By Independent News Roundup
Two U.S. commentators, Scott Ritter and Garland Nixon, sit down in Minsk, Belarus, for a wide-ranging discussion on global power shifts, media censorship, and the deepening rift between the West and Eurasia. The conversation explores Belarus’s growing diplomatic role, U.S. internal divisions, and the peril of a world sliding toward nuclear confrontation.
(B-roll: Minsk skyline, Belarusian flag, diplomatic meetings)
Scott Ritter explains his visit to Belarus as a chance to see beyond Western propaganda. He praises the nation’s order, resilience, and economic organization, emphasizing his role in communicating a more accurate view of Belarus to American audiences.
“It’s important to experience the people, the place, the history — to make theory reality.”
(B-roll: Trump and Lukashenko photos, Kremlin exteriors, phones on desks)
The discussion frames President Lukashenko as an intermediary between Trump and Putin — someone respected by both sides. Ritter notes that Trump’s direct call to Lukashenko before a major summit with Putin was a deliberate diplomatic signal of respect and trust.
“Lukashenko can speak with Putin directly — and convey what Trump is trying to say.”
(B-roll: U.S. election crowds, American flags, Trump rallies)
Both guests argue that Trump’s renewed political momentum represents a popular push for peace — a rejection of establishment policies that have driven conflict with Russia and China.
“It isn’t Trump that makes peace possible — it’s the American people demanding it.”
(B-roll: Pentagon, Capitol Hill, media montages, think tank meetings)
Ritter defines the “Deep State” not as a conspiracy but as a permanent, unelected establishment — the entrenched bureaucracy of government, academia, media, and the defense industry.
They argue Trump’s fight isn’t with foreign nations, but with internal power structures resistant to change.
“Eisenhower warned us — the military-industrial-congressional complex would transform democracy into an oligarchy.”
(B-roll: Moscow, Beijing, global trade routes, warships)
Both speakers emphasize that the U.S. “deep state” seeks to divide and weaken Russia and China, whereas Trump sees stability and economic cooperation as mutually beneficial.
“Businessmen need stability, not chaos — and Trump thinks like a businessman.”
(B-roll: Macron, Scholz, Starmer, EU parliament, protest footage)
They claim European leaders like Macron and Scholz are part of a self-preserving elite, desperate to maintain control even at the expense of their nations’ economies.
Germany’s self-inflicted energy crisis and Macron’s political decline are cited as examples of “elites choosing power over country.”
(B-roll: nuclear missiles, submarines, archive of Cold War nuclear drills)
The conversation turns grave as Ritter warns of nuclear command systems on hair-trigger alert — automated protocols that could launch a war by miscalculation.
“We are living in the single most dangerous time in world history — one error, and it’s over.”
Garland adds that despite elite rhetoric, the European public is no longer willing to fight, noting that attempts to conscript young Europeans would spark revolt.
(B-roll: Donbass battlefront, maps, destroyed infrastructure)
Both conclude that total Russian victory is the only path to lasting peace, arguing that partial settlements would only allow Western interests to re-arm Ukraine as a future proxy.
“If the Ukrainian problem isn’t solved completely, it will be used again against Russia.”
(B-roll: archival WWI footage, 1914 mobilizations, newspaper headlines)
Ritter closes by referencing historian Barbara Tuchman’s “The Guns of August,” comparing the current geopolitical climate to the months before World War I.
“Every nation in 1914 thought war was impossible — until it became inevitable. We must stop the same momentum today.”
(B-roll: symbolic handshake between East and West, globe turning, peace imagery)
Both speakers urge transparency, diplomacy, and independent journalism to cut through censorship and propaganda.
“Alternative media and open dialogue are the last tools we have to prevent a global catastrophe.”
TRANSCRIPT
"Hello, Scott. Hello, Garland. It's a great honor to see you here, uh, with us today. Hello, Dimitri. It's a pleasure to be here.
Hello. Thank you for inviting me. Um. First of all, what is the purpose of your visit to Belarus? To visit Belarus. Um. I think it was what, three years ago that, um, I appeared on your program, I did an interview, and, uh, at that time, uh, you kindly extended an invitation.
And I've been looking for an opportunity to come to Belarus ever since, um, because first of all, I've never been here. Um. And second of all, I think today Belarus is taking center stage in some of the biggest problems that face Europe, uh, and the world. And, um, it's important to come and experience the people, the place, the history, to put things in a better perspective. When you look at things long distance, you don't necessarily see the details, the things that make something real. So coming to Belarus, for me, is an opportunity to make theory, reality grand.
And what are your impressions? Um. I'm very impressed by, uh, Belarus. I'm impressed by the country, the people, the, um, organization, the cleanliness of the country, and, um, the success, um, economic success, uh, of the country. And additionally, you know, I still have a radio show in Washington D.C. and I'm involved in online journalism. And, uh, in an era where there's intense propaganda in the West, I feel as though it's in the best interest of people in the west if I can learn as much as I can about Belarus and then I can, um, transmit that information to people, um, in our country.
I have to ask you, are you afraid? Because, uh, our neighbors, uh, uh, Lithuania, for example, uh, has closed the borders with us, with Scarabel Russians. Are you afraid? No, I have no fear. I feel as though I have a duty to attempt to clarify the reality of the situations going on here to my.
To my, um, to my listeners. So I feel as though I'm carrying out a duty. I don't have any fear. And in the United States, we do have some protections. They're weak, but we do have some protections of speech.
Okay, that sounds good. Um. Scott, are you following the dialogue between Minsk and Washington? I am, with great interest. What do you think about it? Well, first of all, it's not between Minsk and Washington necessarily.
I mean, it's between President Lukashenko and President Trump. Uh. After all, it was President Trump who made a phone call to President Lukashenko on the eve of the Alaska summit. Why. Why would the American president, getting ready to meet the Russian president, reach out to make a phone call to the Belarusian president. And the answer is simple.
Uh. President Trump respects. President Lukashenko, respects his strength, his integrity, and he recognizes that President Lukashenko, um, has an ability to gain access to President Putin, to not only describe his feelings about Putin, but, but also to relay to President Putin what Donald Trump is trying to say. So President Lukashenko has become, I think, one of the most important intermediaries between Russia and the United States with the potential to help create the conditions for peace. We talked to you a couple of years ago, and at that time, uh, it was impossible to imagine the negotiations between the presidents of Russia and the United States, between Belarus and the United States, but now we can see them. Why is it possible now?
Because America had an election. You know, I understand that America doesn't have the best reputation in the world today, and we've earned. We've earned the reputation that we do have. But what I would ask people is to respect the American people. We have a functioning democracy in America, and the will of the people s manifested through their vote.
And the American people made a decision in November of last year that they wanted to change, and they voted for a president who was promising things that they desired. A better life. A, uh, prioritization of America over non, um, American interests and peace. And peace, um, is perhaps the biggest thing. President Trump promised that he would seek to improve relations with Russia.
And, um, I think he's trying very hard to deliver on that promise. But what makes this all possible sn't President Trump, because without the American people, there wouldn't be a President Trump. So it's the American people and the will of the people. People need to understand that we want peace and we're demanding peace, and the president hopefully will listen to us. Garland, how do you think.
How do you see that? What do you think about it? Oh, I think that, um, we are moving in a positive direction. Um. All of us were, you know, quite, uh, afraid. We were concerned, uh, under the Biden administration that we were going in a very, very dangerous direction.
I do, um, think that it's a difficult, uh, period for the Trump administration simply because there are people in the, uh, European political leadership class. And of course there are some of the Atlanticists in the, um, Foreign Policy, uh, leadership group in Washington D.C. who still lean towards the Biden, Macron, Starmer, um, way of viewing the world. So I think it's difficult for President Trump, but I think the support of the people and of course, having intermediaries such as President Lukashenko, um, creates an opportunity for him to go around the people in his circles that are trying to support him. Do you agree that, uh, Trump's call to Alexander Lukashenko on his way to Alaska was a serious sign or even symbol in our, uh, politics? I think it was both a sign and a symbol, but I think it was a very serious and concrete action.
I think another thing you have to understand is there has been malevolent rhetoric to discredit the Russian leadership and to, you know, uh, demonize the Russian leadership. But that action hasn't been taken as much, and the propaganda hasn't been focused on the Belarusian leadership as much. So that gives him the opportunity to talk to the Belarusian leadership and to kind of go around those who have been more demonizing, um, President Putin, to go get around that and to work with President Putin through an intermediate. Uh. Donald Trump has publicly expressed his, uh, respect for Alexander Lukashenko several times, and we know that there are no useless details in big politics. So these were not just words.
Yes. How do you understand this respect? I understand that because when you, um, focus on who President Trump tends to respect, he tends to respect leaders that are independent leaders that focus on the needs of the people in their country. Viktor Orban, President Xi, President Putin, um, President Trump shows great respect for those people, mainly because I believe that in his heart of hearts, President Trump wants to do the best for the American people, and he respects leaders that he believes focuses on doing the best for their people. I think that gives him a certain level of respect for a leader.
Did I imagine it, or is it true that Trump, if he could, he would choose to communicate with Xi Jinping, uh, Vladimir Putin, uh, Alexander Lukashenko, and stay away from Zelensky and Macron. He even says that he likes to deal with strong guys. I think f it was the world, according to Donald Trump, that would be the only people he communicated with. But, you know, we live in the real world, and Donald Trump is a president who has inherited, um, you know, precedent, um, political policy precedent, NATO, um, our relationship with, uh, Europe. We can't just throw that away.
It's been intertwined into the fabric of America and America's relationship with the world. And, and so the president has to deal with the situation that he's inherited. Um. And that means sometimes he has to not talk to the people he wants to and focus on ensuring that when he does talk to them, that he doesn't get ambushed from behind. So he has to deal with the European issue, the NATO issue, domestic American politics, Congress, the neoconservatives in his administration. Um. He needs to make peace with these people so that the conversations he has.
There's no reason for me to call you. Mhm. Just because I like you, I need to call you because I want action. But before I can take action, I have to be prepared for the action. Um. Very often we want to ask, why can't ah, Trump and his team choose a course where China and Russia are no longer enemies?
Because there are a lot of things that we can do together. High technology, psychology, uh, space, but not war. Yes. I think we have to understand that Donald Trump is not fighting with Russia or China. He's fighting with, um, entities within his own circle.
He's fighting with entities within the political class and leadership of Europe. That a lot of the problems that Donald Trump is facing he was faced with when he came into office. I think that also relates to the types of leaders that he tends to, um, find, um, that he tends to respect the most because we talk about their strength. But I think another word that's more important is stable. He tends to, um, be attracted to stable leadership.
And I think it's mainly because of the political instability in the United States. Sometimes he has to take one forward, one step forward, and he gets pushed two steps back. And it appears that he's inconsistent, but it's inconsistent because he's fighting the instability around him. And I think that's why he, um, it benefits him to deal with stable leaders in stable countries. Okay, I'd like to explain my previous question to you, Scott.
Um. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, we saw again that Trump and his team are under fire. Who's targeting them? The deep state. Now that's a throwaway term. People say, oh, it's a conspiracy theory.
The deep state isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a reality. The deep state is a permanent unelected establishment that exists in America today. Um. It is a bureaucracy of government, um, career officials in the government. Presidents come and go, presidential administrations come and go, but the permanent bureaucracy remains. And there needs to be consistency between transitions.
Um. The permanent bureaucracy is supported by academia, the institutions of higher learning. Um. It's supported by the media. Um. It's supported by business interests, moneyed interests, the military industrial complex. Um. And it all feeds in. Dwight Eisenhower warned us about this in his farewell, uh, address in 1961.
Beware of the military industrial congressional complex. The link between the money of defense industry or the money of Congress and the production capacity of defense industry will radically transform democracy in the wrong direction. We will no longer be a democracy, but an oligarchy um, this is what the deep state is. And what Donald Trump and his team are trying to do is say, no, we represent. Not the deep state.
We represent the American people. Um. But you can't erase the deep state in one fell swoop. You asked about policy. Yes. You know, in the 60s and 70s, we tried to drive the Soviet Union and China apart, not because we wanted to be friends with them, but because we feared what would happen if they came together.
Our policy to China was to open it up to capitalism, not because we loved China, but because we'd hoped that by transitioning to capitalism, communism would be destroyed. That didn't happen. So that's why today we are singularly focused on the Chinese Communist Party as the enemy of the United States. China is not doing what we wanted from China, Russia, or, uh, Soviet Union. We always wanted to break it up.
That was our policy back then. It's our policy today. We want Russia to fail. We want Russia to collapse, and we want to be able to break Russia up into smaller entities so that you don't have this large nation who, with all of these resources. So the deep state, these are their policies.
And so when Donald Trump comes in and says, I want to be friends with China, I want to be friends with Russia, I can imagine a world where I could be friends with both and accept them being friends together. The deep state says, that's not what we're really want. Donald Trump is a businessman. Businessman needs stability. Find me a businessman who says, I want to invest my money in an unstable environment, they'll say, no.
A businessman wants stability, wants predictability. You invest money, you can make this money over this period of time. He views relationships with both China and Russia from a business perspective. So, yeah, he wants stability. What about you?
Um. Well, I think that what we're. One of the things that we're talking about now is a change in the balance of powers. Right. And, uh, worldwide. And now that there are three great powers that the United States, China, and Russia operate on a different level than all of the other countries.
And we have these malevolent deep state forces that are, uh, they. They believe that they should break China and Russia down so that they can remain the king of the hill. But it is a fever dream. It is absurd. It's never going to happen.
They're trying to fight against modernity. The world is changing. All empires have risen in decline, and they won't accept that the United States domination can decline, but it can happen in a way in which everyone still prospers. The danger, of course, as we know, is that we have the decline of an empire, which has happened repeatedly in history, but there are nuclear weapons involved. And so we have to ensure that the world works together, particularly Russia and China, to manage what is a normal decline in power of an empire, which is the U.S. empire.
Uh. A few minutes ago, we were talking about negotiations, new negotiations between Russia and the United States, Belarus and the United States. But on the other hand, we can see that Zelensky, Macron, Merz are trying to disrupt peace process and put pressure on Trump. Uh. Why would they do this when ordinary people in Europe, uh, don't want to fight? Because they represent a political and economic elite that have captured Europe since the end of the Second World War. Their ability to capture Europe, um, is empowered by the United States backing them up.
Um. But what they're seeing in this world, that's transitioning, they're afraid because if Europe transitions away from the transatlantic relationship, away from NATO, um, recognizing the inevitability of, you know, the demise of the European Union, these, uh, empowered elites will lose their influence. So this is a struggle not for France or for Germany or for Italy or for England. This is a struggle for Macron, Merz, Starmer and others elites. This is about the elites holding on to power, and that's why they're opposing this. Do they not understand what, uh, this will lead to?
They understand full well what it will lead to. Their personal demise. They don't care. If you, if these politicians cared about their country, they wouldn't be taking the policies that they did. Why would Germany allow the Nord Stream pipeline to be blown up and have their economy collapse?
Because they love Germany. No, they did it because they want to stay in power. Why would Macron carry out the policies he's carrying out knowing that what he said, 11%, uh, popularity, the economy's collapsing. Uh. They're doing it because of personal, selfish reasons. These are spoiled, rotten political elites that refuse to accept the reality of history.
Um. Zelensky, Macron, Merz are trying to disrupt peace process, put pressure on Trump. Will the US President be able to prevent a new world war? How do you think? I definitely think they will because, um, one of the interesting dynamics now is that there's a significant separation between these, and I use this word, regrettably, leaders and the people. They can't drag the people along with them.
They're barely able to clutch onto power. In fact, they have to use extrajudicial, uh, excuse me, extra democratic means to prevent Moldova or Romania or other countries from, uh, exercising democracy. So the fact that they don't have their people, um, will prevent them from that. I've said this and I've talked to many people and interviewed many people in the UK and in other countries who have basically said, the young people in our country, if they were to try to start a war and start drafting our people and say, you're going to have to go fight Russia, they would burn their own country down. They wouldn't be able to do it.
And in fact, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs said that he talked to a number of, um, European leaders and leaders in European countries and said, well, if you had to send troops to Ukraine, how many would they, would you actually send? And they said to him behind closed doors, none, because my government would fall instantly. So I think you have a lot of bluffing because the people of these countries are not on board with this. And that would cause a complete revolution where they attempt, uh, to go over the top and start some kind of a conflict. Let me just.
Yes, please. I mean, I agree with everything that Garland said, but the nuclear war isn't going to be started because of Europe or anything Europe does. The nuclear war is going to be started because the United States and Russia both have nuclear arsenals that are on a hair trigger alert to, uh, launch weapons against one another. Um. This system exists independent of the policies that we, that we're discussing. You know, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, John F. Kennedy said that there was a 30 to 50% chance that that crisis would have ended in a nuclear conflict.
And he said that that was the most dangerous period in world history. No, the most dangerous period in world history was one year ago today, when the CIA briefed the United States Congress that there was a 51% chance of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States before the end of the year. 51%. And what's even more scary is that the Biden administration said, we're ready for this. We're ready for this nuclear war.
That was a nuclear war driven by the deep state, by, uh, institutions that have viewed Russia as the enemy, and the need for nuclear weapons to deter the Russian threat. Now, even though Trump is talking peace, you have Vladimir Putin bragging about the testing of Burevestnik missile, the Poseidon system, the Sarmat, the Yars, the Ereshnik. We can go on and on and on. And President Trump sees this and he feels intimidated. So we move submarines closer to the Russian shore, we test our own cruise missiles, we talk about building a golden dome, deploying our own Dark Eagle missiles.
This is a system out of control. And unless we inject control arms control treaties, this system will get us right to the edge of the abyss. And in one mistake, one miscalculation, one misjudgment, and it's over. No matter what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin want, it's on full automatic and it can't be stopped. There's, there's a movie called House of Dynamite and it's based upon a book written by Ann Jacobson about nuclear war.
And what you see in this is that nobody believe. Everybody's like, talking tough, yes, we've moved our submarines, yes, we've done this. But they all believe nothing's going to happen because nothing ever happens. And then something happens. And they're watching in disbelief as the system takes over.
And next thing they know, the President has to break the biscuit, read the code, and the missiles have to be launched and we're all dead. And they're all asking, how did this happen? They don't know how it happened, but it will happen. We are living in the single most dangerous time in world history today because we have systems in place geared for nuclear war. And we have to disenfranchise those systems or it's going to be all over for us.
A very important, uh, question for us is, um, what is the most m important condition for peace between Russia and Ukraine? Total Russian victory in Ukraine. Anything else is a joke. The Ukraine conflict s driven by a long standing American driven desire to use Ukraine as a vehicle to weaken Russia. And the only way to resolve this problem is to solve the Ukraine problem once and for all.
Because if you leave the Ukrainian problem intact through negotiations, through compromise, all that will happen is the deep state will continue to be pushing for reviving Ukraine as a tool to be used against Russia. The only way to solve this problem s to defeat Ukraine totally and therefore disenfranchise Ukraine from Europe, from the deep state. I'm, um, sorry to say that because I tried to be a man of peace, but Russia didn't start this war. This is a war that was thrust upon Russia by the West. And the only way to solve this problem is for Russia to have total victory.
That means every single objective that Russia has set out must be accomplished. The same question, um, I agree with Scott 100%. And the other, um, important factor here is that the west, the uh, NATO, uh, leadership, uh, has been able to maintain some level of support for the war through, um, propaganda. That's absolutely untrue. And part of the propaganda Is, uh, that they must stop.
They must, uh, The Russians must be defeated, because if they get victory here, they will move on to Poland and onto the English Channel, then points north, which is patently absurd. But a victory in, um, Ukraine will then set the stage for the discussion of what happens next. And when the people of the west, and this is a great fear of the political leadership in Europe, when the people of the west come to the realization. We were told that the Russians were going to keep going, and the Russians have achieved their goals, and they didn't keep going. We were told we had to make sacrifices to stop the Russians from over running Berlin.
But the Russians don't want to overrun Berlin. So it will expose the lies and propaganda, I believe, and it will expose to people that the Russians have no desire to attack, um, Europe. So I think it's critical that that victory happens. And it exposes, uh, the propaganda that's been used to frighten the people of. I understand you very well, because when we, uh, see how Lithuania are, ah, closing the borders, t's, uh, stupid step.
Yeah. I don't understand why. It's a provocation. Provocation? It's 100% provocation.
It's an act of desperation. You see, right now the status quo is in favor of Russia because Russia cannot be sanctioned into submission. Uh. Russia has garnered diplomatic approval around the world. Uh. And Russia is prevailing on the battlefield. And so they have to change the status quo.
So they're looking for ways to provoke this conflict. I would just ask people to look at a map. How does Russia get to Poland? Through Belarus. Is Belarus looking for a war with Poland?
No. Study the history of Belarus, the recent history. There's two things that come to my mind. One is that Belarus, more than any other nation, understands the consequences of war. Yes.
The Germans advanced through you and were pushed back. And 3 million Belarus citizens died. One out of every four Belarusians died in the Great Patriotic War. Um. Katyn. You know what Katyn is?
The world doesn't, unfortunately. But you know what the danger of fascism, what the horrors of that is. And two, t wasn't the Belarusians that invaded anybody, but asked the Germans what it felt like to fight the partisans of Belarus. You see, you don't want to go to war with Belarus because you will lose that war, just like the Nazis lost that war. But it won't be a war that started because Belarus invaded you.
It'll be a war started because you invaded Belarus. But this time, Belarus is backed by the full strength of Russia. I think the relationship between Belarus and Russia s stronger today than it has been since the collapse of the Soviet Union. You have a reshnik. Um. So I just think people need to put on their thinking caps.
There's no Russian divisions waiting to march on Poland. Um. So maybe Latvia, Lithuania, uh, Estonia, Poland need to calm down because they don't want to start something that they can't finish. My final question is there are very difficult times. Um. Has ever been anything like this in history? There have.
Now, this is something that's quite natural, and that is powers rise and powers decline. However, the technology that is available now makes that very different. Uh. Because, of course, nuclear weapons and of course, because of, um, the ability of online journalists such as us and journalists such as you to communicate information. You can do this, and this can travel around the world on the Internet in seconds. So I think the frightening part is the nuclear weapons.
I think the promising thing that's going on now is that alternative journalism is rising, that people's access to information is rising, and that people like us are able to bring information very quickly, accurate information that people can then research for themselves to find out if it's accurate. So I think we have to also look at this in a positive way right now. It's a difficult time, but there are opportunities for us to mitigate these problems. And I think things such as we're doing now, this is the mitigation that has to happen. And we'll provide the political cover for President Lukashenko, President Trump, and for those who are trying to resolve these issues amicably.
Uh. Scott, can we find some advice in the past for us today? Yeah. I mean, Barbara Tuchman wrote a book called August 1914. It was about the lead up to the First World War. And when you read that book, you see nations talking about alliances and mobilization.
And, you know, we're going to move this way and move this way to, you know, intimidate and to pressure. But all nations believed in July of 1914 that there wouldn't be a war because war was crazy. It couldn't be fought. But once you start moving pieces, war becomes inevitable. It takes on its own momentum.
We need to learn from that. In the past, today, things are happening. People are talking about moving troops, moving this, uh, changing alliances, shifting alliances. It's the same thing that's happening over and over again. What we need to learn from that is we have to stop the processes.
There are processes in place of powered elites who, uh, if left unchecked, will take us to war. And this time, the difference is it's not just going to be a world war that consumes millions of lives. It'll be a nuclear war that consumes all of humanity. So the urgency now to find a different path. And this again is why I applaud President Trump for making the phone call to President Lukashenko to find an alternative method of engaging Vladimir Putin away from, um, systems that the deep state controls.
Yes, we have a Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Yes, he can meet with Sergei Lavrov, but those meetings will be influenced by the deep state. The deep state doesn't influence President Lukashenko. So calling President Lukashenko, getting his advice and seeking, uh, an effort to work with Vladimir Putin, that's one of the things we could do to stop this madness. March to war.
That's all. Thank you so much for the, for being here today and, uh, for this interview. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much."
.svg){kind=logo}
