By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A high-ranking Kremlin official has warned that Russia might employ its navy in retaliation if European nations continue to seize and board Russian vessels navigating the Baltic Sea. This warning emerges amidst increased European scrutiny and direct action against Russia’s “shadow fleet,” a network of tankers operating under foreign flags to circumvent sanctions. Citing European raids on ships suspected of sanctions evasion as “piracy,” the official expressed concern that such actions could escalate to a full blockade of Russian maritime access, particularly in the Atlantic.
Read the original article here
The Kremlin has issued a stern warning, suggesting the deployment of its navy if European nations continue to seize vessels suspected of belonging to Russia’s “shadow fleet.” This declaration, however, has been met with a considerable amount of skepticism and outright mockery, particularly regarding the current state and capabilities of the Russian naval forces. The underlying implication of the threat is that Russia is willing to bring its naval assets to bear if its interests, as perceived through the operation of these disputed vessels, are further challenged.
The very notion of Russia deploying its navy in response to the seizure of these ships seems to invite scrutiny of what exactly that navy comprises. Many observe that the Russian fleet has already suffered significant losses, particularly in the Black Sea, at the hands of Ukrainian forces equipped with what are essentially sea drones. The idea that a navy, which has already seen capital ships sunk by an adversary without a traditional navy, can now project significant power is met with considerable doubt. The suggestion is that such a deployment would essentially showcase the diminished state of these forces and incur substantial, perhaps unaffordably high, expenses.
Furthermore, the nature of the threat itself raises questions about the ownership and legal standing of the seized vessels. Russia has often denied direct ownership of these ships, claiming they operate under different flags. However, the threat to deploy naval assets to protect them implicitly suggests a Russian stake, prompting a debate: if these ships are not Russian, why would Russia feel compelled to defend them with its navy? The implicit admission, for some observers, is that these are indeed Russian vessels engaged in activities that may be in violation of international sanctions.
The practicalities of such a naval deployment are also a significant point of discussion. Analysis suggests that the Russian surface fleet is aging, poorly maintained, and significantly underfunded. While Russia possesses a number of destroyers, frigates, and corvettes, many of these vessels have limited range and endurance, making them more suited for coastal defense than sustained operations far from home ports. Deploying even a few of these ships for escort duty would require considerable logistical support, including oilers and other support vessels, which the Russian navy is said to possess in limited numbers.
The operational readiness of the Russian fleet is also a major concern. Reports suggest that the submarine fleet might be more operationally ready than the surface fleet. However, deploying submarines for escort duty would negate their primary advantage of stealth and divert them from their crucial strategic roles, such as hunting opposing nuclear submarines. This leaves the surface fleet as the more likely, albeit problematic, option for visible demonstrations of force.
Even if Russia were to mobilize its available surface combatants, the numbers are starkly limited. With a handful of destroyers and frigates, and a larger number of corvettes, the Russian navy is likely only capable of undertaking a very small number of escort operations, perhaps involving one surface combatant and a support vessel or two. This limited capacity stands in stark contrast to the vast number of “shadow fleet” vessels that could potentially be targeted.
The historical context is also relevant. The Soviet Union, under Admiral Gorshkov, built a formidable blue-water navy, albeit one that was not always intended for head-to-head confrontation with the US Navy. The current Russian navy seems to have diverged significantly from this legacy. In contrast, some observe that the Chinese navy is actively pursuing a blue-water strategy, investing heavily in a massive fleet, a strategy whose long-term sustainability is also debated.
The core issue highlighted by this situation is the critical importance of a robust and well-maintained navy for any nation reliant on maritime trade. The ability to protect shipping assets and project power at sea is not something that can be conjured quickly during a crisis. It requires sustained investment in shipbuilding, crew training, weapons development, and logistical support – all of which must exist *before* conflict emerges.
Ultimately, the Kremlin’s threat to deploy its navy is perceived by many as a bluff, a weak statement born out of desperation rather than genuine capability. The perceived state of the Russian navy, coupled with the country’s economic constraints and the undeniable losses already sustained, leads to the conclusion that any significant naval deployment would likely be more embarrassing than intimidating. The prevailing sentiment is one of “go ahead,” with the expectation that such a move would further expose the limitations of Russian naval power and potentially lead to further losses, even against a nation like Ukraine. The idea of “meeting force with force” is echoed, suggesting that if Russia acts aggressively, it should be met with a decisive response.