Judging Freedom - Ukraine - Will More Weapons Ever be Enough_ Scott Ritter

Episode Date: December 22, 2022

#Ukraine #Russia #PutinSee 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, December 22nd, 2022, three days till Christmas. It's a few minutes after two o'clock here on the east coast of the United States. We're joined today by our fan favorite, Scott Ritter. Scott, always a pleasure. Welcome here. So I understand since you were last on with us, you have received some criticism from Russian bloggers who essentially agree with you, but they think you've been, quote, too optimistic about the likely Russian victory in Ukraine. What do you say to them when they say that to you, Scott? Well, you know, first of all, I'm somebody who believes that you can't, you shouldn't put forward criticism unless you also put forward a solution. Otherwise, it's defeatist. And in a time of war, there's nothing worse than a defeatist attitude.

I think you and I have had some frank conversations where I have been critical of the Russians. You know, I also have been realistic in, you know, changes in the environment, the so-called game changer of the billions of dollars back in May. I've criticized Russian intelligence for being too optimistic about the chances for a quick victory in February and March. So I'm not someone who's ever pulled punches when it comes time for criticism. But I also take a look at the larger trends and the larger trends have me feeling optimistic about the prognosis for victory. The people who are criticizing me are people who have links to the eight year long conflict in the Donbass.

It was carried out primarily by the Lugansk militias and Donetsk militias, people who are affiliated with these militias. And they have a lot of resentment and anger and angst towards Russia. They feel like they were abandoned for eight years. And they feel like even now in this current conflict, they've been left with, you know, with less than choice weaponry and not prime guidance, et cetera. They don't feel they've been used effectively. So they're very critical. They're very bitter.'ve been used effectively. So they're very critical. They're very bitter.

And for the most part, they're very far away from the battlefield. So a lot of this is, you know, embitterment that carries over. And so I've taken umbrage over what I feel to be their commentary that if this was an American giving commentary about an American operation, I would say you're literally playing in the hands of the enemy. You're highlighting everything the Ukrainians and the Americans and NATO want to say bad about Russia. And yet you provide no outlet. And what I mean by outlet is I have no problem with people saying this is wrong, that is wrong, that is wrong. Please bring it all on for anything on

either side. But I do have a problem with people who claim to be supportive of a cause, and yet all they do is criticize, highlight the talking points of the other side without providing any solution. This is wrong, therefore, this is what we should do, as opposed to this is wrong, therefore, Putin is evil, Sorokin is horrible, et cetera, et cetera. If they have a problem with me, so be it. I don't care. All right. Good for you.

Good for you. There's no change whatsoever in your view about the futility of the Ukrainian cause, the absurdity of the American support for it, and the certainty or near certainty, anything could happen, near certainty of a Russian victory. No, there's no change whatsoever. All right. I say that because I don't know if he was ever your boss. Was he, General Petraeus? No. No. Okay. Well, General Petraeus has said some rather startling things on my friend Neil Cabuto's show on the platform of my former employer, Fox News, and we thought we'd run some of these past you. For example, General Petraeus, and these quotes are just from yesterday, told Neil that Putin has seriously miscalculated and he's not training his new troops. He is obviously completely miscalculated and he's not training his new troops uh he is obviously completely

miscalculated from the very beginning he has reacted as ukraine has seized the strategic initiative as it launched counter offenses first won the battles of kiev and other northern cities of parkive retook part of the area that is to the west of the Dnipro River down in the south and launched a very impressive counteroffensive in the east. He's tried everything he can that would be domestically palatable to mobilize additional forces. It's not going well. They aren't training and equipping them adequately at all. Not training and equipping them. I mean, this is about as far from, from what you have been telling us as is imaginable. Is this hogwash?

Yeah, it's 100% hogwash. With all due respect to the general, um, I mean, this is a man who should have given his age and his, uh, and his pay grade. Um, you know, I know for a fact he served during the Cold War. So I know for a fact he knows what the Soviet threat was. And he's aware of their capability of the Soviets back then. The Russians today are orders of magnitude better than the Soviets. And the notion that a professional Russian officer corps wouldn't train their troops to the highest possible standard, equip them with the most modern equipment. I'd advise General Petraeus to take a look at the videos that have been playing recently of the T-90 tanks coming in, the most modern tanks, the advanced T-80 tanks,

the modernized T-72 tanks, all of which are the equivalent of or better than anything we have in our inventory, General. And you're saying that they're not equipping them, they're not training them. Why do you think 125,000, 150,000 of these mobilized troops aren't yet on the battlefield, General? Do you think maybe they're going through the final preparation that is the equivalent of what you used to do at the national training center general ntc ford erwin final you know combat maneuvering getting things together the russians are doing that which is necessary

to get their troops prepared to engage the ukrainians who they view as a NATO peer force, engage them in combat and prevail. I don't know what General Petraeus is talking about. I don't know what his sources are. I don't think he knows what his sources are. We have more to come, but I have to say as an aside, you know, I'm a big fan of yours and we've worked together and I enjoy it very much. But there is nothing like a Marine Corps major telling a four-star army general why he's wrong. This is absolutely wonderful. The next cut, very interesting phrase. Actually, there's two things I want to point out to you before Gary runs the clip. First is Russia cannot out suffer the U.S. and NATO. And the second is, and I don't know how this could be true, Russia has already suffered more casualties in 10 months in Ukraine than it did in eight years in Afghanistan. Listen to what he says.

He's in a very difficult position. I don't think he is yet willing to acknowledge that Russia cannot out suffer the Ukrainians, the Americans and the Europeans, which I think he still believes is possible. But I think there is going to come a point and we need to hasten that moment when he realizes that this war is not just unsustainable because of the terrible losses on the battlefield, which are now many times what they sustained in over nine years in Afghanistan, just in the first 10 months of this war, but also the damage that's being done to their economy, their financial system, his personal confidants, the sanctions against them, and the export controls that are bringing their industry to their knees.

Let's start with history. Can it possibly be that the Russians have sustained more casualties in 10 months in Ukraine than they did in nine years in Afghanistan? Oh, no, that's an absolute true statement. But we're talking about two different vast... We're talking about a low-intensity conflict in in Afghanistan right um let me put it this way you know that's that's if the United States were to get involved in this conflict and put the 101st Airborne Division and the Second Armored Division on the field regardless of what the outcome was whether they prevailed they lost they fought to a draw I will will make the following statement with absolute sense of certainty.

The United States would suffer more losses in the first month of this fighting than we suffered in the entire 20-year global war on terror, inclusive of Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other minor skirmish that was out there. This is a statement of fact. Modern warfare is bloody business, and General Petro should know this. He should know that there's a huge difference between this kind of large-scale ground combat in Europe and what the Russians were doing in Afghanistan. Just like if the Americans were to get involved,

there would be orders of magnitude different between that kind of fighting and what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is just an absurd statement by a general who is, I don't know, seeking short-term, you know, attention on the media because it's an absurd statement. And General Petraeus, you know it's an absurd statement. That's what gets me. You know this. What is he talking about when he says that Russia cannot out-suffer the U.S., Ukraine, and Europe, by which he means collectively NATO? Well, first of all, the idea that Russia's suffering is an absurdity beyond belief. General Petraeus, while there's still an ability, please take your passport, buy a ticket, fly to Moscow.

Walk along Moscow. Go to Red Square. Walk along the GUM shopping center. Walk along the streets of Moscow. You're going to see lighting. You're going to see stores full of stuff. You're going to see happy people on the streets. No demonstrations, no nothing.

What suffering are you talking about, General? Because I know that if you go to Kiev, you're definitely not going to see that. You're not going to see that in any city in Ukraine. You're not going to see that in most cities in Europe where lights are out, dimmed, people are told to turn things down. So if you're talking about suffering. But let me also remind General Petraeus of the following. Twenty seven million dead, General. You think you can out-suffer the Russians?

Do you think that NATO and the West has ever undergone anything like the decade of the 90s? You have no clue what you're talking about. What are the 27 million you're talking about? 27 million casualties in World War II. Right. These people know how to take losses, pick themselves up, brush themselves off and move on. Unlike us, who no longer celebrate the victories of World War Two, we don't celebrate Victory Day great-grandchildren of the 27 million who died, parade in their honor, never forgetting what sacrifices were made to get them where they are today. I mean, come on, General, this is an absurdity. You're playing into the most Russophobic tropes imaginable, and you're better than this.

You're smarter than this. I don't know why you're doing this. All right. One more quote. I know your blood pressure's going up, and it's fabulous. I'll have a Diet you're doing this. All right. One more quote. I know your blood pressure's going up and it's fabulous. I'll have a Diet Coke and calm down. Neil Cavuto asked, this is right before the clip, you don't see the question. That's what I'm telling you.

Cavuto asked if Putin will recognize the Russian war, the Russian side, as unsustainable? Now, you can imagine the answer, but here it is. There will come a point, I believe, where Putin will recognize that this war is unsustainable in the same way that Afghanistan was unsustainable for the Soviet Union after nine-plus years there and withdrew from that. Yeah, but that was nine-plus years, right? We're not even a year into this. No, but he has sustained many times the losses on the battlefield in Ukraine that they sustained in over nine years in Afghanistan. Okay, he's comparing apples to oranges. Do you explain that to us? The intensity of fighting in Afghanistan versus the low level intensity, the intensity in Ukraine versus the

low level in Afghanistan. But what the heck do you think he's talking about when he says Putin will recognize the Russian involvement as unsustainable? I mean, his resources are vastly superior to what Zelensky has. It's not just the resources, it's how Russia is marshalling these resources. Vladimir Putin has given some speeches recently where he's given a hint about what's going on. First of all, the Russians aren't engaged in another mobilization. They've made it clear that this mobilization, this partial mobilization is sufficient for the task at hand. But they have enlarged their military to one point over 1.5 million. That's the plan. They're going to mobilize. What he's saying is this rectifies

discrepancies that have emerged given the new realities of NATO expansion in Finland, Sweden, and NATO aggressive posturing in Poland requires Russia to take this step. So they are going to increase the size of their military over the course of the next several years to match this. And Russian industry, defense industry is being mobilized. But what Putin said is this isn't about trading guns for butter. He said, we're not doing that. We're keeping the butter, but we're building the guns. We're doing this responsibly and to measured measure.

What this means is that Russia is not going to get exhausted, unlike the West, which has already depleted everything we have to feed the Ukrainian war effort to no avail. We have Ukrainian generals begging for tanks, armored fighting vehicles and artillery pieces. have to give them. And we're not mobilized. I mean, the best we can do is go in and kickstart some old Soviet era factories in former Warsaw Pact countries to build old weapons. We haven't done anything on our end to get our defense industry up and running because we can't. Because to do that would require us to go on a war footing and then that would be unsustainable. So with all due respect to General Petraeus, once again, you're wrong, General. Go to the defense college right there in the National Defense University

and ask people who study defense industry and what the Russians are doing and compare and contrast what we are doing to what Europe's doing. And you'll see only one side has a sustainable plan. And that's the Russians. Here's a great one-liner from one of our emailers. The major, meaning you, the major is an officer. The general is a politician.

I guess you can't get a star on your shoulder without being a politician. No, I mean, nowadays you can't get the eagles of a colonel without being somewhat of a politician. About an hour ago, President Putin said the following, our goal is not to spin the flywheel of military conflict, but on the contrary, to end this war. We will strive for an end to this, and the sooner the better, of course. Just an hour ago, sending a message or just stating the obvious? Everybody wants war to be over, but you want it to be over on your terms. Well, and that's what he's doing. He's doing both. I mean, the fact is there will be no negotiated settlement to this conflict. That's just what Putin is saying. Bringing this war to the shortest possible conclusion means we're going to win this war.

He's doubling down on victory. And so, again, General Petraeus, you're wrong. Russia's seen this thing through. They're seeing it through to the end, and victory will be on their terms. That's their plan. Now, we all know that things can happen, etc., but Russia is better positioned to accomplish its objectives than the United States, NATO, and Ukraine are to accomplish their objectives. We're going to play you two clips back-to-back from last night from President Biden speaking with President Zelensky

and then President Zelensky answering a question about, you'll believe this, but his laundry list of what he wants will blow your mind. What is a just peace? Run both clips, Gary. He continues to be wrong. The sooner he makes it clear that he cannot possibly win this war, that's when the time we have to put this president in a position to be able to decide how he wants the war to end. Just peace? I don't know I don't know what just peace is it's a very

philosophical description you know for all of us just peace is different for me as a president just peace is no compromises as to the sovereignty freedom and territorial integrity of my country the payback for all the damages inflicted by russian aggression by Russian aggression. Okay, so he wants the territory back and he wants to be paid for every brick that was moved by Russian missiles. I get it. You always ask for more than you want. Is he credible?

Actually, are either of them credible? No. Look, let's be clear about Zelensky's visit. It was a made-for-TV moment for domestic American political consumption. It has nothing to do with reality. They brought in a prop, their toy prop. Zelensky brought him in, put him in the White House for this little press conference, and he got to give his little speech in front of Congress. For what purpose? Because we have a lame duck session of Congress that the president is desperate to get to a rubber stamp, a $33 to $43 billion

monetary aid to Ukraine, knowing that soon the Republicans are going to take over the House and they're going to start asking uncomfortable questions about accountability, why are we doing this, et cetera. Now, to do this, the president has to create a distraction. Zelensky was a distraction. This concept of a noble, democratic leader, et cetera. The dogs are agreeing with you, Scott. The dogs are singing the praises of hopefully me, or they might be debating me. But the bottom line is, this was a domestic political moment. It has nothing to do with reality. Neither Biden nor Zelensky is populating the sphere of reality.

This is fantasy-based words, and it'll be nothing in a couple months because the Russians are going to dictate the terms of the war. From an American domestic political point of view, the $1.7 trillion spending package, which of course I would have voted against were I in the Congress, that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell have agreed to, has $6 billion more aid to Ukraine than Joe Biden asked for. So they've already allotted $65 billion. They're now going to allot another $47 billion. Biden asked for $41. A hundred billion dollars to be dispersed at the discretion of the President of the United States in whatever form he wishes, cash, hardware, whatever, to Ukraine.

I would ask the average American this, A, and I'm not insulting your viewers who I believe are educated, spot on, but the average American out there, first of all, start off with, point Ukraine out on a map. If you can't, why are we sending them $100 billion? Second of all, explain to me why Zelensky is a Democratic leader, you can't articulate why he is. You're just dumbly nodding to something you don't understand. And if you don't understand it, why are we funding it? This is fundamental. We have so many problems here at home. Look, I believe in a strong national security. I believe that there is a time to underwrite genuine movements around the world that benefit American national security. Ukraine ain't it. And yet the American people are sitting here dumbly nodding their heads at $100 billion when

down in Florida, we have hurricane recovery victims that need money. We have people still suffering from prior natural disasters. We have homeless. We have medical problems. You name it, we got it. We should be taking care of our problems at home before we give money away to people that we don't understand. And therefore, you just shouldn't fund that which you don't understand. Because at the end of the day, you're funding one of the most vile, odious ideologies imaginable. The ideology of Stepan Bandera and extreme white supremacist Ukrainian nationalism. Not a single dollar. You know,

every year Congress says the same thing. No money should go to the Azov regiment, they say. It's right there in the defense appropriation bill. And yet we're giving $100 billion to a government that empowers the Azov regiment. Stupid. If in my wildest imaginings, wildest dreams, I became the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I would have Scott Ritter there to give the other view from the one they heard last night from Vladimir Zelensky. But don't worry, Scott, that's not going to happen. But thank you for all of this, my dear friend. Thanks for everything you've done for judging freedom and for the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that have viewed you. Looking forward to working with

you in the new year. We're dark next week. We have Alex Jones at 315 today to talk about domestic issues, but you're the icing on the cake. Thank you, Scott. Merry Christmas to you and domestic issues. But you're the icing on the cake. Thank you, Scott. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. The dogs say the same. Thank you. Love the dogs.

Judge the Palatano for judging freely.