When US cannot compete economically, it moves to military confrontation

Editor's Note:

With NATO's continuous expansion, it is evolving from a regional security alliance into a global organization. The alliance, which celebrated its 75th anniversary with a summit in Washington recently, has played a major role in exacerbating the Russia-Ukraine crisis. As the crisis has been in its third year, how to see the trajectory of the conflict? How likely is the possibility of a nuclear war in today's world? Global Times (GT) reporter Ma Ruiqian recently interviewed Scott Ritter (Ritter), a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, over these pressing issues. 

GT: How do you see the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict this year? How much more support can the West provide to Ukraine?

Ritter: This is a very difficult war. It's a war that didn't need to be fought and shouldn't have been fought. Russia did not want to invade Ukraine. It's the last thing Russia wanted to do, but they were compelled to take this action because of the irresponsible behavior of the US and NATO, and the European Union. Russia's initial plan was based on putting pressure on Ukraine to accept a rapid peace settlement, but that peace was rejected by the West. 

Russia today is better prepared to not only continue this war but is also positioned to win this war more than Ukraine or NATO. Can this be turned around? Unlikely. The amount of investment that would have to be made into Ukraine exceeds the capabilities of NATO and the US. The reinvigoration of military industry is beyond the capacity of Europe at this point in time because of the economic consequences of this conflict and the sanction of Russia, and now that has backfired for Europe and the US.

So far, Russia has prevailed militarily. Now we come to the political endgame. This is where China has to pay attention, too, because how this war ends will likewise impact the West's posture toward Taiwan region. Ukraine is a tool. Taiwan is also a tool of the West. If this tool emerges still usable, still viable, that's a defeat for Russia. Then the West will say we can use Taiwan region as a tool against China. China is participating in discussions about peace, but the peace between Russia and Ukraine, in large part, will determine the future potential for conflict between China and the US over Taiwan region. How this war ends in Ukraine is very important for dictating the future of war or peace in the Pacific.

GT: NATO is reportedly in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons. How likely is the possibility of a nuclear war in today's world?

Ritter: We are closer to nuclear war today than we have been at any time. The US is not an honest partner. The US continues to view nuclear weapons as an expression of American supremacy, believing that we must be the supreme nuclear power. China has, historically speaking, had a very pragmatic and responsible approach to nuclear weapons. China has never used the nuclear bomb, but it has developed nuclear capabilities to provide a deterrent against the American nuclear system. However, the US has positioned itself to have the potential for a preemptive attack that could neutralize China's nuclear deterrent. This takes us away from deterrence theory and into war-fighting theory. This is a very dangerous place to be. When you look at the irresponsible expression of American nuclear policy, which now extends to NATO, it talks about putting a certain number of nuclear weapons on operational standby so they can be used quickly. When we talk about fighting a war with the assumption that nuclear weapons are going to be used, it means that if there is a war, there's a high probability nuclear weapons will become part of it. And that is a disaster for humanity. 

If I'm a Chinese diplomat, and perhaps the diplomat shares my opinion about the danger we face, what can be done? How do we begin to approach a nation that is very aggressive and incapable of negotiating in good faith? The US has to change. We have to change our approach to nuclear weapons and how we deal with the world. But we're an empire in decline. When an empire is in decline, it tends to fall back on its strongest position. Right now, the US is very strong in nuclear weapons, so we're falling back on the nuclear shield, which makes everything going forward even more dangerous. If the nuclear option becomes our only option, there is a real potential for nuclear war.

GT: Ahead of the NATO summit, China hosted the Conference Marking the 70th Anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, which China is a major participant, was held in Kazakhstan. How do you compare China's and the US' contributions and concepts regarding world peace?

Ritter: When you compare the Chinese approach with the NATO approach, you see that China is doing a very good job, behaving very responsibly, and looking for alternatives to conflict. Why is the SCO succeeding? Why do so many people want to join BRICS? Because these are viable alternatives for the rest of the world. China is a very responsible global leader, sitting down with the world and trying to articulate a common position on the peaceful resolution of global problems. China wants good relations with the West.

NATO, on the other hand, only talks about war and confrontation. NATO is a tool of the US. And the US is seeking to use NATO to bolster its weakened position in the Pacific and to get NATO expanded into the Pacific. This is one of the things that was discussed at the NATO summit.

Also, it's the US that is being irresponsible in terms of responding to China's activities in the South China Sea. It's the US that is building military alliances to contain China militarily. China is economically defeating the US that the Chinese model of global development is more efficient than its American counterpart. Since we can't compete with China economically, we seek to move to where we feel we have the advantage, which is military confrontation. 

GT: From the Ukraine crisis to the Gaza crisis, how have the so-called universal values of the West been influenced?

Ritter: I think Gaza is exposing the ugliness of the US. The tragedy is that the US has lost all credibility when it comes to the very things that should define us, the universal human values. When you take a look at Gaza, it's such a contradiction of what we claim to stand for and what we do. It's so gross that it allows people to legitimately say that the US is a fraud. When that is exposed as a lie, our existence becomes meaningless. This would be a dark thing for the US and for the world. I'm afraid that Gaza is showing that the US dream of human rights and liberty is a fantasy and that the US has stopped working to make it a reality.

GT: Julian Assange gained "freedom" after pleading guilty last month. Reflecting on your experience of having your passport confiscated by the US State Department on your way to Russia, what are your thoughts on the so-called human rights and freedom in the US?

Ritter: It's a dark day for the US, when you find out that there is no free speech, that there is no freedom of association, that it's all a lie — that the government controls you instead of you controlling the government. Julian Assange was arrested for exercising free speech as part of a free press. He committed no crime. In doing so, the US sent the signal to every American: if you challenge us, we will break you, we will arrest you, we will destroy you. They've sent that message to me many times, and they tried to send it again by taking my passport. But I'm going to get my passport back, and I will continue to travel. I will continue to speak to defend the free speech, free press and freedom of association in the US.