Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter: On the Brink of Nuclear War

Episode Date: March 26, 2024

Scott Ritter: On the Brink of Nuclear WarSee 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 Tuesday, March 26th, 2024. Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, my dear friend, a pleasure as always. Thank you for joining us. We have a lot to talk about, but we'll start with breaking news. Just about an hour ago, the High Court in London ruled that the British government cannot extradite Julian Assange until the United States makes certain assurances acceptable to the British court. Among those assurances are that his First Amendment rights will be respected as if

he were an American citizen. Well, if his First Amendment rights are respected as if he were an American citizen under the Pentagon Papers case, there's no case against him. He was a journalist revealing a truth. How do you see this? No, I see it the same way. I mean, I know some of his supporters are disappointed with this. They were hoping for a broader spectrum of objections. I think that the second objection or the thing that he can appeal on is that they need assurances that he won't be tortured or be given the death penalty. But the big one is the First Amendment. You know, I've, again, I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay to Holiday Inn Express last night, so I can't pretend to be one. should happen for Julian when he arrives is that immediate habeas corpus should be presented before a federal court of jurisdiction for immediate dismissal on First Amendment rights.

And because that's his ultimate protection. If he's going to be treated, the U.S. government has always said he doesn't get First Amendment rights because he's not a U.S. citizen. But the second they cloak him with that and the U.S. government gets its assurances on that, there is no case. There literally is no case. They cannot prosecute him because he's now a journalist and he falls under the same protections that all journalists have had over the years. So I think this is good news. And hopefully what it does is compel the United States to recognize the frailty and futility of the case they're making and dismiss it. You know, at one point, out of the then president's mouth, I believed that he was going to pardon Julian Assange, Donald Trump, even though it was his own DOJ that sought the indictment against him. But I think people that spoke to him after I did changed this mind. And you can even guess who they were. One of them, the former head of the CIA and then the Secretary of State of the United States, had actually mused with some of his colleagues about a plot to assassinate Assange.

I'm talking about Mike Pompeo. This is unimaginable, but that's the people that Trump surrounded himself with and the people that, unfortunately, he listened to. Well, we'll see where it goes. What is your take on the involvement of the intelligence community, MI6, CIA, Ukraine intelligence community, in the attack on the concert hall outside of Moscow on Friday night? Well, first and foremost, let's start with the following foundational thought, that Ukrainian intelligence, especially the GUR, the military intelligence, is a

total construct of the CIA and MI6, the British intelligence. It has been completely revamped and reworked since 2014. The New York Times has written an article that touches on this subject, the relationship between the CIA or MI6. So we need to start with that foundational principle. The GUR is not an independent organ. It works for, on behalf of, the United States. Just like this Ukrainian proxy war isn't about Ukrainian independence, it's about Ukraine being used by the United States for our own national security purposes, which in this case is to seek the strategic defeat of Russia. So once we understand that, then we delve in further. Just so to put things in perspective, as we speak, the CIA has worked with the GUR to use Russian nationalist groups to invade Russia. Invade Russia. Invade Russia. That means that 5,000 Russian nationalists,

trained by the United States, equipped by the United States, directed by the United States, operated under the umbrella of Ukrainian intelligence, are leaving Ukrainian soil and invading the soil of Russia in Belgorod and Kyrgyzstan. Now, they've been defeated, but again, they invaded. We're not talking about Boy Scout games here. We're talking about acts of war. And the purpose of this invasion, which began in early March, was to disrupt the election of Vladimir Putin. It's just stated that the heads of these nationalist groups have said this, and Ukrainian intelligence has said this, and it's a longtime mission of the CIA to accomplish this. So we say that. So now we know

that the CIA is capable of carrying out acts of violence on Russian soil. So now we go to what happened in Moscow. We know that these perpetrators were already operating in Russia. They left for some training in Turkey, came back. The timing, they were supposed to launch their attack. They left for some training in Turkey, came back. The timing, they were supposed to launch their attack. They cased out this venue. The attack was supposed to be launched on or about March 8th or 9th. Why? Why that venue on that date? Because a Russian superstar named Shaman was performing on that date, a patriotic concert that was going to be attended by many high-ranking people. That's the day it was supposed to happen, but the security was too tight, so the terrorists backed off, went underground,

and waited until security reduced. Why would they attack on that day? Again, to disrupt the election, to undermine confidence in Vladimir Putin. The United States says they provided intelligence. First of all, the duty to report aspect of the US intelligence community, when you find out information about a pending terrorist attack, you must inform the target of that. That duty to report is done. It only works if it's done through official channels. Why? Because you're officially saying this intelligence is the real deal. You need to act on it. Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to Washington, to the United States, says he was sitting there.

Nobody called him. Nobody formally called the Russian government. It was done through unofficial channels, which is, for instance, if you're a judge and I'm a lawyer and I'm supposed to deliver a judicial document to you, I do it through formal channels. That gives it, I don't meet you in the men's room and sort of slide it to you and go, hey, here, judge, here's something to you. I do it through formal channels. I don't meet you in the men's room and sort of slide it to you and go, hey, here, judge, here's something for you. Because that has no, it's not a real document. It's unofficial. That's how we gave the intelligence to Russia, an unofficial connection, sort of sliding it in. And what are the Russians supposed to do with it?

If it's official, if it's real, give it to the ambassador, give it to the head of intelligence, do something, but don't slide it under a door. So, you know, so there's that. But that means that we were cognizant of something. We claim that it was ISIS, the Islamic State Khorasan, this Afghan offshoot of it. Let me talk about that just for a second. Known as ISIS-K. ISIS-K, correct. To be,

you know, it's an Islamic, obviously an Islamic terrorist organization. These terrorists, before they commit acts, have historically posted videos or photographs of themselves taking the Shahada, which is the oath of affirmation to Islam.

The Shahada is sort of de rigueur for jihadists, and they tend to do it by raising their right index finger. Why? Well, because Osama bin Laden did it, because Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did it. The right finger. And why is the right finger important? Because in Islam, the left hand is the hand of evil, the devil's hand. The right hand is the hand of God, the hand of good. If you're going to deliver the Shahada, which is not just the reciting of the words, but it's an act, it's a ritual, and you have to be pious. You deliver it with the right hand. These four fools delivered it with their left hand. It tells you all you need to know about the sincerity of their approach to Islam. Moreover, these weren't jihadists who were seeking to navigate their true north to martyrdom in heaven. These were mercenaries who received money from somebody

to carry out a specific act of terrorism in Russia. And who is that person? Well, again, people always navigate to the true north, Judge. When special operations forces get compromised behind enemy lines, they navigate to their place of safety, to a zone to be extracted. Spies navigate to, again, to a safe haven. These terrorists would navigate to their safe haven. Now, if you're a jihadist, your safe haven. These terrorists would navigate to their safe haven. Now, if you're a jihadist, your safe haven is heaven. You give your life. These guys didn't give their lives. They navigated to their true north, Ukraine. They went to Ukraine. And the Russians have the phones. They have the phone records. They monitored the conversations real time. They know that they were communicating with people on the other side of the Ukrainian border to open up a passage through the border. This means that they were going back to those who recruited them and trained them.

Ukrainian military intelligence, the GUR, which is the same thing as the CIA and MI6. America is behind this 100%. This is an act of war of monumental proportions. It's an act of war on the civilians. It's an act of war with no legitimate military target. chain of command would something like this go for the CIA to be able to assist, facilitate, or look with indifference at an attack that kills 140 innocent concert goers in a Moscow suburb? In 1947, the United States Congress passed a sweeping reform of the U.S. intelligence community. In 1948, they updated it with basically the covert action law. But basically, the CIA through what back then was called the Office of Special Services, but today is called the Special Activity Center, is the only agency of the United States

authorized to carry out covert action. Covert action, just so everybody understands, is deniable by law. Clandestine action is where you're doing things, but if you get caught, you go, oh, yep, you had diplomatic cover. That's okay. We acknowledge this. Covert action means absolutely deniable, that it's never supposed to come back to the United States. The CIA Special Activity Center is tasked with doing this. These are the people who are training the nationalists to invade Russia. These are the people who are carrying out sabotage operations deep inside Russia. For this to happen, the President of the United States, in the aftermath of the controversies of the 1970s, now is directed by law that he has to be briefed on this. The CIA can't do this without getting executive authority. And he

has to sign what's called a presidential finding that gives the CIA the warrant to do this work. And this finding must be reported to a select group in the United States Congress. We call them the Gang of Eight. This is required by law. Now, the president has been in past practice, been able to do something and then backfill with a post facto, you know, finding. But either way, Congress must be notified. Otherwise, it's an are there. They are training the Ukrainians on irregular warfare, unconventional warfare. This means terrorism. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorism. The CIA has a mission given to it by the President of the United States to train the Ukrainian intelligence services in acts of terrorism. They call it irregular warfare, unconventional warfare. They are doing this. This operation is part of that process. Now, the CIA, because of deniability, is given certain latitude on receiving broad

instructions and then executing it with specifics that may not be known to the executive authority. That's part of the deniability, the covert aspect of it. But let there be no doubt, the President of the United States has directed the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out acts of violence inside Russia designed to undermine the authority of Vladimir Putin and to disrupt the elections that took place earlier this month. Then the CIA, and I guess their colleagues in MI6, are the authors of this massacre. What they did is they directed the Ukrainian intelligence service to carry out actions inside Ukraine of a covert nature designed- Inside Russia. Inside Russia to disrupt the presidential elections. Whether the CIA knew that the target or knew this,

that I can't say. There's a possibility that the Ukrainian intelligence service, you know, selected a target the CIA wasn't aware of. But I have to say that if they're attacking a concert hall, again, here's the deal. The specificity of the March 7th warning by the U.S. Embassy was concert hall. And the timeframe given was during the concert that Shimon was supposed to deliver. So there's no doubt in my mind that the United States government knew that there was a pending attack being done by ISIS-K front, and they knew it was a front on a specific date. That tells me that the CIA knew exactly what's going on. I don't have evidence to that, but I will just tell you that when you start connecting the dots, it's clear that the

U.S. government had foreknowledge about this attack, very specific information. And they didn't tell the Russians formally. They covered their bases by sliding something under the door. We're going to take a break. When we come back, we'll transition to how dangerous are the threats by President Macron to European security and to world peace. But first this. How do you really feel about your financial future right now, today? Stable or uncertain? Despite all the happy talk that the Fed and the banks want you to buy into, I believe that 2024 is going to be a very unstable year, politically and financially. That's one of the reasons I decided to buy physical gold and silver.

And I suggest you should do the same and do it now. Why? Because throughout times of economic uncertainty, gold and silver have rightly earned a reputation for stability. Owning precious metals has made me feel more stable and it can do the same for you. Reach out to my friends at Lear Capital and get their free wealth protection guides. You can reach them at 800-511-4620.

Lear has earned an excellent reputation by helping thousands of customers just like you move portions of their retirement savings into Lear gold and silver IRAs. It's easy to do and it's tax and penalty free. Don't be caught off guard. Experts predict the markets may tank again. You'll be happy if you have protection in place.

So call Lear at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you. was the vote at the United Nations Security Council yesterday, in which for the first time in five votes over this, three that the United States objected to and vetoed, one that the United States offered, which was effectively nothing, and the Russians and Chinese quite properly vetoed it. And now this one, which calls for an immediate enforceable ceasefire for which the United States abstained. President Netanyahu responded by canceling a trip of his senior advisors to come to Washington. What's your take on what's happening there? Well, I think, you know, there's two aspects here. One, there's a national security aspect. The United States is in deep trouble. Our hitherto unwavering support for Israel has isolated us in the welfare of the nation, America. And that means

that we have to be prepared to navigate some very difficult and troubled waters diplomatically going forward as we transition from this American singularity, rules-based international order to a multipolarity, which is a reality even the Biden administration says is there, and we have to figure out how to do this. In order to do that, we need the global south on our side, especially if we're going up against people like China and Russia. And the ambassadors from around the world are writing back saying, they're done with us. We've lost the Arab street. We're losing the global south. The world is losing confidence. It's all because of our support for Israel. And so there's a

national security aspect. I'd like to believe that that would factor in, but we know that when it comes to Israel, we're willing to sacrifice just about everything. But there's one thing that no politician is willing to sacrifice for anybody, and that's their political viability, their political future. Joe Biden is running for reelection, and he knows right now that he is going to lose the state of Michigan because of the pro-Palestinian Arab population that's focused in the, concentrated in the area of Dearborn. He could lose other states as well. Florida could be nip and tuck. There's a big pro-Palestinian community in Tampa. Wherever there's Arab communities that provide tens of thousands of

votes, he's going to lose. Minnesota, he's going to lose. Wisconsin, he could lose. These are all the swing states that he needs to win if he wants to hold on to the presidency. And he knows right now he has lost them unless they do something dramatic. And so this resolution allows the United States to create diplomatic cover to say, look, we didn't stop it. We're letting it go forward. And it allows Joe Biden to say, I'm serious about this. I want to ceasefire a resolution. But it wasn't done for the Palestinian people.

It wasn't done for the right reasons. This was done for domestic American politics, political selfishness. And it was done because, you know, the United States literally has no choice because we're being condemned about it. But the resolution doesn't compel. It says you must do this. But then the question is what happened when Israel says we ain't doing it. Pound sand. What's next? It's not a chapter resolution. There's no authority for military action. So the real question is to be what's going to happen when Joe Biden has to confront the fact that Israel is noncompliant. At that point in time, it's put up or shut up. We have to either start stopping the sell weapons to them, stop the financial aid, or else this is all just empty rhetoric.

Here's Admiral Kirby on whether or not this is binding on Israel and on the world. The UN Secretary General said after the vote, this resolution must be implemented. You say it's non-binding. So who is right here? And if it's non-binding, if, as you say, it does not change anything, why has the administration blocked so many pretty similar resolutions in the past? Because they didn't condemn Hamas. I've said that repeatedly. This one doesn't condemn Hamas either.

Because they didn't condemn Hamas and because they also just called for a ceasefire with no linkage to the hostages. This one, the reason why we can't support it but didn't veto it is because it does link hostages and a ceasefire which is in keeping with our policy. And on the binding thing, is it binding, non-binding? It's a non-binding resolution. What good is it if it's non-binding, Scott? It's pure political cover. I mean, did you see how tap dancing he was? Sometimes I feel sorry for John Kirby, not always,

but when you're put before the public to defend something that's indefensible, I feel sorry for him. It's an empty resolution. It has no weight behind it. It's purely political. It's self-contradictory, as he himself said. We vetoed it because it didn't condemn Hamas. Well, this didn't condemn Hamas. Well, yeah, but it did something else. The U.S. government is right now floundering on the issue of Israel and Gaza. The sad reality is tens of thousands of more Palestinians are going to die before this is done. What is with President Macron offering to send 2,000 French troops to Ukraine? What would be the significance or insignificance of 2,000 troops? Is it the camel's nose under the tent, to quote you, because he really wants to send 20,000 troops?

Well, first of all, just so the American people understand, your listeners understand how serious this is, a French regiment, which is the approximate size of force that's going to be needed to take the 700 French soldiers currently in Romania up to the 2,000 level, which I write about in this memorandum that was published by the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memorandum that was published the other day. They've been put on notice for deployment. So this is real. This isn't hypothetical. This isn't fake. This is real. So what are the consequences? I call it the camel under the tent because there's an old Arab expression that don't let the camel

stick his nose under the tent flap because the second that nose comes in, the whole camel's coming in. These 2,000 by themselves don't do anything. The Ukrainians are losing 1,000 men a day plus. So sending 2,000 French soldiers to Ukraine buys Ukraine two days. That's it. But it's not the 2,000. It's getting that nose under, then getting other NATO members to send troops in, the goal of which is to turn that 2,000 into 60,000. That's a statement by a Polish politician, I believe either the foreign minister or the president into 60,000. That's a statement by a Polish politician, I believe, either the foreign minister or the president, 60,000 that they could be converted to a NATO force and have a de facto NATO occupation of West Ukraine. And everybody's going, that's a good idea.

That's what we need to do. The French are like, yes, we need to take decisive action. Ladies and gentlemen, that is an act of war. Russia has said it's an act of war. Russia will destroy these 60,000. If you think for a second that NATO is going to allow 2,000 French soldiers or 60,000 NATO soldiers to be killed by the Russians without doing anything, you're wrong. They will respond to defend this. That means they have to strike the bases where the Russian aircraft came that destroyed this NATO force. Some of those bases are dual-hatted. They have conventional bombers, which are the ones taking out Ukrainian targets, and nuclear bombers, the strategic force waiting in reserve in case there's a nuclear war. Russian nuclear

doctrine says that if a conventional power attacks Russia in a way that diminishes its strategic nuclear deterrence, that is a red line that can lead to a Russian nuclear retaliation. We are talking about nuclear war here, and it's on full automatic, meaning that once this begins, it doesn't stop until the world is ended. It's on full automatic. That's why we published this memorandum, because as an American, I'd like, at least before I die in a nuclear holocaust, I'd like Congress, my representatives, to discuss this. Is this what we want? Do we want France to take control of our national security and initiate an action that will lead to American nuclear weapons and Russian nuclear weapons being exchanged.

I'd like Congress to talk about that. I'd like the president to say, yeah, I support this or no, I don't support this. And if you don't support it, pick up the phone and tell Macron to stand down, that America will not back this up. These are things that need to be discussed. Right now, they're not being discussed. France is on full automatic. Ladies and gentlemen, they just mobilized a regiment, gave it its orders to be prepared to go to Romania for the purposes of deployment to Ukraine. Once that happens, we're on full automatic. All right. The memorandum of which you speak, which you authored and which is signed by a lot of our colleagues, Karen Kwiatkowski, Matt Ho, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Colonel McGregor. For the first time, by the way, I want to point out that this is the first time that Colonel McGregor has signed a VIPS memorandum.

So it's a big deal. It is. It is a big deal. And, of course, we have posted that at Judge Knapp and at judgenapp.com. We've also posted it under videos on judging freedom where you can read the words and listen to them as they're articulated. It's not very long, but it's profound. It's a memorandum to the president of the United States pointing out to him the potential catastrophic dangers of President Macron's musings. And we now know from what Scott has just articulated, it's more than musings. He's actually pulled the levers of power to place this in motion.

Question. Could this have happened without the consent of other Western leaders, particularly the President of the United States or someone on his behalf? Well, the reason why this is happening is because Macron and France and Europe feel abandoned by the United States. They were asked by Victoria Nuland, by Jake Sullivan, by Tony Blinken, by the president himself to lean forward aggressively in support for Ukraine. And so they did so, even though their initial instincts weren't to lean forward. But as they leaned forward, as they committed to this, it was always with the understanding that America would be right there helping pull that yoke. America backed off for any number of reasons, number one of which is that Congress has hijacked the

funding that was supposed to go to Ukraine for domestic political purposes. And so now Europe is alone, and this is anger on the part of Macron, frustration, because if he pulls back, the fact that the European experiment, that NATO, the European part of NATO, is nothing more than a house of cards, an empty shell becomes reality. And he can't afford that. Europe can't afford that. They need to maintain the perception that they matter. And so what they're doing right now is trying to say we matter. He has talked with Schultz. He has talked to the Poles. He's talked to the British. He's talked to the Bolts. He's talked to the Czechs. And they have said that we don't want to lead on this, but if you lead on this, we will follow. And so this is a sort of a game

of chicken. Now, Macron is mobilizing troops. He's going to send them to Romania. And then what he's going to do is he's going to ask, now that I have this 2,000 man brigade in Romania, who's going to join me? And then we have to wait for the Bolts to send a company, maybe a battalion, the Poles might send something. And then they get this up to 12 to 20,000. And then they cross over gambling that Russia won't attack them. And once they cross over, you'll see a contingent coming in from other NATO nations, the coalition of the willing to create the 60,000. So it's basically, and they're doing this without the United States. The Poles asked America to send troops to Poland to beef up the American contingent there to free up troops for these purposes. Biden said, no, we're not sending those troops.

But at no time has Biden told any of these players to stand down on this absolute nonsense of sending troops to Ukraine. Are the French and their European colleagues naive enough to think that the Russians won't use nuclear weapons, that Russia won't risk a war, and that they send these troops into Ukraine in a non-combatant status, meaning they're not going to the front line, but rather they're going to occupy positions in the Ukrainian rear that free up Ukrainian forces to be sent, that Russia won't attack them because they're not in direct contact with another. They believe that Russia's bluffing. I think Russia sent a signal the other night when they took out an airfield on the Polish border and a rail line and things they haven't done in a while or ever, actually. And Russia's saying, we know how you get here. We know how this is done. If you cross over, we will kill you all. And Russia's not only

said this, they've straight up said, a Frenchman steps foot in Ukraine, that's a dead Frenchman. We will kill them. Apparently, everybody thinks that Russia's bluffing. Let me just make it clear. I've had a lot of experience with the Russians. They don't bluff. They literally don't bluff.

I want to go back to the Moscow concert hall attack. Can you connect the dots, or is there any evidence with which to connect the dots between the boast and the threat of Victoria Nuland two weeks before she left office that we have a nasty surprise coming for President Putin and this assault on innocent young people at a concert? I think that Victoria Nuland was aware that the United States had a program in place to disrupt the elections of Vladimir Putin using Ukrainian intelligence as the proxy. I think she was broadly aware that these Russian nationalists, these 5,000 Russian

nationalists were going to invade Belgorod and Kursk. She was aware of that. She was broadly aware that the Ukrainians were going to carry out acts of sabotage and violence inside Russia. Whether or not she knew the specific target. I can't say that except to say that the statement of the U.S. Embassy specified concert centers, specified concert centers. So, you know, what I'd love to do is subpoena her and get her before a congressional committee under oath and ask her these questions because it would condemn not just her, but the entire Biden administration and by extension, the entire United States as a terrorist nation. I mean, we're the guys who claim that we fight a global war against

terrorism. We have become the terrorists. I hope people understand that. We have become the terrorists. We are responsible for setting in motion events that culminated in this horrific attack in Moscow. We are. If we didn't start things, if we didn't train the Ukrainian intelligence, if we didn't have a presidential directive to disrupt the elections in Russia, I want to remind you to disrupt the elections in Russia. All this, oh, the Russians are interfering with American elections. We have a presidential finding directing the CIA to disrupt the presidential elections in Russia. And America's going, so what? Guys, we're a terrorist

nation. And Victoria Nuland knows this because she is a terrorist entity and she should be held accountable. Has the Ukrainian army effectively collapsed, or is it on the verge of collapse? And if so, is this fight no longer a proxy war? Is this now truly a fight of West versus Russia, of NATO versus Russia? Look, the entire reason why France is talking about sending in these troops is that they want to create a condition where they have a tripwire force, where they preserve a rump state of Ukraine that will be off limits to Russian military occupation. Russia, the Russian army right now is in the process of creating what they call the Dnieper River Flotilla. And it's a division plus

sized force whose mission is to patrol the Dnieper River, to control the Dnieper River. Russia doesn't control the Dnieper River right now. Why would they create a flotilla that'll be ready this summer to do just that? Because this war has reached the phase where the Ukrainian ability to hold the line that they have right now is gone. Everybody's saying they are collapsing. It will be a precipitous retreat back to the Dnieper River. At let's point in time, Russia controls the river, which is an important geographical barrier. They've also are creating two combined arms army, which when combined with forces that will be released through the creation of the Dnieper

River line, will allow them to attack towards Kharkov and towards Odessa. This is happening. This is happening right now. This war is transitioning to a phase that can only happen with the collapse of the Ukrainian military. That's why Macron is panicking and saying we have to send in French soldiers. We're at that stage right now where the Ukrainian army, every day, they're giving up a village here. They're giving up a village there. They're giving up a village because they can't hold them. And they don't have anything left. We're going to see very soon, I believe, a withdrawal to the Dnieper River line.

And that's going to free up Russian forces. And then they're going to go and they're going to secure, like I said, Kharkov, Odessa. And if there's French forces in the way, they'll die. Do you think that this will be Russia against NATO in six months? I hope not. I hope NATO is smart enough to know that we can't confront Russia with anything other than nuclear weapons. Well, they're obviously not smart enough in light of what Macron is doing and what his colleagues are prepared to back him up on this critical mass in Romania?

Well, I mean, again, let's be clear. I think what's happening here is a game of chicken. What I mean by that is, you know, it's like me and a bunch of my friends when we were in high school going to the quarry and staring down there at the drop to the water below. And each of us came, I'll jump if you jump. I'll jump if you jump. I'll jump if you jump. But nobody's going to jump because we're all chicken. And we're having to sit there. Well, if you ain't jumping, I ain't jumping.

Then we talk ourselves out of it. I'm hoping that's what happened. I'm hoping Macron is sending troops to Romania. And then he's going to sit there and say, who's coming with me? Who's jumping? And hopefully, everybody else except the Baltics, who will immediately send their little chihuahuas to join him. But other than that, I don't think anybody of substance is going to come. And I'm hoping through action like this memorandum, et cetera, that we get the United States to say,

be like the adult that shows up at the court and says, y'all ain't jumping. You're not going to make that jump. That isn't happening. Go home. That's what I'm hoping happens. But the problem is like stupid teenagers, once one jumps, they all jump. And that's the danger that we have here. But it's not inevitable that we get into a shooting match, we run out of ammunition in three days. We've got nothing. We don't have the logistics ability to support this. We have four aircraft that we can surge into Ukraine. They'll be shot down the airfield. Then we got nothing. We can't, we don't have the military resources to do this. And hopefully the Germans are telling Schultz too, we can't do this. The Poles are saying, hey boss, we ain't got the troops. We're not trained to do this. And hopefully the Germans are telling Schulz too, we can't do this. The Poles are saying, hey, boss, we ain't got the troops. We're not trained to do this. NATO can't do this. This is the reality. They can fake themselves into doing it. They can initiate a

process that looks good on paper for a couple of days. But when the reality, remember, tactics, operations, that's for amateurs. Logistics is for the military professionals. And logistically, NATO simply can't get involved in Ukraine. They don't have the resources. Do you think the American public understands how close we might be to a war in which the European leaders would expect us to come to their aid? a war that they have, well, we initially caused, but now they've exacerbated it by this critical mass of troops in Romania? No, if the American people were aware of this, we'd have millions of people in the streets right now demanding that this not happen. I would hope so, because I don't believe the American people

are collectively suicidal. I do believe the American people oftentimes are collectively stupid. But you can overcome stupidity by acquiring knowledge and information, which is why we wrote the memorandum. But I'd like to believe that once the American people realize that we are on this automatic course towards nuclear annihilation, that if we don't do anything to stop this, a possible or probable outcome is that they won't survive the summer. All you guys planning a summer vacation right now, it's going to end with a blinding flash if we don't stop this, if we don't stop this insanity. If the American people knew this, they'd be in the streets. They'd be filling. Millions of people would be surrounding the White House. Central Park in New York City would be packed. San Francisco would be

shut down because the American people should come out, stand up and say, not just no, but hell no, not in our name. But they're not. They're all getting up today, getting ready, going to work, living their lives as if nothing's happening. And what happens to NATO when it is apparent to the world that Russia has defeated it? It's the end of NATO. I'm finishing up a book called Ukraine and the End of NATO, because Ukraine is the end of NATO. NATO has disgraced itself as an organization. It's shown that it's not just a house of cards, an empty shell, but you can't fix it. It's too expensive to fix. NATO is a broken edifice, and every nation that tries to fix it

will go bankrupt in the process. And I also think that the Russian victory in Ukraine will dictate a necessity for a new European security framework where NATO is no longer convenient to that point. So I think this is the end of NATO. I think we're seeing the beginning of a process that will see the dismemberment of NATO over the course of the next decade or so. Scott, you're on fire as always. Thank you very much for this. Thank you for that brilliant and gifted analysis. Thank you for the courageous VIPs memo, which hopefully will make its way to the president's desk. And which, as I said, anyone can view at judsnap.com or under videos where you'll hear it read aloud in a very nice voice, not mine. And happy Easter to you and your family.

Thank you very much. And to you as well. Thank you so much. Coming up later today at 1030, coming up later today, let me give you the time so that I have them right and you have them for yourself. At 10 o'clock, Ambassador Craig Murray, the British ambassador from whom we've gotten advice from time to time on the significance of the court ruling in the Julian Assange case. At 10.30, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. These are all times Eastern. At 2 o'clock, Matt Ho. And at 3 o'clock, Colonel Kwiatkowski.

Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.