Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter : How Soon Will Ukraine Collapse?

Episode Date: June 10, 2025

 Scott Ritter on Ukraine Drone Attack : 'A Trigger to Russian Nuclear Doctrine?'See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, June 10th, 2025. Scott Ritter will be here with us in a moment. Just how dangerous to American-Russian relations is the Ukraine drone attack on Russia? But first this. While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold? It's soaring. In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce. I'm so glad I bought my gold. It's not too late for you to buy yours.

The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce now predict gold at $4,500 or more in the next year. What's driving the price higher? Paper currencies. All around the world, they are falling in value. Big money is in panic as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth. That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts. As long as paper money keeps falling they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising.

So do what I did. Call my friends at Lear Capital. You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information. Learn how you can store gold in your IRA, tax and penalty free, or have it sent directly to your doorstep. There's zero pressure to buy

and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee. It's time to see if gold is right for you. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you. Scott Ritter, welcome here, my dear friend. How dangerous to United States-Russia relationships was the series of drone attacks that hit four Russian air bases and a couple of civilian sites two weekends ago? Well, first of all, we have to understand and respect Russia's published nuclear doctrine. To understand it means we have to read the words. I will remind your audience that unlike many in the West, to Russia, words matter. They don't speak words lightly.

They definitely don't speak words lightly. They definitely don't print words lightly. Russians don't have a habit of bluffing. So when Russia promulgates a nuclear doctrine that has as one of the clauses that would trigger a Russian nuclear retaliation or preemptive nuclear strike on the part of Russia, a clause that reads that any non-nuclear state that strikes Russia using conventional power in a manner that threatens Russia's strategic nuclear deterrence or Russia's existential survival and is backed by a nuclear power, this will be treated as an attack on Russia by that nuclear power. So this attack, which was carried out by Ukraine, targeted Russia's strategic nuclear deterrence. This puts Russia at an existential threat. And this attack was facilitated by the

British and to some extent by the United States. So the Russian nuclear doctrine was triggered, which means Russia would have had every right to use nuclear weapons, either in retaliation or to preempt what it had every right to believe was a follow on attack by the United States and Great Britain. Just as we would, I just want to remind your audience that if for instance, China and North Korea conspired with Mexican cartels to send in covert fashion truckloads of drones and park them outside of Whitman Air Force base in Missouri where B-2 bombers are, or Minot North Dakota in Barksdale, Louisiana, where our B-52H

nuclear-capable bombers are, and then use these drones to destroy our bombers, we would be saying, is this the first act in a larger drama that could have the Chinese and North Koreans using the destruction of America, one third of America's triad, and then launch a crippling strike against the United States. So I can guarantee you in the United States, at least the discussion would be, do we launch a preemptive strike now?

That is a guaranteed on the table discussion. We have been, our nuclear triad has been attacked. Do we launch a preemptive nuclear strike now? Now, wiser minds will prevail and say, no, it's a limited strike. We don't have proof of Chinese and North Korean direct involvement. We're going to calm down, which is apparently what happened in Russia. But I guarantee you this, down which is apparently what happened in Russia but I guarantee you this within the Russian you know Ministry of Defense they said are we under general attack that's how dangerous this was judge because as soon as drone hits a strategic bomber the Russians have to ask the question are we under general attack and if they made the answer yes, which hey, we're under attack Some people could say that could be given the rhetoric

Remember, it's the British and the French who recently said our nuclear weapons are now part of a European posture versus Russia France has actually said we're ready to have a nuclear war with Russia. Great Britain is preparing for nuclear war. So with that rhetoric Then you match it with action by a proxy being directed by the British. The Russians have every right to have said, we are under the first phase of a larger attack by Great Britain. It's gone insane. We need to take in the near future. You wrote a book about this called Highway to Hell. Aren't Russian, aren't French and British leaders essentially crazy to be talking like this. Absolutely. I mean, any nuclear power would be crazy to, to, to threaten nuclear weapons, unless

they're under direct nuclear threat. Cause people will say, well, then Russia is threatening. Well, we're no Russia is just reminding the nuclear NATO in the United States. Don't get engaged because we are a nuclear power. It's not the French and the British are saying, Hey, Russia, don't get engaged with us because we're nuclear powers. They're saying, we don't like what you're doing in Ukraine, a war that we started by the way, and we're threatening to bring our nuclear weapons in to help tip the scales in our favor in Ukraine. That's insanity, literally the definition of insanity. Here's what Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister said yesterday. By the way, in the audience were our friends, Pepe Escobar, George Galloway and Larry Johnson.

But here's what Foreign Minister Lavrov said yesterday about the British and likely the US behind the attacks. Chris, cut number eight. It is obvious that the Ukrainian side is doing everything possible, but it would be absolutely helpless without the support of the British. Although you never know, probably by inertia, some US special forces would be involved in that. But the British are actually behind all those things, I'm 100% sure. He says he's 100% sure. That must mean he has intel. 100% certainly.

He's so clever to say Anglo-Saxons, okay I'll drop the Saxons. But the British haven't even been clever about this. The British have acknowledged that they have initiated, you know, a program that is designed to keep Ukraine in the fight. In fact, I think that might even be the name of the program. But it is a concerted effort by the British government using the various resources it has available to it, including that of MI6 to keep Ukraine in the fight. And one aspect of keeping Ukraine in the fight right now is to use asymmetrical capabilities, covert action, to create the conditions to provoke a Russian overreaction, the scope and scale of which would be so much that the West would feel compelled to intervene because that is the only pathway of salvation for Ukraine.

They have lost this war on the battlefield. Judges, you take a look, the Russians have penetrated Dnepropetrovsk, they're closing in on Sumy. The Ukrainians are collapsing across the battlefield. The Russians now are talking about moving in even deeper. They've annihilated the air defense. They have free reign over Ukraine strategically. They haven't finished with their retaliation attack.'s over on the ground so the only hope ukraine has is for an intervention by european states backed by the united states this isn't going to happen on its own volition so what the british are seeking to do is play this very dangerous game of brinksmanship of provoking the russians to the point where russia will do something that will have to trigger a Western response. And there are some people who I'm in communication with in the United Kingdom right now, who

are linked to this decision-making cycle, believe that the British are deliberately provoking Russia to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine, under the belief that that is the only condition under which now Europe and the United States may become decisively engaged. So Britain is provoking Russia to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. That is what's happening. Now, that is not something I think the United States is pursuing, but the mechanisms of facilitation of this plan have been put in place by the United States. Remember, it's United States, not not Great Britain that built 20 CIA bases

Inside Ukraine to carry out covert actions and one of those bases is a drone Operation centered the British play a very important role in that so the technology the planning the the tactics the techniques That have been transferred by the United States and the British to the Ukrainians that facilitated this attack. That is what Lavrov talks about the inertia, meaning that we started something. Trump may have temporarily put a pause on it or pulled the plug, but we started something and through inertia that is facilitating the British assistance to Ukraine to carry out these strikes. I want to get, I'm going to change the subject slightly because you alluded to it in your last really terrific answer.

And I want to get back to nuclear weapons, the British and their crazy provocations. How much longer can Ukraine survive? You talked earlier about the continued westward march of the Russian military. How soon before Ukraine collapses, either because the military gives up the ghost and goes home, or Zelensky and the government leaves the country or is killed? But first of all, we have to be realistic here. The Russians, although they have this military supremacy on the, I would call it superiority supremacy in some areas, they're prevailing.

The Russians are dictating the pace of action in a way that the Ukrainians can't respond. Their force structure is such that they could probably Push to the Nipah River and make some inroads into Mikhail I have But they would require significant reinforcement to go beyond that Meaning that if they were to make a push to Odessa to get the transisteria up by the Moldovan border This would be this would require, you know hundreds of thousands of additional troops if they were to push down through you know Belgarado curse to take Chernaev and Sumy and and and take Kharkov additional hundreds of thousands of troops so the Russians right now, I believe they can accomplish their immediate tasks which is the securing of Kerson

their immediate task, which is the securing of Kerson, Zaporizhzhya, the next Lugansk, and then to make inroads into a buffer zone in the Dnepropetrovsk, Mikhailov, Kartakov, Sumy region. They're fully capable of doing this. But to make that final push would require the Russians to mobilize several hundred thousand more troops. And that takes time. So the Ukrainians can collapse where they currently are but if they fall back to the Dnieper River and start building a defensive, you know, it's possible for Ukraine to sustain this fight militarily for some period of time.

The problem is the economic, social and political collapse that comes with this. The Russians basically are taking out Ukraine's industrial capacity. They've already destroyed it economically. Ukraine defaulted on its loans. It has no money. They can't even afford to buy their dead back. And that's not buying their dead back. It means that when they receive their dead, they have not acknowledged their dead and then pay the families, and they don't have the money to do that. And then we're already seeing the political collapse, widespread discussion about Zelensky's final days, the moving control of the government to the parliament, new elections. And it's that aspect that's going to bring about the end of the war,

not the military collapse, but the economic, social and political collapse. And I believe that's coming sooner rather than later. Back to the British provocations, a couple questions. One, I believe you told us in another interview that the British cannot use their nuclear weapons without express consent of the US. Is that still the case? First of all, the relationship between Great Britain and the United States when it comes to nuclear control is a very classified relationship. And so I don't have direct knowledge of this, and if I did, I couldn't talk about it. So this is speculative on my part based upon talking with other people, etc. But because the British used the Trident missile as their delivery system and the relationship

between the British and Americans when it comes to nuclear warheads, et cetera, that the British, my understanding is that the British cannot use that Trident missile without express permission from the United States. Is Vladimir Putin morally and legally justified in attacking London? Morally, no. No. Legally, yes. Fortunately, Russia has a moral president and the consequences that are accrued by attacking London, the expansion of this conflict will result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more dead people. And no moral man in the world could make that pitch. I mean, what happened to the Russians, to the dozen Russians who died in the terrorist attack on their trains, the hundreds who were

wounded is horrible. But international humanitarian law and just basic human decency requires proportionality and retaliation. And so you can't speak of expanding the conflict in a way that threatens hundreds of thousands if not millions of people with death, because you're retaliating for 12 dead. What do you think they're talking about in light of the certainty with which Foreign Minister Lavrov stated the British were behind this? Well, we've already seen this. You know, there was a strike, I believe, in Kiev

of what used to be the former British passport office, which had been converted to non-passport related British activities in Ukraine. That building no longer exists. And I believe you're gonna see the Russians start to specifically target British infrastructure inside Kiev, inside Ukraine, in Odessa. And either the British are gonna be compelled

to leave Ukraine or die in Ukraine. And I think that's the direction this is heading. Wow. Long-term American-Russian relations. Do you think the Kremlin believes Trump's denials? I mean, I don't think so in light of what Lavrov just said. Well, what Lavrov said is through inertia, meaning that something had been set in motion and wasn't able to be stopped. I do actually believe that Donald Trump did not order this attack and he personally was not cognizant of this attack because Donald Trump is not in control of American policy.

If Donald Trump was in control of American policy, he would have signed an executive order by now, which ended the Biden administration's policy directive of seeking the strategic defeat of Russia. But Trump hasn't changed that, which means the official policy of the United States that is the foundation for what Marco Rubio does, Steve Witkoff does, Scott Besson,

the official policy is to continue policies that seek the strategic defeat of Russia. And the strategic defeat of Russia means the collapse of the Putin regime through economic sanctions, internal... Trump has not rescinded that internally amongst his national security people. No, not only that, he hasn't signed a finding reversing the covert action directives, but given the CIA regarding support to Ukraine and hostility,

hostile acts towards Russia. So we are technically in a state of war with Russia right now and the Russians know this and so what they're hoping is that they can get Trump on a diplomatic path where these things can come to an end. But if you don't stop this, again, I've tried to explain to people, Gina Haspel, bloody Gina, was a veteran operations officer who became the director of the CIA. Normally when you bring in an outsider to the CIA, the CIA won't listen, but she came from DO, which means she has the guns, she has the resume to have people listen. She tried to take control of Russia House. She said they're lying to her and they're lying to the President.

They're doing things. Well, what's Russia? Russia house is that part of the CIA's director of operation that route? Okay, over our operations. Okay Sorry back to what you were saying. Go ahead. She tried to take and try to shut it down She couldn't and she couldn't do it the Radcliffe can't do it Russia house is out of control and until you shut down Russia House and you terminate the employment of all these people and shut down every operation they're in, Russia House will continue its decades-long war against Russia. It has built resources inside Russia. It has recruited networks inside Russia that not only look for short-term intelligence gain, but their job is in the case of

increased hostilities to create disruption. They have planted viruses in the Russian infrastructure to shut down traffic lights, shut down electronic generation. We're at war with Russia as we speak right now and that needs to be shut down and it's not and that's Donald Trump's fault. So this is the inertia that Lavrov is speaking. Okay, great, great explanation. Here's a secretary Hague Seth about an hour ago. Chris, not the whole clip, but just up to the part where he says the US was not aware. Cut number 11.

Are we seeing the ushering in of a new era of warfare? The use of drones from afar. After all, these drones were smuggled into Russia, hidden for a great span of time, and then activated from 2,500 miles away. Are we prepared, both defensively and offensively. It was a daring and very effective operation that we were not aware of in advance and reflects significant advancements in drone warfare, which we are. Is that credible that we were not aware of in advance or was he kept in the

dark by whatever inertial forces, Sergey Lavrov says were likely involved? I guarantee you somewhere in the CIA's files, and their director of operations ground branch or even air branch or some sort of joint paramilitary capability is the conversion of civilian trucks to be used as a drone mother base and to park in with remote connectivity using existing commercial capabilities to direct these drones equipped with explosives to strike targets. We came up with this. This is our plan and we train the Ukrainians on this plan but not the specific targeting just to build this capability because this is a year and a half. To carry out this plan, you need a safe house inside, a safe warehouse inside Russia that has to be purchased

using funds that can't be readily traced by the FSB, using a network of agents already embedded inside Russia who have sustainability, meaning that they have jobs, they have documents that pass scrutiny, they're not going to be picked up on the street and everything's going to be given away. This is what the CIA and MI6 do. This is an American-British plan that the Ukrainians fell in on. So for Hegsev, first of all, I don't think Hegsev, Judge, again, I don't mean to pick on this guy, but he's a battalion operations officer. That's it.

Now those are some good people, but they do battalion-sized operations. This man's commenting on some major geopolitical stuff that he has no knowledge of. It's not in his toolbox, his brain can't comprehend this, and he hasn't been read into this. He's only the Secretary of Defense. And if you think the Secretary of Defense knows what Russia House has been doing inside Russia, think again. So he's up there,

they're asking the wrong question to the wrong guy. That question should be asked to Tulsa Gabbard, John Radcliffe and the head of the Russia House in closed session. That's where you'll get your answers. One of the people in the chat room says, but Scott, Pete does great pushups because you know, he has himself filmed bare chested doing pushups

with the troops. Listen, I know him and I share your analysis is deeper than mine. Even though I worked with him for 10 years, I share your analysis. What are the long-term prospects for a reset between the United States and Russia if Trump does not do what you just articulated he needs to do? I mean, I don't even know if he knows that these findings are out there and he needs to rescind them. are out there and he needs to rescind them. It's worse than that, Judge. We actually have created poison pill after poison pill after poison pill. First of all, I want to remind your audience that on February 5th, 2026, that's next year, the last remaining arms control treaty between the United

States and Russia expires. The new START treaty. When that expires, there's no more caps on arsenals. Overnight, if we don't have something put in overnight, reserve nuclear warheads that were withdrawn will be brought back, mounted, and we will see the tripling or quadrupling of our strategic nuclear forces overnight. So for Americans that go to sleep at night saying, well, there's only 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons on each side. I mean, that's a lot too, but it's going to be about six to 8,000 immediately. And that's just the beginning of an arms race that will ultimately, when you start moving in that trajectory,

it will lead to the end of the world. But then to make things worse, Trump is talking about deploying this golden dome ballistic missile shield. A, it's not going to work. The technology is not proven. They can't do it in three years, and it's not going to cost to have 175 billion. It's going to cost closer, according to Theoretopostal, 40 trillion if you want to make the whole thing done.

So it can't be done. But the Russians can't operate on the assumption, well, it's going to fail. So if Trump's talking about building it, they have to build that which overcomes it. So they will start deploying new systems that will be unconstrained by the lack of an arms control treaty. But the most dangerous thing is the statement made by Rybkov,

the deputy foreign minister. He said, you know, your withdrawal from the INF treaty, we have been voluntarily putting constraint on our capabilities in hopes that you would come back to rationality. But next year, the United States is talking about deploying the Dark Eagle. It's a hypersonic missile. And the Russians have been preparing in response. They've prepared, I believe, the Oreshnik is a response to that. And remember, the Oreshnik that fired against Ukraine last November was a research and development thing. It went into full production. It's produced at Vodkensk Machine Building Plant. I worked

there for two years. The production rate of the Oreshnik is around 60 to 80 missiles a year. They've been there for now seven months. You're looking at around 50, 60 missiles, a Russian X being built. In addition to that, the Russians have more than likely been building a follow-on to a Cold War era system called the Skoros, which is a shorter range, intermediate range missile. Skoros means quick, rapid. It was designed to rapidly respond to the deployments of the Pershing II missile system back in the days when we deployed those to Germany. So when they left their deployment area, went to the field, Skorost would respond and take it out.

Well, the Russians are building that and they will deploy that. So when Dark Eagle lands in Europe, if it leaves its deployment area, the new Russian Skorost will hit it. Russia's about to flood the field with advanced hypersonic ballistic missiles that we can't defend against and will further be stable as a world. Now within this framework, how can you possibly talk about normal, stable relations? The United States is presenting itself as an existential threat to Russia, and until the president reverses from that, you can't have good

relations. Well, last series of questions. What is the significance of the claim by Iranian officials that they have secret files on Israeli nuclear capabilities? Well, it's curious because I don't speak Farsi. I'm not smart enough. I barely speak English. But the people who do speak Farsi, when they read the original, there's some interpretation. Did the Iranians get the Israeli targeting of Iran's nuclear program, or did they get

a specific layout of Israel's nuclear program, or both? But the bottom line is it shows that Iran has penetrated Israel's security mechanism, they've gained access to data that strengthens its hand in any potential conflict against you. The interesting thing is almost immediately after this breach took place, Netanyahu contacted Trump and said, yeah, we're no longer talking about attacking Iran. We'll accept that 3.75% enriched uranium thing.

Remember Israel said, never, never, never. We will never accept it. That is not true. I haven't seen or heard that anywhere. That would be a remarkable and amicable resolution to this, would it not? But the caveat is temporarily, and of course the Iranians will do it. But Israel's in a panic right now, because either way,

let's say Iran got a hold of the target deck. That means that Iran right now is shifting resources and whatever the Israelis thought they were going to bomb, they aren't going to bomb. But if Israel has Iran, or if they have Iran, say Iran got ahold of the target deck. That means that Iran right now is shifting resources. And whatever the Israelis thought they were going to bomb, they aren't going to bomb. But if Iran has Israel's nuclear pursuit, that means now they can bring in precision strikes

and take out Israel. Israel's in a bind. And they desperately need these negotiations to work. And my understanding is that Netanyahu has indicated that he is now amicable to a temporary continuation of the Iranian nuclear program, limited to 3.75%. Why?

Because Israel knows that if it wants to go to war against Iran, it's gonna be taken off the face of the earth. What are you doing on June 18th? Trying to end this madness, Judge. I mean, I've said all along. You're doing the work of the angels, but tell us about it. I've always said that the way to peace is through dialogue, that we have to talk.

We have to engage. And yes, we have our governments talking with the Russian governments. But sometimes governments need to be trained on how to do things by their respective populations. And so on the 18th, I'm going to be trained on how to do things by their respective populations. And so on the 18th, I'm going to be doing the it's the US Russian Citizen Summit. If you remember back in 1985, Phil Donahue and Vladimir Posner, Phil Donahue, famous American broadcast journalist, and Vladimir Posen, his Russian counterpart, they initiated something called the Space Bridge.

And it basically brought an American audience and a Russian audience together to talk with one another, ask questions, get to know each other, begin a process of dialogue. And it led to further Space Bridges that helped create the conditions that brought an end to the Cold War. Well, today we see that we're getting

a new Cold War-like environment. One of the big problems is that, from my perspective, is that the American people don't know the Russian people. Therefore, they are susceptible to Russophobia, being told that Russia is evil, Russia is bad, to fear Russia. And when you're afraid of something, the government can then put in place policies that generate from that fear, that create the potential for conflict. We need to train the American people to believe that the Russians aren't afraid. And the best way to do that is to expose them to the reality of Russia. So this US-Russian summit will bring 50 American citizens from every walk of life, and they will connect with 50 Russian citizens in St. Petersburg,

and they will have a conversation for three hours. And it will be streamed live, and then we're also going to record it, and it'll be available. But the idea is to generate a broader dialogue between Americans and Russians so that, you know, when the average American is told by Pete Hegseth or somebody in the Trump administration, Marco Rubio, about the evil nature of Russia, they can go, well, that's not really the Russia I heard here. I was talking to Vladimir and Svetlana over in St. Petersburg and, you know, that's completely different. And the same thing with the Russians. They've been told that Americans are bloodthirsty, warmongering heathens, and get a chance to meet Americans. We're going to do it in Kingston, New York.

Gerald Solante's fantastic Mohican market. It's being converted into what we call the American Cafe. And we're going to show the Russians a slice of Americana. We're gonna have a wonderful conversation for three hours and hopefully begin a process that leads to the normalization of relations between the United States and Russia. Guys, I just painted a horrible picture

about the potential of conflict. We live in a very dangerous time, and we have to do everything possible to prevent the worst possible outcome. And what we can do as citizens, because we don't make policy, we don't implement policy, but we can influence policy from the ground up. We can tell our government we're not afraid of the Russians and therefore we don't support policies that are predicated upon the need for fear of Russia to exist. We can immune, make ourselves immune to Russophobia.

And so this is what the US-Russia Citizen Summit's doing. So on June 18th, doors open at 12 o'clock for a little bit of lunch. The show starts at two. Unfortunately, it's a ticketed event only, but like I said, you can watch it. It'll be broadcast on YouTube. It'll be streamed and then it'll be recorded

and people can watch it. But I invite everybody to tune in. It's not just, it's not entertainment, although it will be entertaining. This is literally life sustaining. This is how we survive to engage in this kind of dialogue. And it can't be 50 people talking to 50 people. We have to be triggering something larger,

something broader, something more sustainable. And it needs the help of all Americans. And it needs the help of all the Russians too, but we can't get the Russians on board unless we're willing to talk to them. You're doing the work of the angels. I've said that before. Thank you, Scott.

Thanks for your analysis. Thanks for your passion. Thanks for your courage. And as always, we'll look forward to seeing you. I wish I could be there on the 18th. You know I can't or I would have been, but I look forward to seeing you next week. And we'll talk about this again. Thank you, Scott. Okay. Thanks, Judge. All the best. Great segment, a great man. Coming up later today at three o'clock, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski at 3.30 from Moscow, Pepe Escobar, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. MUSIC