Scott Ritter : Trump/Putin: Whose Deal is Better?

Summary

The interview opened with an antiwar argument. The host’s introduction called for rejecting unlawful uses of force by governments and questioned whether a government that governs less might better protect freedom.

Scott Ritter then discussed several issues:

Saudi Arabia and Yemen

Ritter argued that the war between Saudi Arabia and Ansar Allah (the Houthis) was initially tied to Mohammed bin Salman’s effort to establish military and political authority. He said the war damaged Saudi Arabia’s military reputation and its ability to protect oil-export routes. He also said bin Salman’s 2017 consolidation of power alienated members of the royal family and tribal networks.

Ritter predicted that the Saudi ruling dynasty could be at risk if it loses oil revenue and the ability to maintain loyalty. He portrayed Ansar Allah’s aims as ending Saudi intervention in Yemen and challenging Saudi rule, including its authority over Mecca and Medina.

Oil prices and diesel supplies

Ritter rejected President Trump’s suggestion that Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries were the main reason for rising US fuel prices. In Ritter’s account, the larger disruption came from the US-Israeli war with Iran and the resulting threats to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb, compounded by Saudi export constraints.

He said Russia’s halt to diesel exports after Ukrainian strikes added further pressure to the market. Ritter suggested that Trump was trying to calm traders and present himself as having the situation under control ahead of the midterm elections.

Trump–Putin contacts and Ukraine

Ritter thought Trump and Putin had spoken, but said there was no clear public confirmation of an agreement or its terms. He viewed a possible Russian diesel sale to the US as a benefit to Moscow, while arguing that Russia had made no comparable concession. He also doubted that an “energy truce” with Ukraine had been agreed.

Ritter interpreted Trump’s call for Zelensky to leave office as consistent with Russia’s demand for elections and a legitimate Ukrainian government, though he said it was not necessarily part of a Putin–Trump deal. He dismissed Zelensky’s proposed 60-day ceasefire for elections as untrustworthy and argued that Russia’s objective was to let Ukraine’s government collapse politically rather than remove Zelensky directly.

Europe and the petrodollar

Ritter criticized European governments’ support for Ukraine, describing it as a scheme benefiting political and economic elites while worsening economic pressures on the public.

He also floated a speculative theory that US policy might seek to preserve the dollar’s role in oil trade by eventually lifting sanctions on Russia and Iran in exchange for dollar-denominated oil sales, while allowing Saudi Arabia’s influence in energy markets to diminish. He presented this as his own attempt to connect events, not as an established agreement.

Constitutional and political criticism

In a discussion about a reported proposal to livestream the execution of convicted killer Nidal Hasan, Ritter condemned the idea and criticized administration officials’ understanding of constitutional limits.

He broadened his criticism to the Trump administration, accusing it of disregarding constitutional principles and urging Congress to impeach Trump. He also called on voters to use the November elections to hold the administration accountable.

Presenters and contributors

• Judge Andrew Napolitano — host
• Scott Ritter — guest/commentator