Інсайдер ЗСУ
Новини UA | Україна
Главное новостное. Одесса
Реальна Війна
NOTMEME Agent News
І.ШО? | Новини
Труха⚡️Жесть 18+
Адвокат Права
Україна | Новини
Інсайдер ЗСУ
Новини UA | Україна
Главное новостное. Одесса
Реальна Війна
NOTMEME Agent News
І.ШО? | Новини
Труха⚡️Жесть 18+
Адвокат Права
Україна | Новини
Інсайдер ЗСУ
Новини UA | Україна
Главное новостное. Одесса
Scott Ritter
An experienced military and geopolitical analyst with a proven track record of accuracy and integrity.
Contact [admin] @n13cwg
Q&A @Ritter_Feedback_Bot
The Russia House with Scott Ritter https://t.me/tribute/app?startapp=smnz
Contact [admin] @n13cwg
Q&A @Ritter_Feedback_Bot
The Russia House with Scott Ritter https://t.me/tribute/app?startapp=smnz
Рэйтынг TGlist
0
0
ТыпПублічны
Вертыфікацыя
Не вертыфікаваныНадзейнасць
Не надзейныРазмяшчэннеРосія
МоваІншая
Дата стварэння каналаJan 29, 2021
Дадана ў TGlist
Sep 17, 2023Прыкрепленая група
Scott Ritter Chat
2.5K
Рэкорды
28.11.202423:59
98.5KПадпісчыкаў02.02.202523:22
3300Індэкс цытавання10.05.202423:29
22.3KАхоп 1 паста02.10.202423:59
21.9KАхоп рэкламнага паста27.09.202423:59
28.36%ER02.10.202423:59
22.74%ERR
05.04.202506:02
It’s a tribal gathering.
If you took the time to truly “know your enemy”, you’d realize you just murdered a bunch of innocent civilians.
Instead you rely on ignorant drone operators who are under pressure to produce results because the truth is your air campaign hasn’t done anything to stop Houthi missile strikes against shipping or Israel.
Kids who don’t understand the culture of the people you have ordered them to kill.
Congratulations.
You’re no better than Obama.
And that’s a low bar.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
If you took the time to truly “know your enemy”, you’d realize you just murdered a bunch of innocent civilians.
Instead you rely on ignorant drone operators who are under pressure to produce results because the truth is your air campaign hasn’t done anything to stop Houthi missile strikes against shipping or Israel.
Kids who don’t understand the culture of the people you have ordered them to kill.
Congratulations.
You’re no better than Obama.
And that’s a low bar.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
18.03.202504:36
And, in one night of narcissistic megalomania, Donald Trump gave up the title peacemaker, exchanging it for warmonger, and put himself on the path of becoming America’s greatest loser.
America can’t be “great again” when the price of oil shoots through the roof.
And starting a war with Iran will go down in history as one of the worst self-inflicted wounds an American President ever committed.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
America can’t be “great again” when the price of oil shoots through the roof.
And starting a war with Iran will go down in history as one of the worst self-inflicted wounds an American President ever committed.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
01.04.202510:51
I’m always struck by the ignorance of the digital mob.
Especially those who claim to have “supported me all these years” and suddenly take umbrage over my assiduous insistence on adherence to international law by all parties.
If you truly knew me you’d know I cut my teeth on treaty compliance verification implementing the INF treaty.
Where I was deeply involved in a crisis that hinged on treaty interpretation that ultimately showed the Soviets were correct.
Yes, that meant that I and others argued against the official US position because the treaty which we were bound to argued the opposite.
You’d know that while I articulated sympathies with the Iraqi stance against Kuwait, I waged war against Iraq because the United Nations passed a Chapter VII resolution authorizing the use of military force because Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait.
You’d know that while I agreed with the Iraqi complaint that even if they complied with UN demands to disarm (another Chapter VII resolution) sanctions would not be lifted, I was unyielding in implementing the disarmament mandate to the full extent required by international law.
You’d know that my stance against the war against Iraq was grounded in the fact that Iraq had complied with its disarmament obligations, and the US case was premised on a lie.
But that if Iraq was, in fact, non-compliant, then I believed military action would have been justified.
If you truly knew me, you’d know that my position has always been strict adherence to treaty obligations.
And that my interpretation of Iran’s compliance status is consistent under the NPT.
But you don’t know me.
You only pretend to.
And you know nothing of international law.
You are the digital mob. Charlatans all.
I’ve never said military action by the US is justified.
So don’t put words in my mouth.
In order for any military action against Iran to be justified you would either need Iran to attack another nation, triggering Article 51 of the UN Charter, or the UN Security Council would need pass a resolution under Chapter VII authorizing military force to resolve a clearly articulated threat.
An argument under preemptive self defense likewise fails because there is no imminent threat; even the emergence of a dedicated nuclear weapons program in Iran would not justify unilateral military action since there would be an opportunity to resolve the emerging threat through the United Nations.
So there are no existing circumstances that would justify and/or legitimize military action against Iran by the United States.
But that’s not the point.
Trump is on track to attack Iran.
This is reality. A reality I don’t support. A reality I condemn.
And a reality I am trying to avert.
Trump has articulated his case against Iran as being centered on Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons.
So my focus has been on how best to craft a pathway to peace.
One premised on Iran’s adherence to the letter and intent of the NPT.
You can disagree with my approach.
But don’t ever say that I am justifying a military strike by the US against Iran.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
Especially those who claim to have “supported me all these years” and suddenly take umbrage over my assiduous insistence on adherence to international law by all parties.
If you truly knew me you’d know I cut my teeth on treaty compliance verification implementing the INF treaty.
Where I was deeply involved in a crisis that hinged on treaty interpretation that ultimately showed the Soviets were correct.
Yes, that meant that I and others argued against the official US position because the treaty which we were bound to argued the opposite.
You’d know that while I articulated sympathies with the Iraqi stance against Kuwait, I waged war against Iraq because the United Nations passed a Chapter VII resolution authorizing the use of military force because Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait.
You’d know that while I agreed with the Iraqi complaint that even if they complied with UN demands to disarm (another Chapter VII resolution) sanctions would not be lifted, I was unyielding in implementing the disarmament mandate to the full extent required by international law.
You’d know that my stance against the war against Iraq was grounded in the fact that Iraq had complied with its disarmament obligations, and the US case was premised on a lie.
But that if Iraq was, in fact, non-compliant, then I believed military action would have been justified.
If you truly knew me, you’d know that my position has always been strict adherence to treaty obligations.
And that my interpretation of Iran’s compliance status is consistent under the NPT.
But you don’t know me.
You only pretend to.
And you know nothing of international law.
You are the digital mob. Charlatans all.
I’ve never said military action by the US is justified.
So don’t put words in my mouth.
In order for any military action against Iran to be justified you would either need Iran to attack another nation, triggering Article 51 of the UN Charter, or the UN Security Council would need pass a resolution under Chapter VII authorizing military force to resolve a clearly articulated threat.
An argument under preemptive self defense likewise fails because there is no imminent threat; even the emergence of a dedicated nuclear weapons program in Iran would not justify unilateral military action since there would be an opportunity to resolve the emerging threat through the United Nations.
So there are no existing circumstances that would justify and/or legitimize military action against Iran by the United States.
But that’s not the point.
Trump is on track to attack Iran.
This is reality. A reality I don’t support. A reality I condemn.
And a reality I am trying to avert.
Trump has articulated his case against Iran as being centered on Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons.
So my focus has been on how best to craft a pathway to peace.
One premised on Iran’s adherence to the letter and intent of the NPT.
You can disagree with my approach.
But don’t ever say that I am justifying a military strike by the US against Iran.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
23.03.202508:41
Let’s make this as clear as possible:
Iran is a signatory to the NPT.
It has been since 1970.
Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Iran has said it is not seeking nuclear weapons.
Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a religious edict prohibiting Iran from having nuclear weapons.
So everyone should be in agreement:
Iran is committed to adhering to a treaty obligation which prohibits it from having nuclear weapons.
There is no clause that provides an exception to this obligation because Israel has nuclear weapons.
Not even Iran makes that argument.
Last year a succession of Iranian leaders made statements which, when viewed in totality, call into question Iran’s intent when it comes to nuclear weapons.
In February 2024 Ali Akbar Salehi, a former leader of Tehran's nuclear program, said that Iran possesses all the necessary components for a nuclear weapon.
In April 2024 Ahmad Haghtalab, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander who serves as the head of security for Iran’s nuclear sites declared “It is possible and conceivable to revise the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear doctrine and policies to deviate from previously declared considerations.”
And in October 2024 nearly 40 members of parliament sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, its top security policymaking body, requesting that the council revise the defense doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran to permit development of nuclear weapons.
Statements such as these have prompted President Trump to make the denuclearization of Iran a top priority.
Trump recently sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme leader in which a stark choice was offered: negotiate or go to war.
Iran has indicated any attack against its nuclear facilities would likely cause them to change their nuclear doctrine.
It is believed Iran could rapidly move to build a believable nuclear weapon within a few weeks once the decision was made.
It is believed Iran’s critical nuclear infrastructure is buried deep underground.
So deep no conventional munitions could destroy them.
If Trump were to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with conventional munitions that failed to achieve their objective of destruction, an Iranian nuclear weapon would be all but assured.
This is why Trump ordered the US nuclear posture and employment plans to be altered so that low-yield nuclear weapons possessing the ability to destroy underground facilities such as those housing Iran’s nuclear program would be developed and deployed.
Today the US has two nuclear weapons specifically fielded for this purpose: the B61-12 gravity bomb and the W-76-2 low yield nuclear warhead for use on the Trident submarine launched missile.
Both weapons are operational and deployed where they could readily be used against Iran.
If Trump were to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with the goal of guaranteeing its destruction, he would have to use nuclear weapons preemptively.
This fits in with both the nuclear posture and implementation plan Trump signed off on which Iran specifically in mind.
There are those who say that by making this assessment, I am advocating for a nuclear strike on Iran by the US.
This simply isn’t true.
I’m providing an assessment, not soliciting in favor of war.
A war with Iran would be a disaster.
A nuclear attack on Iran by the US would be catastrophic.
I am firmly against both.
But that won’t stop me from providing the most accurate analysis of what I believe is actually happening today regarding Iran, whether I support such policies or not.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
Iran is a signatory to the NPT.
It has been since 1970.
Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Iran has said it is not seeking nuclear weapons.
Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a religious edict prohibiting Iran from having nuclear weapons.
So everyone should be in agreement:
Iran is committed to adhering to a treaty obligation which prohibits it from having nuclear weapons.
There is no clause that provides an exception to this obligation because Israel has nuclear weapons.
Not even Iran makes that argument.
Last year a succession of Iranian leaders made statements which, when viewed in totality, call into question Iran’s intent when it comes to nuclear weapons.
In February 2024 Ali Akbar Salehi, a former leader of Tehran's nuclear program, said that Iran possesses all the necessary components for a nuclear weapon.
In April 2024 Ahmad Haghtalab, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander who serves as the head of security for Iran’s nuclear sites declared “It is possible and conceivable to revise the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear doctrine and policies to deviate from previously declared considerations.”
And in October 2024 nearly 40 members of parliament sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, its top security policymaking body, requesting that the council revise the defense doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran to permit development of nuclear weapons.
Statements such as these have prompted President Trump to make the denuclearization of Iran a top priority.
Trump recently sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme leader in which a stark choice was offered: negotiate or go to war.
Iran has indicated any attack against its nuclear facilities would likely cause them to change their nuclear doctrine.
It is believed Iran could rapidly move to build a believable nuclear weapon within a few weeks once the decision was made.
It is believed Iran’s critical nuclear infrastructure is buried deep underground.
So deep no conventional munitions could destroy them.
If Trump were to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with conventional munitions that failed to achieve their objective of destruction, an Iranian nuclear weapon would be all but assured.
This is why Trump ordered the US nuclear posture and employment plans to be altered so that low-yield nuclear weapons possessing the ability to destroy underground facilities such as those housing Iran’s nuclear program would be developed and deployed.
Today the US has two nuclear weapons specifically fielded for this purpose: the B61-12 gravity bomb and the W-76-2 low yield nuclear warhead for use on the Trident submarine launched missile.
Both weapons are operational and deployed where they could readily be used against Iran.
If Trump were to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with the goal of guaranteeing its destruction, he would have to use nuclear weapons preemptively.
This fits in with both the nuclear posture and implementation plan Trump signed off on which Iran specifically in mind.
There are those who say that by making this assessment, I am advocating for a nuclear strike on Iran by the US.
This simply isn’t true.
I’m providing an assessment, not soliciting in favor of war.
A war with Iran would be a disaster.
A nuclear attack on Iran by the US would be catastrophic.
I am firmly against both.
But that won’t stop me from providing the most accurate analysis of what I believe is actually happening today regarding Iran, whether I support such policies or not.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
07.04.202520:48
For weeks I have been advocating for a negotiated settlement to the crisis that has brought the US and Iran on the brink of war.
I have assiduously detailed the nature of the threat perceived by the US that, if unresolved, would necessitate military action, as exclusively revolving around Iran’s nuclear program and, more specifically, that capacity that is excess to its declared peaceful program and, as such, conducive to a nuclear weapons program Iran has admitted is on the threshold of being actualized.
In short, I have argued, the most realistic path forward regarding conflict avoidance would be for Iran to negotiate in good faith regarding the verifiable disposition of its excess nuclear enrichment capability.
Even when Trump alienated Iran with his “maximum pressure” tactics, including an insulting letter to the Supreme Leader that all but eliminated the possibility of direct negotiations between the US and Iran, my stance remained unchanged: this crisis could only be resolved through negotiation, and that if Trump took direct negotiations off the table, then Russia and/or China would have to step up and nail down a settlement through third party talks.
For opting to promote a reality-based process that provided the only viable path toward peace, I was viciously attacked and ridiculed by both the digital mob, comprised of new age philosophers, self-styled “peace activists”, and a troll class that opposes anything and everything it doesn’t understand (which is most factually-grounded argument), as well as people I had viewed as fellow travelers on a larger journey of conflict avoidance—podcasters, experts and pundits who did more than simply disagree with me (which is, of course, their right and duty as independent thinkers), traversing into the realm of insults and attacks against my intelligence, integrity and character.
Today we see the following:
Trump has softened his stance on Iran, narrowing his focus to exclusively nuclear issues—as I had predicted.
Iran has agreed to third party negotiations—as I predicted, and both Russia and China will be meeting with Iran in the coming days to discuss its nuclear program—as I predicted.
The Director-General of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, has announced he may be heading to Iran shortly to discuss Iran’s nuclear program—as I predicted.
The US-Iran crisis is grounded in the complexities, niceties and formalities of international law as set forth in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), which Iran signed in 1970 as a non-nuclear weapons state.
The NPT will be at the center of any negotiated settlement.
Those who dismissed the NPT and belittled the role of international law simply underscored their ignorance of the reality that surrounds Iran’s nuclear program.
While Israel may have exaggerated Iran’s nuclear capabilities over the years, and goaded the US to attack Iran because of the alleged threat posed by its nuclear program, the fact remains that this crisis has been triggered by the very capabilities Iran admits to having—stocks of 60% enriched uranium with no link to Iran’s declared peaceful program, and excessive advanced centrifuge-based enrichment capability which leaves Iran days away from possessing sufficient weapons grade high enriched uranium to produce 3-5 nuclear weapons.
This crisis isn’t about Israel or Israel’s own undeclared nuclear weapons capability.
It is about Iran’s self-declared status as a threshold nuclear weapons state, something prohibited by the NPT.
This is what the negotiations will focus on.
And hopefully these negotiations will permit the verifiable dismantling of those aspects of its nuclear program the US (and Israel) find to present an existential threat.
Peace is not guaranteed.
But war is unless common sense and fact-based logic wins out over the self-important ignorance of the digital mob and their facilitators.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
I have assiduously detailed the nature of the threat perceived by the US that, if unresolved, would necessitate military action, as exclusively revolving around Iran’s nuclear program and, more specifically, that capacity that is excess to its declared peaceful program and, as such, conducive to a nuclear weapons program Iran has admitted is on the threshold of being actualized.
In short, I have argued, the most realistic path forward regarding conflict avoidance would be for Iran to negotiate in good faith regarding the verifiable disposition of its excess nuclear enrichment capability.
Even when Trump alienated Iran with his “maximum pressure” tactics, including an insulting letter to the Supreme Leader that all but eliminated the possibility of direct negotiations between the US and Iran, my stance remained unchanged: this crisis could only be resolved through negotiation, and that if Trump took direct negotiations off the table, then Russia and/or China would have to step up and nail down a settlement through third party talks.
For opting to promote a reality-based process that provided the only viable path toward peace, I was viciously attacked and ridiculed by both the digital mob, comprised of new age philosophers, self-styled “peace activists”, and a troll class that opposes anything and everything it doesn’t understand (which is most factually-grounded argument), as well as people I had viewed as fellow travelers on a larger journey of conflict avoidance—podcasters, experts and pundits who did more than simply disagree with me (which is, of course, their right and duty as independent thinkers), traversing into the realm of insults and attacks against my intelligence, integrity and character.
Today we see the following:
Trump has softened his stance on Iran, narrowing his focus to exclusively nuclear issues—as I had predicted.
Iran has agreed to third party negotiations—as I predicted, and both Russia and China will be meeting with Iran in the coming days to discuss its nuclear program—as I predicted.
The Director-General of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, has announced he may be heading to Iran shortly to discuss Iran’s nuclear program—as I predicted.
The US-Iran crisis is grounded in the complexities, niceties and formalities of international law as set forth in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), which Iran signed in 1970 as a non-nuclear weapons state.
The NPT will be at the center of any negotiated settlement.
Those who dismissed the NPT and belittled the role of international law simply underscored their ignorance of the reality that surrounds Iran’s nuclear program.
While Israel may have exaggerated Iran’s nuclear capabilities over the years, and goaded the US to attack Iran because of the alleged threat posed by its nuclear program, the fact remains that this crisis has been triggered by the very capabilities Iran admits to having—stocks of 60% enriched uranium with no link to Iran’s declared peaceful program, and excessive advanced centrifuge-based enrichment capability which leaves Iran days away from possessing sufficient weapons grade high enriched uranium to produce 3-5 nuclear weapons.
This crisis isn’t about Israel or Israel’s own undeclared nuclear weapons capability.
It is about Iran’s self-declared status as a threshold nuclear weapons state, something prohibited by the NPT.
This is what the negotiations will focus on.
And hopefully these negotiations will permit the verifiable dismantling of those aspects of its nuclear program the US (and Israel) find to present an existential threat.
Peace is not guaranteed.
But war is unless common sense and fact-based logic wins out over the self-important ignorance of the digital mob and their facilitators.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
08.03.202502:48
09.03.202511:15
I have been interviewed by Faina Savenkova several times. She is a remarkable young lady whose courage is manifest. She has been marked for death by Ukraine for simply telling the truth. Here she is appeals to JD Vance to use the influence of the US government to shut down this hit list.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
09.03.202506:17
A couple observations:
The war in Ukraine is a proxy war between the US and NATO, using Ukraine as the primary (but not exclusive) source of manpower) and Russia.
The role of command and control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) is paramount. The lethality of each side is directly linked to their ability to find and fix their opponents, communicate this data back to forces capable of employing the appropriate firepower, and to maneuver and sustain their forces in support.
Ukraine is completely dependent upon the US and NATO for their C3I. With it, their armed forces are lethal. Without it, their armed forces cannot survive.
Even with the full capacity of US and NATO C3I being employed in support of the Ukrainian proxy, Russia was able to achieve and sustain battlefield dominance across the entire spectrum of conflict.
This should be a lesson to those in Europe proposing a direct clash between NATO and Russia.
The rapid collapse of the Ukrainian position that is taking place now is directly do to the collapse of combat lethality and capability when denied quality combat intelligence, and the degradation in command and control when effective communications is disrupted.
It has been assessed by many observers, myself included, that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict would have ended long ago if it weren’t for the intervention of the US and NATO.
The accuracy of this assessment is being played out today on the Ukrainian battlefield.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter
The war in Ukraine is a proxy war between the US and NATO, using Ukraine as the primary (but not exclusive) source of manpower) and Russia.
The role of command and control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) is paramount. The lethality of each side is directly linked to their ability to find and fix their opponents, communicate this data back to forces capable of employing the appropriate firepower, and to maneuver and sustain their forces in support.
Ukraine is completely dependent upon the US and NATO for their C3I. With it, their armed forces are lethal. Without it, their armed forces cannot survive.
Even with the full capacity of US and NATO C3I being employed in support of the Ukrainian proxy, Russia was able to achieve and sustain battlefield dominance across the entire spectrum of conflict.
This should be a lesson to those in Europe proposing a direct clash between NATO and Russia.
The rapid collapse of the Ukrainian position that is taking place now is directly do to the collapse of combat lethality and capability when denied quality combat intelligence, and the degradation in command and control when effective communications is disrupted.
It has been assessed by many observers, myself included, that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict would have ended long ago if it weren’t for the intervention of the US and NATO.
The accuracy of this assessment is being played out today on the Ukrainian battlefield.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter
09.03.202510:47
Maybe because we’re no longer propping up a corrupt regime whose foundational principles are premised on an ideology grounded in the same racial supremacy theories that defined Nazi Germany?
On March 5, 1950, Soviet security forces killed Roman Shukhyevich, a western Ukrainian nationalist who literally served side by side with Nazis murdering Jews and Soviet citizens in Belarus and Ukraine.
Today the Ukrainian government celebrates this criminal as a hero.
This is who you support, General.
And this is why all true Americans support policies that not only disassociate ourselves from this sickness, but will result in the defeat and eradication of this odious ideology.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
On March 5, 1950, Soviet security forces killed Roman Shukhyevich, a western Ukrainian nationalist who literally served side by side with Nazis murdering Jews and Soviet citizens in Belarus and Ukraine.
Today the Ukrainian government celebrates this criminal as a hero.
This is who you support, General.
And this is why all true Americans support policies that not only disassociate ourselves from this sickness, but will result in the defeat and eradication of this odious ideology.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
11.03.202506:55
PERFIDIOUS ALBION
When it comes to the so-called “Ukraine Project”—the unofficial term used to describe the decades-old undertaking on the part of the United States and its erstwhile European allies, led by the UK and France, to use Ukraine as a vehicle to undermine, contain, and—ultimately—destroy Russia, uninformed observers are often distracted by the intellectual misdirection that the perpetrators of this project undertake which turns logic upside down by portraying Russia as a fake nation led by a brutal autocrat out to conquer Europe, and Ukraine as an enlightened collection of quasi-Europeans who not only share the same values as their western brethren, but are willing to serve as the shield that protects Europe from the scourge of the Muscovite hordes.
The “Ukraine Project” is comprised, at its core, of a fundamental lie—the existence of a viable nation state called Ukraine.
Read more CLICK HERE
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
When it comes to the so-called “Ukraine Project”—the unofficial term used to describe the decades-old undertaking on the part of the United States and its erstwhile European allies, led by the UK and France, to use Ukraine as a vehicle to undermine, contain, and—ultimately—destroy Russia, uninformed observers are often distracted by the intellectual misdirection that the perpetrators of this project undertake which turns logic upside down by portraying Russia as a fake nation led by a brutal autocrat out to conquer Europe, and Ukraine as an enlightened collection of quasi-Europeans who not only share the same values as their western brethren, but are willing to serve as the shield that protects Europe from the scourge of the Muscovite hordes.
The “Ukraine Project” is comprised, at its core, of a fundamental lie—the existence of a viable nation state called Ukraine.
Read more CLICK HERE
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
19.03.202518:42
THIS IS REAL DIALOGUE THAT HASN'T TAKEN PLACE FOR SOME TIME NOW
No previous American administration, especially the Biden administration, had been willing to engage Russia to the level that the Trump administration is engaging Russia… This is about reengaging diplomatically. This is about normalizing relations. This is real dialogue that has not taken place for some time now.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
No previous American administration, especially the Biden administration, had been willing to engage Russia to the level that the Trump administration is engaging Russia… This is about reengaging diplomatically. This is about normalizing relations. This is real dialogue that has not taken place for some time now.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
07.04.202505:57
I have great news for you!
The book "Highway to Hell: The Armageddon Chronicles, 2015-2024" has been published, chronicling the biggest existential issue facing humanity: the threat of nuclear conflict.
Critical thinking about the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, the necessity of arms control, and the consequences of nuclear war has never been more urgently needed. "Highway to Hell: The Armageddon Chronicles, 2015-2024" affords the reader a comprehensive insight into these critical issues as they were unfolding, free of the circumspection and narrative management of conventional histories.
The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
The book "Highway to Hell: The Armageddon Chronicles, 2015-2024" has been published, chronicling the biggest existential issue facing humanity: the threat of nuclear conflict.
Critical thinking about the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, the necessity of arms control, and the consequences of nuclear war has never been more urgently needed. "Highway to Hell: The Armageddon Chronicles, 2015-2024" affords the reader a comprehensive insight into these critical issues as they were unfolding, free of the circumspection and narrative management of conventional histories.
The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
03.04.202517:35
MI6 AGENT ZELENSKY? WHO CONTROLS THE UKRAINE ARMY?
Interview for Garland Nixon
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
Interview for Garland Nixon
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
23.03.202511:45
In the fall of 1992, when I was a weapons inspector in Iraq, we had hit an impasse with Iraq.
I had just finished a nine-month inspection campaign designed to account for Iraq’s SCUD missiles.
Iraq had initially lied in its declaration and tried to hold onto 100 missiles.
I helped expose the lie, then compel Iraq to tell the truth.
This meant carrying out inspections backed by the threat of military force.
In the end, Iraq told the truth, and we inspectors were able to verify this fact.
The Security Council had just passed a new resolution requiring Iraq to subject to the permanent monitoring of its dual-use facilities—pretty much any facility that could be used to help produce weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq refused, claiming that sanctions needed to be lifted first.
I was eating lunch with my Iraqi counterparts.
They made the point that there was no reason to cooperate since the US refused to lift sanctions until Saddam was gone.
I said that the law was clear—Iraq had to agree to monitoring inspections.
They replied such inspections would be tantamount to spying.
I sketched out a proposal on a piece of paper. Instead of having inspections like the ones I led come to Iraq every few weeks, why not allow an inspection team to carry out a three month survey of Iraq’s missile production capabilities, jointly with Iraq, and develop joint monitoring standards acceptable to both parties?
The Iraqi leadership accepted this, and thus began the interim monitoring program, which helped get Iraq to accept long term monitoring inspections and prevented a war.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
I had just finished a nine-month inspection campaign designed to account for Iraq’s SCUD missiles.
Iraq had initially lied in its declaration and tried to hold onto 100 missiles.
I helped expose the lie, then compel Iraq to tell the truth.
This meant carrying out inspections backed by the threat of military force.
In the end, Iraq told the truth, and we inspectors were able to verify this fact.
The Security Council had just passed a new resolution requiring Iraq to subject to the permanent monitoring of its dual-use facilities—pretty much any facility that could be used to help produce weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq refused, claiming that sanctions needed to be lifted first.
I was eating lunch with my Iraqi counterparts.
They made the point that there was no reason to cooperate since the US refused to lift sanctions until Saddam was gone.
I said that the law was clear—Iraq had to agree to monitoring inspections.
They replied such inspections would be tantamount to spying.
I sketched out a proposal on a piece of paper. Instead of having inspections like the ones I led come to Iraq every few weeks, why not allow an inspection team to carry out a three month survey of Iraq’s missile production capabilities, jointly with Iraq, and develop joint monitoring standards acceptable to both parties?
The Iraqi leadership accepted this, and thus began the interim monitoring program, which helped get Iraq to accept long term monitoring inspections and prevented a war.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
Увайдзіце, каб разблакаваць больш функцый.