Scott Ritter on Pete Hegseth: The Self-Made War Criminal?

This special episode of Judging Freedom features Scott Ritter discussing the actions and statements of Pete Hegseth, particularly in relation to alleged war crimes. The conversation also touches on the broader geopolitical landscape, including Russia’s stance on potential conflict with Europe and the ongoing situation in Ukraine.

Key Takeaways

• Russia is producing a significant number of missiles daily, far exceeding current usage in Ukraine, suggesting strategic reserves.
• Europe’s air defense systems have been largely transferred to Ukraine, leaving them vulnerable.
• There’s a belief that Russia has effectively won the conflict in Ukraine, and current negotiations are focused on post-war realities.
• Pete Hegseth’s past statements and actions are being scrutinized for potential war crimes, specifically regarding a second strike on a disabled vessel.
• The military system, despite initial alleged violations, appears to have self-corrected with new leadership and procedures.

Russia’s Military Readiness and European Vulnerability

Scott Ritter begins by analyzing a statement from President Putin regarding Russia’s readiness for war with Europe. Putin stated that Russia is not planning to go to war with Europe, but if Europe initiates one, Russia is prepared and it would be over quickly, unlike the situation in Ukraine which is being handled in a "surgical, careful manner."

Ritter interprets this as a sign of Putin’s frustration with Europe’s actions, suggesting Europe is "committing suicide" by opting out of rationality. He points out the massive production of "Guranium missiles" (Giron 2s and 3s) in Russia, with a thousand being produced daily. While Ukraine uses around 300-400 missiles a day, the surplus is going into strategic reserves. Ritter highlights that Europe has virtually no air defense left, having sent most of it to Ukraine, where it has been destroyed. This leaves Europe vulnerable to a massive drone attack, potentially 30,000 drones a day, which they cannot defend against. He also mentions other advanced Russian weaponry like the Areshnik and an extended-range Iskander missile, capable of reaching all of Europe.

The Role of Trump’s Envoys and Post-Conflict Negotiations

The discussion shifts to the role of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff meeting with Russian officials. Ritter believes that these meetings are not about negotiating with Zelenskyy or Europe, but rather a direct conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. He suggests that Trump’s inner circle recognizes that Russia has won the war in Ukraine, and the current talks are about the "post-conflict reality."

This reality, according to Ritter, involves Russia wanting sanctions lifted, frozen assets unfrozen, and international recognition of its control over the annexed territories (Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk, plus Crimea). The goal is for Russia and the United States to re-engage economically without any restrictions. The "wacky 28-point plan" is dismissed as a failed attempt to involve Europe, and Ritter believes the current focus is on what they can agree on, leading to an "unconditional surrender" from Ukraine with residual guarantees.

Scrutiny of Pete Hegseth and Alleged War Crimes

The conversation then turns to Pete Hegseth, with Ritter examining three clips of Hegseth’s statements. The first clip shows Hegseth stating that "illegal orders should not be obeyed" and that "there have to be consequences for abject war crimes." The second clip is from the day after an attack on a boat, where Hegseth discusses the event on Fox and Friends, mentioning they "knew exactly who was in that boat" and "knew exactly what they were doing."

Ritter asserts that Hegseth knows he committed a crime, referencing his knowledge of the law of war from his time in the military. He details an incident on September 2nd where an order was allegedly given to "kill them all, take no prisoners." Ritter claims that Vice Admiral Frank Bradley, then commander of Joint Special Operations Command, ordered a second strike on the boat after it was destroyed, despite seeing survivors. This second strike, he argues, was a deliberate act to kill the survivors, violating the law of war. Ritter contrasts this with a later incident on October 26th, where a similar situation resulted in the rescue of survivors due to a change in operating procedures under Lieutenant General Jonathan Braga.

Ritter believes Hegseth’s own words, particularly his speech advocating for "maximum lethality" and disregarding "stupid rules of engagement," serve as self-condemnation. He argues that Hegseth, Bradley, and the SEAL Team Six operators involved could be found guilty of war crimes. However, he predicts that due to political pressure and the involvement of Trump, a trial is unlikely, and Hegseth might receive a pardon.

The System’s Response and Future Implications

Despite the potential for a lack of prosecution, Ritter emphasizes that the military system itself recognized the wrongfulness of the September 2nd incident. He points to the change in operating procedures under General Braga as evidence that "honorable men and women" within the military corrected the situation. The resignation of a US Southern Command Admiral is also cited as a sign that the system acknowledged a "horrific war crime" had occurred. Ritter believes that a record of the investigation exists and that the truth will eventually come out, explaining why procedures changed and survivors were rescued in later incidents.

The final part of the discussion involves a White House reporter questioning the administration’s policy on survivors and the legality of the second strike. Ritter dismisses the press secretary’s response as uninformed, stating that she can only relay what she’s given. He reiterates that once individuals are in the water, they are out of the fight and protected by the law of war, regardless of their status as drug traffickers. He concludes that Hegseth’s actions and statements, along with those of Bradley, constitute clear violations of war crimes, and while the system may have corrected itself, the individuals involved may escape legal consequences.