US Colonel: America Pushes World Toward Nuclear War

Colonel Richard Black: 'United States leads the world to a nuclear war'

Colonel Richard Black, a 31-year veteran of the Marines and Army, and former Virginia state senator, argues that Washington's foreign policy toward Russia is driving the planet toward nuclear conflict. Black is no novice pacifist: he flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam, was hit by enemy fire four times, and was wounded during a patrol where his radio operator died. His thesis, detailed in an interview that has circulated widely, is that Russia is not the Soviet Union, the West lies about the causes of the war in Ukraine, and Western public opinion has been systematically misinformed.

Who is Colonel Richard Black?

Black defines himself as 'very patriotic' and 'very pro-American.' He enlisted in the Marines, volunteered for Vietnam, and fought in the bloodiest campaign in Marine history. He later served in the 1st Marine Division, conducting 70 combat patrols. He was part of NATO and prepared to die in Germany defending against a Soviet attack. This background allows him to distance himself from the 'pro-Russian' label: he speaks not from sympathy for Moscow, but from the conviction that modern Russia has nothing to do with the communist state he was willing to fight.

The military comparison Black uses to dismantle the Western narrative

The Colonel cites a specific fact: during the US-led invasion of Iraq, the coalition flew 100,000 sorties in 42 days, bombing military and civilian targets 'without much discrimination.' Russia, in the same period, has flown 8,000. The difference is more than twelve to one. Black argues that Russians have tended to be 'more selective' and that the narrative of mass war crimes does not hold up against these figures. He specifically mentions the Bucha incident as the most prominent example of propaganda that much of the world does not accept.

Syria as a laboratory: What Black saw in Aleppo

Black was in Aleppo, Syria's largest city before the war. He describes the battle as the 'Stalingrad of the Syrian war,' an urban conflict lasting from 2012 to 2016 that forced opposing forces to destroy buildings. His irritation is palpable when discussing how that conflict has been presented. According to a forum user, the United States collaborated with groups he labels as terrorists to destroy the Syrian civilian population, a strategy he claims has been replicated in Ukraine by neo-Nancy groups. The same recipe, different ingredients.

The business behind the war: Natural resources and trillions

Russia is, in Black's words, 'perhaps more blessed with natural resources than any other nation on Earth': a major producer of grain, oil, aluminum, and fertilizers. This wealth, he argues, attracts those who see the opportunity to make colossal fortunes if they can 'break' the country. It is not a minor theory: some look at Russia's resource map and calculate benefits counted in dozens of trillions. From this perspective, the war is not a matter of democratic principles but a balance of raw materials.

The domino effect no one wants to see

Black invokes World War I to explain how catastrophe unfolds: the assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Hungary and his vvife triggered a domino effect of alliances, anger, and media hysteria that ended with 14 million dead. History, he says, does not repeat itself but it rhymes. He warns that a large number of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers—'they are children,' he emphasizes—will die unnecessarily. He went to war as a young man believing his country was right. Seeing the faces of the young fallen breaks his heart.

Who supports Russia and why the Western narrative is not universal

The Colonel dismantles the idea that the entire world is against Russia. China, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and India support Moscow to varying degrees. India, in fact, does so 'enormously.' For Black, the cause the West presents as 'enormously just' does not seem so to a substantial part of the planet, which also does not accept propaganda about war crimes. This gap between the Western narrative and global reality is, perhaps, the most uncomfortable point of his intervention.

---

The interview has generated intense debate. Some argue Black is a 'US patriot with 30 years in the Marines' who speaks aloud what many think but dare not say. Others question his motives, accusing him of defending authoritarian regimes. What no one disputes is that his figures on air sorties and his direct experience in Syria and Vietnam are not easy to refute from the couch. The question, ultimately, is not whether Black is right in everything, but why his testimony has barely found space in conventional media.