Ritter’s Rant 076: Consequences

Hello and welcome to this episode of Ritter's Rant. Today we're going to talk about consequences. Um, in particular, I'd like to talk about an attack that took place on the night of February 20th and 21st uh involving a Ukrainian uh Flamingo FP5 uh cruise missile which struck a workshop at the Vodkin machine building plant, a strategic defense industrial facility um about 1,300 kilometers away from the Ukrainian Russian border um in the Republic of Udia. Um, you know, some people might just brush this attack off and say, well, it's just part of a series of escalatory moves made by Ukraine. But this attack more than any other attack that Ukraine has carried out against Russia u resonates deeply especially when it comes to the strategic goals and objectives of Russia when it comes to Ukrainian conflict. Let's go back in time. Um in December of 2021 uh the Russian Federation, the Russian government provided two draft treaties. one to the United States, one to NATO. Uh, in which they outlined, you know, a methodology for considering a new European security framework. Um, the goal of which was to reduce tensions between Russia, NATO, Russia, and the United States, and resolve the Ukraine crisis by acknowledging Ukraine's uh neutral status. In each of these documents though was a um was a an article that um many people just brushed over. I think in the US treaty it was article six and it said that uh you know no parties will deploy intermediate range or short-range missiles on the territory of other nations that threaten the security of uh of of other parties to the agreement. Um, article 5 in the NATO um, treaty said basically the same thing. Um, now while the Russians didn't spell it out in these treaties, their their their language was more all-encompassing. It was clear to the United States what the Russians meant because the Russians articulated it. Russia did not want NATO missiles deployed on the soil of Ukraine. Uh Russia was concerned not only about NATO becoming a or Ukraine becoming a NATO member, but to have NATO longrange strike capability deployed on the soil of Ukraine would create horrible strategic problems for Russia because Ukraine sits like a mailed fist in the stomach of uh the Russian Federation. And um this would just bring you know NATO strike capability that much closer to strategic uh targets of of vital importance to Russia include defense industrial facilities like Vadkinsk. Um and the Russians weren't just operating in the blind here. You see in 2019 August 2019 the United States withdrew from the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. Now, we cited a uh a fraudulent case of Russian non-compliance. Um I think I've spoken about this before, the case of the 9M729 cruise missile. Russia was willing to allow the missile to be inspected and undertake further evaluations in order to ens you know assure the United States that uh the missile did not violate the treaty. But as um you know a senior American arms control official said, the United States didn't want to go through that process because they were convinced the Russians would probably demonstrate that the missile was not in violation. And that's not the answer the United States wanted. The United States wanted out of the INF treaty. For what reason? Well, we have other indications of exactly what they wanted out of this. You see, the United States had been pushing to deploy what's known as the Mark 41 Aegis Assure system. It's basically a groundbased or land-based variant of a missile launch system um that's loaded or you know that arms the Aegis class destroyers and cruisers and frigots that the United States has out there ostensibly for you know anti-air anti-missile defense. The uh launcher also is used to launch the Tomahawk um you know cruise missile, a um you know strategic system. Uh the ground launch version was banned under the INF treaty, but the United States was desperate to get the Tomahawk back into play. Um the Russians said, "Look, this Mark 41, even though the United States claims that the installations in Poland and Romania, um were only for surfacetoair or anti-missile applications." They said it can be used to launch the tomahawk. And the United States assured Russia that no, that's not the case. We clipped certain wires and things aren't happening. Less than a week after the uh United States withdrew from the INF treaty, the United States tested a Tomahawk missile from an Aegis uh capable Mark 41 ground launching system. Prove positive the United States all along intended to deploy the Tomach from this capability. The only thing that stood in their way was the treaty. Um, and so Russia had a reason to believe that the United States wasn't acting in good faith, that NATO wasn't acting in good faith, and that the uh effort to bring Ukraine into NATO would just represent another opportunity for the United States to deploy forward uh strategic missile launch capabilities that threatened uh Russia's vital national security interests. So, these treaties weren't out of the blue, but the United States dismissed them. There were several meetings u in early January, late January, and early February where, you know, Russia tried to get the United States to agree to sit down and take these Russian concerns seriously, but the United States did not. And Russia responded by implementing the special military operation. Now, what does this have to do with missiles? Well, as the special military operation progressed, the United States and its NATO allies began providing Ukraine with long range strike capability. The British provided the Storm Shadow uh air launch cruise missile. The British British provided or the French provided the scalp um which is analogous to the Storm Shadow. These have ranges of 250 km and the United States provided the attackums missile which has 300 km range. Now, initially, all three of these weapon systems were bound by an understanding that Ukraine could only use them against Crimea or u territories that Russia had absorbed um since 2022. Basically, Ukraine was banned from using these weapons inside the 1991 borders of Russia. Um, Russian sensitivities on this were, you know, even further when Germany threatened to sell the Taurus missile, which has a 500 km range uh, capability, which would allow Ukraine to strike targets in uh, in Moscow. And Russia basically said that if this turret missile is deployed, then Germany becomes a party to the conflict and will be held accountable as such. and uh the Russian warnings um resonated and the Germans did not deploy the uh the missile. Um in September of 2024, this issue came to a crisis when uh the United States and Great Britain, frustrated by um you know, Russia's unwillingness to end the conflict on terms acceptable to the West, meaning in effect a Russian surrender, um made a decision to allow Ukraine to use the storm shadow and attack him missiles to strike targets inside Russia. This led to the the the crisis of the fall of 2024. Um, the best way to describe the danger of this crisis was a briefing given by the CIA to United States Congress in late November, early December of 2024 in which they said that a Russian response to any uh, US British authorization to greenlight the use of their weapon systems to strike targets inside Russia could very well be nuclear and that there was a better than 50% chance that there would be a nuclear war between Russia and the United States before years end. Adding to this is statements made by Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan, the director of plans of the strategic command, the command responsible for nuclear war fighting, uh made to CSIS, a Washington DC bank think tank based think tank in which he said that the B administration is ready to fight and win a nuclear war with Russia. Um I mean this is this is the danger of these weapon systems. Fortunately, U. Donald Trump, who was then President-elect Trump, made a public statement in December that said once he was inaugurated, he would uh bring an end to the Biden administration's green light. And this was enough to mllify the Russians. But since that time, Donald Trump, who promised to be bring to this war, uh said he's frustrated with Russia's unwillingness to surrender, basically to exceed to his demands on the terms on how this war ends. and um and he threatened to allow uh the United States to supply Ukraine with tomahawk cruise missiles. This means that the basic Russian fear that existed back in 2021 that the United States and NATO would seek to deploy long range strike capabilities on Ukrainian soil were coming true and Russia made it clear that this would drastically change the strategic relationship between the United States and Russia. Now, the United States didn't send Tommahawks, but what did happen is that the British and NATO began working with Ukraine to develop an indigenously conceived and produced uh long range strike cruise missile called the FP uh short for Firepoint, the Ukrainian company responsible for overseeing this development of this missile, the FP5 or Flamingo. Um, now this is a British design. We know this because the uh the company Melanian um is a um Abu Dhabi based uh group actually headquartered in the United Kingdom. And in February of 2025, they put on display a prototype of the FP5 Flamingo. Um and they made it clear that it was a Ukrainian uh weapon system, but it was designed by the British um built by the British for the Ukrainians to have a workaround. the Russian red line of no western uh supplied longrange strike munitions. Now the FP5 is not necessarily the most modern of weapon systems. It makes use of a of a um of a you know turboan jet engine that was produced uh widely in the Soviet Union in the 1950s60s and 70s. Uh produced actually in Zaparisia at the uh motor seich uh aviation plant. Um, and it makes use of, you know, Ukrainian conventional bombs, a pair of 500 kg bombs given a 1,00 kg payload. Um, it uses German provided navigation, satellite navigation, GPS navigation. It's not sophisticated, but um it has long range and when fired is capable of striking targets deep inside Russia, as was the case with Vaude Kinsk, which was hit. Workshop 19 was struck. This is a workshop that does metal forming um bending metal into shapes that are needed to use for missile uh assembly. uh they also do galvanizing treatment, special coats of treatment to this metal so that they can meet the performance characteristics of these missiles. Now the missiles we're talking about are strategic in nature. Uh we're talking about you know the top M which is the SS27 a road mobile and silo based intercontinental ballistic missile. We're talking about the Yars which is a follow on to the top uh M. about the RSM, a follow on to the RS. We're talking about the Bulova, which is one of Russia's top submarine launch ballistic missiles. We're talking about future follow-on systems like the Cedar. Um, we're also talking about the Escander missile, which plays an important role in the ongoing conflict with Ukraine and the Archnik. The erection missile is built in Vadkinsk. By striking Vodkinsk, the Ukrainians put at risk um one of the most critically important and sensitive defense industry facilities in Russia. There is no facility like this. It is not replicated anywhere. And these missile systems that I spoke of are the heart and soul of Russia's strategic deterrence system. These are the very things that Russia wanted to protect by denying NATO access to Ukrainian soil to deploy long range strike capability. And now because of the British, the Germans, and even the Danish, because the Danes have opened up a u flamingo factory um that produces the solid rocket fuel that's used to boost the flamingo into space. They have basically given Ukraine the very weapon that Russia said Ukraine can't have. So now we have a quandry because first of all, Russia's at risk. this is a strategic threat to Russia and how Russia responds um means everything. Um the other thing is that the negotiation process that's currently underway can no longer be viewed as valid or trustworthy by Russia. It appears that the United States was fully knowledgeable of this flamingo workaround and was leading the Russians on while Ukraine deployed this. Now, the United States is hopeful that Russia will come to the negotiating table and allow a Ukrainian government led by a Zalinski type leader to continue to rule Ukraine. Uh this means that Ukraine will continue to be aligned with the West, a Ukraine that possesses long range strategic strike capability. This is unacceptable to Russia. So, these negotiations are going nowhere and maybe it's time for Russia to call it a day on these negotiations. But two, the Ukrainian government as it exists cannot be allowed to survive. This is a strategic threat to Russia of an existential nature. You know, Dimmitri Mudve has spoken about the need to swat the green bug. That's the derogatory he term he uses for Votemir Zalinski. Maybe it's time that the green bug be swatted. Not just in terms of the one leader, but then their totality. I mean the United States is promoting elections this summer in which the British are you know proposing that General Zelusni become the next president. He's a banderist. He literally posed with a photograph of Steen Bander behind him while heard awarded a medal to an AOV member or Budanov, the head of the Ukrainian intelligence service, currently serving as a presidential adviser to Zilinski, who is a man who's committed horrific terrorist acts against Russia. Neither of these men can possibly serve as the leader of Ukraine going forward in a post-conlict environment. And then the question comes of Ukraine itself. um what form this nation will take. I I think it's time that you know Russia dictate an outcome that is very severe and recognize the need to achieve this outcome because anything less than this will be tantamount to surrender. anything that allows Ukraine to continue to exist in a state where Flamingo missiles can be built and deployed on Ukrainian soil with a known track record of striking targets that can only be struck if given the intelligence by the United States or other NATO nations. Um, this will be a permanent threat to Russia. It creates an environment where not only will Russia never know peace, but it's a guarantee that it will know war in the future. a war where Ukraine will be backed by a revitalized Europe. No, Russia needs to drive the last nail in the coffin of Ukraine, of Zalinski, and of the American NATO dream of staging longrange strike missiles on Ukrainian soil. What was a theory in December of 2021 has become reality and unless Russia responds accordingly, things will not go well. Anyways, that's been my rant and um next time a thought crosses my mind, I'll be sure to let you know.

Ukraine, using a missile built by the British and directed by the Americans, just attacked one of the most important defense industrial facilities in Russia. There will be consequences.