Scott Ritter on Russia's threatened strikes on European drone facilities and the Iran ceasefire
Glenn Diesen interviews former UN weapons inspector and US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter on Russia's threats against European targets and the Iran ceasefire.
Summary
Glenn Diesen interviews Scott Ritter about two major developments: Russia's explicit threats to strike European facilities producing drones used to attack Russian territory, and the state of the Iran ceasefire. Ritter argues that European nations producing and supplying drones for strikes deep inside Russia are engaged in an act of war, and that Russia is now prepared to respond with a decisive rather than incremental strike — one he believes could accelerate the end of NATO. On Iran, Ritter contends that the United States and Israel lost the war, that the ceasefire reflects terms Iran had already agreed to in Islamabad, and that Trump's aggressive public posturing is domestic political theater designed to disguise a defeat as a victory ahead of the midterm elections. Ritter also addresses the economic consequences for Europe of the Iran conflict, the China dimension of the Iranian oil blockade, and the trajectory of the Ukraine war.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Russia's Threats Against European Drone Facilities
Glenn Diesen: We're joined today by Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, a US Marine Corps intelligence officer, and an author. Thank you as always for coming back on the program.
Scott Ritter: Thank you very much for having me.
Glenn Diesen: We see now that the Europeans are speaking quite loudly and proudly about all the drones they're sending to Ukraine to fight Russia. But at the same time there are also reports that some of the drones that have been hitting the Russian Baltic Sea coast are coming from the Baltic states and/or Finland. We now see that the Russian Defense Ministry has published a list of European facilities that are now potential targets of Russian strikes, as they are producing drones which are being used to attack Russia. I even saw Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu making the point that Russia has the right to self-defense given that these are attacks from European territories. What do you make of all of this? Is this hot air, or do you think they are actually going to start stepping up efforts to restore their deterrent?
Scott Ritter: I think that Russia is looking to bring an end to this conflict this year. I think they have plans in store for this summer. The Russian approach has always been to avoid escalation and focus on mission accomplishment. They've allowed so-called red lines to be crossed because strategically you would lose more by being seen as overresponding — you might mobilize or stiffen support for Ukraine that is otherwise diminishing. I think this time, however, it's different. What had been done in the shadows is now official policy. We see at Ramstein nations bragging about the role they're playing, and this has become a de facto proxy conflict. When we speak of drones, we're not talking about the tactical drones on the battlefield — we're talking about drones that are used to carry out strategic strikes in the depth of Russia. This is an unsustainable model for Russia, and I think the time has come for Russia to step up and make Europe understand there is a price to be paid for irresponsible activity.
What Europe is doing, just so everybody understands, is an act of war. Europe is not an innocent party here. They are active participants in a conflict. They are planning these attacks. These drones that are being produced are being produced knowing that they'll be given to Ukrainians who will then use European-provided intelligence to strike Russia's depth. I believe this is an unsustainable model, and I think the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Security Council have made it clear that there will be consequences if this continues. That's where we're at right now.
Glenn Diesen: It's very strange. I've made this argument myself — to be a bit cautious about the path we're going down — but it's almost too easily dismissed these days, which is strange. The reason why most of these European states never supplied weapons to any country in a war would be because that would make the Europeans a participant in the conflict. Yet now we see the involvement as deep as it can be, to the point where the Ukrainians will play a very minimal role potentially, and yet the whole idea that the Europeans are becoming or have become participants is just rejected as Russian propaganda — which is what you say when you want to make a dissenting view go away. So it is shocking. But what do you see as the possible response? Do you see a possible warning strike first against Estonia or Finland, or do you think they will do something larger, going after key logistic nodes in Germany, for example? And what would the Americans do?
Scott Ritter: I'm not one to advise the Russian government on anything. I think warning strikes would be inconsequential. If you're going to strike a NATO country — as they say, if you're going to strike the king, kill the king. I think Russia gets one shot, and it should be a devastating shot that takes out the totality of the target set identified by the Russian Ministry of Defense in a way that completely obliterates Europe's potential to carry out their stated goals and objectives of supplying Ukraine with drones to be used in a proxy manner against Russia's strategic depth. It also sets the signal that Russia can change the target deck anytime it wants to and the outcome will be the same.
I think Europe needs to be put on notice that they're playing in the big boy arena. You decide to step into the ring with a super heavyweight fighter and he just knocked you out. Otherwise this will just continue to be a war of incrementalism that will solve nothing. The other thing is that by hitting decisively you fundamentally define the debate. Now it's put up or shut up time for Europe. And Europe will find out that they simply cannot go to war with Russia. They're not positioned to go to war with Russia. They don't have the resources. Europe will also have to have a debate about whether they're going to drop everything in a time of existential economic crisis and rebuild a European army that cannot exist, does not exist, and won't exist.
The United States is leaving. I don't think the United States will have any sympathy for the Europeans for doing what they did. This is fundamentally an act of war that is taking place. The Europeans, I think, are hoping for incrementalism that can lead to drawing the United States back in. The longer you have a debate that's open-ended, the more likely bad things are going to happen in terms of the outcome. But if you present Europe with a bloody nose and the fact that your hand is cocked to hit them again, and the United States now has to look at this, you make everything very clear with a decisive strike. I think the time has come for a decisive strike. I don't think the Russians would be publishing this list and Sergey Shoigu would be saying what he's saying if the Russians weren't prepared for a decisive strike.
Glenn Diesen: If it will be a large strike — not just the Baltic states and Finland, but primarily Germany as well — the big question is what would the Americans do? Lately we've seen tweets by Trump saying NATO's a paper tiger, you didn't do anything for us, we're not going to be there for you. Do you think they would just ignore it altogether? Would there be some response? NATO would be over if they wouldn't do anything, or Trump might be fine with that. What do you expect the American reaction to be?
Scott Ritter: First of all, this isn't your classic "we were attacked, we want collective defense." This is select NATO countries acting in a manner outside of the NATO framework. NATO as an institution has not made a decision to provide drones. It's a German decision, a British decision, decisions by individual nations. So legally it's going to be hard to make the case that Article 5 is even triggered. But at the end of the day, the United States knows more than anybody about fool around, find out. Here we have the Europeans fooling around. If Russia makes them find out, I don't see the United States rallying to their cause. I actually see Donald Trump saying, "You brought it upon yourself. This was stupid policy. We told you to seek peace. Instead, you promoted this war. And you weren't there when we needed you. We're not going to come now."
I think this is the end of NATO. And I think that's another thing that's going to go into the calculation of Russia — the accelerated death of NATO by launching a strike. Of course it's a gamble. Europe may rally and the United States comes back and NATO unifies. But I think all indicators are that that's not going to be the case. I think the Russians are looking for a decisive summer, and the decisive summer will come with offensives in the Donbas region that will bring back the totality of the Donbas plus deeper penetrations. I think it will be putting NATO — or Europe — on notice that Russia is done playing games. You can only sit there and threaten Russia with war so many times before Russia actually says, "Okay, let's do it." I think Russia is at the "okay, let's do it" standpoint.
Their economy is doing quite well right now thanks to the global energy crisis. No matter how this shakes out, Russia has now fixed a lot of their economic problems that might have held the hand of the Russian government before, out of fear that a conflict with Europe could trigger an even deeper economic crisis. I don't think Russia is afraid of that right now. I think all conditions are green for Russia to strike Europe if it continues this policy.
Russia's Spring Offensive in Ukraine
Glenn Diesen: As all of this is happening — and I think one of the reasons the Europeans might be escalating now is that the war isn't going well and it appears the Russian spring offensive has started — do you see this as well, or is it too premature?
Scott Ritter: I see indications. I wouldn't go to Las Vegas and put my mortgage on anything at this point in time. But Russia has been preparing the battlefield. I follow a very good Russian journalist who publishes a Substack page that provides updates on the battlefield with very good maps and explanation of what the Russians are doing. What you see is the Russians have been painstakingly setting up the front for a major effort by taking critical terrain, key terrain, cutting lines of communication, and attriting the Ukrainians — luring the Ukrainians into counterattacks, having well thought-out cause-and-effect actions, doing something on the assumption the Ukrainians would then counterattack, and then receiving that counterattack and destroying the Ukrainian force, thereby eliminating reserves. Ukraine has no reserves now because of these ridiculous counterattacks they've been undertaking.
The Russians have continued to prepare the battlefield for what logically would be an offensive designed to get through to Sloviansk — the last two big populated areas in the Donbas. If that urban belt falls, all of the Donbas falls. I think that's the goal this summer — to bring an end to the issue of the Donbas, meaning it's no longer a question of Ukraine giving up territory. Russia is going to take it.
Hungary's Political Shift and Its Impact on the War
Glenn Diesen: I get the feeling that the European enthusiasm about sending more money and weapons, and partaking more directly in this war, was partly held back by the Hungarians — Orbán specifically blocking a lot of the military aid which was supposed to be sent to Ukraine. Now that Orbán was defeated, what do you think is the significance of this? Some people might have exaggerated how much of a Europhile the new prime minister is, but it's still quite significant that the new leadership of Hungary might define Hungary's national interest somewhat differently from what Orbán did.
Scott Ritter: Look, who cares? I don't mean to be dismissive, but who cares? So what — Europe is now going to be able to spend 90 billion euros on Ukraine? Where does that money go? Is this money going to actually bolster Ukrainian capabilities? Are they going to provide Ukraine with the Patriot air defense systems Ukraine says it needs? Where are the Patriots going to come from? The United States isn't providing any Patriots to Europe. All Patriots are being diverted to American use. I just think this is a lot of talk.
The reality is on the battlefield, and nothing that happened in Hungary is going to impact what's going on on the battlefield. Nothing whatsoever. This is all inside-baseball European wannabe-ism. The fact of the matter is the Hungarian elections don't do anything to resolve the fundamental dysfunction of Europe. Yes, they can pass a 90 billion dollar aid package, but it doesn't solve France's problems, Germany's problems, England's problems. These problems still exist. It doesn't bring an end to the economic crisis. It doesn't resolve the energy security issues. The International Energy Agency says that Europe runs out of aviation fuel in six weeks — right in the middle of summer travel season. What happens when the entire European aviation industry is grounded? What does that do to the economy? How does Orbán affect that? Orbán doesn't affect anything.
This is just theater and it's always been theater. This is dysfunction in the extreme. Europe isn't going to suddenly be united with resolve and able to do things. You're still dealing with an inherently corrupt Ukrainian government that's falling apart as we speak, fighting amongst themselves. All you do is encourage corruption. I'm glad they got this resolved, because now we get to watch what happens to the 90 billion euros and how quickly that disappears and how little impact it has on anything. Then Europe may wake up to the fact that nothing they do is going to turn the situation around in Ukraine.
Glenn Diesen: No, that's an excellent point. I've often made that myself. All this money they don't really have, they have to use it for buying American weapons, which Americans can't sell anymore if they're running short — and they have to spend it on the Middle East anyway. The key problem in Ukraine appears to be the manpower issue, but the Europeans appear to want to help in that area too. We see Chancellor Merz seemingly agreeing to Zelensky's demands of expelling refugees so they can be sent back to Ukraine to fill up the trenches — which goes under the label of a pro-Ukrainian policy, but it's quite extreme what they're doing. I wanted to ask: how overall do you think the war in Iran has affected the war in Ukraine? Besides the weapons being diverted and Ukraine being taken out of the headlines, are there any other impacts?
How the Iran War Has Affected Ukraine and Europe
Scott Ritter: The biggest one is economic. You've already taken a very bad energy security situation in Europe and turned it into an absolute disaster. In order to resolve this, they're going to have to buy energy that doesn't exist on a spot market. They're going to be gouged. You're taking a continent that's already knee-deep in economic problems and making it even deeper in economic problems. It's going to make European industry more dysfunctional. It's going to create internal political rifts inside an already divided Europe.
I think the big thing out of this war for Europe is the economy. The second thing is the permanent damage that's been done between the United States and Europe — the end of NATO. I don't think there's any trust between Europe and the United States for any number of reasons. The United States has not been a trustworthy ally. The United States created an impossible situation for Europe, demanding that they respond to the Iranian crisis, a crisis Europe didn't want. But Trump is holding it against them. He's literally the boy taking his ball and going home. That's problematic too, because now Europe is confronted for the first time with the necessity of having to defend itself. In the past there were theoretical discussions about what would happen if the United States walked away. Well, the United States is walking away, and Europe knows that. Europe is realizing they don't have anything. There's no army, no defense industry, no air force. Without the United States, Europe is literally nothing. And yet they are involved in a proxy war with Russia using drones. I think this is the other big thing — the absolute realization of how little power Europe has from a military standpoint.
Glenn Diesen: I don't always understand what the strategy is. You would think that at the point when the Americans start pulling back and the big American support behind you goes away, you would be a bit more cautious in the way you approach other great powers such as Russia. But it doesn't seem to affect the posture — they're still doing the same as before. On the topic of Iran, do you think this might be coming to an end? Trump seems to think the war is coming to an end. The Iranians did say the Strait of Hormuz is open, but the way they defined "open" is very different from what Trump is describing, which sounds like unconditional surrender for the Iranians. What do you think is happening at this moment?
The Iran Ceasefire: Reality vs. Trump's Narrative
Scott Ritter: What's happening is exactly what I said was going to be happening. We have two realities in the world. We have the real geopolitical reality — the ground truth in Iran. The United States and Israel lost their war. They didn't accomplish any of their objectives. They hold no leverage over Iran whatsoever. Iran holds all the cards. The US has reached the capacity of its ability to escalate conventionally without crossing into outright war crimes. This is why Donald Trump chose to move towards a ceasefire — a ceasefire that Iran didn't want but was pressured into accepting because of China, who is suffering economically from the conflict.
Then you have the American reality, which is really centered on Donald Trump's ego. This is a political problem for Donald Trump. This isn't a national security problem for the United States. We're not trying to solve a giant international foreign policy crisis. We're trying to solve a domestic political crisis for the president, because he entered a war he said he would never enter, and he lost. He can't admit he lost.
What has been happening is this: the negotiations that took place almost a week ago almost succeeded in having a final treaty, but politically Trump couldn't accept it, because to accept that treaty on the timing and under the conditions put forward would mean the United States is acknowledging defeat. So Trump scuttled this agreement and then went on a week of posturing designed to create the perception of American power — that America is compelling Iran to do things. But what Iran is doing are things that were already agreed to in the Islamabad memorandum of understanding that was almost signed before Trump killed it. This is just a game. This is political theater.
What we see the president doing is trying to create the impression that without his decisive intervention, without his massive blockade, without his threats, none of this would be happening. The Iranians are just basically concluding the agreement. I think too many people look at what's happening and accept Trump's statements at face value. Nothing his statements say conforms to reality — to what's actually going on.
The Strait of Hormuz isn't open. The Strait of Hormuz has been selectively open. The Iranians are in control. They dictate what passes through, how it passes through, and what things are charged. Trump can claim he's the one responsible, but the bottom line is the Strait of Hormuz is open under terms that are acceptable to Iran — terms that Iran put on the table.
The other thing I want to remind people is that while all this theater is going on, there are technical teams in Islamabad that have been at work ever since these negotiations began, finalizing and clarifying the technical details of what will be an eventual peace treaty. Unless something very bad happens politically to Donald Trump, he can't go on with this war. It's politically devastating for him. The American economy will suffer. We know in elections it's the economy, stupid. Trump has no choice but to find peace. He's just finding it in his own little weird Trumpian way, where he has to convince a portion of the American public that he's playing 5D chess, that he's a genius, that everything he does is brilliant, and that none of this outcome would have happened without his intervention. Meanwhile, the Iranians just deal with reality.
Glenn Diesen: I noticed the way this has been reported on — you see a clear split. What can now almost be described as the MAGA base sees this as confirming a massive victory. But it's a good point: he keeps making statements and yet we're supposed to take everything at face value. It doesn't make much sense. But if the United States under Trump decides to go back to a full intensive war with Iran — how long can the US go on? From what I understand, there's been a lot of flights into the region over the ceasefire and a lot of stocks have been replenished. What is the fighting power versus the restraint on how long the US can keep this going?
Scott Ritter: There's a saying attributed to Albert Einstein — I don't know if it's actually him or not — that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. The United States lost the war. They started with all the precision-guided strike weapons they wanted, all the defense capabilities they had, and they got beat. So you're telling me they've restocked the same capabilities that they just got beat on. What are they going to do differently this time?
Their target deck is totally diminished. Anything of value was struck. Anything of retained value has been evacuated. They don't have a target deck, so they're just going to blow up buildings to blow up buildings, which is what they were doing near the end of this conflict to begin with. That's not victory. The more they bomb, the stronger the regime gets. There's no regime change there. And Iran has shown that these underground missile cities are pretty much invulnerable and that they continue to launch missiles and there's nothing the United States can do to prevent that.
While the United States has been replenishing, so too have the Iranians. They've been building more missiles, more missiles, more missiles. They've been repairing. So what — we're just going to start where we left off, with Iran inflicting huge damage on US bases, on nations that support the United States, on Israel? And then in the end, the United States, confronted with the fact that its normal strike packages don't cause any change in Iranian behavior, will threaten to strike energy targets. Then the rest of the Arab world will step in and say you can't, because then they'll strike us and it's all over. We lose everything.
The Saudis aren't happy about this. Nobody is. I think the United Arab Emirates might be the only country that's happy about what the US is doing, but that's because they have no choice — they're facing their own existential crisis. I just can't imagine Trump doing this, because this would be the war that cements the fact that he lost. There will be no recovery from this. Our economy, the global economy, will collapse.
I want to ask people to think about what happens when all European airlines shut down. It's not about tourism. That's how things are moved. That's how commerce is done, how trade is done. And if you're shutting that down — as goes aviation fuel, so goes diesel fuel. You're going to see a reduction in the ability of trucks to transport goods. It's the end of the European economy. The European economy will not function. The same thing is going to happen to the United States. Trump can't continue this disastrous model in perpetuity. Iran literally holds all the cards. Trump has to be smart enough to know that the lies Pete Hegseth told him in the first phase are still lies today. Nothing has changed to suddenly make them the truth. This is why you're seeing Trump be so aggressive — because half the play here is Trump's ability to convince a significant portion of the American audience that he was the decisive player, that without him we wouldn't have a peaceful outcome. There's this theater taking place right now.
China's Energy Vulnerability and the Iranian Oil Blockade
Glenn Diesen: I think I wrote something along those lines on social media — that if he wasn't president now, the world would be ripped apart — which is usually the kind of thing you hear from an arsonist masquerading as a fireman. But one other area where all of this could spread the war further is the Chinese aspect, because it seems that the blockade on Iran is at least to some extent aimed at targeting China, given that they are overwhelmingly the main importer of Iranian oil. We also heard comments from an American senator and from Bessent that the Chinese shouldn't get oil, and yeah, this was part of the objective — along with threats of sanctioning Chinese banks for trading with Iran. Whether or not this was initially an objective or is just becoming a side effect, it nonetheless seems to be intensifying or worsening relations between the US and China as well. Not the best move, probably, given the problems they're already facing with Russia and Iran. Do you think this is contained, or how do you expect the Chinese to respond if the blockade continues?
Scott Ritter: First of all, we need to understand that the issue of oil and energy security for China is a very sensitive one, because basically this war has exposed the soft underbelly of the Chinese economy, which is sustainable supply of energy. The cutting of Iranian oil to China is significant. Replacements haven't been found. China needs this energy. This has now caused a different stance. The Chinese have been quite articulate in saying: do not challenge the dragon on issues of sovereignty. Bessent can say what he wants. They can sanction banks. But they have to be careful, because China is loaded for bear. There are a lot of cards China can play economically now that this has become an existential issue. In the past, China wanted to avoid causing economic difficulties on the periphery of a larger, well-functioning Chinese economy. But left unaddressed, the issue of energy security could cause great harm to the Chinese economy.
I don't think the Chinese are messing around. How many Chinese tankers has the United States turned around? The answer is none. I think again this is rhetoric on the part of the United States. I think the impact is zero. I don't think we've stopped one Chinese-flagged vessel, nor do I think we are going to stop any Chinese-flagged vessels, because there is no legal justification for this.
China has been very strict. The United Arab Emirates sent a high-level delegation to meet with the Chinese and started to lecture them about Iran and the need to cut back support. They were cut off. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said, "You don't get to tell the dragon what to do with its foreign relations. We do what we want to do when we want. We've been friends, but not friends enough that you get to tell us what to do." That is the Chinese approach right now.
Scott Bessent — first of all, you have to understand we don't have a well thought-out plan. If we did, we would have executed it up front. This is a plan being made up as it goes along. It's designed to shape perception, not reality. The perception is that the president put China in its place. The reality is the president's words and American action haven't impacted this at all. China continues to get a flow of energy from Iran and the United States hasn't been able to stop that.
Glenn Diesen: If this is compelling China to take a more forceful stand in the international system, that's quite a horrible achievement, given that for decades their key strategy was not to create too many waves, not to raise their voice too much in the international system, in order not to invoke any great power rivalry. But if they're put in a situation where they're now forced to take some action, this is a disaster if one wanted a benign China. My last question is about what's behind all the bluster. All these statements by Trump — they're going to give up all their enriched uranium and we're going to give them nothing back, they're not going to get any money. Behind all of this, is there any negotiation going on that gives you any reason for optimism, either with Iran or Russia? Or does diplomacy seem dead at this point?
Prospects for Diplomacy: Iran and Ukraine
Scott Ritter: We know for a fact that the peace talks in Islamabad never ended. JD Vance, Witkoff, and Kushner went home. The senior Iranian delegation went home. But both sides left a number of technical experts who are continuing to work out and finalize the Islamabad memorandum of understanding as a final deal. I think there's a deal here. I think we're going to see a deal.
Donald Trump just has to create the perception that this deal wouldn't have happened without his decisive intervention.
Glenn Diesen: That would often explain his crazy comments — they seem irrational, but it could be a rational move if there's an expectation of a deal being made. If he thinks a deal is going to be made, one of the biggest constraints would be selling a defeat to the American public. But if he can do enough chest-beating and strongman poses before the peace deal, then perhaps this will help him sell a defeat as a victory. So maybe he knows what he's doing. I get the impression often that he's a bit all over the place and getting more erratic, but I'm hoping I'm wrong. How about the Russian issue? Because we haven't really heard much more of the negotiations. There are still talks, but I get the impression from Moscow that they're not putting much weight into this anymore — that they don't really think it's going to move anywhere significant.
Scott Ritter: This is analysis done in a vacuum, because as you said there's not much data out there to put your hands on. My feeling is that Donald Trump has given the Russians a blank check and has said, "Do what you need to do to get to where you need to get." The window is not going to be open forever. But I think Trump has said: you have this year, and you have until right before the November election, to turn what Trump wants — I believe — into a Ukrainian peace deal that he can present to the American people before the midterm elections. So he can become the peace president. This is his whole theme right now: my decisive intervention leads to world peace.
I think Trump has a completely hands-off posture on Ukraine and has basically given the Russians an open door to do whatever they need to do to get this thing wrapped up. Come August, there won't be a discussion about Ukraine giving up territory because Russia will have taken it. I think you'll see a more fundamentally weakened and chastened Ukraine and Europe. A decisive Russian strike against Europe would be extraordinarily demoralizing for Europe and could help push Europe into accepting the necessity of a peace treaty. That's what I think is happening right now. Trump needs this war to come to an end politically — this is all about the politics of Donald Trump. He's basically telling the Russians: we're not interfering. You do what you need to do. And then if the results get to where many of the Ukrainian objections are moot, we can finalize it.
Glenn Diesen: Although it appears it might be coming to an end now in Ukraine — not immediately, it can still go on for many months — but I don't think it's going to be possible to turn this around, especially after the consequences of the Iran war. It still surprises me that none of the Europeans are picking up the phone to call the Kremlin and at least start to talk about possible solutions. But here we are. Anyway, thank you very much for taking the time.
Scott Ritter: Thank you very much for having me.