Scott Ritter Why Russia Stayed Quiet on Seized Ship

Описание: Ritter addresses the confusion surrounding a tanker (likely referring to the recent seizure of a vessel allegedly carrying Russian oil) and explains that Russia's silence wasn't due to fear, but because they knew they had no legal leg to stand on
1. The "Mess Up": A Fatal Legal Error
Ritter explains that the Russians engaged in a "reflagging" process that was technically flawed under international law.
The Error: He notes the ship was originally flagged (possibly Ghanian) and underwent a reflagging process that "only has legitimacy in Russian territorial waters".

The "No Flag" Status: Under the Law of the Sea, you cannot have a dual-flagged ship. By attempting to switch flags mid-process on the open ocean, the ship effectively ended up with no flag at all.

The Consequence: Because the ship was legally "stateless" or improperly flagged at the time of the incident, the Russian state had no legal authority to intervene or claim it as sovereign territory.

2. Why Russia Stayed Quiet
Ritter argues that Russia’s silence was an admission of this bureaucratic incompetence, not military weakness.

Admitting Fault: "The Russians set themselves up on this one... that's why Russia's been quiet... they messed up".

Legalism: Ritter portrays the Russians as "very legal." Since they knew they violated maritime protocols, they accepted the outcome rather than escalating a fight they couldn't legally justify.
3. The West's Dangerous Miscalculation
The most critical part of Ritter's analysis is the warning about what comes next. He fears the US and Europe are misreading this specific silence as a general permission slip.

False Confidence: He argues the West now believes, "Russia is weak... let's go after actual flagged Russian ships".

The Red Line: Ritter warns that if the US or NATO tries to board a legitimate Russian-flagged vessel, the reaction will be kinetic.

The Warning: "The Russian Navy will intervene... Russians are going to kill you". He emphasizes that repeating this action against a legally protected ship would be a "fatal mistake" that leads to direct naval war.