Talk:Scott Ritter

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Surplus (copied from Russia)[edit]

  • We had a moment in history, between 1988 and 1991, where we could have worked with Mikhail Gorbachev to make his vision of perestroika succeed. Instead, we allowed him to fail, without any real plan on how we would live with what emerged from the ruins of the Soviet Union. Save for a short period of time during the Second World War where we needed the Soviet Union to defeat Germany and Japan, we have been in a continual state of political conflict with the Soviet Union. Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, we viewed the Russian Federation more as a defeated enemy that we needed to keep down, than a friend in need of a helping hand up. Yeltsin’s Russia was useful to the US and NATO only to the extent that we could exploit it economically while controlling its domestic politics in a manner that kept Russia in a perpetual state of weakness. The Obama “reset” was simply a ploy to remove Vladimir Putin, who rejected the vision of Russia projected by the west, and replace him with Dmitri Medvedev, whom Obama believed could be remade in the figure of Yeltsin. The fact that Putin believes in a strong Russia has upset the plans of the US, NATO, and Europe for post-Cold War hegemony, predicated as they were on a weak, compliant Russian state.
  • The bottom line is that Russia has set forth a cognizable claim under the doctrine of anticipatory collective self defense, devised originally by the U.S. and NATO, as it applies to [[w:Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter#Article_51| (Charter of the United Nations) Article 51]] which is predicated on fact, not fiction. While it might be in vogue for people, organizations, and governments in the West to embrace the knee-jerk conclusion that Russia’s military intervention constitutes a wanton violation of the United Nations Charter and, as such, constitutes an illegal war of aggression, the uncomfortable truth is that, of all the claims made regarding the legality of pre-emption under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine is on solid legal ground.


  • ...Go back and actually read the amendments put by the United States House of Representatives on Department of Defense Appropriations legislation from 2015 up until just this year. They continuously forbid funds, US taxpayer funds, being used to train the Azov battalion, which is listed by the US Congress as a white supremacist neo-Nazi organization. So anybody who wants to pretend that there isn’t a Nazi problem in Ukraine, simply I refer you to Congress and its own legislation. The Russians believe that this is a big problem and they want it eradicated. Now, why did I bring this up? Because Russia hasn’t shifted gears at all. Russia’s still saying, we want a European security framework out of this and we are adhering to our original objectives. Russia hasn’t altered course at all. Ukraine, on the other hand, is saying that victory can only be achieved when Russia is evicted from all territory, including Crimea.... Russia has realistic objectives that can be attained. Ukraine doesn’t. I mean, there’s just literally no one on this planet besides maybe… I don’t even think the Ukrainians believe it, that they’re going to recapture the Donbas, that they’re going to recapture Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, that they’re going to recapture Crimea. This is fantasy. So you have one side that their objectives are fantasy based, you have another side whose objectives are, while difficult to achieve, are very realistic...
  • Let’s look at the Russian strategic objectives... First and foremost, Russia is seeking to get Europe and the United States to buy into the notion of a negotiated new European security framework. It’s something that Russia put on the table prior to invading Ukraine... Dec. 17, I believe, of last year, Russia submitted two draft treaties, one to NATO, one to the United States, which articulated Russia’s stance on what its vision of a new European security framework... They invited the West to read it and have a serious discussion... and they were ignored.
    Then Russia invaded Ukraine, and Russia has two objectives. One is the demilitarization of Ukraine, the other is the deNazification of Ukraine. Demilitarization means the elimination of all NATO influence on the Ukrainian military, and deNazification means just that...
    I’d advise people to go back and actually read the amendments put by the United States House of Representatives on Department of Defense Appropriations legislation from 2015 up until just this year. They continuously forbid funds, US taxpayer funds, being used to train the Azov battalion, which is listed by the US Congress as a white supremacist neo-Nazi organization... The Russians believe that this is a big problem and they want it eradicated... Russia has realistic objectives that can be attained. Ukraine doesn’t.
  • Ukraine’s going to have to accept reality. It has permanently lost Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, the Donbas, and Crimea. You will never get it back, Ukraine. Never, ever, ever in a million years. And if you continue this fight, very soon you’re going to lose Odessa. You’re going to lose Kharkiv, and you will never get them back. You will lose Mykolaiv, you’ll lose Dnipro­petrovsk, you’ll lose your very existence. You’ll never get it back, ever. Russia’s reached a point where it is not in a mood to negotiate. What the Ukrainians would have to offer the Russians is a lot, which is recognition of all territory, a guarantee that they will never join NATO, and a concerted effort to eliminate the ideology of Stepan Bandera from mainstream Ukrainian politics. He’s no longer a national hero, Nazi symbology and parades will no longer be tolerated, things of that nature.

Claremont?[edit]

The quotes referenced Claremont? sound like they came from War: Why Now? What You May Not Know. UCC, Claremont, Ca., 1/19/03 - Ritter's talk about Saddam's probable lack of WMDs.

Does WQ prohibit using Youtube videos of author as a source?[edit]

  • Note: I've used youtube as a source before here and don't believe there were any objections. I have looked but did not find any clear indication that using youtube as a source is prohibited. If that's the case, please advise where to look.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote_talk:Citing_sources

  • These twp quotations were removed shortly after they were posted accompanied by these comments:
    19:53, 27 May 2022‎ HouseOfChange talk contribs‎ 27,098 bytes −2,401‎ YouTube is not RS; Wikiquote is for SOURCED and notable quotes undo Tag: Undo

Removed from SR's page earlier today. They are on his youtube page, where anyone can see & hear him speaking all of these words[edit]

  • We have a situation now because of the partisan divide in this country that information war has become an integral part of who we are. Instead of being the exception to the rule, it is now the rule and we're allowing politics and deception to define what qualifies as fact and we're ignoring reality... In the case of Ukraine, you know we were getting spun... (mainstream media was) ... spinning dead Russians as this great victory for Ukraine. Now we're finding out that even the liars can't sustain the lie anymore. Meaning the 4 star generals... on mainstream media... they're paid shills... nothing they say is doctrinally correct. (starts at 1:20)
  • What happened... The Russians went in with a concept of operations that it appears was flawed intelligence... Russian Security... apparently went in and bought off a bunch of generals or tried to, & buy off some politicians. They got signatures from mayors guaranteeing that there would be no resistance and they had assurances from generals that Ukrainian troops would remain in the barracks. So the initial columns that went into Ukraine were told to operate not using traditional Russian doctrine... and it worked great... except that Ukrainians were waiting in ambush. The end results were several very well executed ambushes which annihilated platoon and company sized formations of the Russian Army. Despite all this, after the first 3 weeks, Russia had achieved a seven to one kill ratio. I'm not glorifying death, just telling you that normally in war when two sides are fighting... the combat ratio is usually 1.2 to 1... The Russian now are killing 7x more Ukrainians, were killing 7x more Ukrainians in the opening phases of the war. Any who thought that the Russians were losing, just simply don't understand military math... Phase two right now, the Russians are basically a 10 to 15 to one casualty ratio, meaning they're slaughtering the Ukrainians as we speak. It's not even a close fight. (From 3:35 to 5:57)

Thanks 24.42.166.244`

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Ritter&oldid=3504673"