The sequence of destruction in any Russian response to NATO-directed attacks on its heartland

One of the valuable features of my several platforms for publishing essays is the feedback I get from readers.

In this regard I quote here what one reader sent in about my article earlier today on the violation of free speech that the detention of Scott Ritter yesterday at JFK airport and confiscation of his passport signified, followed as it was, according to RT reports, by the same happening to Judge Napolitano, who was also planning to travel to St Petersburg to participate in the International Economic Forum that begins on the 6^th.

Quote

Andrew Napolitano was not taken off the plane. Scott Ritter phoned him and told him that it was “not wise to travel” to St. Petersburg.

Unquote

[a full transcript of this interview is available below, following the German translation]

I watched this edition of the “Judging Freedom” show and urge you to do the same. Here the Judge discusses with Scott Ritter what happened yesterday. These facts by themselves do not change my determination that yesterday’s events amounted to intimidation by the U.S. government and were a gross violation of constitutional rights.

However, the largest part of the Scott Ritter interview was devoted to a different matter, which I wish to discuss here, namely what the consequences may be of an attack on the Russian heartland coming from Ukraine using the long range missiles it has been given by the United States, the U.K. and France.  

Ritter is repeating what has been intimated by Vladimir Putin, Sergei Lavrov and other Russian officials, namely that Russia is prepared to strike back at the producers of these long range weapons, at those who are providing targeting packages to these weapons from their bases in Europe and the USA.  Ritter then assumes this will necessarily proceed directly to reciprocal massive nuclear exchanges between the United States and Russia which will put an end to human civilization. And he backs up this conclusion by reference to the scenario for conducting nuclear war that has existed within the Pentagon since the days of John F. Kennedy.

I would like to propose a very different scenario basing myself on what I hear on Russian talk shows from top experts. And I juxtapose what these Russians are saying with the realities of U.S.-European mutual defense and of intra-European defense thinking that I see around me here in Belgium, including at the club luncheon on which I reported yesterday.

The first point is that the most likely revenge attack by Russia for any missile strikes on its cities or critical civilian and military infrastructure will be….a massively destructive attack on Kiev.

Why Kiev, you may ask, when the same Russians are saying that the Ukrainians are only the fingers on the button and when all the settings, all the inputs for targeting have been made by Americans or Brits or French, depending on the specific missiles that were used. The reason is that hitting Kiev, decapitating the Ukrainian government, will result in the least possible blowback. It will not lead to a nuclear war. Europe and the USA do not give a damn about Ukrainian lives, so the cost to Russia of such a strike will be nil.

Moreover, striking Kiev will be a demonstration to Europe and to the USA that they are not bluffing, that they have the determination to go all the way in their confrontation with the West to safeguard their sovereignty and national existence. It will be implementing what the political scientist Karaganov was proposing many months ago, whether it is carried out with conventional or tactical nuclear weapons.

If nonetheless, strikes on Russian assets in the RF continue, the next point of attack by the Russians will be the marshalling centers in Poland which receive weapons and other military supplies from the United States and European NATO countries for delivery to Ukraine. One key airport is named in this connection.  Why Poland?  Because the rest of Europe is hardly likely to come to its aid.

Continuing up the escalation ladder, I believe that the Russians will then, and only then, attack military factories and bases in Germany, the United Kingdom, France.  Like the leaders of these countries, Russia does not really expect the United States to come to their aid and honor its Article 5 obligations under the NATO treaty.

Only in the last instance will Russia attack the United States using its strategic nuclear arsenal, meaning only if it is under direct nuclear attack from the USA.  This, notwithstanding the clearly stated Russian understanding that behind all of the European provocations against it stands Washington, the hegemon and puppet master. The United States will be the very last to come under Russian attack precisely because the nuclear exchange that comes will be suicidal for both sides.

This, I think, is also the understanding that the Biden administration has. But their expectation is that both sides in a Russian European war will be decimated, freeing the United States to defend its global hegemony by taking on and defeating China. In this, I firmly believe Washington is mistaken. Europe will be destroyed, Russia will be victorious, because its arms are superior, and its troops are now war hardened. The United States will have lost its European colonies and will be up against the Russia-China alliance alone.

If you are reading this lying on a chaise longue in your back yard in Arlington, Virginia, you may take comfort. If, like me, you are living close to the Russians’ bulls-eye, 20 km from NATO headquarters, the above analysis can get on your nerves.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Die Abfolge der Zerstörung bei jeder russischen Reaktion auf die von der NATO geführten Angriffe auf sein Kernland

Eine der wertvollen Eigenschaften meiner verschiedenen Plattformen zur Veröffentlichung von Essays ist das Feedback, das ich von meinen Lesern erhalte.

In diesem Zusammenhang zitiere ich hier, was ein Leser zu meinem heutigen Artikel über die Verletzung der Meinungsfreiheit geschickt hat, die die gestrige Festnahme von Scott Ritter am JFK-Flughafen und die Beschlagnahme seines Passes bedeutete, auf die laut RT-Berichten dasselbe mit Judge Napolitano folgte, der ebenfalls nach St. Petersburg reisen wollte, um am Internationalen Wirtschaftsforum teilzunehmen, das am 6. Mai beginnt.

Zitat

Andrew Napolitano wurde nicht aus dem Flugzeug geholt. Scott Ritter rief ihn an und sagte ihm, dass es „nicht klug sei, nach St. Petersburg zu reisen“.

Zitat Ende

Ich habe mir diese Ausgabe der Sendung „Judging Freedom“ angesehen und empfehle Ihnen, dies ebenfalls zu tun. Hier diskutiert der Judge mit Scott Ritter über die gestrigen Ereignisse. Diese Fakten an sich ändern nichts an meiner Feststellung, dass die gestrigen Ereignisse einer Einschüchterung durch die US-Regierung gleichkamen und eine grobe Verletzung der verfassungsmäßigen Rechte darstellten.

Der größte Teil des Interviews mit Scott Ritter war jedoch einem anderen Thema gewidmet, das ich hier erörtern möchte, nämlich den möglichen Folgen eines Angriffs auf das russische Kernland von der Ukraine aus unter Verwendung der Langstreckenraketen, die ihr von den Vereinigten Staaten, Großbritannien und Frankreich zur Verfügung gestellt wurden.

Ritter wiederholt, was von Wladimir Putin, Sergej Lawrow und anderen russischen Beamten angedeutet wurde, nämlich dass Russland bereit ist, die Hersteller dieser Langstreckenwaffen und diejenigen, die von ihren Basen in Europa und den USA aus Zieldatenpakete für diese Waffen bereitstellen, zurückzuschlagen. Ritter geht dann davon aus, dass dies zwangsläufig direkt zu einem gegenseitigen massiven nuklearen Schlagabtausch zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und Russland führen würde, der das Ende der menschlichen Zivilisation bedeuten würde. Und er untermauert diese Schlussfolgerung mit dem Verweis auf das Szenario zur Führung eines Atomkriegs, das im Pentagon seit den Tagen von John F. Kennedy existiert.

Ich möchte ein ganz anderes Szenario vorschlagen und mich dabei auf das stützen, was ich in russischen Talkshows von Top-Experten höre. Und ich stelle das, was diese Russen sagen, den Realitäten der amerikanisch-europäischen gegenseitigen Verteidigung und des innereuropäischen Verteidigungsdenkens gegenüber, die ich hier in Belgien erlebe, auch bei dem Club-Luncheon, über das ich gestern berichtet habe.

Der erste Punkt ist, dass der wahrscheinlichste Vergeltungsangriff Russlands für jeden Raketenangriff auf seine Städte oder kritische zivile und militärische Infrastruktur ein massiver zerstörerischer Angriff auf Kiew sein wird.

Warum Kiew, werden Sie sich fragen, wenn dieselben Russen sagen, dass die Ukrainer nur die Finger auf dem Knopf sind und wenn alle Einstellungen, alle Eingaben für das Zielen von Amerikanern oder Briten oder Franzosen gemacht wurden, je nachdem, welche Raketen eingesetzt wurden. Der Grund dafür ist, dass ein Schlag gegen Kiew, die Enthauptung der ukrainischen Regierung, die geringstmöglichen Rückwirkungen haben wird. Es wird nicht zu einem Atomkrieg führen. Europa und die USA scheren sich einen Dreck um ukrainische Menschenleben, so dass die Kosten eines solchen Schlags für Russland gleich null sein werden.

Ein Schlag gegen Kiew würde Europa und den USA zeigen, dass sie nicht bluffen, sondern entschlossen sind, in der Konfrontation mit dem Westen alles zu tun, um ihre Souveränität und ihre nationale Existenz zu schützen. Damit wird das umgesetzt, was der Politologe Karaganow schon vor vielen Monaten vorgeschlagen hat, ob mit konventionellen oder taktischen Atomwaffen.

Sollten die Angriffe auf russische Einrichtungen in der Russischen Föderation dennoch fortgesetzt werden, werden die Russen als Nächstes die Rangierzentren in Polen angreifen, die Waffen und andere militärische Güter aus den Vereinigten Staaten und den europäischen NATO-Ländern zur Lieferung an die Ukraine erhalten. In diesem Zusammenhang wird ein wichtiger Flughafen genannt. Warum Polen? Weil das übrige Europa ihm wohl kaum zu Hilfe kommen wird.

Ich glaube, dass die Russen dann, und nur dann, Militärfabriken und -stützpunkte in Deutschland, dem Vereinigten Königreich und Frankreich angreifen werden, um die Eskalationsleiter weiter nach oben zu klettern. Wie die Führer dieser Länder erwartet auch Russland nicht wirklich, dass die Vereinigten Staaten ihnen zu Hilfe kommen und ihre Verpflichtungen gemäß Artikel 5 des NATO-Vertrags erfüllen.

Nur im äußersten Fall wird Russland die Vereinigten Staaten mit seinem strategischen Atomwaffenarsenal angreifen, d.h. nur dann, wenn es von den USA direkt nuklear angegriffen wird. Und das, obwohl Russland ganz klar weiß, dass hinter allen europäischen Provokationen gegen es der Hegemon und Marionettenspieler Washington steht. Die Vereinigten Staaten werden die letzten sein, die von Russland angegriffen werden, gerade weil der darauf folgende nukleare Schlagabtausch für beide Seiten selbstmörderisch sein wird.

Ich denke, das ist auch die Auffassung der Regierung Biden. Aber ihre Erwartung ist, dass beide Seiten in einem russischen Krieg in Europa dezimiert werden, so dass die Vereinigten Staaten ihre globale Hegemonie verteidigen können, indem sie China angreifen und besiegen. Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass Washington sich in diesem Punkt irrt. Europa wird zerstört werden, Russland wird siegreich sein, denn seine Waffen sind überlegen und seine Truppen sind jetzt kriegsgestählt. Die Vereinigten Staaten werden ihre europäischen Kolonien verloren haben und allein gegen die russisch-chinesische Allianz antreten müssen. Wenn Sie dies auf einer Chaiselongue in Ihrem Hinterhof in Arlington, Virginia, lesen, können Sie sich trösten. Wenn Sie, wie ich, in der Nähe des russischen Fadenkreuzes leben, 20 km vom NATO-Hauptquartier entfernt, kann Ihnen die obige Analyse auf die Nerven.

Transcript of the Ritter interview with Judge Napolitano below by a reader

Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:33
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Tuesday, June 4th, 2024. Our dear, my dear friend, dear friend of the show, Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, a pleasure, my friend. Thank you for joining us. Of course, we didn’t expect as recently as two days ago that we would be talking like this. We thought we’d be talking in person in Russia. But before we get to why I am not there, what happened to you yesterday at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York?

Scott Ritter: 1:08
Well, I was in the process of doing the final boarding of the aircraft where, you know, right before you cross the threshold into the airplane, the airline attendants ask, you know, just to review your tickets and your passport. And I handed it to them, they motioned to go on the airplane, and suddenly three uniformed, armed Customs and Border Patrol officers came up and asked if I was, you know, William Scott Ritter Jr. I said, yes I am. They ushered me out of the line. Then they demanded that I give them my passport, which I complied with.

And then they asked me that if this was my only travel document, do I have any other travel documents? I said, no, this is my U.S. passport. It’s the passport I use to travel overseas and I have used frequently, including to Russia. And they said, well, we’re seizing it. I said, on what authority? They said, on the orders of the United States State Department. I said, who in the State Department? They said, we don’t know. I said, well, who ordered you to do this? You obviously are– We don’t know. We can’t tell you. We’re not authorized to tell you.

They wouldn’t give me a receipt for the passport. They just said, you’ve got to contact the State Department. I said, who in the State Department? They said, we don’t know. You just– you’re going to have to figure that one out. Then they, they got my bags off the airplane and escorted me out of the security zone into the general, you know, where you walk in and said, you’re free to leave. And that was that.

Napolitano: 2:42
Do you have the names of or a photograph of any of the three of them?

Ritter:
No, I mean, I was– I mean, you know, Judge, in retrospect, there’s much that I should have done. I was in my mindset getting ready to get on an airplane and go to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. I was focused on that. My mind was already what’s going to happen when I land in Russia. And so this took me completely by surprise. And I failed to get the names of the three officers. And I failed to get a photograph. I mean, there are security systems all over the place and, you know, I am going to be making a call to the Customs and Border Patrol unit at JFK to get the names of these officers. Whether or not they’ll give them to me is another question.

Napolitano:
Well, eventually you’ll get all of this under the proper legal process, but they obviously interfered with your free speech rights and your– protected by the First Amendment; and your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, protected by the Fourth Amendment; and what the Supreme Court has recognized, protected by several amendments, is your right to travel. Was I with you?

Ritter: 4:01
No. You weren’t. Actually, you weren’t with me because I made a phone call to you earlier in the morning recommending that you not travel to Russia. And it had nothing to do with what happened to me and everything to do with what happened to our sponsor, Alexander Zyryonov, who, from my standpoint, tragically was placed under arrest in Novosibirsk on his way to St. Petersburg. We can discuss that in a moment if you’d like to.

I like you. I consider you a friend, not just a colleague, and there was no way I– you know, because I’m the guy who came to you and said, hey, Judge, you need to come to Russia. You need to do this. Let’s make this happen. I got people that want to talk to you. They extended invitations to you. In retrospect, you could have gone to Russia, but I couldn’t guarantee a positive outcome. And I am not going to be responsible for putting Judge Napolitano on an airplane into an unknown situation. Today, I now know that Alexander Zyryonov’s team, together with the presidential administration, had cobbled together a group that was going to receive us and lead us through the St. Petersburg Economic Forum with, to ensure no hassles, no anything, that, you know, nothing bad would have happened.

5:25
But when I initially got this information– there’s my good friend Alexander– when I got the information, I didn’t know what was going on. I didn’t know if this was reflective of a change in Russian government attitude or policy. And while I am dumb enough to get on a plane and fly into the unknown, hoping for the best, I wasn’t going to be responsible for that happening to you.

So I made a phone call, and I strongly recommended that you not get on that airplane. In retrospect, it was the right move.

Napolitano:
And we had we had that phone call about five in the morning as I was about to leave my house. The only reason I’ve asked you this is because of all these news reports that the same thing happened to me has happened to you. I am deeply and profoundly grateful for your friendship, which will be a lifelong friendship, for the care and courtesy you have for me as a person and for my … public persona, and for these efforts to introduce me to people who are interested in what we have to say. And I know those efforts will be unending.

You have a very, very serious case against the United States State Department. And many, many lawyers will happily bring that case for you in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which sits in Brooklyn, but which covers events at JFK. You could also bring it in the Northern District of New York, up in New York State where you live. You could bring it in either place. I can’t imagine what conceivable defense there could be for this. No matter what you and I have said, anywhere on the planet– about Russia, about Israel, about Gaza, about Ukraine, about Joe Biden, about Vladimir Putin– it is all protected free speech, protected because we have the natural right to speak, and expressly protected by the First Amendment.

7:24
The same goes for your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. They didn’t have a warrant. If they had a warrant, they would have shown it to you. And of course they violated their own profound regulations by not giving you a receipt. They’re supposed to give you a receipt so that when you sue them, the court will know who it is that took this away from you. Now you’re going to have to do some investigation on your own. The State Department is huge. Was this Tony Blinken? Was this Jake Sullivan? Or was this some local functionary who didn’t like something they heard you say? It’s an outrageous abuse of power. It is profoundly unconstitutional. And I am aggrieved that you, my friend, were hurt by this.

Ritter: 8:07
But it’s bigger than this, Judge. I mean, the State Department, using government appropriated monies for this purpose, created a Center for Countering Disinformation as an adjunct of the Ukrainian president’s office. They did this in 2022. One of the first things that this Center for Countering Disinformation did under the guidance and direction of the State Department of the United States was to issue a blacklist of people that they called “information terrorists”. And on that blacklist were a large number of Americans, including myself. And this list, this Center since that time–

8:50
And here’s the important thing about being called an information terrorist. That’s a specific term being used by the Ukrainians, backed by the United States government. They said that an information terrorist must be hunted down and brought to justice the same way any terrorist would. And so I’ve been accused of saying things that make the Ukrainian government unhappy. They now say that I must be hunted down and arrested, detained, killed as would any other terrorist in the world and other Americans as well.

9:21
They have made me– this Center again with the U.S. State Department’s support– has put out a list that, you know, a weekly list where they say I’m the number one threat to truth about Ukraine. I’m the number one threat to Ukraine. I must be dealt with. They put out a monthly list where I top this list regularly. Plus, there’s the Myrotvorets hit list run by the Ukrainian intelligence services that I’m on which marks you for death. They actually assassinate people. They have made two attempts against me on previous trips to Russia.

9:54
The State Department has never condemned the Ukrainian intelligence services for marking U.S. citizens for death, simply because they disagree with what they say. Free speech means nothing in the Biden America today. It actually– free speech has not only become something that gets you targeted for your passport removal, that’s an inconvenience that I am confident will be dealt with in due course. They’re marking me for death, Judge, and that’s something you don’t come back from.

Napolitano: 10:26
And you’re telling us that there’s some purported NGO, which is actually funded by the State Department that is behind this?

Ritter:
Well, it’s behind the most recent outpouring of things– The Center for Countering Disinformation is not an NGO. That’s a government– that works for the president, the office of the president in Ukraine. But it’s organized, funded, and directed by the State Department. When you look at the meetings where they promulgated the blacklist, in there they say “and at this meeting are the following State Department officials and the following officials from the United States embassy.”

Now one would imagine that at any meeting of this nature where somebody said “Topping our agenda Today is we’re going to blacklist 40 American citizens for exercising their, you know for saying things we disagree with.” At that juncture, duty demands that Americans, a government official stand up and say “We object. You can’t prosecute Americans for free speech. You can’t use American money for this regard.”

11:31
But instead, the US government sat there and supported this, facilitated this. And this is done on the direction of the US Congress. This money was allocated by the US Congress, voted on by the US Congress, which … appears to violate again, not just the intent but the letter of the law: Congress shall not pass any laws or legislation that are designed to infringe on the free speech of Americans. Congress gave the Ukrainian government money, which they’re using to infringe on the free speech of Americans.

Napolitano: 12:06
Another example of the government attempting to do indirectly, through another government, what it can’t do directly. So the American Congress, Joe Biden, [is] allowed to spend this money however he wants. I think it’s 165 billion at last count. He can spend it however he wants, and he’s chosen to spend some of it in this gaggle of people, Ukrainians and Americans, who have a list of people whom they want to silence and whom they want to kill. This is just not the America that the founders gave us, Scott. You are a remarkable example, not only of intellectual honesty, but of personal courage. As you know, because we are friends, I will be happy to work on this litigation with you. I hope it doesn’t come to that. I hope a couple of phone calls will return your passport. But there’s much more of an aggrieved situation here, as you pointed out, than just the passport.

13:10
And those of you watching ought to know, the world needs to know, how corrupt the Joe Biden, Tony Blinken State Department is, that they would do something like this, pay to silence Scott Ritter, interfere with his freedom of travel, suppress his rights to free speech, and, I am sorry and almost terrified to utter this, threaten him with death.

13:42
Well, we’ll see where this goes, my dear friend. Joe Biden has threatened Russians with death by publicly authorizing the Ukrainians to use American military equipment to attack inside Russia. How crazy is this?

Ritter: 14:04
It’s the definition of insanity. First of all, the logic behind this: the Ukrainians have tried to create a narrative that says “We can’t defend ourselves from Russian aggression emanating from Russian soil unless we are allowed to use all the weapons that we possess.”

They forget that this is a Special Military Operation that was initiated by Russia in response to Ukraine’s eight-year war of aggression against the citizens of Donbass, whom they called terrorists, who they bombarded, killing hundreds of children, thousands of civilians. But this isn’t a war. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. Russia sought to bring an end to the Ukrainian actions. And because the United States and other nations have decided to pour in hundreds of billions of dollars in financial and military assistance, this conflict has been extended and turned into a proxy war between Ukraine and Russia.

15:01
This isn’t about Ukraine wanting to use these weapons. This is about the United States and its NATO allies seeking to use Ukraine as a proxy to inflict the maximum possible damage on Russia. But the fallacy here is they say, “Well, Russia can’t be allowed to have a safe haven on Russian soil from which they get to launch an attack.” Well, what do you think all of NATO in Europe is from the Russian perspective? It’s a safe haven for Ukraine. Yu know, they train Ukrainian pilots. If that training was done in Ukraine, they’d all be dead. We repair the Ukrainian equipment, American equipment, German equipment. We repair it on Polish soil, on German soil, in the Baltic states. Repair facilities are legitimate military targets. When you take a tank off the battlefield, take it back to repair it to bring it back to the battlefield, that needs to be attacked.

15:54
All the warehouses where we flow in these hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment on Polish soil, Romanian soil, etc., they can’t be attacked by Russia. Ukraine has this massive safe haven which Russia is powerless to attack and this is the danger. Because if we start playing this game and attacking the Russians, the Russians have made it quite clear that they will retaliate, not just on Ukrainian soil, but on the soil of NATO nations, and this heads us down a very dangerous path that could very well lead to nuclear war.

Napolitano: 16:31
Here’s Foreign Minister Lavrov basically saying, “We will not put up with this.” Cut number one.

Sergey Lavrov:
We have shown that we will not put up with this, and that we will not allow Ukraine to be used as a direct threat to our security, as an instrument for the destruction of everything Russian on historical Russian lands. They did this for more than two decades, or even 30 years, immediately after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Their goal was to destroy everything Russian, from the language to the government, in this territory, which they wanted to take for themselves.

17:12
And they were counting on it. But as always happens, if they wake up the Russian bear, then our people have united like never before. These are not empty words. We saw this during the Russian presidential elections. The Nazi regime continues to use Western weapons to attack civilian targets, towns, and cities. I assure you that they will not be able to cross this line unnoticed.

Napolitano: 17:35
Does Joe Biden, does Tony Blinken, does Rishi Sunak, does Emanuel Macron, does Olaf Scholz, does Donald Tusk, President of Poland– do these folks understand the significance of what Foreign Minister Lavrov said, and that the Russians don’t bluff?

Ritter: 17:58
No. If they did, they wouldn’t be going this far down this path. They are being advised by people who are saying that the Russians are bluffing, that the Russians lack the capacity to back these words up with meaningful force. There’s even a, people who say, “Look, Russia’s focused on the BRICS summit in October and, you know, on bringing the non-aligned world together. Why would Russia risk, you know, a war with the West?”

Well, because the West is threatening Russia’s existential survival. And this is the danger. I mean, even President Putin came out today and said, you know, [that] this is a very dangerous game that’s being played that will have fatal consequences for the United States.

18:44Judge, in retrospect, it might be a good thing that you and I didn’t go to Russia, because I’m very fearful that while the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum is underway, that a red line will be crossed, and Russia will respond, and we will be looking at an outbreak of actual war between the United States and Russia. This is why I wanted to travel, because I was hopeful that by speaking to the Russian government, speaking to the Russian people, speaking to the Russian nation about the potential of the American people to do the right thing, you know, come November maybe vote in somebody who isn’t hell-bent on going to war with Russia, that the Russians might not be inclined to act precipitously when we cross these red lines.

19:34
But I was denied that opportunity by the U.S. government, and now, sadly, there’s no voice in Russia right now, American voice, that can caution this. The U.S. Embassy isn’t. We don’t have an American ambassador that’s meeting with the Russians on a regular basis saying, “That’s all a misunderstanding. What do we need to do to avoid war?” We have a US government together with NATO allies that think Russia’s bluffing, and they are seeking to put as much pressure on Russia as possible prior to this peace summit that’s being convened by Ukraine and Switzerland in the middle of this month, a peace summit that’s falling apart before it even begins.

20:11
But the operating notion is that we must convince Russia that we are serious about the consequences Russia will accrue if it continues a military engagement against Ukraine, that Russia’s only choice is to be compelled to the peace table. Russia’s not playing that game. Russia’s playing the game of “We’ve won this war, and if you want to make it a broader war, we’ll win that war too.”

Napolitano: 20:32
Here’s how serious Russia takes it. Here’s another statement. This is a full screen; we don’t have it on tape, from Foreign Minister Lavrov. I’ll read it aloud for the benefit of those who are taking the show audio only. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on May 30th:

Lavrov:
We do not rule out additional steps in the sphere of nuclear deterrence, because our command centers and the locations of our nuclear forces will be in range of American forward-based missiles.

Napolitano: 21:09
This is about as serious as you can get.

Ritter:
You know, there’s a lot of Americans out there, they’re in the armchair warrior category, who are like, “Unleash the ATACMS.” The ATACMS, of course, is the long range, up to 300 kilometer range missile that we have provided to the Ukrainians. Ray McGovern– and next time you have Ray on, you can talk to him about this– has highlighted some of the negotiations [that were] taking place between the Russians and the United States before the initiation of the Special Military Operation. And the Russians kept saying, “We can’t let NATO into Ukraine, because we can’t allow American missiles into Ukraine, because a lot of these Russian facilities, command centers, et cetera, that Russia uses were conceptualized and constructed during the Soviet Union when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.

21:59
So from a Russian perspective, they were deep in the Russian rear, protected. But if Ukraine now is carved out, made part of NATO, and you insert American missiles there, all of these places that were thought to be safe in the rear are now reachable. And if America allows Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles to strike these facilities, Russia will nuke NATO, not Ukraine, NATO. And this is what Lavrov just said. If you do this now– according to the Ukrainians, they’re complaining that the United States will only allow them to use the HIMARS, that they won’t be allowed to use the ATACMS to strike Russia yet. But just so everybody in your audience understands, we are one ATACMS launch away from everybody dying. We are one ATACMS launch away from everybody dying. The Russians aren’t playing games here.

Napolitano: 22:52
The Russians will– and they will be well grounded morally and legally– attack the places from which the missiles came, to which the missiles were delivered, at which their accelerant facilities are stored and repaired. And many Americans who are manning those facilities. Do we have any idea how many Americans are dead already? Didn’t the Russians recently attack some NATO facility, and you hear nothing– with a hundred people died– and you hear nothing about it in the West?

Ritter: 23:26
Well, I’m always a little leery of these reports about the magic Russian missile hitting an underground bunker, because there’s no reason for NATO, the United States, to hazard NATO members or American members. Remember, I talked about that safe haven. Why put 300 people into Ukraine in a bunker when you could have 300 people in Poland in a bunker that’s not going to get hit by a Russian missile and have the same connectivity?

23:51
So I always view these reports as a little suspicious, and it just makes no sense that– from a force-protection standpoint, I can’t see any American or NATO member allowing that many Americans or NATO officials to congregate in one place on Ukrainian soil, knowing that the Russians would find it and destroy it. I do believe the Russians did take out an underground facility. It’s a facility that was used by the Ukrainians. There may have been some NATO advisors or, you know, contract personnel, but the idea of 300 Americans and NATO soldiers or officials dying in one attack, I just think it’s far-fetched and just part of the fiction that often appears on social media.

Napolitano 24:40
Do you think Russia would attack Berlin, Paris, London? Russia has said they will attack Berlin, Paris, London, Brussels. Russia will attack the decision-making centers associated with any attack against Russia that Russia deems to represent an existential threat. Let’s get back to the ATACMS. The ATACMS system uses a guidance system, a GPS guidance system backed by an inertial guidance system, that requires specific information to be loaded into the system. That can only be done by an American. I’ll just repeat that one more time: that can only be done by an American.

Napolitano:
It’s got to be top secret, whatever it is.

Ritter: 25:24
Now it’s not just– now we get to the next part. That information will be transmitted from collection platforms overhead satellites, drones, other ground and air-breathing intelligence collection resources. They collect data; that data goes to a center inside Poland or in Germany where that data is collated and then used to create a target, a target, you know model of data against a specific target. What target’s going to be attacked? How they’re going to attack it, with what, from where. That data then is put together into a target package which is transmitted again using top-secret, you know, communications channels that the Ukrainians don’t have access to.

26:13
So we have somebody on the ground in Ukraine receiving this package from somebody who planned it outside of Ukraine. And then they will put it into the missile and then the Ukrainians do the last part, which is to push the button and launch it. But every other aspect was done by American hands and the Russians know this. And so wherever in Europe this planning is taking place, this collation of intelligence data, this communication of targeting data, these are now legitimate targets that Russia will take out, either conventionally or, if required, using nuclear weapons.

26:49
And if the Germans are party to this, Macron needs to understand: if the Ukrainians use the French-provided Scout missiles, the same thing applies. The targeting data that goes inside can only be put in place by a French actor. There’s the missile I used to inspect, and that is a game-changer. If that’s ever used in anger, we will lose one to three American cities.

Napolitano: 27:14
Do the Russians have a missile capability that we cannot intercept or neutralize?

Ritter:
Yes, pretty much every modern Russian missile is designed to evade American and NATO missile defense. On the strategic level, they have hypersonic missiles, they have maneuvering hypersonic warheads, they have similar capabilities at the tactical and let’s call it intermediate level. We can’t defend against this. And the bottom line is that the Russians launch the missiles, those missiles will hit the targets they’re aimed at. And if those targets– if those missiles have nuclear weapons, those nuclear weapons will detonate where they’re supposed to. And this will be devastating. It will be the end of Europe at a minimum, and potentially the end of the United States and the end of Russia and the end of the world.

Napolitano: 28:07
Do Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Austin, et cetera– the president, the secretary of state, the national security advisor, the secretary of defense– understand the gravity of this moment as you’ve explained it, or are they just propagandists?

Ritter: 28:29
You know, I used to have a friend named William Polk, and I say used to, because tragically, he passed away a couple years ago. But William Polk was a man who was in the inner circle for John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. And he talks about, and he’s talked to me many times about the decision making that was going on and the role that Kennedy played in preventing a nuclear war, the maturity Kennedy had as a leader.

Part of that maturity came from when Kennedy was first briefed on what was then called the Single Integrated Operation Plan, the SIOP, the American war plan. He went to the Pentagon and they briefed him. They said, if we go to nuclear war, this is what we got. And basically, it was premised on the notion that America will be the largest surviving civilization, but in order to guarantee that, we have to kill everybody in the world.

And he came out– “That’s insane. I’m not doing that.” And he turned to his advisor, he said, and we call ourselves the human race. And he said, you have to give me options. Every president since then, or up until George W. Bush, reacted the same way. When they first got that briefing on how America plans to go to war, which is to destroy the entire world so that when the 20 to 30 percent of America that survives will be the largest remaining civilization cluster in the world, guaranteeing American global dominance in a post-nuclear conflict — insanity — they all said the same thing: insane, give me options, I can’t go to that. You can’t make me do this. You have to give me options and the Pentagon always gave them options that inevitably led to that. Since the end of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Americans have downplayed their nuclear war plan. We de-targeted our missiles. Nothing was on automatic any more. We were heading in a path of, you know, getting rid of nuclear weapons.

30:20
And then George W Bush came in a post 9-11 environment and said “We will use our nuclear weapons to ensure that a 9-11 never happens again.” And we reinserted nuclear war planning into our military doctrine. And today, we have that same mindset, that same nuclear war strategy, without the maturity of John F. Kennedy. We have people who look at the plan say “Well, that’s just a plan. We’re not really going to do that.” and they say, “The Russians are bluffing. We don’t have to worry about this.”

30:49
The problem is: the second something happens and that plan is pulled out, the dust is brushed off, and we start pushing buttons, we go to the scenario that John F. Kennedy said was insanity. Judge, we’re going to blow up the entire world, because we know that in a post-nuclear environment, we can’t allow for instance India to survive intact. Because we’re going to be reduced to 30% of our capacity. We can’t allow India to have a superior civilization in a post-nuclear conflict. We’re going to destroy the entire world. That’s what the American nuclear war plan is. And the American people need to wake up and understand: it’s on full automatic. Full automatic.

Napolitano: 31:33
I see why the State Department is afraid of you, because you speak the truth. Because you give an understanding that the government doesn’t want people to have. And a 45-year-old JFK had more maturity, understanding, and grasp of morality than an 81-year-old, barely competent, Joe Biden.

Scott, no matter what we talk about, it’s a pleasure to talk to you. You are an American treasure, as I wrote in a blurb for your forthcoming book. I mean it from all my heart. And we’ll do some battle together against the State Department. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for being you.

Ritter: 32:18
Thank you, Judge, for having me on, and I look forward to working with you down the road.

Napolitano:
Of course. Wow. The rest of the afternoon is prepared for you as well. At two o’clock, Matt Ho — how can we talk about anything other than this? At 2 o’clock, Matt Ho. At 3 o’clock, Colonel Kwiatkowski. At 4 o’clock, the aforementioned Ray McGovern, who’s dying to talk about Scott Ritter. We will. Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.