By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On May 14th, a Gabon-flagged tanker, JAGUAR, part of Russia’s shadow fleet, entered Estonian airspace in the Gulf of Finland en route to Primorsk. Estonia responded by deploying naval and air assets to intercept the vessel, which ultimately anchored near Gogland Island after refusing to alter course. A Russian Su-35 fighter jet provided cover for the JAGUAR, lacking communication with Estonian air traffic control. This incident follows a previous Estonian seizure of a similar vessel, and comes amidst EU sanctions targeting Russia’s shadow fleet.
Read the original article here
A Russian Su-35 fighter jet violated Estonian airspace during an incident involving a shadow fleet tanker. The incident, which involved a complex interplay of maritime law, national sovereignty, and military response capabilities, highlights the escalating tensions in the Baltic region. Footage from the incident shows the Su-35, along with a maritime patrol aircraft, orbiting the tanker.
The tanker, seemingly operating in international waters, according to some accounts, refused to comply with Estonian requests. This non-compliance prompted a response from the Estonian Navy, which dispatched the patrol vessel *Raju*. However, the *Raju*, equipped with only small arms, was ill-equipped to effectively engage the tanker or deter the Russian aircraft. This lack of armament left the Estonians feeling powerless, as they lack the heavier vessels and air-to-air capabilities to effectively enforce their claims.
The limited capabilities of the Estonian Navy were a major factor in the incident’s outcome. A small patrol boat is simply no match for a sophisticated Russian fighter jet. Even warning shots from the *Raju*’s .50 caliber machine gun would have likely been ineffective against a Su-35 and may have provoked an even more aggressive response. The Estonian government’s attempts to downplay the situation by claiming it was simply an escort mission fall short of a full explanation of the situation and the obvious inability of the Estonian patrol boat to enforce their demands.
The presence of the Su-35 directly in Estonian airspace adds another layer of complexity to the situation. The aircraft’s presence, even if briefly, was a clear violation of Estonian sovereignty, demonstrating Russia’s willingness to directly challenge NATO members. While some reports suggest NATO F-16s were scrambled to intercept the Russian plane, leading to de-escalation, the initial violation remained unchallenged by the Estonian forces themselves.
The incident sparked debate online, with various perspectives presented. Some argued that the tanker was indeed operating in international waters, mitigating Estonia’s claims of territorial violation. Others pointed out the economic zones surrounding Estonia and Finland, making the ship’s presence a grey area from a maritime law perspective. There’s a strong divergence of opinion regarding the legality of the Estonian Navy’s actions, given the apparent lack of capability to board and detain the vessel.
The incident underscores the vulnerability of smaller nations in the face of more powerful adversaries. Estonia’s limited naval capabilities highlight the need for increased investment in defense and the importance of regional cooperation within NATO. The lack of effective deterrents against the aggressive actions of Russia led to a perceived lack of enforcement of maritime law in what many viewed as Estonian territorial waters. This case exemplifies a need for advanced naval technology such as air-defense systems that could intercept such hostile aerial maneuvers.
Many online commenters suggested solutions such as providing Estonia with more advanced weaponry, including anti-aircraft missiles or man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS). Others argued for a stronger NATO presence in the Baltic region to deter future incidents. However, the practicality and potential risks of such deployments, especially the deployment of destroyers close to St. Petersburg, need careful consideration. This incident highlights an urgent need for reassessing the defensive capabilities of smaller NATO states in the face of Russian aggression. The discussion also brings up the point of whether the risk of escalation by using heavier military assets is worth taking.
The incident involving the Russian Su-35, the shadow fleet tanker, and the Estonian Navy vessel demonstrates a complex scenario highlighting geopolitical tensions, limitations in national defense capabilities, and the ongoing challenges faced by smaller nations in maintaining their sovereignty and enforcing maritime law. The incident is an important reminder of the precarious security situation in the Baltic region and the need for proactive strategies to address such challenges in the future.