Former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter discusses the Biden administration’s latest Ukraine policies, including the potential consequences of a controversial authorization allowing Ukraine to use U.S.-provided weaponry against targets deep within Russian territory.
Biden’s Ukraine Gamble: Are We on the Brink of Global Catastrophe?
With a palpable sense of urgency, Ritter outlined the risks of a direct confrontation between the world’s largest nuclear powers—an outcome he described as both avoidable and catastrophic…
A Provocative Authorization
President Joe Biden’s reported decision to allow Ukraine to strike targets up to 190 miles inside Russia using American-supplied long-range missiles has reignited fears of escalation. Ritter explained that this policy represents a significant shift, effectively placing the United States at the heart of direct attacks on Russian soil. According to Ritter, Russia views such actions as acts of war, regardless of whether Ukrainian forces physically fire the missiles.
“The moment Ukraine uses these missiles against Russian territory, Moscow will treat it as an attack by the United States,” Ritter said. He further detailed that Russia’s response would not be limited to diplomatic condemnation or economic countermeasures. Instead, he warned of devastating military repercussions. “The response will be catastrophic,” Ritter continued, “Kyiv will be leveled by a massive thermobaric bomb, and this will only be the beginning.”
A History of Brinkmanship
Ritter drew parallels to a similar crisis in September when Biden reportedly considered authorizing such strikes but ultimately pulled back. At the time, Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin and Ambassador Anatoly Antonov, issued stark warnings. Ritter recounted how the Kremlin made it clear that any U.S.-backed strikes on Russian territory would trigger a declaration of war. Biden, faced with these explicit threats, backed down.
“What’s changed since then?” Ritter asked. “Nothing, except the administration seems to think Russia is bluffing. They are not.” He emphasized that Moscow’s strategic planning for such scenarios is automated, meaning decisions have already been made on how to respond. “If the trigger is pulled, Russia’s counterstrike is inevitable, and it will spiral out of control,” Ritter asserted.
The Nuclear Dimension
One of the most chilling aspects of the discussion was Ritter’s explanation of Russia’s military doctrine, which stipulates the use of nuclear weapons if a major conventional attack threatens the nation’s core security. He explained that a U.S.-facilitated strike on Russian territory could be perceived as a prelude to a decapitation strike—a coordinated attack aimed at destroying Russia’s leadership and command structures.
“Russia has said repeatedly that such a scenario would be met with nuclear retaliation,” Ritter noted. “It’s not speculation. It’s doctrine. The moment an attack of this scale happens, the nuclear response becomes automatic.”
Ritter’s warnings highlight the thin line separating the current conflict from a global catastrophe. The use of nuclear weapons, he argued, would not remain localized. “Once the first nuclear weapon is used, it’s game over. It escalates uncontrollably, and we all lose.”
Operational Realities and U.S. Involvement
Adding to the complexity is the direct involvement of American personnel in Ukraine’s military operations. Ritter explained that the long-range missiles in question, known as ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems), require sophisticated targeting and cryptological processes that only U.S. personnel can execute. From mission planning to missile guidance, these operations are managed by American contractors or active-duty military personnel.
This logistical dependence further blurs the line between Ukrainian and American military actions. “When those missiles are fired, they might as well have ‘Made in America’ stamped on them, because they are guided and launched by Americans,” Ritter said.
This dependency raises legal and moral questions about the extent of U.S. involvement in the conflict. As Ritter noted, “This isn’t Ukraine attacking Russia. This is the United States attacking Russia by proxy.”
The Biden Administration’s Calculations
Ritter suggested that the timing of these decisions is no coincidence, pointing to the upcoming U.S. presidential transition as a key factor. With the 2024 election over, he argued that the Biden administration is attempting to lock in policies that will be difficult for a potential new administration to reverse—particularly as Donald Trump, who has pledged to end U.S. involvement in Ukraine, returns to the White House.
“The administration knows it’s running out of time,” Ritter said. “They want to create conditions on the ground that will constrain Trump from pulling back support for Ukraine.”
This approach, Ritter argued, is fraught with risks. By prioritizing short-term political goals over long-term stability, the Biden administration is gambling with global security. “They’re not just gambling with American lives,” Ritter said. “They’re gambling with humanity.”
The Broader Geopolitical Implications
The discussion also touched on the broader implications of U.S. actions in Ukraine. Ritter emphasized that NATO’s involvement, as well as support from allies like the UK and France, further complicates the situation. He warned that these nations are equally at risk of being drawn into a larger conflict, particularly if Russia interprets their actions as part of a coordinated attack.
Moreover, Ritter criticized what he sees as a lack of foresight among Western leaders. “They think they can contain this,” he said. “They can’t. Once this escalates, it’s out of anyone’s control.”
A Call for De-Escalation
Despite the grim outlook, Ritter offered a clear solution: immediate de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. He echoed calls from President Elect Donald Trump, who recently issued a statement urging an immediate cessation of hostilities in Ukraine. Trump’s statement described the current U.S. policy as a path toward “nuclear Armageddon” and called for a complete overhaul of the foreign policy establishment driving the conflict.
Ritter agreed with this assessment, emphasizing the need for leaders to step back from the brink. “This isn’t about winning or losing in Ukraine,” he said. “It’s about survival—ours, theirs, everyone’s.”
As the Ukraine conflict enters a new and dangerous phase, the stakes could not be higher. The Biden administration’s policies, while aimed at supporting Ukraine, risk drawing the United States and its allies into a catastrophic confrontation with Russia. With the possibility of nuclear escalation looming, voices like Scott Ritter’s serve as a stark reminder of the cost of miscalculation.
The world stands at a crossroads. Whether leaders choose the path of diplomacy or continue down the road of escalation will determine the fate of millions—and perhaps the future of humanity itself.
