72 Hours to the End of the World: Yesterday We Averted a Nuclear Apocalypse

72 Hours to the End of the World: Yesterday We Averted a Nuclear Apocalypse

Based on G. Galloway interview to Scott Ritter

Yesterday, the world teetered on the brink of catastrophe. This is not an exaggeration, but a sobering reality that brought the threat of global nuclear war terrifyingly close. According to Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, we narrowly avoided the end of the world, and the devastation that could have struck much of Europe would have occurred in just 72 hours.

This apocalyptic storm was halted at the last moment by a crucial decision made by the United States—one that, as Ritter points out, prevented what would have been a nuclear conflict with catastrophic consequences.

How we got to the edge of the abyss

It all began with a plan discussed between the United States, the United Kingdom, and their NATO allies. The goal was to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons to strike targets inside Russia. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the British Defense Minister traveled to Kyiv with the intention of greenlighting this operation. However, this move came with a steep price: Russia’s retaliation, which Ritter asserts would have been immediate and devastating.

Russia had repeatedly warned that such an attack would be considered an act of war. President Putin and top Russian officials made it clear that a military response, including direct strikes against the United States and NATO bases in Europe, was inevitable. These warnings were not speculative; they were based on public statements made by the Russian president and ambassadors to the United Nations.

Initially, Western leaders underestimated Russia’s resolve, believing it was merely bluffing—a red line that would be crossed without repercussions. But through secret backchannel communications between Russian and American intelligence services, a stark message was delivered: if this plan were executed, Russia would respond with extreme force.

The miracle of diplomacy: The U.S. intervention

The most chilling aspect of this situation is that, up until a few hours before, the decision seemed headed in the opposite direction. Blinken was reportedly convinced that the British plan should move forward. The UK was pushing to proceed, believing that Russia would not dare to retaliate. But thanks to the resistance of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, based on Pentagon assessments that evaluated the Russian threat as very real, the plan was halted.

Austin, supported by Pentagon analyses, was convinced that Russia was not bluffing and that a lethal response was imminent. This led the Biden administration to rethink the entire strategy. Despite Blinken’s frustration with the reversal, the decision to stop the operation was made, and it proved to be the right one.

What would have happened if the British and Israelis had won the debate

Ritter was unequivocal: if the British plan had gone ahead, much of Europe would have been wiped off the map today. Key Russian targets would have been London, Ramstein (the U.S. airbase in Germany), and Brussels, NATO’s strategic heart. The consequences of an attack with Russian Avangard hypersonic missiles would not have been confined to Ukraine but would have devastated the entire European continent.

The images Ritter evokes are horrifying: cities annihilated in minutes, millions of lives lost, and the entire continent transformed into a radioactive wasteland. Annie Jacobson, author of a book on nuclear war that has deeply influenced Ritter’s reflections, describes in detail what would happen in the hours following a nuclear strike: concentric circles of destruction, with every living thing within them vaporized in a fiery cloud.

The danger is not yet over

Although the threat was averted yesterday, Ritter warns that the danger has not entirely passed. The UK and its closest allies still believe Russia is bluffing and are working behind the scenes to bring the plan back to the forefront. The major issue is that, politically, the United States and NATO are locked into a strategy with no clear exit.

American politics is also in full election season, with key candidates holding diverging views on the Ukraine conflict. Kamala Harris seems poised to continue a hardline stance, while Donald Trump—though controversial on many other fronts—has made it clear that nuclear war is an insane option. This creates a dangerous scenario of uncertainty, where political calculations could lead to catastrophic decisions.

An uncertain future

If there’s one lesson to be drawn from this event, it’s that international politics is an extremely dangerous game, especially when nuclear weapons are involved. The line between diplomacy and total destruction is incredibly thin, and yesterday the world received a stark reminder of just how fragile our future is.

The question now is: how much longer can we remain on this razor’s edge before someone, on one side or the other, makes a fatal mistake? For today, we can say we were lucky. But tomorrow?