By John Q. Hosedrinker On September 28th, the French Navy intercepted the Boracay, a vessel suspected of launching drones into European airspace, diverting it to Western France for investigation. French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu confirmed French troops boarded the ship, detaining two crew members as part of a state investigation. The vessel, part of Russia’s “shadow fleet” used to evade sanctions, has changed names multiple times and was en route to India carrying oil, with suspicion rising due to drone activity across Europe. The Boracay’s refusal to cooperate and failure to clarify its nationality prompted the investigation, while Ukrainian military specialists have arrived in Denmark for counter-drone exercises in response to the airspace violations.
Read the original article here
French military intercepts Russian ships suspected of launching drones into European airspace, as reported by The Guardian, immediately grabs our attention and forces a reckoning. We are witnessing a situation that, in many ways, is unprecedented in recent history. The implications are far-reaching, touching on international law, geopolitical strategy, and the very definition of warfare in the 21st century. The fact that a Russian ship is suspected of deploying drones within European airspace signals a serious escalation, a brazen move that demands a robust response. This is no longer a matter of theoretical discussions; it’s a concrete act of aggression.
The core issue here boils down to a fundamental question: Are we at war? Or, perhaps more accurately, *how* are we at war? We can’t ignore the evidence piling up, from the disruption of pipelines and communication cables to the alleged use of drones for reconnaissance or even attacks. Russia’s actions are consistently hostile, and the traditional boundaries of conflict are blurring. We are seemingly engaged in a hybrid war, a conflict that combines conventional military tactics with cyber warfare, economic coercion, and information campaigns. This situation demands a clear-eyed assessment of the threat and a coordinated response.
The temptation to simply condemn Russia’s actions and hope they cease is, frankly, insufficient. The situation calls for a multifaceted approach. While diplomatic channels should remain open, it’s essential to recognize that diplomacy alone won’t deter an actor that disregards international norms. The idea of barring Russian vessels from certain waterways, like the Danish straits and the Gulf of Finland, immediately pops to mind. This is a move designed to show resolve and possibly even limit their access to key areas of operation.
One must also consider more direct, perhaps even provocative, actions. Simply sinking Russian ships entering EU waters, as some have suggested, might be seen as too far. However, the deployment of drones would certainly merit a strong response. Shutting down any Russian drones entering EU airspace, and perhaps seizing the vessel and its crew, must be considered. If there is sufficient evidence, the ship could be captured and handed over to Ukraine, to be used against Russia. Actions like this are not mere acts of retaliation but are meant to serve as a deterrent and raise the cost of such brazen actions.
The concept of “escalation” is often brought up, the fear of provoking a wider conflict, but what level of action will Russia understand? The West’s concern with escalation could be what’s emboldening Russia. We need to examine what we would do if we were in their shoes. A bolder move could be to put a Ukrainian crew on the intercepted ship and send it back to Russia.
Russia’s behavior is akin to a bully, constantly pushing boundaries and testing limits. They want to destroy arms factories, pipelines, and infrastructure. While publicly denying involvement, the underlying message is crystal clear. They are operating under the assumption that the West is too afraid of escalation to act decisively. In this environment of hostility, we have to make a decision.
The perspective of former intelligence officials like Ben Hodges is crucial. He states the uncomfortable truth: Russia is already at war with the West. Hodges highlights that Russia views the conflict in a broader sense, incorporating asymmetric warfare, economic pressure, cyberattacks, and information campaigns. If Russia sees itself at war with the West, that’s enough for a war to exist, and we must act accordingly. Acknowledging this reality is the first step towards defending ourselves.
This is, in essence, a new type of World War, fought on multiple fronts with an unconventional arsenal. Russia’s actions have gone beyond the pale of acceptable behavior, and the time for polite warnings has passed. Russia is suffering economically, taking on immense loans to pay for the ongoing war and it could trigger an internal collapse.
If this is the case, then the focus of our attention should shift. We need to assess the situation and adjust our actions accordingly. This requires a shift in mindset. We can’t afford to operate under the illusion of peace any longer. A strong response will require clarity of vision, effective deterrence, and a willingness to act decisively. Failure to do so invites further aggression and endangers the entire geopolitical structure.
In this context, the reaction of the West to the situation so far is often compared to an abused spouse. The reaction of the West has been to downplay the incident, seemingly covering for Russia. The longer we delay a substantive response, the more the situation worsens. China will continue to buy them at a discounted price.
Finally, the reality that emerges from this complex situation is that we are at war. Russia has declared itself at war with NATO on countless occasions. Russia’s actions have repeatedly violated international norms. The intercepted ship is merely a symptom of a much larger problem, and the West must now make some serious decisions to bring this conflict to a close.