Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter - Russian Retreat, What_s it Mean_

Episode Date: November 10, 2022

#ukraine #scottritterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, November 10th, 2022. It's, Scott Ritter, whose experience in disarmament in the military and in intel is extraordinary and who's one of our regular go-to people when discussing the conflagration in Ukraine. Scott, it's a pleasure. Welcome back. Thanks for having me. Sure. So the news lately, excuse me, the news lately is that Russian troops reportedly began pulling out of Ukraine's southern port city of Kherson yesterday. To make this even more weird and unusual, the decision by the Russian high command to pull out of Kherson was broadcast on Russian television without President Putin involved. So I don't know if this is some sort of a trap, some sort of a propaganda move, or some serious defeat by the Russians. And if the last of those three, why in God's name did

they broadcast live their decision to address it? So I'll throw you the ball on all three of those issues, Scott. Well, thank you. Well, first of all, let's just start back on October 14th. The Russians announced that they had appointed a singular commander, this General Armageddon, General Serovakin, as the sole commander of the special military operation. And he gave a press conference two years later, or two days later, I'm sorry, on October 16th, where he said, look, the situation in Karasun is tense, difficult. And what he meant was just that, it was tense and difficult.

The Russians, if you recall, we've been talking about this, had insufficient forces to the task. They had their forces thinly spread along a 1,200 kilometer line. And the Ukrainians were able to successfully exploit that in Kharkiv. And they were launching attacks against Kherson. The Russians consolidated their defenses and were successfully repelling. I mean, one of the interesting things in the Midsomers talk about a Russian defeat, the statistics that the Russians put out, they said in the last month, Ukraine has lost 12,000 men trying to attack Kyrgyzstan. The Russian lines have held. Russia has lost, by their own admission, 1,300 to 1,500 men.

Okay, let's put up a map of Kyrgyzstan and you can talk us through what the map shows. Gary, if you have the map, please. Okay, so as I understand it, the gray area is Ukraine-occupied Ukraine. The dirt or red area is Russian-occupied Ukraine. If you look where the arrows, the red arrows are pointing, you see Kherson. Now, the area north of the river, you told me, is about a quarter, the red area, the red-brownish area north of the river, you told me, is about a quarter the size of the state of New Jersey, just to give our viewers a handle on what we're looking at. So what are the red arrows show?

And is that a brown, reddish area north of the river now all gray? Have the Russians left it? No, the Russians haven't left yet. What happened on October 16th is the General Armageddon ordered the evacuation of all civilians in this area here that we talk about uh being uh the the size roughly of a of you know a quarter of new jersey northern new jersey um and and he ordered them evacuated for a couple reasons one he anticipated that there was going to be heavy fighting and it's the duty and responsibility of any military commander to remove civilians from any uh potential conflict zone that's what international law requires.

Two, upriver, there's a dam. And if the Ukrainians blew up that dam, which they threatened to do, a 15-meter high wall of water would sweep down, flood that entire area, killing thousands, tens of thousands, and putting every Russian north of that river at risk. But also killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians, wouldn't it no no right now there's only i mean they kill ukrainian civilians but the ukrainian government doesn't care um and so no no commander faced with that threat would sit there and say it's a good idea to leave my troops in harm's way

the other the other issue is you know the ukrainians have used uh this new HIMARS and M777 artillery to good effect. They've taken out the bridges crossing the river, command and control logistics. The Russians are holding the ground. And as I said, they're killing a lot of Ukrainians, but their logistics have become very difficult to sustain. And then when you're dealing with artillery warfare, you need ammunition to be brought in on a reliable basis. And the Russians just said, we're not able to do that. And therefore, if we can't do that, we put our troops further at risk, not of being defeated, but of dying in large numbers. Okay, let me stop you for a minute. Gary, can you put the map up again? I want to make sure we understand this. So is the Russian intent, Scott, to evacuate that area, roughly a quarter the size of the state of New Jersey, north of the river that is brownish red?

Is that their intention, to evacuate that entire area? Yes, that's what they're doing right now. Okay, and is that a strategic move on their part, or is it a major setback as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post and Fox News have claimed? No, I wouldn't call it strategic. Strategic is the bigger picture, the economic war and all that. This is an operational decision, a very sound operational decision. Let's make it clear. The New York Times, Washington Post, all these people, they don't have skin in the game. If they think that the Ukrainians are winning this battle, go count the dead bodies. Go count the destroyed tanks. They ain't winning. What the Russians are

trying to do is mitigate the harm done to Russia, that there's no justification for losing 3,000 men to hold a piece of territory that doesn't need to be held. They're going to pull back. And let's also keep this in mind. Ukraine is burning through their reserves. 12,000 dead, and they're going to lose about 12,000 more in taking this territory. Russia's going to lose nothing. Meanwhile, Russia has 200,000 troops being trained who are going to come in in the next two or three weeks. And at that point in time, I think the game changes dramatically.

Is the evacuation that we're discussing now some sort of a trick or a trap? Or is it obvious, you seem to be saying, why almost any military commander would do it? It's both. I mean, it's not a trick. It's a trap. It's not a trick because it's so obvious. You don't trick people. I tell them, this is what we're doing. We're withdrawing back here.

When you look at the Nepe River, the East Bank is higher than the West Bank. So if you're an artillery guy, you're going to have the advantage of height. Now, as Ukrainians come in, they're going to be getting smashed to death by Russian artillery, blowing them up. It's just the Ukrainians have lost this battle. They're winning territory, but they're going to lose it. It's a Pyrrhic victory. Go back to, you know, ancient Greek and Roman history. They're winning the battle. They're losing the war. Losing the war. Okay. Now we all know that for some reason, I want your opinion on this, and then maybe this is more Phil Giraldi, maybe it's

more Intel, but you have great skills of observation. For some reason, the decisions to authorize this removal were made on Russian national television. It was either a charade or this was a genuine meeting of the Russian high military command, at the end of which they authorized the commander on the ground to evacuate his troops. The senior Russian people were there except for President Putin. Why would this have been done? Well, first and foremost, this is a very emotional issue for the Russian people. This isn't Ukrainian territory from their perspective.

This is Russian territory. There was a referendum held. Kherson was adopted, became part of Mother Russia constitution, the Article 64. It is part of Russia. So this is about giving up Russian territory. And this is a very emotional issue. If this had been done without some sort of explanation, it could be construed as a defeat, a Russian retreat. What the Russian leadership was doing is saying, we're in charge here. We're in control. There's no panic here. He gave a professional briefing what the situation is. He said, we're in a

difficult situation in Karazhan. I think we need to withdraw back here, consolidate our defenses, preserve life. And General Shoigu, the Minister of Defense, yes, I give you, I order you to carry out that. All right. No panic at all. I understand you. In the big picture, this is a little blip. And it was done for strategic reasons. This is not the mammoth Ukrainian victoryian victory russian embarrassment that the mainstream

media is making it out to be not at all okay do i am i hearing you correctly you are hearing me absolutely correctly this is a sound operational decision by a russian leadership confident in the course of the war okay do the r the Russians then normally announce these things, which to me seems a small strategic move? It's not like they're surrendering Crimea to Kiev. This is a small strategic move. Do they normally announce these things on television? And if they do, why isn't the announcer-in-chief there? Well, they don't normally do this. Let's just be frank about that. The Russians aren't very good at this information warfare thing.

They have an official Ministry of Defense briefer who gets up and gives a very stoic, staid, boring briefing about what's going on in the special military operation. But the annexation of Kherson, Zaporizhia, and the Donbass region was an emotional moment for Russia. It was celebrated widely. And if this withdrawal was done without explanation, then this would cause, you know, some, I mean, this caused a problem, political problem. So this was made to do this. But this is a military decision, not a political decision. I think that's why the civilian leadership stayed out of it. This is purely a military decision being explained to the Russian people so that they understand the context of what's happening. Okay, when was next? This was the series of annexations that occurred, followed by a referendum, which the West said was faked in the past two months. We're not talking about the annexations and the referenda a few years ago, or do I have this incorrect?

No, we're talking about the referendum that just took place. Okay. Two days ago, Judging Freedom spoke with our friend and colleague, Colonel McGregor, Douglas McGregor, whom you know, whose sources told him that they had reason to believe. I'm switching gears a little bit, Scott, that when Jake Sullivan, President Biden's national security advisor, spoke with his opposite number in Moscow and with the defense minister in Moscow, he more or less threatened him by saying, let me remind you, we have 40,000 American troops in Poland and the Poles have 50,000 troops there with us. We're giving you some bright lines. If you cross those lines, we will be there to meet

you. That's a fair summary of what Colonel McGregor's sources suspect Jake Sullivan said to the Russians and what Colonel McGregor told Judging Freedom. Do you know anything about this? Let me put it this way. I know enough about Jake Sullivan to know that he lacks the stature to stare Nikolai Petrushev in the face and make such a statement. Petrushev was put up with it. We're talking about a real man here, a man with substance. I'm not talking about Sullivan. I'm talking about the Russian.

And that's just not how diplomacy works amongst superpowers. Anybody who believes this lives in a fantasy world. I hate to say it. Russia is in the process of organizing 10 to 15 divisions, 200,000 men. They'll be ready in two to three weeks, 200,000 men. And you're really going to tell me that Russia is going to blink because suddenly America went, we got 50,000 Poles and we got 40,000 Americans. The Russians say, and we don't care. You can't come into Ukraine. You simply can't come into Ukraine. Is it rational to expect that the 40,000 American troops, which to me is a lot.

It's not like it's a few hundred out of uniform. These are 40,000 armed, trained, some of them 101st Airborne, that they're there for some military purpose. And the military purpose is not to train the Poles or train the Ukrainians, but they're training, I'll say the unthinkable, to invade. Look, I could be wrong on this. I'm not in the Pentagon, so I'm not going to pretend I have inside information. What I do know is that Russia's put a red line down and they're serious about this red line.

What are 40,000 American troops doing in Poland? To keep the Polish from panicking. Because without American troops there, the Poles will be going, oh my God, we got the Russians at war in Ukraine and they're coming to our border. What do we do? What do we do? What do you do?

NATO, help us. This is the Americans holding their hand saying, everything's going to be okay. The Polish president makes Lindsey Graham sound like Ron Paul. I mean, the Polish president is saying, invade and take back Crimea. The Polish president is reckless in his words. I don't know if the president of Poland, I don't know their

hierarchy, is the commander in chief, but if he is, then that is a legitimate fear. The 50,000 Polish troops with nothing to do and motivated by fear might do something if the American troops were not there to restrain them. It does sound to me unusual, though, that we would deploy 40,000 combat troops to restrain 50,000 combat troops of a NATO ally. Am I understanding you correctly, Scott? Well, I mean, combat troops are combat troops are combat troops. They're not all the same 50 000 polls ain't 40 000 americans um the polls aren't organized to carry out massive offensive operations they don't have the sustainability factors their command and control is not not capable of managing this kind of combat on that scale they would be destroyed piecemeal by the russians the americans likewise don't have the

sustainability factor numbers are nice but numbers without sustainability, without logistics, become prisoners of war or debt. The Americans know that they're not in a position right now to carry out sustained offensive combat in Ukraine, and that's not their job. Their job is simply to be a tripwire to tell the Poles the Russians will not cross into Poland because we're here and the Russians don't want to take us on and assume the possibility or probability of nuclear conflict. And just like Russia isn't going to invade Poland, I'm here to tell you right now, America ain't going to invade Ukraine. It just isn't going to happen. Knowing the Pentagon as you do, from your own experience and from your own sources? What do you think the Pentagon is

planning? Let's say it's got A, B, C, and D. Is one of those maybe C or D American troops on the ground? No, no combat troops. There are American troops on the ground already. We've talked about this in the past, the logistics facilitators, now these onsite inspectors, but they're not going to put a combat unit on the ground in Ukraine. There's literally no set of circumstances that I can imagine that would make this a viable plan because it always ends up with thermonuclear war. That's just the fact. There's no way you will spin that scenario in a way that doesn't end up with nuclear missiles flying. And so far, President Biden has shown himself to be rather

reasonable in that regard, not wanting nuclear conflict. Right. Okay. Getting back to where we started, we focused on Kyrgyzstan because that's the news this morning. And I'm grateful that you were able to come on with little notice in order to address what everybody's talking about. Are battles going on elsewhere, or is the only blood that's being shed occurring in this Kherson area? No, there's battles going on in the breath. The Ukrainians are trying to continue offensive operations in the north. They're being slaughtered as we speak, and the Russians are having very successful offensive operations in the vicinity of Donetsk they've secured high ground uh to the uh east of the uh donetsk airport that the ukrainians have held for eight years uh the russians have secured

that with that high ground under control they're going to roll up the ukrainian uh defenses there bahmut is in the final stages of being secured by Russian forces. And once they do that, they'll be able to unravel Ukrainian defenses. And remember, this is all being done with the bulk of Russian troops still being trained and organized. When they come rolling into the theater sometime at the end of December, the Ukrainians will have nothing to match them with. The Russians are going to have 200,000 troops. It's like playing, I don't know, risk and suddenly getting all those armies and putting them on and start moving. And there ain't nothing to stop you. That's what's going on. That brings back memories, playing Risk and trying to take over the world. And everybody wanted Alaska because that was the back door into Russia.

Into Russia, yeah. I remember that. I won't tell you how long ago that was, but you know my age, and I think I played it in my very early teenage years. What's happening in Kiev? Are they still without power and without water? There's rolling blackouts. I believe there's some power in the city, but not a lot. There are four and a half million people, I believe, yesterday were without power. And there's huge queues for water. If the Russians let up, then the Ukrainians will be able to reconstitute at least some of this power. If the Russians decide to double down, then it's lights out for everybody. Russia's in control right

now. The Ukrainians have brought in a lot of air defense. And so we're going to see an interesting next phase of this conflict, which is watching Russia unravel this new high-tech air defense that Ukraine has brought in from the West, the Nassims, the Iris, things of that nature. You know, I think Russia's got their number and it's going to be a long winter for the Ukrainian people, and I'll take the smile off my face here because now it becomes tragic. These are civilians who are paying the price for the mistakes made by the Ukrainian people.

The only reason you're smiling if I can say it for the audience is because so many of your predictions have come true. You're not smiling because people are suffering. No, I would never smile because people are suffering. Right. Let's get back to Jake Sullivan. Is it possible he's dumb like a fox? Is it possible he is attempting to put pressure on President Zelensky to go to a negotiating table, you know,

not literally sitting down with Putin? I doubt that they would meet in the same room, but through a series of intermediaries. And do you know if there are any back channels open that are intended to produce that result? Well, first of all, I'm not going to disrespect Jake Sullivan. He wouldn't be at the position he is today if he weren't smart. I assure you, he's a very smart man. And he has a good track record of doing some complicated negotiations. He was one of the initial leads in negotiating with Iran about the Iran nuclear deal, you know, back when Hillary Clinton was still Secretary of State. So he's a smart man. He has connections.

Obviously, he has a lot of influence. Here's the one thing I'll say is that it's not wise to negotiate against yourself. What I mean by that is if Jake Sullivan is doing the back channel, trying to get the Russians to buy into some sort of peace agreement, it wouldn't be wise for him to turn around and then go to Zelensky and promise Zelensky the moon. So I think that Jake Sullivan, because he has that face-to-face connectivity with Zelensky, is leaving the Russian angle to someone else. I personally believe it's William Burns, the CIA director, the man who wrote a book called A Back Channel, who was brought in by Biden because he's a specialist in the back channel. So I think he might be the guy that's doing the back channel with Russia, former US ambassador to Russia, knows the language, knows the people, knows the players. Look, there's no doubt that the United, first of all,

Russia has been saying all along that they haven't never closed the door on a diplomatic solution. They have never closed the door. They're not going to buy into the one that Zelensky is trying to sell, total surrender reparations, etc. But I do believe that there's a formula out there that Russia could accept to bring an end to this conflict. And the United States is desperately trying to find a way to get to that formula. I think they're trying in vain to get the Russians to back down. As I said, Russia is now in a position of weakness here. In a month, they got 200,000 troops organized as motorized rifle divisions, probably 10 to 15 divisions. They're going to be arriving on scene. And the Ukrainians got nothing.

And NATO knows this. Europe knows this. America knows this. So they're desperate now to take advantage of this perceived defeat in Kherson to lure the Russians to a negotiation. Scott, you are very popular with the Judging Freedom audience. Now I'm talking to the audience. Those of you who can't get enough of Scott can take Scott into your house with you if you want. Here's how. His new book, which I have read, Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.

You can't put it down. Scott, congratulations on the new book, and I hope those of you who appreciate all the good work that Scott does for all of us, we'll take time to take a look at this wonderful compilation of a courageous American patriot. Thank you very much. Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika. Scott, always a pleasure. I'm saluting you, Major. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. We'll probably have you on soon. Who knows when another crisis is going to pop up on the front page of the New York Times or on social media, but we appreciate you coming on in short notice and we appreciate the thoroughness, as always, of your explanations. All the best. Thank you very much. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.