Scott Ritter: Russia “Fed Up” With NATO Escalations – Retaliation is Coming (Transcript)

And yet now we have the coalition of the willing meeting and these staged events where Zelensky walks in, confident, everybody stands up to shake his hand and embrace him.

We know what they think of this man. They hate him. He’s despised widely. This is just a show orchestrated by the British, who are saying we have to get behind this guy publicly, prop him up so he can once again be the Winston Churchill of our time.

British Operations and Russian Intelligence

And the Russians have been following this all along. It was the British behind the initial truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge. The British have been behind almost every major action by Ukraine, designing military attacks of a conventional nature and playing a big role in unconventional attacks as well.

And the drone attack—which is the attack on Russia’s strategic nuclear infrastructure that’s being referenced here—was a British operation. The Ukrainians did not have the capacity to have the infrastructure available inside Russia to build drone factories, to outfit vehicles, to run safe houses on this scope and scale. It’s something that the British did have and have had in place for some time now. And they transferred this capability to the Ukrainians. The Russians know this.

And the same thing with Nord Stream. These things don’t happen in a vacuum. It was the British working with the Ukrainians, perhaps with American involvement as well, to blow up the pipeline.

I think the fact that the Russians are going public with this is setting the groundwork for some very potential consequences for Europe and for the British in particular. It’s not the first time Storm Shadow has been used by Ukraine, but they’ve been firing Storm Shadows at the Kerch Bridge for some time now, and they’ve been shot down.

What we see here is apparently the British taking control of the Storm Shadow fleet and planning an operation, carrying it out using British intelligence, targeting done by the British, and striking a strategic energy target inside Russia.

Vladimir Putin has recently given a response where he said that if this continues or if Russia is struck by these weapons, the results will be catastrophic, not just for Ukraine, but for Europe. And I think the FSB coming out with this report sets the stage for the potential of Vladimir Putin delivering on this promise—not a threat, but a promise—of catastrophic retaliation by Russia.

NATO’s Transition from Proxy War to Direct Conflict

GLENN DIESEN: Well, it also seems that obviously the Ukrainians have gotten some help with circumventing Russian air defense systems. Again, that falls more within your field than mine, but given this, that the Russians are now more openly recognizing who is attacking them—that NATO has transitioned to a large extent from this proxy war to a direct war—and at the same time, seeing that the pathways to a diplomatic settlement are gone, how do you think the Russians might respond?

I mean, what kind of missiles are you looking at? What kind of weaponry will be the participants? And overall, how do you see a Russian retaliation? Because I think in Europe at least, the main logic is, well, the Russians haven’t done anything against us in the past three and a half years. We can continue to escalate.

Potential Russian Response: Targeting British Assets in Ukraine

SCOTT RITTER: The Russians, as you’ve pointed out, have been very reticent to facilitate escalation. Escalation has always been the strategy of Ukraine. Ukraine desires escalation because Ukraine desires to have NATO transition from being a supporting agency to being an active participant in the conflict, directly participating in the conflict. And Russia has been hesitant to do anything that would feed that narrative.

I am not a Russian politician. I don’t get to make Russian political decisions and I’m not a Russian military officer, I don’t get to do their targeting for them. But if I played one on TV or stated on an express, what I would say is this: that I believe Russia would continue to be hesitant to make that decisive step.

There would still need to be an intermediary step that would be limited to the territorial confines of Ukraine. And you don’t necessarily want to use all of your resources in that step. Russia has shown the West the Oreshnik one time. It may be a weapon system that Russia goes back to, but it’s a strategic weapon system. I mean it’s operated by the strategic rocket forces, it is a nuclear capable system. And so I still think there might be some hesitancy on the part of Russia to employ this unless they’re going to make the decision to take Bankova—which is basically the Ukrainian governmental district of Ukraine—off the map. And then Oreshnik is your ideal.

But I think the goal would be to punish the British. And I think what the Russians would do is use weapon systems they’ve already employed. Maybe adding to the mix longer range Iskander missiles which have intermediate range on them. Zircon and maybe a new variant of the KH-101 missile project 506 is now online.

These are some weapons that could be used to annihilate the British presence in Ukraine. And this could be anywhere from taking out the British Embassy, taking out known locations of British officers, advisory groups, any Ukrainian unit that’s affiliated with the British. A massive decapitation strike of British capability in Ukraine that was designed to cause casualties.

The Russians have been loath to carry out the kind of strikes that deliberately cause casualties amongst NATO members. They have bombed training facilities, they’ve killed mercenaries. But all these talks about the Russians bombing a secret underground bunker killing dozens of NATO officials is bunk. I’m not saying that one or two NATO people haven’t died in the mix, but the Russians had not been deliberately targeting them.

This would seem to be a logical escalatory move that kept the conflict inside the confines of Ukraine, but sent a clear signal to the British that they are going to pay a price. And if the British continue to operate after that point—remember the British would have to reconstitute capability. If the Russians did go after British infrastructure inside Ukraine, it’s not that the British could immediately transition. They would have to reconstitute this capability, something they might be loath to do when 20 to 30 body bags come home from Ukraine.

Trump’s Policy Reversals and Putin’s Warning

But I do think that the Russians are fed up with this escalation. I think one of the reasons why Donald Trump backed down from the Tomahawk isn’t just the technical difficulties that he cited, that the Ukrainians would be unable to operate the Tomahawk on their own. This was known. And yet he appeared to be willing to deploy American contractors to fill that gap.

I think it was derived from the conversation he had with Vladimir Putin, which in my opinion probably mimicked some of the content of the conversation that Anatoly Antonov, when he was the ambassador of Russia to the United States, had with former American officials back in September 2024, which was then relayed to President Biden about the consequences of signing off on Keir Starmer’s documents authorizing Storm Shadow, ATACMS and Scalp to be used in long range strikes.

Nobody’s ever publicly acknowledged what that conversation was, but my understanding is it went something along the lines of that the Russian target deck would be extensive and that Washington D.C. would be included in that target deck in terms of retaliation. Dead serious.

And I would imagine that Putin put President Trump on notice that if a Tomahawk struck, for instance, the Kremlin, that Washington D.C. would not be immune from retaliation and that it’s probably not in the best interest of the United States to go down that path. So Trump backed off from that.

But now he’s left, he’s lost face. It’s humiliating to be Donald Trump lately because of the inconsistencies of his own policy position are manifest. The fact that he doesn’t have any strongly held personal position—he’s susceptible to being manipulated, controlled by his inner circle of advisors—plays out before us live on TV.

Now he’s gone down the path of Scott Bessent’s sanctioning to bring down the Russian economy. I mean, Bessent has convinced Donald Trump that by sanctioning the big two, Rosneft and Lukoil, that the Russian economy will collapse. Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders have said we’re pretty much immune to your strategy. And Trump doesn’t seem to have a good response other than that. Let’s talk about it in six months.

Sanctions aren’t a policy. Sanctions are what happen when you have no policy. Sanctions are what you do when you don’t know what to do. And the fact that Donald Trump now has pulled out the sanction card means he has no clue what to do with Ukraine. And this is not going to be good for either Ukraine or Europe because while America vacillates, Russia is decisive.

The Absence of Strategy and Secondary Sanctions

GLENN DIESEN: In 2014, Henry Kissinger said something along the lines that “the hatred of Putin is not a strategy, it’s the absence of a strategy.” Seems to apply here as well.

But the shifts for Trump are quite interesting because again, we went down this path before. He was going to do his 50 day countdown, which became 12 days in which the Russians had to accept an unconditional ceasefire. They went to Alaska, they sat down, the Russians explained why an unconditional ceasefire wouldn’t resolve any of their problems. And again, this was the reason why they went into Ukraine to begin with—to get, well, primarily the neutrality issue in place, but also now all the other things which have built on this.

But then he came home from Alaska, he recognized there will be no unconditional ceasefire. “We’re going to address these issues.” Yet here we are again. Now it’s back to the ceasefire.

But on the sanctions though, because these are not simply sanctions against Russian oil. I mean, the Russians are exporting this—these are secondary sanctions. And it does appear that the key targets of this is China, India, well, overall BRICS. How do you see these sanctions? To what extent do you think the Indians and the Chinese will be willing to pay a price or a cost, well, get the fury of Washington by ignoring this?

Russia’s Strategic Position on Energy and Sanctions

SCOTT RITTER: I mean, these again are sovereign decisions, can only be made by sovereign governments, some who have to take in their vested national interests. But India has already come out and said that it’s not in their interest to be dictated to by other powers about what are purely sovereign decisions about energy security.

China is engaged in a trade war with the United States. But China and Russia have a strategic relationship that’s very strong. And I don’t see the Chinese surrendering this strategic relationship for short term tactical gain in an ongoing trade war with the United States, knowing the United States is incapable of, especially under Donald Trump, incapable of abiding by any agreement.

I mean, that’s one of the things that undermines everything Trump does, is the fact that he has no credibility anymore. Nobody trusts him. He literally vacillates. The wind blows, his opinion changes.

From the Indian standpoint, their long term vested interest is with Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with BRICS, not with the United States. This has become painfully apparent to them. They were sitting on the fence for a while, but when you take a look at just the knee jerk tariff policies that the United States has imposed on India, I think the Indians understand that the United States provides anything but stability for them going forward.

And China, again, I can’t speak for the Chinese, but it would seem to be painfully obvious that America is not a reliable partner in anything, and that the United States has a strategic objective that doesn’t bode well for China if it’s allowed to fully be implemented. And therefore China would do well to defend itself, protect itself from these American policy prerogatives.

And one of the best protections is long term energy security that comes from a close energy relationship with Russia. And I don’t see China throwing that away.

Western Media’s Misreading of the Situation

I think what we have is a mainstream media in the west desperate to look for anything that reeks of victory for Trump, for the west, for sanctions policies. Trump said, give me six months. Hey, Donnie, baby, let me tell you, in six months, you ain’t going to be doing so well.

Russia did okay. Europe thought they would crush them four years ago. And it’s the European economy that’s collapsed, not Russia. You don’t mess with, when you degrade a nation, just saying that Russia is just a giant gas station with nuclear weapons. All right, if that’s what you want to call Russia. But then you need to respect the fact that Russia might actually know a hell of a lot more about energy security and energy policy globally than you do, because Russia is the gas station.

All you are is the person that pumps gas into your car. I will say that the gas station probably has a better understanding of the business model than the person pumping the gas.

Ask the Saudis. Every time they go toe to toe with the Russians on strategic oil pricing stuff, I go back to what, 2020 at the beginning of COVID when Saudi Arabia tried to steal Russian market share. The Russians collapse. The Saudis and the Saudis are the ones that come crawling to the table to reach a compromise agreement.

You can’t mess with the Russians in this regard. They’re far better prepared than Scott Bessent ever will be in his entire life to deal with the consequences of these sanctions in the short term.

The Western media is playing on the fact that both in India and China, you have private, independent oil companies that have to, in terms of due diligence, hit the pause button and say, what do we do? How do we respond? They have to turn to their respective governments and say, what is the strategic policy direction? They are held accountable to boards of directors and things of that nature.

But the west reads into this pause to say they’ve suspended, they’ve terminated, they’ve ended. Not even close. India in September bought more Russian oil than ever before. And the trajectory is to continue that trend. China has signed strategic agreements, long term strategic agreements for the provision of Russian energy, gas and oil.

So I think in six months it would be clear that Donald Trump had no clue what he was doing. Scott Bessent was dead wrong about the Russian economy and Russia will be doing just fine.

And again, for the Ukrainians, for Europe, they cheer this. But we go back to the Ritter corollary of the Kissinger point. Sanctions aren’t a policy, not a strategy. It shows that you don’t know what you’re doing. And so you fall back on something that makes it look like you know what you’re doing.

The Russians know exactly what they’re doing. And for Ukraine, this is bad because the United States doesn’t have a plan B. Donald Trump just said six months. So apparently Donald Trump is willing to wait six months to do nothing. I can guarantee you between now and six months from now, the situation in Ukraine is going to deteriorate to the detriment of the Ukrainian government. And for Europe.

The Fico Revelation and Trump’s Failed Diplomacy

GLENN DIESEN: Well, on the issue of the European Stoics, I saw an interview now with Robert Fico, the Prime Minister of Slovakia, and he was telling journalists that Trump had made a proposal to Putin in Alaska, which Putin accepted. And he focused then on the territorial issue of this agreement in which he said that Trump had allegedly proposed that, well, Donbass, that is Lugansk and Donetsk had to go to Russia fully, yet the front lines could be frozen where they were in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in terms of, I guess, changing the administrative borders.

Now, according to Fico, Putin accepted these terms and Trump, the agreement was Trump would go back to his people and get this ironed out and he never came back. The fact that an agreement was reached and Trump never got back to Russia, this is something that many of the Russian leaders have repeated several times by Lavrov, by the way.

But now, of course, there’s no talk of it anymore and he’s talking about ceasefire. Do you think these comments by Fico are correct? And also, how would you read this reaction of the Europeans? Because are they just preparing for permanent hostilities towards Russia? This doesn’t seem like a great foundation for durable peace on the continent.

Europe’s Desperate Doubling Down

SCOTT RITTER: Well, again, I just start with my premise that Europe, the European political and economic elite have invested so much political capital and economic capital into the model of supporting Ukraine, they’re incapable of considering anything else. The moment they back away from Ukraine, it means Ukraine has lost. And if Ukraine loses strategically, then they lose strategically.

And for a politician, that means you’re out, you’re probably going to be booted out of office, which is a death sentence for politicians. And for the economist, it means that you’ll be held accountable for all the consequences, the dire economic consequences of your actions and supporting sanctions and things of this nature.

So these are desperate people who have no other option than to continue to double down on stupid, which is what they’re doing. So we need to make sure that we understand that European policy isn’t coming from a place of intellectual strength, but actually coming from a place, an intellectual vacuum driven by the more base, narcissistic desires of politicians and economists who are looking out for their political gain and economic well being, not for the collective well being of Europe and European security.

Trump’s Fundamental Misunderstanding

The other problem is that Donald Trump is dumber than dirt and Marco Rubio is a horrible Secretary of State and National Security advisor. Rubio hates Russia, doesn’t want peace with Russia, will do everything possible to undermine Russia. Donald Trump’s just stupid.

What Vladimir Putin appears to have said to Donald Trump, because I wasn’t there, is that Russia will accept a ceasefire premised on Ukraine fully withdrawing from the Donbas and agreeing to withdraw from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. But that a ceasefire could be arranged once they leave the Donbass and then after that time, they will pull out of the other two territories.

But Russia never once said, we’re willing to give up or make territorial concessions. See, Trump is too stupid to understand the difference because what Marco Rubio then told him is that we need to freeze the conflict here. Ukraine will keep Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in exchange for giving up the Donbas. That’s not what Putin said.

Constitutional Constraints on Russian Territory

People need to read the Russian constitution. They need to understand the limits of executive power in Russia. Vladimir Putin has unmatched power, there’s no doubt about that. Been ruling for 25 years. But even Vladimir Putin can’t give away Russian territory on his own volition. The constitution prohibits it.

He would have to go to the Duma, he’d have to get the support of that body, which would require the support of the Russian people. And right now, the Russian people will not support this. One of the reasons why Vladimir Putin has over 80% support is because he is a defender of the Russian nation.

And if suddenly Vladimir Putin, who told these people, if you hold a referendum and you vote to come into Russia, we will bring you into Russia, you will be part of Russia. For Vladimir Putin to say, well, there’s a caveat. Now, that would be the end of his credibility.

So the stupidity of the people that believe that a frozen conflict is something Russia would accept. Constitutionally, they can’t accept it. Moreover, Ukraine’s not winning. Normally, a frozen conflict is a term that can be imposed on somebody when you have the upper hand.

Look at the end of the Korean conflict, the horrible War of the Hills that took place in 1953, where the Marines in the US army lost thousands of men, pushing the Chinese back, making the Chinese realize that there was no future in this conflict. The Chinese agreed to freeze the conflict there, but then we were left with a permanent state of war in the Korean Peninsula.

Russia doesn’t want a permanent state of war. Europe does want a permanent state of war because it fulfills their long term objectives of undermining Russia, bringing down Russia, weakening Russia. Russia would never accept that.

Putin’s Consistency and Trump’s Failure

Vladimir Putin said the root causes of the conflict must be resolved. Well, if that’s your going in position, why would you freeze the conflict permanently enshrining the root causes of the conflict? The people who embrace these ridiculous theories are stupid people, Glenn. Stupid people. Deliberately ignoring reality that you don’t need to be a rocket scientist, you don’t need to have a PhD in Russia studies.

You just have to have a rudimentary understanding of how Russia works and a respect for what Vladimir Putin says. For 25 years, Vladimir Putin speaks and does, and you will be hard pressed to find a situation where he spoke and didn’t do.

And so when Vladimir Putin commits to a policy course, not once, twice, but numerous times with no inconsistencies in the plan that he set forth, suddenly to believe that he’s going to drop everything and flip on a dime is absurd.

Donald Trump is too stupid to understand this. And Marco Rubio is too devious and too deceitful and, frankly speaking, too traitorous to Trump’s strategic view to explain it properly to the President. He exploits the stupidity of this president when it comes to Russia.

Now, Donald Trump is left holding an empty bag because he thought he was going to get something and found out he was getting nothing because he didn’t understand what Vladimir Putin was putting on the table.

Trump’s War

GLENN DIESEN: Well, I guess you can say, I guess great circle now that this is 100% definitely Trump’s war as well. I mean, he’s been trying to say it’s just Biden’s war, but with these sanctions, with the rejection of this diplomacy, and of course, very openly talking about, well, America’s contribution to the fight against Russia. It is Trump’s war.

But it is a peculiar moment, though, because at the moment, there is a huge, well, it seems to be an intensifying collapse, at least within Ukraine. One can look at the economy or political stability, social stability. But I guess the front line is the most interesting. But yes, this is a last question. How do you read the front line at the moment? What is it that you’re looking at?

Understanding Russia’s War of Attrition

SCOTT RITTER: It’s frustrating, I think, for a Western audience to look at this war, because we don’t understand this war. Even somebody like me who does his very best to comprehend what the Russians are doing, I’m a victim of my own experiences, my own prejudice. I come from a Marine Corps background, which is all about attack, attack, attack, attack.

And when we look at what Russia’s doing, wars of attrition are normally, World War I was a war of attrition where two massive forces just ground each other into the dirt until one eventually broke. Europe was breaking until the United States intervened in 1917. And then the availability of fresh American forces offset the ability of Germany to transfer forces from the Russian front to the Western front, and we ground them down.

That’s how that war ended, by simply both sides beating each other into a pulp. And the side that had the freshest troops available won. And so when we see wars of attrition, we’re like, all right, that narrative should parallel what the Trump administration has been saying.

I mean, I think everybody now is acknowledging Ukraine has suffered horrendous casualties. But what the Trump administration is trying to say is that Russia has likewise suffered tremendous casualties and that Russia can’t sustain this fight. But then there’s the Russian reality.

Reading the Russian Military Reality

And look, I spent a lot of years in the intelligence business learning how to read people. I spent seven years learning how to read the Iraqis telling me lie after lie after lie after lie after lie. I’m pretty good at reading human beings, the little subtle clues they give when they’re uncomfortable with something or they’re not. Their stories are inconsistent.

And speaking to Russian officers about the conflict, they’ve been consistent as the day is long. It’s a tough fight. They say it upright. Never once have I met a Russian said that this is a cakewalk. This is a tough fight. I mean, it’s a really, really hard fight. And we are paying a price. But that price is nowhere near what the Ukrainians are paying.

The war of attrition right now is being based on an algorithm that has the Russians generating kill ratios of early on, as the algorithm was being developed, 5 to 7 to 1. Later on, as the algorithm got better, 12 to 20 to 1. And today on a good day, the algorithm is 36 to 1 or more. The Russians are just slaughtering the Ukrainians. Slaughtering.

Every once in a while, the Ukrainians can put together forces and get situational dominance over a very limited part of the front. That dominance will last a couple days, a week or more, and then the Russians reassert their authority. This is what happened north of Petrovsk, where the Ukrainians tried to sell this great counteroffensive that struck a deadly blow to the Russians. It’s over. All the Ukrainians are dead, and Russia has regained control of the battlefield.

Western Propaganda vs. Battlefield Reality

And there’s much more. Seymour Hersh just wrote an article where he talks about this mythical horseshoe that Russian soldiers refused to obey orders. Well, damn it, Seymour, look at a map before you write something like this. I mean, you’re my friend, but come on, look at a map. There’s not a single place on the front where the Russians haven’t advanced.

And the implication, therefore, is that the Russian army is continuing to attack. And nowhere on this front have the Russian army said to Vladimir Putin, “We’re not going to do this.” First of all, Vladimir Putin doesn’t issue the orders. That’s another one of these little factual things. Gerasimov issues the orders. He’s the one in charge. Vladimir Putin gives strategic direction, here are the objectives, but he doesn’t tell the army how to do their job.

So the notion that a Russian general has refused an order from Vladimir Putin to carry out an assault against the mythical horseshoe that doesn’t exist, this is the kind of stupidity that exists in the west because we believe our own propaganda.

Russia is winning on the front. We in the west don’t understand the reality of this war. We expect that when you speak of casualty ratios, that the Russians are, that there should be great movement on the front line. That’s not what this war of attrition is about.

Russia’s Strategic Approach

This war of attrition is about Russia not just grinding down the Ukrainian army, but the Western ability to support the Ukrainian army. Russia is not just destroying Ukraine’s manpower reserves. They’re destroying the ability of the west to reconstitute the Ukrainian army.

What are we in, the seventh mobilization of Ukrainian forces? We’re into the fifth reconstruction of the Ukrainian army. Russia’s mobilized once in 2023 or 2022, 300,000 men. Since then they’ve sustained it with contracts.

The inconsistency of the Western position: on the one hand, the Russians have run out of tanks and everything because my God, the Ukrainians are killing everything. Two, Russia is out producing the collective west four to one in their defense industry. You can’t have it both ways, guys.

The fact is Russia’s out producing the west four to one. And one of the reasons why the west is losing is that Russia is destroying everything the west sends into Ukraine. That is a war of attrition and that’s the war that Russia is fighting.

Calendar-Driven Politics vs. Military Reality

It’s not calendar driven, which is frustrating for people in the west because we all want to have a date on the calendar. When’s this thing going to end? Russia doesn’t care. They just don’t care. This will end when it ends. This will end when the objectives are met.

It’s only the west that has these calendar driven events. I mean, Donald Trump is driven by not the calendar of the Ukrainian reality, but the American domestic imperative of an upcoming midterm election where he needs a result in Ukraine in order to solidify his political position here at home so that he can continue to carry the Congress. That’s why he’s pushing for dates and times and stuff.

Ukraine is driven by the fact that they’re losing, they’re collapsing. They’re going to roll into this winter with no heat, no energy, no fresh water, no nothing.

Europe is driven by the fact that they’re bankrupt. They have no money, they have no resources. Everything Europe does is a sham. A 100% sham.

Europe’s Empty Promises

Sweden’s big, “Come on in. We’re going to give you the Gripen.” Really? When? When are you going to give this mythical Gripen to the Ukrainians? What you said three or 10 or could be available in two or three years. But what about the 100 to 150? Doesn’t exist. It’s fake. Never will exist, can’t exist, won’t exist.

Everything Europe does is fake. Everything the United States does is fake. The only thing not fake is the fact that Ukraine’s losing thousands of men a day. Thousands of men a day. Russia’s losing hundreds of men a day.

It’s a horrible war, but the Russians can sustain this level of war indefinitely. Ukraine and Europe can’t. When is it all going to end? I don’t know. But I do know that when it does end, Russia is going to be the victor.

GLENN DIESEN: Yeah. Well, given that this is becoming very clear, it’s very frustrating to see no diplomacy coming because, well, as everyone knows, when we’re reaching the end of the war, as we’re seeing, the casualties tend to escalate. And I think that’s what we’re seeing now as well. But again, I guess it’s not our soldiers, so we’re not counting them.

The Bloodiest Phase of War

SCOTT RITTER: But I just want to remind your audience, again, it’s important because you just said something that’s very important. During World War II on the Western Front, the United States, the bloodiest month for the United States was in June of 1944. D-Day. It wasn’t December of 1944, the Ardennes fighting. It was April 1945, the last month of the war. We lost more soldiers in the last month of the war after the German army was defeated, after they were in retreat.

Because as you said, as a war runs down, that’s when the bloodiest phase steps in. And as we get to the inevitable collapse of Ukraine, it isn’t going to be a dropping off of casualties that we see. We’re going to see a massive escalation of casualties, primarily from the Ukrainians.

So anybody who says, “We’re doing this for Ukraine, we’re doing this to help the Ukrainian people,” all you’re doing is guaranteeing that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men that don’t have to die, who are currently alive today will be dead because of the narcissism of European and American political and economic elites.

GLENN DIESEN: Scott Ritter, thank you so much for your time and your assessment of this situation. It’s incredibly depressing, but yeah, very interesting nonetheless. So thank you so much.

SCOTT RITTER: Thanks for having me.

Related Posts

• Psychologist Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan Podcast #2308 (Transcript)
• Transcript: Judge Nap & Larry Johnson chat with Maria Zakharova: Moscow, Russia
• Transcript: Ex-CIA John Kiriakou’s Interview on ANI Broadcast
• Sen. Bernie Sanders on This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von #524 (Transcript)
• Transcript: Daryl Davis & Jeff Schoep on Joe Rogan Podcast #2399