Patriot defensive or offensive? Well, I mean, in theory, if you use it well, you can project an air defense umbrella into an enemy, the depth of an enemy's operational area so that you can deny them the use of tactical air defense. But again, in order to do that, you have to be trained on it. This is a complex system. Even Americans goofed it up during the Gulf War. And I know that's 30 years ago, but when the Patriot was first introduced in the Gulf War, it didn't work against missiles.

So do Patriots need Americans to operate them? Let's put it this way. For the patriot system to operate at anywhere near optimal efficiency, you would have to have NATO-trained crew who have been trained on the patriot system operating the system. Otherwise, mistakes are going to be made, and it's going to be lethal for the Ukrainiansians but even if you have this nato trained crew this system will not integrate with anything else it'll be a standalone system and therefore it's going to be isolated and destroyed there's my prediction every single patriot system deployed in ukraine if indeed this is a decision that's being made will be destroyed it will not have a meaningful impact on the battle. It will have a detrimental impact on Ukraine's defense. As I was saying, an engine needs no friction. Putting the Patriot

into Ukraine is like pouring sand into an engine. It's just going to friction up, smoke and blow up. Surely the former four-star general, who's now the Secretary of Defense, understands what you just said. Would Secretary Austin have told that to the president? I mean, are we sending this thing to them to satisfy the political appetite back home so that it looks like we're helping Ukraine? Are we sending this to them because they really, truly want to help Ukraine? Let me put it this way. If an air defense expert was asked about this, they would say,

let's focus on getting the Soviet era system up and running, the integrated air defense system that the Ukrainians already have and know how to operate. The last thing we want to do is introduce a, but this isn't an operational decision. This is a political decision made because nothing we sent to the Ukrainians works. They have no viable air defense against the Russian cruise missile attacks, drone attacks, et cetera. And so we must be seen as doing something. And so they're going to undertake political action. Unless they've been training Ukrainian crews in secret, this isn't something that's going to happen overnight. How long does it take for a crew of average intelligence, if there is such a thing? I mean, does it take PhDs to operate

this, or does it just take intelligent, determined troops to operate, and how long does it take to train a crew? Well, you know, normally the U.S. train is several months long. You know, in the build-up to the Gulf War, Israel had sent crews over to the United States to get trained on the Patriot system, and they were rushed into combat once the Iraqis started firing missiles. And these Israeli crews did not function with full effectiveness because they were unfamiliar with the system. And trying to learn it while at war is not the way to do it. American crews that were trained were making mistakes left and right in Saudi Arabia. So even if you're fully trained, it's a hard system

to operate, but it would take months to train the Ukrainians up to speed. They would have to be over at Fort Sill. They would have to be at White Sands, you know, missile test facility training right now in order to be deployed any level of combat efficiency come early spring. Do you know if we have Ukrainian troops or crews in the U.S. being trained in the U.S. to use American equipment that's about to go over to Ukraine? That would be novel and newsworthy, I would think. Yeah, I don't know that. I'm just saying that that's what will have to happen.

Look, even Germany, who operates the Patriot, sends their people to America. The only place you get trained on the Patriot system is in the United States of America. So for the Ukrainians to come up to speed on this, logic dictates it would have to come to the United States. You know, I don't have any evidence that this is happening. I don't have any information. I'm just saying, logically speaking, if you're going to give them the system they have to be trained and the only place are these patriots in Poland already ready to be moved across the border can they be used from Poland if they're there or are they somewhere in the U.S. and they got to be shipped to Europe well first of all the patriot systems that are in Poland right now, I believe, are German systems. So totally different command system, etc.

Germany's already said, no, we're not providing Patriots to Ukraine. They could take away combat capability from the theater. Any transfer of this equipment that's already in place to protect American assets. But I wouldn't want to be the commanding general signing off on that one, stripping away my protective capability to send it to Ukraine. So logic dictates that if they have to train these people, they're going to fall in on a training packet.

And while that's happening, maybe from the reserve units, they'll be put. The other thing I will say is this. Ukrainians aren't going to get the best Patriot system. They're just not going to get the up-to-speed modern one that we have. They're going to get an older variant that doesn't work as well. Do you know where they will come from? I mean, much of the other military equipment the Ukrainians received, you told us this, was already in Europe. Are the patriots, American patriots, already in Europe, or do they have to be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean? No, there's American patriot systems in

Europe. But again, these are the frontline, you know, top line American systems with all the capabilities, bells and whistles. We're not giving that to the Ukrainians. I can guarantee you 100 percent right now. They will never see that. They're going to get the stuff that's in the National Guard, the older models, the stuff that's dating out. That's what they're going to receive. That's what we give people. We don't export the very best we have, especially to ill-trained troops who are going to for the first time they're going to use it, is going to be in combat? No. Okay. Can the Russians effectively close the border between Poland and Ukraine so that we can't bring them anything by land?

Not unless they physically do this, not unless they thrust down and and and physically occupy that board not require several hundreds of thousands of troops um and i don't think they're in that business right now uh the best thing they can do is uh is continue to try and interdict remember this the patriot has an extensive footprint meaning when it's deployed on the ground it's easily detectable you ain't going to operate this thing in secret. So the Russians are going to fine tune their intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance assets to be on a Patriot hunt. This isn't like the HIMARS where you can take a single system out of the woods, fire off 10 rockets and then run away. The Patriot system is going to be laid out on the ground, radar operating, and the Russians are going to destroy it. That's just

all that's going to happen. Okay. Yesterday, a British Lieutenant General by the name of Robert McGowan, M-A-G-O-W-A-N, revealed either intentionally or inadvertently, the British troops are on the ground in Ukraine. Do you know of this? If it is true, what does this mean? Well, first of all, we have to ask ourselves, why is a British Lieutenant General saying this to the press? This wasn't an accident. He said it on purpose. So we have to ask it. Now, we dig deeper. He spoke of two deployments of the of the 45th Commando. That's a specific British Marine unit. Understand that is a conventional infantry unit. There ain't nothing special about it.

They're just like saying that's First Battalion, Fourth Marines. Good fighters wouldn't want to go up against them in a bar fight or a ground fight. These aren't special operations soldiers. These aren't covert warriors. These are standard line infantry. They were deployed twice, according to him, once in January to provide diplomatic security, to beef up security at the British embassy and believe that the Russians might be launching an attack. The second time in April, I believe, to be involved in the evacuation, providing security for British diplomatic staff and equipment as it's removed.

Now, he said there were also certain covert or secret operations of great sensitivity and high risk. Now, that could either be used to describe diplomatic security, but let's remember this. There are people trained to protect diplomats in close-in protection. They're not British Marines. They are called Special Air Service. These are people who are trained to in protection. They're not British Marines. They are called special air service. These are people who are trained to do that. They protect the prime minister. They protect diplomats. Marines don't do that. Marines have big necks, big arms for a reason. They close with and they break people in half. There's nothing covert or subtle about them. I believe that the general spoke of acknowledged events in a way to disguise something else, meaning that they need a cover story.

And what do they need a cover story? operating in the vicinity of Odessa, training the Ukrainian Marines on how to carry out covert operations like the underwater unmanned drone attack against the Sevastopol Naval Base that took place a couple months ago. The British planned that and probably played a role in executing that, implementing that. The Russians have been targeting them. Let's say they killed a couple of these SBS guys. How do you eventually reveal this to the public? Well, most SBS guys began as regular Marines. So now you can say instead of saying, you know, Lance Corporal Smith of the Special Boat Service, you'll say Lance Corporal Smith of, you know, B Company 45 Commando died in a training action or died here or something or died in ukraine but uh he was on a sensitive mission yeah it was diplomatic security you wanted to not that's the only why would a lieutenant general speak to the press he's doing it to plant a story to plant an idea uh why for to get ahead of something that may be coming out which is probably casualties amongst the special boat service personnel

operating in Ukraine covertly in support of the Ukrainian Marines. If they're operating there, you say covertly, obviously we know what the word means, but as a practical matter, would they be armed and would they be in uniform or would they look like CIA, just like somebody walking down the street? It depends on what legal authority they're there on with the British government, who has different legal authorities than the United States. But, you know, oftentimes when the Special Air Service or the Special Boat Service go on denied operations, they might go under the authority of the MI6 or Secret Intelligence Service, in which case they may not wear uniforms.

They may seek to blend in. It depends on what they're doing. If they're training and advising, they could probably get away with just wearing civilian clothes. But if they're going to get close to the Russians, close enough to engage or be engaged, if they're not wearing uniforms and they get captured, they lose all sorts of legal protections. That we know. Does President Putin or does the commanding general or do the Russians know that the Brits have been there and are there?

Oh, absolutely. They've called them out. They say, we know who did this. We know the British did this. We know where you are. They identified the small town outside of Odessa where they're at. They know where the barracks are at, and they've been striking it on a regular basis. There's reports that they actually hit the barracks where the British people were, and casualties were inflicted. We don't know any more detail than that, but the Russians are on this. You know,

McGowan's talk to the, the irony is the Russians weren't taken by surprise by anything he said. It's only we in the West who go, what? The Russians are going, yeah, we knew that. All right, last topic. Is it true, as you understand it, that the Pentagon, which must mean the president,

has authorized the use of American offensive weaponry to strike deep into Russia? If it is, it's a departure from declared policy. The declared policy of the United States is to discourage this and not to encourage that. The United States has gone out on the record as saying, we are not involved in targeting decisions. Now, we know this is a lie because the Ukrainians who received the targeting information said, no, the Americans are involved in every aspect of this. But it's a departure from declared policy. Could it be undeclared policy, covert policy? Sure. I trace that story back and it's to an unnamed official. So we don't have any official sourcing. We don't have a name. We don't have anything other than somebody talking to the press. Could this be part of information warfare to create a perception, to shape Russian opinion? Who knows what's going on what we do know is that the russians um have said that uh you know if the

united states does that then the united states becomes an active participant in the conflict there will be asymmetrical response meaning the russians may not respond by doing the same thing to the united states but at some point in time something will happen all right so. So the Ukrainian's fire, an American-made missile, it lands hypothetical 100 miles outside of Moscow. It destroys some training facility or some storage, fuel storage depot. It kills a half dozen Russians. The Russian police and fire putting out the fire scene made in USA on it. What happens? I mean, this becomes a political decision because that attack does not change the military balance, doesn't change any reality on the battlefield.

So if I'm a Russian, I have to sit there and say, OK, that happened. That's bad. But it didn't alter what we're doing. We're still winning. So am I going to over-respond to this, over-react to this in a way that distracts me from my victory or what? So I think the Russians have shown extreme patience. They are totally focused on success on the battlefield and they're not going to allow themselves to be distracted by these irritating pinpoint attacks that are taking place, pinprick attacks taking place by the Ukrainians, because to do so, then you play into the game. Right now, I think we're in a contest of escalation management, where there are people in the West that want the Russians to overcommit, thereby justifying NATO and the United States pouring more support in. The Russians need to manage this to limit

the involvement of NATO, not to overreact. It didn't mean to suck NATO in. Okay. Let me sum up where I think we are. My summary will be a predicate to a question. If you reject any of the summary, then tell me before you answer the question. In Poland, we have 40,000 American troops, some 101st Airborne. With them, 50,000 Polish troops.

We have on the ground in Ukraine, American troops out of uniform, American CIA. We have on the ground in Ukraine, British troops in uniform, British troops out of uniform. American CIA in Ukraine is spying on the Brits, the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Russians, whoever they can spy on. Has World War III begun? First of all, I accept everything you said. World War III is, we're on the cusp of World War III breaking out. This is why we come back to my last answer about escalation management. The last thing the Russians want to do is create a condition that is conducive to World War III actually breaking out. They see all these pieces that you just described on the table. And from the Russian perspective, it's how do we continue to win, continue to prevail on the battlefield without bringing these pieces in. Escalation management.

Because if the Russians overreact, then these pieces now become players in a larger conflict, which could be articulated as World War III. Right now, World War III isn't breaking out because there is no direct combat between NATO, the United States and Russia. But all the pieces are there for that to happen, which is why, for instance, sending the Patriot missile into Ukraine is very stupid and foolhardy because you're just creating more potential for the Russian escalation management to go out of control and the Russians to overreact. And once they overreact, we have the escalation cycle going up, World War III breaks out, and it's not going to be a good day for anybody. Scott Ritter, always a pleasure.

We'll see you on Friday when we'll talk about what's going on in Romania. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.