➡ The article discusses the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, suggesting that the country may lose its independence and become part of the Union state, similar to the relationship between Russia and Belarus. It also mentions that the outcome of the conflict will be dictated by Russia, not the US or European powers, due to their lack of military capacity. The article also touches on the actions of Netanyahu, suggesting that the US could potentially influence his behavior, but doubts the likelihood of this happening. Lastly, it questions the reliability of Axios as a news source.

Hello, my name is Edmund DeMarche. I’m the editor of The Trends Journal. I’m here with Scott Ritter. He’s the former UN weapons inspector. You can check out his work at ScottRitter.com. That’s ScottRitter.com. We’ll put a link below. Scott, thank you for joining me on a short notice. Thanks for having me. I wanted to just get started right away with something I read in the Wall Street Journal from a few months ago. This was during the election. This is from a person by the name of Michael Kimmage. He’s a professor of history at Catholic University. He once worked in the State Department from 2014 to 2016.

He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and he wrote that a second Trump term would likely follow one of two scenarios. He wrote, the war could simply go on as it did before, or the US could become much more deeply involved. Are we right now headed to the US becoming much deeper involved in the war? No, I think we’re headed in the other direction. The war will not go on as it did. I mean, here I would diverge. The war will go on on the trajectory that it was inclined to follow, meaning towards a Russian victory.

And this war will end in a Russian victory, a total Russian victory, not a partial Russian victory, but a total Russian victory. And there’s nothing the United States can do to stop it. Even if we wanted to, we lack the military capacity to do so. The impedance of the United States has played out in the reality of Donald Trump’s efforts at arming Ukraine. He put a heavy emphasis on air defense, spoke of 17 Patriot batteries, full compliment, according to Donald Trump. And Ukraine will get nothing even close. One, two, three batteries may show up in the next year, year and a half.

Ukraine’s losing the war now. Last night, 450 Russian Shahid 136 type drones, which the Russians call geranium twos, were launched against Ukraine. Russia has the capacity to launch twice that many. Soon, they’ll be able to launch a thousand a day, a thousand a day. A Patriot interceptor missile costs two million dollars. Right now, the way the Patriot system is geared, they’re firing 10 because of the efficiency of the Russian attack system. The Ukrainian radars don’t operate the way they would normally operate on full-time scanning full-time because they’ll be isolated and destroyed by the Russians.

So the Ukrainian radars are cued to the last moment. And because of the limited engagement time with the radars, the Ukrainians end up cycling off up to 10 missiles. That’s 20 million dollars worth of missiles cycled out to shoot down a single target. So this is just stupidity in the extreme to think that this can have any impact. It’s a pure political statement made by the president at the time of desperation because he knows there’s nothing he can do to stop Putin. And reports are that even at private, he says that Putin will win, Russia will win.

They can’t do anything, but he needs to, he being the president needs to buy time. So he’s implemented this 50-day pause, put forward a political gesture of rearming Ukraine and threatening sanctions. But the reality is, according to Seymour Hersh, this time will be used to get rid of Volodymyr Zelensky, who is the impediment towards a final settlement of the Ukrainian-Russian problem. There could be no settlement of the problem so long as Zelensky is the president of Ukraine. The Russians have said this, and I think the Trump administration is finally awakening to this reality.

As a strategy, do you think it’s smart when Donald Trump gives deadlines when he says 24 hours, 50 days, two weeks? Is that a smart strategic move on the president’s part, or is that something he should start trying to avoid? Well, understand that the fact that he sets deadlines shows that the major impetus for America is political. This is politically driven. The deadlines are assigned because they achieve a political goal, a political objective. They’re designed to shape a political message during an identified period of time. Take the Russians by counter. This conflict is not a political conflict.

This is an existential conflict. There are no timelines placed on this. Russia will fight this war until Russia wins this war. Russia hasn’t set any artificial deadlines. We must achieve this by this date, this by this date, this by this date. Russia just says, we will achieve the following. We will achieve the following, and they are achieving this. No date assigned. If this were an existential struggle for the United States, then we would not have to put dates up there. We would simply say, we will achieve this objective, this objective, this objective. But because this is purely political, the president keeps putting out these artificially derived timelines that have no relationship to reality.

It’s very bad because it makes them look weak. Do you think Trump is respected by Russia? Or do you think Russia looks at Trump on the same level as it did on, let’s say, Joe Biden or previous presidents? I would hesitate to ever speak on behalf of Russia. What I would say is this. The Russians respect strength, and the Russians respect consistency. The Russians, and I’ve heard this from Russian authorities, they weren’t so concerned about the policies of any given candidate, but the predictability of a candidate. From the Russian perspective, even a candidate has bad policies towards Russia is better from a predictable standpoint than a candidate who might have good policies, but might have bad policies that you don’t know.

You can’t predict, and it’s very difficult to run the ship of state when you aren’t able to forecast things accurately. Donald Trump is an inherently unpredictable individual. The Russians don’t like this. They prefer predictability. The Russians prefer integrity, I believe. It’s very difficult for this president when a tape, for instance, gets leaked dating back to the 2024 campaign where he imagines a conversation with Vladimir Putin that never took place. I mean, now he is shown to be a liar. The Russians respect the president of the United States, the position of the president of the United States, because of the power that is contained in that position.

And therefore, the Russians will respect Donald Trump as the president of the United States. But I would imagine the Russians do not respect Donald Trump the man. Not because of the things that people throw at him, that his personal life is his personal life, but because he is a liar, a fabricator, inconsistent. And I also think the Russians appreciate true patriotism. I know they appreciate true patriotism. And I don’t think they view Donald Trump as a patriot. They view him as a businessman, a transactional leader, who doesn’t hold the best interests of his country.

You will never get a Russian official to commit to what I just said, even if they did believe it, because it’s undiplomatic. The Russians will always behave properly. But my gut feeling tells me that I’m dead unaccurate about how the Russians view Donald Trump. The Russia, at least from Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, he said Russia hasn’t really changed its position on how to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict. It’s pretty much stayed the same. Part of what Russia demanded is that it keeps the portion of Ukraine now in its control. Do you see if, let’s say, for example, peace is broken tomorrow and Russia takes over these oblasts, could they develop into a headache for Russia do you think that Russia would be able to control these places or are they going to have to deal with guerrilla fighters for years in these places? What’s Russia’s endgame as far as achieving its objective in those areas? Russia’s endgame has always been the security of Russia.

And these four territories that you speak of, Karazhan Zabarizhia, Donetsk and Lugansk, are Russian territories constitutionally. They’ve been absorbed by Russia following what Russia believes are legitimate referendum where the overwhelming majority of the people residing in these oblasts voted to become part of Russia. Now they are part of Russia. There’s no debate. There will not be a debate. It’s not that Russia will get the territory that they currently occupy. They will get the territory that is encompassed by these four territories. So if the conflict ended today, Ukraine must withdraw from these territories.

I think the Russians have learned their lesson about Ukrainian nationalism and such. You see the Russians are being much more restrictive at the border now. Reports are coming out how the Russians are checking the social media of everybody who’s crossing into Russia. If they find any pro-Ukrainian subscriptions and things of that nature, you won’t be allowed in. I think that the Russians will be very discerning about who is allowed to live in these four territories. And if you’re discerning enough, you eliminate the threat of any massive guerrilla warfare. It’s not the first time Russia has fought and won a guerrilla war in Ukraine, though.

Remember the Banderists, Stepan Banderin Company, were operating from the end of the Second World War in 1945, actually 1944 when Russia first took over these territories, up until 1954. So for a decade in the Russians won, it was very costly. But I don’t think Russia, I think one of the problems of this scenario is that it postulates that Ukraine will be an independent, sovereign nation. Let me just remind everybody, Ukraine is about to lose a war that it started. The Ukrainian government will not be the Ukrainian government that’s currently in power. The Banderists, these alternations will not be part of Ukraine.

They will either be dead, imprisoned, or evicted, but they won’t be part of what will be post-war Ukraine. There will not be a Ukrainian military worthy of the name. Russia is talking about capping a lightly armed security force at 50,000, as opposed to the current levels, which with reserves goes over a million men. That won’t happen. The equipment that the Ukrainians have will not be allowed to stay in Ukraine. It will either be returned to NATO or turned over to Russia for disposition. Russia has, as we speak, institutions working on post-conflict governance. There will be elections.

The elections will result in Russian approved candidates governing Ukraine. And I think you’re going to see post-war Ukraine not gravitating or lurching towards the European Union, but rather working on how to become a member of the Union state. A relationship that’s currently enjoyed between Russia and Belarus. And I believe that post-conflict Ukraine will eventually become part of the Union state. That’s the best interest for Ukraine, because Ukraine that’s part of the Union state could be Ukraine that has Odessa still part of Ukraine, access to the sea, still have Yonepipetrovsk, Kharkov, Sumi, these territories right now that Russia is starting to advance into.

These could be returned to Ukraine and be part of post-conflict Ukraine, if Ukraine will align itself with Russia’s interests. And I think that Russia will be dictating that outcome. If, however, this conflict ends and there’s a Ukrainian government that’s not controlled by the Russians, I don’t see how Ukraine will be allowed to have Odessa, Nipipetrovsk, Kharkov, Sumi, Mikhailov, these are territories with significant Russian speaking populations and these are territories where Russia can’t trust a Ukrainian nationalist government to hold governing powers over the Russian people. So again, it’s up to the United States and Europe how we want this war to end.

This war could end today and Ukraine could maintain a vestige of sovereignty and viability. War can end in two years and there will be no Ukraine worthy of the name left. So I know you have to go very soon. So I just have two more very brief questions for you, even though, of course, you could have a very long answer if you wanted to. France, Germany, and the UK have joined this kind of three country alliance. They’ve gotten a lot closer ever since Trump took office. So we talk about a peace resolution in Ukraine. Let’s say the US signed on and said, yes, let’s go forward with this peace agreement.

Ukraine doesn’t want it, but let’s say these three countries in Europe do. Let’s say they want to resist the peace agreement. Is it still the United States that will call the shots? Or could countries like Germany, UK, and France kind of impede that progress? Will they be powerful enough to tell Ukraine, hey, we could do this without the US? Is it still up to the US if there’s a peace agreement? Would it come down to what Washington wants? It comes down to what Moscow wants. Moscow is the only vote that counts.

They’re proving that over and over again. It doesn’t matter what Washington wants. If Washington, their desires of Washington align with Moscow, then Washington can be involved in peace. If Berlin, Paris, and London want to agree to what the Russians agree, then they’ll be allowed to sit there and watch. But the bottom line is these three European powers lack any military capacity to project military power in a meaningful way into Ukraine, with or without US backing. They can definitely not do it without US backing. But even with US backing, where do they get the troops? Germany is having a heck of a time deploying 4,500 men into Lithuania with the brigade that they’re putting there.

The French would be lucky if they could get 8,000 men out of France. England would be lucky if they could match that number. And if you’re talking about a peacekeeping force, frankly speaking, you’re talking 20,000 men, that won’t get you anywhere. And it’s just ludicrous. We’re not talking about serious militaries. We’re not talking about serious military capability. So I don’t even know why we’re talking about it. I know that they’re talking about it, but nobody takes it seriously. And then last question, Scott, is the White House, at least they told Axios, officials from the White House, they said that they’re concerned that Netanyahu’s turning into be a madman.

And it seems like they’re trying to separate his recent attack on Damascus, the bombing, and also the killing at the Catholic Church in Gaza. What would ever stop Netanyahu at this point? Is this just going to go on until Netanyahu gets tired of his expansion and killing spurs? Theoretically, we could stop it today. Pick up the phone until Netanyahu, not another penny. The president can say, I’m going to call the prosecutor and say that we support the immediate arrest and trial of Benjamin Netanyahu. If he’s broken the law, we think he should go down, tell the IDF you will not get another dime of American assistance so long as this madman is in charge.

There’s just so many things we could do to make Netanyahu disappear right now. We could destroy the Israeli power base by telling APAC they have to register as a foreign agent. I mean, they’re just, but we’re not going to do any of that because that’s not who we are. You know, we have to be careful. Axios has become an outlet that has been increasingly susceptible to rumor mongering and well-placed politically motivated leaks. And so I think one would have to be a little hesitant to buy into the veracity of what they report at this juncture, given President Trump’s published missives to the Israeli court system about the illegitimacy of their ongoing prosecution of his best friend, Bibi Netanyahu, the greatest man on the planet.

It’s hard to see, you know, the sudden lurching to 180 degrees saying that he’s a madman and he’s in it. I’m sure there’s people in the Trump administration are frustrated by Netanyahu’s actions. But, you know, I mean, no, I don’t trust the Axios reporting. Well, Scott Ritter, thank you so much for joining me. Everyone go to ScottRitter.com to check out his latest work and YouTube hits. Scott, thank you for joining me. Thanks for having me. [tr:trw].

See more of Trends Journal on their Public Channel and the MPN Trends Journal channel.