Scott Ritter (14)

20 h

The Expert

https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritter/p/the-expert?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

The Expert

(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/the-expert?triedRedirect=true)

Scott Ritter

Sep 03, 2025

taking because the President of the United States and the President of Russia are getting ready to meet in Alaska today to talk about these various issues. So I couldn’t have a better guest than the guest we have today, Alexei Leonkov. He’s a military analyst a political blogger he’s an expert but he also is the editor and

the commercial director of the analytical magazine which is the arsenal of the fatherland you also have a podcast that has a very curious name Maduro is not a fool it’s about Venezuela but I guess it’s a play on Maduro I’m not an expert in

the Russian language

Yes, I do look like Madura a little bit, and that gave me the name for the channel. But there’s another TG channel that I have, Telegram channel. There’s Ali Onkov’s Analytics, and that’s where all the analytics and expertise that I have,

we decided to put it all together in one place because all the news is kind of get lost. You know, it’s too many news. So if you want to read something… what I speak about, what kind of expertise I have in analytics. You can read it. I want a special edition.

Just to make clear, this is on Telegram, and it’s Leonkov’s Analytics. Is that the name of the channel?

And Maduro was, like, made by Semyon Pegov. He made a picture with me and placed it on his blog and said, here’s Maduro, secretly came to Moscow to have negotiations. Right now he’s going to come out of the Star Hotel. Ukrainian publications believe that? They said it all over the mass media, then Poland, then Germans,

and then it spread out like crazy all over the world. And when they understood it was wrong information, they said Kremlin hired the actor who looks like Nicolas Maduro who does the Kremlin’s propaganda, something like that.

Well, I’m not going to lie. When I saw you walk in, I said, oh, my God, Maduro’s here. But… Look, the quality of your analysis is obvious. You’re well known for your analytical abilities. Today I’d like to talk to you about the summit and expectations for the summit, but maybe take a different angle. You are very

critical and analytical about Ukraine and Ukraine’s role in this. A lot of people push Ukraine aside and focus on the larger framework of US-Russian relations, but Ukraine is the main stumbling block. If we don’t solve Ukraine, we’re never going to solve Ukraine.

Let me put forward a premise, and you tell me if you think I’m on to something. My expectation is that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have already agreed to a solution to Ukraine. It will roughly follow the two demands that Vladimir Putin has made, the territories and no NATO membership.

Donald Trump said that he wants to transition to a second meeting that will take place very quickly afterwards between President Putin and President Zelensky of Ukraine. maybe trump there as well i call this a trap because i don’t believe ukraine’s going to accept any of this what do you think i mean i’ve read you’re very critical

of ukraine you’re very critical of the fact that ukraine seems to have escaped reality when it comes to this conflict is ukraine being sucked into a trap the

point is that what happened with ukraine it’s a

many, many events into one link. They started about 202 years ago.

Alaska was there. I’m speaking about the Monroe Doctrine that, in principle, determined the independence of the United States determined the sphere of interest, and they were responsible that, hey, nobody gets into your business and you don’t get into European business. Quite a great doctrine that was supposed to be that the state is fully developing

and nobody’s getting on the way. But with time, that doctrine has changed, and And it became an expensive doctrine, starting with South America, then South America was like a backyard, then Europe first, second the wars, and then moving NATO to the east, and now Ukraine. It’s like the top of it all.

And all this change is brought to two big states, huge states, having nuclear weapons are at the threshold that they have to make a decision. Are we going to decrease the exclusion? No matter what, we’re going to continue. So both sides are having claims that… There’s a possibility of World War III, and it’s very real.

And Ukraine in this escalation plays the key role, because if Ukraine will not agree to the peaceful solution, really agree to it, of this conflict it would be out block or out of status and what russia was speaking from the very beginning then european partners would also take the same position then the threat is there.

And the threat could be very high. And then United States, due to the saving their own national safety, they’re going to have to make a very complicated decision. And Trump was saying that 25 percent, he’s putting back on unsuccessful negotiations, I think. What could it be? That could be

connected to Ukraine, because Ukraine is not that element that you have to break your bones of. There’s more global safety questions we have. SMV3 treaty to continue that Russia left on the rockets of the far and close distance, and in Syria they had ballistic rocket. All those stops that Russia makes in consequence, but they always warn.

We come to the point where we have to make a correct decision that you will save your own house or you are going to try to get the reds. with the rules. Of course, the House is number one. It’s internal safety. It’s outward safety that the United States have to deal with.

I don’t think America will not be great. But if we speak of what Biden’s administration did when they put all odds on escalation of the conflict when Biden was speaking, Putin that the World War III is bad. There won’t be any veterans there, so let’s step aside. Even then, they had an agreement. Looked like it.

And Russia gave an offer of the vision of the international safety in December 2021. We know what it ended up with. They made us to make special military operation. And those that pushed us, they thought that the military expenses and military operation, over 30,000 sanctions, that would bring to the better result.

And we saw that lease starting from strategic defeat at the fire lines. that they would place us at the table of negotiations and they would dictate terms and conditions to us. But the destiny of the world is now being sold by two states, U.S. and Russia, and those there are the threshold of war and some other.

And they’re outside of this table. Just think about it. They’re not even allowed to discuss it. So this historical place that was selected, Alaska, it also brings us to the 202 years ago when everything got started, where US somewhere chose a wrong turn. And that wrong turn brought to this dead end, a strategic dead end,

where we have to solve this complicated issue. Because if you continue to walk with your partners in the EU, then United States would have a difficult, no-perspective future. And as a specialist in nuclear questions, especially nuclear weapons, you understand that very well. But European partners, they think that they have to deal with this edge, edgy situation,

and hope that in 2026, when they will have election to the U.S. Congress, Trump would lose all his votes and he would be pushed to become Biden and they will continue this expansion that they will not pay anything forward and do something with their corruptive schemes and etc.

So everything would be back at their own circles but it’s a dead end situation. to win the war with a nuclear state. It’s impossible. Ukraine is done with the people resources, human resources. There are problems with the supply of the weapons. A lot, many other problems that you can’t solve with just with a snap of fingers.

Let’s go back to zero squad. No, it’s not possible because the reasons are there. They did not take away the reasons. So hopefully that in Alaska, they will care about those reasons. They will do something about reasons, and we will step away from the World War III.

From your lips to God’s ears. You speak of the home, and I love this analogy. You have to take care of the home first. We know what the Russian home is. We’re here. Mother Russia, the fatherland. What is the American home? Because what we’ve done now is in the post-World War II reality,

America’s extended its home into Europe so that we don’t have a single home. We have a duplex, a single building, two homes, two families. And yet to solve the Ukrainian problem, America is going to have to divorce itself from this other family that’s causing problems right now. And your point, and it’s such an important point,

it’s not about Ukraine winning a strategic argument with the United States. It’s about Ukraine delaying the victory of Donald Trump until midterm elections. We have a point on the calendar. All Europe needs to do, is strengthen its relationship with the deep state, with the Democrats, with the opponents of Donald Trump,

prevent Donald Trump from achieving this victory of good relations with Russia, run the clock out on the elections, and then Donald Trump won’t be able to capitalize upon. And that changes the dynamic, because many people are saying, oh, this is going to be the collapse of the European Union, this is going to be the collapse of NATO.

But not if it’s about running out the clock. You don’t have to fix Europe. You just have to keep Europe alive, keep Europe going. Isn’t this really one of the fundamental threats to improving U.S.-Russian relations? Europe. How do we solve this problem?

What advice would you give to the United States on how to deal with the European issue? I was 19.

You know, when United States began their expansion, thinking that everything what is the threat to the national safety have to be under the control of Washington. We understand that the planet Earth is on a strategic amendment. There’s in the Pacific Ocean military-in-chief spots where they control the safety that could be a threat. to the United States.

But this way, United States, what they did, they spread out their forces. And to put them all together in one feast, they weren’t able to do so anymore. So there were attempts to start something to deal with international terrorism, but it brought to harder circumstances. So to satisfy the foreign policy, there’s inner policy, right?

And it’s a great industrial state. And they have a great share in the world market to renew the nuclear complex. So how to do it quickly? And the programs are being postponed, 25, now 30, then 2042. So if we speak about new technologies, the U.S. is really going after somebody. Every day there’s a crash on a railroad.

So domestic policy is not there. A lot of things happen inside and outside, a lot of expenses on the resources. And when Trump came first time and he became president make America great again, right? His famous phrase. He wanted to put together all the best to restore the industrial power of the United States.

He understood that spreading out like this doesn’t bring to anything. So those financial circles are getting getting rich and the military lobby getting rich. But it doesn’t make the country healthy. So we came to the point where we continue with a foreign policy to hurt the domestic policy.

It’ll bring to defeat of everything of what America ever created and was proud of. And when it says great again, it’s to restore that. But we have come a very uneasy period with this pandemics and that was really killing the um the best science of america and american society looked at when policemen were becoming

on the knees and kneeling down before the ones who were hooligans and bandits all that took place we saw how great state becoming like a an understandable state with the big ambitions. They could not support their foreign policy, so something had to be done.

Yes, Russia has a lot of questions for the United States, and there were some cases daily. They understood Russia is not, that it was not the solution. America had to be great again. That’s how Russians see to make sure to line up. America needs to get concentrated and focus on domestic policy, on its own affairs.

If that doesn’t bring profit to America, that has to stop those endless wars that don’t bring any results. And that brings profit only to the sponsors, to the lobbyists. They make money. But simple Americans, they see that. Is their life getting better because of that? Of course not.

They have to refuse from the outer expansion and get into the politics outside of the one power world. America is great, big. And the others are like vassals. But they are looking towards America. At the same time, they lived good due to America. And when Trump speaks to Europeans, he says, listen,

you’ve taken a lot of money from us, and we didn’t get anything out of it. That’s what we talk about. America is on one side a war of policemen. At the same time, freely, they supported everything with the money. But from quality, it took another form. that started to bring hurt to America when United States became,

instead of the transnational corporation, just having an office, whether that be like in Australia, United States, or in South America. America was an office. It was a walk-through hole Well, they did not cow themselves. They didn’t see their own fatherland. We call it our places, motherland, fatherland.

And for many Americans, you know, motherland and fatherland can be anywhere else. Where’s American house? It’s broken. It’s been stolen at different corners. And where are those people that took the pieces of that house? America needs to get back to where they started. In 1823, when James Monroe wrote that doctrine, that made America in the future great.

But, you know, somewhere they took a wrong term. So now there’s a possibility to bring it back. This escalation is a final point. of destroying the civilization. You don’t need to destroy, you need to create, for there is always a possibility. So Russia always greeted when their neighbors were friendly countries. You know, we have Beringer’s pathway.

We’re neighbors. You know, all these complications, all these difficulties, we can all resolve through a conversation. But at the same time, There are partners that want their own. So the multipolar world has a great model for that. Okay, do take care of your own national safety.

We always said that national safety should be at the interest of one. Yours is one, mine is the other. And then coming out of your interest, we can form that link that would allow us to continue and exist for many years. But unfortunately, the other thing is leading now. Another point of view,

it’s the America that in the beginning of 20s was with a growing economy. Now know that no matter what, they had a Great Depression, they became bigger, bigger economy. Then suddenly this economy just deflated because people stole pieces of America on private interests that said that it’s because of national security. In real deal, it was not so.

Well, thank you very much for that. Again, focus on NATO right now and the Ukraine question and America’s relationship with NATO. Because it seems to me we’re coming to a crisis point. NATO, the European members of NATO, appear to have made a decision to segregate themselves away from the United States

when it comes to the issue of Ukraine. But it’s curious because every NATO member who speaks of this, their threats carry with it the implication of America being behind them to back them up. But if we have this fundamental divorce over this and the United States separates and NATO is left alone, what’s the future of NATO?

Can NATO survive a post-conflict split with the United States over Ukraine?

You know, there’s one British politician. I don’t remember his name, unfortunately. He said the following, that it’s profitable for them that Russia would face head-on with the United States because Great Britain is small. Until they will fight, we’re going to live well. attitude or position, we can watch it with different countries of NATO.

If we remember the story, NATO was like a military block against European Union and Warsaw Treaty,

because Warsaw Treaty was created later. There’s no treaty, no Warsaw Treaty, and the NATO should have been dispersed.

But they found another play.

for NATO, fight international terrorism, as we know, Serbia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq. You know,

American militants were there with coalition that was fight for the international terrorism. Did it help? Did it make the whole world free from terrorism? But no. Now they do crimes on every continent, and we have to fight them everywhere. There was, in 2019, the interest program of strategy of NATO 2030,

where they have put certain targets of the future existence of NATO as Euro-Atlantic Society. had to influence many other processes that took place in the world. But if you take time and be very attentive, then NATO was a military political bloc that would come to bad guys and say, they’re bad. Let’s change the power there.

So these changes in the NATO structures, we are see they are not defensive, they are attacking block now, that they will continue with the expansion that was against the Monroe Doctrine. It became, the politics became more aggressive.

They started to have this

democracy on the wings of tactical aviation and then bring to certain results that were written in the beginning. When the certain right operation was started on a certain country, when the democracy would win, the life of people would get better. You know the situation, Ryan Corporation.

They made the analysis of all the military conflicts that United States took part in after World War II, and they came to result. Not one country that United States had military operations. Democracy never won. Neither has one country ever started living better. They did not increase their, they didn’t become richer and they didn’t increase in GDP.

Even look at Afghanistan. Two and a half trillion dollars was spent for the military operations there. United States left. The country is not living better. It’s again at the same level when United States walked in, you have to raise their economy. There’s a lot of tasks with food issues, medical safety, because people there, they don’t live better.

Now, with the help of the neighbors, somehow the life is getting tuned back up there. So we have to change the doctrine if we speak NATO. NATO for what? Maybe we should leave the same national armies there and teach them to live in peace. in neighborhood,

not like it was done when they made artificial European Union that the heads are not elected by any country, but appointed by somebody. And this administration is forming the foreign policy for Europeans. Europeans don’t want to fight, but they tell them, no, you’ve got to fight. Ursula Ferdinand says, we’re going to spend the money.

Europeans said, no, we’re against war. No, we’re going to take social programs and then send the money to war. And then they signed a deal with Trump that hurts European economy. How do you call that? Is that independent due to the good of the citizens? It’s for some peoples that are solving their personal interests to profit somebody.

If NATO want to exist in the future of a certain alliance, They have to change the root cause and the politics. But they don’t want to change these policies. The questions about EU army and Europe as being a separate unit is always there. But there is no unity in Europe itself. How can you put them together?

It’s something that’s not united in the very beginning. If you put them all together, all these disagreements will bring us to the new problems. And we know the first and the second were wars. They started in Europe. So these lessons, two lessons, Europe didn’t learn. And those who learned it, they don’t have the right to vote.

New people come, and they say, OK, let’s do it one more round. Let’s take a look at the results of the World War II. Let’s forget Yalta, Potsdam, conferences and agreements, Helsinki. Let’s refuse from it all and begin from zero, and get back and make another round. We lost World War II.

Maybe we can regain it back again. Let’s talk again at the Federal Republic of Germany. Most of the politicians that are now at the power, they have relatives that are very well serviced at the Wehrmacht. or other SS divisions. So this spirit of fascism or Nazi spirit,

it will rise up back again and only Russia or United States who were winners, who were victorious in this world, they can bring an order there and get rid of this Nazi infection forever. Then and only then NATO can speak that it will become different.

Well, thank you very much. It’s been a fascinating conversation. We’ve taken a different approach to the problem and this is this is the value of conversations like this you know oftentimes you fall into a trap when you interview experts about a given topic you tend to repeat yourself we’ve had a unique conversation here a

very valuable conversation and I want to thank you very much Alexei Leontov for joining me today I want to thank my audience for joining me it’s been a special edition of the Russia house I want to thank TASS for hosting us. I want to thank the National Unity Club. Stay tuned. Keep interest. The summit’s happening today.

20 h

Ritter’s Rant 047: Foreign Terrorist Organizations

https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritte

a motorboat, ostensibly carrying 11 so-called terrorists, and again, alleged to be carrying narcotics, was tracked and destroyed by terrorists. forces of the United States military, killing all 11 personnel on the boat and, I guess, destroying their narcotics cargo. According to the Trump administration, to the State Department,

this boat and the people inside were affiliated with the Tren d’Agua. terrorist group. I’m sure I mispronounced that, but it doesn’t matter. This is a terrorist group that has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the Trump administration. It’s an organization that operates On the soil of Venezuela,

the Trump administration claims that it operated the direction of the Maduro government. I don’t think anybody else agrees with that. Most expert opinion holds that this organization operates on territory that’s outside of the control of the Venezuelan government and operates independent of the Venezuelan government. But be that as may, it’s a Venezuelan-based foreign terrorist organization.

has been designated as such. The question here has nothing to do with, is it justifiable for the United States to try and prevent this organization from smuggling drugs into America? Of course, that’s our job. It’s our duty, our responsibility to secure our borders and to keep criminals like this out, to keep drugs out of our borders.

But a lot of people are like high-fiving, saying this is awesome. This is what designation of FTO. We put some substance behind the words without really reflecting on that. Go and read the statute. Read the statute very carefully. The designation of any group as a foreign terrorist organization does not give the

United States military an inherent right to hunt them down and kill them. what the statute talks about is the ability to sanction them and to prevent other people from doing business with them. It can hold up additional law enforcement, you know, measures, accountability, et cetera. But it’s not a, you know, it’s not a death warrant.

It’s anything but a death warrant. And so now you have to ask yourself, what the hell was the U.S. military doing tracking a civilian officer vessel in international waters and assassinating the 11 people inside there’s no legal authority whatsoever congress certainly hasn’t given them the legal authority

to do this we’re not at war uh being designated as an fto is not a declaration of war um this is a war crime and i think americans need to be careful about cheering this sort of thing Let’s just also look at it from the standpoint of law enforcement.

We got 11 guys on a boat full of narcotics. They left Venezuela and they’re heading to points unknown. But I think the Trump administration claims they had irrefutable evidence that they were bringing these narcotics to American waters. Okay. Okay. Gee, wouldn’t you want to like arrest these guys, bring them into custody, talk to them, interrogate them,

find out what they knew, maybe open up a case, find out who dispatched them, you know, get more information about the structure of the organization. It’s called intelligence work. law enforcement work this is what should have been done if you need to track the

boat and fire warning shots you can disable the boat then you board it using the coast guard the last thing you do is use the united states military to murder these people on open waters because this is what it was murder there was no authorization

they didn’t present a threat an imminent risk to any u.s military personnel i don’t even think they knew they were being tracked They were just out there having a good time on the high seas and boom, they’re dead. That’s murder. That’s a war crime.

And that’s something no American should want the men and women in our armed forces to ever be accused of. This is very dangerous things that are being done by the Trump administration. First of all, did they present this evidence to a judge? Did they get permission to kill these people? Did the president sign a finding?

authorizing the military to kill these people? Under what legal authority would this authorization be made? This is bad stuff. This is bad stuff. This is about murder. Do we know who the 11 people were? Could there have been an American citizen on board? Did we just murder an American? We don’t know. We don’t know.

Do we have the authority to murder America? I know Barack Obama did it on a regular basis. No due process. But gosh, President Trump claims to be a different president, a better president, a president who claims that the Constitution matters. But does it? There was no due process offered these people. They were simply murdered.

They weren’t given a chance to surrender. They weren’t even given a chance to resist. Had they resisted, then they could be taken out. but only, you know, with proportional force. Here, the boat was just hit, killing all 11 people. This isn’t how America operates, guys. We need to do better than this. This is how drug cartels operate.

They murder people. This is how criminal organizations operate. This is how foreign terrorist organizations operate, but not the United States. Defend America in the war on drugs? Absolutely. Stop the boat, detain the suspects, seize the cargo, and then begin a law enforcement investigation that leads you to the foundational

elements of this criminal enterprise so that you can begin to take it apart. All you did here was a sound and light show designed to please an audience. I mean, what have the American people become? A crowd in the Coliseum? where gladiator type events take place so that we can cheer and clap in bloodlust.

That’s not who we are. We need to do better, and we need to insist that our government does better. Stop drugs? Yes. Assassinate people in open waters? No. We need to protect the men and women who wear the uniform of the armed services in the United States of America from any allegation of wrongdoing.

And here, there’s an open and shut case that Americans committed war crimes on the high seas. That’s my rant. Next time a thought crosses my mind, I’ll be sure to share with you. Thank you.

20 h

The Good Propagandist

https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritte

It’s an absolute honor and privilege to invite my guest here today, Alexei Kuzachev. I apologize. You are the host of a program on Channel One, which is just for the American audience. That’s like the big channel here in Russia. Time will tell. You have been accused of being a propagandist.

You’re under sanctions by Canada and others for waging propaganda on behalf of Russia for somehow Let’s just cut through the nonsense here. What is propaganda? I mean, you’re a journalist. You have a show. You provide information. Is it propaganda if you’re telling the truth?

Let me answer you with a small anecdote, and then we’ll check out if Americans have a sense of humor. Here’s the anecdote. When a small boy comes from school home and he asks his parents, who is Karl Marx? Who is Marx? He’s an economist. Oh, really? Like our Aunt Larissa? No, no, no. Larissa is an elderly economist.

I’m not just a propagandist. I’m not into propaganda. I’m a Kremlin’s propaganda. In our time, it’s a very thin line, really thin line. It’s always speculation and manipulation when somebody is accused in propaganda, both Europe, U.S. and Russia. To me, it was a certain thing that the media has parties in the United States.

It really didn’t go into the journalism we’ve drawn for ourselves in the 90s, you know, journalism, objective view, independent view. Oh, it belongs to the parties. Everybody has their own truth. I am bringing the truth of my country, the truth of my party, and we’re not just speaking and saying that about the Putins in Russia,

but we say the truth and determine our objectives of the way we take the direction and give the answer to who we are. Because in the 90s, we got lost with ourselves. So, if you want to call it propaganda, okay, call it propaganda.

But what I think I do is good and honest work, and I continue to do that.

Well, understand, I’m not calling it propaganda. But here’s the problem. You rightly pointed out that in America our journalist media outlets… are aligned with political parties, aligned with ideology. They don’t report the news. They are propagandists for their point of view. They’re selling something, and oftentimes it requires them to manipulate information, to say things that aren’t accurate.

Russia, I’m not saying you’re incapable of doing that. I mean, who knows? But in this case, the case of Ukraine, Russia is in a unique position. History is on your side. The facts are on your side. The truth is on your side. And you’re reporting the truth. But you’re being called propagandists.

How is Russia having all this ammunition, losing the information war? You know, it’s one thing. It shouldn’t be too hard for you to tell the Russian truth to the Russian audience. Why can’t you tell the Russian truth to an international audience? What’s happening here with this dynamic?

You know, as people say that, you know, our minuses, our pluses, and so on. And our pluses, we’re very naive. And we trust, you know, when we have a little bit of a drink, you know, we open our heart. And maybe I say it in a simple way, down-to-earth way. But, you know, we’re naive.

We think that this whole world made on certain rules, that there are rules for everybody. There are general rules for everybody. And we imagine. It doesn’t characterize us in a good way, but we thought these rules are general for everybody. No, they’re not, actually. You know, you can actually forbid Russian mass media work overseas.

You just can close them down. And now all the principles and all the rules are broken. And we were, you know, it’s a tragic memory. We, our great country, we have lost. We talk about the USSR. Where are we going to live? What world are we going to live in? Where are those honest rules?

Where’s the fair competitive rules? You know, well, we were fools. You know, we were just forbidden. We wanted to fight in an honest way or be competitive. You know, you say, how come you don’t? Well, we’re trying to, but they closed us. They just shut our mouths.

You know, it’s a certain way they just, they behave like bandits. They shut our mouths. And we ask why. Well, your propaganda. Most ironical thing is that this guy is from, there’s such an organization, Reporters Without Limits. And the name speaks for it all. And I think it was in Czech Republic.

I was thinking he was speaking some kind of delegate. Maybe we should close. Maybe we should warn him or so and so. He opened his mouth and he said, you know, this is a very good decision. Forbid it. Close it because it’s poison. Reporter without limit says this is poison.

Yes, we are in the circumstances where we are.

Look, I’m not being critical. I’m somebody who, as an American patriot, is trying to do what’s best for the United States. And it just so happens that what’s best for the United States, in my opinion, is best for Russia. that our two nations learn how to work together, live together in peace, and move forward free of conflict,

especially when we each have nuclear weapons that could destroy one another. So the last thing anybody could call me is a Russian propagandist. And yet I’ve been called a Russian propagandist. Why? I’m a student of Russian history. I actually studied Russian history in college. But more importantly, through circumstances of life, luck,

I’ve been able to make Russian history together with the United States. I was a weapons inspector in the treaty, the original treaty, INF treaty. I worked and lived in Russia. I’ve met the Russian people. I know the Russian people. And so When I talk about Russia, I speak about it factually.

But let’s look at one of these historical things. The Great Patriotic War. Sunday, I had the opportunity to go to Victory Park. And of course, they’ve got the beautiful mausoleum, stunning, wonderful. That’s not the thing that hit me the most. What hit me the most was the museum. 1,418 steps. 1,418 days, one step for each day.

It took me three and a half hours to walk this museum. In each step, the burden of history just crushed me. It’s the reality of this war, the photographs, the faces, the details. At first, it was fascinating. I’m a historian. I’m absorbing the data.

But about a third of the way through, I’m weighed down by the consequences of the data. By the time I finished, I was overwhelmed. I was emotionally drained from this because the totality of this conflict, the sacrifice that the Soviet people, the Russian people, the Belarusian people, the Georgian people, the Kazakh people, the Soviet Union,

the Soviet people made to achieve this victory was so obvious, so overwhelmingly obvious. And yet this story that should be so easy to tell In the West, you didn’t win the war. Now, let’s be honest. We won the war. It was an allied effort. The United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union. But that’s like saying,

if you know American football, that’s like saying, yeah, I played for the Patriots in the Super Bowl victory. But it was Tom Brady that won the Super Bowl. It was a team effort, but it was Tom Brady that threw the pass. But it’s like me saying as another member, I won the Super Bowl. No, no, no.

We were on the same team, but we know who won the Super Bowl. We know who won World War II. Russia won World War II, the Soviet Union won World War II. You engaged the Germans, the bulk of the Germans, you killed more of them, you consumed their attention,

and you allowed the United States and Great Britain to, by the time, to assemble our forces, to go into France when Germany was at its weakest. I know the truth, but in America they tell a different story. And this We can call it a problem of America, and it is, Russophobia and all that,

but isn’t it also the problem of the storyteller? Is Russia spending too much time telling a story to itself that it already knows? And it’s a great story that must be told because you can never forget. But are you not failing to pay enough attention to sell this story to an international audience?

This should be the easiest story in the world to sell. What can be done? And I’m not talking in the context of just World War II. I’m just talking about the Russian experience, because that’s my job, is to capture the Russian experience and bring it to America. Put yourself in my shoes. What do I need to do?

How do I capture your story and take it to America so that it will be believed?

A. Difficult question. That’s a tragical question in some way that, first of all, there’s a problem of not knowing. they do or they understand what they’re being told or they’re cut down from the real stories and the truth they want to but they can we tell the truth and they

would open their eyes get surprised oh this is how it was no that’s not the story that’s methodical work that’s also objective and historical circumstances for example what is for us a war of 1812 we know about it but for many other people for other nations It’s historical.

You know, Borodin battle, where was it, and that story, and that great poem that was written. You know, historians talk about that. The further we go into this in the history, the less we have emotional cry. What you said is great. What you told us, yes, I understand that touch is there at that museum, your heart.

It’s not just the facts. It’s emotionals that we share, not to lose. I have never seen one of my grandfathers. One died somewhere in a war. Another one… He got lost in the other place. So every family in Russia, every, every, every family, they have more or less, we had touched by war.

For me, it’s not an abstract. I see pictures of my grandfather. I understand I’ve never seen him. My dad was born in 1941, 30th of June. Think about my mama, my grandmother. I’ve seen her, I know her. And after 22nd of June, she had that baby. I don’t know how she raised my dad.

For us, it’s emotional feelings. But for the rest of the people, it’s… unfortunately including russians this is also emotional it’s a some kind of historical fact and this is actively used by europeans and americans because this historical fact is something that gives a huge number of being right. We have historical right. We are winners.

They say, oh, no, no, no, no, no. These are historians’ business, you know, Great Britain, the United States, and USSR. And then further on, you have a distance, so it’s just United States and Great Britain that probably knowing you’re just United States, it would be in a line, and et cetera. What can we stand against?

Say the truth. Listen, our delegation was not allowed. It was a cynical betrayal act. And Red Army took over that concentration camp. Those Germans, everybody else. But nobody from Russia. There were none, not one who freed them. You think they didn’t know that? They knew it. Another anecdote, another story.

It’s not funny topic, but it’s not for laughing, just for understanding the values, the course. two ex theatrical difficult guys they go pass by their theater and from the second floor they have women laughing champagne sprinkling another one tells to the first guy hey they don’t call us anymore for the holiday they forgot us no they remember

us so they don’t call us not because we forgot but because they remember there’s no good solution to break the ice of misunderstanding and the river of the truth would flow. No. No, it’s utopia. No, we need for ourselves. Keep that memory. Have that memory. Keep it and pass it on to the following generations. That’s what’s important.

And you’ve done a good job of it. You really have. I mean, I’ve never met a nation more united in their memory. And that’s what makes Russia the great country it is today. You mentioned the difficulties of the 90s and such. Think about what’s happened in the past 25 years.

You went from the 1990s to where you are today. Russians have fallen in love with Russia again. They’re proud of being Russia again. Why? Because they remember who they are. They’ve learned from the past. I was touched when I was talking to people the last time I visited. I guess in Sevastopol, there’s a museum,

and you walk through and the faces are above you like stars. And they said that as a Russian today, when you look up in the night sky, There’s 27 million pairs of eyes looking down on you and saying, earn what we sacrificed. We sacrificed so you could live today. Earn it. Don’t lose it. Never forget it.

This is why you’re Russia. This is why you’re a great nation. Look, I’m proud of being an American. I’ll never denigrate my country, but I respect Russia because you respect yourselves, and you respect yourselves because of your history. But let’s, again, let’s get to the problem. Self-love is self-love.

Our goal right now is to get Russia to love America and get America, more importantly, to love Russia. I did a wonderful interview the other day with a member of the state Duma, a beautiful and intelligent young lady, Yana is her name. She, in 2014, she, as a volunteer, rescued children who were trapped in the fighting,

wounded children. And the courage that she had to do this. I mean, she’s not a military person. She’s not a marine. She doesn’t have the training. She had a heart, she had courage, and she had the will to run into danger, rescue these children.

She was condemned as a terrorist by the West, condemned as a terrorist by the West. Her story, if told by Hollywood, would make a blockbuster movie, win Academy Awards. Russia needs Hollywood. You need your version of Hollywood. You need to do a better job of telling your story so that it can be sold to the West.

You don’t have to sell it to yourself. You believe in it. You know who you are. But I’m in the United States. We’re infected with Russophobia. When I turn on American movies, Russians are played as cartoon figures. You know, Arnold Schwarzenegger playing a Russian policeman, I will beat you up. You know,

we have Bruce Willis going into outer space to meet up with a Russian cosmonaut who is crazy because he is Russian. It doesn’t work. I hit the machine and it suddenly works. Okay, that’s cartoonish. Because the reality is the Russians are as sophisticated as we are. Russian science is as good as we are.

You build the best missiles in the world for a reason, because you have good scientists, good engineers. That’s the reality of Russia. But Hollywood has shaped the image of Russia and the American mindset. Wouldn’t it be nice if we went to a movie and we saw a Russian hero portrayed realistically. Yana is a Russian hero.

What she did is heroic under any circumstance. The world can identify that. The Americans can identify with that. What do we need to do to make a Russian Hollywood that can translate the Russian story to a Western audience? Because Russians might say, well, why do we want to do this? Why do you want to do it

Because we need to learn to live together in peace. in order to live together in peace, we have to understand you better. And right now we don’t. And we need your help. What do you think could happen here?

First of all, you said that Russians fell in love with Russia. That’s the truth.

That’s true.

I’ve never expected that American would say that, what took place in Russia for the past years. That sign that you have, that’s from 90s, or it’s this year?

No, I mean, I’ve had this, I had the original one from the 80s, which was the American Soviet flag. And then when I went to the Russian embassy, I was invited by Anatoly Antonov to go for a Russia day. And somebody came to me, and I’ve been talking about Russian-American friendship, and they said, well,

then you need to wear a symbol of Russian-American friendship. And they gave me this pen. And so I wear it as a symbol of Russian-American friendship.

Okay, concerning… to understand each other. You know, American image, we rarely use that, but, you know, for tango, tango, you need to.

You need to have a desire.

And we want people to understand us, but we want to see the desire to understand us. So there’s a sharp, real, true desire to understand. I remember that movie with Bruce Willis. Armageddon. Armageddon, yeah. You know, he was wearing that stupid hat with a hammer. Hello, Americans. We’re the first ones on the space.

We couldn’t do that with a hammer. You know, it was a cartoonish image of the Russian. It’s a stereotype. It went so deep to destroy it. you need to like in 80s they said that there was a desire to understand each other in 80s because there was an iron iron curtain the americans also had stereotypes

russians had stereotypes we heard about each other different jokes and stereotypes and the beginning was katia lechova samantha smith and then suddenly As we see, I was a student then. I was eager to look into the faces, the way they talk, these Americans, how they walk, how they dress, how they move. They’re people.

They’re humans, just like us, and so on. When there was a desire to learn. And now, if I understand correctly, maybe I exaggerate, maybe not. In America itself, there’s also division. And a deep one. And there’s no united America that really wanted, there’s one America and the other America. And it’s also fighting on itself, on the middle.

You know, I’m not an optimist there. In the circumstances, it’s, there’s, I don’t think there’s a desire to become united for both Americas. More than that, I want to say that not a good question and a difficult question. It’s a sad question. I think that there are no instruments of science or rhetorical or any other.

It’s not possible to bring it back to the step of the winner. I say it honestly that the world The world is not going to go down, but everybody talks about new war and showing who is the winner and another 80 years or whatever to install some kind of status quo. That coming back to the war,

there’s actually in the 60s all the questionaries and statistics, they cite them now and show Who is the winner in World War II?

60s.

Soviet Union. United States. Britain. And a little bit France.

70s.

Who is the winner? Soviet Union. United States. Britain. France.

90s.

Now. Who is the winner in World War II? United States. Britain. France. United France. Oh, this is it. No other way, rhetorically, verbal interventions. You cannot fix that. We’re not going to get along with that or show them one more time. I don’t know another solution. Maybe if you do, it would be great to see that.

I know this. You said it takes two to tango. Russia is an expert dancer. These guys got it down. You got the moves down. You’re good. America… We don’t know how to dance right now. We’re going to have to learn. That’s what Russophobia has done to us. It’s made us, we can’t dance. We’re bad dancers.

But we need to dance with you. We need to be your dance partner. Because if we don’t, the party’s going to end. It’s going to be bad. You say, what’s the solution? I don’t know. Conversations like this are the solution, beginning to open up and talk to one another.

But what’s necessary here is also an appeal for your patience. You know how to dance. You have to be patient for us while we learn to dance. And then you have to be willing to invite us to the dance floor. And I think then we’ll do a nice little tango, but it’s going to take time.

But what we’re doing here, this conversation is absolutely essential to it. I want to thank you very much for coming today. It’s been an absolute pleasure talking with you. I want to thank the audience for tuning in. I want to thank TASS for giving us this wonderful studio.

I want to thank the National Unity Club for organizing this. But most of all, I want to thank everybody collectively, because what we’re doing here through this citizen diplomacy is trying to make the world a better place by promoting better relations between the United States and Russia.

20 h

Ritter’s Rant 048: Hope and Justice

https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritter/p/ritters-rant-048-hope-and-justice?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

civilians who have been exposed to the toxic effects of depleted uranium. This is an issue of some not a little bit controversy here in the United States because the Veterans Administration, which is responsible for caring for the health of, you know, our military veterans has refused to acknowledge a direct linkage between depleted uranium exposure and, you know,

any illnesses such as cancer that could possibly be linked to this. And it also, you know, that refusal shields the United States from any, you know, culpability or having to take responsibility for the serious harm we’ve done to civilians who live in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Kosovo, and elsewhere. You know, this is probably every year,

3,200 American veterans get diagnosed with bladder cancer. Other thousands get diagnosed with other forms of cancer. in many cases, these cancers, um, you know, from a just causal analysis are linked to exposures that these Americans had to toxic substances. I mean, if you’re a Vietnam era veteran, we’re talking about agent orange,

but if you’re talking about a cold war era veteran, somebody who fought, you know, in, in, uh, you know, in, in, in Kosovo or was part of the occupation force of Kosovo people who fought in Iraq in the 1990s and, uh, in 2000 in Afghanistan, it’s depleted uranium that you were exposed to. And this is bad news.

This is bad juju. And they’re not getting the health care they need. They’re not getting the compensation that they deserve. They put on the uniform to serve their country. And in doing so, they were exposed in deliberate fashion to a substance, depleted uranium, that is now taking their lives. lives that weren’t taken by an enemy,

but it’d be taken by the very weaponry that they employed to protect themselves from this enemy. And, you know, having the U.S. government stick their collective heads in the sand is a disgrace. It’s a dishonor to these veterans. Now, people might be saying, well, Scott, how do you know? I mean, this is the U.S.

government, the Veterans Administration, you know, the Health and Human Services, the Center for Disease Control. What do you know that they don’t? Here I got the one up on them. You see, in Serbia, there’s a… There’s a professor, Dr. Sirdan Aleksic, and he has, for the past several years,

been waging a campaign to bring justice to the people of Serbia who were exposed to the effects of depleted uranium. And he has worked to develop not just a legal case, but… more importantly here a medical case you see there have been advances in

nanotechnology now that uh have a test that will prove with 100 certainty that a cancer that you may have what the origin is if it could be linked to uranium, depleted uranium exposure. And this has survived successful lawsuits in Italy where this technology was used to come to the assistance of Italian soldiers who, you know,

suffered cancer that has now been proven to be linked to their exposure to depleted uranium while they were operating in Kosovo. And now he has won a lawsuit in Serbia on behalf of a Serbian civilian who contracted cancer, and now using the same nanotechnology,

they’ve linked it to depleted uranium that was fired by the United States and NATO forces. So this is no longer a question. It’s beyond doubt. You can’t say, oh, we don’t know. We now know. If somebody has cancer and you run this test, this will be able with absolute certainty to determine whether the origin of this

cancer can be linked to depleted uranium exposure. This has to be brought to the attention of RFK Jr., heads up the Department of Health and Human Services, you know, the man who’s responsible for making America healthy again. Doug Collins, the Secretary of the Veterans Administration, who has said he’s here to look after the health of our veterans.

And yet today, thousands, tens of thousands of American veterans suffer from cancer and other health effects because of the exposure to depleted uranium. If we truly believe in making America healthy again and taking care of our veterans, then we need to bring This new nanotechnology test to American shores,

get it approved so that it can be used to assess the true state of affairs when it comes to American veterans, cancer and depleted uranium exposure. But there’s even a bigger problem. A simple Google search will show you the impact that depleted uranium’s had on the civilian population of Iraq.

the number of deformed babies that are born into this world because of depleted uranium exposure, the number of deaths, cancer to, you know, the civilians of Basra, Fallujah, elsewhere. Same thing in Afghanistan and the civilians of Europe. Now, this is a big deal because, you know, You know, if we acknowledge this and it has to be acknowledged,

the science is absolute, that there’s a linkage and we bear a responsibility not only of taking care of those who have suffered, but of remediating the contaminated soil. You know, when we use depleted uranium, it’s not just about you know, the immediate impact on the ground. These munitions, when they explode,

they’re often high explosive shells with depleted uranium penetrators. It creates a dust that can spread up to 40 kilometers away from the point of impact, and this dust goes into the soil, and then that soil gets breathed in or absorbed by, you know, unsuspecting people. We have to find a way to…

to clean this up it’s our responsibility as americans we’re the ones who you know made these weapons and frankly speaking for the past several decades we’ve known that there’s an issue with depleted uranium but we refuse to acknowledge it because it’s we just find depleted uranium too damn convenient we use it as a armor plating

on our m1 tanks we use it as a you know tank penetrating uh you know shells and our 25 millimeter 20 millimeter 120 millimeter um you know cannon shells um And we have to stop. We have to stop. It’s pure poison. We’re poisoning the world. We’re poisoning our veterans. And so hope,

we now have hope for those people who have suffered the consequences of depleted uranium exposure. Hope that the true cause of their suffering has been identified and now they can get the care and the compensation that they deserve, that they earned by serving our country. Hope for the civilian populations around the world who

We’re stuck in the middle of combat operations where we use depleted uranium against a hostile force, contaminating the soil in their area and condemning generations of innocents to die, to suffer because of this exposure and justice. Justice can only happen when those who have suffered have been dealt with. justly, given compensation, given the medical care they need,

and have their environment cleaned up so that the next generation doesn’t suffer the way they did. Hope and justice. Sudan Aleksic deserves all the credit in the world, and I’m going to be taking his work and writing an open letter to both RFK Jr. and Doug Collins to say, you must embrace this technology.

And I would encourage anybody watching this to follow up with further communication, hope and justice. We have to do the right thing. We have to take care of our veterans, and we have to take care of the innocent civilians who have paid a heavy price because of the wars we waged. Thanks for listening to my rant.

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

20 h

Ritter’s Rant 049: Semantics

https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritte

since the end of the Second World War, has been renamed the Department of War by the peace president himself, Donald Trump. Yes, the man who is pushing very hard to have himself awarded the Nobel Peace Prize has decided that the peace president needs a Department of War. This isn’t just about semantics, though. This is about substance.

The timing of this transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of War coincides with the rethinking of America’s national security strategy priorities. In fact, just this week, a draft of the new 2025 national security strategy document has appeared on the desk of none other than Pete Hegseth himself, the Secretary of War.

Hank Seth, back when he was the Secretary of Defense, talked about this new document. He said that, you know, there would be a high priority placed on defending the American homeland. But he also said that there would be a significant amount of attention paid to deterring China

And this was in keeping with President Trump’s stated objectives of decoupling America from unnecessary entanglements in Europe and the Middle East and focusing primarily on the Pacific, on China, which has been cast as the greatest threat to America today. But the new document gives short shrift to China. Yes, it’s there,

but the primary focus appears to be protecting the American homeland to create something that could, for lack of a better term, be called Fortress America. And this goes beyond simply the contiguous United States. This extends into Canada, Greenland, Latin America, the Panama Canal, South America, Venezuela.

And Venezuela factors in hard right now because we see as part of this new American homeland, Fortress America prioritization, that Venezuela has been listed as one of the gravest threats to the American homeland. We’ve been told that Venezuela is home to numerous drug cartels, some of which are run by the Venezuelan government.

And that these drug cartels represent a clear and present danger to American security because they continue to provide narcotics to the American consumer. I mean, this is such a threat that President Trump saw fit to have his Department of Defense, before it became the Department of War, sink what can only be described as a fishing boat.

Carrying 11 people the United States has tried to say are narco-terrorists, but given the fact that the boat itself lacks the range to reach the United States, could probably be best characterized as civilian fishermen. But we blew the ship up, said that they were smuggling drugs, and we said this is a sign of the things to come.

Things to come include assembling an armada of U.S. Navy vessels with an embarked Marine amphibious or expeditionary battalion, 2,200 plus Marines backed up by 10 F-35 fighters. Now they’ve been flown into Puerto Rico. It looks like the United States is preparing for war against Venezuela, a war that seeks to remove the Venezuelan government led by President Nicolas

Maduro from power and replace him with somebody that the United States feels is more suited to American policy objectives. This would be the first time the United States has undergone regime change. operations around the world. We famously or infamously have seen these take place in Libya, in Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere.

And it wouldn’t be the first time the United States used narcotics as an excuse to remove a leader of a sovereign state. We saw this in 1989 when the United States invaded Panama and arrested Manuel Noriega The leader of Panama charged him with violations of, you know, narcotics trafficking, et cetera, and sentenced him to life in prison.

He died in an American prison in 2017. This appears to be the fate of Nicolas Maduro. The United States has put the target on his head and said, we will be coming after you. now we have a department of war which apparently is going to make its top priority

the removal of maduro from office and the absorption of venezuela into the american homeland fortress america now this should be disturbing to everybody i mean narcotics apparently has become the new WMD. You know how President Bush manufactured a case for war citing non-existent weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

It appears that President Trump is using narcotics non-existent as well. I mean, They are there. Maduro has acknowledged that there are a certain amount of narcotics that are trafficked out of Venezuela, not by the Venezuelan government, but by illegal organizations. He said, you know, Venezuela is doing its best to stop them.

But gosh, when you got the CIA out there playing games with the cartels… Who’s more to blame for the trafficking of narcotics into America, Venezuela or the CIA? But you won’t see the Department of War going after the CIA anytime soon. But it’s, yes, we should be screaming about this at the top of our voices.

This should not be allowed. There is no excuse for us to go to war with Venezuela, except for the fact that Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and Fortress America would definitely benefit from having those reserves under Venezuela. the control of an American president. So this is all about oil, just like Iraq was.

But that’s not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the Department of War is now going to war against the American people. Washington, D.C. is currently occupied by the Department of War, by federalized National Guard soldiers working at the behest in the orders of the

President of the United States in a manner that appears to violate posse comitatus, the act that prevents U.S. forces from being used in this fashion. We’re getting ready to invade and occupy Chicago. There’s talk about an American invasion and occupation of New York City, ongoing occupation of Los Angeles, where, by the way,

the federalization of National Guard troops is found to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal by a federal judge. But President Trump could care less. He’s just going to go forward. with the invasion of America. And this is where it’s really disturbing because our new Department of War is promulgating the national security strategy document,

which will set the invasion and occupation of America by the Department of War as one of the top priorities of the Trump administration. Wake up, people. This is very dangerous ground. We are transitioning from what we ostensibly could call a democracy to a dictatorship that is literally seeking the military occupation of the United States of America.

This is not a good sign for democracy. This is not a good sign for America. And it’s high time that the American people and their representatives in Congress stand up, speak up, shout out, and nip this thing into bud before it’s too late. That’s my rant.

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

20 h

Ritter’s Rant 050: Perfidy

https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritter/p/ritters-rant-050-perfidy?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

was attacked by Israel in an attempted assassination attempt. Yeah, let’s just run that through again. The American president invited Hamas to go to Qatar to consider a ceasefire proposal that was being promoted by the American president, only to have Israel attempt to assassinate this Hamas delegation.

It appears that the United States was completely aware of this and had coordinated with the Israelis, even though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu takes all the credit. I mean, as if you’d want to take credit for an act of perfidy. But, you know, the reality is Israel…

had to fly over Iraqi airspace and then fly down the Gulf, all the while tracked by American air defense radars. The United States shut down its air defense systems that would have otherwise engaged the Israeli aircraft. allowing Israel to fire at least six missiles into what was apparently the personal home,

the apartment owned by one of the Hamas delegates. According to news information, members of his family and his security detail were killed during this attack. It’s unclear if any Hamas leadership were actually targeted. Some reports indicate that they weren’t in the building at the time. sort of an intelligence failure on the part of Israel.

But the bottom line is the United States can never be trusted again. I mean, forget about Israel. We know they can’t be trusted. We know what Israel is. It’s a genocidal state that commits all sorts of violations of international law. Any notion of Israel ever negotiating in good faith should forever be thrown into

the trash bin of history. This was, after all, the same Israel that launched the surprise attack against Iran, again set up by American promises of negotiation. an attack that tried to take out the totality of Iran’s leadership, including the supreme leader and their president. They were successful in killing senior members of the Iranian military.

It’s the same Israel that assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, again, after putting forth a proposal Hassan Nasrallah was considering a proposal for a ceasefire. Israel can never be trusted again, but one would like to believe the United States could be trusted. But now what is the world supposed to think? Imagine yourself being Vladimir Putin.

You’ve just met with Donald Trump in Alaska, and you think you have a working relationship. How could you ever trust an American president, this American president ever again? Next time Donald Trump says, hey, assemble a negotiating team in Istanbul and we’ll come in and talk to you.

Are they just setting them up for an attack, a decapitation strike? But the United States can’t be trusted. We’re no longer… capable of being considered to be an impartial interlocutor we are working hand in glove with israel to assassinate the very people we need to negotiate with if we

want to bring about a peaceful end to the various conflicts in the region the iranians will never trust us again hamas will They could never allow this. And what about Qatar, our good, loyal ally, Qatar? We just attacked them. It’s an attack on the sovereign territory of Qatar by Israel, facilitated by the United States.

Why Qatar allows American forces to remain on their soil is beyond me. But the bottom line is this is an act of perfidy. It’s disgusting. It’s despicable. It’s shameful. And yet nothing will come from it because Israel is above the law in the United States as the sole remaining superpower in the world today,

even though that status is somewhat diminished. It’s still the only power in the world that can project itself militarily anywhere it wants to, anytime it wants to. the United States is above the law, and we’re acting like we’re above the law. But don’t be surprised when the rest of the world recognizes that the only way to

deal with Israel and the United States is acting outside the boundaries of law. I mean, because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And in this case, the Israeli and American goose is surely cooked. I wish I could have a more positive outcome than that. But There isn’t one. This has been my rant.

20 h

Through a Glass, Darkly: The Donbas after the War

https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritte

Through a Glass, Darkly: The Donbas after the War

“For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1 Corinthians 13:12

Scott Ritter

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

20 h

Ritter’s Rant 051: Electronic Warfare

https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritte

I think when the final history of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is written, the role played by in particular the Iranian-style Shahid-136 or Geranium-2 drones, the role played in suppressing Ukraine’s air defense network and in targeting strategic targets throughout Ukraine. It will be seen that this drone played a very decisive role.

But the Ukrainians haven’t sat back and just taken these attacks and not doing anything. Ukraine has, from the very outset of the conflict, been sort of a laboratory for electronic warfare capabilities to counter Russia’s drones, in particular Shahid-136, Geranium-2 style drones. Over the years, Ukraine has developed some very specific capabilities,

most notable of which is known as Pokrova. Pokrova isn’t one system or two systems. Pokrova is thousands of systems that are deployed throughout Ukraine, not just on the front line, but in particular in the depth of Ukraine. And the goal of Pokrova isn’t just to interrupt signals.

No, the ultimate goal of Pokrova is to take over control of the Shahid-136 or Geranium-2 type drone to either bring it to the ground violently, crashing it, destroying it, or glide it to the ground and capture it for exploitation. Or, and this has been the case for at least 100 of the Shahid drones,

to capture the drone completely and turn it around and fly it back into Russia. And as I said, this has been done 100 times by the Ukrainians. Now, this opens up for any number of possibilities. And you have to keep this in mind when we talk about what happened yesterday over the skies of Poland.

You see, over a dozen Russian drones apparently flew toward Poland or entered Polish airspace. Two of these drones were actively engaged by Polish air defenses and shot down. Now, the Poles are screaming bloody murder. They’re saying that this was evidence of a Russian attack.

They’re talking about Article IV gathering of NATO to deal with this threat from Russia. The Belarusian Defense Ministry has been a little bit more responsible. You see, they detected these drones flying over Belarusian airspace. That doesn’t normally happen. And heading towards Polish airspace. And they warned their Polish counterparts. They said, you’ve got drones coming in.

You know, we’re not controlling them. We don’t know who is controlling them, but they’re headed your direction. And this helped the Poles to, you know, trigger their air defense and to defend their territory, shooting down at least two of these drones. Now, the Russian Defense Ministry has said, and I believe honestly, that they didn’t attack Poland.

They did launch over 400 drones. Shahid-136, Geranium-2 style drones against targets throughout the depth of Ukraine, including many targets in Western Ukraine. But all of these targets were legitimate military targets inside Ukrainian sovereign territory that under no circumstances did Russia target Poland. But something did. So here we come back to Pokrova.

And what appears to have happened is that the Ukrainian government, having mastered the ability of Pukrova to take control of a Shahid-136, rather than sending it back into Russia, where it would be shot down, they instead sent it to Poland to simulate a Russian attack on Poland, on a NATO country,

in an effort to get NATO to mobilize and come to Ukraine’s assistance in the war against Russia. This is a Ukrainian provocation. This is a Ukrainian red flag. This is Ukraine seeking to thrust not just Europe, but the United States into a larger conflict with Russia, one that could easily go nuclear if not nipped in the butt.

So while NATO assembles its leadership to discuss this threat posed by Russia under Article 4 of the NATO charter, they would be well advised to learn a little bit more about just what the heck is going on inside Ukraine. I don’t want to give away too much,

but I will say that NATO is fully aware of what Ukraine is doing with Pukrova. NATO is fully cognizant of the fact when Ukraine takes control of a Russian drone, this is easily detected using various electronic warfare signals, intelligence collection capabilities, all of which NATO has in abundance in the area.

NATO knows full well that Russia did not carry out an attack against Poland. NATO knows full well that Ukraine did in fact carry out an attack against Poland using Russian drones that it hijacked. This is a completely different narrative than the one that’s being put forward in the West.

20 h

Ritter’s Rant 052: Charlie Kirk and Free Speech

https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritte

and there’s so much we don’t know about this crime, and I’m not here to speculate about this. What I will say is that… It seems clear that Charlie Kirk was singled out because he is a person who has great influence. He has taken positions that many people find objectionable,

and he has been able to successfully articulate his defense of these positions in front of many audiences that sought to beat him at his game, the game of debate, dialogue, discussion. I myself did not agree with much of what Charlie Kirk would talk about, but Man, did I appreciate how he went about his business.

You see, I believe in free speech. I believe in the absolute necessity of free speech here in the United States. And I’ve always believed that. If somebody says something that I find objectionable, it’s not my duty to suppress them, to silence them, to kill them. No,

my job is to come up with better ideas and to be able to articulate them in response in a manner in which convinces other people that my idea is better. That’s what a debate’s all about. And Charlie Kirk was really, really good at it. And I think America was better because of this,

because even if you disagreed with Charlie Kirk, if you would look at his videos in the way that a boxer would examine the videos of the fights of the previous fights of his coming opponent, you would learn about how Charlie Cook you know, organized or Kirk organized his thoughts, how he approached the subject matter.

Maybe there was a pattern in how he said some things, held back on others, waiting to counterpunch. The guy was good at what he did. And I learned a lot just watching him and other people should have as well. But now he’s dead, probably most likely because of what he said.

We can’t survive as Americans in a nation we call the United States of America, a nation that’s founded on the principles set forth in the Constitution, the First Amendment of which is free speech. We will not survive if we continue to head down the path where we violently suppress the people who say things we disagree with.

America is about free speech, which means it’s not just people who speak freely about the things you agree with, but more importantly, for you to defend the right of people to speak about things that you disagree with. Because by defending them, you are indirectly defending yourself from the same, you know, the reverse of that coin.

If people disagree with you, do you want them to shut you down, de-platform you to kill you? The answer is no, of course not. in America seems to have lost track. This isn’t just about the problem of civil society. This is a problem of government leadership. I mean, We saw under the Biden administration,

there was a tendency on the part of government to use law enforcement, use intelligence to suppress the voices of Americans who said things that the government, the Biden administration didn’t agree with. Of course, the government has no right to do this. The First Amendment’s quite clear, the government shall pass no laws that suppress the right of,

infringe on the rights of Americans free speech or free press. And yet this is exactly what the Biden administration did. They did this directly and they did this indirectly. One of the ways that they suppressed free speech was to, for instance, receive information from the Ukrainian government about American voices that the Ukrainian government objected to.

I myself was one of those voices. The Ukrainian government had several lists that they could put you on. One is the Myrtvorits list. And this is literally a hit list, a death list. They have actually acted upon their desire to kill the people on this list on several occasions.

In Russia, notably, there was the assassination of Maxim Tatarsky in St. Petersburg. A bomb blew up in a cafe that he was making a presentation. There was the car bomb assassination of Darya Dugina, the daughter of Alexander Dugin. And there were others that had been killed, too. There are many Americans on this list.

But there’s another list to the Center for Countering Disinformation. This is an organization that works under the Office of the Presidency of Ukraine. It’s an organization that is funded and organized by the United States State Department. And the Center for Countering Disinformation has created a blacklist. And they have put Americans on that blacklist. I’m on that blacklist.

But then they went a step further with the support of the State Department and funding from the U.S. taxpayer. These people on the blacklist were labeled terrorists, information terrorists. And again, with the State Department doing nothing, the Ukrainians said that information terrorists should be treated as terrorists and subjected to the full range of sanctions, including death.

That’s right. The Ukrainian government has marked me and dozens of other Americans for death because they disagree with what we say about the issue of Ukraine. And the U.S. government has done nothing to prevent this. This is, in effect, greenlighting the use of force to suppress the voice, the voices of Americans. today we have the Trump administration.

Uh, yes, they’ve said that they won’t support, uh, the use of, uh, you know, law enforcement or intelligence to suppress free speech, but what are they doing in regards to supporters of Palestine? Um, they’re, they’re suppressing free speech. They’re putting a chilling impact on people’s ability to speak out about Palestine.

Um, they’re, you know, trying to pass laws that, uh, that make criticism of Israel labeled automatically as anti-Semitism and then to make anti-Semitism a crime. non-U.S. citizens who are supposed to be protected by the same constitutional rights as American citizens are arrested and deported because they dare speak out against the state of Israel.

There are different levels of violence and physically detaining people, putting them in shackles and shipping them out of the country is a form of violence. And what are the American people supposed to learn from these actions? That if you disagree with somebody, disagree with what somebody’s saying, violent suppression is a legitimate response.

We have to change the nature of the debate here in America today. We have to, first of all, encourage debate, debate, discussion and dialogue. Americans shouldn’t be afraid of ideas they disagree with. What they should be is encouraged to come up with better ideas, to engage in not a physical battlefield, but a battlefield of ideas.

We should promote the concept of civic debate, discussion and dialogue. Let these ideas be exchanged so that, you know, we the people can make a decision about which ideas we support. which ones we don’t. If the government doesn’t want people out there articulated in favor of the Palestinian cause,

then why can’t the government come up with a better idea? But the fact is the government doesn’t have a better idea. It’s the same thing when we talk about Russia. Russophobia has infected this country, and we have people out there today who are saying things that are very anti-Russian.

When people like myself speak out against that by trying to promote a reality-based theory, Instead of engaging in debate, which they would lose, they seek to suppress. They send the FBI into your home. They call you a Russian agent. They seize your computers. They seek to silence, suppress, and de-platform you. This isn’t what free speech is.

Charlie Kirk’s murder. should be a wake-up call for everybody, that we have to stop demonizing free speech, that we live in a nation of diverse opinions, diverse ideas, and the concept of debate should be injected into this so that when we disagree with somebody, it’s not violent disagreement, it’s civil disagreement where we resolve our differences through discussion,

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu·

20 h

The Institutionalization of Russophobia in America, Part One: The Analysts https://open.substack.com/pub/scottritte