Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter - Ukraine & Russia, is one side winning_

Episode Date: May 12, 2022

#scotritter #ukraine #russiaSee 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, May 12, 2022. Back by popular demand, far and away the most popular of Judging Freedom's guests. Major Scott Ritter Now happily publicly Mr. Scott Ritter Former United Nations Weapons Inspector True expert And courageous human being On the nature of war today And the harm that it causes Beyond those in the battlefield Scott it's always a pleasure

Welcome back to the program Thanks very much for having me You're one of the first to say Along with our friend Who shares your views and mine. You're one of the first to say, along with our friend who shares your views and mine and those of most of the folks watching us, Phil Giraldi, who left the CIA for similar reasons that you left the Marine Corps, that the war is over, that the Russians have won, that there's nothing the Ukrainians can do, and that the more aid we give to the Ukrainians, the more innocent people will be killed.

Fair summary of what you've said. It is a fair summary of what I've said. Has anything changed since you last spoke to us, which was about two weeks ago? Has the situation gotten worse for Ukraine, worse for the Russians? Is President Putin ill, like the media is hinting? Or, well, I'll get into where that's coming from in a minute. But the battlefield, does Ukraine still have its back to the wall? There's no doubt that Ukraine has its back to the wall. There's also no doubt that $53 billion is a lot of aid. And while all that aid hasn't been presented to Ukraine, a significant amount of it has. And it has

prolonged this conflict. Russia is still prevailing. Russia continues to define this war as a special military operation. I think that's important for people to understand. Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Being at war with Ukraine would be a completely different level of escalation and violence that would be brought to bear. This is a very limited conflict. It's bloody. It's bloody. It's deadly. But it is very limited with limited objectives that figure primarily on recovering the Donbass for Russian speakers, the newly declared independent states of Donetsk and Lugansk, creating a land bridge between the Donbass and Crimea, and then denazifying,

demilitarizing, however Russia chooses to define that. But it is not about defeating Ukraine. It is not about destroying Zelensky. That's a completely different level. And Russia is accomplishing its tasks uh i think one thing has changed uh last time i think we talked uh the war in uh in the donbass was the phase two was just beginning and there was a lot of anticipation that this would be a little bit more freewheeling than it is a lot of mobility etc turns. It turns out that the Ukrainians have spent eight years transforming their defenses into sort of a combination of Verdun and the Maginot Line. They've been pouring concrete and digging deep.

And the Russians have been steadily defeating these defenses, but it takes time. It's taken real time. If this were a war, Scott, to defeat Zelensky, how different would it be? I mean, according to the news, now you could stop right there, but according to all the news reports, perhaps influenced by the CIA, but there are reporters on the ground, hospitals, schools, churches, apartment buildings, residential neighborhoods have all been attacked. What more or what worse would Putin's troops be doing if this were a war against Ukraine?

First of all, let's just start with the premise that Russia is attacking locations that are protected under the international humanitarian law. That would constitute a war crime if Russia was targeting hospitals, schools, et cetera. Look, the Washington Post, which is no friend of Vladimir Putin, has been compelled to admit that the Ukrainians have converted normally protected areas into militarized zones.

They've dug in, they've placed weaponry, they've placed ammunition. There's videos all over the Internet of Ukrainian forces using schools as barracks, using churches as ammunition storage sites. So any destruction, I mean, at the end of the day, you know, each accusation, allegation has to be investigated. It's irresponsible to make sweeping pronouncements about anything. But the evidence suggests that Russia is being very careful in its targeting, that when it does target locations that are otherwise protected, it is done because the Ukrainians have converted into a military target, and Russia is applying the principles of military necessity and proportionality when striking this. And the Washington Post also had to admit that the Ukrainians were using civilians as human shields. Okay.

You mentioned the $53 billion, which is actually more than what Joe Biden asked for. I think whatever he asked the Congress for, they gave him more. How far can $53 billion go? Now, we're talking about $53 billion in already present in Europe, correct me if I have this wrong, military surplus that belongs to the U.S. or to NATO. Is that right? We're not talking about giving a check to Raytheon to build something and ship it over there. We're talking about military surplus that's there that the Ukrainraines have to learn how to use and repair

when it gets damaged correct and we'll also include in that for instance we're paying the salaries of the of the ukrainian armed forces ukraine has no functioning economy right now their government is not bringing in uh income um so they're broke they're flat out broke and uh we're we're underwriting everything and part of this uh this this money uh And we're underwriting everything. And part of this money includes we're paying the salaries of the Ukrainian soldiers. And then there's a lot of civilian stuff that we're paying for. We're running Ukraine. Basically, the U.S. taxpayer isn't just rearming the Ukrainian military along the lines that you stated, using material that's warehouse stockpiled um it's not new production it's stuff that much of it's already out of date and the other stuff was was mothballed it's been

brought out of mothballs and being turned over to the ukrainians they have to be trained on it um if it's going to survive on the battlefield they have to have a logistical uh tail that's that's built full of maintainers and spare parts. This costs money. It takes time, but it's a lot of money. Let's remind your viewers that the total Russian military budget per year is around $40 billion. So we're giving the Ukrainians more than what the Russians spend in totality on their military in a year. So this is significant. Let me ask you geopolitically, how dangerous is this for the U.S.? State it differently.

Does Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State, and I don't expect you to be in his brain, but you know the way these people think, does Lloyd Austin, former four-star general, Secretary of Defense, does the president of the United States, whatever you think of him, appreciate and understand how deeply we are in this? And do they appreciate how Vladimir Putin appreciates how deeply we are in this? This is the first time I've heard anybody say we are financing the Ukraine military and government, that they are dead broke and we're paying their salaries. So meals ready to eat, the infamous meals that guys in the military joke about. That stuff's coming from us. Everything's coming from us. How dangerous is that to drag us into a World War III-like scenario?

This is the most dangerous situation I've experienced in my life. I'm 60 years old. I've been through the Cold War. I was around in the 80s when I helped implement the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, which got rid of nuclear weapons in the late 1980s, another time when we were on the cusp of stepping off into the nuclear abyss. This is far more dangerous than that. I know that Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Biden, and others like Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, have all said they don't want to go into World War III, and they articulate why, that it could mean nuclear war, which is the end of the world. And yet they are embarked on policies which are heading us only in that direction. There is no de-escalation. There is no off-ramp. All we are

doing is ensuring that Ukraine will be destroyed as a nation because Russia cannot continue this special military operation indefinitely with that kind of resources coming in. At some point in time, Russia will have to escalate. And escalation means, you know, right now, Zelensky's hosting people. Zelensky's having teleconferences. Zelensky will die. His government will die. Ukraine will be annihilated, not nuclearlyly but all the civilian infrastructure that's been avoided will be targeted and it's not just this finland's talking about joining nato what part of russia

will not allow the eastward expansion of nato do the fins and nato not understand russia today has said there will be a military technical uh to this. That's the same language they use with Ukraine. This means Russia will go to war against Finland and Sweden. Can Russia fight a war on two fronts? I mean, Ukraine and Finland are nowhere near each other. Well, first of all, again, Ukraine's not a war. It's a special military operation. Russia would have to mobilize. Russia would have to mobilize. General mobilization. Put a million and a half to two million men under arms. Train them, equip them, be ready to roll by the summer. And I believe that's the direction that Putin's going to. He has no other option. NATO's giving him no other choice.

Let me ask you if your former colleagues in intelligence have shared with you any information about Putin, his mental state, his physical state, his political strength. Has any of it deteriorated since this thing has gone on for four months rather than for a couple of weeks as he had hoped? I don't have a direct mind to people in the intelligence community about Putin, but I will say this. The people that are in the intelligence community today who are in a position to talk about Putin don't know what they're talking about. They don't study Putin. They study the cartoon character they've created of Putin. They view him in a way that's unrealistic and totally detached from reality. So any assessment that comes out of the intelligence community today about Putin, I would take it with a heavy grain of salt.

Okay. My intrepid producer, Gary Villapiano, I don't know how he did this, found this guy called Matthew Van Dyke. Matthew Van Dyke is the founder of the Sons of Liberty International. He's a soldier of fortune, an American, on the ground in Ukraine. We had hoped to have him on earlier but he's in some uh so we could have a tape for you but he says he's in some area where there's no internet we said to him that our military experts scott ritter says this is a lost cause the russians have won the russians will win we're just prolonging it. Russia will be eventually victorious.

Here's what Matthew said in response. I believe it's quite the opposite. Russia cannot resupply as well as Ukraine with support from the West and cannot sustain a long-term conflict with sanctions. Now, Scott, I don't know this fellow. Gary found him. We believe he's being truthful. We looked up Sons of Liberty International. They train civilians to fight military style. They also aid in the training of military. He says he's on the ground. He has an entirely different picture from you. He may have a financial interest in that. I don't know. What do you say about this? I'm not going to denigrate the gentleman. He's doing what he believes is right, et cetera. I will say that I don't understand how he thinks Ukraine is resupplying better than Russia. Russia, even though they only spend 40 to 45 billion dollars a year, has been stockpiling ammunition, materiel, etc.

So when Russia, for instance, generally mobilizes, they'll fall on equipment that they've all trained on, that they're logistically prepared to use. And it's sustainable of using ammunition that is common to the weapons being used. Ukraine is right now being provided by the West, five different kinds of artillery, five different kinds of artillery, all of which require different levels of training, different levels of maintenance, different kinds of ammunition. That is a logistical sustainability nightmare. You will not find a logistician in the world that would recommend this course of action. So not only that, but Ukraine then has to bring this stuff with minimal levels of training to the battlefield and seek to incorporate it

in a hostile environment where the Russians are actively searching them out and destroying them. You know, God bless Mr. Van Dyke. I disagree with what he's doing. I don't believe it's good for Ukraine, him or the United States. He's doing it. I'm sure he's a man of honor, but I will have to take exception. Now, I hope he survives because he's in harm's way. He's literally in harm's way. And he's going up against a nation that I've studied my entire life.

And if he doesn't think he's a target, he needs to think again. He probably needs to think about his family, his loved ones, his future, and come home as soon as possible. We asked you this last time, so I'll ask you again. Does the Pentagon have a plan B, which would involve the use of American personnel in Ukraine? I mean, Joe Biden can't afford to lose this war, and he's made it his war, and you've argued he shouldn't have, any more than Vladimir Putin can afford to lose it. What will Joe Biden do? What will the Pentagon do if this gets worse, and we've just blown $55 billion as if they threw the cash into a fireplace?

I think that Joe Biden is willing to fight this conflict to the last Ukrainian, and that's the direction he's heading. Ukraine is going to suffer horrific losses. The danger isn't Ukraine getting out of control. I mean, Joe Biden has shown he's fully capable of walking away from lost causes, such as Afghanistan. And I believe Ukraine left in a vacuum will be a lost cause. The real danger comes if this expands into Finland and now we see a chance for a Russian NATO conflict where American troops will become involved. That's not a plan B. That's something that nobody wants. Nobody says they want. Nobody should want. But it's the direction we're heading, and there just isn't an off-ramp right now.

I don't see Joe Biden putting in place an off-ramp. And you can't speak of trying to deflect Russia away from conflict towards peaceful resolution while pouring in tens of billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to sustain this fight. You think that NATO will accept Finland in light of what Putin said, in light of the powder keg, tinderbox nature of the relationship between Russia and Finland with NATO troops and weapons at the border, as you described it? Would NATO be foolish enough to accept Finland now? Why this eastward move as if to bloody Putin's nose and taunt him into doing something? I think NATO is embarrassed by Ukraine. It's been an unmitigated disaster for them.

They set Ukraine up to fail, and NATO is desperate for a win. And there are some in NATO who would view bringing Sweden and Finland in as a victory. But again, all one has to do is take a look at Finland. Let's just remember, Finland went to war against the Soviet Union in the 1940s, allied with Nazi Germany. The reason why Finland exists today is because of a peace treaty that they signed with the Soviet Union and continued with Russia that guaranteed the neutrality and perpetuity. I don't know what the Finnish word for perpetuity is, but the English word means forever. And if Finland breaks this treaty, Finland is de facto declaring war against Russia. And anybody in NATO should take a close look at Article 10, which is the article that allows for the expansion of NATO and understand that it is not an open door policy.

It requires NATO to consider the application within the context of the overall security of the alliance. The alliance will be going to war if it allows Finland in. The alliance will be destroyed either conventionally or nuclearly. There's no way anybody can articulate that Finland enhances the security of either Europe or the alliance. And I'm hopeful that one or more members will recognize that this is a suicide pill and they will not vote in favor

or they will at least slow roll the Finnish and Swedish membership applications until which time the Ukrainian conflict is finished, and maybe more rational minds can be brought to bear on how to resolve this problem. How much longer can the war in Ukraine go on? How much longer can the Ukraine military forces hold out? The special military operation is going to end sooner rather than later. I think Russia is making great headway, and they breached those defenses I spoke of. They're rolling up the Ukrainians.

It's going to be over in days, if not weeks. But then the question is, what do you do with this rejuvenated Ukraine that's receiving tens of billions of dollars worth of arms reconstituting their military? Russia just can't leave that sitting there. So I think you're going to see a transition from special military operation to war, general war. And this is a whole new ballgame. Again, I'm here to tell you, if you think you've

seen violence on the battlefield now, wait until Russia declares war on Ukraine and Ukraine will understand what total conflict looks like. It'll be the destruction of their nation. Scott Ritter, there's nobody like you. Thank you very much for joining us. Thanks for having me. Oh, thanks for all the emails and texts and questions, my friends. We don't have time to look at them, but thanks for watching.

Thanks for listening. Thanks for liking and subscribing. Judge Napolitano for another lively session of Judging Freedom.