Scott Ritter: Humanity staring down Armageddon without arms control
by Scott Ritter, TASS interview [11-27-2025] Scott Ritter(bio).
Former US intelligence officer and ex-UN inspector Scott Ritter gives an interview to TASS where he takes a lay of the land around Washington’s peace plan for Ukraine, talks about how important arms control is in preventing an Armageddon on Earth, and speaks on how America is falling behind in new weapons technology.
The political and social circles have been actively discussing the US plan for settling the conflict in Ukraine and its possible updates. In your opinion, which areas of the agreement are the most difficult in the negotiations?
The 28-point peace plan that's currently at the center of negotiations appears to be a product of some coordination between the Russian side and the American side. And I think that needs to be kept in mind that the 28-point peace plan was unacceptable as written, simply reducing it to 22 points. And we don't know these points. We do know, for instance, though, that the Ukrainians have upgraded their demands from a 600,000 strong military to an 800,000 strong military. This is a non-starter for Russia. The idea that Russia would allow Ukraine to maintain the largest land army in Europe, armed by NATO, after saying that this army is a European army designed to confront Russia, this is absurd. Russia, I believe, would never accept such a term. Ukraine also indicates that they want the right to join NATO and that they want the conflict frozen along the current line. Again, two things that are unacceptable to Russia.
What future does this US proposal have?
I think the important thing here is that there is a process taking place which has the United States confronting Ukraine with some uncomfortable truths. Number one of which is that they are facing imminent military collapse. And if they don't agree to a solution soon, the situation on the battlefield will make negotiations moot, as Russia appears to be on the cusp of achieving most, if not all, of their stated military objectives. So, I think the clock is running, time is running out for Ukraine, and Russia, I believe, will stick to its guns. And Ukraine's job at this point in time is to deflect blame for the inevitable collapse of these talks onto Russia so that the Trump administration blames Russia, not Ukraine.
What scenarios for a Ukrainian settlement do you foresee?
Russia will respect the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people and create the opportunity for the Ukrainian people to determine for themselves what their future shall be. And the Ukraine of the future must be neutral and should be prosperous. It doesn't do Russia any good to create a Ukraine that's dysfunctional. I just respect the Russian government and I believe there's a plan in Russia and I believe the plan is designed to engender stability, long-term stability. Stability requires people who are prosperous. And knowing the history of Russia, I think, I mean, you've heard about the three sisters: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine. I can't imagine Russia envisioning a world where one of the sisters is unemployed, homeless and starving. I think when Russia talks about the three sisters, they're talking about three prosperous entities. Russia has to win the war and defeat that narrative about Russian imperialism created by the West.
How can you describe the current situation in global strategic stability?
When you invest so much money into projects that are ostensibly for your defense, at some point in time, the human urge is to justify this expense. Maybe I don’t have to use these weapons, I just have to threaten to use these weapons, that they are here. And the other side think in the same way. <…> At some point in time one mistake leads to what cannot be stopped. <…> Back in the 1960s there was an arms race. <…> The USSR and the US realized the irrationality of this. <…> It was the beginning of the arms control system. <…> New START is about to expire. When it’s gone there is nothing left. <…> The weapons we have today are far more dangerous.
What was a game changing event in strategic stability?
I don't think the West understands what happened when Russia made the decision to use the Oreshnik missile. For the first time in history, a nuclear-capable intermediate-range missile was used in combat. Now you've broken that barrier. These weapons can be used again now. But what about the other side? If you use that weapon, do we know if it's nuclear or non-nuclear when you start to fire? We don't know. It's destabilized. Now we're guilty of the same thing. We have F-35 fighters that are nuclear capable. Every time an F-35 fighter takes off in NATO and flies towards Russia, what do the Russians think? Nuclear, non-nuclear, what do we know? It's the same game being played. But Russia has always been the mature party here. It wasn't Russia that left the ABM Treaty. It wasn't Russia that left the INF Treaty. And it wasn't Russia that caused New START to expire. But now Russia has to adjust its actions based upon the performance of the United States. And as it makes these adjustments, we move closer to war. We also deal with, when we don't coordinate with each other, when we don't communicate, when we don't talk, it can lead to misunderstandings.
Can you give examples of such misunderstandings?
In October 2025, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia tested the Burevestnik nuclear powered cruise missile. In America, this was described as nuclear weapons tests. They're not. They're the tests of nuclear delivery systems that happen to be nuclear powered. Nuclear weapons tests are totally different. But our leadership, American leadership, hears that Russia is testing nuclear weapons. So, we say, well, then we will test nuclear weapons. Now, we don't mean nuclear weapons, we mean nuclear delivery systems. We'll test the Minuteman III, we'll test the new air-launched cruise missile. But now the Russians hear this and say we have to prepare for nuclear tests, real nuclear tests. Then the Americans hear the Russians saying we have to prepare for real. So, we begin to prepare for real nuclear tests. Do you see how dangerous this cycle is as we move towards what would be an Armageddon-like event? All humanity will die. You cannot win a nuclear war. And yet, both the United States and Russia continue to deploy new weapons and continue to create conditions that could lead to escalation. Imagine if we start testing nuclear weapons again without a treaty framework, without coordination, without communication, the misunderstandings that could take place. You start moving pieces on the chessboard and next thing you know, checkmate for both parties. Wipe the board clean because it's all over.
Do you see a way out if this vicious circle?
Again, I'm not trying to be insulting to anybody, but if we, the people, sit on our behinds and wait for our governments to do the right thing, we'll die. Because we see what's happening when our governments are acting to one another. There is an absolute imperative, especially from the American side, that the American people become engaged decisively on these issues. I came to Russia to begin a dialogue with the Russian people.
How feasible is Russia's proposal to extend the quantitative restrictions under New START in such conditions?
There were conditions attached to that. It wasn't an open proposition. Russia would be willing to have a one-year moratorium, but would have to take into account things that were destabilizing, such as if we, the United States deployed Dark Eagle intermediate range missiles to Europe, which we're planning to do next year, if the United States began to implement the Golden Dome ballistic missile defense shield, nuclear weapons testing things of this nature. In that case, Russia would have to take the appropriate actions. Again, I come back to what I said, arms control is that what keeps us alive. Without arms control we will die.
How do you assess the current level of development of the American military-industrial complex in comparison with the Russian one?
Again, the Oreshnik missile. It's a marvel of technology. I'm not denigrating it at all. I'm deeply impressed by it. But it's one of the most dangerous things that's happened in modern times. Not because it was built, but because it was used. That changes everything. It broke a glass ceiling. But from an American perspective, we have nothing similar to that. Our weapons are old. We're modernizing a 30-year-old missile. <…>We can't afford building new B-21 bombers, so we're going to refurbish B-52 bombers. Any misunderstanding in this situation can lead to a dangerous escalation. <…> Russia has been patient for many years and Russia should continue to be patient. It is not weakness. Sometimes it is the strongest person that has to be the patient person.
Looking at the bigger picture, how stable is the modern architecture of international relations and what role does BRICS play?
The reality in the world today is not the world that existed after the Second World War. The Second World War encouraged the development of superpowers. So, we had a bipolar world split between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, America became the singularity, the global hegemon, because the world wasn't ready to stand on its own two feet. Today the world is ready. It is standing on its own two feet. And it's time for America to step aside and become one of many instead of just one. The problem is the institutions that make the world function were devised by the United States. But today the Trump administration does not accept the inevitability of BRICS in the multipolar world. It articulates against BRICS. BRICS is a child. And the world needs to do a better job of raising it because it is the future.
In the context of multipolarity, how can you explain the increased activity of the United States in Latin America and the rising tensions with Venezuela?
If we talk about Latin America, the US right now is retreating from global dominance to regional dominance as a result of the realities of multipolarity. <…> I don’t think that the Trump administration is going to push us into a war with Venezuela. <…> If we go to Venezuela we could be talking about a decade-long involvement in the conflict that would probably end like Vietnam.
To summarize, are there any positive aspects under current unstable circumstances?
The only positive aspect is the weakening of Washington's global influence. However, a full transition to multipolarity will be difficult. Moreover, without an arms control system, a serious risk of escalation between Russia and the United States remains.
Interviewed by Cristian Eloy Torres, Anton Vilchinsky