Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter: Do the Russians Want Peace?

Episode Date: February 24, 2025

Scott Ritter: Do the Russians Want Peace?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, February 24th, 2025. Scott Ritter will be here with us in a moment on Do the Russians Want Peace? Of course they do. Well, you wouldn't know that in Europe. But first this. Markets are at an all time high. Euphoria has set in. The economy seems unstoppable. But the last administration has buried us so deep in debt and deficits. It's going to take a lot of digging to get us out of this hole. Are you prepared? Lear Capital specializes in helping people like me and you grow and protect our wealth with gold. Did you know that during Trump's last presidency, gold rose 54% to a record high?

If that happens again, that puts gold at $4,200 an ounce in his next term. Don't wait. Do what I did. Call Lear at 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com for your free gold ownership kit and special report, $4,200 gold ahead. When you call, ask how you can also get up to $15,000 in bonus gold with a qualifying purchase. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them the judge sent you. Scott Ritter, always a pleasure, my dear friend. I have a lot to ask you about the latest in Ukraine, the office of President

Zelensky to resign the threat by, I can't call him ambassador, the president's guy, Witkoff, that Hamas has to leave Gaza. But before we get there, you recently spent an evening at the Russian embassy in Washington, D.C. with senior Russian military and intel brass. What attitudes from them did you come away with? Well, it wasn't just them. It was their families. There were diplomats and people from the Russian community in Washington, D.C. Look, they are cautiously optimistic. I mean, this is a nation that has resigned itself to the necessity of a conflict of an existential nature. I don't think most Americans understand what that term means. It means life and death.

That means to lose this war is the end of Russia. And they were ready to take this to whatever end And when the United States, there is a president that appears to be willing to take the United States down the path towards a peace that would be acceptable to Russia, meaning that the reasons why Russia is fighting this war will be resolved and that Russia's legitimate security interests will be respected. But there is a significant history here of the United States entering treaties and then withdrawing from them, the United States making commitments and then lying about them. And no matter how much I try to impart on my Russian hosts that we are living in a different time, that this is, in my opinion, a revolution in American political affairs, that you can't judge the Trump administration based upon American sins of the past, that you need to

let Trump's actions speak for themselves. There is caution, but they are hopeful because there are things happening that if we had had this conversations between myself and the Russians six months ago, none of us would have thought possible. We are on a fast track towards peace, it appears. And the Russians are optimistic because just to give you an example, in the embassy, you know, they since 2016 have had the sheds 400 jobs. That means families, everything, community wrecked. They're now, because of the ongoing discussions, talking about, you know, upping up the embassy staff by 400. That means the community is enlarging, thriving. They're going to get to do the jobs they're supposed to be doing,

diplomatic interaction, no more isolation. This, for somebody whose job is to interface with Americans in America to try and better relations, this is the path they seem to be headed on. This is exciting times for them. But as I said, they are cautious because the United States has promised things in the past and failed to deliver. As we speak, the President is meeting, President Trump is meeting with President Macron of France. On Thursday, he'll be meeting with Prime Minister Starmer of Great Britain. I don't think these two have any leverage whatsoever to obtain whatever they want from the president. He's not going to change his mind on Ukraine because King Charles has invited him over

to dinner. However, if you could speak directly to President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer about Russia, what would you say to them, Scott? I'd say they know for a fact that Russia is not a threat to either one of their nations, that they have been playing a geopolitical game that was thrust upon them by previous American administrations that have had as the core of our national security policy objectives, the strategic defeat of Russia. And they being good, compliant allies bought into that. And now they have to recognize that America's on a different track, that reality is checking in. Look at one of the main words that the Trump administration team uses to describe this new policy direction is reality-based. It's a realistic appraisal of Russia's objectives of how we got to this war, of what's really happening in this war, and how this war can be brought to an end. Reality. And it's time for Macron and Starmer to have a reality check.

They are on a path. And this is, I just would ask them to take pause. What they are seeking to do is prolong a conflict, which if it continues on its current track, leads towards a nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia. That is the end of all life on the planet. This is an existential issue for the security of America and Europe. And yet they are promulgating policies that lead down this direction, which makes them an existential threat to the United States. And if they continue to promulgate these policies, that's how we're going to have to view them as the enemy of America. It's high time for both France and England to become reality-based. This is not about the deep state trying to continue policies seeking the strategic defeat of Russia.

This is about a new leadership moving America in a new direction that seeks to have peaceful cohabitation as opposed to militaristic adversarial relationships to find how America interacts with the rest of the world. I'm going to play you just a little clip. It's only about 10 minutes old from President Trump and President Macron in the Oval Office. This is President Trump on the war in Ukraine. Chris. I think the war could end soon. How soon?

Within weeks. Weeks? Yeah, I think so. Right? Don't you think so? I'd like to ask, have you? I think we could end it within weeks if we're smart. If we're not smart, it'll keep going and we'll keep losing young, beautiful people that shouldn't be dying.

And we don't want that. And remember what I said. This could escalate into a third world war. And we don't want that either. Is Europe in chaos right now? Absolutely. Did you see Macron? I mean, I'm very, very uncomfortable. the same things can happen Thursday with Stormer.

But you saw him lean away from Trump. He is I think he's chastised. He had not one, but two, I think three even emergency meetings, two were actual, one was virtual, to respond to this new direction that Trump has been projecting America down, this path towards peace with Russia, which is the exact opposite of what he, Starmer, Schultz, although Schultz is out, a new chancellor in the making is there. Europe has been moving down. Europe has no idea how to proceed. They are continuing to speak from a script that is predicated upon the absolute necessity of America backing them up.

And America is not there, but they don't have a team of new script writers. So they keep putting forward the same failed policies. Look, I'm not a big fan of The Guardian, but they just published a piece that to me sums up everything about how stupid Europe is. Europe last year spent over 21 billion euros buying Russian gas at a time when Europe said, we will not fund the Russian war in Ukraine. 21 billion euros. They spent 18 billion euros throwing that money away in Ukraine. So Europe is facilitating Russia's continuation of this conflict while bankrupting themselves by supporting the failed side on this conflict. That is the definition of insanity, and that's the definition of Europe today.

What do you think Macron and Starmer want from President Trump? A place at the negotiating table? And why would he give it to them? They don't just want a place at the negotiating table. They want to have a say at what happens at the negotiating table. Their big thing is a ceasefire backed up by a peacekeeping force. This is their security guarantees to Ukraine. And I think in that same press conference, Trump said something along the lines of Putin has said before they talk about a peacekeeping force, and there will be no European or NATO involvement in this. Any nation that has aligned itself against Russia in this conflict will not be present on the ground as whatever a peacekeeping force may look like. So, and I think Trump is reading these facts to Macron, hence Macron's body language, chastised. There's only one person calling the shots on the Western side nowadays, and that's the United States of America. That's Donald Trump.

And, you know, that's just the reality that Europe's going to have to accept. The new German chancellor is in favor of war. What does that mean? Are the Germans going to replace the Americans to fund the Ukrainians? Look, I mean, this is, you know, if I were advising Donald Trump right now, I'd take the Germans for their word. And then I would tell the German chancellor, you are heading down a path that puts you in existential conflict with the national

security interests of the United States. We believe that this war, if it continues, will result in a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia, which will be the end of life on this planet. So we're trying to stop it. Anybody who seeks to continue this conflict, therefore, is saying they are in favor of this nuclear war. That makes you an existential threat. And then I would tell the Germans that we provide you with 80% of your liquid natural gas, either back off your policy or we immediately terminate your gas. And if you think you're going to get replacement gas from the Netherlands and Norway, I'm telling them right now, we will have secondary sanctions against them if they sell you any gas. We will

strangle your economy. We will destroy your economy. And if they sell you any gas. We will strangle your economy. We will destroy your economy. And when we destroy you politically, and if you think you have American troops there, I'm withdrawing all troops now. They're going to Poland, by the way. We're not bringing them home. We're sending them to Poland. We'll send them elsewhere, but they're not going to be in Germany. We are isolating you. We are destroying you. We will eliminate you until the German people eliminate you from office. That's the stance I would take because Germany right now does represent an existential threat to the United States. Plus, by standing up to Germany, we send a signal to the rest of Europe.

This will not be tolerated. We have decided on a path of peace, and we will destroy you if you seek to interfere with this. You know, most presidents wouldn't do this. I don't think we have a president that can be categorized as most presidents. So Germany needs to watch out because I think going on past practice, I remember when Trump was president the first time, and we had a gentleman named Grinnell who was the ambassador to Germany. He threatened to pull all American troops out and send them to Poland. Back then, you know, the president hadn't destroyed the

deep state the way he did now, so there's resistance. There is no deep state left in America. It is in ruins as we speak. So Trump is literally liberated to do just about anything he wants to do from a foreign policy standpoint. And that means that if any European nation wants to get in the way of the United States, we should destroy them. Switching gears to Israel and Gaza, is Netanyahu determined to return the IDF to Gaza rather than continue the ceasefire into phase two? I can't speak to Netanyahu. What I can say is I would imagine that Donald Trump, having set a strategic... Let's just back up for a second. Trump apparently has given guidance to the Pentagon, Department of Defense, as they seek these mandated budget cuts to draw

down the combat commands in Europe, in Africa, and the Middle East. That includes Central Command, European Command, the two commands that would be involved in a resumption of fighting between Israel and Gaza. Our goal isn't to have job security in the warfighting business in the Middle East. Our goal is to have peace in the Middle East. That is the strategic objective of the United States of America. So when Benjamin Netanyahu says, or at least articulates or postures, that he wants to resume a conflict in Gaza, that he had 15 months to win but couldn't win, that would seem to me to be the exact opposite direction that the Trump administration wants to go and needs to go

strategically. So I think there's some posturing going on right now, but I think at the end of the day, the Trump administration will put as many obstacles in front of Netanyahu as possible. Remember, Steve Wyckoff went there and told Netanyahu to sit up and shut, to shut up and sit down. And he may have to go and repeat that message to Netanyahu because I don't think Trump wants a war between Israel and Hamas. Here's what Steve Witkoff said about Hamas yesterday,

which to me is a little startling, but I want your thoughts on it. Chris, cut number six. The May 27th protocol agreement signed last May 27th which to me is a little startling, but I want your thoughts on it. Chris, cut number six. The May 27th protocol agreement signed last May 27th sets forth that the phase two negotiation is much about two things. A, a permanent ceasefire, a cessation of all violence. And in addition to that, the fact that Hamas cannot be allowed to come back into the government. And I think the way you square that circle is that Hamas has to go. They've got to leave.

And we're going to, the negotiation will be around that. I would say physically, that's correct. Where would they go? Has any country offered to take them in? Well, I think the devil is in the details, and we've had a lot of discussions around it. I'm not at liberty to have that specific discussion today, but we've got some ideas. Hamas will never voluntarily leave Gaza, will it? Look, that's the negotiating position. Remember, Donald Trump said that he wanted to send American

troops into Gaza and physically relocate the entire Palestinian population, but then he got a counterproposal where Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the other nations are meeting now to talk about Arab-funded reconstruction that keeps the Palestinian population in place, and that seems to be the direction we're going. So Steve Wyckoff has put forward a proposal. The counter proposal though, if you remember, the devil's in the details. Donald Trump had a 90 minute conversation with Vladimir Putin. Part of that conversation was discussion about Gaza. Why would Trump talk with Putin about Gaza? What does Russia bring to the table? And what Russia brings to the table is having started a process that brings 14 Palestinian factions together, including Hamas, to talk about what a post-conflict government in Gaza and

Palestine could look like that wasn't called Hamas, but had Hamas representation. And then the Chinese picked up on that last summer, brought all 14 to Beijing and furthered that conversation. I think that's a kind of proposal. That's a Palestinian state. What are Netanyahu and his right-wing buddies going to say about that? It doesn't matter. Again, I go back to what Donald Trump did, and nobody picks up on this except a very few people. When Donald Trump put forward his widely condemned proposal,

Israel lost control of Gaza. I don't know why people haven't picked up on that. United States owns Gaza in Donald Trump's mind, and the counterproposal doesn't change that. Israel has no say whatsoever in the future of Gaza. So whatever government's going to be put in will be a government of a Gaza that's independent of Israeli occupation. And that comes closer to defining a Palestinian state than anything anybody has ever put out there. So I think what we're talking about here, when we speak of a unity government is a Palestinian government, which will be governing a Palestinian state, which at the heart of it

will be Gaza. Almost too good to be true. I mean, I yearn for this as ardently as you have articulately described it. Haaretz, which you and I both read, reported just about an hour ago that Trump will back, quote, whatever course of action, closed, quote, Prime Minister Netanyahu chooses. Well, what the hell does that mean? Does that mean a resumption of American-funded genocide? We're sending them 22,000, well, the bombs weigh 22,000 pounds each, the Moabs. For what? Well, let's just remember that I think it was last week we had a Saturday deadline on the ceasefire passing where there was difficulties over the issue of the return of hostages and prisoner exchanges, and Israel was threatening to go into Gaza the same way. And the president said, I will back Netanyahu up 100%. That was

the public stance. Behind the scenes, phone calls were made that said, Netanyahu, if you violate the ceasefire, you're going against American policy and you will pay a heavy price. So I think there's two communication channels taking place here. One in which the president says, oh, Netanyahu, you can do whatever you want to do. And the other one, it says, remember when I told you to sit down and shut up, stay seated and shut up. I think that's the direction. I don't know why people think that Trump takes peace so lightly. He said he wants peace in the Middle East, and he is pushing forward a strategy to achieve that. Your view is that Trump in private is not the same as Trump in public. And in private, he will restrain, coerce, even threaten Netanyahu not to fire a shot. But in public, he'll make it sound like, oh, it's your ballgame. Why did Israel introduce

tanks into the West Bank for the first time in 40 years, just today? Why did Israel occupy southern Syria? Why does Israel occupy southern Lebanon? Because they have nothing to do with Gaza. I mean, we're talking about a very complicated situation here where, you know, things are not necessarily linked together. The West Bank has always been a sacrificial lamb of the Trump administration. We saw that with the Abrams Accords. I'm not supporting this. I condemn it. But it is a distinctly different problem. What will the Turks do about Netanyahu's insistence that the Syrian military forces vacate parts of Syria?

Well, not a damn thing. What can the Turks do? They're going to go to war against Israel? Turkey created this problem. They still haven't found out how to deal with it. Turkey has a problem with the Kurds in northeastern Syria. Turkey still hasn't resolved the situation in Idlib province or in Aleppo and Homs and areas where Turkey claims to have some sort of sovereign interest. And so I don't see Turkey suddenly projecting power down into Damascus to stiffen up the

resolve of Jolani and the Al-Qaeda people who have taken control there. Turkey's not going to do anything. What will Netanyahu do with bombs that weigh 22,000 pounds each that require American aircraft to get off the ground and drop? I think what he's sending a signal is to Iran. Everybody's talking about Gaza and this and that. He's not going to drop Moabs on Gaza. He's going to, these are bombs that, you know,

he's using to posture against Iran. And, you know, that's just part of, again, the Trump thing of telling the Israelis, hey, we're here for you. We back you up. But secretly Trump is engaged. And as we speak, there is back channel discussions between the Trump administration and the Iranians on how to resolve this issue.

Let me switch gears before we finish. From your years as a UN weapons inspector and your familiarity with the intricacies of weapons funding, is it feasible to think that Elon Musk and his crew can audit the CIA and the NSA and the DIA and the other intelligence communities that spend money secretly? Of course they can. I mean, Judge, they're broken. The CIA right now is in total disarray. You have people, careerists who thought they were in control, thought they had the deep state, thought they had beaten Trump last time. Remember, Trump was president for four years and the CIA beat them. Chuck Schumer, they have six ways from Sunday to get to you. They're cracked. They're panicked right now because Tulsi Gabbard, who is the boss of bosses, is in charge. And she can do whatever the hell she wants to do. And they all work for her. And therefore, she has the ability to say, open your books.

And they can't say no. They can't say no because they'll be in violation of the law. They are all scared. They're running. Trump doesn't have a vested interest in the secrets of the deep state. He has a vested interest in exposing the secrets of the deep state. Okay, so I guess my question was a little inartful. Do they keep books?

Is there a record of who they've bribed and how much they've bribed and who they've killed and who they've tortured and what governments they've overthrown? Of course there is. Of course there's a record of all this and the record exists. The CIA, the NSA, and the DIA are like the Nazis who, much to the shock of the Nuremberg prosecutors, found that the Nazis documented all of their crimes. And because the CIA, NSA, and DIA believe that they're above the law, they have documented their crimes, their because the CIA, NSA, and DIA believe that they're above the law, they have documented their crimes, their abuse of authorities, their corruption, their misuse of American taxpayer funds, because they never thought for a moment that an outsider would be allowed in to look at them. But we know that they document everything internally because we have seen in the past declassification of operations

and projects, et cetera, that exposed the malfeasance of the CIA, of the NSA. So we know the documentation exists, and here's the beauty of it. There's a record of the record of the record, and you know what I mean, Judge. If they start destroying records, they're all going to jail forever, because you're not allowed to destroy government records. So they're in a lot of trouble. There's a lot of panic going on right now. A lot of people are talking about resigning. And I just think it's beautiful because I agree with everything you just said. I'm waiting for Trump to rescind Reagan's executive order 12333, which is the spy on everybody all you want. Not in that terminology, but that's how the NSA has interpreted it.

That is what the NSA claims is its legal authority for warrantless mass surveillance. Surveillance that defies the very Fourth Amendment and surveillance that is so massive, it's useless. Yep. I learned this when I was in the intelligence business. We used to target the Soviets. And one of the problems we had is that we were so effective in targeting the Soviet problem that we collected too much data that could be useful. Intelligence is information that's only important now. I need to know, for instance, Judge, what you're thinking now, if I'm going to have any impact on what you're doing. But to collect information that only becomes apparent to me

six months down the road is useless. That's an academic exercise. And so we had to learn how to tailor our collection and not be focused on sucking up everything, but on sucking up only that which was important. In the law enforcement community today, because they have taken such a frontal assault on the Fourth Amendment, they suck up everything. And I'm here to tell you right now, they are learning nothing, zero, because they don't have the analysts or the analytical capacity to comb through that data. So what they do is they store it so that at some place down the road,

they say, aha, what was Ritter doing on that? They can go back and get it. That's not how this country works. That's not freedom. That's an illegal search and seizure. The government can't see something, hold it, and then decide sometime in the future that there might be utility in it. And yet that's what the U.S. government is doing. They're basically holding the entire American population hostage. Because again, it doesn't matter that you didn't do anything wrong. As we've seen, the government under past practice has been able to invent crimes. For instance, it was a crime for me to speak about wanting peace with Russia. The FBI came into my house because I dared speak for that. And they collected information on me for two months. None of it criminal, all of it which was criminalized by a Department of Justice out of control. That can be used, that weapon can be used against any American about abortion, gun control, anything. Any issue you take where you might come in conflict with the United States government can be criminalized, and anything you say or do right now is being collected by the U.S.

government and archived for that potential moment. This is wrong, Judge. That's not the kind of country we want to live in. Your understanding of this is extraordinary, Scott. Thank you for the eloquence with which you've articulated it. My own view is 100% with yours. All of this started under George W. right after 9-11, where the intelligence community was told the Constitution didn't apply to them. Hopefully Trump can undo all of it. He's made a tremendous start. Thank you, Scott. Thank you for coming on today. Thank you for your articulation. Thank you for your passion. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. Thank you, sir.

Sure. We'll see you again soon. All the best. Wow. I love it when he's on fire. Thank you for watching. Tomorrow, Ambassador Charles Freeman at 8 in the morning, Professor Jeffrey Sachs at 10.30 in the morning, Matthew Ho at 2 in the afternoon, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski at 3 in the afternoon. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.