My latest Rant:
Ritter’s Rant 009: Where’s the Beef
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6-2xHhjrdM)
Trump bombed three empty sites in Iran. Why?
Transkripzioa:
0:01
[Music]
0:12
welcome to this edition of Ritter’s Rant
0:14
um you know back in the 1980s there was
0:17
a commercial for Wendy’s the um fast
0:20
food chain uh it was mocking the
0:22
tendency of McDonald’s and Burger King
0:26
uh to have these big sandwiches but uh
0:28
there was just a lot of bun and a lot of
0:30
lettuce and a lot of onions but not too
0:33
much burger and there was this little
0:36
old lady who uh would come up and look
0:38
at her sandwich and say “Where’s the
0:40
beef?” And that’s sort of my uh my take
0:44
when I reflect on this um bombing u
0:48
attack by the United States ordered by
0:51
President Trump uh just a few hours ago
0:53
against Iran i mean according to the
0:56
president this was the biggest grandest
0:58
thing that’s ever happened in the world
0:59
it’s a magnificent victory for the
1:01
United States and has totally
1:02
obliterated uh the Iranian nuclear
1:05
program and has demonstrated the massive
1:07
power of the of the American air force
1:10
some but then I take a look at the
1:12
reality of it that he bombed three sites
1:16
two of which is vahan and natans had
1:18
been previously bombed by Israel
1:21
destroyed and the material already
1:23
evacuated and the third site feed though
1:27
which people had been anticipating to be
1:30
struck for some time now and there’s
1:32
nothing in it it’s empty and I have to
1:35
ask myself where’s the beef what what
1:38
what was done here this wasn’t a serious
1:41
military attack i have planned serious
1:44
military attacks we bomb targets that
1:46
have legitimate purpose uh and we want
1:49
to put munitions on the target in a way
1:52
that achieve a discernable outcome that
1:55
furthers the military objectives of
1:58
whatever campaign we’re operating in
2:00
support of there’s no way anybody can
2:02
tell me that sending a B2 bomber the
2:05
most advanced weapon system in the
2:07
United States arsenal packing two uh you
2:11
know GBU57
2:15
um uh massive ordinance penetrators uh
2:19
to bomb empty facilities
2:22
furthers the national security interest
2:24
of the United States there was nothing
2:27
in Natans there was nothing in Isvahan
2:31
and yet we put American lives at risk
2:34
and we
2:36
you know put at risk Iranian lives on
2:39
the ground to do this grand act of
2:41
theater so Donald Trump could have his
2:43
TV moment with JD Vance and Heg Seth uh
2:47
you know behind him staring resolutely
2:50
into the camera as if they have
2:52
accomplished something the equivalent of
2:55
winning World War II where’s the beef
2:58
nothing fair though according to the
3:01
Iranians despite the fact that we
3:03
dropped six count them six massive
3:06
ordinance penetrators on these on this
3:08
facility the main facility is intact and
3:12
only an exit and a an entrance uh have
3:15
been damaged there’s five ues
3:20
to the earth so it’s not as though they
3:22
sealed it off where’s the beef what was
3:26
accomplished here why did the president
3:28
do this according to news reports the
3:31
United States signaled to the Iranians
3:33
that this was it it was a limited strike
3:35
there was be no further action tonight
3:37
now the president’s rhetoric in his
3:39
statement to the address suggested that
3:41
if Iran didn’t surrender and seek peace
3:43
that there be additional action but for
3:46
the moment this American attack against
3:49
Iran seems designed to limit Iranian
3:54
retaliatory
3:56
um possibilities first of all it appears
3:59
that no regional military assets were
4:02
used in this strike this appears to be
4:04
not something planned by sent central
4:07
command scentcom but rather strategic
4:09
command perhaps facilitated or assisted
4:12
by Pacific Command that means that
4:15
American military assets outside of the
4:18
theater were used therefore none of the
4:20
assets currently in within striking a
4:23
range of Iranian missiles are implicated
4:26
this could inhibit or uh at least put
4:29
the brakes on any Iranian retaliation
4:32
which would be good news because if the
4:33
Iranians don’t retaliate uh in a manner
4:36
that threatens American life then maybe
4:40
we don’t see this escalation taking
4:43
place but you have to ask yourself why
4:44
did the president do this and the answer
4:47
is not to further national security
4:49
interest but to save face this is about
4:51
Donald Trump trying to preserve the
4:55
legacy of Donald Trump he had gotten
4:57
himself into hot water by aligning
5:00
himself with an Israeli surprise attack
5:02
against Iran which went badly the
5:04
Iranians have retaliated and they’re
5:06
doing significant harm against Israel
5:08
and nobody’s been able to do anything to
5:10
eliminate the Iranian nuclear program
5:13
which the president said has to be
5:15
eliminated iran didn’t yield to the
5:17
threats put by the president or the
5:19
demands of unconditional surrender so
5:21
Trump was left in a situation where he
5:23
looked like a fool and the only way out
5:25
was to do the most foolish thing
5:27
imaginable launching a bombing attack
5:30
against Iran
5:32
but then he did something even more
5:34
foolish he bombed empty targets which
5:37
appears to be the most
5:39
sage and wise decision of all because
5:42
now he has created at least the
5:44
potential of a window of opportunity to
5:46
disengage from the disaster he had
5:49
created i don’t know what the future’s
5:52
going to be i don’t know how this is
5:54
going to play out but I do know that
5:56
when we take a look at this greatest
5:58
military victory of all military
6:00
victories that Donald Trump is
6:01
trumpeting there ain’t no beef there
6:04
where’s the beef and that’s a question
6:06
everybody needs to be asking themselves
6:08
thanks for listening this rant and I’ll
6:10
uh see you the next time
oooooo
@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 10: Patriotism
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 10: Patriotism
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/ritters-rant-010-patriotism?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
The link between traditional values and patriotism is real. Can you be a patriot when the traditional values of your nation are being violated by your government?
Jun 22, 2025
Transkripzioa:
Welcome to this edition of Ritter’s Rant. Earlier today, I had the honor and privilege of speaking at a conference that marked the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union, and in particular, the assault on the Brest Fortress and what is today Belarus. I was asked to address the topic of traditional values and patriotism,
in particular to focus on the ideological basis for mobilizing society against modern threats. When I thought about what the best way was to approach this topic, I focused on two things, traditional values and patriotism. And I noted that true patriotism is derived from the traditional values of a national collective.
That is, Russia, for instance, has their traditional values and Russian patriotism is derived. The United States has our own traditional values and our patriotism. is derived from that as well. And as such, in a nation that is truly linked between the link between patriotism and traditional values is sincere.
Mobilization of a society when faced with the threat should be that people will be naturally inclined to rally to the cause of defending their nation. And there are many case studies that can be drawn from history to back this up. Indeed, the case study of the Soviet Union rallying together collectively to defeat the
threat posed by Nazi Germany. But then I realized that the question talked about mobilizing society against modern threats. And I had to reflect on the fact that at the same time that the Soviet Union or Russia is marking the anniversary of German perfidy, the world was experiencing American perfidy.
that America was involved in engaging in an illegal act of aggression against Iran. And the question is, is this the kind of new threat that we are talking about? And as an American, this new threat doesn’t manifest itself from Iran. It manifests itself from within. What are the traditional values of the United States?
We are a nation defined by the rule of law. as established by the Constitution. This is not debatable. This is the only thing that defines who we are and what we are collectively as a people. And from the Constitution, from this concept of the rule of law, we then can expand it to speak of, you know,
adherence to norms and values, you know, We like to say that we’re a nation that’s founded on Judeo-Christian ethical principles. Do unto others as you would want to do unto you. Thou shall not kill. And when we speak of how we apply on the global scene,
understand that the Constitution has in it a clause that says when the United States Senate has ratified a treaty that has been signed by the president, that becomes the law of the land. And I want to remind people that the United Nations Charter is a de facto treaty.
that has been ratified by the Senate of the United States, signed by the president of the United States, and therefore the United States is constitutionally obliged to comply with the laws that are set forth in the charter. And one of the principal things is that you will not carry out,
there’s only two conditions under which a nation can go to war. A nation could go to war if the Security Council of the United Nations has enacted a Chapter 7 resolution under the charter authorizing military force to be used to resolve a specific threat to international peace and security. No such resolution exists today regarding Iran.
The other one is that a nation can carry out legitimate self-defense if they have been attacked, or if they are confronted with the imminent threat of violence, they are allowed to preemptively act to eliminate the imminent threat, but then they are obligated to go to the Security Council to once again turn the
situation over to the international body for alternate resolution. The United States has not been attacked by Iran, and there’s nobody that can articulate the potential of such an attack. People who seek to do so by talking about Iran’s emergence as a nuclear threshold state have Forget that at the time of the Israeli attack and the American attack,
Iran was at the negotiating table, negotiating a resolution to this issue that eliminated any notion of them not only being a threat, but an imminent threat. So the United States has no legitimate purpose in attacking Iran. It is an act of aggression that violates everything we stand for. collectively as a people.
It violates our laws, it violates our ethics, it violates our norms, it violates our values. So when we speak of traditional values, and we talk about this new threat, the greatest threat the United States face today is from within, from our government, who has acted in a manner which is in total contravention to what we stand for
collectively. So now we have to factor in the question of patriotism. How do we rally Americans in response to this threat? It is not the patriotic duty of Americans to salute blindly and obey the instructions of the President of the United States or to chill widely as he gets up
and pontificates irresponsibly about the actions that he has ordered under his watch. It is the duty of American patriots to rally around the traditional values of the United States, to rally around the Constitution, rally around the notion of the rule of law. And that’s where we stand today.
What will the American people do now they’ve been confronted with this new threat, the threat from within, a threat that emanates from a president that has foregone any notion of constitutionality, a man who behaves more as a dictator than a chief executive. What is the patriotic responsibility of the American people? And the answer is simple,
to oppose this president, to condemn his actions, and to insist that the United States return to a track that embraces the traditional values of a people who are founded in the notion of the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States of America. That’s been my rant. Thank you for listening. I’ll see you next time.
oooooo
@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 11: America First
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 11: America First
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/ritters-rant-011-america-first?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
America should never be in a position where it finds itself subordinated to the national security interests of another nation.
Jun 23, 2025
Transkripzioa:
Welcome to this edition of Ritter’s Rant. Today I want to focus on the topic of America first. Now this is a difficult topic for many because The concept of being an American patriot, of being proud of your country, of putting America first, lends itself to the narrative of American exceptionalism that many around the world,
and indeed increasingly in the United States, find to be somewhat offensive. The idea that America is better than everybody else, that we are the exceptional nation, that we are the indispensable nation. And I get that. But as an American, you need to put your country first. as every other nation.
I wouldn’t expect a Russian to come up and say, yeah, I’m a Russian, but America’s better. Well, then you’re not much of a Russian. If you’re a Chinese who says, yeah, I’m Chinese, proud of being Chinese, but America’s better. You’re not much of a Chinese person either.
And for an American to say that any other nation is better than America is problematic. This doesn’t mean that I believe that America should be the supreme nation, the superior nation. But what it does mean is I want Americans to be proud of their nation and to put their nation first, because after all,
if we don’t promote America, who will? You know, when you take a look at the example of U.S.-Russian relations, both the United States diplomats and the Russian diplomats say there are many things that we don’t agree upon, that our respective nations will put their national interests first. Did you hear what I said?
They will put their national interests first, as they should. So the goal isn’t to get the other side to surrender. The goal is to find out where we can work together. common areas where we can work together as equals to promote issues of mutual benefit.
But you can’t do that unless you’re proud of who you are and what you are. And in this day and age, America First has a problem because it seems to be that people who promote themselves as America First, people who buy into the Make America Great Again agenda, Don’t necessarily believe that. Take, for example,
the example of Tammy Bruce, spokesperson for the United States State Department, the United States State Department. That means she is the spokesperson for the department that represents the interests of the United States abroad. And yet when speaking to a journalist, she said, of course, America is the greatest country in the world next to Israel.
which means that she has put Israel ahead of the United States. This is the spokesperson of the United States State Department, somebody who proclaims herself to be about America first, to make America great again, yet in public, without hesitation, and indeed with a little bit of enthusiasm, America’s first next to Israel. This is a problem.
This means that American sovereignty is no longer about promoting American interests, but promoting Israeli interests. And we’ve seen this issue across the board. Kash Patel, the FBI director, his first priority is to make Israel safe. No, Kash, your first priority is to make Americans safe. We have Marco Rubio, Secretary of State,
who seems to put Israel’s national interests over American nationalists when pursuing policies involving Iran. The same thing can be said about our Secretary of Defense. It can be said about our Director of National Intelligence. These are all people who have at one point or another put Israeli interests over that of the United States.
Now, this doesn’t mean that I am promoting the denigration of Israel. I’m not promoting the destruction of Israel. What I’m saying is that Israel is a sovereign state and Israelis should aggressively pursue policies that are to the best benefit of Israel. But Israel is not an extension of the United States,
nor is Israel superior to the United States. In American national security interests, American foreign policy interests, anything that brings about the interests of America should never be subordinated to the state of Israel. This is a problem because you can’t make America great again if you made Israel first. So I’d like people to reflect on this.
Again, how do we navigate this difficult question? Here in the United States, we find out that anybody who criticizes Israel is immediately labeled anti-Semitic. And we have American lawmakers who, in this land of the free and the home of the brave, where free speech is supposed to be paramount,
are threatening to turn anti-Semitic speech into a criminal act, which means that you can’t criticize the state of Israel. We collectively were all in favor of launching embargoes against South Africa when South Africa carried out its apartheid regime. That was okay. But today when people say, hey, we disagree with Israel’s genocide in Gaza, that’s their interpretation.
It’s also the interpretation of the International Court of Justice and other But, you know, you don’t have to buy into it. But as Americans, we have to respect the right of people to articulate what they want and take action so long as those actions conform with the law of the land.
And there’s nothing illegal about Americans saying, I don’t want to buy Israeli products. I want to boycott Israel. This is sort of the standard tactics used in civil disobedience dating back to the civil rights movement and before. It’s an American tradition. And yet now this is illegal, unlawful. You will be punished for this.
That means there is no free speech. There is no freedom of association. And this is dangerous. It means that the United States has not only subordinated its foreign policy to Israel, but we’ve subordinated the very things that define us as a nation, who we are and what we are, the Constitution of the United States of America,
and those amendments in the United States of America dealing with free speech, due process, etc., have all been subordinated to a greater Israeli concept that is the most un-American thing imaginable. Again, people have a right to support Israel. People have a right not to support Israel.
But what no one has the right to do is put Israeli interests above that of the American people. That’s my rant. Thanks for tuning in. I’ll see you the next time a crazy thought crosses my mind.
oooooo
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 12: The Grand Bargain
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 12: The Grand Bargain
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/ritters-rant-012-the-grand-bargain?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
From the fog of war comes a ray of hope: a Grand Bargain to end the conflict in the Middle East
Jun 23, 2025
Transkripzioa:
Hello and welcome to this edition of Ritter’s Rant. As I am speaking, the fallout from Iran’s retaliatory strike against Al-Udide Air Base is still occurring. The missiles literally were just launched. And For a moment, it looked like the United States and Iran were headed down a path of escalation
that could bring about extraordinarily dire consequences for both nations and the entire world. But something interesting may have happened. You see, Iran didn’t launch the overwhelming attack necessary to destroy Al-Odide Air Base. Six missiles. And according to the Iranians, it was six missiles for six bombers. A tit-for-tat strike. A trade-off. Now,
that’s a gamble on the part of the Iranians because you don’t know how America is going to respond. But nobody was killed. And almost immediately after the missiles landed, word came out of the White House that the United States is not seeking to retaliate. that this conflict would actually come to an end. Now, is this by accident?
No. You see, prior to the strike, Iran’s foreign minister, Akshi, had flown to Moscow, where he had meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Iranians briefed the Russian president on what they intended to do. And the fact that they carried out this strike means that the Russian president
didn’t do anything to stop it. But Russia’s not in the business of promoting global instability. They’re not in the business of green lighting actions that could lead to irreversible damage to the world’s energy security market. Russia is, after all, one of the world’s largest producers of gas and oil and global instability doesn’t benefit Russia at all.
So why would Russia green light this action? Well, I believe that behind the scenes, Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan have been reaching out to the United States directly or indirectly, Europe, to say we need this war to come to an end. And what we could be seeing is the beginning of a grand bargain where all parties have their
primary goals and objectives satisfied without destroying the other party and the potential to bring an end to some of the unresolved conflicts in the region. For instance, this grand bargain could include wrapping up the Gaza problem. One of the main reasons why Israel is so heavily engaged in Gaza is because they
view Hamas as an extension of Iran via the so-called axis of resistance. But if Israel and Iran can bring an end to this conflict in a way that that is structured so that a repeat of the Israeli surprise attack against Iran will never ever again be tolerated, suddenly Gaza and Hamas, especially in their diminished capacity,
no longer seem like the existential threat to Israel that they once were. Lebanon is ready to become a member of You know, the region, they’re not looking to promote Hezbollah and resistance and attack on Israel. And there’s a real possibility that if Gaza can be stabilized, that Hezbollah will give up its weapons and become a political party.
And there goes that threat. And we’ve already seen that in Syria. The Assad regime is no more, and the government in Syria today is decidedly more pro-Israeli than anybody would have thought. In Yemen, the Houthi are firing missiles against ships and against Israel because of Gaza.
But if Gaza is resolved, the Houthi withdraw, and that leaves Israel and Iran. The justification for this conflict was Iran’s nuclear program. If it’s part of this grand bargain, A deal can be made with Iran that caps their enrichment at 3.75% and provides sufficient monitoring of their program so that the world will be confident that that’s it.
There goes any reason for Israel and Iran to continue this struggle, for the United States to continue to be engaged in this manner. This is the grand bargain. There’s no guarantee that this is going to happen, but we already see the The diplomacy in action.
China has now come out and said they don’t want to see an escalation of this war. China does not want the Strait or Hormuz closed. This would be devastating for China’s economy, for the global economy. And China does have the ear of Iran. Russia doesn’t want this. Russia needs stability. They want to promote the north-south economic corridor.
They want to bring Iran in as a member of the Eurasian Economic Union as BRICS. So the last thing they need is a continuation of this conflict. And the United States certainly doesn’t need to be involved in a long-term conflict with Iran in the Middle East at a time when it’s seeking to disengage and re-engage
in the Pacific. In fact, this could become Donald Trump’s moment. It’s hard for me to speak up positively about the president at a time when he has launched an illegal war of aggression against Iran. But if the end result of his action is a grand bargain that brings peace to the Middle East,
then I wish him the best of luck. And every American should, regardless of your political background. Peace is better than war. And we’ve seen what the consequences of war are, the horrors that have unfolded in Gaza, the horrors in Israel, the horrors in Iran.
And we don’t need to have the horror of a global economic crisis brought about by the deprivation of regional energy resources to the rest of the world. So let us hope and pray that Donald Trump Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and the others can come to an agreement to bring an end to this war.
Wouldn’t it be something if Russia, China, and Pakistan introduced a resolution to the Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Iran, and the United States voted in favor of it, and now armed with the Security Council resolution, could get Israel and Iran to agree to a cessation of hostilities.
Peace would be breaking out all over, not war. And who knows, maybe Donald Trump will get that Nobel Peace Prize he’s been yearning for for so long. This is my rant. Thanks for listening. I’ll see you next time.
oooooo
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 13: Regime Change Blues
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 13: Regime Change Blues
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/ritters-rant-013-regime-change-blues?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
There is a tentative ceasefire in place, but historically neither Israel nor the US will be placated until the Iranian government is overthrown and replaced by one compliant with their demands
Jun 24, 2025
Transkripzioa:
Hello and welcome to this edition of Ritter’s Rant. Today, you know, we need to reflect on as the dust settles in this conflict between Israel and Iran and both nations are embraced in a ceasefire that may or may not hold. It’s time for people to start talking about what’s next.
And here it’s important that we focus on the reality of Israel and its behavior. and the reality of the behavior of the United States. Um, and it’s not that we have to speculate about what they may or not may not be thinking when it comes to Iran. We have historical precedent.
If you remember, uh, back in 1990, um, the United States was getting ready to go to war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein had invaded and occupied Kuwait, and the United States was seeking to build a coalition to evict Iraq from Kuwait. And in order to justify this action,
then President George Herbert Walker Bush likened Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler and basically said that Saddam must be removed from power if this situation to be truly resolved and subjected to Nuremberg-like retribution. Well, once you call somebody Adolf Hitler, it’s hard to back away from that statement. And so even though we won the war against Iraq,
we evicted the Iraqi military from Kuwait, thereby accomplishing the mission. President Bush still had the political problem of Saddam Hussein’s continued survival. And from that moment on, the United States had embraced a policy that said that it doesn’t matter what Iraq does, for instance, with disarming weapons of mass destruction, as mandated by a Security Council resolution,
sponsored and voted on by the United States. Sanctions, which were linked to Iraq’s disarming obligation, would never be lifted until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. So the United States… has a history of being very problematic in this regard. But so, too, does Israel. You see, Israel was on the receiving end of 49 Iraqi Scud missiles.
And even though when the war ended, the United States moved quickly to hold Saddam to account and to get rid of its missiles and weapons of mass destruction that could harm Israel, the Israelis weren’t satisfied. You see, Saddam had humiliated them. Saddam had fired missiles into Israel, and Israel needed its revenge.
That’s why immediately after the war ended, the Israeli intelligence service, Yuri Segei was the head of their military intelligence, said the only way we’ll be safe from Iraq is to kill Saddam Hussein, to physically eliminate him from power. And Israel began planning for an operation to do just that.
In November of 1993, Israel was getting ready to execute this plan. Indeed, they were in their final rehearsal at a training facility in southern Israel when an accident took place and five Israeli soldiers were killed and the mission was scrubbed, but not the intent to kill Saddam.
It wasn’t until a year later that I participated in a mission to Israel where we met Yuri Segei and convinced him that the best path forward wasn’t the assassination of Saddam Hussein, but rather working with the United Nations inspectors to get rid of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
Four years later, Israel had come to a different point of view. Iraq was no longer the number one threat facing Israel. I think it had dropped to number six or eight on that chart. And Saddam Hussein was no longer a leader that had to be eliminated.
The Israelis had re-appraised Saddam and determined that he was a rational actor that Israel could peacefully coexist with so long as the weapons of mass destruction programs were eliminated, which is why they changed their focus from the nation of Saddam to getting rid of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. But again, enter the United States.
We wouldn’t accept that. Regime change was in works and ultimately it led to the invasion occupation of Iraq, the arrest of Saddam Hussein and his subsequent execution. Now, what does this have to do with Iran and Israel? Well, if you think the 49 Scud missiles fired by Iraq into Israel were damaging to the
psychology of the Israeli population and their leadership, what about the hundreds of missiles that were fired by Iran? The damage done by the Iranian missiles makes what happened in 1991 pale. comparison. And it’s not just a hypothetical that Israel is considering regime change. In fact, their very first strike against the Iranians when this war started was a
decapitation strike against the Iranian regime. And the Israelis have been speaking about taking out Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, the Iranian president, holding them accountable. And I can guarantee you this, Inside the halls of power in Israel, as they talk about going forward, the same argument is being made regarding Iranian leadership as had been made
regarding Saddam Hussein’s fate, that Israel will never be secure until which time there is a regime change in Iran, a collapse of the of the government and replaced by, you know, people who are willing to work with Israel and not pursue any form of nuclear program. How do we get Israel to change course? Well,
it’s very difficult when you have a United States Senator named Lindsey Graham standing on the floor of the United States Senate pontificating about the absolute requirement for regime change. And it’s also difficult when you have a president of the United States who has put out on social media his support for the concept of regime change.
If we’re going to change Israel’s base proclivities of taking life, remember Israel bragged that they were going to apply to Iran The same strategy they applied to Hezbollah, the assassination of Nasrallah, the termination of the leadership, leading to the collapse of the effectiveness of Hezbollah as an organization.
This is the strategy that Israel tried to impose on Iran and is still seeking to impose on Iran. In order to walk away from this, you have to apply the Iraqi precedent, which you need to bring Iran’s nuclear program under control. Now, this can’t be done with a zero option. That’s a non-starter for the Iranians.
It means there’s going to have to be some sort of agreement capping at 3.75%, limiting centrifuges, a treaty, all the things Iran was ready to agree to before Israel launched its surprise attack. But who’s going to be the guarantor of this? These were supposed to be agreements signed with the United States,
but the United States wasn’t serious about these agreements. The United States was complicit with Israel in using the negotiating process to set Israel up for the knockout blow. So here we are. We know what needs to be done. to resolve this situation. And yet the United States, because of its behavior, has basically opted out.
No one will ever trust the United States again. And without the United States putting its stamp of approval on any program, Israel will not likely be inclined to say, okay, this satisfies our need to ensure that Iran never again poses a threat to us. So this ceasefire right now is tentative. I hope it holds.
But in order to have lasting peace, we need to get the Israelis to walk away from their insistence on regime change. We need to get the United States, likewise, to stop talking about regime change. And we need the international community to step forward and take the lead in
crafting a nuclear agreement that will be binding to all parties involved and isn’t doesn’t require the trust and confidence of the United States in order to go forward. This has been my rant. Thanks for tuning in. Next time a thought crosses my brain, I’ll be in touch with you.
oooooo
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 14: Rogue Nation
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 14: Rogue Nation
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/ritters-rant-014-rogue-nation?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
Israel is not just a nation that holds itself above the law–it is an outlaw nation, operating to its own set of rules, even when they clearly clash with international law, norms, and values.
Jun 25, 2025
Transkripzioa:
Hello and welcome to this edition of Ritter’s Rant. Today, I had an interesting debate slash discussion on X in a debate hosted by Mario Nafal with Jonathan Conricus. Jonathan Conricus is a former IDF lieutenant colonel, spokesperson for the Israeli defense force. And he’s currently felt the, um, foundation for the defense of democracies, um, based in Washington, DC.
I think it was founded in 2001. Um, uh, I think originally it was called, um, I think the term is emet. I don’t speak Hebrew as Jonathan pointed out. So I think emet, if it’s pronounced properly means truth. Um, it’s ironic, but, um, It since then has transformed into an extension,
a de facto extension of the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs. And today functions as a think tank, a think tank that is targeting Iran. Basically, this is a think tank whose mission is to bring about the demise of the Islamic Republic of Iran. through so-called academic studies, etc.
I’m not here to rehash the debate, nor am I here to attack Jonathan. The time for that was at the debate, and we did what we did. I’m just here to reflect on sort of a takeaway from this debate, a big one for me. You see, I pointed out to Jonathan that Israel’s actions—
in targeting Iran were in violation of international law. Um, I talked about the United Nations charter article, I think two chapter four, uh, that prohibits threats or acts of violence. And I noted that Israel hadn’t sought to articulate a cognizant claim of, um, preemptive self-defense under article 51. Um, I also talked about Israel’s, um,
relationship with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a nation that refuses to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, yet has a nuclear weapons program, and having the audacity to attack a nation that has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has been found by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the agency designed to enforce the safeguards aspects of this treaty,
not to have a nuclear weapons program. It just seemed it odd that he would so willingly admit to this. He said that Israel has no intention, doesn’t care about the United Nations charter. And he sort of criticized me for, you know, citing a chapter and verse, the various international laws that Israel broke.
And likewise, he has no concern whatsoever for the nuclear non-proliferation treaties. A big fan of pointing to Iran said, you’re violating this treaty, but They don’t sign it themselves, nor will they, because they view this treaty to be an impediment to Israeli ambitions. I mean, there wasn’t even effort made by this former spokesperson of the Israeli Defense
Force, this former spokesperson of the State of Israel, to defend Israel’s actions. I mean, there’s a half-hearted effort to articulate the threat posed by Iran, but then it was turned around. We don’t respect, we being the state of Israel, don’t respect the United Nations. We don’t respect the Security Council and we don’t respect the Charter.
This pretty much singled Israel out as a rogue nation, a nation that not only holds itself above the law, but operates in total contravention of the law. And this is an important thing for people today as we reflect on where we’re going in the aftermath of this 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran.
Those who believe that there’s the possibility of a negotiated settlement, those who believe that the international community can rally around and bring stability to the region, the answer is it never will. Jonathan all but admitted that the Israeli policy, although not articulated, is and will always be regime change, the elimination of the theocracy that currently governs Iran.
He says that the very existence of this theocracy poses a threat to Israel, and that Israel will endeavor to eliminate this theocracy, the leadership, regardless of what international law says. So the reality of this, if this indeed is reflective of the position of the state of Israel, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be,
given the fact that Jonathan spent many years as the spokesperson of this rogue nation, the prospects of peace in the Middle East are nil. There will never be peace in the Middle East, so long as there’s the state of Israel, and the state of Israel believes that it operates not above the law, but despite the law.
The law has no bearing on Israel. That Israel will, when the time necessitates, accuse others of violating the law, but Israel recognizes no law but the law of Israel. Now, there are nations out there that will rally around Israel, the United States for one, and defend this action,
although it’s abhorrent that the United States constitutional republic that puts so much emphasis on the rule of law and the role of the Constitution in defining who we are and what we are as a nation, noting that the United Nations charter, a treaty, has been ratified by the United States Senate, signed by a president,
and therefore is enshrined as law by the Constitution, that We, the people of the United States, citizens of a nation of law, will rally to the support of a nation that operates irregardless of the law, in total defiance of the law. That denigrates us collectively.
But it also points out that the problem for peace and security in the Middle East isn’t Iran. It isn’t Hezbollah. It isn’t Hamas. It isn’t Iraq, Syria, Yemen, or any of these nations. The problem is Israel, a nation that proudly and boldly admits that it operates as an outlaw state.
What are we going to do about this problem? That’s, if you can answer that question, you found a solution to peace in the Middle East. But right now, There is no answer. We will continue to support Israel, which means that the Middle East and indeed the world is doomed to continuous
cycles of violence until there is finally a solution to the Israeli problem. Thanks for listening. That was my rant. I’ll see you next time.
oooooo
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 15: Too Good to be True?
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 15: Too Good to be True?
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/ritters-rant-015-too-good-to-be-true?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
Trump appears ready to implement a massive deal in the Middle East that seeks to solve the Gaza issue, get Arab recognition of Israel, and solve the Iranian nuclear crisis. Too good to be True?
Jun 26, 2025
Transkripzioa:
Hello, and welcome to this edition of Ritter’s Rant. Today, we’re going to talk about transactional leadership. And I think anybody who hears that term knows that I’m really talking about Donald Trump. Three days ago, I posted a rant. I talked about the potential of a grand bargain.
And it seemed over the course of the past several days that the possibility of a grand bargain might be slipping away as the reality of the conflict, the damage done, um, unresolved issues. And, uh, it was beginning to look more and more like a pipe dream. And then lo and behold,
the transactional president steps in and we may in fact have a grand bargain in the making sort of, uh, a super Abrams accord, uh, you know, if the stories that are appearing are true or even close to being true, we could be on the cusp of having Saudi Arabia and Syria recognize the state of Israel.
Um, in exchange, uh, there would be a resolution to the Gaza crisis. Uh, they’re talking about a consortium of Arab nations who would take over management of, uh, of Gaza. Um, and that Israel would disengage and that we would be looking at a two-state solution.
All the things that would be necessary for a grand bargain to bring peace in the Middle East. But what about Iran? It turns out that there’s a deal for $30 billion on the table for the United States to take over Iran’s nuclear program, that we’re going to build the reactors Iran needs,
that there’s no need for Iran to have a nuclear enrichment program. Does it sound too good to be true? Is it really that easy? Just by peace? I mean, that’s all that it took over the course of years. You know, forget the concept of principles and values and, you know, religion. And it’s just money.
That’s all we needed was just money, which tells you, you know, there’s that old saying, if it’s too good to be true, it’s probably not true. Now, I don’t want to, you know, be the bearer of bad news or the person that wants to rain on this parade. I’m here to say right off the bat, look,
if Iran wants to take $30 billion from the United States and have America put in nuclear power plants, and that’s what it takes to bring an end to, um, this conflict over the years, more power to them. And if the Gaza crisis can be resolved simply by transferring authority to Arab nations, uh,
Hamas will just willingly go away. Um, So be it. But I think it’s more complicated than that. I mean, Hamas didn’t fight for 15 months and the Palestinian people didn’t sacrifice for 15 months just to cave with 30 pieces of silver. And the Iranians didn’t spend decades standing up to pressure from the United
States and Israel about their nuclear program just to cave for 30 billion pieces of silver. I don’t wish the president harm. I actually wish him great success in the pursuit of peace. But I think we need to be cautious as we move down this path,
because what looks like a solution seems to really just be papering over decades of extraordinarily complex problems with money. And that’s not a solution. That’s just buying temporary reprieve, if any reprieve at all. What do we do about Israel’s animosity towards the Islamic Republic? Because this is more than simply about nuclear ambition or Gaza.
This is about regional power politics. Iran is a major oil producing country, a major gas producing country. And if sanctions are lifted, then the Islamic Republic of Iran will become a major regional player. Or does Donald Trump believe that $30 billion will buy off Iran for an undetermined amount of time? What does Saudi Arabia do?
Having made peace with Israel now, does it subordinate its desire to become the Europe? I mean, Saudi Arabia bragged. I think they said in five, 10 years time, they will be more influential, more powerful than Europe. But not if they subordinate themselves to Israel. which is what the Abrams Accord is all about.
Recognition of the state of Israel doesn’t mean that you and Israel are now equal partners. It means that you’re accepting a subordinate role, a servile role to a dominant Israel who will be calling the shots. Because at the end of the day, this is all about Israeli security. This isn’t about bringing peace. This isn’t about generating equality.
This isn’t about mutually beneficial relations. This is about the security of the state of Israel. And the security of the state of Israel will never be secured to the satisfaction of Israel unless everybody, is subordinated to the will of Israel. So a new grand bargain, transactional politics.
I think we need to be careful or we might have buyer’s remorse. This has been my rant. I’ll see you next time a thought crosses my mind.
oooooo
The Journey
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/the-journey?r=1vhv3f&triedRedirect=true)
In this edition of The Russia House, I continue my dialogue with Pavel Balobanov, my co-host for the US-Russia Citizen’s Summit, and discuss the way to continue the journey we started on June 18.
Jun 26, 2025
Transkripzioa:
Welcome to this edition of the Russia House with Scott Ritter. Today we continue our conversation with Pavel Balabanov. The last time I spoke with Pavel, we were getting ready to put on the Russian US Space Bridge, a citizen summit. And today I can tell you that we successfully pulled this off on June 18th.
We brought together an American audience, a Russian audience, and we began the process of having a dialogue. But as Pavel and I have spoken about during this space bridge. This is just the beginning of a journey. We now have to complete the journey and there’s a lot of things that need to be done.
And so today I’m inviting Pavel back and we’re going to explore the various possibilities for continuing this most important of projects. Again, welcome to the Russia house and enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Russia house. It seems like I’ve just seen you. In fact, we just wrapped up the Russia-US Citizens Summit, the 2025 Space Bridge.
And I have my insights and opinions on it, but I want to ask you, how do you feel about it? Do you view it as a success? Was it worth the effort? Because I know there was a lot of effort that went into it.
us a report card on uh on the summit yeah thank you scott you know i would like to start uh first of all by you know congratulations and to you personally to to me to us because we in my view we did a great job from both sides
uh and thank you very much for your efforts uh because it was key and very important there wouldn’t be you know a space bridge if there was wasn’t a foundation on the side of america on the usa side and it is very it was very very important Then, you know, I would like to say as well,
second of all, I would like to say we did it, we made it, and the feeling is very good. in 40 years it was the first real space bridge of course there were some space bridges between you know different towns cities but we are talking about citizen summit where no questions no question was off limit You know,
we didn’t, we wasn’t focused on just professional questions or political questions or, you know, it was, you know, wide range of topics and we, we could discuss them. The first, the second one. it was done on private money. And this is also important. This was the real citizen side, because you know, back then in 40 years ago,
it was done by major networks on Soviet Union and the USA. It was private money. And third, it was online show. You know, online we did, three hours show which was done fully online and in my view nobody actually has done it before i mean space bridge like this because 40 years ago they were cut uh
and we don’t know what was cut and uh and now it was fully done online and with quite big names on this show important still in terms of in in in politics in you know society activities and and etc and that’s why the feeling is good you know what surprised me a lot we have
quite the opposite picture if we compare it to space bridges 40 years ago 40 years ago American citizens they were harsh on Soviets I mean there were kind of aggressive questions on the citizens of Soviet Union and it seems to me that today Americans will not hush on Russians I don’t know why and even that questions
which we turned on 40 which were there 40 years ago and you probably noticed right that they were quite big I mean like what are you doing in Afghanistan, for instance, and I don’t know, what three things you did to make a piece in the world and something like this. We even tried, why we did it,
you know, it was very good that we did it, you know, to let others see the questions of 40 years ago. You know, and by the way, you know, nothing, almost nothing changed. I mean, we, maybe we are even in a worse situation. Today, it’s even more dangerous than 40 years ago.
And it’s also, by the way, quite interesting and quite, how to put this? you know we did the space bridge in a more dangerous time than 40 years ago we have this courage both sides to do it uh and to focus on dialogue to to to show people
that look the dialogue can be even when there is war can be there and should be there That’s my first feeling about it. The feeling is good. We had courage and still have it, I think, to do it. Thank you very much again.
I don’t know how you felt on Wednesday morning or Wednesday afternoon your time or Wednesday evening. I do know that on my side, we were running around like chickens with our heads cut off trying to get the technical aspects of this very complex undertaking. You know,
when you look at it and what was streamed and when you look at it afterwards in the recording, what a fantastic job both sides did. I mean, the technical work, but again, I can’t speak to your side because I wasn’t there, but I can say that Dominic,
who was the head of the technical team on the American side, he didn’t stop sweating bullets until the moment we started. And even after then, he was waiting for something to go wrong, but nothing went wrong. The technical challenges that we had to overcome to do this were Michael Boucher,
Equal to the political challenge we had in pulling this off, so I think people need to understand that so there’s a human factor here you know Gerald Solante on on the American side, providing this venue. Michael Boucher, You know the work he had to do to make the venue ready for this,
the people that we brought in to do the technical work, even our cultural. people. You know, Eric and his wonderful pianist and your, Anastasia, your singer, brilliant people. But, you know, they had to pull this off live. So we did it. And you’re right. You know,
I also need to point out that it wasn’t just the U.S.-Russian tensions that were the, you know, when we first started talking about Our biggest challenge was, how do we complement an ongoing dialogue between Russian government and the American government? Meaning that our governments were already talking, and this was supposed to be a complement to that,
to bring the people in on the issue. But just a few days prior to the Space Bridge, our government stopped talking, which meant we were the only show in town. The only show. There’s no other dialogue taking place like the one that took place here. And then we roll over into that, you know,
the complexities of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, the expansion of the conflict, given the, you know, the attacks on Russian bombers by the Ukrainians, Russian retaliation, that muddies the water altogether. And then on top of that, we have the war between Israel and Iran with the United States rolling in on the side of Israel.
And so we turned something that should have been a Sunday stroll in the park into scaling Mount Everest. I mean, the political aspects of what we were working on became monumental. And so that too speaks volumes to the success of this endeavor.
I was looking back on it because what I was expecting is the equivalent of a nice date. Hey, how you doing? Let’s go out for a part. Let’s go have dinner. Let’s go to a movie. Pleasure to meet you. Hope to see you again kind of thing. And instead, this turned into sort of an uncomfortable dance.
You know, especially on the American side, because in addition to having questions about Russia and the Russia today is a different Russia than the Russia of 10 years ago or 20 years ago. We’re no longer trying to talk the you know, the the the the. the young college girl who’s not too confident in going out with us.
We were talking to a supermodel. You know, Russia is the equivalent of a supermodel, beautiful person. And we’re trying to ask the person out while we’ve got, you know, issues. So that was a problem. But, you know, then we have the fact that we’re not too happy with ourselves. I mean,
the people that were in this audience wanting to talk to Russia where people believed in dialogue, that dialogue is better than war. And yet we have to talk with Russia at a time when our government is engaged in gross violation of international law. It made it tough.
So I think early on there, it was I’m not saying it wasn’t it wasn’t hostile. We know it wasn’t hostile, but it was tentative. But by the end of it, did you see the transition? I mean, something happened maybe two thirds of the way through where we started talking to one another. The ice was broken.
We started talking to one another and we even started dancing with one another at the very end. And I think that the spirit that we started with I mean, the tension had dissipated, and by the time we finished, we were where we should have been when we started.
But we had to cut through a lot of politics, a lot of tension, a lot of uncertainty. I mean, I don’t know how you felt, but we were very concerned whether or not our government would allow this to go through, especially given the fact that… we had stopped talking with the Russians diplomatically.
There was legitimate concern that the US government would come in and shut this thing down and say, no, we’re not allowing this to happen. So there was that tension that was taking place as well. So I think we did a great job. We set a great precedent. But, you know, the challenge…
isn’t to pat ourselves on the back. I mean, I think I’ll pat you on the back anytime. You deserve it. But that’s the easy thing to do.
But as we said at the end of this thing, we had taken a first step on a journey. And this journey isn’t going to be easy. This journey is going to be very difficult, but it’s one of the most important journeys we could possibly embark on because this is the journey towards peace, towards good relations between nations.
We live in difficult times, but I really want to congratulate you and the people who participated in being willing to have the courage and the dedication to peace and dialogue to take this first step because It took a lot of courage on our part,
and I’m sure it took a lot of courage on your part to take that first step. But now that we’ve done it, I liken it to a marathon. If you’ve ever run a marathon or a race of that nature, at the beginning of the race,
there’s a lot of jostling and stumbling of the feet and all that as everybody gets their place. But midway through, people get their stride. And by the time the race is finished, the runner is in perfect form. And doing good. There’s a lot of people, when I say a journey or a race,
they are envisioning the runner crossing the finish line. But you don’t understand what happened last week wasn’t us crossing the finish line. What happened was us getting out of the starting gate. All right. The jostling, the elbows, the stumbling and all that. But we got out of the gate.
Now we’re in the race and we have to finish this race. That’s the big challenge that confronts us next is how do we finish this race? Do you have any ideas on that?
Yes, I have some ideas on that. you know i would like to start with saying that as you know actually in the beginning in the very beginning when i started this project in september um neither me nor you should should have been the horse actually yeah neither me nor you yes
uh and by the way it’s good because you know in russia we have a saying that everything which happens happens for the best maybe except wars because i can’t say about wars like this but this was certainly the case because probably we would have never met each other if we were not hosts right
and never have made friends, I think. And this is good. I would like to say thank you to the circumstances which we are in, in terms of this space bridge. But in the beginning, when I started, I wanted to have Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Posner for this show.
uh but for some reasons uh neither tucker carlson nor vladimir pozner actually um agreed on that but they would probably agree uh to do this on 15th of december 15th
day when Leningrad Seattle actually happened 40 years ago. 15th of December. That’s when they did the show with Posner and Donoghue 40 years ago. And we. We are going to discuss that, that show, which can be on big networks like CNN, Fox News and Channel First. It will not be online maybe, but on that big networks.
And I hope maybe I will not be involved in it, but I will, maybe I will. will be consulted I don’t know and of course if they wanted me to do this I would probably I will help of course but it doesn’t matter what really matters that
people around us they will pick up this idea and you know continue this job very important one and for us for this mission of course only you know you and me it is not enough you know other people should you know should run this as well and that’s what i hope
will actually will happen this is the first thing The second one, as you know, I let you know that I was invited to do the space bridge between Russia and USA for the sake of, it was the anniversary of Soyuz Apollo mission.
in in space and probably we will do this together you and me you on the essay side near on Russian side again it will happen on in the middle of July on 16th of July and we will discuss it later I hope it will also happen actually this is the second thing and the third one
On 19th of December of September, my company PSS, which was general partner to this event, which happened last week, we are going to do the professional space bridges. Well, sorry, one space bridge between professionals on Russian side and professionals around the world, around the globe. We call them beam managers beam managers.
It’s the professionals who implement this technology. We deliver to our companies to our clients around the globe, building information modeling and a goal. We are my partner, the senior partner in my company. He is going to be the host on the Russian side and the girl from international company in London.
She is going to be the host on the kind of world side. It will not be on the England. She will represent the world. And by the way, I would like to tell you that she is afraid of doing this. And I can understand her because, you know, we were in her situation.
and she doesn’t know what will happen if she does it. She is afraid of being expelled from the company she works for at present. Actually, it worries me as well, but when we advertise this event, she asks us not to name her company because if they find out
she will probably be expelled from the company because you know russia and the world so but we would like to make this breakthrough and to break down the obstacles and let people communicate on the professional questions and on just ordinary citizen questions any questions they want
and again it it’s about dialogue it’s about teaching people how to do any dialogue to listen to each other trying to to climb down from their belt free you know climb up the other person’s belt free and see the world differently from this is very difficult thing and in my view what we see right now around the
globe people they don’t know how to do a dialogue and they are cared only about their opinion and they do not care about opinions of others In my view, what we should do, you know, as far as I know, in American schools, there are debates clubs, you know, when they teach you how to debate.
By the way, in Russia, we don’t have such classes at all. But what I think we should do is not a debate class. We should do a dialogue class. Because, you know, not to win over ideas, but just first to listen to each other and understand why he thinks this way.
Not like he should think the way I think. This is the wrong approach. We should do why he thinks the way he thinks. why and why he has that values which i don’t have and it’s about respect you know to say i respect you that you have this opinion i have a little bit different point
of view but i respect it and for people is very important to respect each other the lack of respect this is also the issue which we watch on TV, on different shows. In my view, what we did with you last week, we show. Don’t you think so? We get, I listen. Okay. You have this opinion. Okay.
We have different opinion, but we respect and what united us actually two things last week. two things united us the first one grief and death and we have this the minute of silence and then culture and i hope what we will have in the end of this race you told that we will have the third thing
you know, common sense and common projects we are working on together, not only grief, death and culture, but also common projects we are working on together. Uh, so this is, uh, what I think actually.
No, I, I agree. I, uh, I’ve been chewing over a process too, because I agree, you know, we’ve started something that was broad brushed, but, um, Down the road, we probably need to focus on more specific objectives. We started a process, but now we need to turn the process into product that furthers dialogue.
But an important part of dialogue isn’t just talking to one another. It’s comprehending one another. understanding one another and so you know i’ve i’ve been chewing on something i guess i’ll talk to you about it now as writing up something to send you but um you
know what if let’s just hypothetically speaking we we um we brought together a focal group of um political scientists and we asked them it’s not a debate but we asked them a question that they were going to resolve a question And we start by having, let’s say it’s a five person panel on each side.
And we ask them to define their perspective in writing. Not a detailed paper, maybe three pages. Just to say, okay, on the Russian side, here’s the question. What is your perspective on this? Write it down. The American side, same question. What is your perspective? Write it down. Put that paper aside. come together and talk.
But the purpose of the dialogue is for the Russians to convince the Americans about their perspective, and for the Americans to convince the Russians about theirs, not convince, but educate. And then the final task is for the Russians to write a three-page paper of what the American perspective is.
and the Americans to write a three-page paper of what the Russian perspective is and then bring them together and compare to see how close the Americans got to understanding the Russian perspective and see how close the Russians got to understanding the American perspective and then to have a dialogue on where we were successful and where we didn’t.
I mean, if it turns out after talking to each other, we don’t have any understanding about what the other side’s trying to say, that means we have a problem. And since we’re here talking about it, that means we need to find a solution. And so then we work together to say, how do we better understand one another?
What are the different obstacles in front of us? And this could be a fascinating exercise that can be repeated. It can be done through historians. It can be done through It can be done through scientists, it can be done through educators. But it’s a chance not just to have a dialogue, but to work on comprehension, understanding,
and then moving forward from there. But I think there’s endless possibilities on space bridges of this nature. And I just think it’s a very exciting opportunity, and hopefully our governments will let us continue. What is the feedback with your government? Were people happy? Were people curious?
You know, we have a lot of feedback. They are all fascinated by the space bridge. And I have feedback like, guys, what you have done is so important, especially at present, especially today. This is very important. What a great job.
and uh and all of them were like this and i was you know i have i had so many messages in my telegram about it and i put them actually on the web page of our space bridge so to let others see them and i hope that that feedback will be also a
factor for other people in the in the government and in different associations to help to continue to help to continue that project going and also to make happen the initiative you have just told you know of course this space bridge should lead to the you know more focused space bridges you have just told us about so in
know One thing we have to think of is that people, and I’m talking about all the people on the planet, we usually like listening to some negative news. You know, all TV is negative. You know, someone bombs someone, you know, something happened, you know, someone killed someone and that sort of things. And we react to it.
That’s what kind of we are interested at. But people, but news like, you know, someone grew cucumbers, wonderful cucumbers, I don’t know, in California, people just miss this kind of news. And the dialogue itself, it’s a peacemaking function. And what really worries me, how to, if you say, if you will, sorry, make people watch what we did.
Because the situation we have today, we have around 16,000 views, but we need to have millions. The question is how to organize this. Do you have some thoughts about it?
I do actually, because I’m of the same thing. People want to be entertained. I mean, that’s the thing. There has to be a hook. And, you know, there’s an old saying in American television, if it bleeds, it leads, meaning that if you have a car accident or a bank robbery or something,
that’s the first story and everybody tunes in. And then the feel good story of, you know, the little girl found a fish and rescued it and returned it. And they’re like, nah, man, we want violence. We want bad stuff. But the other thing. OK, that’s the bad side of it. But what do we have in common?
We have in common humor. You know, when I was a weapons inspector in Vodkinsk, back in the Soviet days, and I don’t know if they still have them, it was called KVN. It was basically the young Komsomol’s, it was a comedy club and they’d have a comedy competition.
Okay, well, we inspectors were invited to take on the Vodkinsk KVN in a a live comedy competition. I mean, it was a packed hall. And it was the funniest thing, the most rewarding thing in the world. It was entertaining and it brought everybody together. And then the other thing that brings people together is music.
And so I have a couple ideas. One, I’d like to do a KVN competition type thing where we bring russian youth and american youth together to do a comedy competition then afterwards have a dialogue sit them down and just say how was it working together
what did you think what it was you know but it doesn’t have to be a dialogue about solving all the world’s problems but basically a dialogue that that between these people who just did something and um and having this frank discussion back and forth about you know what was funny what wasn’t what what worked,
why we tried to do this, but it didn’t work, or you did this and it was very successful. We all got the joke to break down culture. Because that’s one of the things we found during the KVN competition with the Russians is what Americans think is funny sometimes, Ain’t too funny to other people. I mean,
I remember when we brought a Soviet crowd into our housing area to show them a movie, movie night. And the very first movie we showed them was Dr. Strangelove, which of course is Stanley Kubrick’s comedy about the end of the world with nuclear weapons. And the way we described Dr. Strangelove, you know,
it’s a comedy about a nuclear war that kills everybody. And the Russians are going, that’s not very funny. We’re like, no, no, no, really, it works, it’s great, it’s funny. And they watched the movie and they’re going, We don’t think this is funny. And there we had it. We had a cultural impasse. So we had to conversate.
It led to conversations about American humor, Russian humor. And it was actually a great way to break the ice. But another thing, here’s a project I’m going to throw at you. I’ve been doing. I actually have some support on this side of the United States. Music is a great uniter. What if you
find five Russian artists, contemporary artists, pop artists, popular artists. I mean, get Shaman if you can. And they will sing American songs. They will pick an American song, an American popular song, and they will perform it. And I’ll find five American artists who will pick a Russian song and perform it. And we make a record.
We make a record where it’s one side, which is Russia Sings America, and the other side is America Sings Russia. And we put it together and we release it. We can use it as a fundraiser to help fund future events because, as you said, this is privately funded.
I don’t know where people think the money came from, but it didn’t come from corporations. on my side of course we had assistance that you’re aware of but we also raised money we did a fundraiser and we couldn’t have done it without the fundraiser
because the budget ended up being three times uh what we had what we had thought but fortunately we had people individuals contribute and we were able to um to put this thing on but these things don’t happen uh for free um but i just think two projects like that making a making a record.
I already have a producer on the American side that’s ready to do this. A very famous producer, Emmy Award, Malcolm Burns. You know, he’s produced, I mean, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, we can go down the artist. And he’s ready to participate in this. And if you could find on the Russian side, a producer and an artist that
willing to do this again i mean just think of the possibilities if we do this record and it’s a success how about a concert a concert that would be a success in a concert now what we’ve done you see is we’ve captured people people are going oh
hell yeah i want to listen to this i want to be a part of that and once we capture them then we can expand their horizons with dialogue it’s the same thing with comedy bring them in to laugh and have them leave thinking um so i think there’s you know
We can be innovative in how we approach this, but we have to think like standard marketing people. How do people lure people in? They do it with violence. I mean, they do it with comedy and they do it with music. So I think we can… we have a great message.
We just have to package it better and not better, but we have to package it in a way that realistically deals with the realities of the modern era. And, and I think that it will resonate. I think, I think we, I think we have something that’s going to work here because it’s a good thing.
It’s not like we’re trying to sell people a used car. We’re trying to sell people, you know, something that’s very good that benefits everybody. We just have to do a better job of marketing.
That’s interesting idea and about comedy and the songs. It’s a great idea in my view. We have to think of it. Yes. And you know, by the way, we have great comedians here. By the way, plus we have not only KVN, as you mentioned, we have also a comedy club. Great thing as well.
So we have Pavel Vola there, we have Garrick Martyrasyan, we have other comedians. Very good. They are very good at what they’re doing. And… if we connect them through the space bridge i mean american comedians our comedians and make a real you know show first about it will be kind of comedy but then
you know difficult maybe discussion about something then comedy again and culture and it can be a new product about communication between people and you will catch up their attention that’s it’s good
getting the dog from barking in the background. My wife continuously educates me about Russian comedy online. And the interesting thing about comedy is it can be very political. it can be very political. In fact, comedy sometimes is the best way to deal with very difficult political issues because when people laugh,
they often laugh by seeing the truth in what’s being said, but because it was presented in a way that wasn’t offensive, you know, they, they laugh at it. You know, we’ve had some great political community, George Carlin who has passed away, but he was a great political comedian.
We, you know, we, we have a variety of people that, that, that tackle, um, very complicated, sensitive issues, both in terms of social, domestic problems, but also international. And I think you’re right. If we have a comedian, and we have the comedians, because comedians are smart. They’re pretty darn smart.
And if we have comedians get together and talk, They’ll work through the tough thing. It’s not going to degenerate into what happens if you get political scientists. You go, no, you’re wrong. You’re wrong. You’re wrong. Comedians will say, yeah, you’re right. I’m wrong. They’ll say something that actually means they’re wrong, but they’ll say it funny.
And the other person go, yeah, touche. Good point. All right. Then they’ll say something later that’s funny and everybody will be laughing. But when you leave, you’re going, wow, I’m laughing because it’s true. laughing because then people will think so I do think comedy breaks it but it’s the
same thing with music it’s not so much about because I do think problems happen when musicians get into politics but it’s not the post music words for instance Bruce Springsteen has a wonderful song The Ghost of Tom Jode that’s about Tom Jode is a character from Grapes of Wrath and you know, Steinbeck’s fantastic novel,
and it touches upon some very difficult subjects, but the song is so beautiful and the lyrics are so moving that when, you know, he doesn’t need to say anything before or afterward, he needs to sing the song and the song sells the message. And that’s the beauty of music, too, is that if you package a song properly,
you don’t have to say anything. The people will be left thinking. And if you package it in a tune that’s compelling, that thought will stay with them attached to the music. So I think music and comedy are two great ways. Movies, cinema. I mean, again, now we’re getting ahead of ourselves,
but wouldn’t it be interesting if we got a Russian director and American director to start doing short films. And I don’t want to advance into Oscar-winning full feature-length things, but with the internet, short movies, short films that are compelling, that break down barriers, that explain difficult issues in a compelling way, humanize these things. So we use art.
We use art of comedy, the art of music, particularly art of cinema, to break through these barriers. And I think that’s how we capture the audience. I mean, because let me put it this way. Let’s say you and I wrote a great song. It would all have to be on you because that’s outside my scope.
But let’s say, hypothetically, we did it. We wrote a great song with great lyrics. And we published this song, just a song. Millions of views. Millions of views. We don’t have to sell it. We don’t have to. We play it and people start humming it and say it’s great. And when they hum it,
they’ll start listening to the words and then the words are resonating in their heads. Millions of views and we didn’t have to do anything other than write a great song. As opposed to taking the ideas in that song and you and I having a discussion like this on just the ideas, 16,000 views.
So we have great ideas, but I think we have to be realistic about the time that we live in. Even in the 1980s, in the 1980s, they didn’t have the distraction of the internet. The internet is extremely distracting. The smartphones are extremely distracting. People’s attention is put to these, back in 1985, people could watch TV, walk away,
sit home, and at home, they didn’t have any distractions. They had to talk with each other and talk to one another. And there wasn’t the internet, there wasn’t email, there wasn’t anything. People had to talk and communicate. And that’s the benefit of this format, is that it lended itself to the reality of 1985. We’re in 2025.
And the world’s a completely different place. And we have to understand that we’re dealing with an audience that is already in information overload. They’re already receiving too much information. And this is an audience that has become very adept at selectively tuning things out. So we got to break through those barriers.
And we do that by making them laugh, making them cry, you know, making them you know, sing. These are the things that unite us as people. I mean, this is the point, you know, I often tell this story about New Year’s of 1988. You know,
I had spent my life preparing to go to war against the Soviet Union, against the Russian people. And I had studied them, and I was enthralled by them, fascinated by them, but my government said they were the enemy. And so I… created in my mind’s eye the notion of the Russian people being the enemy, bad people.
And then I went to Vodkinsk and I had to work with these people, live with these people. And initially it’s all tentative because you build barriers in your mind, you build psychological barriers and these barriers blind you to things. You exaggerate the negative and you diminish the positive. And yet the work we did was extremely hard.
I don’t want to bore people with the technical aspects of it, but we were installing a monitoring facility in a remote area of the Soviet Union during harsh weather conditions. You’re familiar with the muddy season and you’re familiar with the cold of the Siberian winter. And this is what we were dealing with.
I mean, and we had to learn to work together. On New Year’s Eve, 1987, going into 88, I’m sorry, going 88, going into 89, we inspectors were invited into the homes of our Soviet counterparts, our Russian counterparts. And at first we didn’t know what to think of this. We’re like trapped, it’s a KGB trap.
They’re trying to set us up there because we don’t trust the Russians, of course, because they’re bad people, they’re evil people. But the decision was made, no, we’re going to do this. And so we inspectors broke into three people teams and we went to different homes.
And the home I went to was of a well-known Russian to us who apparently before he became our counterpart, he worked in a very sensitive part of the factory doing things with SS-20 missiles. And so he had been raised his entire life to believe he was producing missiles to defend the Soviet Union from the evil Americans.
And so when we showed up, It was like very formal and we sat down. And then as the evening progressed, and to show you how pathetic, not pathetic, but how difficult this was, I was the translator for the American side and I don’t speak Russian. And so, you know, we’re working together.
I’m trying to explain things and the Russians are working with me through my horrible Russian saying, no, no, no, no, no, no. And they’d say something. We’d work it out. We’d draw it out on pictures like game of charades. And they’d give me a word. I’d say, oh, yes, yes, that’s it. And then we’d work on it.
And we started laughing. We started laughing. And it’s hilarious. Once you start laughing with people, the bonds that you build, because now it’s a shared bond. You found something that you both said was funny. You both laughed at and you went, wow, we both thought that was funny.
And then we started they played music and we started singing and, you know, and it was just a lot of fun. Then we we watched the political statements of our respective leaders. But it got us to start talking about the things that are important to us. And, you know, next thing you know, people are wiping away tears.
And in that evening, by laughing, by singing, by crying, we came together. And by the time we left that room, I was changed forever. I went from being somebody who said, these are my enemy. I have to be prepared to go to war against them and to kill them to saying,
I never want to be anything other than friends with these people. These are wonderful people. So that experience only furthers my contention that the way we break through the walls that exist today is to focus on laughing. singing, crying, focus on humor, comedy, to focus on music, and to focus on cinema.
And I think if we can do that, that’s the hook that we can use to drag people in, to change their perspective, and to get them to engage in dialogue.
Yeah. You know, again, I would like to tell you that I really like the idea with the comedians and, you know, singers. and i will try to figure it out and come back to you with some thoughts though actually i’m not of course i’m not a producer and i’m not a journalist i’m i’m a
businessman i’m focusing on my business in it industry i help construction companies and etc with technology to build a better building for them um And I really don’t know how I got involved in such things. Probably because I’m just, again, I’m a citizen who wants a future.
You know, I’m, as an entrepreneur, I build this future and I see huge risks for this future. And that’s what I would like to do. I would like to protect it. That’s why I’m interested in such initiatives. And I will work on it and come back to you.
By the way, I will have a meeting this week as well about how to continue this project. and et cetera, and I will keep you updated about it. So, and I hope it will continue. I’m sure it will, because this was the initial idea to show the world what actually people can and should do.
And then someone will see it and we’ll be like, oh, this is a good thing to do. And I will have some more ideas. And it’s like to drop a stone into the water and there are rings. So that’s what we did. In my view last week that’s what we did we dropped a stone in water,
How can people, how can people, because we’re going to take this interview and we’re going to package it and we’re going to get it out to an American audience, but also we’re going to do our best to get it out to a Russian audience. Let’s say, hypothetically speaking, Shimon’s producer watches this or somebody close to Shimon’s producer.
That’s a hint to you, Shimon, step up. And they say, I’d like to get involved in that. How can people get in touch with you? What’s a way that people can get in touch with you that doesn’t cross over into your personal life?
You know, actually, it’s very easy because I have a small Telegram blog and there are contacts. And by the way, it’s an open Telegram channel. Everybody can join. In the bio information there are contacts people can email or just say. Look, someone, you know, got in touch and they want this on that.
They have such ideas and I will consider, of course, it’s easy. It’s easy. Plus we under this video in comments, we can put some information, your information and my information. We can add there as well. So, and everybody can contact us.
Um, but it’s a good thing. I have a fantastic producer that’s fully capable of doing that. So. from your lips to her ears and we will it will happen but no i because i think that’s that’s important that you and i have now we’ve committed to something uh we’ve put some ideas out there
And we’ve indicated that we are not only open to people helping us, but we need people to help us and for people to see this. And if they believe they can help, if they have ideas to contact us and then we can move forward because we can’t do this alone. No matter, look,
what you did last week is prodigious because it’s not just what happened on Wednesday. This was your idea. This was your baby. You made it work. You made it run. It was your vision. And I was very proud to be able to be a part of it. But you can’t do this alone.
I have a lot of faith and trust in you, but I can just say from personal experience, if you’re doing something else for a living, building and doing a real job, this is a passion, this is a hobby, but you are going to need assistance. And it’s the same thing for me. People were like, oh, great.
Now you’re gonna do this, that, and the other thing. I don’t know how you think I’m going to do that because I’ve got other things happening that have to happen in order for me to live. I mean, everything you said I’m on board with, but I’m being pulled in 90 different directions.
So if people are listening to this and they say, hey, I’m a comedy club producer. This is something I know very well. I’ll say, guess what? You’re the project manager now for the U.S.-Russian comedy Space Bridge. If somebody else comes up, Malcolm Burns has already stepped up saying I’m a music producer.
You’re the lead for the U.S.-Russia music space bridge. We need help. You need help like that too, I would imagine. Hopefully, this is a recruiting video that we’re also doing to recruit people.
Let’s do it publicly. I would like to invite Pavel Volia, Ivan Urgant, Garik Harlamov, that are great people and they are their best their very best at what they do uh to you know to continue these um efforts and this journey together to help people to communicate and be interested
So, uh, again, I, I, you know, um, I said some names, but there are many others, of course, who can help. And by the way, you know, Vladimir Posner, of course, Tucker Carlson, they can help us as well. Uh, producers of, uh, channel first, you know, TNT, uh, our channel, you know, uh, in, in Russia.
things to the world you know paul i’m i’m i’m an old school kind of guy meaning that um i don’t I know you’re a businessman and contracts are your thing, but I’m an old school kind of guy where my handshake is my contract. So I’ll put my hand out to you, pal.
Let’s shake on this and let’s get it done. There you go. Thank you very much. I mean, again, I just want to congratulate you for what a fantastic job you did last week. And I am very enthusiastic about going forward with this project with you and with others as well.
Thank you. And I would like to invite you to Russia to send pictures back. I will, by the way, with my wife, I will give you a tour around because she used to be a guide. For Americans.
I look forward to it. I look forward to it very much. I want to again thank Pavel Balabanov. for coming on this show and not just that, but I mean, being such a good world citizen. I mean, this is a man who has taken it upon himself to contribute to the cause of peace.
And the space bridge that we put on last week, this US Russian, Russian US citizen summit was a great success. You know, you just don’t live in the glory of the past. This conversation that Pablo and I had today was about moving forward about the future. We came up with some really good ideas, you know,
ideas that will not just promote the concept of dialogue, but the concept of comprehension. And we’ve come up with some different tools as well. the tool of comedy, humor, making people laugh, the tool of music, of singing, of the lyrics of songs that touch the heart, and maybe even the tool of the emotional pool of cinema.
The bottom line is, this is a project that is a deeply human project. And so we’re going to touch upon the various human emotions to help propel this thing forward. Pablo and I, I think we accomplished something great. And we’re going to work together in the future. But we can’t do it by ourselves. We will need help.
We will need help across a variety of fields. people who are good at comedy, people who are good at singing, people who are good at cinema, people who are good at fundraising. These are things that need to happen to make this project go forward.
And I’m making an appeal to anybody who hears this to reach out if you can help us in any of these different disciplines or if you just want to provide your help in general, whether it be financial or just spiritual. Let us know, because this project doesn’t work without you. This isn’t the Pavel Scott Ritter Space Bridge.
This is the Russian U.S. Citizens Space Bridge. So my appeal is to you, the citizens of America, the citizens of Russia, the citizens of the world. This is an important project. Help us make it a success. Again, thank you for tuning in to the Russia House with Scott Ritter, and I look forward to seeing you next week.
ooo
Please find below a gallery of photographs of the Citizen’s Summit, taken in Saint Petersburg, Russia and Kingston, New York.
oooooo
