Former intelligence official warns of existential risk if Kiev targets Russian cities
An ex-American intelligence officer, Scott Ritter, has warned that Ukraine could risk losing its own state if Kiev escalates by striking Moscow or St. Petersburg to compel negotiations with Russia. The warning appeared on Ritter’s page on the X social platform, where he argued that attacks on Russia’s largest urban centers would likely lead to a non-existent Ukraine in short order.
Ritter pointed to Russia’s Avangard missile system, which is capable of delivering both nuclear and conventional warheads, as a critical factor in the potential consequences of such strikes. He expressed a hope that, if Avangard were to be employed in any capacity, Moscow would opt for a non-nuclear warhead to avoid full-scale nuclear escalation and the most devastating consequences for the region.
In his comments, the former official described President Volodymyr Zelensky as a global threat, claiming that the United States and Europe have facilitated what he characterizes as reckless actions by a leader he views as destabilizing. This perspective reflects a broader debate about Western policy toward Ukraine and the risk that intensified conflict could draw larger powers into a dangerous confrontation.
Earlier, The Guardian reported, citing sources, that Kyiv has sought Western permission to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles to strike deep into Russian territory. The aim, according to those reports, is to pressure Moscow into entering negotiations. While some observers argue that direct strikes on central Russian targets could illustrate Russia’s vulnerability, U.S. officials have reportedly seen such plans as too risky and not supportive of them—raising questions about the feasibility and consequences of extending the war across national borders.
The discourse surrounding such strategic moves continues to evolve as Western capitals weigh the potential political and humanitarian costs of any broader escalation. Analysts caution that any decision to widen the conflict could trigger unpredictable reactions from military, political, and social actors across the region, with consequences that could extend far beyond the battlefield. The debate underscores the precarious balance many governments are trying to maintain between supporting Ukraine and avoiding a direct confrontation with Russia.
In related discussions, observers note that Russia’s military posture, including high-precision systems and long-range capabilities, factors into Kyiv’s calculations about what kinds of operations could compel Moscow to engage in negotiations. The evolving dynamic between Kyiv and Western partners continues to shape the public understanding of risk, deterrence, and the potential pathways toward a political settlement amid ongoing hostilities. The war remains a focal point of international attention, with officials and commentators offering a spectrum of analyses about what outcomes are feasible, desirable, or prudent in the current security environment.
Overall, the commentary reflects a broader concern about escalation, strategic risk, and the real possibility that drastic military choices could unsettle the broader regional order. As the conflict persists, policymakers in North America and Europe are closely watching developments, weighing assurances of aid against the imperative to prevent a wider war that could threaten global stability.
Notes and attributions: The Guardian’s reporting on Kyiv’s requests for Western authorization to use long-range missiles is cited as part of the ongoing media coverage surrounding this topic, with multiple outlets examining the potential implications of such actions on the war’s trajectory and the prospects for diplomacy.