Judging Freedom - Ukraine Russia War - What_s Next with Scott Ritter

Episode Date: February 25, 2023

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here with Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, February 24, 2023. It's three o'clock sharp in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Scott Ritter is our guest. Scott, since last we spoke, the drama in Ukraine, of course, was the surprise visit of President Biden attempting, intending to Bigfoot the pre-announced speech the next day by President Putin. President Putin gave the speech nevertheless. So I want to start by running a little bit of a clip from President Putin's speech in which he basically says what you have been saying, which is that the West started the war. They started it. Gary, the Kiev regime provided artillery and aviation and other weapons to attack Donbass back in 2014. In 2015, they attempted again to directly attack Donbass. They continued shelling terror in relation to citizens. All of this was completely against the documents

that were accepted by the United Nations Security Council. I would like to repeat, they started the war and we used the force in order to stop it. Are you surprised to hear President Putin say that directly? Is that for international consumption or or domestic consumption? What do you think? Well, I mean, this is this is the Russian equivalent of the State of the Union address. So its primary audience is domestic.

I mean, of course, Putin knows that the world is watching, which is why he at the end of it, he made his announcement regarding strategic arm reduction treaty and the suspension. But this is for domestic consumption. And I think he's basically just cutting to the chase, telling all those people out there in Russia right now who him and Haw about, you know, why are we in Ukraine? What are we in Ukraine? What are we doing? He's making it quite clear that from the Russian perspective, this war was started by Ukraine, by the West, and Russia had no choice. And, you know, Russia is now going to finish this war. They didn't start it, but they will finish it. I actually thought he was a little, I don't want to sound like the nationalists against them, but almost a little timid. I mean,

he could have pointed out the eastward movement of NATO, contrary to the promises of George W. Bush and Jim Baker to his predecessor, Mikhail Gorbachev. He didn't go there. But since you mentioned the suspension of the START treaty, this is your field, Scott, weapons inspection. We'll run that clip. And then I want to ask you about this. Take a listen to the words he uses, theater of the absurd. I don't even know if there's a Russian word for that. Gary's going to raise the volume in Russian. It's almost like he's saying theater of the absurd in English with a Russian accent. Take a listen. In the beginning of February this year, there was a statement from the North Atlantic Alliance

factually demanding that Russia returns to the Strategic Arms Treaty, as they call it, including allowing inspections of our nuclear defense facilities. I don't even know what to call it. It's a theater of the absurd. Regarding this, I have to say that Russia suspends its participation in the new START treaty. Surprise. Well, first, tell us what the START treaty is. Second, tell us how, if at all, dangerous to the West it is at his suspension. Third, address the significance of suspension rather than termination.

And then if you want, you can talk about, I don't know how to say this with a Russian accent, theater of the absurd. We'll start the New START Treaty, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was one of the most important arms control endeavors undertaken by the United States and the former Soviet Union and then later on Russia. It helped bring down, draw down the massive quantities of strategic nuclear weapons that both sides had from the tens of thousands down to, I mean, right now we're talking about 1,550, which is the limit. And if anybody doesn't understand the implications of that, then I can't help you. To go from 30,000 strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 is a big deal. How do we know that that's their number and how do they know that that's our number? Well, see, this is the key aspect of arms control. Trust, but verify. This is what I used to do. I was in the verification business, and my job was to go in and on the ground, eyeballs on target, engage my brain, and ensure that the Russians or the Soviets at the

time were doing that which they were required to do. They were doing the same with us. These on-site inspections are an integral part of any treaty verification process, and it's essential, essential, I don't know how many times I need to say that in underscored, that they'd be allowed to continue, and they're not right now. They're suspended. And this is, you know, the Russians made the point, look, back in, I think, February 2020, both sides agreed that because of the pandemic, that they were going to stop inspections. And they were going to stop the formal meetings because, you know, the idea of getting people together like that face to face at the time was, you know, frightening. And in early 2022, both sides started talking about, hey, maybe it's time we get back into doing this. But the problem for the Russians was in order for them to send inspections to the United States, they have to overfly Europe. And Europe said, no Russian aircraft to be overflying.

We have sanctions. And the Russians went, well, how do we implement this treaty? And the Americans were like, well, that's your problem, not our problem. And then when the Americans tried to send inspectors over, the Russians went, time out, pal. If we can't do it, you can't do it. And then both sides started to talk about it. And then they were going to have this meeting of the BCC, they call it a consultative committee for the treaty, in Cairo, Egypt, because Switzerland had lost its neutrality status, according to the Russians, by supporting the EU against Russia. So they're going to meet in Cairo.

But at the last second, the Russians pulled out. And what they said is, hey, you know, you guys are engaged in the business of trying to destroy us. You've said it straight up. You want to strategically defeat Russia. And you backed out of the ABM Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And so we built missiles to defeat your missile system. And now you want to destroy us and send inspectors in to inspect our missiles that we built to defeat your missile system. And now you want to destroy us and send inspectors in to inspect our missiles that we built to defeat your missile system while you won't let us inspect. That's just not the game we're going to play. So we're suspending this right now. Russia says that they will continue to abide by their obligations, but there won't be any

onsite inspections. There won't be any exchange of data. There won't be anything. And this treaty expires in 2026. And if they don't have another treaty on the deck to replace it, we're in for an arms race that could lead to literally the end of the world. In the interim between now and 2026, will they, will the Russians enhance the size of their military arsenal? No. Okay. And since the treaty is bilateral and one side says no, is that carte blanche for the U.S. to increase the size of its arsenal?

The U.S. would have to withdraw from the treaty in order to do it. There's no carte blanche. The U.S. has legal obligations. You know, so if the U.S. is upset with what the Russians are doing, they can withdraw from the treaty and then they're unfettered to do what they want. But right now the United States contends that it wants... And let's point a couple of things out about the Russians. The U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russia has not acted to, you know, you'd say carte blanche. Russia hasn't built new anti-ballistic missile system. Russia is abiding by that. The U.S.

withdrew from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Russia hasn't fielded any new INF weapons. Only the U.S. has. Russia is serious about arms control. People need to understand that, but there has to be arms control that is mutually beneficial. They're tired of playing a game where the United States negotiates in bad faith, which is what New START was. I'm switching gears a little bit. What is the message that the Russians perceive by President Biden's presence in Kiev. Weakness. Look, the United States had to ask permission. It wasn't a covert mission.

It was secret only to the American people. The United States had to go to the Russians and say, hey, Biden's going to Kiev. Make sure you guys don't bomb Kiev while he's there. And the Russians went, we don't care, go. So there's no secret there. The Russians could care less. They've been letting people go back and forth to Kiev all along. I mean, it's an artificial environment because from the Russian

perspective, Zelensky is the greatest thing that's happened to them here. He's a weak leader. He does really stupid things. And he basically sacrificing the Ukrainian army. I mean, it's tragic, but Zelensky's insistence, for instance, on defending Bakhmut to the last man is a gift to the Russians, a bloody gift. What is the significance of Bakhmut? Is it symbolic or would it be like the Canadians taking over Detroit or the Mexicans taking over El Paso? I mean, is there some strategic significance or is it just symbolic of who controls Bakhmut? Why all the bloodshed over a city that most Americans never heard of before a year ago? Well, Bakhmut and its sister city of

Soledar, which the Russians took last month, are heavily fortified places, heavily fortified. And they represented sort of the keystone to the current Ukrainian defensive line that's been in place since 2014. And so, you know, as long as Soledar held, then Bakhmut was important. But now Soledar's fallen, the line's been compromised. There's better defensive space behind Bakhmut. There's higher terrain, dig in. The Ukrainians would have a better, you know, better ability to defend. But Bakhmut's been the center of attention since May, since May. This battle's been going on since May. And the Ukrainians have just basically, this has become symbolic. This is their Stalingrad. And they are going to put everything they got into it to keep it from falling.

They're fighting. Look, Poroshenko, the head of the Wagner group who's leading the attack here, he straight up said the guys they're fighting are some of the bravest men he's ever seen in his life. He said he won't tolerate anybody speaking badly of the Ukrainians. He said they have bigger than anybody he's ever met. They're putting up a good fight and they're hurting him sometimes and um he salutes them now his his soldiers his the Wagner uh guys are winning the battle and it's up but it's a hard fight uh because the Ukrainians are putting everything they have into it everything if you look at the concentration of forces it's thinly

held all around bakhmut is this giant mass of blue. When the Russians win Bakhmut, everything else is tissue paper thin, the remaining defenses. Well, comparatively, but again, let's just go back to what Peroshkin said. Tissue thin held by

guys with a big spirit. Yeah, and nobody should ever denigrate the Ukrainian soldiers. Their courage is unbelievable. Their skill is admirable. Their tenacity is worthy of praise. So when I talk about the Russians winning and things like this, I'm not saying the Ukrainians can't fight. The Ukrainians can fight. It's just that the Russians fight better and have more stuff to fight with. When and where is the onslaught coming of 300,000 to 500,000

Russian troops? I believe it's already started. I mean, the key aspect to any battle is to shape the battlefield, and the Russians are doing that right now with attacks all along the front. They're designed to press the Ukrainians and have them commit their reserves. And once the Russians identify weaknesses in the Ukrainian lines, then the Russians will exploit it. But the offensive's already begun. It's not the big one, you know, but nothing's that way. You start with reconnaissance, reconnaissance in force, probe the lines, and that's happening. We're going to put up a full screen. It's going to block your face and my face, but it's a list of what the president promised President Zelensky earlier this week. Additional HIMARS, additional 155 millimeter artillery rounds, munitions for laser guided rocket systems, Cyberlux K8 UAS. What are those, Scott? What's Cyberlux?

I don't know. I don't know that i have to i have to look that up okay mind clearing equipment we know what that is secure communications we know what that is funding for training well that's cash we don't know where it's going to go it's a 2 billion total so the daily mail says the president has 113 billion authority i thought congress only gave him 100 okay they say it's 113 billion authority. I thought Congress only gave him 100. Okay, they say it's 113. They say he spent 48.6, and now this is an additional two. So he's over the 50 billion mark. He spent close to or a little more than, whether you think the total is 100 or 113, of what Congress gave him. And he says it's for whatever it takes. My question is, for whatever it takes to do what? I don't think the president, Scott, has yet to articulate a clear militarily achievable objective. Is it to remove the Russians from

eastern Ukraine and Crimea? Is it to remove Vladimir Putin from office? Whatever it is, tell us what it is. Those two alternatives, neither is military. Lindsey Graham, to the contrary, notwithstanding, neither of them is militarily achievable. Let me back up for a second. UAS, I just saw that they had the switchblade system. They called it a UAS. So that might be unmanned aerial systems, something of that nature, drones. So those are different drones that we're looking at, different kinds of drones with different capabilities. So, you know, the funny thing is the U.S. has a public stance and the public stance is we're going to support Ukraine. I mean, Tony Blinken just came out and said there can't be a peace where Ukraine is compelled to give up territory.

We won't accept that. The G7s come out and said the same thing. We've also come out and said that Crimea is part of Ukraine and there's a military buildup there. So, you know, that's a legitimate target that Ukraine has a right to recapture its territory, et cetera. Even though we know that Russia views Crimea and the newly acquired territories as part of Russia, and therefore you trigger existential issues when that happens. But we're given a strong public place. And it's matched by what you saw up there.

But if we went back and took that apart, there's nothing there. There's literally nothing on that piece of paper. It's not a game changer. It's not a war winner. And this is why right after the president met with Zelensky, people started sending the back channel message to Ukrainians. We don't have a bottomless pit. It's not, we don't have an implement infinite supply of you know fact is they they say high Mars ammunition and 155 millimeter I mean I'm telling you right now that the commanding generals in the Pacific are going stop y'all are talking about a potential conflict with China I need every 155 millimeter round ammunition high Mars ammunition ear tag for this video for this fight stop giving it away to Ukrainians. We have to start

looking out for national security interests in the United States. And so they're not getting a lot. They're not getting what they need. You mentioned China. I want to ask you about China. China says it's willing to mediate negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. I mean, that would be absurd. As a judge, I mediated thousands of negotiations, but I wasn't secretly rooting for or on the side of one of the people involved in the negotiation. China doesn't want to see Russia lose this, does it? No. And the Chinese, look, the Chinese are playing a diplomatic game here. They've put forward a proposal and it's been rejected. But now China gets to say, we gave you a shot, guys. We put something on the table.'t know why they do this. They're sending all of 200 troops to Taiwan. What the hell is that for? training the Taiwanese. But this is a dangerous escalation because now it puts American troops potentially in harm's way if there was to be a conflict down the road. And it's sending the wrong signal. I mean, the Chinese are sitting there saying, don't tell us you're coming to

the defense of Taiwan. Remember, you're not supposed to. There's this one China policy we have, all these agreements that we have. And now you guys are telling us that you believe the one China policy, but you're sending a couple hundred trainers there to do what? Because the next step is to begin pre-positioning equipment. And sooner or later, we're going to cross a red line. And I have a feeling that the Chinese take their red lines pretty seriously. And so this could trigger war. Joe Biden may very well want to run for relection as a wartime president like his heroes, Abraham Lincoln and FDR. Is he crazy enough to think that he can drag us into, he can avoid World War III by fighting the Russians in Ukraine and the Chinese in Taiwan? This is insane. A school child would

know this is insane. You know, I'm not a big fan of Joe Biden, so I don't want to, you know, I need to say that right up front. I have a bias against him, but I don't want to accuse him of being insane. But you hit it on the head. If he thinks that being a wartime president is what it takes to win election, that means he's willing to sacrifice this country to get elected. And I'm telling the American people right now, any politician that's willing to put his political ambition ahead of the general welfare of the nation should never be allowed anywhere near elected office whatsoever. people who are sycophantic enough to promote these policies. How else do you explain what we're doing with Ukraine? How else do you explain what we're doing with Taiwan? These are not policies undertaken by peacemakers. These are policies undertaken by people who are playing the game of war without really understanding the game they're playing. One of your nemeses on this program, and he's a nice guy, and the viewers love to hate him, is Jack Devine,

career CIA, in charge of monitoring Russian espionage here and in charge of perpetrating espionage against the Russians there. I asked him the other day how he would define victory. Here's his answer. You push until the Russians cease and desist. I don't believe there's peace, right? But I do think you'll reach a point where everyone's using up so much ammunition, so many soldiers have died, that you slow down the pace of war. No one wins. War could go on for a long time, but it will not go on for a long time at this level. And victory is not about Ukraine. It's the geopolitical risk of the world today. And it's the China, Russia and their allies, the alliance against the West. If Russia fails to accomplish its goal, he will go. And that will change the geopolitical. There's

bigger thing at play here than just the current day to day fighting. And I think there's a world that's going to be unstable if we allow Putin to go unchallenged. And I think we're doing a very good job of challenging him. Well, you may not agree with what he said at the end, but do you agree with him that the war will go on for a while? I mean, maybe not at this level. I mean, Putin could very well declare victory tomorrow. He controls 17 percent of Ukraine. I know he wants to finish what he's doing in

Bakhmut, but what do you think of what Jack just said? I mean, war is an extension of politics by other means. And if a political decision is made in Russia that they cannot sustain this level of fighting, then Russia will do what it has to do to achieve what outcome it can. I personally believe right now that the Russians widely recognize that they can't allow Ukraine to continue to exist in its current form, that the United States will not do the right thing, that the United States would continue to use Ukraine as this festering cancerous mass that would infect Russia and weaken Russia, and that the time is now. Russia needs to win this war and win this war decisively. That's what I believe. And I believe everything the Russians are doing points to that direction. But no, success is not a guaranteed outcome. Just because Scott Ritter says, I believe the Russians are going to win in August, September, October timeframe, doesn't

mean that that's going to happen. Things can happen. And if this war drags on, then maybe divine's on to something. But I don't think this war is going to drag on. I think Russia understands that if this war drags on, they lose. And that's not an outcome for them. Within 36 hours of President Putin's State of the Union speech, his predecessor, President Dmitry Medvedev, who today is the vice chair of the Russian equivalent of the National Security Council, made some startling claims that it might be necessary for Russia to go all the way west to the Polish border, and it might be necessary for Russian troops to cross the Polish border. Now, why would he say that? Medvedev is the bad cop cop to Putin's good cop. I mean, the good news is that he's not the decision

maker. I think his job is to be the snarling dog behind the door that growls, barks, you know, drools, makes noises just to do that. But, you know, Putin's the leader. Putin says things that are rational, responsible. I do want to point out that at one point in time, Barack Obama and Michael McFaul thought that it was a good idea to promote Medvedev over Putin. Shows you their judgment. Right, right, right. Michael McFaul is the Republican guru on the House Armed Forces. No, no, this is a former U.S. ambassador to Russia. Oh, the other McFaul, I apologize. The other, yeah.

Correct, correct, correct. All right, Scott, thank you very much for joining us today. A great insight, as always. And you managed to keep the dog down, by the way. Well, like I said, the good thing about this mic is it's directional. So even though the dogs were barking, you didn't hear it. Have a great week. Oh, oh, I got to tell you something.

And I think a lot of people are watching now, which is why I want to say it, because you are a significant part of this. Yesterday, Judging Freedom reached and exceeded the 100,000 subscriber mark on YouTube. That is in large measure thanks to you and your selfless, intellectually honest, and personally courageous analysis that we get. Colonel McGregor, of course, is responsible for this as well. And I am thrilled at all the wonderful people that keep watching us. But I wanted you to hear this great news from my mouth. It means in the media world that we're an elite podcast.

So if I were a quarterback, I'm up there with Tom Brady. All right, I won't get carried away. I'm proud to be part of your offensive line, quarterback. Thank you, Judge. And it's because of you. It's a team effort, but you're the quarterback, and people are coming to watch you, and I applaud you for your success. Well, thank you very much for helping us,

and we look forward to all your continued help in the future. All the best. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.