Scott Ritter: Europe Attacked Russia – Retaliation Is Now Unavoidable (Transcript)

It was Russia’s goal and objective to keep the West from being able to do that. So you don’t overreact. You allow the red lines to be crossed because at the end of the day, it didn’t change the ultimate calculation. Russia still prevailed on the battlefield.

Well, Russia’s still prevailing on the battlefield today. The Special Inspector General of Operation Atlantic Resolve has published a report recently that says Russia’s dominating across the battlefield. So all those pro-Ukrainian social media platforms, just stick it in your ear. The United States has spoken. And even that report is very conservative in terms of giving a lot of credit to Ukraine and NATO that simply isn’t reflected by reality. But their conclusions are: Russia maintains operational strategic dominance across the spectrum of this conflict.

And that’s what Russia has been seeking to do — to wear not just Ukraine down, but the collective West down through a war of attrition. And they’re still succeeding.

But what’s happened is, because Russia has allowed the collective West to cross red lines, they’ve crossed the ultimate red line. Because in the past, the West always went, “Ah, we want to avoid being able to be categorized as an active participant in the conflict.” They always wanted to create that air of ambiguity. Well, there’s no more ambiguity. They’re just straight up doing it, straight up saying it.

And now we come to Sergei Karaganov. We probably should do a good job of introducing him to a Western audience. This is one of the premier political military analysts in Russia, a man who has advised Russian presidents from Boris Yeltsin to Vladimir Putin. In 2023, he articulated in writing and spoken word the need for the West to be decisively countered by Russia. He was in favor of the preemptive use of nuclear weapons — that when the West articulates a strategy calling for the strategic defeat of Russia, Russia has a duty and responsibility to respond and nip this in the bud before it manifests itself in something that does real harm to Russia.

And he famously said that his calculation is that no American leader will trade Boston for Poznań, meaning Russia could just take out a Polish city with a nuclear weapon and Europe will do nothing. It’ll intimidate Europe and the United States will do nothing because they don’t want to trade Boston for Poznań.

Vladimir Putin came out immediately and said, “I don’t agree with Sergei Karaganov. That’s not who we are. That’s not what we do.”

In 2024, as the West continued to push, he appointed Sergei Karaganov to be the head of the review process for the Kremlin’s strategic nuclear posture review. In 2025, the Russians published a new strategic nuclear posture that basically was the Karaganov Doctrine, basically saying that if nuclear powers provide conventional military capability to a non-nuclear power and use that to strike into the strategic depth of Russia that threatens Russia’s strategic infrastructure, that Russia is therefore empowered to use nuclear weapons in response. They can treat this as a nuclear attack.

That’s exactly what’s happening. People need to understand that this doctrine was published last year. It was covered. We talked about it. Everybody talked about it. Everybody knew this. And yet the West is doing something now that just flagrantly crosses that red line, because they believe Russia is bluffing.

And so now they’ve crossed the red line and Ukraine is doubling down because Ukraine smells blood. Ukraine is dying. And for the first time, Ukraine’s going, “Wait a minute, we’re doing real harm here. Let’s keep doing it. Let’s keep doing it,” because they want NATO to become engaged. That’s their goal. That’s their salvation. And so Ukraine is just doubling down, doubling down, doubling down, throwing caution to the wind.

The St. Petersburg Economic Forum and What Comes Next

In a week and a half, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum opens up. This is the premier event. It’s bigger than Davos. Everybody in the West knows Davos. The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum swamps it. It’s bigger, more participants, more money, more everything. You think the Russians are going to let Ukrainian drones come out of the Baltics and threaten this? You think that’s going to happen? You think they’re going to let this happen? No, not at all.

I see nothing but bad things, bad tidings. I think the West has gone too far. I think there will be hell to pay. I don’t know if Russia limits it to Latvia. If I were the Russians, I wouldn’t. I would take out the production facilities in England, in Germany, in Denmark — all identified production facilities associated with the FP-5 and other drones. I would take out German companies involved in guidance and control, and I would even take out Ramstein. Maybe not, maybe that’s an American base, but I would threaten to take out Ramstein in a follow-on attack where the intelligence is gathered and disseminated.

But the West has to be struck a blow, and I would eliminate Kiev once and for all. I think it’s time to find out what a dozen Oreshniks can do to downtown Kiev. And I think it’s time to show the Ukrainians that that’s the fate of all of your cities if you want to continue this war.

Vladimir Putin said on May 9th that he wants this war to wrap up. A lot of people went, “Oh, that’s a sign of Russian weakness. Russia’s willing.” No, it’s a sign of Russian recognition of their strength, and it’s time to flex their muscles. The day of restraint, I believe, is over.

I believe we’re moving to a very dangerous period, because now we get to answer the question of what will the United States do when Russia strikes a NATO country? How will Article 5 be treated?

Growing Pressure on the Kremlin to Retaliate

Glenn Diesen: Yeah, I spoke to Karaganov last week — on this program — and he was making the point that in the past he was representing a small minority who said it’s time to retaliate directly against the Europeans. But now he says he represents the overwhelming majority. So you already had all this pressure building up on the Kremlin that they had to choose a different path.

This dilemma: do they retaliate against NATO and risk going up the escalation ladder, or do they look the other way and again risk emboldening NATO? They always went with the second option, but now the pressure was mounting so much. And just at this point when all this pressure is mounting on Putin to take a harder line, we see these massive drone attacks and just uncontrolled celebrations in Europe.

And this is what’s so concerning. It’s as if they don’t see what’s coming next. They use all these terms like, because it’s bad for Russia, they think it’s good for us. You use this term about the people online, the pro-Ukrainian bloggers or social media activists — it’s not even pro-Ukrainian. These are the people — if Ukraine had implemented the Minsk Agreement, done anything like this, which they always opposed, Ukraine would be intact now.

Scott Ritter: This is —

Glenn Diesen: These people are destroying Ukraine. It’s quite insane.

But my concern is what the Europeans are celebrating now, which is that the attacks on Russia are having a growing impact on Russian security. This seems to — they seem to be making a significant dent in the Russian energy. Again, I’m not sure how much, but at least it seems to be enough to create problems for the Russians.

And if this is the case, that means the Russians can’t afford to look the other way anymore. I don’t know, how are you assessing the attacks on the Russian energy security or energy? Because this is the irony — we should be happy that we weren’t making a dent. Once we start making a dent, the calculations seem they have to change, don’t they, on the Russian side?

Russia’s Strategic Decision Point

Scott Ritter: Look, last November, I was in Moscow and I interviewed somebody affiliated with the Russian Duma, State Duma, involved in the Committee on the Protection of Energy Infrastructure from Drone Attacks. I’m sure it had a more Russian name than that, but he was on it. And I was surprised by the frankness of his conversation. I actually published it on the Russia House. I think many people ignored it at the time because, people don’t like to dig deep into fact-based reality. They like to live in their little fantasy worlds. I’m going to republish it and ask people to listen to it because it’s important what he said at the time.

He said that these attacks were taking place, but that the real damage done was minimal, that Russia was able to mitigate the damage and then repair the facilities and bring them back into order. So the strategic impact was not— which is why again, it’s not that Karaganov’s arguments became— again, I don’t believe Vladimir Putin responds to pressure from Sergei Karaganov or anybody else. That’s not how the game plays. And I don’t think Sergei Karaganov is promoting himself as a man who has intimidated Putin into changing his mind. Sergei Karaganov has taken a stance. And Vladimir Putin has said, no, the damage being done doesn’t rate an overreaction.

But now that damage equation has changed. It’s not that Sergei Karaganov’s arguments that Putin’s been pressured. Putin’s a pragmatic guy and he’s looking at it. The damage being done now to Ukrainian energy infrastructure is real and it’s not easily mitigated and it’s not easily repaired. Meaning that when you do this damage, it’s long-term. And Russia can’t afford long-term damage.

Again, there’s things that happen in Russia that we’re not aware of. And I believe Russia — the idea that Russia operates on the margins is absurd. I believe Russia probably has strategic reserves just like everybody else. And I believe that they’re able to ride this out because you see a lot of people talking about Russia’s export volumes haven’t dropped significantly. But the potential for the production of refined products for export is being impacted. And at some point in time, the reserves run out. And if you haven’t brought this potential back up, you’re going to have a gap and it’s going to be meaningful.

It’s not Vladimir Putin’s job to allow Russia to get to the point where you have meaningful impact. His job is to prevent that from happening. So this is my way of answering your question. I believe that between 10 and 20% of Russia’s export production capacity has been damaged to an extent beyond that which it was being impacted in November. That this damage will take months to repair. And that if Russia doesn’t nip this in the bud now, by the time they repair it and bring it back online, the reserves that are currently carrying them through this process will be depleted and then you’re going to have a real and significant impact. And that’s why Russia needs to act now.

And I also think that the Ukrainians have become more and more emboldened. We know what the consequences of an attack on the Kremlin will be — fatal for everybody. But if you’re a Russian, you don’t want the Kremlin attacked. You don’t want to wait for that to happen. You see the Ukrainians moving in that direction. This is the direction they are heading. It’s inevitable. You see the West backing up. You see the rhetoric and the damage is being done. This is the moment of decision right now. If you wait, you allow the Ukrainians to do significant, meaningful harm of an existential nature. Right now, Russia has the capacity to absorb, repair and move on if the threat could be terminated. So now is the moment of decisive action.

And I, again, I don’t want to speak on behalf of anybody. It’s just assessments. And as we all know, assessments could be wrong.

Victory Day and the Shift in Russian Posture

Scott Ritter: But I have to say on May 9th, the whole scene around Victory Day was — I mean, look, you’re a specialist. You lived in Russia. You know the Russians. This was a different May 9th than I’ve seen in the last 4 years since the special military operation began. This was a May 9th of deathly seriousness. At the embassy, the ambassador spoke incessantly about unconditional surrender, unconditional surrender, unconditional surrender, linking Nazi Germany and the Ukrainian government in a way that had never been done before. They spoke of Germany as a permanent enemy, not as a former enemy — Germany is the enemy today, is the enemy. This was the language.

Dmitry Medvedev, who has always been sort of the bad crazy cop to Putin’s good sane cop, wrote an article in RT. What’s the importance of RT? RT English. It’s an article written for the West to read. It’s designed for Western consumption, but it’s an article that speaks with the force of the Russian government. This is Russian state media. This isn’t Medvedev putting a social media post out on X. This is RT, Russian state media, publishing a major article written by a man who used to be the president of Russia, used to be the prime minister of Russia, and currently is the number 2 on the National Security Council. And the article is devastating for Europe. It pretty much endorses the Karaganov doctrine. Karaganov the day before had another interview that basically hammered home the same points.

The sense I get in having watched Russia, monitored Russia, et cetera, is that Russia has reached the point of decision. And unless something fundamentally changes, such as the unconditional surrender of Ukraine today, I think we’re going to see decisive action before the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum begins to preempt any potential attack.

The Putin-Xi Meeting and Its Significance

Scott Ritter: I’d be curious to be a fly on the wall — although that’s an insult to the Chinese. I’m sure their sanitation is such that there are no flies on the wall. But there should be a fly on the wall in the conversations between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping about this, because China was extraordinarily tough on Trump about Taiwan. And the Chinese know that Ukraine is as important to Russia as Taiwan is to China.

And so, the Financial Times playing their MI6 stupid mind games, putting out this stuff about how Xi Jinping told Trump that Putin overstepped. Just the simplistic stupidity of this. Andrei Yelnitsky, former Lieutenant General advisor to Shoigu when he was Minister of Defense and the author of the concept of mental warfare — this isn’t mental warfare. Mental warfare is actually carefully crafted, designed to get in there, latch in and rip. What the British did here was just crude and stupid. And you could immediately see all the corrupted social media outlets that immediately jump on and say, “aha, aha.” It’s just brain-dead people. No, that’s not the case at all.

But I do believe that this is a very important meeting and that, look, Russia needs China. There’s no doubt about that. Russia needs China and China needs Russia. And there’s no doubt in my mind that this meeting may go down in history as sort of the modern-day version — or the present-day version — of the February 4th, 2022 meeting where Vladimir Putin flew to China, to Beijing, met with Xi Jinping on the eve of the initiation of the special military operation. I have a feeling that there will be conversations had that at least allow the Chinese to be positioned for what is about to happen.

Europe’s Blindness to Escalation

Glenn Diesen: That’s what I was thinking as well, because Trump just left and Putin has arrived in Beijing. And I’m assuming if the Russians are now planning to dramatically change their posture in this war, that they would discuss this at length with the Chinese first. So I’m assuming as well that this is something they’re discussing, because again, there is no status quo which they can hold on to. It’s not just where they are today, the drone attacks, but the Russians can see exactly what direction this is going. The Chinese can see this.

It’s so — I think the hatred of Russia in Europe has blinded them completely to what will come next. I mean, this is so predictable, the war we’re walking into, and yet nothing — no debate, no discussion, no dissent, not a squeak. I mean, it’s extraordinary. This must be the most ridiculous world war we’re walking into here.

But I did want to get your thought on something though. The defense minister in Latvia resigned after, I think, the Ukrainian drones were scrambled and they hit some targets within Latvia. What do you make of this situation?

Latvia’s Defense Minister Resignation and the Baltic Corridor

Scott Ritter: Yeah, it’s hard to know unless you have access to the totality of information. I think what happened is there’s embarrassment. There could be no doubt that stupid games are played all the time. Implausible deniability is the coin of the realm when it comes to the official face of governance, but militaries and intelligence services oftentimes engage in covert relationships that are deniable or supposed to be deniable. I think they got caught with their pants down and it’s an embarrassing situation. And so he paid the price. He was relieved of his position, but the policy is not changing.

And again, we don’t know the details. I mean, they’re saying that these are drones that are redirected by the Russians using electronic warfare. The Russians are saying that these drones were in the airspace. I think people have been tracking the drones and they see there’s a definite Baltic corridor. So that’s not an invention. That’s not imagination. Whether the Russians were clever enough to take control of drones and target Baltic oil production is another thing. But again, if the Ukrainians weren’t using a Baltic corridor, then the Russians wouldn’t have to do this. But I think what we’re seeing here is that there are political ramifications for being caught in failed covert policy.

Glenn Diesen: Well, when the Russian Baltic coast was struck, the main argument was, “well, they didn’t use the Baltic airspace, this is Russian propaganda.” But now we kind of turn the page on this because now they’re saying — well, they admitted that the Ukrainian drones over Estonia, Ukrainian drones over Latvia, and again, unavoidably so, then also Russian drones over Lithuania. So they’re recognising now that they are using this corridor, but it appears that the new narrative is that, “oh, we haven’t permitted it and we oppose it.” But again, this doesn’t make any sense to me.

Russia’s Intelligence Picture on Drone Guidance

Scott Ritter: I just want to point out that, just as was the case when the CIA helped Ukrainians tried to attack Vladimir Putin in December of 2025 during his famous phone call with Donald Trump — drones are brought down intact and the guidance package is recovered intact and Russian intelligence is able to extract data that proves everything about the targeting.

When the Ukrainians launch the amount of drones that they do, yes, the Russians are shooting down a lot of drones, but we know that electronic warfare — for instance, if the Russians can take a drone and redirect it to a target, they can take a drone and land it. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the Russians have recovered intact a number of these drones and have reverse engineered the guidance and they understand exactly the path flown by the drones. And they also, by evaluating the data, can tell where the data came from, what intelligence sources were used, et cetera. So I believe the Russians have a very, very full picture of what’s going on, which is why when Narishkin publishes very pointed intelligence, I think we have to respect the fact that it’s probably fact-based, not just rumor or speculation or disinformation.

Kaliningrad as a Potential Flashpoint

Glenn Diesen: Well, just as they couldn’t get more reckless, we see that out of Lithuania they’re making the comments that we should now put more pressure on the fortress Kaliningrad. And this is again Kaliningrad — the enclave, it’s stuck here and severed from the rest of the Russian Federation, but this still hosts a million Russian civilians. They also host nuclear weapons. We earlier had — well, it’s been a while now — about the US General Donahue making the point that, “oh, we can take Kaliningrad.”

All of this rhetoric essentially about attacking Russia — how do you make sense of this? Because this is happening at the same time as the British now are trying to lead this naval group to confront the Russians. And I think it’s quite predictable that they want to, if not put a full blockade, at least harass Russian ships in the Baltic Sea. So we see the escalation at every level. Do you see Kaliningrad possibly being a flashpoint? Or I mean, there’s so many possible flashpoints now, I guess.

The Baltic Threat and NATO’s Credibility

Scott Ritter: I mean, it could be because we’re talking about insanity. I publicly cautioned General Donahue, not that he would listen to me, but I said the quickest way to ensure that you end up being marked with a stone at Arlington — your body won’t be recovered, but there’ll be a stone at Arlington — is to attack Kaliningrad, because the Russians will instantly kill you, your command staff, and everybody affiliated with this attack. It’s just stupid. The Estonians making similar things, Latvians threatening.

I tell you, the quickest way to make Kaliningrad not an enclave is to attack Kaliningrad, because we’re going to see the Baltics become Russian again, and they’ll become Russian overnight. That’s just the reality of it. If that’s the game they want to play, Russia doesn’t want to do this. But Russia’s not going to yield on this point. And if it does become a flashpoint, it’s a flashpoint that marks the total eradication of the Baltic states, which will be interesting because then what will NATO do? Nothing. They can do nothing.

The Baltics have always been this exposed appendage. Is Sweden now going to commit suicide, come in and save the Baltics? The Finns are going to make an attack on the Kola Peninsula and Vyborg to save the Baltics? No, because that would be the end of Finland and that would be the end of Sweden. I mean, these nations joined a failing military alliance that has no political viability and zero military capacity to meaningfully project power.

I just don’t understand — where is the commander of NATO forces telling the military council to tell the yappy Baltic poodles or chihuahuas to shut up? Because the rhetoric is fatal to NATO. If you want to have NATO totally collapse, show that Article 5 is absolutely meaningless. And the best way to show that Article 5 is absolutely meaningless is to provoke the Russians. What does the British fleet think they’re going to do besides sink? It’s stunning. They all believe Russia’s bluffing. They all believe Russia’s bluffing. They misunderstand patience and pragmatism for weakness.

Kennan’s Warning and the Baltic Miscalculation

Glenn Diesen: Yeah, I also heard the talks that Medvedev’s putting on a show, same as Karaganov, that it is just putting on a show, that they’re really deterred by NATO. But I don’t think this is all for show as well. I’ve been in Karaganov’s office just one-on-one before 2022, when he made the point that he doesn’t believe, as you said before, that the US would risk New York for Tallinn or something. So it’s not going to happen.

I think this overconfidence that the Russians can be deterred, that they wouldn’t dare — I think that they were cautious because it would be a reckless thing to attack a NATO country, but they kind of put the Russians in a position where it’s even more reckless not to do anything.

The idea you mentioned now that the Russians could take the Baltic states — I’m thinking a little bit about George Kennan. He gave this interview with the New York Times back in ’98 when he made the point that all the people pushing for NATO expansionism — at some point the Russians are going to have to push back. And he made the prediction that at that point, the NATO expanders will essentially say, “Ah, look, the Russians have always been imperialists, that’s just how they are.” And he was making the point that it’s flawed, that they will respond to what we’re doing now. That was his main argument.

I feel now it’s the same thing. The Baltic states, for the past four years, have been saying, “Oh, the Russians might march on Paris,” or “After they’re done with Ukraine, they’ll invade Latvia.” I always made the point that that’s ridiculous. No one in Russia wants to go into Latvia. But it doesn’t look so ridiculous anymore. I don’t think they want to annex that territory — sounds like a mess. But I do think that they will strike it, probably. I mean, I think we crossed that boundary as well. There’s just no coming back from this. Even if we stopped here and pulled back a bit, we’re going to continue to plow forward.

Scott Ritter: Yeah, I agree. Which one of the republics — is it Estonia that has the large Russian population, or Latvia?

Glenn Diesen: I think they both have about — well, a significant, I think 20% — yeah, those countries, but they also have the strictest laws where the ethnic Russians or Russian speakers can’t hold a government office, they don’t get the voting rights, so they’re kind of second-rate citizens. And the whole argument when they were joining NATO and the EU in 2004 was that Russia should be happy because the EU and NATO stand for human rights, so now the Russians should be reassured that the Russian minority will get rights. But again, we’re now 22 years later, nothing has been done. I think there’s a higher concentration in a specific region in Estonia, at Narva, but yeah.

The Karaganov Fallacy and the Nuclear Threshold

Scott Ritter: I just think that they should study the history of the special military operation and understand the difference between Rossiyane and Rossiya — between Slavic Russian people and the Russian nation — and understand that in Estonia, it’s both, and you’re playing with fire. You’re giving the Russians the excuse to do something that otherwise they wouldn’t do.

I’m nervous. I don’t know about you, but I’m a little nervous. I don’t want to test Karaganov’s thesis. I don’t want to test it because I know the outcome. I believe Karaganov is right that the United States will not sacrifice Boston or New York for Poznan or another city. But the United States can’t allow Russia to create a new paradigm of nuclear deterrence where you have one power not only possessing nuclear weapons, but having demonstrated the capacity to use nuclear weapons. The other power can’t sit there passively and be the same way. They must use nuclear weapons too. And then the United States now has carte blanche to use nuclear weapons against Iran. And we will, because the precedent’s been set by Russia. And once we begin these exchanges, it doesn’t stop until there’s a general exchange and we’re all dead.

This is the flaw — I call it the fallacy, the Karaganov fallacy. I don’t want to test it. Sergey Karaganov is a man I respect. I’m sure you respect him as well. His intellectual capacity is prodigious and somewhat intimidating sometimes. So I don’t want to claim that I’m smarter than he is, but on the issue of nuclear war and nuclear weapons, I am experienced. And my gut feeling, as an experienced analyst — you sort of go with your gut feeling on occasion — is that there’s no containing nuclear weapons once they’re used. Once they’re used, whether it takes months, years, a decade, eventually we’re going to have a general nuclear exchange that takes out all of humanity. And I’d prefer that not to happen.

Which means I’d prefer no Russian conventional strikes. I’d prefer peace. I’d prefer sanity, rationality. But the West has basically punted on that one. So here we are.

Glenn Diesen: Yeah, and I always make that point as well. What’s going to kill us all is the delusion of escalation control. Once we do what we’re doing now, the belief that we can just escalate a little bit more, a little bit more — if the Russians don’t care for it, maybe we’ll take a little step back and then push forward again. I think this is the dangerous delusion. We’re going to lose control over this very quickly. And that should be the lesson of Iran as well, by the way — that you can’t go back to status quo, essentially.

Scott Ritter: Marco Rubio needs to learn that lesson, because he said, “I wish we could go back to status quo.” Barbara Tuchman’s book — was it March of Folly that she wrote, or August? I think March of Folly — about basically the summer of 1914. Nobody believed that. They all believed it was containable, that you just had a little conflict with Serbia, it wasn’t going to be a big deal. Don’t worry about it. Next thing you know, you have a world war. It just got out of control.

And I think that’s where we’re at right now. Trump is not a rational actor. And he’s already been humiliated by Iran. Can you really withstand another humiliation? Again, these are theses I don’t want tested. I don’t want to test these. But unfortunately, I think we’re going to test them.

Escalation Strategies and Russia’s Likely Response

Glenn Diesen: So you assume it’s very likely, if not guaranteed now, that the Russians will retaliate. How do you see them going up this escalation ladder? Will they go with incrementalism, or go in very hard, essentially? Because they could do something from plausible deniability — that is, sending in Ukrainian drones, staying essentially down before they do a conventional strike. I mean, they can do a tactical — I don’t think a tactical nuke is, you know, that would be far, far up the escalation ladder. But how do you see them retaliating, or what would you expect? There’s no Russian playbook, as people say, so that is not necessarily one thing that’s true. But what do you think might be possible escalation strategies?

Scott Ritter: I have to take off my military hat, because my military hat says when you’re going to do this, do it decisively. I do believe that Putin will allow for escalation management, but the initial blows will be decisive. I think that Kyiv will be eliminated — Bankova. And I believe that a Baltic state will be struck decisively. You hear the rhetoric — the decision-making centers have already been identified. So I believe that an example will be set of a Baltic state, a decisive example.

And then I think there will be very little wiggle room — meaning zero tolerance for Western retaliation. Any effort at Western retaliation will bring the full weight of Russian military response. But I don’t believe German factories are going to be hit in the first wave. I don’t believe UK factories. I think that will be left for a follow-on wave if necessary.

But I do think that Russia will have to put a marker down, and that it won’t be just one or two attacks. I think if they hit a Baltic state, they will eliminate the Baltic state, because you have to send a signal. You have to say, “There but for the grace of God go you. This is the future of Germany.” And I do think that it’s time for Oreshnik to be unveiled in all of its awful, horrific reality. No single attacks anymore — concentrated Oreshnik attacks, the way the weapon was designed to create nuclear-type devastation in an urban area. And the West needs to see this.

Is There Still a Diplomatic Path?

Glenn Diesen: It’s so incredibly depressing. Do you think there’s any possibility now that we’re kind of reaching, or have reached, a point where we’re likely going into a direct war with Russia, or Russia will at least retaliate in a big way? Do you think there’s any possibility for a diplomatic path? What do you make of what the EU is doing now? Because they’re discussing — should we talk to the Russians? Who should talk to the Russians? What should we talk about? What do you make of this?

The Path Forward: Diplomacy, China, and the Hope for Peace

Scott Ritter: I don’t see any hope in the EU in the short term maturing to the degree necessary for diplomatic intervention to be meaningful at this stage. Because at the same time they’re speaking of diplomatic intervention, their militaries are talking about war. You need to shut down the war.

I do believe that China provides a very important diplomatic possibility, that China, after Putin leaves, China will be able to contact Trump because there is connectivity there, and China will be able to contact the European Union and put them on notice that this isn’t a bluff. This is the real deal. You have no choice but to change the way you’re going or else the consequences will be devastating.

So I do think there’s still a window of opportunity, but the United States needs something to jump kick it. And right now we don’t have effective one-on-one with Putin. I think if China intervenes, then Trump may call Putin, Putin may call Trump, and pressure could be placed on Europe. And I’m hoping that that’s the case. I’m hoping the United States puts Europe on notice that if they continue down this path, the United States will not be there for them. That this is their problem and they need to stop this right now.

And the United States also needs to basically tell Ukraine it’s over. It’s finished. You’re done. Whether Trump can do that, like I said, if he had won Iran, maybe he’d have some political capital to spend, but he’s a very weakened man. I don’t see him being able to take two defeats at once, but the smart thing to do would be to stop this path towards war because that’s what we’re on.

We’re literally on a path towards the kind of war that I trained to fight as a young Marine. I mean, this is the war I trained to fight. And so I’m fully aware of what this kind of war means and what the consequences are if we ever cross that line of departure. Nobody in the military today, unfortunately they’ve all aged out. My generation is done. We don’t have any real Cold Warriors left. So they don’t know what the Cold War was. They don’t know what the Soviet Union was. They don’t know what it was like to be prepared to fight large-scale ground combat in Europe that involved nuclear weapons. We’re getting ready to experience that today. And I just wish people would listen.

Europe’s Radical Elements and the Absence of Common Sense

Glenn Diesen: Yeah, it’s kind of sad that seemingly the only thing that can stop war now is Trump calling the Europeans and telling them, you know, if you decide to continue this, escalate the war on Russia, you’re on your own. They will hit back and we’re not going to help you. I mean, if the future of the world is in the hands of Trump, we might all be, yeah, royally screwed already. I wish we had some more responsible people. And that goes for the Europeans as well.

He mentioned the crazy Baltic states. I mean, this was the main idea, I think, in 2022. That is, once they decided, okay, we will essentially boycott diplomacy, we’ll make weapons will be the path to peace, that’s when the EU thought it was a great idea to hand over the car keys to the most radical elements. That is, you know, Kaja Kallas, for example, out of Estonia. I mean, this is very hard to walk this back and suddenly demand common sense out of her.

So no, I think I don’t know, I’m not very optimistic anymore. But yeah, I haven’t packed my bags yet, but it seems like we’re getting pretty close now. So it’s, no, it’s very, again, so depressing we ended up here.

And you don’t get the impression, or do you get the impression there’s someone in Europe though who’s understanding the severity of this situation? Because all I see is applause in the media. “Oh, look, look how much how bad they hit the Russians. Yeah, we’re winning, Ukraine is winning.” And nobody ever defined what exactly does winning mean in a war against the world’s largest nuclear power, who considers this to be an existential threat. No one. There’s no discussions, just this ridiculous tribalism, the idea that, “Oh, if they’re losing, that means we’re winning.” This is the extent of their logic.

It would be like a goal of defeating America with drone warfare out of Mexico. Like, you don’t want to win this war. You don’t want to bring too much pain. It’s suicide. But yeah, here we are. Anyways, any final thoughts?

Final Thoughts: Keep the Conversation Going

Scott Ritter: No, I mean, I’m not religious, but pray for peace. Pray for something. Hope something happens. But also keep doing what you’re doing, Glenn, because the interviews you have have a meaningful impact. I take a look at, you’re interviewing the right people, you’re asking the right questions, you’re getting the right conversations. And it’s resonating across the intellectual aspect of the World Wide Web.

We know that independent media that’s internet-based oftentimes has zero quality control and it brings out the worst in us, but you bring out the best in terms of intellectual development of complex ideas. Just keep doing what you’re doing because you and I can’t solve all the world’s problems. We don’t have the capacity to make decisions. But I can guarantee you that what you say and maybe what I say sometimes and what you get other people to say, resonates in certain circles that do have the ability to advise on policy.

So yeah, don’t just pray because praying’s passive. Keep doing what you’re doing. And for all your supporters out there, keep supporting Glenn because you’re one of the more important voices out there.

Glenn Diesen: Well, thank you. And yeah, I hope it does make a difference. So thanks again for taking the time though.

Scott Ritter: Okay, thanks. Have a good day.

Related Posts

• John Mearsheimer: Ukraine Is Landlocked & Donbas Enters Endgame (Transcript)
• Joe Kent Interview: Iran Trap, U.S. Ground Invasion & Israeli Deception (Transcript)
• Transcript: Laura Loomer Interviews Volodymyr Zelenskyy
• Transcript of Lawrence Wilkerson Interview: Iran War Escalates Toward Global Crisis
• Transcript of Robert Pape Interview: Diary Of A CEO – Mass Casualty Attack