Judging Freedom - Ukraine, Tanks & Putin - w_ Scott Ritter

Episode Date: January 27, 2023

#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 Friday, January 27, 2023. It's a few minutes after three o'clock in the afternoon here on the East Coast of the United States. Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, many things have happened with respect to the war in Ukraine, decisions in Moscow, events on the battlefield, decisions in Washington, decisions in Berlin. But I want to start with something you've written about extensively lately. In fact, your piece on it was the best I have seen on this event. And of course, as you know, thanks to you and Colonel McGregor, I've begun to devour everything I can get my hands on, and that is Ramstein. What happened in Ramstein, Germany, involving the Secretary of Defense of the United States and many others in the past week?

Well, on January 20th, they convened, I believe, the eighth session of what they call the Ramstein Contact Group. That's basically a forum where the defense ministers of NATO and allied states like Sweden, Finland, gather and coordinate with their Ukrainian counterparts on the material support that Ukraine says it needs to continue this conflict with Russia. This current iteration of the Ramstein Contact Group was notable because it came in the aftermath of a declaration made by General Zeluzhny, who is the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, where he said straight up, unless you provide me with 300 tanks, 500 infantry fighting vehicles, and 500 artillery pieces. In other words, a new army. A new army. I'm going to lose the war with Russia. We can't win. Straight up said it to

The Economist magazine. And so the Ramstein group met to meet this requirement. And what they emerged with was less than 50% of the infantry fighting vehicles that General Zeluzhny requested. And even these, the majority of them, 90 striker vehicles aren't infantry fighting vehicles. They're infantry carrying vehicles. If you actually took them into the forward edge of the battle area in a modern war, they all be destroyed. Less than 20% of the artillery that was requested. And at the time of the Ramstein group,

barely 10% of the tanks that were requested. Now, since then, there's been pressure placed on Europe to increase the number of tanks. And right now, the number of armored vehicle or tanks that have been promised is still less than 50% of that which was requested. But what complicates this, go ahead. Before we get into tanks and Bradleys versus Leopards and the American tanks versus the German tanks, you have your finger on the pulse of NATO. Is there a fissure down the middle of NATO between hawks like the United States and doves? I'm just going to throw out a country, Finland, France. In other words, are there countries in NATO that see this for what it is, an inevitable Russian victory

and the futility of the West getting involved? And are those countries at odds with other Western NATO countries like the United States and perhaps Germany after Joe Biden twisted their arms. You follow my question? I follow your question. I mean, I'll start off by saying there are definitely doves and hawks in NATO. I mean, it was interesting to hear Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense, and General Miley, Mark Miley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, come out of the Ramstein group saying NATO has never been more unified in its entire history. What a load of- That's farce. Yeah. It's basically horse dung. The NATO is extraordinarily divided. And there are nations

that are just saying straight up, we're not participating in this. There's other nations that participate in a farcical level, meaning providing equipment that doesn't work, can't work, won't work. But the most important thing is, coming out of the Ramstein group, is that none of them, none of them believe Ukraine can win the war. None of them. And the reason why I say that is, if you thought Ukraine could win the war, then you'd give Ukraine that which it claims it needs to win the war instead you give them less than 50 and it's staggered on a timetable which means it'll never get there you won't be properly trained on it um it won't be logistically sustainable so you're guaranteeing that ukraine will lose the war but you're creating the political image that we're doing

everything in our power to help Ukraine win. If they fail to win, that's on Ukraine. Why did President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, Secretary of Defense Austin, twist the arms of their opposite numbers in Germany to get Germany to spring loose with these Leopard tanks. What is the significance? That's like more than one. I put Chris on the other side of the house. What is the significance, Scott, of German tanks, if anything? Okay, let me try and answer the question. The armed twisting that took place is purely political. The fact of the matter is Germany is constrained by law to provide military equipment of this nature. I mean, there's a, you know, in the aftermath of the Second World War, there's this,

and today is Holocaust Remembrance Day. People should recall that. There was this thing, never again. And that was about never again will we allow the Holocaust to take place. But Germany took that to heart. Never again meant never again will they allow Germany and especially German industry to be militarized in a manner which has German tanks going on Ukrainianrainian soil to kill russians which is what people have been asking to do germany was the key here the leopard 2 tank is the most modern tank that's available in numbers sufficient enough to actually have a meaningful impact on the battle

but they can't be provided unless germany agrees to the exportation. Germany said, we're not going to do it unless somebody else steps up to the plate. The British said 14 Challenger tanks. That's nothing. The Germans wanted Americans. So the Americans said that they would, I apologize for this. The Americans said that they would provide the M1 tank, but they're not. It's a lie. First of all, we're not giving the Ukrainians the real tank. The real tank has depleted uranium armor and can actually survive in a modern battlefield. We're not giving them that. We're giving them the old tank with steel armor, and we don't even have those. So it's going to take months to prepare these things, to produce them. Some people say they won't be available until the

summer, the fall, maybe even next year, which means the M1 Abrams tank isn't part of this. It's all about Germany getting the German tanks freed up. And that's what the United States did. We misled the Germans. We lied to the Germans. We lied to the Ukrainians in order to get them to release these Leopard 2 tanks. Colonel McGregor, our colleague on judging freedom and elsewhere, says that the Leopard 2 tank is a far better tank than the Bradley. He agrees with you. It'll take months to get there. Here's Admiral Kirby on how long the spokesperson for the Defense Department, though in this clip he's speaking from the White House, how long it will take the tanks to get there. Watch how reluctant his answer is. And given the process, what's the soonest the Abrams could get there? The Pentagon, I think,

talked about this earlier today. There's no date certain on the calendar. I think what we're looking at is what's probably going to be many months before they're actually there. Okay, thank you. Many months from now, will there even be a war going on to receive the tanks, or will the Russians have triumphed? Whatever many months means. It's got to be more than three or four, if he's using the word many. Yeah, these tanks aren't going to be provided from drawdown stocks. That's what previously had happened. We went and took equipment out of the

American inventory and gave it to the Ukrainians. These tanks have to be built, which means we have to get the money to the producer. They have to be built. And the timeline for that could be- This is different than the other military equipment we've been providing, which has been from either surplus or substance, but it's drawdown. The stuff already existed. Why are we promising something that doesn't exist unless the promise is fanciful or political, but not militarily significant? Well, that's exactly it.

It's not military. My bet is the M1 Abrams will never show up on the Ukrainian battlefield. Because the reason why I say this, let's just draw on Zelensky, the president of Ukraine himself. He came out and said, if I don't get these tanks by August, it's too late. Now, what do you mean too late? It means the war is over. And he knows that. He knows it. Zelensky knows it. All the Ukrainians know it, that this war is over unless they receive overwhelming amounts of military support,

which they're not getting. Let's get to the battlefield. How is the Russian will to fight now that the troops that have arrived are either reservists called up and trained, probably veterans, they've been there before, not in Ukraine, but they've done something in the military before, or conscripts. How would you characterize the Russian will to fight? And by Russian will, I mean of the grunts, of the troops on the ground, not of the generals. I would compare it this way. There's a great trilogy written by Rick Atkinson about the U.S. Army in World War II. And by the end of

the first volume, Army at Dawn, which talks about North Africa, you get into the second one, Day of Battle, which gets into Sicily and Italy. And basically, he talks about the transformation of the American military from this conscript force that didn't know how to fight into this group that are still conscripts, but they're now hardened killers who know the only way they're going to go home is through Germany, through Berlin, killing the Nazis. That's the Russian army today. There's 300,000 guys that don't want to be in the military. 300,000 guys who prefer to be home, but they know the only way to get home is by finishing the job on the battlefield, killing the Ukrainians, bringing this war to an end. And they are 100% motivated, dedicated to that task. What is the status of the Ukraine army?

Well, the best way to characterize the Ukrainian military today is to note this. Everybody, I think, has seen the videos of the Ukrainian police running around chasing guys down and getting them into vehicles for mobilization. That tells you the enthusiasm that exists. Here's the other thing. You know, the guys that are chasing them, they're cowards. They spent $20,000 to $30,000 to buy the right to stay off the front line to hunt these guys down. This is pathetic. There is no will to fight in the Ukrainian military. All right. I want to run a clip from Stefano Sanino. Mr. Sanino was a high-ranking official of the European Union.

He's an Italian diplomat. Forgive me, I don't know exactly which committee he's on or which position he holds, but it's one of the positions in the EU that is full-time. He's fluent in English, so you're going to hear it in what we call in New Jersey, broken English, but you can understand what he says. And I want your thoughts on what Commissioner Sunino says about the nature of the battle going on. Putin has moved from the concept of special operation to a concept now of a war against NATO and the West. So we are not speaking anymore about special operation to free up a country from a Nazi leadership. Now we are speaking about the war with NATO and with the West. Different story. Different story. Is he recognizing a realization that you and Colonel McGregor and others have been warning about,

that there are forces in the West that want this to be Russia's war with the West. I think what he's recognizing is that Russia recognizes this as a war with the West. And Russia is organizing itself and preparing for just that. The Russian army that's fighting right now in Ukraine is not the Russian army that started this conflict. This is an army that has been built from scratch, rebuilt from scratch to fight NATO. It's not, you know, when they talk about closing with the Ukrainians, they're not thinking about these are Ukrainians. They're saying this is NATO. This is the collective West.

And they're prepared to take this to whatever level the West wants to take it. But this is a Russian army that is trained, equipped, motivated, ready to win to fight a NATO threat, not a Ukrainian threat. And how long is NATO and the West prepared to keep putting arms into Ukraine when inwardly they know that it's futile? I think we've answered that question because Kirby won't be honest. The point is we know Ukraine has lost. We know it. The CIA director, General Mark Miley, have all briefed the Ukrainians on what the Russians are getting ready to do. And the Ukrainians know they don't have sufficient resources to match what the Russians are getting ready to do.

This war will be over, as Zelensky said, by August. All right. I don't know to whom Admiral Kirby speaks. And by the way, I've met him many times when I was at Fox. He's a competent, charming guy. But right now he's got a mouth of political voice. I want you to listen to his answer to a question about not how long the U.S. is going to be there, but how long this is going to go on. I think we need to prepare ourselves to have to continue to support Ukraine for quite some time. I can't be perfectly predictive.

Does he know what he's talking about, quite some time? or it's not going to last quite some time? First of all, politically speaking, we have to remain committed to supporting Ukraine. And so we know our own military leadership has said that Ukraine will not be able to evict Russia from Ukraine this year. They never will be able to. But we can't say that. So we say it's going to be a long fight. But the fact is, we can't, we're unwilling to give Ukraine the equipment they need to win the war in the timeframe available, which means we know this war will be over come August, September, October of this year.

Now listen to Admiral Kirby, who sounds as if, this will really get your blood pressure, Scott, who sounds as if Ukraine is a member of NATO. Take a listen to this. President Biden has said since the very beginning of this conflict that we take our Article 5 commitments to NATO seriously. Article 5, of course, is the notion that an attack on one is an attack on all. And we take that seriously. In fact, we take it so seriously that President Biden ordered an additional 20,000 American troops alone onto the European continent, and they still are there. Now, we'll be rotating them in and out, but the net number of 100,000 American troops on the European continent has stayed the same and will stay the same for the foreseeable future.

Well, this is a lot to unpack. First, what the hell is he talking about, Article 5? Article 5 is irrelevant because Ukraine is not a member of NATO. There's no legal or treaty obligation whatsoever on the part of any country to come to the defense of NATO. And secondly, why is it saying how many American troops are in Ukraine? 100,000 more than usual? Less than usual? Or is it sending more bodies there? They should start with your thoughts on Colonel Kirby.

In my view, just a reference to Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Well, first of all, the reference to Article 5, of course, has nothing to do with Ukraine. It has everything to do with the fears that have been promulgated by Poland and the Baltic nations about Russian aggression, and the notion that have been promulgated by Poland and the Baltic nations about Russian aggression and the notion that because Russia went into Ukraine, Russia intends to go into Poland and the Baltics. And this is why we've sent the troops into Europe to beef up the presence in the Eastern areas so that we can tell our NATO allies that if Russia were to make this incursion, we would be there for them

under Article 5. 100,000 troops in Europe, 40,000 in Romania. I guess the other 60,000 were at Ramstein. I don't know. What do these numbers tell you? Is it what we traditionally, typically have kept there in the post-Cold War era? Or is old Joe sending more troops there in dribs and drabs so that when he decides we have to go to war, he has the bodies with which to do it? Well, let's be clear. During the Cold War, in order to fight a Soviet military presence of 400,000 to 500,000 troops in East Germany, we had 300,000 troops permanently stationed in West Germany, and we were prepared to immediately rotate 250,000 more using an exercise called reforger. Prior to this conflict, we had around 60,000 troops in Europe. No tanks, by the way. They were all striker units,

artillery units, et cetera. now we've beefed it up to a hundred thousand this is through a rotation of heavy armored brigades and other other brigades for instance like the 101st airborne division that's in romania right now the total number of troops is a hundred thousand i told you to fight a half a million russians we needed to have over 550 000. this hundred 100,000 is a joke, literally a joke. It's zero combat capability. You try to project 100,000 Americans into Ukraine against not just the 700,000 Russians that they have now, but Russia just said they're expanding their military to 1.5 million. I mean, yay, good job, NATO. Because of what we did in Ukraine, Russia's

literally building up a stronger army, a more capable army than they had prior to this conflict. It's just really psychological. It has nothing to do with reality. I was going to ask you if Putin is depleting the strength of his army, but you've already put your finger on that pulse. And your argument is that no, he's not depleting it. He's making it bigger and stronger. Yeah. I mean, the fact is Russia's taking casualties. Let's not pretend it hasn't. But what Russia has done is transitioned from a peacetime military, which it was when it went in on the special military operation, to this new military that is full of combat veterans who know how to fight.

Russia has fixed its mobilization problems. Russia has fixed its defense industry problems. You know, we can't, we promised tanks that we can't build, and it's going to take us months to get our defense industry to build a handful of tanks. Russia's building between 20 and 40 T-90 modern battle tanks every month. The defense industry is cranking, cranking, cranking. What is the significance in a land war to tanks? I'm trying to remember my days from basic training. Infantry is the queen of battle. Do you remember that line?

What is the significance of tanks? Well, today, tanks have actually been diminished because of the proliferation of guided anti-tank missiles amongst infantry means that if a tank goes out and tries to bum rush a unit that's dug in, you're going to lose your tanks. The tanks have to operate as part of a combined arms team with sufficient artillery support, dismounted and mounted infantry. And then the tank has some utility, but the tank has to keep moving and the tank has to be supported. Russia is trained to do this. We're trained to do this. You know who's not trained to do it with this new equipment they're getting in? The Ukrainians. We are literally feeding them suicide pills every time we give them this equipment. One of the points you make in your recent article that starts out about Rammstein,

and it's a brilliant article, by the way, Scott, and it brings us down to the ground in Ukraine, is how, and I can't use the adjective because it's a military adjective, it's a four-letter word turned into a gerund, how blankety-blank miserable the Abrams and Bradley tanks are, how they break down all the time, how nearly impossible it is to keep them operating for Americans that have been trained for years on maintaining these things. Is this right? No, it's 100% right. Look, in the best

of conditions, an Abrams tank for every one hour of operation in the field needs three hours of maintenance. That's the best. Now we put in combat conditions where you're not getting the proper continuous maintenance, things get broken down. You're probably looking at five to six hours of maintenance for every one hour of combat time. This requires full-time, highly trained maintenance crews that the Ukrainians don't have. So the Ukrainians now, when a tank breaks, are going to have to take that tank and remove it out of Ukraine back to Poland or Germany to be repaired. This is an impossibly complicated logistical support mechanism. It's doomed to fail. Before I let you go, what is the name of your friend who's gotten as much sound in this as you

have? That is Maverick, and I apologize for him. I scheduled, the reason why I picked the three o'clock time table for you is that this was supposed to be a window where nobody was coming in and out of my house. But in the middle of the interview, somebody came in the house, and the dog has just gone bonkers. So I apologize for that. I apologize for your ears. When Chris is here, he doesn't bark, but he nips at my hands and feet. I'm not sure which is worse. Scott, no matter what we're talking about, I know that our audience genuinely appreciates you, and you know how much I do.

Thanks very much for joining us. Thanks for having me, and thanks for tolerating Maverick. Oh, of course. Give Maverick our best. Judge Napolitano. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.