Ritter: You are a pawn on the American chessboard

With Scott Ritter about the war in Ukraine, the importance of Poland for the United States and the celebrated deep state Mateusz Piskorski talks in Washington.

– We have another visit from Joe Biden to Poland. Do you think he and his administration intend to say something crucial about the war in Ukraine?

– The president of the United States does not travel abroad for no reason. He just doesn't come out of Washington. Time isn't random either, due to the fact that it's the anniversary of the start of peculiar Military Operations. We are so dealing with a symbolic layer of this visit. The statements must so coincide with a symbolic date. I would look at president Biden's erstwhile statements relating to the current situation. Let us be clear what is happening in Ukraine now. The strategical goal of the United States is to weaken Russia. Victoria Nuland talks about Russia's strategical failure. Chief of Staff Mark Milley shared the impression that Russia had already been defeated strategically and tactically. These are fantasies. Russia wins. In fact, according to Jens Stoltenberg, she already won. In a war where a peculiar emphasis is on artillery, if 1 side lacks ammunition, the another side will be the winner. In summertime Ukraine will end with artillery ammunition. NATO has no possible to deliver it. It's over. Regardless of the Western vote on Russia, everyone already knows that Ukraine is defeated. The Russian Army has become stronger and is preparing an offensive that will simply flood Ukraine. It will be demilitarized armedly. So if we compare rhetoric with reality... I think the president knows that NATO and Europe are looking forward to further American support, even under the conditions of Russia's strategical triumph in Ukraine. If the current trend continues, he will declare sending more troops to Poland in the form of permanent bases. possibly it will be a brigade, or possibly more to heal Polish wounds. I believe that Poland has become besides powerfully active in Ukraine's fight. She believed that NATO could arm Ukraine to the degree that it would win the war with Russia. Poland is only now beginning to realize that there will be no Ukrainian victory. Russia, which Poland points out and which it has embarrassed, will shortly stand at Polish borders and look at it through binoculars.

Poland talks about expanding its armed forces. But let us be honest: militarily Poland is not in the European lead. She's far from that. The head of the United States Command in Europe (EUCOM), General Christopher Cavali frankly said last period in Sweden that what is happening in Ukraine has a scale and size that we were never able to imagine. And we're not ready for that. If the head of the American forces in Europe says so, then Poland is not even at all ready to do so.

– But we have a number of erstwhile American military, like General Ben Hodges, who says Poland is simply a regional power. And we're beginning to wonder if the United States is going to pull us into this war in Ukraine.

Ben Hodges is retired. His work present is to attract attention from American media, to advance Ben Hodges as a tv personality. His role, therefore, is not to tell the fact and to present real estimates. He is active in exaggerating Russia's weaknesses and NATO potential. It is simply a media face to supply mass with messages desired by the authorities. He's a propaganda guy. The commander of soldiers who would participate in the war and hazard their lives is General Cavali. It's his words we should perceive to. Ben Hodges doesn't prove anything anymore. Cavali made it clear: NATO is incapable to fight in this clash.

Let us think about whether Poland is truly a military power, as Hodges says. Does Poland have a large professional army? Nope. The death of untrained soldiers in a possible conflict will be enormous. Did Poland prepare for specified operations? Nope. Poland is simply a NATO associate who does not attach much importance to artillery. Poland is so not equipped, trained and prepared to clash, as General Cavali refers to. To the artillery war on an unimaginable scale. Poland has an army possible of about 160 thousand. The losses of Ukraine, according to any estimates, are twice as much as those killed, not to mention the wounded. The Polish army would vanish from the ground after 3 months of conventional combat with Russia in an open field. Poland is not a superpower and there is no specified potential. And becoming a power would be highly costly for Poland. The cost of creating a professional army and its equipment for land combat with Russia would be besides high. I do not think that the Polish economy will do it and that the Polish nation will accept it. I think Poland is in a hard situation today. Her rhetoric got out of hand. It is not the United States that can drag her into the war in Ukraine. It is Poland that is trying to bring the United States into this war. Not all of them, but any in Poland whisper about Western Ukraine, that they can someway incorporate it into large Poland. According to any data, Poland has already sent thousands of mercenaries, who fight on the side of Ukraine and endure large losses. Now we are talking about the Polish legion...

- Yes, peculiar forces.

Let me tell you something about peculiar forces that I'm telling their American soldiers. possibly these guys look good, they practice, they're muscular, they like women in restaurants, they can kick the door and jump off a helicopter. But if they go to war with Russia, they all die screaming at their mouths. due to the fact that the Russians don't care that they look good, they have biceps. They'll just launch 20,000 missiles into their positions. And no peculiar forces training will aid here. They'll die like everyone else. If individual says that peculiar forces will be useful in Ukraine somehow, they have no thought of modern war. They work on the periphery, in low-intensity conflicts, in peculiar tasks. But in Ukraine, the level of brutality is unimaginable. NATO is not prepared for this and Poland is simply a associate of it. Let me rephrase. If the war had ended present and the Ukrainians had diverted their brigades to Poland, you would not be able to halt them. Their army is better than yours, they have the best army in Europe today. They have combat experience and large-scale conflict experience. On the battlefield, Ukrainian troops would defeat Polish. She would besides defeat the Germans, the French, the British, anyone but the Americans. And Russia is destroying the Ukrainian army. So what could the Polish army do against Russian?

– The substance is clear erstwhile it comes to the conventional war. And do you think that it is theoretically possible to escalate, like that described in the years of the Cold War by Hermann Kahn in his explanation of the escalation ladder, leading to atomic war?

– It's more than theoretically possible, likely. 1 of the main reasons is Poland, its irresponsible rhetoric. delight realize that Russia will not usage atomic weapons against Ukraine. There's no request due to the fact that he wins. He besides sees Ukraine as part of the Russian people, the Ukrainians as Slavic brothers. She would usage atomic weapons against NATO if NATO threatened her existence. There are respective possible scenarios here. 1 of them is the 1 in which Ukraine would receive weapons capable of threatening Crimea and the depths of Russia, as well as recently acquired territories that the West does not recognise, but it does not matter. Russia itself recognizes them, so any effort to attack them is an attack on Russia. If the Baltics together with the Poles think they can number on defence and hide behind Article 5 and block the Gulf of Finland, or cut off the routes to Kaliningrad, Russia will most likely gotta respond militarily. If Poland would bring troops to the west of Ukraine, we would have a conflict that would extend to Poland. Poland would thus exposure itself to armed retaliation. The Russian answer would then be not only to hit Polish forces in Ukraine, but besides in the ability of Poland to supply these forces. And that could trigger Article 5. I already told you that NATO is incapable to fight Russia. Tens of thousands of American soldiers would be involved, but all of them would die – they have no artillery. What would happen if NATO forces confronted Russian forces in the conventional war and Russia were to win? What would happen if Russia destroyed Polish forces in the Western Ukraine and would have an open road to Warsaw? Would NATO decide to usage atomic weapons if Russia were moving forward? If Estonia or Lithuania had chosen specified blockades, NATO would have no way of responding to Russia's actions, apart from the usage of atomic weapons. And it's dangerous. The hazard is that the rhetoric of Poland and the irresponsibility of the Baltic countries can lead to a direct clash that NATO is not ready for. And that's not what I'm saying, Scott Ritter, but this is what the NATO Force Commander says. If there was a conventional war, NATO would lose it 100%. And if he loses conventionally, he'll gotta usage atomic weapons. Meanwhile, Russia does not believe in limited atomic conflict and will then usage the full arsenal. And the planet will end. Poles should realize this: they exposure the full planet with irresponsible actions. For what? What are they defending in Ukraine? I hope not Stiepan Bandery, due to the fact that Poles seem to know who he was. You know who he was, you know who the Ukrainian nationalists are and what they stand for. And you support them. Why? Do you truly hatred Russia that much? Are you prepared to sacrifice the full planet to defend the authorities in Kiev that made Bandera a national hero? And you support them. I don't get it.

– To be honest, many people in Poland do not realize it either. But you highly measure the subjectivity of the Polish authorities. And we see their dependence on Washington, on London. Do you not think that the Polish military, the service, would simply follow the instructions and instructions of American and British hawks?

– I am not an expert in interior political matters of Poland. I have any general knowledge, but I do not have a deeper knowing of the mechanisms of Polish politics. So forgive me if I say something that might indicate my deficiency of cognition about Poland. I believe that Poland is governed by civilian authorities selected in a comparatively honest electoral process. Of course, no 1 is perfect, but in general Poland is simply a democracy. Poland has besides been a NATO associate for a long time, which emphasizes the importance of civilian rule, civilian control of the army. I had small to do with the Polish army, but I know many people who worked with Polish professional officers. Polish troops follow orders from the authorities of the country. But he can resist. I think the Polish officer corps is very professional. There's no suicidal tendencies. He believes his mission is to defend the country. If officers were ordered to do something that could lead to the demolition of Poland, they could argue it. safety services always operate in the shadows.

Increasing the number of Polish armed forces was intended to defend Poland in the context of this full fresh reality. 1 cannot ignore the fact that the Russian army is now much more powerful and dangerous than a year ago. Russia has made many mistakes this year. But like any military structure, her army identified these errors and drew conclusions from them. The Russian military is so experienced, capable of destroying all NATO forces on the battlefield. I think the command of the Polish army realises that its current possible is insufficient to face a opponent like Russia. 300 1000 soldiers to be counted by the Polish army are not adequate to attack Western Ukraine, but will not defend Poland either. I believe in the professionalism of the Polish army and its command staff following the legitimate orders of their political leadership. However, I have no assurance in the Polish political authorities, due to the fact that it seems to me that they live dreams of power, separated from reality. I am besides afraid that their representatives believe that the United States considers Poland important. It is worth that Poles should look at the destiny of those whom the United States considered to be their friends. What happened to them? We were friends of the Afghan people. What did it end with? We were friends of the Kurds, and what? We were very close allies with Germany, much closer than always to Poland. And we just attacked the Germans. We started an unspoken war with them, organized an economical Pearl Harbour, blew up the North Gas pipeline. If we could do that to the Germans, what could we do to you? Watch out for that American friendship, due to the fact that sometimes it ends tragically. Do not trust the United States, believe what is good for Poland. If the United States works in a way that enhances Poland's security, that's great. But the United States doesn't care about Poland. Let me be clear: we care about Poland no more than Ukraine. And yet we let the demolition of Ukraine as a national state. We will do the same with Poland to accomplish our own goals. We will sacrifice you. We don't care, we don't love you, we're not your friends. We usage you in our large geopolitical strategy to safe American hegemony over Europe and the world. You're a pawn on an American chess board we can sacrifice at any time. I so appeal to all Pole to see what happens in Ukraine. That's how America treats its friends. They are not curious in Ukraine, but only in their policy towards Russia. After the demolition of Ukraine, Poland is next in line.

– According to authoritative data, over 9 1000 Polish soldiers left the army in the last year. But let's decision on to the question of who in the United States coordinates actions in Ukraine, politically and militarily. Who makes strategical decisions? most likely not Joe Biden...

You're right. There is simply a concept in the United States, possibly rather controversial, deep state. This isn't about any hidden government. I don't believe in that. Deep state This is simply a bureaucratic structure which is not by choice of officials, which guarantees the continuity of successive administrations. Let us look at the United States since the end of the Cold War. George H. W. Bush, a classical Republican conservative was replaced by a liberal Democrat, William Clinton. Like a whip shot. He later replaced George W. Bush, after 8 years Barack Obama, later Donald Trump, Joe Biden. If the staff liable for abroad policy had changed on all occasion, we would have thrown from 1 part of the planet map to another. Meanwhile, if we look at our policy towards Russia since Bush, we will see a amazing consequence. due to the fact that that's what deep state, establishment is liable for maintaining a steady direction. They're civilian officials in the State Department, the CIA, think-tankswhich supply technological support for this policy. There's this revolving door, these people take government positions once, they work in think-tanks. Whether it's Republicans or Democrats. any teach, like in Georgetown. Formally, they teach, but they besides spread any dogmas among subsequent generations of leaders. We have an arms manufacture whose influence is dominated by active money, relations in Congress. His operations are very much dependent on the United States' abroad policy. It must so act within the framework of continuity. Joe Biden inherited abroad policy from Trump, Trump from Obama. After the collapse of the russian Union, American politics consisted of preventing Russia from strengthening. We usage different ways. In 1990s, in Clinton's time, we supported Boris Jelcin's weak leadership, allowing the oligarchs to plunder the Russian economy, supporting the conflict in Chechnya to break up Russia. erstwhile Yeltsina replaced Vladimir Putin, we had to figure out who he was first. erstwhile he first took office, many believed that he would not be able to win the next election and that we would be able to install a fresh Jelcin, everything would be fine. But he won the election and George W. Bush must have been reasoning about how to weaken him. At the 2007 Munich safety Conference, Putin found himself on his own feet. Actually, he said Russia would not play by our rules. That they wouldn't be our errand boy, that they were independent Russia, a large nation. Then Obama's administration began an operation to change the government in Russia, which we call reset. We wanted to keep Dmitri Medvedev in power and make him Jelcin. But at the same time, we took action to weaken Russia in general. How can you talk about a reset and at the same time invitation Ukraine to NATO? After all, it is simply a conscious weakening of Russia and its disintegration. But it didn't work. Putin was a stronger leader than we expected. His remaining in office has led to the radicalisation of our policy. In 2014, we had a coup in Kiev. In Poland you know that, I do not believe that Poles are as naive as many Americans who say it was a legitimate revolution.

A revolution of dignity, as they call it...

- Yes, very decent. In Poland, you know this due to the fact that you remember Bander, what Western Ukraine is; you know how evil it is in Lviv and another centres in the region; that this ideology exploded during a coup under the Right Sector and any another parties. You know what happened to the Russian intervention on Donbasa, what the Minsk agreements meant. Now we besides know that these agreements were only part of the charade. Petro Poroshenko did not intend to put them into practice, nor did Volodymyr Zelenski. We know that Hollande and later Macro, that Merkel – everyone admits that it was a stalling game, to gain time. You besides know how the Ukrainian army was armed at your borders. Poland participated in this, in training – you knew what the Ukrainian army was trained for. This war is not about an unprovoked act of Russian aggression. The intent of this war is to usage Ukraine by the United States and NATO as a substitute force to weaken Russia. But it's not Biden's policy, it's just American politics. Let me give you an example of how weak Biden is. It acted with a programme of the only nonsubjective in the field of atomic policy. This goal was to be deterrence, and that is why America was never to hotel to a preventive strike. atomic weapons were to be utilized only in consequence to their usage by others. In December, I attended a conference at which I asked the arms control officer in the State Department why they resigned to go to the preemptive impact doctrine. I heard in my answer that the interagency group was not ready for specified a change. This group is simply a network of all ministries and structures liable for national security, the forum of which is the National safety Council. Interagency was defined as a process of coordination, but the group has now become an entity. And she wasn't ready to change. That's it. deep stateThe 1 I was talking about. A permanent, non-chosen decision-making body that continues despite changes in administration. Deep state It doesn't change. They make the decisions. You mentioned Victoria Nuland. She's been in power for a long time. He's part of it. deep state, passing through those rotating doors I was talking about. Lloyd Austin was a general, then worked for Raytheon Corporation, and now he's the secretary of defense, then he's going to any another position. He's part of it, too. deep state. Joe Biden is just a man in the White House.

– So this is besides an explanation of what happened to the expectations of Trump's presidency, I think it's actual erstwhile it comes to delivering arms to Ukraine, that this was what Trump's administration started doing, in 2017, I think, at least any kind of weapons were delivered then. And 1 more question about the complex. deep state, his face, more or little visible: what do you think of William Burns due to the fact that we know that to any degree he understands Russia's existential interest. I mean, in another interview, you noticed that according to the leaks from erstwhile he was ambassador to Moscow, he had knowing for Russia, so do you think he is 1 of the hawks of the war party, or more or little average politics?
– I personally think William Burns might be the only chance we have of peace. This does not mean that he is simply a dove of peace – he is not. This does not mean that it is pro-Russian – it is not. But he's pragmatic, he's realistic, he understands Russia and the Russian way of thinking. There are now many people in Washington that can be classified as Putin's charmers. It's the kind of people that we call horse whisperers in America, that is, the kind of people who do calm them down. We have quite a few fear of Putin, so Putin's whisperers whisper to America to calm him down, and it's a very simplistic imagination in which 1 man is the emanation of evil, a dictator. Burns doesn't buy it; he knows who Putin is; he knows what Russia is like. I'm not saying he's supporting Russia or being friendly with Russia. erstwhile I entered adulthood in the 1980s, in the Reagan administration time, entering Marine Corps, addressing the issue of arms control, there was a guy named Richard Pipes, a very celebrated Harvard professor, and he was 1 of Ronald Reagan's advisors. Pipes did not like the USSR, he was a very tough anti-Communist, nevertheless he wrote respective books, including books on nationalism and nations in the USSR, a classical book. This book is full of knowledge, full of understanding, full of invaluable information, written by individual who hated the USSR, an anti-communist, but you cannot reject this book due to ideology, and you should read it due to its knowledge. William Burns has knowledge, his cognition of Russia, you know, he may have his private opinion, but he is not an ideology. He's not Putin's whisperer, and he wasn't put in charge of the CIA due to the fact that he was a spy, but due to the fact that he was a diplomat. He became head of the CIA due to the fact that he managed what they call back channel, secret communications channels. If you are investigating the past of the United States, the past of the Cold War, you know that most likely the implementation of the concept of secret channels of communication saved the world, because, in particular, the Kennedy administration utilized intensely secret channels of communication to contact russian leadership during the Khrushchev period during the Cuban crisis. authoritative relations did not exist, the dispute escalated and this usage of secret channels of communication allowed the conflict to end peacefully and friendlyly. William Burns became head of the CIA, as the CIA, as traditionally an intelligence service, has extended contacts around the world, including secret channels of communication with governments, so erstwhile the situation excludes sending Tony Blinken, who is suitable for press conferences, making statements, etc., Biden may send Burns, who will communicate via an unofficial channel, to sit down for a more honest conversation with his counterpart.

I think that's the function Burns plays today. He is the 1 who understands reality, who understands consequences. He warned us in a memorandum written in February 2008 entitled Nyet means nyet (No – I mean no), stated that inviting Ukraine to NATO would surely origin Russian military intervention. Smart man... His grades, his conclusions. He is 1 who could possibly find a diplomatic way out of the current situation. This will not be easy, due to the fact that present we have immense rusophobia, Putin's whisperers are everywhere, as well as the problem of dealing with the dynamics of American politics – I will usage a comparison to a ship, a tanker full of oil, or a cruiser full of people – erstwhile he is steaming and moving, it is not easy and rapidly changing his direction – this is what the American politician from G. H. W. Bush looks like until today. Powerful deep state has its momentum, which leads us to a circumstantial way and is highly difficult, not only to halt it, but besides to change its direction. It takes time. But eventually, if the control tools are in your hand, you can slow down and start changing direction. I think William Burns is the man who can besides control the ship's engines, reduce steam force and walk distant from what seems to be the way leading to atomic conflict. He is 1 of the fewer clear points I see in Biden's administration, due to the fact that Joe Biden for many reasons – and I am not here to attack the president – he is not prepared to fulfill the tasks that are before him.

– Incidentally, I think that William Burns is the only 1 of the American elites who is in direct contact with their Russian counterparts, which is the only channel of communication.

– I think it's a very crucial channel. We know that Blinken and Austin are besides trying to connect with their counterparts, but the Russians aren't answering their phones. Each has any form of communication, but it's very superficial. Real serious talks are held by William Burns with her Russian counterpart.

- That's right. You late revealed 1 of the most shocking information about the fact that American military attacks on civilian targets were coordinated by the Russians. I am referring to the coordination of HIMARS systems. Could you tell us what another types of Ukrainian weapons are coordinated or depend on U.S. military decisions? What is the scope of American action in this respect there, in Ukraine?

– To answer these questions, I must first say that I am not in the government today, I am not in the army and I am not absolutely certain what is going on there. But if I did, I couldn't say it. So you get an answer from individual who's outside the government, who looks from outside.

– But he's an expert, and it's important...

– I do not like the word “expert” due to the fact that – I always tell a gag – how did I become an expert on field inspections? Was I truly the best expert on these inspections in the world? Or was I the first individual to do that? due to the fact that it's the quickest way to become an expert – to be the only 1 who did it, then you become the only 1 who does it and then you become an expert. And I realize the difference between a real expert and individual who becomes an expert in that way. I would say yes, I have a good friend, erstwhile CIA officer and analyst Ray McGovern, and he has quite a few knowledge. People his age and experience are usually wise. And he erstwhile said that 1 thing is to act according to his own feeling, his own analysis, but the best thing is to hear what another people say to you. So, erstwhile it comes to supporting fire management, I just perceive to another people and heard many Ukrainian intelligence officials who said – really! – we get coordinates from American military through the command center in NATO – reportedly somewhere in Poland. possibly in Germany, but I think it is in Poland. Ok. And we besides have an article “New York Times” that talks about the specificity of the choice of targets mainly by the HIMARS system, which is simply a strategy of very crucial value, with a precisely calculated amount of ammunition – each unit of ammunition is simply a goldweight, you can't shoot it where it falls, so that even in order to guarantee the endurance of HIMARS systems under these circumstances, a qualified staff is needed, which comes with them. You choose where they're going to operate, and then you gotta have a place to hide them. HIMARS must be well hidden, then it moves to a peculiar place and this erstwhile there is simply a gap in the reflection from the Russian side. So we have a gap in observation, we don't have Russian drones over our heads, our drones are flying, we request to turn on electronic drone protection to shoot down enemy drones, we request to make certain they don't fly Russian satellites and another means of observation. All this has to work together. Ukraine is incapable to do this. She's not capable of that. specified a peculiar coordination centre somewhere in Europe does all this for Ukrainians. It is there that they admit the window of chance and inform you that you can pull the HIMARS from hiding and decision to selected locations from which the attack can be carried out, while at the same time ensuring safety and the ability to rapidly retreat the strategy to a new, previously selected, hiding location. Under these circumstances, there is no time to leave decisions to the Ukrainians on circumstantial objectives. A decision on the objectives shall be taken at the operational centre. specified a decision shall require prior reprogramming of the system. Thus, the mark of the attack is chosen by the US or approved by the US. If Ukrainians say they want to hit a circumstantial target, the U.S.'s political decision is that it will not disturb Ukraine in attacking targets in Donbass territory due to the fact that it is Ukrainian territory, not Russian territory. In this case, Ukrainians do not even accurately describe the objectives by simply saying "in this area we want to hit". For Americans, the most crucial is the scope of the attack, as on this basis they make the HIMARS operating space. They must not neglect to know where the mark is, due to the fact that then they could not plan on where HIMARS might operate. All of this is done by the United States. That's how they control the systems. Ukrainians shoot and then retreat HIMARS to a location to be safe. They then observe the Russian consequence and relocate the HIMARS to another location to keep them moving continuously. any sources say Elon Musk gave the Ukrainians the Starlink satellite system, but others claim that this strategy can no longer be relied on. Next case. Conflict with the muslim State, Iraq and Syria. The U.S. has decided to minimize the U.S. military's engagement in land activities. We provided support to Iraqis and Syrian Kurds so they could fight ISIS. On the ground, we had peculiar operations personnel like SEALS, Delta Force, etc. They were equipped with tablets and received data from the operating centers and then these tablets communicated with the recipients. For Iraqis it was not a very efficient strategy – the problem was the translation of goals and coordinates. Therefore, these tablets were given to Iraqis who could now communicate straight with intelligence and peculiar forces. These tablets were besides given to Kurdom. So now we have a strategy where our peculiar forces can train the host nation or our partners to usage these tablets, and then our peculiar forces can give them direct support, utilizing intelligence from the operations centers and then they have their professionals. This is what is happening in Ukraine today. Ukrainian forces at tactical and operational level usage this road to straight interact with American peculiar forces and US peculiar teams that are acquainted with the capabilities of Ukrainian forces utilizing U.S. intelligence data to realize and realize the conditions of the battlefield and Russian capabilities, and assist Ukrainian forces in directing fire on Russian positions, in Ukrainian military maneuvers, in detecting gaps in Russian defense, in tracking Russian progress, helping Ukrainian forces to avoid traps. It's all happening today. individual might say that America is simply a organization to this conflict. The answer is yes, it is!

– Does this besides mean work for war crimes in Ukraine?

– I believe that the U.S. has cognition of the objectives due to the fact that we are committed to a decision-making process that leads to the pull of the trigger and the firing that hurts civilian targets. And even though it's the Ukrainian finger that's pushing the trigger and it's the Ukrainians that's charging the ammunition, we just made it happen. It wouldn't have happened without us. That's why we're war criminals. I believe that any American who participates in this may be exposed to the charge of war crimes, bearing in mind, of course, that the United States does not recognise any court that has specified jurisdiction, so we will never be charged with war crimes.

- Yeah. Moving on. You mentioned the mistakes of the Russian side made in the last year. I'd like to ask about 2 of them. possibly you don't think they're a mistake, but I'll ask. The first question concerns the possibility, due to the fact that we ask ourselves why Russia is not trying to destruct the channels which are delivered to Ukraine by arms from the territory of Poland, by, I do not know, occupying the western regions of Ukraine through which the supply corridor from Poland passes. As you know, Hungary has rejected the thought of transferring weapons to Ukraine, Slovakia distances itself more or little from this idea, but Poland is the main metastatic point. So why is Russia not trying to destruct the infrastructure or someway take control of the western regions of Ukraine?

We gotta perceive to people first. Let us callback what Vladimir Putin said in 2014, erstwhile the Russians, along with the Donetsk militia, surrounded 10-15 1000 Ukrainian soldiers who could have been massacred, destroyed and Donbas would have been free. Instead, Putin decided to negociate due to the fact that he believed in the anticipation of peace. Last year he stated that it was 1 of his terrible mistakes, that he should never trust the West. He should have ended the case then so he wouldn't have a problem today. But he did not take specified a position until late 2022. I believe that the doctrine of trying to get to peace has affected peculiar Military Operations. If we look at the first phase of this operation, the Russian forces pushed westward, but did not destruct anything to make the Ukrainians realize that it was not about destroying them, but about sitting at the negotiating table to end this conflict as shortly as possible, which would mean the Ukrainians' behaviour capable of functioning a national state. What do you do first erstwhile you go to war with a country? I'll tell you what we do in America. First, we destruct the authorities of the country. We don't call it an assassination, but we kill them, we make them halt functioning as authorities. We're always trying to destruct the ruling group, everyone, due to the fact that that's what you do in a war. Russia did not due to the fact that it did not wage war. Russia led a peculiar Military Operation, conceived as something that would accomplish a peaceful solution. We know it's true, due to the fact that Russia had specified a paper prepared in Istanbul. It's NATO, Boris Johnson, it's gone. If that's what I'm talking about, I'm pointing out that it wasn't Russia's intention to go to war with Ukraine or NATO, due to the fact that if we're going to war, we're destroying all bridges, infrastructure, etc. They didn't do it. erstwhile did that change? Why did this change happen in Russians towards war categories erstwhile it turned out that the West was not curious in a peaceful solution? Why did the change in the Russians' perception of the conflict towards the request to free Donbas, especially after May 2022, not origin the bombing of communication lines and infrastructure? There are 2 reasons. The first was that they inactive did not want to war on Ukraine, but at this point they only wanted to liberate Donbas. The second is that Putin was incorrect about the West again. Vladimir Putin is not an absolute ruler. As the election wins, erstwhile 54%, erstwhile 63% of the vote, not 99%, specified as Hussein. This is due to the fact that Russia is simply a democracy, of course imperfect, but many of these imperfections stem from the attempts of the West to interfere in the election and usage of the opposition to make a fresh Jelcin in person, e.g. Navalny, Niemcow, or people of this type, as allegedly a actual Russian opposition. But here's another issue. Putin was aware of respective problems. Firstly, that a serious part of the Russian electorate, 20-30% was economically linked to the West and to specified an degree that if Putin wanted to break Russia's ties with the West, it would mean the alienation of 20-30% of the Russian population. And if Putin wins the election by 54 to 63%, then if he loses 20-30% of the electorate, he loses the election. He is aware of it. The Russians were not as certain as I was about sanctions. I guessed right, but it was just a guess. I've made an assessment that concludes that Russia will last sanctions and that sanctions alone will destruct the West. I was right, but it was an analyst's assessment from distant sites, which he just guessed in a fewer places. What happened in Putin’s immediate vicinity? There, in his interior circle, there was no certainty at a akin level. They were very afraid about sanctions, they thought Russia's economy would shrink by 25%. That would be devastating. You can ask your countrymen how they would respond to a akin decrease in the value of the Polish economy. The West had long announced sanctions, so Russia could anticipate them and prepare for them earlier. And remember, this war was never popular with the Russians, especially at the beginning erstwhile it was a war with Ukraine. The Russians said "we do not want to go to war with Ukraine". After the plan to bring about a peaceful solution failed, the Russians remained with this prolonged military run and had to someway sale the nation this war. That's why Putin couldn't escalate the conflict at this point, due to the fact that it would origin interior problems. He started this war with forces in peace states, did not declare mobilization. The usage of the military in peace states meant that they were forces insufficient to the task they had been given. We saw this erstwhile NATO pumped tens of billions of dollars into Ukraine's armed forces in the form of equipment. Ukrainians rebuilt an army that had previously been destroyed by Russians and could take offensive action in Kharkov and on the right flank of the Kherson region. In fact, it gave Putin an excuse to turn peculiar Military Operations into something akin to war. But this transformation wasn't automatic. The situation, however, gave him the chance to say to the Russians: "We are not fighting Ukraine, we are fighting the collective West, NATO is fighting us, and for us it is simply a conflict for survival, for our existence." And that's erstwhile the Russians started to thin toward that kind of setting. They said, “We agree with you on this.” And now Putin is more assured in his support. erstwhile it comes to economics, it's inactive a serious problem. His people in September / October last year were convinced that Russia would recover. They shortly saw that the economy shrank by only 1.2% and stated that the next year would be an increase. In the budget it turned out that even despite sanctions and war, there is not only no deficit, but there is simply a surplus. 2 fundamental concerns were economical issues that could have caused interior unrest and a war that could have caused akin unrest if the Russians had not been convinced of it. These concerns are in the past. The economy – the war economy – is strong and the Russians are definitely behind Putin. And last thing – mobilization. Russia entered into this conflict with forces that were modified on an ongoing basis. Russia departed from the classical russian tactical unions, specified as the regiment or division, to the benefit of smaller tactical groups built for circumstantial tasks specified as the earlier Chechnya War. Russia entered into conflict in Ukraine with 4 specified groups that were not prepared – especially after joining the NATO War – to carry out their tasks. To adapt to these conditions, Russia needed pauses, hence withdrawing from any territories, e.g. from the Kharkiv area, strengthening and strengthening the defence line, mobilising 300,000, of which 80,000 were immediately transferred to the front line, freeing troops which were not trained as battalion tactical groups, but as battalions operating as regimental parts, and those operating as divisional parts. The fresh Russian military is organized to optimise his ability to fight classical European armies. It gives you more confidence. Looking at the situation present erstwhile Putin reorganises command, staff and now has an army large adequate to carry out the task of destroying Ukrainian troops and organized to defeat NATO, if necessary, in a conventional land clash. It has an economy that is increasing and a nation that is definitely behind it, not like the irresponsible U.S. throating “US, US, US”, but in a truly Russian style. I frequently mention the books of American author Rick Atkinson, his trilogy about the American Army during planet War II, who writes about the changes that took place in this army, a typical army from the draft that did not work best in North Africa. At that time, her command was changed – a prominent figure became Gen. George Patton, who, after the conflict of Kasserine Pass in Tunisia, took command of the Second Corps of the US Army and made organizational changes and later took command of the 3rd Army. Soldiers did not show enthusiasm for this war, although present there is so much talk about their patriotism. Somewhere in 1943, they realized that this war was real, and the only way home was to kill Nazis. And it was these soldiers from the draft that became 1 of the most dangerous that the planet had seen, given only one—the killing and demolition of the Nazis, not due to the fact that they were devoted to an ideology opposed to Nazism, but due to the fact that it was the only way home. present we have 300,000 Russians, who have their families and jobs, who did not want to be in the military, they have already served their country, have given up their time and have now been called back into service. Do you think they're happy about that? They are not, but they will do their work due to the fact that they are Russian patriots. And present they know that the only way to go home is to defeat the Nazis present at the front. And they will, not due to the ridiculous flag of patriotism, but due to who they are – fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, uncles, and any grandparents. They just want to go home to their families. And the only way back home is to beat the Ukrainians and anyone else who gets in their way. You wouldn't want to be an opponent of this Russian army. It's tough men ready to strike with violent force. I am not talking about violations of the law, I am talking about the brutality essential to accomplish the assigned tasks. That's what I think is going to happen now that Putin decides to start the offensive. Then they will cut off everything, destruct bridges, tunnels, railway tracks, no longer save Ukraine for a peaceful solution. This is about the demolition of Ukraine. In the current situation Russia does not have adequate troops to occupy Western Ukraine. NATO will, of course, cowardlyly support the opposition of the Ukrainians by further supplying weapons and equipment. For the Russians, the way to halt this will be to destruct Ukraine as a national state, the fall of Ukraine, so that the Ukrainians come to a political decision that the current leadership is no longer able to represent their best interests, and that they will support a political change that will lead to peace, so that people's lives become more crucial than Stiepan Bandera's ideology. That's the direction the Russians are going now. I believe they have no intention of occupying Western Ukraine. That's my assessment. Of course, on February 24 the Russians can say "you were wrong, we are now occupying Western Ukraine". My assessment is that they don't have adequate human strength and they don't want to do it. It's said that there are 700,000 men capable of service, and that's a lot. Russians can destruct Ukrainian troops, keep crucial parts of Ukraine, but surely not the full Ukraine. I think we will shortly see a strong aviation commitment, the demolition of roads and railway routes, trains carrying combat equipment, logistics points, etc. I think this is precisely the kind of war we're going to have now, due to the fact that Putin is the first time he's politically capable of specified a war. Before that, Russia's political circles were wobbly, for economical reasons, due to concerns about Russian knowing of this war, but now they have 300,000 reservists under arms whose families support this war. The Russians realize and support the thought of sacrifice that is needed to complete this mission. Given all this, I think Putin for the first time has all the green lights to take all the action essential to win this war. This is primarily the demolition of Ukraine, which is the last thing he wanted to do at first.

– You have already partially answered the question about Russia's second mistake. I am a polytologist, which is why I do not have adequate thought of military aspects, but you explained that the Russians' withdrawal from Kharkiv and Kherson after September 2022 was essential from a purely military point of view. But how do you measure the political effects of this move, do you think this will aid convince Ukrainians surviving in liberated territories, as the Russians say, to trust Russian leaders? But this is simply a serious problem. I spoke to Kiriel Striemousov, who was Deputy politician of Chersonia, and later was unfortunately killed in a terrorist attack... The point is that it is very hard to convince people that the Russians will not leave them and leave them to the Ukrainian political police of SBU etc. Do you think there were another options than to retreat from these areas?

– There were 2 Russian retreats. The first took place in late March erstwhile they withdrew from the Kiev and Sum areas. This was not a retreat, but a motion that, as the Russians say, they did not want to conquer or occupy Ukraine, but to accomplish a peaceful solution. But this was taken distant by politicians, by NATO rather differently – that Russia is weak, and this frequently has much more meaning than intentions. And in September, the Russians retreat again. And that was actually the retreat. They had stretched defensive lines they couldn't hold, they didn't want to sacrifice any more men, so they pulled out. Again, the reception was a sign of the Russians' weakness. And people began to wonder if they could number on the Russians, if they would leave we would be at the mercy of the cruel safety forces of Ukraine, who murdered thousands of people, calling them collaborators, etc. Yes, there has been a serious concern in people, especially those in Chersonia and Zaporozh, whether the Russians are here for good. I think a fewer things are about the result of this retreat. On the 1 hand, the fear that the Russians will persecute, destruct and here this perception of Russian weakness allows it. Another issue is the human nature – let us leave military affairs for a while – you are a Ukrainian in Kherson occupied by the Russians. Who's paying your pension? The government of Zelenski or Putin? Who's supplying you with gas, electricity? Who provides medical assistance? Zelenski or Putin? The Russians work like this – there's a war zone, it's hard, but they effort to do everything to supply humanitarian aid, aid a average man, even in threatened zones The Russians temporarily moved people elsewhere and provided basic things – they paid pensions, provided medical care and basic administrative activities. This has had a very affirmative effect on these people. And although there will always be a group that will consider them enemies that the Russians are bad guysI think the Russians started winning for themselves the hearts and minds of average people who started saying that Russians were truly good guysThey don't usage us as surviving shields, they don't shoot at us. It's not a superficial feeling from a reporter's camera, but something that stays in the mind, that they feed us, teach our children, supply gas and electricity, they are good guys. Of course, any indecisiveness was evident during the summertime months, autumn months, and even today. However, I think that the Russians are winning much more, and I effort to read and collect as much data and information as possible, and these data show that the efforts of the Russians towards the populations of occupied areas, above all humanitarian aid and the organisation of everyday life, have resulted in the Russians passing this test and gaining the assurance of these people. I think that at the minute the Russians are doing everything essential to win this war, both military and, most importantly, political. Well, let's see what the future holds.

– 1 last question. It is simply a very strange, but interesting issue that if we in Poland are trying to access the websites of Russian state media, but not only, we can only do so through VPN programs and this via United States (VPN program masks us as entering Russian pages from the US). This shows that there is inactive no censorship in your country, but here, although not only in Poland, which is the leader in censorship, but besides throughout the European Union, where a fresh wave of censorship has emerged, any even talk about totalitarianism etc. What's it like in the United States? You can talk with your independent voice in various American media, you inactive have the right to freedom of expression and to have your own view on the war in Ukraine. Are there any limitations? late I have listened to a number of speeches, for example, by prof. John Mearsheimer, who – as you know – does not go hand in hand with the mainstream of American narrative. Can it be said, then, that differences of opinion can inactive be presented freely in the United States?

– Yes, we have freedom of speech and it is simply a right guaranteed in the Constitution. But this law is under fire. It's not a frontal attack yet, but these attacks are happening. I will give an example that concerns my individual – the U.S. legislature has donated billions of dollars to Ukraine in programs run or controlled by the State Department. 1 of these programmes created the Centre against Disinformation (Center for Countering Disinformation). It is simply a Ukrainian creation, established by the decree of the president of Ukraine, but – it is comic – it is the USA that supports the Center, organizing conferences etc. The center created a alleged black list of people they call Russian propaganda. They call us informational terrorists, war criminals, and call for us to be arrested and brought to justice as war criminals and terrorists. I'm on that list. Thus, despite constitutional guarantees, the U.S. government finances an institution whose intent is, among another things, to destruct freedom of expression. Ukrainians cannot legally come to the U.S. and arrest me, but erstwhile we have a situation where the U.S. government puts the Ukrainian government first, the U.S. media support the government's position, and erstwhile the same media unequivocally solidarity with the Ukrainian case, and you stick to the patch of Russian propaganda, it all has a very crucial impact on your ability to break through with your own message due to the fact that any media that could be open are now closed to you. Is that limiting freedom of speech? Not directly, but indirectly, yes. You know, I've been through this before about Iraq erstwhile I criticized Iraqi US politics. I was named “Iracan propaganda”, and my only responsibility was telling the truth, and as it turned out I was 100% right about weapons of mass destruction. I believe I am presenting a fair assessment of the situation today. I'm not a Russian propagandist, but you know, if you haven't taken advantage of the chance before – and you don't get anything for free – you gotta gain money to get any income, you gotta take advantage of the opportunities that will appear. I am harshly criticized for writing for “Russia Today” and “Sputnik”, or Russian state media. No 1 criticizes me for writing for “American Conservative”, no 1 criticizes me for writing for “Truthdig”. 1 is conservative, the another is liberal, progressive. I compose for both. Editorial control of what and how to compose in both of these titles is incomparably greater than in RT or Sputnik, where, in fact, I have never encountered any editorial interference. I decide what I want to write, I compose it, and they just decide whether they print it or not. They print 90%. They pay me the same rate as “American Conservative” and “Truthdig”. In "American Conservative" I no longer compose due to the fact that I became uncomfortable due to the fact that I compose for "RT" and so I can no longer compose for "AC". A akin situation is in the case of ‘Truthdig’. I live with writing for Russian media. It's no large deal, but it's not that I live only on rice and water. I can afford tuna. And that I compose for them does not affect at all what I compose and how I write. due to the fact that I live in a society that judges me not for what I write, but where I write. I am condemned for where I write, and people pay no attention to the content. I would be much more satisfied if people read my lyrics and said, “You are a hopeless analyst, you know nothing, we reject you.” Okay, that's okay. We live in a planet of competition, or I'll improve or they won't perceive to me. But erstwhile any of the best texts, the analyses that I wrote “RT” and “Sputnik”, people reject, it is not due to the mediocre quality of the analyses, but due to the fact that it is “RT” and “Sputnik”.

And 1 last word. This war will end someday. And at this point, we request to find a way to repair the damaged American-Russian relations, and that will only happen erstwhile we open the door that has been closed. We request to rebuild the bridges that have been blown up. Many people do not realize that my decision to compose for “RT” and “Sputnik” was a strategical decision. due to the fact that I believe that erstwhile I compose for “RT” I not only inform American audiences, but besides influence the message that flows inside Russia. Writing and performing in Russian media, they don't tell me what to say and how to say it. And that way, something after my speech remains, any influence. any will say “why am I talking to the Lord”? due to the fact that I believe that our conversation will be read by people in Poland. Otherwise, they couldn't scope her. And the point is not that most people in Poland will say, "I agree with everything Scott Ritter says." most likely quite a few people will say they disagree. But what we do is initiate dialogue, debate, exchange of thoughts, which is absolutely essential to decision forward in a affirmative sense, not towards war, but towards peace. Writing for “RT”, agreeing to an interview with you, are strategical decisions and all those who want to build a way to the future based on peaceful coexistence must enter into this. People may say “don’t talk to him”, “block it”. But that's the problem, not the solution. The solution is to establish contacts with people and, thank God, “RT” and “Sputnik” make it possible for me to do so due to the fact that it means collecting materials on the bridge to be built.

– For us in Poland it is very crucial to hear all these matters from the Lord. Why? due to the fact that by definition, as an American citizen, you're worth hearing. The point is that the attitude of the average Pole, even the policy, is that if the issues that you presented were not heard by a man from Russia, or from any another country, he would not be heard. You have the advantage of being an American citizen. Thank you for this conversation and I hope to continue, due to the fact that there are many topics to discuss, and the situation around us is very dynamic.

Thank you. It was an honor and an honor to talk to you. If you think it was a valuable experience, I'd be happy to repeat it.

Matthew Piskorski spoke

Translation Adam Laughter and Matthew Piskorski

Scott Ritter (born 1961 in Gainesville) is an American military analyst, erstwhile U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, UN peculiar Commission Inspector (UNSCOM) on Disarmament, Publicist, author of respective book publications, post-missile and mediate East specialist.