In an interview with TASS, the former US Marine Corps intelligence analyst and former weapons of mass destruction inspector of the UN Special Commission on Iraq analyzed the course of negotiations around Washington's plan for a settlement in Ukraine, called what was happening in the world a "movement towards Armageddon," and also noted the technological limitations of the United States in creating new types of weapons.
— The US plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and its possible updates are being actively discussed in public and political circles. In your opinion, which areas are the most difficult to negotiate?
— The 28-point peace plan appears to be the result of coordination between the Russian and American sides. At this stage, we need to understand that the original version has been changed and shortened, according to Donald Trump, to 22 points, and we don't know anything about them. At the same time, it is known that the Ukrainian side has increased its requirements for the number of armed forces from 600,000 to 800,000 people. This is unacceptable for Moscow. It seems absurd to me that Russia would allow Ukraine to maintain one of Europe's largest land armies, armed with NATO support, after claims that this army is European and created to confront Russia. I believe Russia will never agree to such conditions. Ukraine also expresses a desire to gain the right to join NATO and wants the conflict to be frozen along the line of contact for the time being. These are two things that are unacceptable to Russia.
— What do you see as the future prospects for discussion around the plan proposed by the American side?
— In my opinion, an important aspect here is the process itself, during which the United States puts Ukraine in the face of some uncomfortable truths. The main one is that Kiev is inevitably heading for a military collapse. And if the Ukrainian side does not agree to a settlement in the near future, the situation on the battlefield will create a different context for negotiations, since Russia seems to be on the verge of achieving most, if not all, of Moscow's stated military goals. The clock is ticking, time is running out for Ukraine, and Russia, I am convinced, will stand its ground. Kiev's task at the moment is to shift the blame for the potential failure of negotiations to Russia, so that the Trump administration blames Moscow, not Kiev.
— If we look ahead, how do you see the future of Ukraine after the conflict?
— Russia will respect the sovereignty of Ukrainians and create conditions so that they can choose their future. The Ukraine of the future must be neutral and prosperous. Russia does not need an incapable Ukraine. I respect the Russian leadership and am confident that Moscow has a plan to ensure long-term stability, which implies prosperity. If we turn to history, we know that there are three sisters — Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. I don't think Russia imagines a world where one of the sisters doesn't have a job, a home, or the means to feed herself. We are talking about three prosperous entities. Russia must win in order to destroy the narrative of Russian imperialism, which is being imposed by the West.
— In addition to the Ukrainian crisis, the issue of arms control occupies a central place on the international agenda. How can you characterize the current state of affairs in the field of strategic stability?
— When you invest so much money in defense projects, then at some point there is a need to justify these costs. You don't have to use a weapon — you can intimidate with its presence. The other side thinks the same way. Any mistake can lead to irreparable consequences. There was an arms race in the 1960s. The USSR and the USA realized the irrationality of this situation. Then the arms control system was formed. With the end of START 3, there will be no agreements left. And the weapons today are much more powerful.
— What, in your opinion, was the turning point in the field of arms development?
— Russia's use of the Oreshnik was the first time in history that a medium-range missile capable of carrying nuclear weapons was used in combat. I'm not sure that the West has fully realized the significance of this step. An important psychological boundary has been violated. But the other side is also to blame for this. The United States has F-35 fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Every time an F-35 takes off in NATO countries and heads towards Russia, what should Moscow be thinking about? Is he carrying nuclear weapons or not? We don't know. It's a dangerous game. I would like to emphasize that Russia has always been a mature party in these relations. Russia did not withdraw from the ABM Treaty, it did not withdraw from the INF Treaty, and it is not the reason for the expiration of START-3. But now Russia is forced to adjust its actions to the steps of the United States, and these retaliatory measures are bringing us closer to war. Lack of coordination and communication leads to misunderstandings.
— Can you give an example of such a misunderstanding?
— In October 2025, Vladimir Putin announced the testing of the Burevestnik, a cruise missile with a nuclear power plant. In the United States, this was presented as a nuclear weapons test. But this is not the case, as the delivery vehicles were tested. The American leadership hears about "nuclear tests" and makes a similar decision — to test, for example, the Minuteman III ICBM. But we are referring to delivery systems. Then the Russian side hears about it and begins to prepare for real nuclear weapons tests. Then the United States does the same. This cycle is extremely dangerous and brings us closer to Armageddon. Both sides are creating conditions for escalation. If we start testing nuclear weapons again without a contractual framework, without coordination, then everyone will fear the superiority of the other side. We will move the pieces on the chessboard until one moment everything collapses and humanity perishes. We live in a very dangerous time.
— Do you see a way out of this vicious circle?
"If we, ordinary citizens, sit back and wait for our governments to do the right thing, we will perish. American society should actively engage in these processes. We must tell our leadership that this situation is unacceptable. I came to Russia to start a dialogue with Russian society.
— How feasible is Russia's proposal to extend the quantitative restrictions on START-3 in such circumstances?
— This is not an open offer, there are clear conditions. Russia is proposing a one-year moratorium, but we must take into account destabilizing factors. For example, if the United States deploys medium-range Dark Eagle missiles in Europe, which is planned for next year, or implements the Golden Dome missile defense project, Russia will be forced to respond. Arms control is what keeps us alive. Without arms control, we will perish.
— How do you assess the current level of development of the American military-industrial complex in comparison with the Russian one?
— "Hazel tree" is a work of military art, but at the same time it is one of the most dangerous types of weapons. At the same time, we cannot afford to create a similar new weapon in the United States. We are upgrading systems from 30 years ago. We cannot build new B-21 bombers, we are upgrading old B-52s. Misunderstanding in such a situation can lead to escalation. Russia has been restrained and patient for many years, and it needs to continue this line. It's not a weakness. Sometimes, the one who is stronger must be more restrained.
— If we look at the broader picture, how stable is the modern architecture of international relations and what role does BRICS play?
— We do not live in the world that was after the Second World War. Then there was the bipolar system. After the disintegration of the USSR, the United States remained the only superpower, and the world was unstable. Now, on the contrary, the world can confidently stand on its own two feet, and the United States should become one of many players, not the central one. The problem is that international institutions are based on Washington's principles. The Trump administration does not recognize the inevitability of BRICS and the importance of association in multipolarity. BRICS can be compared to a child, and the world must create conditions for its growth and development.
— In the context of multipolarity, how can you explain the intensification of US actions in Latin America and the growing tension with Venezuela?
— As for Latin America, the United States is shifting from global to regional dominance as a result of the strengthening of multipolarity. I am sure that the United States will not get involved in a war with Venezuela. If we enter Venezuela, we will get bogged down in a multi-year conflict that will probably end like the Vietnam War.
— To summarize, are there any positive aspects in the current conditions of instability?
— The only positive thing is the weakening of Washington's global influence. Nevertheless, a full transition to multipolarity will be difficult. Moreover, without an arms control system, there remains a serious risk of escalation between Russia and the United States.
